Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

[Dancing David]

I was cruising the gospel kingdom website ( I had googled refute atheism)

They say this refutes it!

Web page (http://www.direct.ca/trinity/leap.html
//)


One small step for God, One Giant Leap for the Antitheist
by Dr. John Polkinghorne
In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 1060. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davis of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away and hitting the mark!
Dr. John Polkinghorne is a quantum physicist, and president of Queens College, Cambridge.

[espritch]

I don't see how this refutes atheism. All they are saying is that for the universe to behave as it has been observed to behave, certain initial conditions had to true. This is true as far as it goes but it does not prove that those conditions were dictated by God, so it doesn't prove the existence of God.

The argument boils down to: "The initial conditions of the big bang are consistent with the observed nature of the resulting universe. Therefore God.

This logic leaves a lot to be desired.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Those numerate that have the misfortune not to exist disagree with Dr Polkinghorne.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

And they can tell the difference between a bet before the race and a bet after.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I was cruising the gospel kingdom website ( I had googled refute atheism)

They say this refutes it!

Ah, excuse me for bringing this up, but doesn't this type of false logic fall into the same category as when one examines the probability of the random distribution of billiard balls on a table after the cue ball strikes, claims that an infinitely small probability just took place and then wonders how such a remote event could have possibly happened? Yes, one can look at all the very remote conditions that would have to have happened to create the universe as we see it, but it already happened -- hence we are here to observe it. If these conditions were different, perhaps different entities would be pondering the universe -- or none at all. These types of arguments prove nothing, except to show the lack of critical thinking skills employed by some of us.

[Bruce]

Of course, it all make sense. Anything that can't be immediately explained must be God. :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Well, maybe what the question should boil down to is why is there life versus no life, and why does it entail sentience which, for some reason wants to know why it's here? That's quite an accomplishment for a Universe which just up and appeared out of nowhere don't you think? ;) Do you think the Universe itself will ever be able to furnish the answer?

[Jessica Blue]

why is there life versus no lifeThat's the million dollar question which has plagued every philosopher. Why should there be something, rather than nothing? To which we can add...why should there be something, including God, rather than nothing?

why does it entail sentience which, for some reason wants to know why it's here?Or no reason. Perhaps that questioning is just a consequence of having a more complex brain than other animals and not an indication that we have some special purpose.

Our bafflement at the mysteries of the ages may have been the price we paid for a combinatorial mind that opened up a world of words and sentences, of theories and equations, of poems and melodies, of jokes and stories, the very things that make a mind worth having...

Stephen Pinker

[c4ts]

I can't view the site. I get an error.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Dancing David

In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together).

He seems to know what happened in the "early universe" prior to space and time.

Additionally, I don't think there has to be a 'close balance' in the early expansion. I think expansion won early on - it's gravity that's trying to catch up.


If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse...

'the world" - this makes me think this was not written by a "quantum physicist". It's a rank mistake, doncha think?

[Mr Clingford]

Try this:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/leap.html

Dr John Polkinghorne is a bona fide scientist but that web site's production of that quote (if it is accurate) is out of any context and doesn't do a great job.

I attended a lecture by the Dr a few years ago

[c4ts]

I get it. If you shoot the wall, and draw a target around the bullet hole: INSTANT BULLSEYE!

At least that's what the website was trying to do.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Just thinking
Ah, excuse me for bringing this up, but doesn't this type of false logic fall into the same category as when one examines the probability of the random distribution of billiard balls on a table after the cue ball strikes, claims that an infinitely small probability just took place and then wonders how such a remote event could have possibly happened? Yes, one can look at all the very remote conditions that would have to have happened to create the universe as we see it, but it already happened -- hence we are here to observe it. If these conditions were different, perhaps different entities would be pondering the universe -- or none at all. These types of arguments prove nothing, except to show the lack of critical thinking skills employed by some of us.

But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

And, this is the reason why prophecy is central to Christianity. If a low probability event is predicted with accuracy, one has shown the supernatural.

I think it is only way to make the supernatural falsifiable.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Christian
But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

Why? Flip a coin a trillion times. The probability that you'd get whichever string of heads and tails you got was astronomically small, yet it happened. A small probablility does not make an event impossible.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Christian
But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

And, this is the reason why prophecy is central to Christianity. If a low probability event is predicted with accuracy, one has shown the supernatural.

I think it is only way to make the supernatural falsifiable.

The issue of probability is a somke screen what is the probable difference between 3.0000043 and 3.0000044? Yes if we quadruple the gravitational force the universe collapses or if we triple the weak force things stop working. But there could be a plethora of universes where the proabilities vary by smaller fractions that 4/1 or 3/1. In fact if you looks at Guth's infl;ationary model and the potential for 'budding' universes there is a system that says universe that collapse will be selected against while universes that expand will predominate. Because then expaniding universes are more likely to create 'buds'.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Donks
Why? Flip a coin a trillion times. The probability that you'd get whichever string of heads and tails you got was astronomically small, yet it happened. A small probablility does not make an event impossible.

I agree. What makes it supernatural is to predict that string of heads and tails.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Christian
I agree. What makes it supernatural is to predict that string of heads and tails.
Yes, consistent accurate prediction of low probability events would possibly be supernatural. What low probability events has Christianity accurately predicted?

Edited: Removed a be.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Donks
Yes, consistent accurate prediction of low probability events would possibly be supernatural.

I don't agree that it would have to be consistent, just an accurate prediction of a low probability event (e.g. the winning number of a state lottery draw)

What low probability events has Christianity accurately predicted?

More important question is what probability events is Christianity still in a position to predict accurately.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Christian
I don't agree that it would have to be consistent, just an accurate prediction of a low probability event (e.g. the winning number of a state lottery draw)
Hmm, no. You could say that every lottery winner won by supernatural means, if that were the case. Doing something only once is more likely to be random chance. Consistency is what shows there is a mechanism at work.

More important question is what probability events is Christianity still in a position to predict accurately.
No. That would be the important question iff Christianity had een shown to be an accurate predictor of events.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Donks
Hmm, no. You could say that every lottery winner won by supernatural means, if that were the case. Doing something only once is more likely to be random chance. Consistency is what shows there is a mechanism at work.

I'm sure that the person who could predict beforehand the winning numbers would also win the million dollar chanllenge. Judges??? :D


No. That would be the important question iff Christianity had een shown to be an accurate predictor of events.

I agree that skeptics punch holes, sufficient to hold the said position. My point is that Christianity continues to be the most powerful force in human history till this day precisely because of its relevance. Central to Christianity is its predictions of the future. From the skeptic's viewpoint, that should be its certain downfall. We only have to wait... ;)

[Donks]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm sure that the person who could predict beforehand the winning numbers would also win the million dollar chanllenge. Judges??? :D
Nope. You'd have to do it twice. Once for the preliminary test, and once for the formal test. If not, you could simply predict the lottery every time you play (Kramer would probably get bored and start dismissing you after a while, though), and if you ever win, get JREF's money as well.


I agree that skeptics punch holes, sufficient to hold the said position. My point is that Christianity continues to be the most powerful force in human history till this day precisely because of its relevance. Central to Christianity is its predictions of the future. From the skeptic's viewpoint, that should be its certain downfall. We only have to wait... ;)
The predictions conviniently do not specify a deadline. People have been waiting, and claiming they are about to come true, for some 2,000 years.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Donks
Nope. You'd have to do it twice. Once for the preliminary test, and once for the formal test. If not, you could simply predict the lottery every time you play (Kramer would probably get bored and start dismissing you after a while, though), and if you ever win, get JREF's money as well.

I'm not sure that would be the case. All someone had to do is claim they can do it and set up the test as to make sure the prediction was done before the event. But suppose it were so, twice hardly fits your description of consistent.


The predictions conviniently do not specify a deadline. People have been waiting, and claiming they are about to come true, for some 2,000 years.

That is the point I'm trying to make, Christianity, after 2,000 years, continues to be in the position for people to wait.

I understand that does not mean much to a skeptic. But it does to me.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm not sure that would be the case. All someone had to do is claim they can do it and set up the test as to make sure the prediction was done before the event.
If I only had to do that, what's stopping me from "predicting" the lottery by sending in an application for each and every possible number?
But suppose it were so, twice hardly fits your description of consistent.
I didn't bring up the challenge, you did.
That is the point I'm trying to make, Christianity, after 2,000 years, continues to be in the position for people to wait.

I understand that does not mean much to a skeptic. But it does to me.
In that case, I don't see the relevance of this. Hinduism has been around for a lot longer. So have other religions.

[Eleatic Stranger]

That's the million dollar question which has plagued every philosopher. Why should there be something, rather than nothing?

Actually, Sidney Morgenbesser recently (by recently I mean in a broad history of philosophy sense -it was decades ago) answered this question quite definitively.

"Even if there was nothing you'd still be complaining..."

[AWPrime]

'God did it' = 'I don't know and I don't want to know how'

[Pixel42]

Originally posted by Donks
The predictions conviniently do not specify a deadline. People have been waiting, and claiming they are about to come true, for some 2,000 years.

Actually Jesus is fairly specific about the timing of his second coming. Here are three quotes from Mathew, which make it clear he expected to return within the lifetime of his disciples:

16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

[Jellby]

Unless "verily" means "with twisted words and a hidden meaning open to interpretation to anyone's convenience"...

[Christian]

Originally posted by Donks
If I only had to do that, what's stopping me from "predicting" the lottery by sending in an application for each and every possible number?

You are rearranging your arguments to fit you position. (Do you know how many combinations that would take!!!)

No, that's not how it would be. The person would show up in person and write the numbers down on a board or paper for everyone to see (say a couple of hours before the drawing)

I didn't bring up the challenge, you did.

I don't see the relevance of that comment. This is what you said

Hmm, no. You could say that every lottery winner won by supernatural means, if that were the case. Doing something only once is more likely to be random chance. Consistency is what shows there is a mechanism at work.

I was just pointing out your inconsistency.

In that case, I don't see the relevance of this. Hinduism has been around for a lot longer. So have other religions. [/B]

I'm not aware that Hiduism makes predictions of a final outcome, the end of times.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Pixel42
Actually Jesus is fairly specific about the timing of his second coming. Here are three quotes from Mathew, which make it clear he expected to return within the lifetime of his disciples:

16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.


Fairly specific timing? Are you overreaching here?


Here, examples:

In 20 years, this place will be filled with people who are committed to grow, who love this place. There be some standing here, who will make as proud.


And this same people, this generation {that I speak of} shall not pass, to admire that said growth.

And the plans and construction of this vision shall all be done upon this generation.

Thank you.

[RamblingOnwards]

Christian, I would recomend you read the new testament before continuing on this argument. Pixel42 was quoting for those of us who were familiar with the context, so I can see how it could have appeared ambiguous to someone who had not read those verses before :) .

[AtheistArchon]

I'm not aware that Hiduism makes predictions of a final outcome, the end of times.

- So let me see. In order to be correct, a religion has to:

1. Make a prediction about the end times.
2. Be unfulfilled regarding this prediction.

- Is that what you're trying to say?

[Pixel42]

Originally posted by Christian
Fairly specific timing? Are you overreaching here?

Here, examples:

In 20 years, this place will be filled with people who are committed to grow, who love this place. There be some standing here, who will make as proud.

And this same people, this generation {that I speak of} shall not pass, to admire that said growth.

And the plans and construction of this vision shall all be done upon this generation.

Thank you.

I assumed that with a username like Christian you would be familiar with the New Testament, or at least have a copy to hand so you could look up these quotes.

Here's the context of just one of them:

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is clearly talking about his second coming, and is equally clearly saying it will happen within the lifetimes of the people he is speaking to.

Jesus was not the first - or the last - person to preach that the end of world was nigh. Like everyone else who has made that particular prediction in the last several thousand years, he was proved wrong.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Pixel42
I assumed that with a username like Christian you would be familiar with the New Testament, or at least have a copy to hand so you could look up these quotes.

Here's the context of just one of them:

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is clearly talking about his second coming, and is equally clearly saying it will happen within the lifetimes of the people he is speaking to.

Jesus was not the first - or the last - person to preach that the end of world was nigh. Like everyone else who has made that particular prediction in the last several thousand years, he was proved wrong.


That would be one interpretation. But, if I'm to be consistent with that interpretation, (that way of reading the passage, then I have to suspend context all together. Context does not only pertain to a particular passage but the the topic or even manner of speaking. It can easely be shown that when Jesus speaks in tenses, He does necessarily mean the audience he is talking to. This would make perfect sense if we assume that He knew that his audience would be us, for example.)

Let me show you:
29"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30and say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'

31"Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 33Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

When He says, whom you murdered, He clearly does not mean the audience he is speaking to. Now, that "clearly" is clearly from the text. When he says, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes, He is talking in present tense, but He clearly has not send anyone (he does not mean that particular present tense, so the reading should not understand that that audience will kill them.

And lastly, He used the same phrase you quote, and one cannot reasonably conclude He means the audience he is addressing.

[Christian]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- So let me see. In order to be correct, a religion has to:

1. Make a prediction about the end times.
2. Be unfulfilled regarding this prediction.

- Is that what you're trying to say?

Clearly not. It is not really a prediction. It is a scenario. In order for that scenario to be possible, it is necessary that lots of pieces be in place. I sure you know all of this.

[Belle]

Originally posted by Christian
That would be one interpretation. But, if I'm to be consistent with that interpretation, (that way of reading the passage, then I have to suspend context all together. Context does not only pertain to a particular passage but the the topic or even manner of speaking. It can easely be shown that when Jesus speaks in tenses, He does necessarily mean the audience he is talking to. This would make perfect sense if we assume that He knew that his audience would be us, for example.)

Let me show you:


When He says, whom you murdered, He clearly does not mean the audience he is speaking to. Now, that "clearly" is clearly from the text. When he says, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes, He is talking in present tense, but He clearly has not send anyone (he does not mean that particular present tense, so the reading should not understand that that audience will kill them.

And lastly, He used the same phrase you quote, and one cannot reasonably conclude He means the audience he is addressing.

And yours would be another interpretation... but I read this passage different from you:

To me, he is clearly placing the guilt of what took place in the past upon these people in the present - NOT talking of things to come, but of the OT... "...from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar..." and "...I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes..." is placing blame upon them for what WAS - not what is or will be.

This can easily be interpreted this way, and continue with the same idea that on them would come "...all the righteous blood shed on the earth..." and that "...all these things will come upon this generation." - or that the second coming and judgement would be within their lifetime.

This was my interpretation from the first time I read this passage - when I was still struggling with Christian belief. It is still my interpretation, and the one that makes the most sense to me.

[Diamond]

What the Doctor is describing is a manifestation of the "Weak Anthropic Principle". Nothing about god.

[Pixel42]

When Jesus talked to his disciples he was talking to simple, uneducated fishermen for the most part, whom he wanted to understand him. Why on earth would he have talked so obscurely that only future generations of Biblical scholars could understand him?

So when trying to decide how to interpret his words, the best guide is to ask "How would the people he was addressing them to have interpreted them"?

Jesus' disciples would undoubtedly have understood him to be telling them that his second coming would occur in their lifetimes.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Pixel42
When Jesus talked to his disciples he was talking to simple, uneducated fishermen for the most part, whom he wanted to understand him. Why on earth would he have talked so obscurely that only future generations of Biblical scholars could understand him?

So when trying to decide how to interpret his words, the best guide is to ask "How would the people he was addressing them to have interpreted them"?

Jesus' disciples would undoubtedly have understood him to be telling them that his second coming would occur in their lifetimes. I am sure that Jesus’s words were clear and to the point. Unfortunately it took a few generations before anyone wrote them down.

There is a good chance that Jesus was talking about the generation standing in front of him. Yet as the prophecies had failed to materialise the later authors of the biblical texts added the ambiguity.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Lothian
I am sure that Jesus’s words were clear and to the point. Unfortunately it took a few generations before anyone wrote them down. Probably just 1 or 2 generations, but the gloss of people on Jesus's words decades later interpreted through the lens of the individual gospel writers can further distance us

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Probably just 1 or 2 generations, but the gloss of people on Jesus's words decades later interpreted through the lens of the individual gospel writers can further distance us

If, of course, the words were ever intended to report the speech of a genuine historical person. Else, they were the major viewpoints of the new religion assigned to an allegorical figurehead, and can be assumed to be a fair reflection of what their religion was all about.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
That would be one interpretation. But, if I'm to be consistent with that interpretation, (that way of reading the passage, then I have to suspend context all together. Context does not only pertain to a particular passage but the the topic or even manner of speaking. It can easely be shown that when Jesus speaks in tenses, He does necessarily mean the audience he is talking to. This would make perfect sense if we assume that He knew that his audience would be us, for example.)

Let me show you:


When He says, whom you murdered, He clearly does not mean the audience he is speaking to. Now, that "clearly" is clearly from the text. When he says, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes, He is talking in present tense, but He clearly has not send anyone (he does not mean that particular present tense, so the reading should not understand that that audience will kill them.

And lastly, He used the same phrase you quote, and one cannot reasonably conclude He means the audience he is addressing. In other words, the bible has to, and can be interpreted. Which means that the predicitve value is zero.

Hans

[Christian]

Originally posted by Belle
And yours would be another interpretation... but I read this passage different from you:

To me, he is clearly placing the guilt of what took place in the past upon these people in the present - NOT talking of things to come, but of the OT... "...from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar..." and "...I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes..." is placing blame upon them for what WAS - not what is or will be.

This can easily be interpreted this way, and continue with the same idea that on them would come "...all the righteous blood shed on the earth..." and that "...all these things will come upon this generation." - or that the second coming and judgement would be within their lifetime.

This was my interpretation from the first time I read this passage - when I was still struggling with Christian belief. It is still my interpretation, and the one that makes the most sense to me.

I think I was not clear in my post. Interpretation is not a matter of taste or preference. It is based on rules. The rules lead to the most logical interpretation. If someone wants to be consistent about being objective and a critical thinker, then it should follow that the he or she must follow hermeneutics.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Lothian
I am sure that Jesus’s words were clear and to the point. Unfortunately it took a few generations before anyone wrote them down.

There is a good chance that Jesus was talking about the generation standing in front of him. Yet as the prophecies had failed to materialise the later authors of the biblical texts added the ambiguity.


I'm sorry but I feel this is a forced theory to fit a particular view point.

Suppose we accept the premise that the account was written a few generations later. Why write about prophecies the have failed to materialize when the writer full well knows that they have!!! And why would they choose the least obvious solution!

[Christian]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
If, of course, the words were ever intended to report the speech of a genuine historical person. Else, they were the major viewpoints of the new religion assigned to an allegorical figurehead, and can be assumed to be a fair reflection of what their religion was all about.

Exactly, if they were intended to report the speech of a genuine historical person, they would report it as is without reflecting on the content and what might be interpreted, even if they felt the content could be interpreted as a failed prophecy.

If on the other hand, the writers were expressing viewpoints of a new religion assigned to an allegorical figurehead, it is not reasonable to assume that would write a story that portrays that figurehead as a failed prophet.

[Christian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
In other words, the bible has to, and can be interpreted. Which means that the predicitve value is zero.

Hans


Hans, I don't follow this logic. If something has to be interpreted it can't have a predictive value? I don't think this is true, specially since all symbols have to be interpreted. And I don't see how one can write down a prediction without using symbols.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Christian
Hans, I don't follow this logic. If something has to be interpreted it can't have a predictive value? I don't think this is true, specially since all symbols have to be interpreted. And I don't see how one can write down a prediction without using symbols. I assume that you are referring to letters. Unfortunately that analogy is faulty. Letters have a constant value that is known to all (well almost all). They form words, which are mostly unique in meaning. It's when you put them together in sentences that you have a problem.

Take the prediction;
The Indianapolis Colts will win the 2004/2005 season Superbowl by 37 point to 10 over the Philadelphia eagles.
The symbols cannot be interpreted to mean anything else.
The prediction cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what it means. (btw, if they do, can I get the $1,000,000)

On the other hand, take the prediction;
The New England Patriots will lose by 15 points.
The letters still cannot be interpreted to mean anything else, it's a perfectly understandable english sentence.
The prediction however specifies nothing. It doesn't say when, or against who. It has no actual predictive power. It's pretty certain that at some point in the future the Patriots will lose to someone by 15 points.

Therefore, the symbols are not open to interpretation, but if a prediction is open to interpretation, then it isn't much of a prediction.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Christian
If on the other hand, the writers were expressing viewpoints of a new religion assigned to an allegorical figurehead, it is not reasonable to assume that would write a story that portrays that figurehead as a failed prophet.

This is silly. The prediction wouldn't have been failed at the time. We are the one's who insist that Jesus must have been born in either 4 BC (to be in Herod's rule) or 7AD (to be during the census) to be historical. If it was allegorical, they would have meant it to apply to themselves - during their (the writers) lifetimes.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
Hans, I don't follow this logic. If something has to be interpreted it can't have a predictive value? I don't think this is true, specially since all symbols have to be interpreted. And I don't see how one can write down a prediction without using symbols. Let me make it more clear then: The predictions come true only after suitable post hoc interpretation (or in this case, avoid failure). Since we can interpret the text both to fail and not to fail, it has no predictive value.

I notice that you claim that it is interpreted according to fixed rules. In that case I challenge you to specify those rules.

A prediction has no value unless it is unambiguous.

Of course you can make a prediction without using symbols:

I predict that tomorrow (dec. 23) you will buy a pizza for dinner. In that pizza you will find a gold ring. The gold ring will turn out to belong to the pizzaria owner, and he will give you a handsome reward for returning it. You will never buy pizza in that place again.

See? No problem at all, clear and unambiguous. The problem is to write down predicions that COME TRUE without using symbols :rolleyes:.

Edited to add: I see Wollery already answered the point excellently, thanks. I did not assume that "symbols" referred to letters, nor to basic semantics.


Hans

[Christian]

Originally posted by wollery
I assume that you are referring to letters. Unfortunately that analogy is faulty. Letters have a constant value that is known to all (well almost all). They form words, which are mostly unique in meaning. It's when you put them together in sentences that you have a problem.

I have to disagree. Words can have, and lots do have multiples meanings. This is why we have rules of hermeneutics.

Take the prediction;
The Indianapolis Colts will win the 2004/2005 season Superbowl by 37 point to 10 over the Philadelphia eagles.
The symbols cannot be interpreted to mean anything else.
The prediction cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what it means. (btw, if they do, can I get the $1,000,000)

Yes they can. Just move forward in time and include the information that a highschool in Argentina has a tournament called the Superbowl and one team is called the Indianapolis Colts and the other the Philadelphia Eagles (of course, emulating the popular teams of the time). The symbols mean something completely different, don't they.

No matter how we slice it or dice it, we can't escape interpreting. Your examples assumes additional information and it assumes further that we have access to that additional information. These assumptions make the information precise, not the symbols themselves.

On the other hand, take the prediction;
The New England Patriots will lose by 15 points.
The letters still cannot be interpreted to mean anything else, it's a perfectly understandable english sentence.
The prediction however specifies nothing. It doesn't say when, or against who. It has no actual predictive power. It's pretty certain that at some point in the future the Patriots will lose to someone by 15 points.

I see your point, but you are creating a false dichotomy here. You are saying the either the statements are precise and have a predictive power, or they don't. Yes, I agree that many statements have zero predictive value, that's not because they are subject to interpretation, they are just not predicting anything.

Therefore, the symbols are not open to interpretation, but if a prediction is open to interpretation, then it isn't much of a prediction.

Sorry, I must disagree.

[Christian]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
This is silly. The prediction wouldn't have been failed at the time. We are the one's who insist that Jesus must have been born in either 4 BC (to be in Herod's rule) or 7AD (to be during the census) to be historical. If it was allegorical, they would have meant it to apply to themselves - during their (the writers) lifetimes.


Ok, if we take this position, we must conclude that the writers were contemporaries of Jesus. If we accept this premise, then a skeptic has a bigger problem. Jesus predicted events that date later than His time. That would make those predictions true.

This is why skeptics don't accept that the Gospels were written by comtemporaries of Jesus.

[Christian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Let me make it more clear then: The predictions come true only after suitable post hoc interpretation (or in this case, avoid failure). Since we can interpret the text both to fail and not to fail, it has no predictive value.

I would agree with this premise.

I notice that you claim that it is interpreted according to fixed rules. In that case I challenge you to specify those rules.

There are many rules, I would say pretty much of common sense.

Sure I can give you some. An interpretation of text must take into account:

1. Geography (way people speak, expressions, places, references to items, meaning of words in that geography, etc.)
2. Historical progressions of usage of words
3. Context of passage
4. Usage of words by the author.


A prediction has no value unless it is unambiguous.

I agree.

Of course you can make a prediction without using symbols:

I predict that tomorrow (dec. 23) you will buy a pizza for dinner. In that pizza you will find a gold ring. The gold ring will turn out to belong to the pizzaria owner, and he will give you a handsome reward for returning it. You will never buy pizza in that place again.

See? No problem at all, clear and unambiguous. The problem is to write down predicions that COME TRUE without using symbols :rolleyes:.

No problem at all?

Move forward in time and geography. What is pizza? When you say gold ring, what kind of ring and gold means what it is made of? What is a handsome reward, a heartfelt thanks? Will I buy other products there? Will someone else buy but not me, and I still eat there. Do they have delivery?

Edited to add: I see Wollery already answered the point excellently, thanks. I did not assume that "symbols" referred to letters, nor to basic semantics.



Hans

Semantics is a component of interpretation, yes.

[Pixel42]

Originally posted by Christian
Suppose we accept the premise that the account was written a few generations later. Why write about prophecies the have failed to materialize

It's reasonable to assume that the reason it took so long for the gospels to be written down was that Jesus' disciples believed his prophesy that he would be returning within their lifetimes. Why write anything down for the benefit of future generations when there aren't going to be any?

That does make it difficult to understand why, when the gospel accounts were finally written, their authors recorded these failed prophesies. I would have expected them to at least make them a little more ambiguous.

OTOH even 2000 years later there are still plenty of Christians who manage to find ways of interpreting these prophesies to mean something other than what Jesus clearly intended. Maybe Matthew was equally self-deluding.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Pixel42
It's reasonable to assume that the reason it took so long for the gospels to be written down was that Jesus' disciples believed his prophesy that he would be returning within their lifetimes. Why write anything down for the benefit of future generations when there aren't going to be any?

That does make it difficult to understand why, when the gospel accounts were finally written, their authors recorded these failed prophesies. I would have expected them to at least make them a little more ambiguous.

OTOH even 2000 years later there are still plenty of Christians who manage to find ways of interpreting these prophesies to mean something other than what Jesus clearly intended. Maybe Matthew was equally self-deluding.

As I said before, we are not really talking about a prediction. Christians think of a complete final outcome, a scenario. In order for that scenario to be possible, it is necessary that lots of pieces be in place. The Bible continues to be relevant because this final outcome, scenario is possible.

This is why skeptics use the argument that Christians create (like a conspiracy theory) events so that the said scenario be possible.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian


My point is that Christianity continues to be the most powerful force in human history till this day precisely because of its relevance.


Your point is simply not true.. Most humans have lived and died without ever hearing about Christianity..


If you are talking about the ability to carry out death and destruction, there would be an element of truth here.



Christianity has had 2,000 years to change the world for the good, and has failed miserably...

[Christian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
[quote]Your point is simply not true.. Most humans have lived and died without ever hearing about Christianity..

I'm sorry, I think this if factually incorrect.

Population Growth through history (http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html)

Please note the population explosion after the Christian era.

Christianity has had 2,000 years to change the world for the good, and has failed miserably...

This has not been the purpose of Christianity.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian
................

This has not been the purpose of Christianity. Then it is a resounding success!!

My apologies...:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm sorry, I think this if factually incorrect.

Population Growth through history (http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html)

Please note the population explosion after the Christian era.

Please note that the explosion is most noticeable in regions where there is little if any Christian relevance...


So, again, your point would be?

[Pixel42]

Originally posted by Christian
As I said before, we are not really talking about a prediction.

You may not be talking about a prediction, but frankly only you know what you are talking about.

I am talking about a specific prediction that Jesus made (three times!), which would undoubtedly have been understood to be a prediction by the people he was talking to, and which manifestly failed to come true.

So either he was wrong, or the gospels are not an accurate account of his life and teachings. If the former then he was just one in a long line of nutters who have wrongly predicted the imminent end of the world, if the latter then we can dismiss the gospels as no more historically reliable than, say the Sherlock Holmes stories. [Did you know that in a recent poll over 40% of the British public said they believed Holmes was an historical figure?].

So which is it?

[haikuhamu]

The probability of having the set of starting conditions required for life to develop on Earth are vanishingly small. It's more difficult than winning the lottery. However, this does not prove that God exists. This line of reasoning has a hidden assumption: That only one universe (this one) has ever existed. Remove that assumption and the line of reasoning fails.

It is possible that "nature" has played this "create humans" lottery billions and billions of times. Perhaps there have been billions of "failed" universes where humanity never existed.

If we assume that nature rolled the dice billions of times, created billions of different universes, then it is not surprizing that this one eventually came up. Jackpot. A winning number.

Regardless, I personally believe that God created the universe. I simply do not think this line of reasoning in any way proves it.

[haikuhamu]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Your point is simply not true.. Most humans have lived and died without ever hearing about Christianity..Alright. Yes. Christianity is obviously not a world-wide, pervasive, overwhelming force.

Christianity has had 2,000 years to change the world for the good, and has failed miserably... Well, considering the fact that you believe Christianity does not control the world, it should not surprize you that Christianity has not changed the world.

If you are talking about the ability to carry out death and destruction, there would be an element of truth here.And I would say that the things done in the name of Christianity is on par with the things done in the name of politics and money. The problem is not Christianity but HUMANITY. We are, as a race, supremely capable of greed, selfishness, destruction, cruelty, and a whole host of negative behaviours...regardless of our IQ, faith, profession, etc. An ability we demonstrate far too often.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Please note that the explosion is most noticeable in regions where there is little if any Christian relevance...


So, again, your point would be?

That you were factually incorrect, as you were.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Pixel42
You may not be talking about a prediction, but frankly only you know what you are talking about.

I am talking about a specific prediction that Jesus made (three times!), which would undoubtedly have been understood to be a prediction by the people he was talking to, and which manifestly failed to come true.

So either he was wrong, or the gospels are not an accurate account of his life and teachings. If the former then he was just one in a long line of nutters who have wrongly predicted the imminent end of the world, if the latter then we can dismiss the gospels as no more historically reliable than, say the Sherlock Holmes stories. [Did you know that in a recent poll over 40% of the British public said they believed Holmes was an historical figure?].

So which is it?

What you call a Jesus prediction is not an isolated prediction. That would be an incorrect interpretation. His prediction is part of a set of predictions that make up that final outcome. Isolating it, would not be objective, IMHO.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian
That you were factually incorrect, as you were.

I said:

" Most humans have lived and died without ever hearing about Christianity "


You have presented nothing that shows otherwise..


There are billions of people alive today who have never heard of Jesus, and will not, before they die. This is at a time when global communication is easier than it has ever been.


The ' relevance ' of Christianity is not so apparent to everyone as it is to Christians and their victims..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by haikuhamu

And I would say that the things done in the name of Christianity is on par with the things done in the name of politics and money. The problem is not Christianity but HUMANITY. We are, as a race, supremely capable of greed, selfishness, destruction, cruelty, and a whole host of negative behaviours...regardless of our IQ, faith, profession, etc. An ability we demonstrate far too often.
I wouldn't suggest otherwise.. I was only pointing out that Christianity while making a claim of a moral high ground, has nothing to show for it after 2,000 years.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
There are billions of people alive today who have never heard of Jesus, and will not, before they die. This is at a time when global communication is easier than it has ever been. Would you point out in what parts of the world they live and roughly how many of the Earth's 6 billion have not heard - just curious.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you point out in what parts of the world they live and roughly how many of the Earth's 6 billion have not heard - just curious.

I could be wrong, but I suspect there are several billion people living in China, India and other eastern countries who have not heard of Christianity.

I suspect those numbers are dwindling, but it would still take a long time to catch up with the billions who have died in the last 2,000 years, without hearing the word..

I do not have any hard facts to back up my assertion, and I know we are all about facts and evidence here. It just seems to be a logical assumption. I would be happy to listen to and acknowledge, any information that shows my assumption is erroneous.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I could be wrong, but I suspect there are several billion people living in China, India and other eastern countries who have not heard of Christianity. I think that Jesus isn't unknown in those areas as missionaries etc have been out there for centuries but as to what extent I have no ideaOriginally posted by Diogenes
I suspect those numbers are dwindling, but it would still take a long time to catch up with the billions who have died in the last 2,000 years, without hearing the word.. It's a good job that relating to God after death isn't reliant on saying the magic words
Originally posted by Diogenes
I do not have any hard facts to back up my assertion, and I know we are all about facts and evidence here. It just seems to be a logical assumption. I would be happy to listen to and acknowledge, any information that shows my assumption is erroneous. Taking a risk there! Here is//www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm (http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm)
It references world population growth

[Skeptical Greg]

Taking a risk there! Here is//www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm Good information.. I bookmarked it..

I do not see how it refutes my contention that the majority of humans who have ever lived, have not heard of Christianity.

[Mr Clingford]

I think you may be right - sorry I didn't make it clearer

[McFunley]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The issue of probability is a somke screen what is the probable difference between 3.0000043 and 3.0000044? Yes if we quadruple the gravitational force the universe collapses or if we triple the weak force things stop working. But there could be a plethora of universes where the proabilities vary by smaller fractions that 4/1 or 3/1. In fact if you looks at Guth's infl;ationary model and the potential for 'budding' universes there is a system that says universe that collapse will be selected against while universes that expand will predominate. Because then expaniding universes are more likely to create 'buds'.

The fact that there are constants in physics today doesn't necessarily mean that they are truly randomly selected. A more complete theory might be able to show how these values are, in fact, determined. If that turns out to be the case, how silly are intelligent design apologists going to look?