Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[mirakon]

What about the following idea, that God IS Time?

 

[KFunk]

What about the following idea, that God IS Time?

Sure, but this claim only amounts to something substantial if you can first provide some kind of positive theory of time. Time tends to be somewhat ineffable and so without such a description your equation is likely to be remain relatively meaningless.

Personally I'm not a big fan of the 'God is Time' equation, but this is partly having come off the back of reading Being and Time which ties time firmly to human existence. I am open to an alternative rendering of time, however.

 

[mirakon]

Yeah, I personally don't believe it (solely because it doesn't fit in precisely with what I define as 'God' in a philosophical sense), but it is a fairly intriguing idea that I would like to see discussed further.

The thing I think that is most appealling with this idea is that it explains all the brouhaha about how things began quite effectively

 

[KFunk]

The thing I think that is most appealling with this idea is that it explains all the brouhaha about how things began quite effectively

I'm not sure about this. In particular, if god is time but is also eternal then it makes no sense to speak about the beginning of time. Instead, time was always there and you still have to explain how everything else came to be. Likewise, if you wish to speak of a beginning of time you then also have to explain how god came to be (which is generally a question lurking in the background anyway).

 

[mirakon]

speak of a beginning of time you then also have to explain how god came to be (which is generally a question lurking in the background anyway).

I reckon this is the catch though with this theory. If God is time then if we assume something needed to create it first then as a result it must have come before time. However this doesn't make sense aws you can't come 'before' time as this in turn implies time in itself. You see, with this theory nothing really needs to have created God.

But there is perhaps a massive error with this theory. After all, time may not necessarily exist, it may just be a man-made concept. How does a concept physically create the entire Universe?

Hence I believe the theory that God is Time is wrong, however I want to see if anyone actually does believe this and wants to back it up.

 

[Kwayera]

Another lengthy reply to an old post from a while back. I have quoted myself so those who want to read can pick it up and follow along


But that is exactly the point - "One tweak would have made our existence impossible". The fact that we do exist isn't proof that the laws themselves must be the way the way they are unless you are being circular and first assuming that the laws must be the way they are if we exist.
Also, the teleological argument doesn't beg the question by asking "who made these laws the way they are". It simply asks, "which makes most sense of the fine tuning we observe" and then proposes a designer as the best explanation.

That is what I am assuming, because we are here. Perhaps there is another universe (I'm not against multi-verses; they're certainly plausible in a quantum sense) where the laws were different (though that in itself is a non-sensical proposition because if they were, the universe wouldn't exist, but let's assume for a moment) and we didn't exist. Fine. That still doesn't imply a creator. I don't see what the issue is?

To be honest, Dawkins explains this disconnect much better than I can.

I'm confused now. I explained why in the previous paragraph. The reason you have to show that the combination of all these events is not improbable is because improbability multiplied by improbability creates even larger improbability.

Not necessarily. Two individually implausible events may be less implausible when applied together/simultaneously.

Boy would I love to play poker with you!

On a more serious note, you are correct. It doesn't mean it could never happen (assuming for the moment that a universe could bring itself into existence from nothing) . It's just that the probability of it happening is so low it feels like intellectual suicide to put this forward as the most plausible explanation - especially when we are talking about the standard big bang model which proposes a singular universe. That means that not only are these odds ridiculously low, but you've only got one chance to hit the mark. I honestly think a designer makes more sense of the data.

But what you don't understand about my rejection of a designer is that there is no proof of one. The implausibility of the universe and our existence individually is not evidence of a designer, which is why I insist that the teleological argument goes about things arse-backwards. Yes, the existence of the universe is implausible, but the fact it exists means it's not implausible enough to not happen. Where, therefore, is the issue?

It's not at all like your example! In the cases we are discussing, we don't have good natural explanations and so then go on to look at supernatural explanations.

Why look at supernatural explanations at all? There will always be a natural explanation, even if we haven't discovered it yet. Hence the progression of science.

I never said anything about assuming, moving on and hoping for the best!

But that is what your reaction is. You don't see any naturalistic explanations for, say, the creation of the universe yet. So you've given up, assumed it requires a designer and moved on.

So I take it then that you think we will eventually have a theory of "everything"? Even if this were to happen (which I doubt) what should someone do today without a theory of everything?

Keep looking.

Also would be keen to hear you outline or explain why you believe supernatural explanations are inadequate. Do you simply mean that they are inadequate as natural explanations (which is obvious) or something more?

Yes. By definition, if is inadequete. If it was, it wouldn't by definition, be supernatural.

It seems we are caught in a vicious cycle here

I was essentially asking you for a positive explanation for your naturalism. You can't simply turn around and put forward a circular assumption. If the reason you ignore supernatural ideas is because you assume that the supernatural does not exist, how does this at all show your naturalistic position to be true?

I suspect our problem here is a fundamental disconnect in the way you see the world and the way I see the world. Naturalistic explanations are the only ones that make sense in a naturalistic world, no?

I'm curious as to what you think a sound deductive argument is, if not a proof or evidence of some sort?

I'm an empiricist. A sound deductive argument put forth for the moon's composition actually being cheese will not change the fact that the moon is not made of cheese.

As to your second point, sure. Let's look at a version of the teleological argument:
1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3) Therefore, it is due to design

A defense of premise (2) will fall back into the area of science when one starts to examine the probability and possibility of the fine tuning being a result of physical necessity or chance.
Whether the argument or premises are challenged is not my concern here. I am simply trying to show that philosophical arguments can interact and engage with scientific evidence.

Another fundamental disconnect I see here is that I don't see the universe as "fine-tuned". It simply is; function here follows form. And sure, philosophical arguments can do that. But they cannot form the basis of an explanation.

Not at all - but don't twist what I was saying. I am simply pointing out that considering only scientific answers may not yield us with the greatest amount of true beliefs possible. I would seek to consider all answers and then believe that which is most plausible (or confess I don't know if none seem plausible).

But then you have to temper that with answers that are logical, not just plausible, which is why naturalistic explanations are the only valid ones - logic. Your last statement, though, is a noble one - and it is what drives scientific discovery.

 

[BradCube]

That is what I am assuming, because we are here. Perhaps there is another universe (I'm not against multi-verses; they're certainly plausible in a quantum sense) where the laws were different (though that in itself is a non-sensical proposition because if they were, the universe wouldn't exist, but let's assume for a moment) and we didn't exist. Fine. That still doesn't imply a creator. I don't see what the issue is?

Don't you see the invalid reasoning in your argument though? You seem to be begging the question. ie.

Brad: The universe as a whole and (our existence especially) seems ridiculously improbable. What can account for this?

Kwayera: We exist don't we?

Brad: Yes, but why and how?

Kwayera: It doesn't matter because we exist - clearly we overcame any improbabilities.

Brad: But how did we overcome them?

Kwayera: It doesn't matter because if we didn't overcome them, we wouldn't observe that we didn't overcome them. We can only observe the universe because we are here.

Brad: Well of course, but what accounts for the fact that I am alive and do observe the universe?

Kwayera: The fact that we exist!

Brad: Gahh...

-------
Essentially, you are arguing for a particular application of the "Weak Anthropic Principle" ("weak" is actually the name, I'm not being condescending ). It argues that we should not be surprised by that which we observe in the universe, because if the universe were any different we would not be alive to observe it.

Essentially, I agree that:

a) We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence

However it does not follow from this that:

b) We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.

On the contrary, I think that:

c) We should be surprised to observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence

A common example cited at this point is a scenario thought up by John Leslie.
Imagine that you have been dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen. They all take aim and the command is given to fire. You hear the gun shots and to your astonishment, find that you are still alive - all 100 trained marksmen had missed!

Now whilst it follows from this that:

d) You should not be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead (since if you're dead you cannot observe anything)

It does not follow that:

e) You should not be surprised that you do observe that you are alive since if you were dead you could not observe it.

On the contrary,

f) You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive!

Since the entire firing squad missed you, your surprise in (f) is justified. Similarly, unless you want to move away from the standard big bang theory, I think we should find ourselves very surprised that we do observe a universe that is compatible with our existence. Hopefully this clears up my position somewhat?

If you do want to move away from the standard big bang model I would challenge you to provide scientific reasons for doing so. That is to say, what reasons can you come up with for the switch without the only motivation being your naturalistic pre-suppositions? ie, what evidence supports a multiverse or other theory?

To be honest, Dawkins explains this disconnect much better than I can.

Care to quote? I have a copy of the God Delusion (on the unread reading pile ) but the only references I could find were in relation to biological complexity and improbability. That is to say, Dawkins didn't look at the argument from the perspective of cosmology as we are doing here. I'm assuming it is in some of his other work which I am not aware of?

Not necessarily. Two individually implausible events may be less implausible when applied together/simultaneously.

Sometimes I think your just playing hard to get Kwayera! Care to cite some examples for me?

But what you don't understand about my rejection of a designer is that there is no proof of one. The implausibility of the universe and our existence individually is not evidence of a designer, which is why I insist that the teleological argument goes about things arse-backwards. Yes, the existence of the universe is implausible, but the fact it exists means it's not implausible enough to not happen. Where, therefore, is the issue?

This issue is that it relies upon your naturalistic pre-disposition to arrive at this conclusion. The fact that it exists, does not allow it to overcome any implausibility of existing naturalistically unless you are already pre-supposing that it did occur naturalistically! However, it is this very pre-supposition I question when given the enormity of the odds stacked against it.

Why look at supernatural explanations at all? There will always be a natural explanation, even if we haven't discovered it yet. Hence the progression of science.

This is just blatant naturalism - refusing to even consider the possibility of the supernatural. I don't really understand how you can maintain that you are an agnostic in any sense. You seem to actively dis-affirm even the possibility of the supernatural existing

But that is what your reaction is. You don't see any naturalistic explanations for, say, the creation of the universe yet. So you've given up, assumed it requires a designer and moved on.

Well no, this is not what I have done at all. I will continue to evaluate the new discoveries as they come to light and make sense of them as best I can. Right now, today though, I think a designer makes the best sense of the data before us.

Keep looking.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I meant what should someone believe today? What should their position be - or are they to refrain from having a position until science has a "theory of everything"?

Yes. By definition, i[t] is inadequete. If it was, it wouldn't by definition, be supernatural.

Ha ha - round and round we go

Why is it inadequate though? What is it about a supernatural explanation that makes it unsatisfactory? I'm guessing this is militant naturalism at work?

I suspect our problem here is a fundamental disconnect in the way you see the world and the way I see the world. Naturalistic explanations are the only ones that make sense in a naturalistic world, no?

I couldn't agree more. The question is though, why do you see the naturalistic view of the world as the correct one?

I'm an empiricist. A sound deductive argument put forth for the moon's composition actually being cheese will not change the fact that the moon is not made of cheese.

Ha ha. I love this

I get the feeling that such an argument wouldn't be sound. Feel free to present me with a sound argument for the moon being made of cheese if you feel otherwise

Just for the record, an argument is valid if all of it's premises entail the truth of its conclusion. It is sound only if it is valid and all of it's premises are true.

Another fundamental disconnect I see here is that I don't see the universe as "fine-tuned". It simply is; function here follows form. And sure, philosophical arguments can do that. But they cannot form the basis of an explanation.

I suspect the word "fine-tuned" has religious connotations tied to it for you and as a result is not wholly applicable? What if we simply changed "fine-tuning" with "overcoming the improbability"? In the past you have seemed to understand the improbabilities we are talking about so I don't think you have an issue in recognizing these?

Also, re: philosophy I think you are generally correct. Philosophical arguments don't form the basis of an explanation but rather, are the explanations themselves (although it entirely depends on the sorts of explanations we are talking about). An exception to this might be an argument that relies on premises that are better supported by philosophical rather than scientific evidence or explanation.

But then you have to temper that with answers that are logical, not just plausible, which is why naturalistic explanations are the only valid ones - logic. Your last statement, though, is a noble one - and it is what drives scientific discovery.

I'm lost now. I would have thought a pre-requisite of a plausible explanation would be it's logical validity. You seem to be then inferring that naturalistic explanations are the only logical ones? Surely I have misunderstood you?

 

[Enteebee]

Brad: The universe as a whole and (our existence especially) seems ridiculously improbable. What can account for this?

How probable was it that an omnipotent being would create this universe? We have no way of knowing, because an omnipotent being if he exists seems to be beyond our scope of understanding. Perhaps some sort of non-conscious mechanism exists in this same place beyond our understanding which makes our existence highly probable? Either way, things which are beyond our understanding seem to me pointless to speculate on... as how likely am I or any other human to guess the nature of something unlike anything we know?

 

[BradCube]

How probable was it that an omnipotent being would create this universe? We have no way of knowing, because an omnipotent being if he exists seems to be beyond our scope of understanding. Perhaps some sort of non-conscious mechanism exists in this same place beyond our understanding which makes our existence highly probable? Either way, things which are beyond our understanding seem to me pointless to speculate on... as how likely am I or any other human to guess the nature of something unlike anything we know?

I think you may have missed the point of the argument. The reason that a designer (or even a multiverse theory) is preffered in these circumstances, is because even if the probabilities involved are huge, they are able to be overcome either through intentionality (ie a designer) or with pure persistence against all odds (multiverse). As a result, examining the improbability of them creating the universe we observe is no problem.

Also, I don't think standard teleological arguments will pose that such a designer must be "omnipotent", so trying to point out any logical faults or incomprehensibility won't hamper this argument but rather, particular conceptions of God. Even so, I don't think you've shown that we fail to understand the concept of an omnipotent being in the broader sense. Understanding what something is, is different to understanding how it works.

 

[Enteebee]

The reason that a designer (or even a multiverse theory) is preffered in these circumstances, is because even if the probabilities involved are huge, they are able to be overcome either through intentionality (ie a designer) or with pure persistence against all odds (multiverse). As a result, examining the improbability of them creating the universe we observe is no problem.

Let's say you are right that if we assume the existence of a designer, or of a multiverse then their creation of the universe becomes a likely thing. My point though, is that it's not really answering the question of "How probable was it that our universe would be this way?" Because we first need to know the probability of the existence of a designer, or a multiverse.

In my opinion it is impossible to have sufficient information to talk about the probabilities of these things. Let's say you propose that there was a designer, who was likely going to create the universe - How likely was it that he would come into existence? If he 'just was', how likely was it that he "just was" ? That's an impossible question to answer meaningfully in my opinion.

Similarly with multiverses, let's say that there are so many multiverses that ours had to be one of them - where did they come from? Have they always just been? How likely was that?

so trying to point out any logical faults or incomprehensibility

Can you give me some characteristics of the designer so that we can see if he does have any logical faults?

 

[BradCube]

Let's say you are right that if we assume the existence of a designer, or of a multiverse then their creation of the universe becomes a likely thing. My point though, is that it's not really answering the question of "How probable was it that our universe would be this way?" Because we first need to know the probability of the existence of a designer, or a multiverse.

In my opinion it is impossible to have sufficient information to talk about the probabilities of these things. Let's say you propose that there was a designer, who was likely going to create the universe - How likely was it that he would come into existence? If he 'just was', how likely was it that he "just was" ? That's an impossible question to answer meaningfully in my opinion.

Similarly with multiverses, let's say that there are so many multiverses that ours had to be one of them - where did they come from? Have they always just been? How likely was that?

Yeah, your right, since our universes existence depends on the mechanism that brings it into existence. This is why the multiverse theory seems to only push the question back a step. We then have to ask, "why does a mechanism/machine exist that can produce billions of universes?". With this in mind, rather than helping the probabilities of our existence, a multiverse theory may very well increase the odds stacked against our existence. It seems incredible enough to think that our universe alone exists, let alone a system that produces billions of them!

Note however, that this particular problem isn't as damaging for an eternally existing necessary being (ie God). A necessary being doesn't have probability's surrounding their existence since it is certain - they cannot not exist. Bearing this in mind, it makes no sense to ask, 'how likely is it that he would come into existence" since he did not come into existence. Nor does it make sense to ask "how likely was it that he 'just was'?" since there is no other way he or his state of existence could have been.

Can you give me some characteristics of the designer so that we can see if he does have any logical faults?

I'm guessing your looking for a way to attack my particular conception of God? If so, feel free to go to town on the Christian conception of God. My previous point about omnipotence was not to say that I don't regard God as omnipotent (I do), it was only to say that logging an objection of omnipotence against a teleological argument doesn't hamper it.

If you're specifically looking for characteristics of the designer as gathered from a teleological argument then I think your only required characteristic is a mind of some sort.

 

[Enteebee]

A necessary being doesn't have probability's surrounding their existence since it is certain - they cannot not exist. Bearing this in mind, it makes no sense to ask, 'how likely is it that he would come into existence" since he did not come into existence. Nor does it make sense to ask "how likely was it that he 'just was'?" since there is no other way he or his state of existence could have been.

Yeah, like I said asking such a question makes no sense - but then what are we left with when we look at the 'god' hypothesis for universe creation? It is merely an assertion that there is an eternal being who created our universe somehow - It is not a 'probable' argument. Proponents of a multi-verse theory would likely say that there could very well be a necessary/eternal component that makes multi-verse existence 'just be' in the same way as god, again though... this isn't an argument claiming that the multi-verse is more probable for X,Y,Z reasons - it's mearly asserting that the multiverse 'IS'.

If you're specifically looking for characteristics of the designer as gathered from a teleological argument then I think your only required characteristic is a mind of some sort.

And this mind 'just was', like I could postulate a universe creation machine just was? I see no reason to postulate a conscious 'designer' over an unconscious one.

 

[birdy17]

personally i'm a christian. so i believe in God and i've read heaps of arguments for why God does exist from various christian authors, and they are quite interesting, and i tried to read one from richard dawkins... but i couldn't finish it, give me an intellectual argument against christianity and i'll gladly read it... richard dawkins book was not intellectual, great vocabulary, sure, no doubt about it, tho the arguments were weak.
So yes i have faith that there is a God. but ultimatly you cannot prove 100% that he does or doesn't exist. you can have proof the he probably does or doesn't exist but in the end it's about faith. this arguement will go one forever, in the end, it's about whether you have faith He is there.
and if you don't, then you don't.

 

[Kwayera]

personally i'm a christian. so i believe in God and i've read heaps of arguments for why God does exist from various christian authors, and they are quite interesting, and i tried to read one from richard dawkins... but i couldn't finish it, give me an intellectual argument against christianity and i'll gladly read it... richard dawkins book was not intellectual, great vocabulary, sure, no doubt about it, tho the arguments were weak.
So yes i have faith that there is a God. but ultimatly you cannot prove 100% that he does or doesn't exist. you can have proof the he probably does or doesn't exist but in the end it's about faith. this arguement will go one forever, in the end, it's about whether you have faith He is there.
and if you don't, then you don't.

Some other books for your reading list:
- God is Not Great (Christopher Hitchens)
- End of Faith (Sam Harris)
- Godless (Dan Barker)

 

[Sultun]

personally i'm a christian. so i believe in God and i've read heaps of arguments for why God does exist from various christian authors, and they are quite interesting, and i tried to read one from richard dawkins... but i couldn't finish it, give me an intellectual argument against christianity and i'll gladly read it... richard dawkins book was not intellectual, great vocabulary, sure, no doubt about it, tho the arguments were weak.
So yes i have faith that there is a God. but ultimatly you cannot prove 100% that he does or doesn't exist. you can have proof the he probably does or doesn't exist but in the end it's about faith. this arguement will go one forever, in the end, it's about whether you have faith He is there.
and if you don't, then you don't.

Ok the argument agianst Christianity is that there is absolutely no evidence to support its extraordinary claims (i.e that Christ was the son of god who walked on water, was born a virgin, was raised from the dead,etc) and that infact all evidence is either contradicts Christian doctrine (i.e that god created animals/plant as they are) or is irreleavent.

 

[birdy17]

• Rebuttal: Prophecies prove the accuracy of my religious text

Claim:

The religious text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.


Response:



1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

• Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
• Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
• Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
• Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
• Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in religious texts that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.



3. Specifically, the Bible contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:

• Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
• Isaiah 17:1-3 says that Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
• Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.

5. For Christians, divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8).

ok so most of my information is taken from bill medley's "religion is for fools"
but here goes,
Medley quotes Dr. D James Kennedy saying " It cannot be said that these prohecies were written afterthe events for many of the events took place hundreds or even thousands of years after the prophecy was made. Nor can it be said that they are vague or obscure, because they are highly specific in their details. Nor can it be said that they are merely lucky guesses because there are over 2000 of them which have infalliblt come to pass. Nor can it be said that these were the things which were likely to take place because they were indeed extremely unlikely events"

granted there are some prophecies that haven't been fulfilled, but just because of that, you can't ignore the ones that have.
and yes maybe other religions and religious texts have made prophecies that have come to pass... but not quite as many.

so again hasn't proved the existance of God, but it does provide a fairly firm argument against that.

 

[Sultun]

ok so most of my information is taken from bill medley's "religion is for fools"
but here goes,
Medley quotes Dr. D James Kennedy saying " It cannot be said that these prohecies were written afterthe events for many of the events took place hundreds or even thousands of years after the prophecy was made. Nor can it be said that they are vague or obscure, because they are highly specific in their details. Nor can it be said that they are merely lucky guesses because there are over 2000 of them which have infalliblt come to pass. Nor can it be said that these were the things which were likely to take place because they were indeed extremely unlikely events"

granted there are some prophecies that haven't been fulfilled, but just because of that, you can't ignore the ones that have.
and yes maybe other religions and religious texts have made prophecies that have come to pass... but not quite as many.

so again hasn't proved the existance of God, but it does provide a fairly firm argument against that.

?You seem very confused. You realise who wrote the bible? Your whole premise requires someone to take the bible as 'truth'....which it is obviously not...the whole purpose of the bible was to create a religion. It's nt evidence at all. I could point to the Koran, The Torah and the thousands of other doctored Holy Books proclaiming they are theone truth...sorry I'm pretty sure you haven't thought about this issue very carefully.

 

[Enteebee]

richard dawkins book was not intellectual, great vocabulary, sure, no doubt about it, tho the arguments were weak.

Give me an example of an argument in the book, with page citation that you feel was particularly weak?

It cannot be said that these prohecies were written afterthe events for many of the events took place hundreds or even thousands of years after the prophecy was made.

It's not so much that they were written after (though in some cases they were), but it is that people have translated them differently after - Like the works of nostrodamus for instance. Another example is when for instance, we have an event like 9/11 - you then have people point to some verse from nostrodamas and say "AH HAH! THAT'S WHAT THAT VERSE MEANS" after the fact. The predictions never come before hand, i.e. no one knew there would be an attack on 9/11 from nostrodamus.

. Nor can it be said that they are vague or obscure, because they are highly specific in their details.

Give an example of a recent prophesy which has been specific in its details and fulfilled?

granted there are some prophecies that haven't been fulfilled, but just because of that, you can't ignore the ones that have.

As far as I understand christianity... the bulk of 'fulfilled' prophesies came around the time of jesus right? Do you think we have a solid historical record from that time so we have no way to confirm if these events occured. Furthermore, everyone who was writing about jesus was doing so a decent period after his death, is it that hard to imagine that people may have been making things up about his life to fit the prophesies of the past?

 

[BradCube]

Yeah, like I said asking such a question makes no sense - but then what are we left with when we look at the 'god' hypothesis for universe creation? It is merely an assertion that there is an eternal being who created our universe somehow - It is not a 'probable' argument.

Correct, it's not a probable argument, it is a plausible explanation when given the probabilities of other possibilities.

Again revisiting the arguement from before:

1) The "fine-tuning" of the universe is either due to either physical necessity, chance or design
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3) Therefore it is due to design

It is a process of elimination when given the defense of premise (2)

Proponents of a multi-verse theory would likely say that there could very well be a necessary/eternal component that makes multi-verse existence 'just be' in the same way as god, again though... this isn't an argument claiming that the multi-verse is more probable for X,Y,Z reasons - it's mearly asserting that the multiverse 'IS'.

And we would look at whatever particular version of the multi-verse theory they are bringing up and examine any problems with it - especially in regard to eternality. Are you thinking of any in particular?

And this mind 'just was', like I could postulate a universe creation machine just was? I see no reason to postulate a conscious 'designer' over an unconscious one.

Nahh, I don't think the teleological argument goes that far. The mind does not need to exist necessarily to satisfy the requirement of a designer. A cosmological argument would be better suited for bringing out this sort of conclusion.

 

[birdy17]

?You seem very confused. You realise who wrote the bible? Your whole premise requires someone to take the bible as 'truth'....which it is obviously not...the whole purpose of the bible was to create a religion. It's nt evidence at all. I could point to the Koran, The Torah and the thousands of other doctored Holy Books proclaiming they are theone truth...sorry I'm pretty sure you haven't thought about this issue very carefully.

i'm quite aware of who wrote the bible... there are many many different authors ranging from moses to paul.

and yes it does require one to believe the bible in order for that arguement to be true. but as i said it was from a certain book and in the book it had already explored the reliability of the bible.

so, why is it obviously not true???

and i'm not ignoring the final statement about other holy books just unsure of how to answer without knowing the answer to my question.