The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[SkepticThinker]

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


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.

No, it actually did not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

The rest of the events are what? His vision returned and he changed his mind about Christianity? Why do those two things require supernatural explanations?

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.

It’s the same kind of thing. A person hears voices they say come from god. We can assume god is talking to them, or we can investigate possible naturalistic explanations for the voices.

Who says naturalistic explanations don't work for multiplicative improbabilities? I don’t see why naturalistic explanations can’t apply for most or all of the claims you’re making.

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.

How would we go about verifying that these series of events occurred as written, aside from just reading it from an old book and assuming it’s true?

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.

Why would Ananias have to also be suffering from a mental or medical condition?

And for the third time, epilepsy is not the only possible explanation. There are a whole host of other mental and medical conditions that can cause temporary blindness. I don’t see any need to jump to supernatural explanations when several naturalistic explanations are available to us.

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.

Apparently in about 25% of cases, it does. That’s not some teeny tiny percentage. But even if it occurred in only 1% of cases it could still account for Paul’ supposed experiences because that means it does actually occur. We have documented, verifiable cases of it actually occurring rather than just some story in an old book.

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?

Well, because there is no evidence that any supernatural realm exists in the first place. In essence, all you’re doing is replacing a mystery with another mystery. Why bother when there are actual natural, testable explanations available?

In the psychology world, before we can diagnose someone with a psychological condition, we first have to rule out any possible medical condition that may be causing the observed symptoms. Do you find that biased? Why should we have to rule out everything else before a psychological explanation is allowable?

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.

Yes, I know. Hence the sarcasm.

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.

So what does this mean then?

“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.”

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.

What does this mean then?

“ So you are inventing claims that require more faith given less evidence and believing them better.”

You’re the one who needs a lot more evidence, my friend. A story in an old book just doesn’t cut it.

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.

What evidence do you have that verifies the event in question even happened at all? We’re gonna need more than just the written word. I mean, if that’s all the evidence we need, then I can claim that Harry Potter is a real boy because I read the books and saw him in a dream.

How can millions testify to a high degree of reliability for the gospels based on personal experiences?

Where did I do that?

Throughout the course of this discussion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Who says that kind of thing rarely has a natural explanation?

Alcoholics and drug addicts often have a moment of clarity where they hit “rock bottom” and decide instantaneously that they’re going to turn their lives around and quit their substance abuse. Does that require a supernatural explanation? I think not.

My grandfather had tried for years and years to quit smoking, to no avail. Then, when I was born, he took one look at me in the nursery and decided then and there that he would quit. And he never smoked again. Does that require a supernatural explanation? I think not.

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.

So what?

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

Who says? Maybe the Heaven’s Gaters are dancing around on an alien spacecraft as we speak. They thought they had enough evidence of that and bet their lives on it. Does that speak at all to the veracity of the claims?

People believe all kinds of things for all kinds of different reasons. I agree that it all comes down to evidence. I don’t think you have any evidence that the story we’re talking about has any truth to it and I don’t see how it can be verified at all.

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 told you how many people were involved before you asked for this “large body of data.” Now you’re claiming it’s not enough? You were going on about the apostles believing Paul as some kind of evidence that the story occurred as written. Well, I provided a group of people much larger than that who believed they’d end up in heaven with aliens because some guy told them they would.

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.

Again, I don’t care how many people believe a thing, which is what I was trying to illustrate. It simply doesn’t make it true.

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

It says they said it in secondhand stories in an old book.

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.

Yes. It’s not like we’re talking about eyewitness accounts here, which by themselves are known to be quite faulty and prone to all kinds of perceptual biases.

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

Of course it’s true.

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.

No, I mean how do we verify they occurred? How do we test the claims? How do we examine Paul for medical or mental conditions?
I say it’s not the best explanation for the evidence. That no supernatural explanation is required. So now what?

Furthermore, even if the story occurred as written, how does it speak at all to the existence of the god you believe in?

Is that really the best you got?

Well they sincerely believed it, and bet their lives on it. That’s basically your contention.

So any claim that has any truth is equivalent?

You submitted, as evidence that the story in question actually occurred, that Paul proved his claims “by doing all manner of supernatural things and making unknowable predictions that came true in front of many witnesses.” I’m just pointing out that others have done the same. Based on that, how on earth can we determine which is true and which isn’t?

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

Yes, they are. I wish people were more discerning and skeptical than they are.

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.

I don’t see how that changes what I said.

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. .

There’s nothing comprehensive about some supposed supernatural realm that we can’t even verify the existence of.

There is no double standard here. I don’t apply supernatural explanations to some things and not to others. I look for obvious naturally occurring, verifiable and demonstrable things and events that could explain a thing before leaping into some unknown realm which may not even exist. The pure preference here is yours, my friend.

 

[1robin]

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.

I need to copy this and paste it as it is requested constantly. No natural infinites are rational. You cannot have a infinite past series of events or seconds, you cannot have an infinite regression of causation, and you cannot get systems that operate infinitely but are not perfectly efficient. In mathematics infinity is usually a boundary condition things can't get to. Infinity is a profound issue that unfortunately has been watered down by scientists throwing it around far too much without thinking. For a singularity to produce anything it must be in fluctuation and have been for an eternity past. There exists no logical reason to think that to be true yet it only created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It would have either produced it in an eternity past or never. I do not have a single good reason to think anything natural ever could be infinite or eternal and every good reason to think not only that it isn't but that it couldn't be.

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

There are hundreds of millions of them of a single kind alone. While almost everyone would grant that black holes and black matter exists no one has personally experienced a single one. Yet hundreds of millions claim to have experienced the supernatural. Since you claim is so abjectly absurd I will not waste time giving more than on type of evidence but there is almost an inexhaustible amount of reasons to believe nature is not all there is.

 

[shawn001]

I need to copy this and paste it as it is requested constantly. No natural infinites are rational. You cannot have a infinite past series of events or seconds, you cannot have an infinite regression of causation, and you cannot get systems that operate infinitely but are not perfectly efficient. In mathematics infinity is usually a boundary condition things can't get to. Infinity is a profound issue that unfortunately has been watered down by scientists throwing it around far too much without thinking. For a singularity to produce anything it must be in fluctuation and have been for an eternity past. There exists no logical reason to think that to be true yet it only created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It would have either produced it in an eternity past or never. I do not have a single good reason to think anything natural ever could be infinite or eternal and every good reason to think not only that it isn't but that it couldn't be.



There are hundreds of millions of them of a single kind alone. While almost everyone would grant that black holes and black matter exists no one has personally experienced a single one. Yet hundreds of millions claim to have experienced the supernatural. Since you claim is so abjectly absurd I will not waste time giving more than on type of evidence but there is almost an inexhaustible amount of reasons to believe nature is not all there is.

"For a singularity to produce anything it must be in fluctuation and have been for an eternity past."

What we don't even know a singularity started the bang. Time basically also stops at a singularity.

Black holes exist and are natural.

Its not "black matter" is Dark matter and dark energy and we don't know what it is yet, but its natural.

"Yet hundreds of millions claim to have experienced the supernatural"

The amount of people means nothing, its the evidence and there is any for anything supernatural.

 

[idav]

..... there is almost an inexhaustible amount of reasons to believe nature is not all there is.

No really there isn't. So far as anyone can tell, only the natural exists. There is nothing a natural person could do to experience something not in nature.

 

[1robin]

No really there isn't. So far as anyone can tell, only the natural exists. There is nothing a natural person could do to experience something not in nature.

There are hundreds of millions of claims to supernatural experience. Keep in mind it only takes one to be right to destroy your position. Are they all mistaken? Are all prophetic claims wrong? Is the two thirds or more of mankind over history mistaken to think a God exists? You have set up a burden you can't possibly meet.

 

[1robin]

"For a singularity to produce anything it must be in fluctuation and have been for an eternity past."

It does have to fluctuate. It does not have to, and it is imposable that it has done so, from eternity. It would have either produced the universe an infinity ago or have never done so.

What we don't even know a singularity started the bang. Time basically also stops at a singularity.

Natural law stops at the singularity. That si why something beyond nature is required.

Black holes exist and are natural.

Agreed, though they are as fantastic as any biblical claim.

Its not "black matter" is Dark matter and dark energy and we don't know what it is yet, but its natural.

Must have made a type O. It is undetectable yet is believed to exist. God is undetectable yet resisted like grim death. Double standards like this just burn me up.

"Yet hundreds of millions claim to have experienced the supernatural"

The amount of people means nothing, its the evidence and there is any for anything supernatural.

Majority, expert, and qualified opinion means something in law, every formal debate I have ever seen, every level and type of academia, medical statistics, and democracy. Why is it only ignored when inconvenient for a non-theist? While having 1 out of 3 people make the same claim to experience does not prove it. It does make denying it pathetically unjustifiable.

 

[fantome profane]

There are hundreds of millions of claims to supernatural experience. Keep in mind it only takes one to be right to destroy your position. Are they all mistaken? Are all prophetic claims wrong? Is the two thirds or more of mankind over history mistaken to think a God exists? You have set up a burden you can't possibly meet.

Have you no shame?

 

[idav]

There are hundreds of millions of claims to supernatural experience.

Billions of people make all sorts of claims. This proves nothing.

Keep in mind it only takes one to be right to destroy your position.

Nothing natural can experience the supernatural because it wouldn't be in its nature to not be natural.

Are they all mistaken?

People know their own experiences but can be mistaken about where it is coming from. Every time we thought it was something supernatural we just keep digging and find yet more natural explanations.

Is the two thirds or more of mankind over history mistaken to think a God exists?

Certainly ancient people can be mistaken just like everyone else in history. Appeal to numbers doesn't show anything except maybe potential for mass gullibility.

 

[Thief]

Billions of people make all sorts of claims. This proves nothing.

Nothing natural can experience the supernatural because it wouldn't be in its nature to not be natural.

People know their own experiences but can be mistaken about where it is coming from. Every time we thought it was something supernatural we just keep digging and find yet more natural explanations.

Certainly ancient people can be mistaken just like everyone else in history. Appeal to numbers doesn't show anything except maybe potential for mass gullibility.

yeah...but....
I've had a few events come and go with no explanation I can render to the 'natural'.

I'm not given to belief because someone else told me so.

 

[idav]

yeah...but....
I've had a few events come and go with no explanation I can render to the 'natural'.

I'm not given to belief because someone else told me so.

People have thought that stuff as long as its been recorded. For centuries religious folks have looked for these miracles to be real only to be disappointed time and again with yet more naturalistic explanations. As people keep digging, the supernatural continues to run out of places to hide.

Everyone would love for some supernatural claim to be legit, it would make the world news. Alas that isnt the case once it is thoroughly investigated. There always seems to be logical explanations. Nobody ever gets video like we see on the movies like Paranormal Activity, I wonder why that is.

 

[1robin]

Have you no shame?

I have at least my share, but none proceeded from that simplistic and accurate statement.

 

[1robin]

Billions of people make all sorts of claims. This proves nothing.

No, almost no claim that is not founded on truth is claimed by billions. It was also not a claim of proof. It was a claim to a sufficiency of evidence. Especially claims of personal experience. Far smaller groups, usually less than 1% of the population are well known to go along with anything, no matter how ridiculous. Although the percentages drop from even that low number where personal experience is the claim. However when you have 30% of the population claiming them, to dismiss them as irrelevant is about the greatest possible evidence of bias there could ever be.

Nothing natural can experience the supernatural because it wouldn't be in its nature to not be natural.

What? This is just simply wrong. Supernatural events can and I believe have had their effects apply to the natural. You seem to deny the supernatural even exists, on what basis are you an expert on it, and even if that were true how would you know what you claimed.

People know their own experiences but can be mistaken about where it is coming from. Every time we thought it was something supernatural we just keep digging and find yet more natural explanations.

I am well aware of experiential mistakes. However when you have billions and they must all be wrong in order for you to be right that argument is meaningless. Again this is about as obvious as bias comes. A claim that depends on a billion people (30%) being mistaken is not much of a claim. I do not believe in UFOs and even less in abductions but even the existence of thousands of people (less than 1%) who make claims to such is enough to make me consider my being mistaken in the end. No bias on my side.

Certainly ancient people can be mistaken just like everyone else in history. Appeal to numbers doesn't show anything except maybe potential for mass gullibility.

Your criteria seems top be that if a claim can be mistaken then it is deniable. Since every claim that has ever been made can be mistaken your criteria eliminates every claim ever made in any subject at any time. That does not make for a good or reasonable debate. Why don't you chunk the bias, and eliminate doubles standards that use ridiculous standards? That might allow a meaningful discussion.

 

[1robin]

People have thought that stuff as long as its been recorded. For centuries religious folks have looked for these miracles to be real only to be disappointed time and again with yet more naturalistic explanations. As people keep digging, the supernatural continues to run out of places to hide.

Everyone would love for some supernatural claim to be legit, it would make the world news. Alas that isnt the case once it is thoroughly investigated. There always seems to be logical explanations. Nobody ever gets video like we see on the movies like Paranormal Activity, I wonder why that is.

A claim having a universal history over time is usually made stronger for it, yet you for some reason think it evidence it is wrong. Why?

 

[Thief]

People have thought that stuff as long as its been recorded. For centuries religious folks have looked for these miracles to be real only to be disappointed time and again with yet more naturalistic explanations. As people keep digging, the supernatural continues to run out of places to hide.

Everyone would love for some supernatural claim to be legit, it would make the world news. Alas that isnt the case once it is thoroughly investigated. There always seems to be logical explanations. Nobody ever gets video like we see on the movies like Paranormal Activity, I wonder why that is.

More specifically.....
As I was riding as a passenger....

I 'felt' the need to find my seat belt.
It was behind the seat on the floor board....I looked.
The plastic housing we have nowadays had not been invented yet.

I then 'felt' the need to lock my door.

Then I turned and put my back to it.

Then I started sliding my butt off the front edge of the bench style seat.

The driver did ask if I felt okay.
I replied saying....'drive the car'....

Some drunk pulled out in front of us and we broadsided his car.
We went from 60 to 0 in a split second.

My face into the dash board...the old style steel glove compartment.

Had I been sitting upright I would have gone through the windshield.

Now.....
I didn't hear any voices.....didn't see anything unusual.....
There was no 'apparent cause' for my ...response.

What was I responding to?......you decide.

It wasn't something I can show you.

 

[1robin]

More specifically.....
As I was riding was riding as a passenger....

I 'felt' the need to find my seat belt.
It was behind the seat on the floor board....I looked.
The plastic housing we have nowadays had not been invented yet.

I then 'felt' the need to lock my door.

Then I turned and put my back to it.

Then I started sliding my butt off the front edge of the bench style seat.

The driver did ask if I felt okay.
I replied saying....'drive the car'....

Some drunk pulled out in front of us and we broadsided his car.
We went from 60 to 0 in a split second.

My face into the dash board...the old style steel glove compartment.

Had I been sitting upright I would have gone through the windshield.

Now.....
I didn't hear any voices.....didn't see anything unusual.....
There was no 'apparent cause' for my ...response.

What was I responding to?......you decide.

It wasn't something I can show you.

If you could provide documentation for this it would be a very powerful bit of evidence for the non-natural. I have no reason to doubt you, but even without it those that find your claims inconvenient will do so and evidence would certainly add to the persuasiveness of the story.

 

[Thief]

If you could provide documentation for this it would be a very powerful bit of evidence for the non-natural. I have no reason to doubt you, but even without it those that find your claims inconvenient will do so and evidence would certainly add to the persuasiveness of the story.

How about the scar that was smashed through my lip?
The dead tooth (which I retain by means of root canal)?

There is likely an accident report somewhere.

The car was totaled...scrapped out long ago.

But I'm still here!

 

[1robin]

How about the scar that was smashed through my lip?
The dead tooth (which I retain by means of root canal)?

There is likely an accident report somewhere.

The car was totaled...scrapped out long ago.

But I'm still here!

Unlike people in the other camp I believe in the supernatural and without good reasons (instead of bias) I have no reason to challenge anything you claimed. However your going to face preference based responses to your claim. They will probably grant you had a wreck as that is not inconvenient for their view point. However they will demand proof for your premonition claims even though they do not demand the same for most of the decisions they make every day. I was only commenting on what will be demanded by others, not me. With people who will summarily dismiss billions of claims to the supernatural no evidence is ever enough because evidence is not what their position ever was based on to begin with. I think in general a lack of faith is a preference or emotionally based decision that once adopted goes in search of evidence to support it and in search of reasons to deny evidence in defiance of it. That is what we face and why documentation of the supernatural aspects of your claim are so vital. I actually have some documented medical miracles and even they are chalked up to a naturalism of the gaps, instead of the supernatural.

 

[idav]

But I'm still here!

Forgive me but I have a hard time defining miracle in cases like this. A lot of times I define miracle as defying the odds (which i am comfortable with) but really there isnt odds to defy. When a plane crashes odds are people might survive, a miracle for survivors but not for the ones that didnt make it.

I hesitate to respond to posts like this, it isnt my intention to get too personal. It is good that your still here.