Page 54 of 76 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 757

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #531
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    1
    Currently being a resident of the uninhabitable planet Choke-gag4 and necessarily being dead, I measured the properties of the Universe and found I found they were unsuitable tuned for my existence. I therefore conclude there was 0% chance of God. Pass this around to all Earthlings so they'll stop wasting their Sundays.

  2. Top | #532
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5
    Rep Power
    1
    You are overthinking this. Add faith sufficient to believe whatever you want. Go forth and multiply or do whatever math suits your fancy.

  3. Top | #533
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    You changed to context to God’s existence is unreasonable.
    No I didn't. That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position, something you do often. In this discussion with you, the only thing I have focused on is the credibility of the proposition that Jesus's corpse was resurrected, and the evidence to support this proposition. My focus was deliberately limited to the scope of the topic of this thread, which is "Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles". Did you even know what the topic of this thread is?

    You have repeatedly attempted to muddy the waters by introducing various strawman arguments, like "you don't understand what a miracle is", "you think I am arguing that since the miracles happened, therefore god exists". You also attempted to make an argument that involved four unsupported premises you referred to as "facts". But you never presented the argument in full form. Our loss.


    I did. I gave you an argument to refute. You only offered people “make things up”. I repeatedly showed you that your reasoning as stated was self-refuting….(posts 258,269,329) It needed to be qualified. Any qualification you would allow, would also debatably re-qualify the Gospels and Epistles, and other ancient literature. I’m still waiting on your clarification to make that case. You could not go that deep.
    I have explained my argument to you at least half a dozen times. You have never responded to my argument: that there is an enormous volume of high quality evidence to support the naturalistic proposition that humans make up stories, and none to support the proposition that corpses can be reanimated after days of mortality. The evidence supports my position that a naturalistic origin to the story is more probable than what you are proposing. You have never so much as acknowledged this argument. This could be because you are a moron who cannot read. Or it could be that you are clueless as to how truth claims are assessed by scientists and historians (yes, the principles are the same, and grounded on some sort of probabilistic analysis using what we know about the claim). Or it could be that you know all this but are just fucking dishonest.

    Then there are other things you have ignored. Like my question about how you are able to seek out and reliably assess supernatural claims, since naturalism is not a sound epistemological foundation. After you made such a big deal about ontologies being founded on naturalistic assumptions being wrong. Or the fact that the context of the resurrection, that entire god being a loving father who wants to save all his human children, and thus he has to sacrifice his only cloned son to a horrible death to save us, is absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    But here you are, seemingly a layperson in this field of study, and you have studied all the cosmological models out there,
    Not all, I’m sure. But of all I have studied, it is far more reasonable to conclude that the universe began to exist. By universe I mean the entirety to the physical space-time continuum, all space, matter, time, and energy, all of nature. Thus nature began to exist. Its cause therefore must reasonably be beyond nature, meaning supernatural.
    Now…….
    If you can provide a tenable model that restores the eternal past of the universe then reasonably I would need to repent from this line of reasoning.

    So…
    Am I absolutely certain?
    NO.

    You haven't done the work. There is only so much you can pick up by reading popular science websites and books. If you really want to understand how different cosmological models work, you have to understand the mathematical foundation, because that is everything. The devil really is in the details. You can't really understand general relativity without first understanding how the geometry of spacetime is described, something even Einstein had a lot of trouble with. You can't really understand cosmic inflation without understanding the stuff that gives rise to the horizon problem and the smoothness problem. You apparently haven't done your due diligence here, because you are so much smarter than all the scientists who are actually doing the work.

    But let us set aside the fact that you haven't actually done the work that would have led you to reach any useful conclusion about a question as difficult as the origin of the universe. Lets focus what you have claimed to have concluded, that the universe began to exist. Technically, that is not correct. We can only rewind our model of the visible universe down to a point in time at which our models (general relativity, quantum gravity - pick your poison) no longer work. We can't describe the state of our universe at this point in time, or extrapolate further back in time. We don't even know if there was a before. What we can hypothesize is that the visible universe that is available to our eyes and instruments today likely originated at this point in time, but no more.

    Next, you hypothesize, nay, CONCLUDE, that Biblegod created the universe. Presumably because the universe could not have arisen out of nothing. Am I right? So then, did this god create the universe out of nothing? And if so, how did he do that, if he had nothing to work with? And besides, doesn't god need some kind of space to exist in? Even if he is just pure energy, this energy would have to be contained in some some type of spacetime constinuum, just as we exist within the visible universe. So logically, for your god hypothesis to make sense, it is impossible that nothing existed before the Big Bang moment. At a minimum, there was a god cocooned inside some kind of spacetime continuum.

    We can also deduce from the assertion that god does stuff like create the universe, that god is subject to time. Not a hair can move on god's head, or an electron pass through what is presumably god's brain without the passage of time. Because for change to occur time needs to elapse. More importantly, god is subject to the arrow of time. Or as an undergraduate engineering student who is taking thermo 1 for the first time would likely refer to it, entropy. How the fuck does god combat the effects of entropy? Because if this god has existed for an infinite amount of time (has always existed, never needed to be created blah blah blah Christian apologetics), god is a perpetual motion machine that never winds down. And as any good physicist will tell you, PPMs don't exist because they cannot exist. Everything runs down. So how does your conclusion address the arrow of time? Care to tell us and show your work?

    Of course, you are not going to show us your work. Because you haven't done the work.

    Consider my response in the context of you sarcastically inferring my ignorance and then asking me such an easy question of research.
    Sarcasm is an appropriate response to your behavior. I am also tempted to call you some choice names at this point but that is prohibited by the forum rules.

  4. Top | #534
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    atrib

    There was a wealth of material to address in your last post.
    But
    This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

    Please be fair.

    I have been very clear about the given context from the beginning, not only with you but several others as well. For instance Atheos 290 and bilby 292 (post 290 would also address your bogus straw man assertion about def of miracles) I explained that if I was trying to “prove” EoG I would not provide the RA.

    My ONLY mistake was thinking you were on board. I thought you were for the precise reason that you wanted to avoid the KCA.

    And ............

    I also thought YOU WANTED to understand the Christian perspective on it. I really wasn’t looking for a debate but just show you how a Christian apologist reasons through your concern.

    But

    Make no mistake, I’m ready to go. Regardless of your twisted restrictions on “doing the work.”

    SO……….. Because your last post was going in both directions I would like to focus specifically on one at a time.


    Do you really want to go back to EoG and the KCA?
    Or
    Discuss miracles given the reasonableness of God’s existence?

    Your call.

  5. Top | #535
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

    Please be fair.
    "Be fair" that you've assumed a conclusion to be true and worked backwards from there, so that you can then base an additional argument on the fact that the conclusion has been assumed to be established, while the whole time others have pointed out that you can't do that, you have insulted us and tortured logic and language to pretend that you haven't done precisely what you just conceded you have done?

    Is that what you want others to "be fair" about?
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 07-10-2019 at 05:33 PM.

  6. Top | #536
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,811
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,787
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    This post is only about the context that God’s existence was granted/assumed for sake of conversation and questioning your direction from here.

    Please be fair.
    "Be fair" that you've assumed a conclusion to be true and worked backwards from there, so that you can then base an additional argument on the fact that the conclusion has been assumed to be established, while the whole time others have pointed out that you can't do that, you have insulted us and tortured logic and language to pretend that you haven't done precisely what you just conceded you have done?

    Is that what you want others to "be fair" about?
    It is rather sad that Remez has no understanding of logic. Assuming the conclusion is a recognized logical fallacy so only useful for spinning fallacious stories.

    Using his "argument" of first assuming that "if god is real" he spins a story of why it is reasonable to believe the Bible miracles. But wait... using that same argument, would he agree that if we first assume that that god is Kim Il Sung as believed by his cult in North Korea would he then agree that it is reasonable to believe the thousands of miracles attributed to Kim in his eight volume biography?

    Of course he wouldn't, as has been demonstrated in his rants, he just switches to another logical fallacy - special pleading.

  7. Top | #537
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,948
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,004
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Nope. Not what I said.
    I said your Jesus story is not unique. It’s just like all the other messiah stories of the time and is not more believable than any of them.

    Thats what I thought you said, thats why I asked if there were (if you can provide) other people around that time with the same ressurections in texts or reports or what ever, like Remez and Lumpy has been asking. ... perhaps even include those from the psuedo-ressurection list.
    No idea what you are talking about with Chinese calendars. Are you chinese? Do you use one regularly?
    My point is, we can have access to calenders i.e. get a perspective of how they did it in those times. Funny enough but no coincidence. Just to mention,the ancient Chinese like the ancient Hebrews (and pretty much most, if not all the ancients) used the "luni-Solar" system.

    My point is that 3pm Friday to sometime before Dawn Sunday is not 3 days. It is 40 hours at the most and for all you know could be as few as 2 since you have no idea at all how long a person behind a stone remains unconscious (Schroedinger’s Jesus?). “Three days” is 24 hours times 3. That is 72 hours. Not 40 hours. Even by Jewish standards, it is not 3 days.
    If your kid leaves the house on Friday after school and says “I’ll be back in 3 days,” she does not return before dawn on Sunday. Likewise, if your kid leaves Friday after school and says, “I’ll be back before dawn on Sunday!” But instead comes home 3 days later, you’ll be quite anxious.

    This is obvious to the most casual observer. I’m surprised you need me to explain it to you.

    They call it “on the third day” but since modern non-jews don’t talk like that, and you know they don’t, your use of it is simply to make it sound like longer than it was. You are embellishing the tale - just like the original authors did in many additional ways. You are Paul Bunyon-ing your tale. Not a good look for Jesus, though, Schroedinger’s Jesus or the regular kind.
    You are correct here by this very particular explanation or understanding in this "modern" view but ... it is not accurate to what Jesus said which is the bit that you (plural) keep missing: He said He would be back AFTER "three days and nights". Its still debated on of course to be fair (perhaps those who think its an argument) but.... 3 days and 3 nights does not mean less than 72 hours, a FLAWED notion imo.

    Not forgetting...


    There was no such thing as Friday and Sunday (as I was previously trying to point out) back then with the ancient Jews / Hebrews, for example the Sabbath never fell exactly on the 7th day in the Julian OR Gregorian system like in use today.. The full moon WAS the actual first day of the month. There have been erroneous comparisons which understandably causes confusion like your one & a half days with the introduction of Friday by some past scholar(s) (probably a non theist lol) being the day of Crucifixion, whereas there are people who argue that Wednsday is the more likely and logical, in view of the "3 days and nights" .

    I didn't want to bother into moving from the previous discussion with a "who had it worse" (was a little lazy tbh).

    Did you anticipate I would "dismiss" such things, even the two men to either side of Jesus who were also crucified and the whole big history of many many atrocities and harm around the earth?
    Of course you don’t want to talk about “who had it worse,” you just want to proclaim that this sacrifice was somehow epic and world-changing and incredibly “generous” without comparing it to other MUCH more significant sacrifices. You want to call it an incredible sacrifice and have everyone treat it as such without ever comparing it to any other sacrifice. You want to just assert this one is the biggest.

    Of course you do. That’s what Christians do.
    I simply mean, I'd rather not "deflect" away from your Jesus theory ... more of the timing really.

    The topic for "Who suffers the most", we can do too, no problems from this end.


    You were using Thomas as an argument to how people back then were aware of bullshit. I was saying there was a lot of bs claims and a lot of people believed in them. They were cheap and easy. You said Thomas’ doubt proves that people were thinking. I do not dispute that some were more gullible than others, same as today.

    So there were lots of cheap miracles. Lots of people believed them. Some people were skeptical at first and fell for it later. Some people never fell for it. Your Jesus story includes all of these. None of them make your story more believable. More people are skeptical today than were then, in part because of how much better secular science has made people view the reality of the world around us, like actual death and the “resurrections” that are actually just mistaken death not actual death.

    The fact remains that the most likely explanation for this “resurection,” if it even happened, is that the person in the crypt was never actually dead. THAT happens a lot and even moreso back then when they weren’t very good at establishing actual death.
    Even if we were to say that it WAS only "one and a half days," ,much less than 3 days to recover from such physical trauma ; then you and Koyyan with the explanation theory "Jesus never really died", would then need to rethink miracle for sure, or there is some explanation about those seemingly magical potent herbs that exceeds our modern medicines... for Jesus or anyone (more than one claim) to walk about bandaged-free in just "one and a half days" Or you've (plural) not thought it through enough, certainly not an argument I'd use if I was a non-theist today.



    Sorry been really busy to respond a little sooner
    Last edited by Learner; 07-10-2019 at 08:56 PM.

  8. Top | #538
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Comas can last a few days or a few weeks or a few years. Note also the following:

    During a coma, a person does not react to external stimuli and they will not show normal reflex responses....Depending on the cause and the extent of damage, a coma can occur rapidly or gradually, and it can last from several days to several years, though most last from days to weeks.
    ...
    A person who is experiencing a coma cannot be awakened, and they do not react to the surrounding environment. They do not respond to pain, light, or sound in the usual way, and they do not make voluntary actions.
    Iow, they would appear to be dead to just about anyone even if stabbed in the side.

    Among the causes, here are several that a real, flesh and blood man named Jesus could have suffered from (emphasis mine):

    Diabetes: If the blood sugar levels of a person with diabetes rise too much, this is known as hyperglycemia. If they become too low, this is hypoglycemia. If hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia continue for too long, a coma can result.

    Hypoxia, or lack of oxygen: If the supply of oxygen to the brain is reduced or cut off, for example, during a heart attack, stroke, or [as a result of being crucified], a coma may result.
    ...
    Traumatic brain injuries: Road traffic accidents, sports injuries, and violent attacks that involve a blow to the head can cause coma.
    For all we know, Jesus could have not only had diabetes and never known it, any one or combination of these conditions could have been present and/or caused/exacerbated by his alleged torture and subsequent crucifixion.

    Regardless, the idea that coma is somehow NOT as "reasonable"--let alone more reasonable--than magic is real is simply not supportable.

    Iow, so it's painfully clear, of the two claims, the more reasonable explanation is, without doubt, coma.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 07-10-2019 at 09:28 PM.

  9. Top | #539
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,948
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,004
    Rep Power
    22
    Interesting info and noted. Blood and water was mentioned coming from Jesus's side wound. Now I remember watching a vid where medical experts were asked about the significance of such a thing. IIRC they said it was fatal and to do with the lungs etc..I think ... piercing at an angle upwards, which is a real trauma discription ...blood and water from those types of wounds. I need a little refreshing here.

  10. Top | #540
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Thats what I thought you said, thats why I asked if there were (if you can provide) other people around that time with the same ressurections in texts or reports or what ever, like Remez and Lumpy has been asking. ... perhaps even include those from the psuedo-ressurection list.
    The following books provide an exhaustive list of claims similar to the Jesus resurrection/personal savior story. If you are actually interested in doing your own research, this would be an excellent place to start.

    On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt


    Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical

    Or if you are lazy, you can watch his lectures on the same subject on youtube.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •