It Wouldn't Take Much

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

High priests were immune to deadly diseases?


[/ QUOTE ]

An entire universe appeared seemingly out of nothing for no apparent reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons. Some of them talk about virtual particles and the like even though they barely understand them. It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

Thus it is plausible that there is a designer of the universe and even a small possibility that humans have a special enough place in his heart to persuade him to let some of them live forever.

So what? None of the above means he is omnipotent (He might be a resident of a fifth dimensional universe that always existed rather than one like ours that had a big bang.) None of the above means he is benevolent. And none of the above means he has any inclination to interfere with anything except perhaps after death.

Don't get me wrong. Any entity that could create a universe and create consciousness beings when nothing else (three dimensional) can (still an open question) could be expected to have the power to interfere in our lives even if he wasn't fully omnipotent. It might even be expected that he would. But the overwhelming evidence is that he hasn't. At least to any degree that can be verified. And when claims are investigatable they are invariably debunked. More general events like tsunamis are sometimes attributable to God's wrath. But then why doesn't he spare more innocents? If he is so intent on avoiding miracles that will add credence to Biblical claims, simply to test faith, he sure as heck can't be expected to answer prayers.

Ironically, you personally don't seem to have as much problem with these contentions as others. You have often said that you are almost as sceptical as me about claims of modern day miracles. The only one you really need to be true is the resurrection and perhaps a few others. Along with the after death stuff. But that God, which even I think is just barely plausible, isn't the one organized religion sells. Rather it sells a God who will answer prayers and do a lot of stuff even now that would have a chemist or physicist scratch his head. You might settle for one who doesn't do that. But 90% of religious people wouldn't.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

High priests were immune to deadly diseases?


[/ QUOTE ]

An entire universe appeared seemingly out of nothing for no apparent reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons. Some of them talk about virtual particles and the like even though they barely understand them. It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

Thus it is plausible that there is a designer of the universe and even a small possibility that humans have a special enough place in his heart to persuade him to let some of them live forever.

So what? None of the above means he is omnipotent (He might be a resident of a fifth dimensional universe that always existed rather than one like ours that had a big bang.) None of the above means he is benevolent. And none of the above means he has any inclination to interfere with anything except perhaps after death.

Don't get me wrong. Any entity that could create a universe and create consciousness beings when nothing else (three dimensional) can (still an open question) could be expected to have the power to interfere in our lives even if he wasn't fully omnipotent. It might even be expected that he would. But the overwhelming evidence is that he hasn't. At least to any degree that can be verified. And when claims are investigatable they are invariably debunked. More general events like tsunamis are sometimes attributable to God's wrath. But then why doesn't he spare more innocents? If he is so intent on avoiding miracles that will add credence to Biblical claims, simply to test faith, he sure as heck can't be expected to answer prayers.

Ironically, you personally don't seem to have as much problem with these contentions as others. You have often said that you are almost as sceptical as me about claims of modern day miracles. The only one you really need to be true is the resurrection and perhaps a few others. Along with the after death stuff. But that God, which even I think is just barely plausible, isn't the one organized religion sells. Rather it sells a God who will answer prayers and do a lot of stuff even now that would have a chemist or physicist scratch his head. You might settle for one who doesn't do that. But 90% of religious people wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, sir.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
However, more interesting I think, is Neil D. Tyson's similar argument; that if there was a design with us in mind, that design would be much more efficient. Exampled by the fact that we breath, talk, eat all out of the same hole, or that our spinal cord is built out of non-healing cells as opposed to say some copper wiring, or the sheer existance of the fact that it appears the Universe is trying to kill us at every turn. In short, if a Personal God would build us a Universe ust for us, we should expect a much more human friendly design.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention our insane skeletal structure, which results from a skeleton designed for quadrupedal walking having been jury-rigged into a bipedal arrangement. The pelvic structure of human females is too narrow, resulting in a lot of problems during birth. (Of course, the pain of childbirth is regarded by some Christians as being because Eve listened to the talking snake. It all makes perfect sense.)

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if any of Lestat's miracles occurred you would consider that stronger than the appearance of an entire universe?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, because our universe is a given and doesn't in any way point towards a Christian God. Lestat's miracles point towards a specific Christian God.

[ QUOTE ]
If physicists show that virtual particles do appear from nothing at all



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They don't.


[/ QUOTE ] I must be mistaken, I thought there were some theories on the existence of virtual particles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't really clear whether virtual particles are real things or just mathematical abstractions. There are plenty of other things in physics that are assumed to be uncaused, e.g. quantum tunneling. The problem is that it is essentially impossible to prove that something is uncaused, as opposed to being caused by something that is undetectable.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's impossible to say for certain that there is no life after death, there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction. I doubt you can name a single function of the human mind that can't be knocked out with careful destruction of the right brain tissue. Any of the five senses can be taken out (and the sixth sense, proprioception, even though most people don't even realise they have it). Higher cognition can be taken out. Personality and emotional tendencies can be altered. The ability to access old memories, or create new ones, can be destroyed. Given that progressive destruction of sections of the brain results in progressive destruction of the person's consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that total destruction of the brain results in total destruction of consciousness.

Note that consciousness itself, while still somewhat mysterious, is definitely something that can be switched off, like a light, just like the rest of the brain's functions. It happens all the time in sleep, general anaesthesia, etc.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


An entire universe appeared seemingly out of nothing for no apparent reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely these atheists are less moronic than the theists who just assume that "nothing" is a more probable state than "something?"

[ QUOTE ]
It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, again, certainly it's far dumber to adamantly believe that there could be "life" after death? When nothing about human consciousness suggests it could even exist without as minor a thing as, say, language?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


An entire universe appeared seemingly out of nothing for no apparent reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely these atheists are less moronic than the theists who just assume that "nothing" is a more probable state than "something?"

[ QUOTE ]
It is only slightly less dumb to adamantly believe there cannot be life after death. At least not until consciouness is explained better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, again, certainly it's far dumber to adamantly believe that there could be "life" after death? When nothing about human consciousness suggests it could even exist without as minor a thing as, say, language?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjects for a different thread.

[Subfallen]

Perhaps so...but I admit I don't fully see why I'm missing the point.

In any case, I think one must be a very brave (or very heartless) soul to honestly accept the strict atheist position on such questions. One must have guts to look such nihilism in the face...personally, most days I prefer to be a little tenderer with my fears and hopes.

[Subfallen]

Too late to delete the above, but to correct its apparent intent (as written: to epitomize self-indulgence), let me say it had nothing to do with a desire for personal meaning, dignity, immortality or any such absurdity.

Damned delete expiration times, sry for hijack Les.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The atheists who shoo that aside are morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are rebels.

[ QUOTE ]

And none of the above means he has any inclination to interfere with anything except perhaps after death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize until the last few months just how much God "interfered" with the natural order to make this universe habitable by man. The anthropic principle is so huge it's amazing and virtually screams that God meant the whole thing in order to produce us and provide us with a place to live. Even atheist scientists are having difficulty to avoid speaking about how the universe was designed for us.

[ QUOTE ]

You have often said that you are almost as sceptical as me about claims of modern day miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that God still does the kind of attesting miracles that are recorded in the Bible. He only did those in Bible days rarely and for a relatively few people. They had a special purpose and their effect is continued today through inclusion in His Word. But I do believe in His providence, that no sparrow falls to earth apart from His will, that He wants us to pray constantly (not just to get stuff, but because prayer is important for other reasons as well), and that nothing happens apart from His will.