Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

Forgive me if this has already been highlighted, but I wasn't posting this time last year when this was fresh...

On March 28, 2006, Dr. Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Dr. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, debated the status of the Christian claim to Jesus' resurrection from the perspective of historical data. The debate was sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross and the Campus Christian Fellowship.

Click here to access the debate transcript in .pdf form

Of some note is Bart Ehrman's own story of how he went from a conservative Christian, with a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, to an Agnostic, with no faith in the Christian message at all. The Washington Post did a story on him, also in March last year:


116 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

I wrote up some comments on Craig's first rebuttal here.

Lynda said...

The god of the Bible is an impossibility. There is no logical basis for his existence. Therefore, no logical reason for the resurrection. One can debate historical "evidence" all you like, but without a god requiring a sacrifice the story is pointless.

BaconEating AtheistJew said...

As far as I know, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence Jesus even existed, let alone was resurrected.
My theory is that Paul or someone like Paul usurped common myths and beliefs of the time, had a delusional dream, and made up the story of Christ.
I found the Bidstrup article on the history of the bible to be totally enlightening.

adam s said...

I read this debate a while ago and what bothered me the most was Craig's insistence that "this is not a historical debate, it is a philisophical one." I guess someone forgot to tell him the debate was on the historicity of the resurection.

Lok said...

Is it just me or it just seems ridiculously stupid for Craig to call these four events in Bible "historical facts" and then support it with the Bible, and people who believe in it?

Someone please explain it to me; it is extremely hard for me to go on and keep reading without being biased.

Steven Carr said...

There were early converts to Jesus-worship in Corinth that Paul wrote to (calling them people who have been enriched by Christ Jesus) and who scoffed at the very idea that God would choose to raise a corpse from its grave?

If the Gospel stories and Acts 17 are remotely accurate, then that just would not have been possible.

Anonymous said...

Antony Flew agrees that they are facts.
WOW a delusional Deist right?

Lynda said...

Kersey Graves wrote a book entitled "The World's 16 Crucified Saviors" where he makes it quite clear how the Christ myth could have been lifted from a number of savior legends that existed prior to the Jesus myth. The Hindoo Sakia from 600BC even ascends to heaven after his resurrection. Some of these crucified savior tales date back to 1200BC, all predate Jesus.

Anonymous said...

What if "The World's 16 Crucified Saviors" is a myth? It's certainly a possibility since there's an infinite number of possible explanations

Anonymous said...

I don't know.
If Antony Flew agrees that they are historical facts I might have to side with him.

Lynda said...

Anon,
One does not have to rely on speculation and possible explanations. Reviewing the historical documents and archaelogical evidence of these savior stories will reveal the similarities. If Kersey Graves' book seems unbelievable perhaps TW Doane's "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions"?

Anonymous said...

Well, I havn't read those other stories or books. If they are myths then they are myths. But what I'm intrested in is an interview that was done over the internet with Antony Flew about his conversion to Deism during which he made the comment that there seems to be good historical support for christianity.

Benny said...

To "Anonymous",

Hi HOUX! Have the courage and courtesy to sign your posts. You're easily recognizable by your incoherent arguments.

It doesn't matter what Flew said (but why don't you start by showing us the interview?). What matters is Flew's evidence or arguments. Show us Flew's evidence or arguments for that comment, and we'll see how good his case is.

Anonymous said...

THE REASON I CHANGED MY NAME IS BECAUSE ONE OF YOU WERE MAKING FUN OF IT.

I JUST TYPED IN ANTONY FLEW IN SEARCH AND FOUND IT. YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT.
HE STILL DOESN'T BELIEVE CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD THOUGH.

Benny said...

Houx,

I'm sorry someone made fun of your name. That was simply uncalled for. But that's no reason to stop using your name.

"I JUST TYPED IN ANTONY FLEW IN SEARCH AND FOUND IT. YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT."

Why so hesitant to cite Flew's comment, evidence, and argument? We've seen that you're not shy to paste lengthy chunks of text when you think it supports your claims. Why not now?

"HE STILL DOESN'T BELIEVE CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD THOUGH."

And we don't either :)

Anonymous said...

Well HE DIDN'T GO INTO THE EVIDENCE. ALL HE SAID WAS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE STRONG EVIDENSE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. SINCE HE AND HABBERMAS HAVE DEBATED OVER THE YEARS AND HE CAN'T SEEM TO FIND A GOOD EXPLANION FOR HABBERMAS SO CALLED FACTS I ASSUMME HE'S TALKING ABOUT THOSE FACTS OF HABBERMAS. I THINK HE HAS TWELVE OF THEM OR SOMETHING

OK
ANSWER ME THIS. ALVIN, IN WARRENTED CHRISTIAN BELIEF, ANALYZES THE HISTORICAL CASE USING BAYES THEOREM AND COMES TO THE CONCLUTION THAT THE CASE IS SOMETHING LIKE .3. NOW FROM WHAT I'VE READ BAYE'S THEOREM IS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL. SO CRAIG AND HABBERMAS DON'T USE THAT METHOD THEY USE INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION. CRAIG CLAIMS A PROBABLE CONCLUSION FOR THE FACTS I THINK HABBERMAS AND NORMAN GEISLER CLAIM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. I'M NOT SURE WHO TO BELIEVE HERE.

Benny said...

Maybe you meant this interview?

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

You must've been thinking of this part:

HABERMAS: So you think that, for a miracle, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is better than other miracle claims?

FLEW: Oh yes, I think so. It’s much better, for example, than that for most if not of the, so to speak, run of the mill Roman Catholic miracles. On this see, for instance, D. J. West.

---

But this is what Flew said about the resurrection as historical fact:

HABERMAS: You and I have had three dialogues on the resurrection of Jesus. Are you any closer to thinking that the resurrection could have been a historical fact?

FLEW: No, I don’t think so. The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events. But you must remember that I approached it after considerable reading of reports of psychical research and its criticisms. This showed me how quickly evidence of remarkable and supposedly miraculous events can be discredited.

What the psychical researcher looks for is evidence from witnesses, of the supposedly paranormal events, recorded as soon as possible after their occurrence. What we do not have is evidence from anyone who was in Jerusalem at the time, who witnessed one of the allegedly miraculous events, and recorded his or her testimony immediately after the occurrence of that allegedly miraculous event. In the 1950s and 1960s I heard several suggestions from hard-bitten young Australian and American philosophers of conceivable miracles the actual occurrence of which, it was contended, no one could have overlooked or denied. Why, they asked, if God wanted to be recognized and worshipped, did God not produce a miracle of this unignorable and undeniable kind?

---

And this is what he thought about the Bible:

HABERMAS: What do you think about the Bible?

FLEW: The Bible is a work which someone who had not the slightest concern about the question of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion could read as people read the novels of the best novelists. It is an eminently readable book.

---

So all Flew said is that support for the resurrection is better than support for other alleged miracles, but he still doesn't think the resurrection could've been a historical fact. Once again you tried to pass as support something that does not support your claim at all. Stop wasting people's time with this ridiculous practice.

Anonymous said...

No it was an audio interview with a lady. He said there seems to to be strong historical support for christianity. I'll try to find it.

Anonymous said...

I think I found it type in audio interview with antony flew.

When you find it it has a picture of him in the upper left hand corner

I'm going to go listen to it on the other computer to make sure its the right one.

Anonymous said...

OK
type in antony flew online interview
go to antony flew intewviewed by the bbc

The page is titled Life Long Atheist converts to deism

What he says is the case for the christian revelation is a strong one if you believe in any revelation at all

Anonymous said...

About 8 minutes into the interview

Benny said...

The full transcript can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html

Let's start with what you claimed:

HOUX @ 5:01 pm, Feb. 07:
"Antony Flew agrees that they are facts."

HOUX @ 3:02 am, Feb. 08:
"If Antony Flew agrees that they are historical facts I might have to side with him."

HOUX @ 10:53 am, Feb. 09:
"But what I'm intrested in is an interview that was done over the internet with Antony Flew about his conversion to Deism during which he made the comment that there seems to be good historical support for christianity."

HOUX @ 5:05 pm, Feb. 09:
"ALL [Flew] SAID WAS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE STRONG EVIDENSE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH."

HOUX @ 5:56 pm, Feb. 09:
"[Flew] said there seems to to be strong historical support for christianity."

Now let's see what Flew actually said in the interview you are citing for support:

"No I just didn't believe there was sufficient reason for believing [Christian theology]. But of course when I later came on to think about theological things, it seemed to me that the case for the Christian Revelation is a very strong one, if you believe in a Revelation at all. Because Jesus is a charismatic figure."

All Flew says is that the case for Revelation is strong, IF you already believe in the validity of revealed religion. And only because Jesus is a charismatic figure. Nothing about the Resurrection. Nothing about historical evidence or facts making a case for Christianity. Nothing, in other words, like what you claimed Flew said.

I'm done with you. Given your actions here and in other threads, I see no reason to believe any claim you make, or engage you in further conversation. Good bye.

Anonymous said...

Notice the correction I made in my quote after I watched the video

What did I say

What he says is the case for the Christian revalation is a strong one IF YOU BELIEVE IN REVELATION AT ALL.

THAT IS STILL AN OUTSTANDING CLAIM COMMING FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN CHRIST.

Lynda said...

"THAT IS STILL AN OUTSTANDING CLAIM COMMING FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN CHRIST."

My, how easily you are impressed. Hardly "outstanding".

Considering the fact that many people have been resurrected by surgeons all over the world over the past 50 years, resurrection is not that unusual. Nor is it a miracle. If a man can do it, then what's so special about a god doing it?

Every day in every way humans make god look silly.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like one of your buddies got caught in self contradiction and proved himself to be irrational.

Let me know when you get the scientific facts corrected and up to date.

Rememeber that science was birthed out of the biblical world view

Science presupposes rational order
Rational order presupposes a Rational Orderer

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitible superior spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our fail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a SUPERIOR REASONING POWER, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. - Albert Einstein.

You have been debunked with the CORRECT scientific facts.

May God bring you back into the fold when when you learn to think and function properly.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say the ressurection was outstanding.
Antony Flew doesn't even mention the ressurection.

What I said was Antony Flew's comment about the Christian revelation was an outstanding claim for someone who is not a Christian

Anonymous said...

People don't stay dead for three days and then the surgen brings the back to life

Steven Carr said...

I think we should ask early converts to Jesus-worship, rather than Antony Flew.

Early Christians scoffed at the idea of God raising a corpse from the dead, and Paul tells them Jesus became a 'life-giving spirit'.

Anonymous said...

BLA BLA BLA

Heather said...

**That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a SUPERIOR REASONING POWER, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.**

You'd have to define Biblical world view. For instance, Thomas Jefferson's Biblical world view was only pulling from Jesus's teachings, and dismissed the miralces. Simply because Albert Einstein refers to a God does not mean he believes in your version of God.

Anonymous said...

I never said Einstein believed in my version of God.

I was just making the point that Science was birthed out of the bible.
Science pressuposes a rational order and a rational order pressuposes a RATIONAL ORDERER.
Is it coincidence that modern cosmology has stumbled upon a beginning to the universe as well as incredible fine tuning in the universe? And that the Bible is the only Holy Book that describes God as bringing the universe into existence out of nothing?
"The universe that we can detect was made from that which we cannot detect."

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation - a God, in short, who is a reflection of human frailty.
Albert Einstein

Anonymous said...

Also the fact that the universe was created out of nothing establishes that miricles have happened in the past.

Miricles not only become possible

They are actual

Anonymous said...

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Tommy said...

Hey Anonymous, science was not birthed from the Bible. The Greeks were the ones making the scientifice advances during the Hellenistic era, and most of them knew nothing about the Bible. So I don't know where you pulled that argument out of.

Anonymous said...

Well let me suggest you get facts stait and study Tomas Torrence and how the scientic method developed out of christian theology, Reformed Theology in particular.
Eugenne Scott even admits that.

Theology in Reconstruction
Reality and Scientific Theology


1 Thess. - Test everything. Hold on to the good
1 John - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.

Christian Scolars throughout the centries have shown that wherever the Bible describes a sequence of physical events, it always prefaces that description with statements of frame of reference and initial condtions and closes it with the statements of the final conditions and conclutions and about the physical events.

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism.
Alvin Plantinga

Heather said...

**I never said Einstein believed in my version of God.** My apologies. In re-reading, I see that you were using that to define God as a rational orderer. I'm not sure if one can argue that science came from a biblical worldview, though, given what happened to Galileo, and the claims that the Earth was flat.

However, I do have to disagree with the world being created out of nothing. The translation can also indicate that a chaotic form existed, and God calmed the chaos, creating Earth and Heavens from that chaos. And I believe those that formed this blog hold the same view -- they did a post in it a while back, and it's been said by other scholars.

Anonymous said...

For a good debate on the ressurrection see

RESSURRECTED? An Atheist & Theist Dialogue

GARY R. HABERMAS & ANTONY G.N. FLEW

Again Habermas doesn't use the highly controversial Bayes Theorem

Anonymous said...

Well Heb. 11:3 says that universe that we can detect was made from that which we cannot detect.

While the word bara doesn't establish create from nothing the word can be used to mean to bring somthing brand new into existence that did not previously exist

Anonymous said...

Well, Galileo rejected the Roman Cathlics for misapplying the scientific method.
You first have to establish the correct frame of reference (point of view), and initial conditions. Galileo warned that failure to do so would lead to serious misinterpretations of the text.

A good example is your interpretation of Genesis

Tommy said...

Anon, you didn't say scientific method, you simply said science.

The Greek scientist who closely calculated the circumference of the Earth probably was unaware of the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Well, astronomers and physisist who have established creation from nothing(a miricle in the past by the way), and the fine tuning of the universe do use the scientific method.
THEY ARE SCIENTISTS

The Bible teaches creation from nothing - Hebrews 11:3
Scientist have established beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning and therefore a beginner. Scince the cause transcends our finite time dimension that (runs in one direction only), then He must exist in the equivilent of two dimensions of time. In a plane of time there are an infinie number of time lines running in an infinite number of directions. Therefore the creator would not have to be created. Only things in one dimension of time require a creator. If you say the universe popped into being out of nothing you have violated the priciple of cause and effect that is foundational in science. If you say the law of causality is not valid I'll ask what caused you to come to that conclusion? Deny the law and you end up in self-contradiction and therefore irrational.
Only the bible teaches creation from nothing

Shygetz said...

Well, astronomers and physisist who have established creation from nothing(a miricle in the past by the way)

No astronomer or physicist has established creation from nothing; rather, they established expansion from a singularity. Big difference.

and the fine tuning of the universe do use the scientific method.
THEY ARE SCIENTISTS


The so-called "fine-tuning" of the universe does not mean what you think it means. All that has been established is that the life AS WE KNOW IT relies upon a large number of constants, and that changes in many of the constants would make life AS WE KNOW IT impossible. It says nothing about the necessity for fine-tuning for life, period. It is impossible to test if the strong anthropic principle (the idea that these constants must be as they are for any life to be possible). There are other explanations than the strong anthropic principle. Fine-tuning has NOT been demonstrated, and CANNOT be demonstrated.

Scientist have established beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning and therefore a beginner.

No, it hasn't. No matter how many times you make a false claim, it does not make it true.

Scince the cause transcends our finite time dimension that (runs in one direction only), then He must exist in the equivilent of two dimensions of time.

Two dimensions of time? Why not three? Heck, why not a time cube? If your god is this god of the time cube, why doesn't he describe the time cube in his word? What if the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics was true--then multiple timelines would mean that the universe exists outside of a "single dimension of time" as you see it...then wouldn't a Creator be unnecessary, as the universe would be infinite through the width of time, if not the lenght?

If you say the universe popped into being out of nothing you have violated the priciple of cause and effect that is foundational in science.

No one is saying that--they are saying that the universe may have always existed in some form. A singularity is not "nothing".

If you say the law of causality is not valid I'll ask what caused you to come to that conclusion?

The fact that you still can't point to it, even though you have been asked to many times. Simply cite it, if you are so certain of its existence. I tried to look it up, but I can't find it.

Or do I get to make up my own physical laws? Hmmm...how about the Law of Shygetz Always Gets a Free Ice Cream Sundae? If you deny that, how do you explain the fact that I'm eating a free ice cream sundae RIGHT NOW!?!?!?!?

Deny the law and you end up in self-contradiction and therefore irrational.

No, I don't. If you made up the Law of All Science Is Done In Engligh, I could deny it while still speaking English without contradicting myself.

Only the bible teaches creation from nothing

That's a big, fat lie. I don't even know if the Torah was the first written account of creation from nothing--it seems like it has close competition from the myth of Ptah from the Memphis theology. It certainly isn't the only one.

Anonymous said...

What CAUSED you to come to belive all this stuff? Nothing?

Is there a REASON you sre saying this?

Are you trying to CAUSE people to reject Chrisianity.

A cause is that which produces it's effect. It's true by definition and self evident

Are you trying the CAUSE people not to believe that there is a CAUSE.

Is there no REASON
No EXPLANATION

Anonymous said...

The nature of reason is to inquire after causes. Once reason finds what it considers the complete cause, the final and comple explanation, the it must stop it's inquiry. But rational people don't find that completeness in the creation itself. Those who claim that some events in the world uncaused are to that extent irrationalist. Like all rationalists they run into problems when they try to argue their case rationaly. There is no way to prove rationally that any particular event in the world is causless. If some event was causeless how could it have happened? From nothing nothing comes. If the world as a whole lacks a REASON (cause). Then irrationalism wins. Cause gives a reason why things happen. To say that an event in the world has a cause means that it happens for a reason. Suppose there is no first cause, no uncaused cause at the beginning of the process. That means there is no complete explanation, no complete reason why any event takes place. If there is no first cause, the process of explanation keeps going on and on, an infinite regress. If there is no end there is no cognitive rest. Your quest never ends. You never reach the complete reason you set out to find. In the end irrationalism wins out. There is no final explanation for anything. So in the end we are forced to choose between a first cause and irrationalism.

Anonymous said...

To be rational means to function properly
To function properly means to function the way you ought to function
To function the way you ought to function means you function the way you were designed to function
To function the way you were designed to function means you function the way God designed you to function
Moral law pressuposes a moral law giver
Design pressupposes a designer
If we are the products of a blind random accident the is no design, there is no moral law, there is no rationality, there is no hope, there is no meaning, there is no destiny. We came from nothing, we end in nothing, we are nothing. If there is no first cause we are deluded. We have no value as human beings.

Shygetz said...

What CAUSED you to come to belive all this stuff?

You seem to have the fallacy that if something ever exists, then it always exists. So, if it ever happens to be my birthday, then it is always my birthday. This is not the case.

Just because some things have causes (or at least seem to have causes) does not mean everything has a cause. I am trying to get you to at least try to grasp that very counter-intuitive, but apparently true, statement.

The nature of reason is to inquire after causes.

No, the nature of reason is to utilize abstract concepts to ascertain truth.

Those who claim that some events in the world uncaused are to that extent irrationalist.

That is silly, as science and mathematics are what led to the resurgence of the idea of an indeterminate universe.

In the end irrationalism wins out.

Also silly. The fact that the universe may not be deterministic, and that humans may never be omniscient, does not mean that ignorance "wins". It merely means that the search continues. I have no problem with stating that I will never know everything...are you so insecure that you must take comfort in future omniscience?

To be rational means to function properly
To function properly means to function the way you ought to function


Then my washing machine is rational, my television is rational, my can opener is rational, my shoelaces are rational, etc.

But you, my friend, are not.

Moral law pressuposes a moral law giver

If you assume an objective moral law (which is usually contrary to anthropological evidence), then you still could have morality evolve as an emergent property of communal living. Many animals contain codes of conduct; did God give them their moral law? Where is the apes' Bible?

If we are the products of a blind random accident the is no design, there is no moral law, there is no rationality, there is no hope, there is no meaning, there is no destiny.

No, if we are the product of chance, then we are responsible for our own actions. There is rationality. There is hope, both for your life and for leaving a better world for your descendents. There is meaning--the meaning that you give life yourself, rather than trying to foist that responsibility on a sky fairy who sends the thunder. But there certainly is no destiny in the traditional sense--life is what you and those around you make of it. If you harm a person, God will not heal him. If you kill a person, God will not ressurect him. If you break the world, God will not fix it. It is your responsibility, and one that you fear to face.

Anonymous said...

according to A design plan

Anonymous said...

Read UNCONVINCING ARGUMENTS

Anonymous said...

We gather our ideas - the causes
to form conclutions - effects

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
socrates is mortal

Premises CAUSE the conclusion to be true
To search for an explanation (cause) is to search for the TRUTH.
That is what scientists do.
They gather information (cause) to form conclusions (effect)
If some event was causeless how could it have happened? There is no way to prove rationally that a particular event is causeless. From nothing nothing comes.
There is more than one interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Cause and effect was used to discover quantum mecanics. If quantum mechanics invalidates it then quantum mechanics becomes unreliable.

Anonymous said...

An effect is that which has a cause

Anonymous said...

There is hope when all we face is the grave.
That makes alot of sense

Anonymous said...

By the way the second law of thermodynamics alone is sufficiant to establish that the universe is finite

Anonymous said...

ALSO THE SEARCH DOES CONTINUE. BUT NOTICE YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A CAUSE. OR WHY SEARCH? WE ARE TRUTH SEEKERS. SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVIDE ABSOLUTE PROOF. ONLT PRACTICAL PROOF. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU WANT TO SPECULATE ABOUT A TINY FRACTION OF A SECOND THAT WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

Anonymous said...

WHAT IS A SINGULARITY? A SINGULARITY IS A BEGINNING TO SPACE-TIME MATTER AND ENERGY.
THERE IS A TIME AT TEN TO THE MINUS 43 SECONDS ABOUT WHICH WE ARE IGNORENT. WE CANNOT KNOW ALL. THIS IS THE REALM OF SPECULATION. THERE ARE 30 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING AND THEREFORE A BEGINNER.

Anonymous said...

The law of causality(or the law of statstical correlation in which quantum or statistical mechanical effects are significant) says that effects emanate from causes and not the other way arround. Causes proceed their effects.

Anonymous said...

There is room for doubt. Hawking wants to discover that coplete set of laws. He wants to know the mind of God. This will never happen. Human limitations will never allow us to learn everything about ourselves or the universe. The limitation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the impossibility of exact solutions to certain physical equations gaurentee it will never happen. Scientists can still do their jobs and progress and make new discoveries in their field. The evidence is getting stronger.

Shygetz said...

We gather our ideas - the causes
to form conclutions - effects


Premises are not causes, they are premises. According to YOUR usage of the term elsewhere, causes must preceede effects in time. How long was Socrates a man before he was mortal?

To search for an explanation (cause) is to search for the TRUTH.

Explanations are not causes, they are explanations. Phenomena exist regardless of our understaning of them. And explanations are not TRUTH, they are explanations, and invariably inexact and incomplete.

If some event was causeless how could it have happened?

It does...the fact that we do not know how does not change the fact that the universe seems to not be deterministic.

From nothing nothing comes.

First of all, this is only a problem if you state it that "From nothing, ONLY nothing comes."

Second, prove it.

There is more than one interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Yes, but the only one that is both deterministic and does not invoke a multiverse is Bohm's interpretation, which cannot be used to reproduce quantum field theory (which is well-verified experimentally). Thus, the universe does not seem deterministic in the classical sense (i.e. if it is deterministic, it is spread among many multiple timelines, still destroying your argument).

Cause and effect was used to discover quantum mecanics.

Really? Show me. I always thought that quantum mechanics was discovered by observation, followed by advanced mathematical modeling to fit the observations and predict future results. But if you have a simple cause-and-effect model for quantum mechanics, I would love to see it.

An effect is that which has a cause

Which makes the term useless for prediction, as it is a tautology, therefore there would be no "Law of Cause and Effect" (which there isn't) anymore than there would be a "Law of Houses Are Buildings".

By the way the second law of thermodynamics alone is sufficiant to establish that the universe is finite

Ah, but physical laws do not hold at singularities; the second law of thermodynamics is only known to hold in the classical universe, where it was discovered.

BUT NOTICE YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A CAUSE. OR WHY SEARCH?

Again, you confuse "cause" with truth. They are not synonymous.

SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVIDE ABSOLUTE PROOF. ONLT PRACTICAL PROOF. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU WANT TO SPECULATE ABOUT A TINY FRACTION OF A SECOND THAT WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

Ah, but I am willing to admit that I may be wrong and that I am still seeking to improve my knowledge; you are certain you are right even when reality contradicts you. That is your problem, and you should cease trying to spread it around.

WHAT IS A SINGULARITY? A SINGULARITY IS A BEGINNING TO SPACE-TIME MATTER AND ENERGY.

*Bzzz* Wrong again (do you ever tire of being wrong? You certainly are good at it). A singularity is, roughly, a place where the gravitational field is infinite. They exist in black holes, as well as at the initial singularity.

THERE IS A TIME AT TEN TO THE MINUS 43 SECONDS ABOUT WHICH WE ARE IGNORENT.

As well as events "before" the initial expansion, which is why theories of a cyclical universe just won't die.

THERE ARE 30 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING AND THEREFORE A BEGINNER.

A beginning doesn't imply a beginner, anymore than a rock implies a rocker.

The law of causality(or the law of statstical correlation...

Time Cube! The Law of You're a Tool states that you don't know what you're talking about (see, I can make up new laws too!)

There is room for doubt. Hawking wants to discover that coplete set of laws.

And you want to quit looking and just Trust In Jesus. Now, if I need something difficult done (say, a heart transplant or a quantum computer) who do I go see, my local scientist/doctor, or my local preacher? I'll stack science's results up against mythology and superstition's results any day of the week, bub.

The limitation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the impossibility of exact solutions to certain physical equations gaurentee it will never happen.

Heisenberg/s Uncertainty Principle does NOT state that we can never develop a working model of the universe, it states that we can never make measurements to sufficient precision to test such a model. We can, however, make measurements to sufficient precision to know if we got as close as we can, and that is what we are doing. As it currently stands, relativity and quantum mechanics are NOT reconcilable. This doesn't make much difference in the classical world, but at regions approaching singularity, it matters a lot.

The evidence is getting stronger.

Yes, and it doesn't invoke Jesus anywhere. Science proceeds in spite of people like you, not because of people like you.

But, to return to a previous topic, I would like to hear more about how my washing machine is rational. I find that to be fascinating...

Anonymous said...

THERE ARE PERSONAL CAUSES AND NATURAL CAUSES. WE DON'T QUIT LOOKING. BUT WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT I THINK WE NEED TO GO WITH IT. FREE WILL CONTRADICTS CHANCE. YOU HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE PARADOX OF FREE WILL AND PREDESINATION. CHANCE CONTRADICS FREE WILL. IF CHANCE WERE TRUE THEN ALL MY DECISIONS WOULD BE RANDOM. YOUR CONFUSING INTELLIGENT CAUSES WITH NATURAL CAUSES. A MACHINE DOESNT HAVE INTELLIGENCE. YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLE TO DEMAND ABSOLUTE PROOF. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. AGAIN, EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE, THE UNIVERSE IS AN EFFECT, THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. SOME CAUSES ARE CONCURRENT WITH THEIR EFFECTS IN TIME, SMOME ARE NOT.

Anonymous said...

THE UNCERTANTY PRINCIPLE SAYS WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING. YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THE COMPLETE SET OF LAWS. WE ARE LIMITED.
SOME EXPLANATIONS ARE UNLIKLEY
SOME ARE LIKELY
SOME ARE HIGHLY LIKELY(BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT).

Anonymous said...

A TEAM LEAD BY ANDREW STROMINGER DEMONSTRATED THAT IN A UNIVERSE FRAMED IN TEN DIMENSIONS WHERE SIX STOP EXPANDING WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS AT THAT EARLY AGE. GRAVITY AND QUANTUM MECHANICS CAN COEXIST WITH STRING THEORY. THIS DEMONSTRATION PREDICTED GENERAL AND SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SOLVED PROBLEMS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS AND BLACK HOLE PHYSICS. IT IMPLIES THAT THE BIG BANG AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE VALID ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CREATION EVENT ITSELF.

Anonymous said...

Discoveries that the universes space fabric has an ongoing self-stretching property and a flat geometry establish that the universe will expand forever.

Anonymous said...

The cosmological constant is a self-stretching property of the space-time fabric of the universe. Space stretches itself.

Anonymous said...

Theese verses state that time has a beginning and that God was causing effects before the beginning of time.
You loved me before the creation of the world. (John 17:24)
He chose us in him before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)
He was chosen before the creation of the world. (1 peter 1:20). God would exist in AT LEAST two dimensions of time.

Shygetz said...

FREE WILL CONTRADICTS CHANCE.

A) unsupported conclusion, and B) there is no Law of Free Will, either.

YOU HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE PARADOX OF FREE WILL AND PREDESINATION...IF CHANCE WERE TRUE THEN ALL MY DECISIONS WOULD BE RANDOM.

A) that does not necessarily follow--just because some things are goverened by chance doesn't mean all things are goverened by chance, and B) even if that were true, there is no law saying that your decisions aren't random.

YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLE TO DEMAND ABSOLUTE PROOF.

Whoa, I never demanded absolute proof. I demand something approaching reasonable evidence, which you DO NOT have. All you have are assertions, which are unsupported, and lies, which are annoying.

AGAIN, EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE, THE UNIVERSE IS AN EFFECT, THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE.

You define effect as "Anything that has a cause." Therefore, your assertion that the universe is an effect is unsupported, as you have not established that it has a cause.

SOME CAUSES ARE CONCURRENT WITH THEIR EFFECTS IN TIME, SMOME ARE NOT.

Causes can be concurrent with their effects in time? So then even if we accept your unsupported premise that the universe is an effect, it could be concurrent with its cause--the Big Bang.

YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THE COMPLETE SET OF LAWS.

No, I will not...someone might, thought. You seem to think that a law must be deterministic--we could come up with probabilistic laws that describe the universe quite nicely.

A TEAM LEAD BY ANDREW STROMINGER...

Came up with a completely unverified model of how the universe might work under certain conditions. If you are going to demand evidence, string theory is not the place to start, as the evidence = 0.

The cosmological constant is a self-stretching property of the space-time fabric of the universe. Space stretches itself.

No (really, do you just make this stuff up?), the cosmological constant is the energy density of the vacuum.

Discoveries that the universes space fabric has an ongoing self-stretching property and a flat geometry establish that the universe will expand forever.

No, it has most certainly has not been established.

Seriously, try reading. It's good for you.

And tell me again how my shoelace is rational...

Shygetz said...

Theese verses state that time has a beginning and that God was causing effects before the beginning of time.

And The Silmarillon states that Eä (the universe) was created through the Music of the Ainur for the Children of Ilúvatar. I like that myth, too, but it's not science.

Anonymous said...

Alternative philosophys of quantum mechanics.

1. A coherent reality exists independent of human thinking
2. A common fundamental cause lies behind the cause and effect phenomena humans observe.
3. The only observer who counts is the conscious observer.
4. The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities.

The uncertanty principle - The impossibility for the human observer to measure exactly both te position and momentum of any quantum entity therefore we cant know all.

Anonymous said...

In the June 1 1999 issue of of the Astrophysical journal a team of astrophysicists the cosmological constant must exist.

Anonymous said...

The april 27 2000 issue of nature published results of the boomerang experiment showing the flat geometry of the universe

Anonymous said...

The cause transcends our one dimension of time.
Fire causes water to boil in a pot
Water does not cause water to boil
SOME causes are concurrent.

Anonymous said...

Alternative Philosophies of Quantum Mechanics can be found in Nick Herbert, Quauntum reality: Beyond the new physics: An Excursion into metaphysics and the meaning of reality
Stanly L. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator
James Jeans Jeans, A universe of pure thought, Quantum Questions
Ken Wilber Quantum Questions.
Theese arose because of the flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation

Anonymous said...

The Boomerang experiment shows that a space energy density exists.
Establishing that the expansion (stretching) of the universe is governed by two factors, mass density, and space energy density points to incredible fine tuning. The space energy density must be fine tuned to one part in part to 10 to the 120 power. This is the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics. This is the Cosmological Constant.
See Lawrence Krauss
"The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998)

Anonymous said...

Physicists are designing theories to cope with conditions before the universe was 10 to the minus 43 seconds old. Since the energy densities that exists during the quantum gravity era lie beyond the capabilities of paticle excellerators theoreticians think they can speculate on any physical laws they desire. If a quantum gravity theory cannot explain our present universe developed it must be incorrect. A cyclycal universe model fails.
See the references above on the Cosmological Constant.
String theory has not been proven but it provides a solution that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics and the laws of physics hold all the way back to the creation.

Anonymous said...

Again 30 pieces of evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning.

General Relativity has been confirmied in all contexts. Scince it has been confirmed in all contexts the Space-time theorem holds. The Space-time thorem tells us that the that the space-time dimensions have extsted only as long as the universe has been expanding. Time really does have a beginning. The Law of Causality says that effects emmanate from their causes. Time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. Therefore built within the Space Time theorem is a corollary. If the universe contains mass and general relativity accurately describe the dynamics of the universe then the universe must have had a beginning. It also says because of the law of cause and effect and our definition of time that a CAUSAL AGENENT must have brought the universe into existence independent of space-time matter and energy.

Anonymous said...

Since the CAUSAL AGENT exists independent of our one dimension of time then he must exist in at LEAST two dimensions of time. Therefore, He has no beginning and no end.

Anonymous said...

The space-time theorem of general relativity that is

Shygetz said...

Alternative philosophys of quantum mechanics.

1. A coherent reality exists independent of human thinking
2. A common fundamental cause lies behind the cause and effect phenomena humans observe.
3. The only observer who counts is the conscious observer.
4. The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities.


No, no, no. None of those comes close to serving as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Did you make up that crap, or did someone else lie to you? If it was someone else, let everyone know who the charlatan is, and where you found it.

In the June 1 1999 issue of of the Astrophysical journal a team of astrophysicists the cosmological constant must exist.

No one is denying that there is a cosmological constant. What's more, I will even stipulate that it is probably close to 0.7. So what?

The april 27 2000 issue of nature published results of the boomerang experiment showing the flat geometry of the universe

Again, no one is denying that the shape of the observable universe is flat. However, if you would read even the layman's accounts of the various theories of the fate of the universe, you would see that flat universe does not mean finite universe. But kudos for citing actual research (even if it was on topics of no conflict).

The cause transcends our one dimension of time.
Fire causes water to boil in a pot
Water does not cause water to boil
SOME causes are concurrent.


And yet you can't tell a priori which are which. So, the universe could be self-caused, even if your "Law of Cause and Effect" existed (which it doesn't). Pretty bad when even when you make up laws, you can't prove your point.

Theese arose because of the flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation

These "flaws" tend to be things like "I don't like the idea of an indeterminate universe". Not liking philosophical consequences is not a valid objection, and as I pointed out earlier, the only somewhat mainstream alternative interpretation that invokes a deterministic universe without parallel multiverse is the Bohm interpretation, which does not replicate quantum field theory.

The space energy density must be fine tuned to one part in part to 10 to the 120 power. This is the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics. This is the Cosmological Constant.

No, it is not. If the cosmological constant was different, it simply means everything would be different. We cannot predict what the universe would be like. We do not know what the probability distribution of possible cosmological constants is. We don't know how many iterations the universe went through (either cyclical or parallel) to generate the constant we have. You are trying to use post hoc observation to derive an a priori probability. No matter what poker hand you are dealt, it is incredibly unlikely--but it happened.

Physicists are designing theories to cope with conditions before the universe was 10 to the minus 43 seconds old...A cyclycal universe model fails.

You didn't even read the sources I gave you. Oscillating models fail; several cyclical models do great. And physicists are still trying to unify the forces; they are not there yet.

Again 30 pieces of evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning.

Again, you are obscuring the point. No one is arguing that the Big Bang expansion did not occur. However, it does not infer what you want it to, no matter how many times you insist it does. Why has been pointed out many times, and yet rather than address the point, you add in non sequiters and repeat your debunked claims.

General Relativity has been confirmied in all contexts.

Lie, lie, lie. If this were true, we would not have a limit to our theory at a singularity, and there would be no press to unify the theories. We do have a limit, and there is the push.

The Law of Causality says that effects emmanate from their causes.

Time Cube! And the Law of You're a Tool says that, well, you're a tool.

Since the CAUSAL AGENT exists independent of our one dimension of time then he must exist in at LEAST two dimensions of time. Therefore, He has no beginning and no end.

Nope, there is no need for a causal agent; even if we accept your bogus "Law of Cause and Effect", you have admitted that the cause can be concurrent with the effect, therefore the universe could be caused within the same timeline, eliminating the need for a Beginner.

You have provided no evidence for any of your claims (some of which are as outrageous as claiming my toaster is rational), all the while throwing up smokescreens, lies, and making stuff up out of thin air claiming it to be fact. I have refuted all of your claims, and as any observer can see you have no new "evidence" so you merely repeat your debunked lies. Or, to put it in words you might understand...

I'm in ur base, killing ur d00dz.

Anonymous said...

For a list of references on the cosmological constant and how it establishes that the universe will expand forever thereby ruling out the cyclical universe model see The Creator and the Cosmos Hugh Ross B.Sc. in physics and M.Sc. and PhD. in Astronomy

Anonymous said...

THE CAUSE TRANSCENDS OUR TIMELINE. OUR TIMELINE HAD A BEGINNING. HE EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OUR TIMELINE. HE'S NOT PART OF THE UNIVERSE. TIME IS THAT DIMENSION IN WHICH CAUSE AND EFFECT TAKE PLACE.
THE SPACE TIME THEOROM SAYS THAT A CAUSAL AGENT EXISTING INDEPENDENT OF SPACE-TIME MATTER AND ENERGY BROUGHT THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE

Anonymous said...

IF OUR TIMELINE HAD A BEGINNING THE THE CAUSE WOULD NOT BE PART OF IT

Anonymous said...

IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT IMAGINARY TIME THEN THAT IS JUST A MATHEMATICAL DODGE. ANY CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY RELATION TO REAL UNIVERSE. THIS IS SPECULATION. HAWKINGS THEORY ON QUANTUM GRAVITY IS NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR IT. THE SPACE TIME THEOREM DOES HAVE PROOF

Anonymous said...

Roger Penrose argues differently.
A consistent theory of quantum gravity is not available.
We will never reach a theory of everything. It's impossible. String theory offers a solution that is compatible with the space time theorem and general relativity

Anonymous said...

Theese are attemps to get arround the singularity of the space time theorems

Anonymous said...

A cyclical view of time is speculative. It contradicts the space time theorem. It is impossible to know everthing. This is a no god of the gaps argument

Anonymous said...

Again, phycisists are working on trying to find a theory of everything. The existence of singularities guarentee this is impossible. It was proven mathematically impossible by kurt Godel. The incompleteness theorem says that it is impossible to know from the universe that the universe can only be what it is. Stanly L. Jaki, God and the Cosmologists. Cosmos and Creator. Again it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

You can distinguish fire from water.
In one dimension of time time always moves forward. The Universe and everything in it is confined to a single dimension of time. Any entity confined to half dimension must have a starting point or point of origination. Time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. Therefore, the space-time theorems of general relativity show that a ccausal agent existing INDEPENDENT of our universe brought it into existence.

Anonymous said...

Non-Theistic Scientists rely on gaps in our knowledge, in this case a very tiny gap to get arround the overwhelming evidence for a beginning to the universe. The appeal to an infinite number of universes is an abuse of probabillity theory. If a person spins 10 to the 1,567 roulette wheels a thousand times each, by random chance one of theese roulete wheels would be likely to produce a thousand concecutive zeros. But if a person had only one roulete wheel to spin then regardless of how many other CONCEIVABLE roulete wheels may exist should that roulette wheel land on a thousand concecutive zeros, you must rationally conclude that it was manufactured to produce nothing but zeros.

Anonymous said...

IN THEIR PERSISTENT REJECTION OF A TRANSCENDENT CREATOR COSMOLOGISTS ARE RESORTING TO INCREASINGLY IRRATIONAL OPTIONS. IF FOR PERSONAL OR MORAL REASONS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS UNACCEPTABLE, THEN GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR TRANSCENDENCE AND DESIGN, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE LIMITED TO FLIGHTS OF FANCY

Anonymous said...

Godels Incompleteness Theorem

no non-trivial set of arithmatical propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself. When applied to the cosmos, this means it is intrinsically impossible to know from the universe that universe can only be what it is.

Stanly L. Jackie, Cosmos and Creator
God and CCosmologists.

Normal experience is sufficient to show we will never learn everything about us.

As Romans 1:19-22 affirms even a brilliant research scientist, can waste his or her efforts, on theoretical impossible lines of research, if he rejects clear evidence pointing to God. For many years Christians have been accused of the God of the Gaps argument. What we are seeing here is the reverse.
I belive in the miricle of creation out of nothing. I believe in Theism.
Now let us turn to the historical evidence.
May God bring you home.

Shygetz said...

You have yet to explain to me how my eyeglasses are rational, as you previously asserted...

For a list of references on the cosmological constant and how it establishes that the universe will expand forever thereby ruling out the cyclical universe model see (religious apologetics text #112)

You still have not read the layperson references on cyclical universe models. They include what is known about the cosmological constant, make testable predictions, and are under serious consideration by the community. The fact that you refuse to examine them simply because they do not fit in with your world-view indicates that you are not interested in truth, only propaganga. I, on the other hand, have investigated and commented intelligently on every point you have brought up thus far.

Therefore, the space-time theorems of general relativity show that a ccausal agent existing INDEPENDENT of our universe brought it into existence.

But, according even to your own logic where you even make up your own laws of physics, you can't demonstrate this. You state that an event and its cause can occur simultaneously. You remember that, don't you? From your Socrates example? You can remember that far back, right? Here, I'll refresh your memory:

Tool said: "SOME CAUSES ARE CONCURRENT WITH THEIR EFFECTS IN TIME, SMOME ARE NOT. (sic)"

See, some causes are concurrent IN TIME with their effects. So, even if one were to accept the unsupported assertion that the universe had to have a cause, the cause could have occurred in time simultaneously to the beginning of the universe; therefore, no need for "two-dimensional time", and no need for gods that exist there. C'mon; if you're gonna make stuff up, at least be consistent.

THE SPACE TIME THEOROM SAYS THAT A CAUSAL AGENT EXISTING INDEPENDENT OF SPACE-TIME MATTER AND ENERGY BROUGHT THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE

Lie.

HAWKINGS THEORY ON QUANTUM GRAVITY IS NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED.

No theory of quantum gravity is currently widely accepted, including your one particular version of superstring theory. That's why it's an ACTIVE research field. These "theories" must be tested. Or, we could just say Goddidit and stop.

THE SPACE TIME THEOREM DOES HAVE PROOF

And it also has proof of limitations, indicating that it is an incomplete theory of gravity. Therefore, the need for a theory of gravity that can be reconciled with quantum mechanics. Try to keep up.

A cyclical view of time is speculative.

As is a finite view of time, but that's not stopping you from claiming complete knowledge.

It contradicts the space time theorem.

Lie. Read. The. Theories.

This is a no god of the gaps argument

Which is really ironic, as this statement immediately follows:

It is impossible to know everthing.

So, it is impossible to know everything, yet you know that the universe had to have a beginning, a beginner, that beginner had to be the Christian God, and all of the other potential explanations are wrong. Gee, anyone else note a little contradition here?

Again, phycisists are working on trying to find a theory of everything. The existence of singularities guarentee this is impossible.

Lie.

The incompleteness theorem says that it is impossible to know from the universe that the universe can only be what it is. (Reference apologetics text #094).

Ah, something new...Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems. One incomplete but fairly useful way to put the consequences of Goedel's theorems into lay language is to state that all theories are based on assumptions that cannot be proven by that theory. This is true. However, that does not mean that we should quit searching, it merely means that, when formalizing a Theory of Everything, a scientist must be aware of his assumptions. Nothing new about that; it's true for all areas of science.

Non-Theistic Scientists rely on gaps in our knowledge, in this case a very tiny gap to get arround the overwhelming evidence for a beginning to the universe.

Really? Look at it from the other way; creationists rely on gaps in our knowledge about the number of universes (either serial or parallel) to make unsupported conclusions about probability and the strong anthropic principle (i.e. "fine tuning"). Now, seeing as we DON'T know how many times the universe has expanded, how can we calculate a probability that the universe is how it is? Even if we DID know how many times the universe has expanded, we DON't know what the probability distribution for certain constants are; it could be that some constants can ONLY exist at values near or equal to what they are now. Additionally, even if we DID know that the constants of the universe are random, we DON'T know how many of the potential outcomes could support life. To use your roulette example, we don't know if we came up with a thousand zeroes in a row (an unlikely result) or if we came up with a random sequence of numbers. We know that we are here, but that doesn't mean that we had to be here as we are. If we weren't here, but some other intelligent life were (due to changes in the constants of the universe), they might be asking the same question, and nutters in that reality could have been talking about how THEIR creator had to fine-tune THEIR universe, or else boron-based life would be impossible. You're looking at the probability from the wrong side, and trying to calculate it backwards. You can't do that; even if you had the appropriate probability distributions (which you don't), it requires that the result that you received be a necessary result, which it is not.

IN THEIR PERSISTENT REJECTION OF A TRANSCENDENT CREATOR COSMOLOGISTS ARE RESORTING TO INCREASINGLY IRRATIONAL OPTIONS. IF FOR PERSONAL OR MORAL REASONS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS UNACCEPTABLE, THEN GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR TRANSCENDENCE AND DESIGN, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE LIMITED TO FLIGHTS OF FANCY

There is no evidence for transcendence OR design. Current models of the universe are very elegant (and complicated), not at all irrational, are made to fit with the known data as well as possible, and to be as testable as possible. How can we test your hypothesis? Seriously, you want to convince me God exists, give me an experiment.

But if a person had only one roulete wheel to spin then regardless of how many other CONCEIVABLE roulete wheels may exist should that roulette wheel land on a thousand concecutive zeros, you must rationally conclude that it was manufactured to produce nothing but zeros.

Wow, you truly are a crappy statistician. According to your logic, if ONE person spins 10^1,567 wheels 1000 times each, it is normal to come up with a wheel that has 1000 zeros in a row. However, if 10^1,567 persons each spin ONE wheel 1000 times, then whoever gets the one wheel that comes up 0 every time has a rigged wheel. Your understanding of probability is staggering; your math teachers should be ashamed.

I belive in the miricle of creation out of nothing. I believe in Theism.

That's fine, but stop trying to prove it by making up science. Believe if you want, but don't lie about facts to convince others your belief is correct.

Now let us turn to the historical evidence.

Hey, you're the one who started lying about the Big Bang proving God, not me. I'd be happy for you to stop lying about it and get back to the (*guffaw*)historical evidence of the Resurrection (*snort*).

May God bring you home.

But use Mapquest, just in case.

Anonymous said...

There is a version of string theory that unites quatum gravity all the way back to the singularity. The laws of physics hold all the wat back to the beginning. Shouldn't we adopt that theory instead of one that contradics the space-time theorem?

Anonymous said...

Also the many worlds interpretation violates ockhams razor.
Probabilities are probabilities.

No evidence for transcendent creation event or design? You deny physical reality. I guess the univere is an illusion.

Anonymous said...

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place. Therefore built within the space time theorem is the law of cause and effect. Therefore, built within the spacetime theorem is a corollary. That a CAUSAL AGENT brings the universe into existence independent of the universe. This keeps cause and effect in tact.
The point I was trying to make was that cause and effect is built within logic. Scientists search for causes. You assume it when you do science. Science opperates on cause and effect. No cause and effect no science.

Anonymous said...

Suppose you want to go to a place that lies at an infinite distance into the future. Since that place lies infinitely into the future you will never arrive at your destination. If the universe streatched back in infinite time with no beginning we never would have been able to arrive at the present moment.

Anonymous said...

To say this universe is not ordered is crazy. Science pressuposes that this is an ordered universe. Deny cause and effect and you say things happen for no reason. Science has plenty of room to work with string theory

Anonymous said...

The cosmological constant holds firm. The universe will expand forever. The second law of thermodynamics garentees that the universe will die. This universe is finite. You do not like that because you know what it means.

Anonymous said...

Science was concieved, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christiam Theism

Alvin Plantinga

Anonymous said...

Again our time dimension is finite. It had a beginning. Therefore The CAUSE transcends our dimension placing him in the equivilent of at LEAST two dimensions causing his timelines to be infinite and run in an infinite number of direction. God's time dimensions are different than our one dimension.

A day to the Lord is as a thousand years
And a thousand years as one day

God can dialate time.

Anonymous said...

God can move forward or backward. His timeline is not one dimensional.

Anonymous said...

Extra-dimensional doctrines

Trinity
Free will and predestination
Fully God Fully man

In more than one dimension you can turn a basketball inside out without cutting it.

Jesus can walk through walls and other miricles

Anonymous said...

Man made theologies are constrained by the limitations of human perspective. A theological message from a transcendent being in some ways transcend the the limitations of human perspective and visualization.

Anonymous said...

A being capable of operating in more then our dimensions explain certain paradoxes of the bible that have trouble Theologians for centuries. We cannot visualize phenomena in more dimensions than what we can experience. The Bible alone contains doctrines that are impossible in our space-time dimensions but are resolvable given that a being that transcends and is capable of creating our ten space-time dimensions.
The Trinity
Free will and predestination
Eternal security
The atonement
evil and suffering in the context of God's power, love, heaven, and hell

Anonymous said...

In more than our 4 dimensions mathemeticians can show that a basketball can be turned inside out without being cut.

ERREOR CORRECTION FROM ABOVE

Anonymous said...

The reason we have a hard time understanding paradoxical doctrines is because we it's hard to visualize phenomena outside our own experience. God is noy confine to our dimensions. God moves and operates in dimensions outside our own. The Trinity seems to be a provable contradiction in our space-time dimensions but it is resolvable in more dimensions besides our own. Again mathemeticians have shown that in more than our 4 dimensions a basketball can be turned inside out without being cut. A trinitarian nature is no problem for a being such as God. Ironically the very doctrines that are criticized by others actually show the bible to be the word of God. It shows a being that transcends our dimensions and created the world out of nothing. Only the Bible teaches such things.

Anonymous said...

Biblical cosmology confirmed via trans and extra dimensionality

Paradoxical doctrines that can only be confirmed with extradimensionality

God existed before the universe

Time has a beginning. God's existence of cause and effect activities precede time

God created the universe from that which cannot be detected with the five senses.

After His ressurection Jesus could walk through walls

Only the bible speaks of such a God and exta dimensionality.

Anonymous said...

A Testable Biblical Creation Model


1. Creation, by fiat miricle, of the entire physical universe

2. Planet earth singled out for a sequence of creation miricles. Earth is empty and unfit for life. Interplanetary debris and primordial atmosphere prevent the light from the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planets surface

3. Clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earths atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of the earths ocean
4. Formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle

5. Formation of continental land masses

6. Production of plants on the continental land masses

7. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occationally transparent. Sun, moon, stars can now be seen from the vantage point of earth's surface

8. Production of swarms of small sea animals

9. Creation of small sea mammals and birds

10 Creation three specialized kinds of land mammals.

11. Creation of the human species.

12. Day of rest

Anonymous said...

All causes of things are beginnings
That we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause
That to know a things existence is to know the reason why it is

Aristotle

Anonymous said...

Most people believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break theese laws .... but it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.

Steven Hawking

Anonymous said...

God's thoughts are not our thoughts and God's ways are not our ways.

BEHOLD, THE PARADOX DEITY!

Anonymous said...

For a good book on the extra-dimensionality of God and how solves the paradoxical doctines of the
Trinity
Free will and human responsabillity
The incarnation and the atonement
God's omnipotence vs. His displayed power
Salvation's security
Evil and Suffering in the context of God's love and power
God's extradimensional love in hell
Exta-Dimensionality and the new creation

see
Beyond The Cosmos

Anonymous said...

CRRECTION
predestination and human responsibility

Anonymous said...

By the way 10 to the minus 43 seconds isn't the only area of reasearch that cosmologists work in. To say that this will somehow stop science is rediculous. New discoveries are taking place all the time that add to the case of evidence of fine tuning in the universe. The evidence is on our side.

See the website Reasons To Believe and the book Creation As Science by Hugh Ross

Anonymous said...

In a two dimensions of space things are flat. Circles cannot be triangles and triangles cannot be circles in any context. But when you add an exta dimension of space an isosceles triangle could be be stood up and rotated along it's axis to form a cone. This triangle could be descrimed as a series of concentric circles with progressively smaller diameters rising from the base of the triangle to it's vertex. What seemed inpossible in two dimensions becomes possible in three.
The doctrine of the trinity seems impossible given our finite human limitations and limited space-time dimensions. However, given God's extra-dimensional capacities the paradox becomes resolvable. To see an incomple but helpfull illistration of this see Beyond The Cosmos by Hugh Ross

Anonymous said...

Given recent discoveries in science the door has been opened for possible tools to resolve biblical paradoxes that have plagued Theologians for centuries. If only Christian leaders had recognized biblical paradoxes for what they were and trusted God's higher ways and higher thoughts wasted energies and lives could have been invested in the advancement of the gospel

Anonymous said...

lynda,

The God of the bible is no impossibiliy. There is a good foundational basis for His existence. And therefore a good logical reason for His ressurection. I know it's hard to fully comprehend God and His ways. But if it wasn't then He wouldn't be God.
My ways are not your ways
And my thoughts are not your thoughts.
True apologetics has arrived

Anonymous said...

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite Glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shinning forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all of the parts of His glory should shine fourth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a propper notion of God. It is necessary that God's awful majesty, His authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin there could be no manifistation of God's holiness and hatred of sin, or in showing any preference in godliness before it. There would be no manifistation of God's grace or true goodnes if there were no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from.

God is more glorious for having concieved and created and governed a world like this with all it's evil. My prayer is that what I have written willi sharpen and deepen your God entranced worldview and that in the day of your loss you will be like job who, when he lost all His children, fell down and worshipped and said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Eve said...

Mania: Unlike being depressed, mania is a mood disorder in which people feel incredibly excited, hyperactive, and overly optimistic. Mania is also one part of bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression in which people swing from being depressed to being manic (being in a state of mania). Often times people who are manic indicated enjoying the state and getting a sense of pleasure from it since during the state they are so optimistic and energetic... However, it is common for people in a state of mania to produce things that are very poor quality or don't make sense. For example someone may write for 3 days straight during a manic state and believe they wrote the greatest thing in the world, but you would look at it and think it was garbage or didn't make sense at all...