The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Enai de a lukal]

Citing one man's opinions establishes much of nothing. Real science works on consensus building, even though deviation from consensus is not only allowed, it's encouraged.

Yeah, he's (intentionally) misrepresenting Vilenkin.

Of the various cosmologists I've read, including having as subscription to Scientific American for over 40 years whereas I have been following the research on this, I have never seen one single cosmologist who would agree with you.

You could probably scour the entirety of the contemporary literature and likely would still be drawing a blank on that count.

A supernatural explanation - a natural explanation = 100%
X - Y = 100% is the probability of X
X - 0 = 100%

The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%.

Lol, pretty amusing.

 

[McBell]

An object at rest will remain at rest...until 'Something' moves it.
Motion is then what?

Force with an existence prior to substance?
I might call that....Spirit.

Yes, but then, you have spending years trying to fit god into the gaps.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, he's (intentionally) misrepresenting Vilenkin.

Well this certainly never gets old.

The man went way out of his way to be emphatic as possible but not amount direct simplicity can penetrate cognitive dissonance I guess.

Here is the simple version:
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3671459

The context was a birthday party given for Hawking at Cambridge. The exact meaning was instantly know because Hawking stated that was certainly an unwelcome present.



Here is Vilenkin's own conclusion from it: “cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape – they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. p. 176)
Power to Change – The Worst Birthday Present Ever




Here is the technical version:
We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodetically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
[1204.4658] Did the universe have a beginning?


Vilenkin concluded by saying “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” The power of this statement, and its source, should not be underestimated. Like many other cosmologists, Vilenkin was not satisfied to conclude that the Standard Model (Big Bang) was the end of the story. He wanted the universe to be eternal. He has been involved in projects trying to restore an eternal universe, and yet based on the evidence, he is willing to admit that an eternal universe does not appear to be a physical possibility. All the evidence points to a beginning. And if there is a beginning, then the question of what caused the universe to come into being needs to be answered.
Alexander Vilenkin:

Then if there was even a slight doubt left as to what he meant he then put that to rest buy going through three of the major "other" options and doomed them all as impossible.

If you can not grant the simplistic nature of a claim simply because it is inconvenient, don't work you have company.

◦Sir Arthur Eddington, Astronomer – “I have no axe to grind in this discussion but the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me.”
◦Walter Nernst, German Chemist – “To deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundations of science.”
◦Philip Morrison, M.I.T. – “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang Theory. I would like to reject it, but I have to accept the facts.”
◦Allan Sandage, Palomar Observatory – “It is such a strange conclusion….it cannot really be true.” (all cited by R. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 122, 123)
Power to Change – The Worst Birthday Present Ever

It seems what a scientist wants to be true is just as powerful as what is true and when they only deal with things that cannot be proven the error can hid in the ambiguity.

Denying any of this is hyperbolic absurdity and is faith and preference start to finish and leaves without any hope of a reasonable debate.

You could probably scour the entirety of the contemporary literature and likely would still be drawing a blank on that count.

Well just do not start with the A's, you won't get far.

Lol, pretty amusing.

Of course math used to prove the supernatural is satirical but it is no less valid as mathematics. I would never have initiated math in a theological discussion unless someone else did incorrectly and I had to illustrate how the equation should look.

If you can't grant that Vilenkin meant what he must have said in a dozens of ways, illustrated many ways, and drew conclusions on there is not must justification for a debate with you.

 

[1robin]

"The probability of a supernatural cause is 100%"

LOL

I have a degree in math and instead of laughing why don't you actually show why it is funny. It is a condition necessity. As long as the probability of a known natural cause of the universe remains zero there can be no other conclusion than what that equation produces. It is inevitable and unavoidable even if a little trivial. Since you used math I had to make sure it was accurate math. The only hope for your claim is for some future discovery to explain how nothing created everything. You might as well hope politicians see the error of their ways and reverse every decision they have made in the last decade.

Well, no need to do any more research in cosmology or science at all then, Robin just answered a question that cannot be answered.

That makes no sense. It is a condition equation that theoretically could change over time but has no reason to think it will. Do all the science you wish, just do not do science fiction and call it science.

What evidence to you have to show a "supernatural cause"?

How about a hundred millions to personal experience to such just to begin with.

Of course your also going to say it was the god YOU BELIEVE IN as fact.

If I was going to I would have. The cosmological argument does not equal my God. It equals a being or force with the exact same characteristics given to my God thousands of years before they characteristics were known to allow faking of them. That makes my God the best candidate but that was not in my equation.

I can use the exact same argument your using to say I believe aliens in another universe created this universe. Prove that wrong. Or is that a possibility?

Aliens are part of the natural world (universe) and so did not exist to create it or themselves. This is the worst possible counter claim. Even Dawkins admitted at best it only kicked the can down the road as far as life was concerned not even he used to attempt to explain the universe.

Science doesn't work by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. This is also bias.

Science does work by building perfectly adequate equations and adopting the answer no matter how bizarre. he quantum is no less fantastic by arbitrarily placing it under a natural heading. In fact many theologians consider supernatural acts just as natural as any other just in a spectrum science has not been able to access. This is an argument based on semantic technicality and arbitrary label. I also do not give a rip what science does. Science cannot prove beauty exists, or that I love my family, not can it ever state morally what any action should be. Science is one narrow band among many for determining reality. It is not God, even if treated as such by those without a God.

If it did then a pink elephant created the universe. Prove that wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well this certainly never gets old.

Apparently not. Despite numerous corrections, here you are, still misrepresenting Vilenkin's professional views, only this time you no longer have ignorance as an excuse. Shame on you.

 

[1robin]

Actually, seizures that occur as a result of occipital lobe epilepsy can be triggered by visual stimuli like flashing lights and can cause temporary blindness or decreased vision.
Also, take note how I also said "or something." There are a number of things that can cause temporary blindness like exposure certain kinds of plant sap, shingles, exposure to intense light after prolonged exposure to darkness, retinal migraines or retinal spasms, to name a few.

You are so predictable. All I have to do is ask myself that if I was to try and get out of a claim by any means necessary what would I say, if reasoned conclusions were no longer important? This is the exact reason I included the part about when it was told him what he must do. He was told where to go, at the same moment another man named Ananias was told to touch Saul's eyes and grant his sight back. That event occurred exactly as predicted. Epilepsy does not explain that. It also does not explain why his vision countered in complete detail his initial faith. Usually epilepsy grants random visions or ones that confirm beliefs. Paul's was the exact opposite. It also does not confirm in exhaustive detail messages given to others like the apostles. Paul went to them and recounted what he experienced and was told to see if what he was given matched what they had experienced and been taught. It was. Epilepsy also would only explain the tiniest of fraction compared with just claims of being born again alone.

Can you elaborate on what you mean in the bolded part of your statement?

I saw nothing bolded in what you posted.

How do you know?

Again this is exactly what I guessed would have been said, I almost went back and added clarity but get tired of having to spend 50% of a post heading off every off ramp I can think of that should be obvious. There is no evidence he ever had any symptoms and we know more about him than the rest combined. There for no justification beyond wishful thinking exists to throw in random diseases to get out of what is clearly not a medical condition.

He could have had any number of medical conditions that you or even he was unaware of.

Is a debate to include anything that is not impossible even if devoid of evidence? Long debate.

Um, nope.

I'm looking for a reasonable explanation rather than just assuming some miracle occurred.

Nope, you have a extremely reasoned explanation so solid the wisest of men and a vast amount of men have based their lives on it, you just do not like it. So you are inventing claims that require more faith given less evidence and believing them better.

Maybe this is one such case.

I have already explained twice what adds up to a negative conclusion.

But once again, it doesn't really matter what you're aware of as you are not privvy to every single thing that's ever occurred to every single individual in the history of mankind.

So you can reject well established history based on adopting as possible what should be in the record but is not, yet I cannot believe what is established by that record because it does not contain what it should to validate your claims. Nope, no preference or double standard at all here.

What's so unreasonable about it?

I have explained with several examples in Paul's case and in general.

How so?

How can you debate the bible and not know this. Some of them are the same verses his blindness is in. The vision said that Paul was persecuting God and that Jesus was Lord. Paul had been persecuting the follows of the man he then went on to probably die for. There are entire books of very similar reversals. What are you talking about?

What predictions?

I give up.

Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of his Heaven's Gate cult that he and his nurse were the two witnesses described in the Book of Revelation and that Applewhite was directly related to Jesus, based on some near-death experience he believed he had been through. Those people were convinced enough by his claims to commit suicide.

There we have it someone was wrong so everyone must be. Give me a link to this. I can't imagine a large group of even ignorant people actually believing this but this is not what I was talking about anyway. The apostles whether wrong or right were systematic, had established specific doctrine, had either been eyewitnesses to events or got them from witnesses, and jealously guarded their mutually confirming testimony. They are not some boobs with nothing to verify an idiots claims already pre-existing as a standard. Paul said Jesus said he did this and the apostles had certain knowledge of whether he did or not. Paul had a massive amount of doctrine to verify against their own pre-existing doctrine, and they were none to receptive. Yet every single one eventually agreed he was commissioned by Christ based on actual data and a very complex set of standards that were rigorously defended prior to Paul. Paul also proved his claims by doing all manner of supernatural things and making unknowable predictions that came true in front of many witnesses. Did Applebutter?

Jim Jones convinced hundreds and hundreds of people to kill themselves (including their own children) based on his teachings which included him being the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

No he didn't but again this is not the same thing. His followers were of the easily swayed and disaffected type. Drop outs, cast always, the disenfranchised. They obviously had no previous criteria that Jones had to meet because he met no criteria consistently except crazy. The apostles had rigorously established doctrines and eyewitnesses events to use as criteria plus the Holy Spirit to validate their conclusions. BTW most of the adults and all the child rebelled at the poison. I do not recommend doing so but if you listen to the audio they were forced to drink the kool aid and were none to happy about it. At least today liberals are happy to do so.

Those people were convinced by what they heard. Does that make the claims true?

This is persuasion not verification. It is a psychological tactic I was trained in a little in the military. It usually involves detecting and meeting needs them subverting that faith. Paul did not show up and say look how good I am, I must be from God, look how much money I have collected, or how many I have helped. He said their teacher met him and told him X, Y, and Z were true and that A, B, and C had occurred. The apostles using existing criteria not available to Paul by natural means confirmed his claims even though being initially hostile and very very distrustful of him. Keep in mind they knew all about his persecuting them before this. There cannot be two more distinctly different concepts that Hitler like persuasion and academic like verification. Again it is like your prime directive is no matter what the cost never ever give the traditional understanding even a possibility of being true, no matter how weak any other explanation is hold on to it like grim death.

 

[1robin]

Um, okay so what were you talking about when you said, "What I mentioned happened mostly during the enlightenment?"

Good Lord are we still hashing this out. I do not even remember exactly. The only part I do remember is that I thought of something I predicted you would say about the enlightenment and as an after thought I attempted to head it off at the pass. Looks like I produced the opposite effect. Instead of stopping something I predicted I actually created way more of it. Can't stop it, it is not human, it doesn't feel pain or pity, and it will not stop, ever.

I just gave you one in the very post you were responding to.

Again, "In my ten years of higher education not one Chinese or Muslim was ever even mentioned in the history of my academic disciplines. They of course existed but were not necessary to establish the development of science."

Look no hard feelings but I am going to skip what I have already explained probably more than once.

I'm sorry, yes, you said you'd never heard of half of the ones I listed.

What does this mean, then?

"In my ten years of higher education not one Chinese or Muslim was ever even mentioned in the history of my academic disciplines. They of course existed but were not necessary to establish the development of science."

You spend 80% of your posts explaining away everyone's "misconceptions" of your posts.

Oh okay. So when we're talking about these Christian scientists we're talking about people who are so purely devoted to their god and the nature he produced that they can't help themselves but to learn about and explore said nature. But when we're talking about non-religious scientists we're talking about people who are in it for the money, in it for fame or in it because they're arrogant? Are you for real? Yeah, you could definitely be wrong.

I did not say everyone's or do not think I did, I said yours. Everyone commonly misstates others words, you systematically do so.

It has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with the fact that in modern society science has become a booming business that is so large it has entire fields of hangers on and grant money available by the billions. I am sure some money and fame has always been available to a few scientific superstars but at no time has it been an industry unto it's self like it is. In the categories of wasteful spending I would place entitlements number one, the military number two, and academia and science number three. I have a lot of experience in the latter two and have seen it radically change just in my life time. Have you ever seen how much money must be shoveled in the fire to get anything that works out the other end and seen where it goes? It is appalling and everyone wants a piece and that would include Christians (I would hope at a lower level however). IMO at no time has science been half as bloated with greed and arrogance as currently. For much of history it was the desire to learn that drove most, For example Newton would not even publish his works, and many gave their inventions to humanity. Now days there are a line of patent lawyers trying to get a person to invent something, anything.

 

[1robin]

Apparently not. Despite numerous corrections, here you are, still misrepresenting Vilenkin's professional views, only this time you no longer have ignorance as an excuse. Shame on you.

Your simply out of credibility with me. Too bad for such an intelligent person. This is appalling and discouraging. Any time I start to have any faith in the sincerity of non-theism in general, statements like this kill it in the womb. Great job.

 

[1robin]

Just another route

Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

And our universe may sit in another universe's black hole, equations predict.

"Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept."


Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

In that case infinity is a catch all used to indicate densities or temperatures that are off the scales. No one actually means that literally. For example an infinitely hot temperature would always remain infinitely hot in all the space that exists. No matter the cooling rate, the space to be heated, or the time involved infinity would suffer no lack. It is not even a coherent theoretical concept. It is just silly.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your simply out of credibility with me. This is appalling and discouraging.

Look who's talking. I mean, you were corrected regarding Vilenkin on this very thread (!!! ), at some length, by LegionOnamaMoi not all that long ago, in addition to by myself and others on at least one other thread in the past.

You don't have "didn't know any better" as an available excuse anymore, there is no explanation now other than dishonesty, plain and simple. As I said, shame on you. Being wrong is one thing, but at least be honest and wrong. Besides, I thought the Bible had a prohibition against lying?

 

[1robin]

According to the list of the most influential scientists in history that you provided, removing the non-Christians from the list would probably do more damage than you seem to think.

I think you meant to say less damage not more. You see how I grant what is intuitive and do not spend five posts harping on it. I think you misunderstanding because you are grouping all those non Christians in only a few groups. Forgetting for a minute Christianity is still the largest and contains most of the fundamental necessary breakthroughs. It is not Christian versus other. It would be Christian versus Islam, versus Hindu, verses agnostic, versus atheist, versus Buddhist, etc.... I would even include Jews with us or us with them since we hold to the same God but will not officially do so now, after the fact. I have consistently said Christian versus any similar group, another single faith for example, Not Christian versus everyone else though it would still be close.

Like I said, I don't think most versions of Christianity are incompatible with science, just the more fundamentalist type of ideologies.

I hold no extreme or fundamental positions. Mine are strict traditional protestant, except for maybe two by they are in the progressive direction.

Oh I'm sorry, you must be the only person in the world whose ever had a formal education in science and know everything and everyone of any significance that ever existed. My bad.

That has nothing hat so ever to do with what I said.

You consider medicine it's own thing, that is separate from science? In what way is it separate from "science?"

I did not say separate from science, or at least I said separate from what is generally called the traditional sciences so many times it was obvious. Medicine is usually classified distinctly as a life science. Not a classic science but I really do not care. Include it if you wish it will not have any meaningful effect on my claims as I have granted Islam's contributions in a hundred posts.

How is it that you think you can claim that most people don't think of medicine as scientific in nature or separate from science, or whatever it is that you're saying?

Because I work in scientific fields and have for 25 plus years and my entire family do as well. I never hear medicine mentioned with physics, math, and chemistry. At my college and many the medical department is independent from the science department. But I do not care and am not wasting ten posts on it.

You've claimed before that people in the Bible knew things about medicine and health that they couldn't possibly have known. So I'd say medicine should appear in your list of sciences that pertain to Biblical claims.

I include it in the category of unknowable knowledge. BTW what in the heck is not science that is also knowledge if using these broad criteria.

It certainly appears as though that's what you're trying to do.

That should not matter now that I have explained exactly what it is I am doing.

While I agree (and have said so several times) that Christianity and science aren't necessarily incompatible, I disagree that medicine isn't considered a science and judging from the list you provided, I don't know that we can say that Christianity as a group has outproduced everyone else in scientific endeavors.

I just can't spend this much time on something that matters so little. Call it whatever you wish.

What is "classical science?"
Medicine has been around for a very long time.

I give up.

Then why are you trying to exclude it?

I am not but I did as a habit shared by many.

Right, but not as meaningful as anything any Christian scientist has ever done.

Do you do this on purpose? I said on average Christianity plus a few other groups have produced almost all general scientific breakthroughs that are necessities. I never said anything about no one anywhere else ever having done so on occasion. However like I said I went from a to Z in classic mathematics and a to about Q in physics without ever hearing of an eastern name. Must not be necessary. I am out of time but let me illustrate this another way. If the scientists necessary to get to the next step in general science were lily pads. I could start on an Egyptian one, go to Greek ones, then Roman one or two, then Christian and have never gotten wet. I cannot do so within any other similar group.

I had to do a bit of my own research on those that were not labeled or mislabeled. For instance, Marie Curie is listed as a lapsed Catholic when she apparently identified as agnostic.

I used "non-religious" or "agnostic" to denote people who never mentioned any religious affiliation, who just didn't care for it or never made any religious claims about belief or disbelief in any god(s). Perhaps some of them should have been lumped in with the "Unknowns."

I used "unknown" to denote those whose religious affiliation or lack thereof simply could not be ascertained in any way.

I used "other" to denote "Platonism" and "Greek philosophy."

However, as I said, I missed about four of them somehow and I really don't feel like tallying them up again as it is somewhat time-consuming.

Since you're the one who provided the list and made claims about it, maybe you should look it over a little more closely. Let's see what you come up with.

I do not have time to respond to this but think your mistaken about the list. remind me again if you wish to debate it.

 

[shawn001]

In that case infinity is a catch all used to indicate densities or temperatures that are off the scales. No one actually means that literally. For example an infinitely hot temperature would always remain infinitely hot in all the space that exists. No matter the cooling rate, the space to be heated, or the time involved infinity would suffer no lack. It is not even a coherent theoretical concept. It is just silly.

You really need to go study more basic cosmology, because you just about don't have any of it right.

First you don't understand the bang theory here which is clear from what you wrote.

What IS a singularity?

"It is not even a coherent theoretical concept. It is just silly."

While it may seem silly to you some of the top Cosmologist and theoretical physicists are working on it. A black hole in another universe caused a possible white hole in this one, which was the cause of the bang. It is very plausible.

Universe's Temperature Confirms Big Bang’s Prediction

Universe's Temperature Confirms Big Bang


Scientists Create Hottest Temperature, Compare It To Big Bang

"Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York report they have created the hottest temperature in the lab — 4 trillion degrees Celsius — which is thought to be consistent with actual temperatures that existed when the universe was born."

Scientists Create Hottest Temperature, Compare It To Big Bang - Technology News - redOrbit


Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab | LiveScience

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are so predictable. All I have to do is ask myself that if I was to try and get out of a claim by any means necessary what would I say, if reasoned conclusions were no longer important?

Whatever you've said here doesn't change the fact that there are a number of different stimuli and conditions that can cause temporary blindness. You don't think it's more reasonable to start with causes that are well known than to simply jump to supernatural causes that cannot be demonstrated in any way?

If I'm a psychologist and somebody comes to me saying that they're having visual hallucinations and hearing voices inside their head, should I just assume that god is talking to them, or should explore known causes of such symptoms like schizophrenia first?

This is the exact reason I included the part about when it was told him what he must do. He was told where to go, at the same moment another man named Ananias was told to touch Saul's eyes and grant his sight back. That event occurred exactly as predicted.

So says a story in an old book. There's no way to actually verify that it actually occurred as written, no reason to assume it did, and no reason to assume it wasn't simply a coincidence, if it did indeed occur.

Epilepsy does not explain that.

Notice again, how I mentioned many other potential causes besides epilepsy.
However, epilsepy could very well explain it, given that we have verifiable evidence that epilepsy actually occurs in human brains and that we have no verifiable evidence that simply touching someone can restore their sight. Coupled with coincidence, which occurs all the time, it's not far-fetched at all.

It also does not explain why his vision countered in complete detail his initial faith. Usually epilepsy grants random visions or ones that confirm beliefs. Paul's was the exact opposite. Paul's was the exact opposite. It also does not confirm in exhaustive detail messages given to others like the apostles. Paul went to them and recounted what he experienced and was told to see if what he was given matched what they had experienced and been taught. It was. Epilepsy also would only explain the tiniest of fraction compared with just claims of being born again alone.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Studies show it can do just that.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1867
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and Visual Phenomenon: Religion and Art
Spirituality and Religion in Epilepsy | DeepDyve

But again, we don't have to stick with epilepsy. There are many other possible causes to rule out before having to even approach possible supernatural causes, as previously noted.

Again this is exactly what I guessed would have been said, I almost went back and added clarity but get tired of having to spend 50% of a post heading off every off ramp I can think of that should be obvious. There is no evidence he ever had any symptoms and we know more about him than the rest combined. There for no justification beyond wishful thinking exists to throw in random diseases to get out of what is clearly not a medical condition.
Is a debate to include anything that is not impossible even if devoid of evidence? Long debate.

Wow, you must be psychic! Of course you could guess that's what I would have said given that we're talking about a story in an ancient book and given that I don't automatically jump to supernatural causes to explain things that are usually otherwise explainable. What you mean to say is that there is no recorded evidence he ever had any symptoms of medical or mental illness. I'd say the very story you're referring to could indicate that very thing. But we have no way to verify his mental or medical state whatsoever.

Nope, you have a extremely reasoned explanation so solid the wisest of men and a vast amount of men have based their lives on it, you just do not like it. So you are inventing claims that require more faith given less evidence and believing them better.

I don't care how many people believe it, as that doesn't speak to the truth of the claim.

I'm not inventing claims at all. Epilepsy is a real, demonstrable condition. So is shingles. So is plant sap poisoning. So are retinal migraines. So are retinal spasms. These things are not faith based claims by any stretch of the imagination. You simply want me to accept a story written in an ancient book (written by people who likely knew nothing of any of these things) because you believe it. Well sorry, but I'm gonna need a lot more evidence than just a story in a book.

I have already explained twice what adds up to a negative conclusion.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Epilepsy and other forms of brain damage and stimulation can and do produce all kinds of religious experiences. Read some studies on the subject. Again, just because you're unaware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So you can reject well established history based on adopting as possible what should be in the record but is not, yet I cannot believe what is established by that record because it does not contain what it should to validate your claims. Nope, no preference or double standard at all here.

Well established history? What evidence do you have that verifies the event in question even happened at all?

You are rejecting verifiable, demonstrable mental and medical conditions in favour of supernatural explanations. Talk about preference and double standards.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can you debate the bible and not know this. Some of them are the same verses his blindness is in. The vision said that Paul was persecuting God and that Jesus was Lord. Paul had been persecuting the follows of the man he then went on to probably die for. There are entire books of very similar reversals. What are you talking about?

What I meant was, how does it prove that he actually was wrong, besides just to himself?

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

There we have it someone was wrong so everyone must be.

No. What I was getting at by pointing that out is that people are susceptible to all kinds of persuasions and beliefs, and that beliefs alone aren't good enough evidence to go on, if we actually care about the truthfulness of a claim. Do we just accept as factually accurate the thousands upon thousands of claims of reported alien abductions that occur all over the world today? Those people actually believe they were abducted by aliens, and not only that but we can talk to them and question them, which is something we simply cannot do with any of the apostles. The apostles were human, like everyone else.

Or maybe Marshall Applewhite was speaking the truth when he told his followers that he was related to Jesus and that he was a space alien who was in contact with aliens from heaven.

Give me a link to this. I can't imagine a large group of even ignorant people actually believing this but this is not what I was talking about anyway.

Well, maybe you don't know as much about the human condition as you think.

Heaven's Gate (religious group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I don't know why it's so hard to believe, given the vast amount of different religions and superstitions that have abounded since practically the dawn of mankind.

The apostles whether wrong or right were systematic, had established specific doctrine, had either been eyewitnesses to events or got them from witnesses, and jealously guarded their mutually confirming testimony.

Says who?

They are not some boobs with nothing to verify an idiots claims already pre-existing as a standard. Paul said Jesus said he did this and the apostles had certain knowledge of whether he did or not. Paul had a massive amount of doctrine to verify against their own pre-existing doctrine, and they were none to receptive. Yet every single one eventually agreed he was commissioned by Christ based on actual data and a very complex set of standards that were rigorously defended prior to Paul.

I didn't say they were boobs. They could have been quite intelligent. But even intelligent people are capable of believing things that aren't true. It happens all the time. Human beings are actually known to doubt themselves and conform quite easily to incorrect judgments of a majority if they are outnumbered. Apparently, we don't like to be the odd man out.

All kinds of people believe in the truth of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. based on the same kind of verification you speak of here. Surely they aren't all boobs either.

How do we verify that any of these supernatural things you mention that Paul supposedly did actually happened at all?

Paul also proved his claims by doing all manner of supernatural things and making unknowable predictions that came true in front of many witnesses. Did Applebutter?

For all we know the Heaven's Gaters are dancing around in heaven with aliens as we speak.

In the other example I gave, Jim Jones "predicted" that he and his group of followers would be harassed and persecuted for their beliefs (sound familiar?) and low and behold ... they were! He also staged elaborate healing rituals where he apparently cured people of all kinds of illnesses which was convincing enough to draw in quite a following of people to his church.

No he didn't but again this is not the same thing.

Yes he did.
Jonestown Massacre - The Story of the Jonestown Massacre

His followers were of the easily swayed and disaffected type. Drop outs, cast always, the disenfranchised. They obviously had no previous criteria that Jones had to meet because he met no criteria consistently except crazy. The apostles had rigorously established doctrines and eyewitnesses events to use as criteria plus the Holy Spirit to validate their conclusions.

Sure, I bet they weren't anything close to the inerrant, superhuman apostles you speak of who could never be convinced of anything that wasn't true. Or they were simply human and subject to the same misconceptions and biases as the rest of us.

BTW most of the adults and all the child rebelled at the poison. I do not recommend doing so but if you listen to the audio they were forced to drink the kool aid and were none to happy about it. At least today liberals are happy to do so.

I've listened to it. Many people willingly drank the kool-aid and fed it to their children while others did not. The fact that anyone did is astonishing to me.

This is persuasion not verification. It is a psychological tactic I was trained in a little in the military. It usually involves detecting and meeting needs them subverting that faith. Paul did not show up and say look how good I am, I must be from God, look how much money I have collected, or how many I have helped. He said their teacher met him and told him X, Y, and Z were true and that A, B, and C had occurred. The apostles using existing criteria not available to Paul by natural means confirmed his claims even though being initially hostile and very very distrustful of him. Keep in mind they knew all about his persecuting them before this. There cannot be two more distinctly different concepts that Hitler like persuasion and academic like verification. Again it is like your prime directive is no matter what the cost never ever give the traditional understanding even a possibility of being true, no matter how weak any other explanation is hold on to it like grim death.

Or maybe they were simply persuaded by a person who had just made a 180 degree turn in belief. It would likely be pretty convincing from a person who had switched sides after initially persecuting them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not have time to respond to this but think your mistaken about the list. remind me again if you wish to debate it.

Says the person who posted it and took off without giving it a further look.


It appears to me that the people who get into the scientific fields come from all religions and all walks of life and all different kinds of motivational starting points. They are simply people who are very curious about the way the world works, and their curiosity draws them into a practice that allows them to closely examine and explore that world. Your list is a good example of the diversity of cultures, religions and backgrounds we find in people who are interested in practicing science.

 

[1robin]

You really need to go study more basic cosmology, because you just about don't have any of it right.

First you don't understand the bang theory here which is clear from what you wrote.

What IS a singularity?

"It is not even a coherent theoretical concept. It is just silly."

I'm going to just ignore your assertions about what you can't possibly know concerning me and I can. Just playing the odds I would bet I have more hours in scientific classes than you but this is irrelevant. No one knows what the singularity is or was. It is a word used as a place holder for things I do not think no one will ever know and things natural law does not apply to so necessarily science can't know. The only thing that applies to it is philosophy and theology in theory. The last I checked the latest guess was that at something like 10^-47 seconds all natural laws cease to apply and the unknowable's take over. It can be found that at that point an extrapolation from temperatures can be made from that point but not before.

While it may seem silly to you some of the top Cosmologist and theoretical physicists are working on it. A black hole in another universe caused a possible white hole in this one, which was the cause of the bang. It is very plausible.

It is not silly to use the term. It is quite absurd to think science can riddle anything from it.

Universe's Temperature Confirms Big Bang’s Prediction

Universe's Temperature Confirms Big Bang

I was not countering any claim about the singularity but specifically that it contained any infinite property whatever. There is many good reasons to think that no natural entity can ever have an infinite property and no good reason to even hint that it might. An infinite temperate would necessarily compensate for any loss and always remain infinite. This may be a tragedy or frustrated scientists redefining infinity as they have nothing so as to be ambiguous and meaningless but that is my only guess why anyone would claim such an absurd idea. I went to your link and found exactly what I expected a non-infinite theory about temperature. I would have no confidence in it for many reasons but that was not my point. My point was that it is not an infinite value by an infinite margin.

Scientists Create Hottest Temperature, Compare It To Big Bang

"Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York report they have created the hottest temperature in the lab — 4 trillion degrees Celsius — which is thought to be consistent with actual temperatures that existed when the universe was born."

Is 4 trillion even remotely equivalent to infinity. I do not think you understood my statements.

Scientists Create Hottest Temperature, Compare It To Big Bang - Technology News - redOrbit


Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab | LiveScience

The rest of this is more confirmation that no infinity is involved and so my claim is not even dented.

 

[idav]

I was not countering any claim about the singularity but specifically that it contained any infinite property whatever.

We can't know that, theists have to claim some infinite entity that brought it about. How do you know the singularity had a beginning? Saying the big bang began the universe doesn't give us a beginning for the singularity.

There is many good reasons to think that no natural entity can ever have an infinite property and no good reason to even hint that it might.

There isn't any good reasons to think anything but nature exists.

 

[1robin]

Whatever you've said here doesn't change the fact that there are a number of different stimuli and conditions that can cause temporary blindness. You don't think it's more reasonable to start with causes that are well known than to simply jump to supernatural causes that cannot be demonstrated in any way?

What I would have done here as I said is to attempt to equate a small fraction of the total events involved that has a possible natural explanation as an explanation of the totality and I would have predicted exactly hat you have done. This has been done no less than three times for three complex and multi layered episodes just today alone. You cannot take a series of events and find either a naturalistic explanation for one or an irrational series of them and expect it to stand as the best explanation for the whole.

If I'm a psychologist and somebody comes to me saying that they're having visual hallucinations and hearing voices inside their head, should I just assume that god is talking to them, or should explore known causes of such symptoms like schizophrenia first?

I might do so as well but as that is not what is under discussion I do not see the relevance. Naturalistic explanations do not work for multiplicative improbabilities especially if they can't even apply to many of them. You must have a comprehensive explanation for the whole.

So says a story in an old book. There's no way to actually verify that it actually occurred as written, no reason to assume it did, and no reason to assume it wasn't simply a coincidence, if it did indeed occur.

As in law testimony is taken as valid unless very good reasons exist to invalidate that. The same is true to lesser extent for history and just about everything else except the Bible. For it some first determine it can't be true unless proven to a certainty.

Notice again, how I mentioned many other potential causes besides epilepsy.
However, epilsepy could very well explain it, given that we have verifiable evidence that epilepsy actually occurs in human brains and that we have no verifiable evidence that simply touching someone can restore their sight. Coupled with coincidence, which occurs all the time, it's not far-fetched at all.

I already ruined the epilepsy idea with the idea alone that another person was involved that would have had to have epilepsy tuned to the same delusions as Paul to work. That requires more faith than I have.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Studies show it can do just that.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1867
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and Visual Phenomenon: Religion and Art
Spirituality and Religion in Epilepsy | DeepDyve

I said it usually does which usually means I did not deny the possibility but in every other form of study except it seems the bible and homosexuality the minority is not automatically extrapolated to the majority.

But again, we don't have to stick with epilepsy. There are many other possible causes to rule out before having to even approach possible supernatural causes, as previously noted.

That is biased. Exactly why must I have to rule out everything this else before a supernatural explanation is allowable. I think I can do so but why must I?

Wow, you must be psychic! Of course you could guess that's what I would have said given that we're talking about a story in an ancient book and given that I don't automatically jump to supernatural causes to explain things that are usually otherwise explainable. What you mean to say is that there is no recorded evidence he ever had any symptoms of medical or mental illness. I'd say the very story you're referring to could indicate that very thing. But we have no way to verify his mental or medical state whatsoever.

So now I can have supernatural powers even if Paul cannot. In fact no special abilities are necessary to claim anything I did. It was the simplest of deductions and logic.

I don't care how many people believe it, as that doesn't speak to the truth of the claim.

As always I didn't claim it did. I always use these claims as a indication of the sufficiency of the evidence for reasoned conclusions. If you leave my claims in their intended context we will save a lot of time.

I'm not inventing claims at all. Epilepsy is a real, demonstrable condition. So is shingles. So is plant sap poisoning. So are retinal migraines. So are retinal spasms. These things are not faith based claims by any stretch of the imagination. You simply want me to accept a story written in an ancient book (written by people who likely knew nothing of any of these things) because you believe it. Well sorry, but I'm gonna need a lot more evidence than just a story in a book.

Are you really suggesting I claimed you were inventing the condition of epilepsy? Come on. I know you need a lot more evidence. In fact you need more than whatever exists in all things biblical.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Epilepsy and other forms of brain damage and stimulation can and do produce all kinds of religious experiences. Read some studies on the subject. Again, just because you're unaware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I do not think I disagreed with a single word of that nor had any need to.

Well established history? What evidence do you have that verifies the event in question even happened at all?

Greenleaf and Lyndhurst among many of those best in a position to know the answer to your question seem to find plenty. Not to mention my own personal experiences and that of millions that testifies to a high degree of reliability in general for the gospels and histories verdict as well. I hate to even begin lists of them because before I know it I have two or three posts worth and feel like I have not begun. I think I have given you plenty in the past so I do not have to do so again.

You are rejecting verifiable, demonstrable mental and medical conditions in favour of supernatural explanations. Talk about preference and double standards.

Where did I do that?

Continued ...

Crap!!!!!

 

[1robin]

What I meant was, how does it prove that he actually was wrong, besides just to himself?

That was not the relevant issue. The point was the experience was some profound it reversed his world view by 180 percent and that rarely has a natural explanation especially not that instantaneously.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Bingo. I think.

No. What I was getting at by pointing that out is that people are susceptible to all kinds of persuasions and beliefs, and that beliefs alone aren't good enough evidence to go on, if we actually care about the truthfulness of a claim. Do we just accept as factually accurate the thousands upon thousands of claims of reported alien abductions that occur all over the world today? Those people actually believe they were abducted by aliens, and not only that but we can talk to them and question them, which is something we simply cannot do with any of the apostles. The apostles were human, like everyone else.

All claims are beliefs of one degree or another as I have stated so often as Descartes did. The relevance of that claim would depend on the speculation involved in the belief. There are probably several hundred claims to supernatural experience to every one of alien abduction. I have exhaustively covered both in detail.

Or maybe Marshall Applewhite was speaking the truth when he told his followers that he was related to Jesus and that he was a space alien who was in contact with aliens from heaven.

It all comes down to the evidence. He does not even have a meaningful fraction of what the bible has in any category.

Well, maybe you don't know as much about the human condition as you think.

Heaven's Gate (religious group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

That is bizarre. Exactly how much do you think I think I have? 39 people died. In what universe is that a large "body" of data? Did you miss my large qualifier? square than number and multiply it by a thousand and it is not even remotely comparable.

I don't know why it's so hard to believe, given the vast amount of different religions and superstitions that have abounded since practically the dawn of mankind.

There are not a vast amount with comparable evidence or experiential claims. I have said over and over that small groups have always, and will always believe in anything. It is only when you get huge numbers and percentages do they become persuasive.

Says who?

What? They said it? What better source is possible?

I didn't say they were boobs. They could have been quite intelligent. But even intelligent people are capable of believing things that aren't true. It happens all the time. Human beings are actually known to doubt themselves and conform quite easily to incorrect judgments of a majority if they are outnumbered. Apparently, we don't like to be the odd man out.

I the obvious fact humans make mistakes really a reason to assume 40 of them made over 750,000 of the most scrutinized ones in history? Not to mention the hundreds of millions of experiential claims. Are they all mistaken? Do you realize it only takes one to be right to doom your entire world view. Mine requires they all be wrong to be sunk.

All kinds of people believe in the truth of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. based on the same kind of verification you speak of here. Surely they aren't all boobs either.

That is not rue but my fingers are worn out form typing why that is not so.

How do we verify that any of these supernatural things you mention that Paul supposedly did actually happened at all?

You mean how can I ever claim they are a certainty. If not that is also a question with a thousand previously given answers. History is not determined to certainties. It is the best explanation for the evidence. You asking an inapplicable question.

For all we know the Heaven's Gaters are dancing around in heaven with aliens as we speak.

Is that really the best you got?

In the other example I gave, Jim Jones "predicted" that he and his group of followers would be harassed and persecuted for their beliefs (sound familiar?) and low and behold ... they were! He also staged elaborate healing rituals where he apparently cured people of all kinds of illnesses which was convincing enough to draw in quite a following of people to his church.

So any claim that has any truth is equivalent?

Yes he did.
Jonestown Massacre - The Story of the Jonestown Massacre

I know the story very well and have researched it beyond wiki but I have forgotten what it was I denied here.

Sure, I bet they weren't anything close to the inerrant, superhuman apostles you speak of who could never be convinced of anything that wasn't true. Or they were simply human and subject to the same misconceptions and biases as the rest of us.

I have none of those, nor are aware of any, nor require any.

I've listened to it. Many people willingly drank the kool-aid and fed it to their children while others did not. The fact that anyone did is astonishing to me.

If you do not mind I do not want to discuss these events. They are so depressing and maddening.

Or maybe they were simply persuaded by a person who had just made a 180 degree turn in belief. It would likely be pretty convincing from a person who had switched sides after initially persecuting them.

That is not the biblical record which is the only record. It records they did not trust him and constantly tested him until they were overwhelmed by his sincerity and doctrinal consistency. Your entire position consists of either adopting a thousand unrelated and independent improbable naturalistic explanations in order to avoid a comprehensive single supernatural one that has no improbabilities and equating things that could not be more unequal here. This is the double standards that frustrate me so much. It is pure preference and faith disguised as rationality and my chief complaint and Occam is probably rolling in the grave. .

 

[1robin]

Says the person who posted it and took off without giving it a further look.

There is no irony associated with being out of time. I don't get it.

It appears to me that the people who get into the scientific fields come from all religions and all walks of life and all different kinds of motivational starting points. They are simply people who are very curious about the way the world works, and their curiosity draws them into a practice that allows them to closely examine and explore that world. Your list is a good example of the diversity of cultures, religions and backgrounds we find in people who are interested in practicing science.

My list showed an obvious dominance concerning Christianity but was only used to justify it's consistency with science alone. Here soon I will get into what really broke science wide open in the west that is directly attributed to faith and caused it not to be paralleled in the east but I am worn slap out for now.