Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[Whiskey_Lord]

It seems like we got back to the semantics games between being an atheist/agnostic. My position is: I don't believe in things if I do not have a compelling reason to do so. That doesn't mean that what I don't believe in is false, only that I can't be bothered with it unless there is verifiable evidence to support it. However, I have also have to say that religion is so obviously man-made. Take a step back from it all and this is pretty easy to see; just the fact that there are so many religions strongly suggests that it's man-made. If there were some divine truth that humanity was supposed to know (on pain of eternal torment, in some religions), then I think it would be more self-evident. For all I know, there could be a god out there, but I doubt anyone on this planet has any connection with it. If there is a creator of the universe who has an afterlife waiting for us, then I give that deity more credit by not believing in the cheap, all-too-human imitations that people call "gods."

 

[peter grimes]

I have to agree with Perceval in that theists and atheists very often make very similar mistakes, that is they substitute belief for truth.
In my view we do not have any hard evidence than an afterlife does not exist. For all one knows it does not presuppose the existence of a god in any intelligible and useful polemically way; maybe the energy never dies, and in some complicated amalgam of equations we are not familiar with, some sort of consciousness carries on.
It is not like we have even a unified theory atm. Mind and matter are very much distinct with current theories, even with those that try (in my view clumsily) to present the one as the other in different planes.

As for evolution, i think it has a serious place in this issue, but obviously it is not the final word on it. Even the human mind does not really appear to be cost-effective in any way; why have endless realms of thought if you are to just live and reproduce? Take a look at the ongoing attempt to create a robot that actually is autonomous: the scientists there are in no way trying to give it consciousness as we have, they make something ultimately very basic. This should tell you that in order for something to be self-sustainable, and possibly even reproduce, it does not at all have to have such a delicate balance of a mental world as the human one.

I can't speak for other atheists, obviously. But for me, I don't claim to know a 'truth' that there is no god - so there's no belief of that on my part. But I hold the position that there is no reason to think any gods exist because there is no evidence to support that belief. So to be clear, I don't Believe there are any gods.

"In my view we do not have any hard evidence than an afterlife does not exist."
Of course there's no evidence that there's no afterlife - in the same way that there's no evidence that there's no Hound of the Baskervilles! There is an error in thinking here: watch the latest South Park episode (A History Channel Thanksgiving) to see what I mean. "There's no evidence that Aliens weren't present at the first Thanksgiving, so blah blah blah..."

I'm an atheist, but I wish so badly that there were an afterlife. Or - just as good - reincarnation. I really do! That would be awesome!! But, sadly, there is absolutely no reason to think this is even possible.

"maybe the energy never dies, and in some complicated amalgam of equations we are not familiar with, some sort of consciousness carries on."
Perhaps, but if this were true then there must be physical evidence of some sort. We know how matter behaves. We know how energy behaves. There is no factor in the equations that describe these behaviors that would allow for something like what you're talking about. For a better explanation than I am capable of, see here:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

Spoiler Physics and the Immortality of the Soul By Sean Carroll | May 23, 2011 :

The topic of "life after death" raises disreputable connotations of past-life regression and haunted houses, but there are a large number of people in the world who believe in some form of persistence of the individual soul after life ends. Clearly this is an important question, one of the most important ones we can possibly think of in terms of relevance to human life. If science has something to say about, we should all be interested in hearing.

Adam Frank thinks that science has nothing to say about it. He advocates being "firmly agnostic" on the question. (His coblogger Alva Noë resolutely disagrees.) I have an enormous respect for Adam; he’s a smart guy and a careful thinker. When we disagree it’s with the kind of respectful dialogue that should be a model for disagreeing with non-crazy people. But here he couldn’t be more wrong.

Adam claims that there "simply is no controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information" regarding life after death. By these standards, there is no controlled, experimentally verifiable information regarding whether the Moon is made of green cheese. Sure, we can take spectra of light reflecting from the Moon, and even send astronauts up there and bring samples back for analysis. But that’s only scratching the surface, as it were. What if the Moon is almost all green cheese, but is covered with a layer of dust a few meters thick? Can you really say that you know this isn’t true? Until you have actually examined every single cubic centimeter of the Moon’s interior, you don’t really have experimentally verifiable information, do you? So maybe agnosticism on the green-cheese issue is warranted. (Come up with all the information we actually do have about the Moon; I promise you I can fit it into the green-cheese hypothesis.)

Obviously this is completely crazy. Our conviction that green cheese makes up a negligible fraction of the Moon’s interior comes not from direct observation, but from the gross incompatibility of that idea with other things we think we know. Given what we do understand about rocks and planets and dairy products and the Solar System, it’s absurd to imagine that the Moon is made of green cheese. We know better.

We also know better for life after death, although people are much more reluctant to admit it. Admittedly, "direct" evidence one way or the other is hard to come by — all we have are a few legends and sketchy claims from unreliable witnesses with near-death experiences, plus a bucketload of wishful thinking. But surely it’s okay to take account of indirect evidence — namely, compatibility of the idea that some form of our individual soul survives death with other things we know about how the world works.

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese.

Among advocates for life after death, nobody even tries to sit down and do the hard work of explaining how the basic physics of atoms and electrons would have to be altered in order for this to be true. If we tried, the fundamental absurdity of the task would quickly become evident.

Even if you don’t believe that human beings are "simply" collections of atoms evolving and interacting according to rules laid down in the Standard Model of particle physics, most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are. If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that "new physics" to interact with the atoms that we do have.

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.

But let’s say you do that. How is the spirit energy supposed to interact with us? Here is the equation that tells us how electrons behave in the everyday world:



Don’t worry about the details; it’s the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It’s the Dirac equation — the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia — coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.

As far as every experiment ever done is concerned, this equation is the correct description of how electrons behave at everyday energies. It’s not a complete description; we haven’t included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. But that’s okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain.

If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?) So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking — what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information?

Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It’s not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes.

We don’t choose theories in a vacuum. We are allowed — indeed, required — to ask how claims about how the world works fit in with other things we know about how the world works. I’ve been talking here like a particle physicist, but there’s an analogous line of reasoning that would come from evolutionary biology. Presumably amino acids and proteins don’t have souls that persist after death. What about viruses or bacteria? Where upon the chain of evolution from our monocellular ancestors to today did organisms stop being described purely as atoms interacting through gravity and electromagnetism, and develop an immaterial immortal soul?

There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. Once we get over any reluctance to face reality on this issue, we can get down to the much more interesting questions of how human beings and consciousness really work.

Here's one very relevant paragraph:
"Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?"


Now let me comment on your second paragraph:
"Even the human mind does not really appear to be cost-effective in any way; why have endless realms of thought if you are to just live and reproduce?"

This is full of errors. Firstly, the human brain is indeed cost effective when you look at our evolutionary history. The brains we have today are the brains that benefitted our ancestors in the environment they lived in. This doesn't mean that the environment we find ourselves in right now is suitable for the brains we are genetically programmed to build. But it's completely wrong to think that our brains are not cost-effective. They evolved to cope with the demands of a small-to-medium sized tribal social group, hunting and gathering in various forested and shrublands.

These 'endless realms' of thought aren't nearly as endless as you might think. Actually, there's a surprising lack of breadth that our brains are capable of understanding - for the same reason I mentioned above: our brains evolved to handle specific tasks. Understanding the profundity of large numbers, deep time, and the vastness of space are not among them.


"Take a look at the ongoing attempt to create a robot that actually is autonomous: the scientists there are in no way trying to give it consciousness as we have, they make something ultimately very basic. This should tell you that in order for something to be self-sustainable, and possibly even reproduce, it does not at all have to have such a delicate balance of a mental world as the human one."
There's a big difference in the amount of time life on earth has been evolving and robotic trials have been going on. The difference is something like 7 orders of magnitude! By analogy, claiming that just because AI researchers haven't achieved machine intelligence yet would be like saying in 1911 that man would never be able to fly more than 300 feet in the air - because it's physically impossible. ACtaully, that's a terrible analogy. It falls far short of the reality. But you get the idea.


"...it does not at all have to have such a delicate balance of a mental world as the human one"
It's my opinion that this 'delicate balance' you mention is purely an emergent property of our evolved brain. I agree that there may exist intelligence not of the human sort. But don't fall into the trap of assuming that where there's intelligence there will also be a belief in the divine.

And to relate this all to the original topic, here's my view:
Belief in Gods - or the idea of gods - is an emergent property of the modules of human brains that evolved to help our ancestors negotiate and navigate their social and ecological environments. This view is compatible with many of the posts above. The only distinction I make is that this emergent property was not heavily selected for genetically. See Narz's post.

 

[Ayatollah So]

You mentioned nationalism and other ideologies, which are indeed very similar to religion in terms of their function in the society.

But I wouldn't call it a "religious impulse", because religion is just of the possible outlets.

Man is not programed to seek a god, but he does have a bias toward seeing human faces and ascribing human behavioral traits to everything.

Belief in Gods - or the idea of gods - is an emergent property of the modules of human brains that evolved to help our ancestors negotiate and navigate their social and ecological environments.

The above. Humans have an impulse to explain things, a bias towards thinking about human traits, and a large concern about alpha males. Given these qualities, the whole gods business is not very surprising - but not exactly pre-programmed in.

 

[Souron]

Hahaha, i laught, who told you i grew up in achristian culture? First i live in France, a country where 60% of pop get no religion, i also live in the south west, the region of France where the socialism and communist(there's a lot of communist mayor here) is the more present. Even in school teachers make always critics on religion. You see you get so much pride that you think you can guess evrything?

French culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity, so it is quite capable of instilling portions of the christian mindset. My objective is not to guess everything. In this case I was pointing out that your attitude toward death may have been shaped by culture more so than stemming from genetic predisposition. If you were from a wholly different culture, it would undermine that point.

Also even if i appreciate the fact that you're back to the original topic, the question you are asking is not objective. I am just trying to get the more objective and scientifical point of view, so i propose to first speacking of how different tribes in the world apprehend world with religion before making opinion ourselves. In fact this subject is at 70% an Anthropological question.

You consider morality subjective? You're a moral relativist? If not, that it's not a subjective question. As for your question, I can't contribute that much.

today the best conclusion to date is not that god doesn't exist.

There was a thread not to long ago on whether religion and the belief in god were in conflict with science. You can imagine my stance.

PS: Also i noticed that the american(atheist or not) point of view on religion is completely different from the european one. I can understand Atheist rage in america if believers are like you describes them(believe in creationnism ect...). But just try to open your mind a little bit guys and read my entire post when i post. I post post who criticise religion and atheism and you're just seeing me as a fervent religion defender. Let's read and keep cool guys.

My head's quite cool, thanks. Whether my arguments seem academic or empassioned, they should be taken on merit. And I do read your posts. Though European religion, at least European Christianity, is milder and plays a smaller role in politics, Europeans should reject the idea of God too.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't think that the notion of god(s) came from any impulse to explain unknown things. Supernatural (as in "made-up") explanations can be found in myths, which do not necessarily involve gods. They do often (but not always) involve intent, creatures with will, and that is part of what a "god" is. But the other part, essential also, is worship. And mythical explanations require no worship. No worship = no gods.

Impulse to believe, in my opinion, is still better explained by fear (of harm, ultimately of death) and the idea of a "protector father in the sky" of somesuch which cam be negotiated with. That is where worship came from, to complete the invention of religion. Once that idea is suggested to someone it becomes very strong, especially in times of distress. And mankind's history never lacked those times, plus individuals can suffer even at the best of ages for personal reasons. This is king of what peter grimes and other mentioned in the thread.
I think that what most influenced me about religion was a small book, "L’Homme et la mort", by Edgar Morin, which made that kind of argument. I read it quit young, probably won't have a strong effect on an adult with his own ideas already made up. But I still recommend it.

Perhaps we are now less religious because we suffer less, fear less, and have fewer cause to desire to believe in such "god" being(s)?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Humans need a source of hope to endure the trials of this life, such is the legend of Pandora's Box.

For many, this source comes in the form of God or faith, the idea that the universe is good at the end of the day, that nature will always ensure that the heroes triumph over the villains. It's a lot better than the bleak picture of might making right and the evil never reaping what they have sown.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Haha i agree(of course the evolution theory is not calling into question) and today the best conclusion to date is not that god doesn't exist.

Uhm, yes it is.

If there is no evidence for a concept whatsoever while many have tried to find it for centuries, the best conclusion to draw from this is to say it doesn't exist until further evidence changes that conclusion.

I have to agree with Perceval in that theists and atheists very often make very similar mistakes, that is they substitute belief for truth.
In my view we do not have any hard evidence than an afterlife does not exist

There doesn't need to be evidence that something doesn't exist.

Positive claims need to have positive evidence. Lack of this positive evidence, while many have looked for it and failed each and every time makes the disbelief in this claim the best conclusion. And positive evidence is not looking at the world, throwing your hands in the air and exclaiming: too complex to happen by accident, without defining the complexity and what makes the conclusion valid.

And the best thing about this. Almost all but the most fanatic religious people (like monks) draw this conclusion. Most, if not all, religious people live their life as if the afterlife doesn't exit. 99% of the time, they ignore the hell out of it.

 

[kochman]

Uhm, yes it is.

If there is no evidence for a concept whatsoever while many have tried to find it for centuries, the best conclusion to draw from this is to say it doesn't exist until further evidence changes that conclusion.

But there is evidence. We have covered this. If you choose to ignore it, that is up to you. However, whatever you think, your opinion is just that, your opinion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But there is evidence. We have covered this. If you choose to ignore it, that is up to you. However, whatever you think, your opinion is just that, your opinion.

Just saying there is, doesn't make it so. Show me your evidence. We haven't covered it to the best of my recollection.

edit: By the way, just to cover myself: Yes, there is indeed subjective personal evidence, but I am clearly looking for objective evidence. Of which there is none.

 

[warpus]

It seems equally unfounded to think there definitely is no afterlife though.

But .. where is your evidence that it might exist? I have never seen any..

 

[Kyriakos]

But .. where is your evidence that it might exist? I have never seen any..

I think we have played our roles in this play before

Although there is definitely (and obviously) no evidence to support the claim there is an afterlife, no evidence of the sort that it could only exist IF there was an afterlife, there is plenty of secondary weaker reason to suspect there might be, that is enough reason to just make being a gnostic on this at least more wrong imo than being agnostic.

Usually in this forum every time someones dares to be an apologist for agnosticism he gets to face the argument that goes along the lines of "so and so is like saying that in theory an [insert obviously impossible thing to exist] is existing".

But all this is not the same, for the question is loaded, and not about some bizarre or insignificant phenomenon, or worse one made up just for fun. No matter where you stand on this, whether you are a believer, a non- believer, or an agnostic, you are basing a serious part of your life development on it. It has been written many times that fear of death is perhaps the most common human fear, and supposedly exists in all people (although obviously it can exist in not as easy forms to recognize, for example it is argued to still exist in people with suicidal ideation etc). Obviously if we take for granted that all people have some fear of death (and most do not seem to actually think at all how death will be experienced, no matter if an afterlife exists or not) then where you stand on the issue of an afterlife is crucial in how you think overall.
Probability theory used to be my favorite part of math, and i was good at it (been years since i last actually used it outside of pure thought though). One thing we learn from probability theory is that it depicts the odds if and only if the experiment is carried out a very large number of times. Also it is not always easy to come up with a probability for even seemingly basic issues.
For example if you claim that an afterlife either exists of does not exist, each probability is at 1/2. True, but if you go on to include options such as "may exist" or "may exist if X is true" you instantly have not only less chance of the more austere options being true, but also links to other variables. This is done when- obviously- we have no better and more refined way to make an equation, then we name variables which are linked to it, in various ways.

Likewise, and this is why i typed this little math part, when we have no hard evidence either for or against an idea, we have to either leave it be, or try to gather 'proof' which might be only semi-legitimate but theorized to be on the contrary utterly connected to the original equation. So in the case of an afterlife i have various times hinted at this weak-type 'evidence' that the human psyche is so complicated that if it was only to provide us with powers for a few years it seems like an utter waste. Why have a race of beings capable of calculating movements of the stars, make fine music or literature, if they are doomed to die one after the other, and then maybe also become massively extinct at some point?
Granted, this is only weak as "evidence", but what is there to support the other hard option, namely strong negative opinion on the possibility there is an afterlife? (queue for your turn )

 

[kochman]

Just saying there is, doesn't make it so. Show me your evidence. We haven't covered it to the best of my recollection.

edit: By the way, just to cover myself: Yes, there is indeed subjective personal evidence, but I am clearly looking for objective evidence. Of which there is none.

Empty tomb of Jesus, for one...
Then the other archeological finds that have backed up what is written in the Bible (while that doesn't make the Bible true necessarily by itself).
Prophecies in the Bible that came true AFTER the book was well established and written.

But .. where is your evidence that it might exist? I have never seen any..

What about paranormal activity? You don't believe any of that?
And, you believe the absence of (found) empirical evidence means that it doesn't exist?
Do you have to see something to believe it? What evidence have you seen for Big Bang? Do you believe that? It takes just as much faith to believe in that theory.

 

[warpus]

I think we have played our roles in this play before

Although there is definitely (and obviously) no evidence to support the claim there is an afterlife, no evidence of the sort that it could only exist IF there was an afterlife, there is plenty of secondary weaker reason to suspect there might be, that is enough reason to just make being a gnostic on this at least more wrong imo than being agnostic.

What reasons are you talking about though? There isn't any evidence, so in my mind there is no reason to think that it might exist, aside from "I wish it were true" type reasons... and that's just not good enough.

What about paranormal activity? You don't believe any of that?

Like what? Strange things happen, yes. Some are unexplained - it doesn't mean that they imply an afterlife, unless you've got some clear examples in mind.

And, you believe the absence of (found) empirical evidence means that it doesn't exist?

The absence of evidence just means that there is no reason to believe that it is true. It *could* be true.

Do you have to see something to believe it?

No

What evidence have you seen for Big Bang? Do you believe that? It takes just as much faith to believe in that theory.

There is plenty of evidence for the big bang.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Empty tomb of Jesus, for one...
Then the other archeological finds that have backed up what is written in the Bible (while that doesn't make the Bible true necessarily by itself).
Prophecies in the Bible that came true AFTER the book was well established and written.

Oooookay.

If an empty tomb of Jesus is evidence, do other empty tombs mean that those who were in these tombs were also resurrected? How many Messiahs do we have? Occam's razor deals with the empty tomb sufficiently.

What about the archaeological evidence that contradict the Bible? Those at least prove the Bible is not infallible.

Prophecies always come true given enough time, just ask Nostradamus. These prophecies have a way of being vague enough and unspecific enough in detail and time-specifics.

edit: Did you know Luke invented a Roman head-count just to put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem to make the prophecies come true? There is no record and no reason for the Romans to have a headcount. It was pure fiction.

What evidence have you seen for Big Bang? Do you believe that? It takes just as much faith to believe in that theory.

The evidence for the Big Bang is that galaxies are travelling away from each other. So, if you turn the time flow around, it gathers into one point.

Now the mechanics of the Big Bang are unknown, and subject to hypothesis.

 

[Kyriakos]

What reasons are you talking about though? There isn't any evidence, so in my mind there is no reason to think that it might exist, aside from "I wish it were true" type reasons... and that's just not good enough.

I should note that just because it is wishful that something exists, although obviously not a valid reason to believe it does exist, at the same time equally obviously is not a valid reason on account of it to believe it does not exist

As for what i referred to as "weak secondary reason", it is clear i gave an example, which you have read before from me. Namely the hyper-complexity of the human psyche. It seems a horrible waste for a human to stop existing after being something so intricate. Even ******** human beings can be said to be quasi-complicated, in the way that a billion euros is a quasi-large sum compared to Greece's debt! (around 300 billion)

 

[kochman]

Like what? Strange things happen, yes. Some are unexplained - it doesn't mean that they imply an afterlife, unless you've got some clear examples in mind.

Well, the leap I make here is at least as logical as the leap big bang theory makes...

The absence of evidence just means that there is no reason to believe that it is true. It *could* be true.

Sure... but some folks on here have been saying that the lack of evidence (despite their being evidence), makes it not true.

There is plenty of evidence for the big bang.

There is logic in it only to make it not a completely impossible theory. There is almost no evidence though. Just SWAGs (scientific wild ass guesses)...

If an empty tomb of Jesus is evidence, do other empty tombs mean that those who were in these tombs were also resurrected? How many Messiahs do we have? Occam's razor deals with the empty tomb sufficiently.

How many prophesized they would be resurrected after 3 days? How many of them then were?

What about the archaeological evidence that contradict the Bible? Those at least prove the Bible is not infallible.[/quote]
I never claimed the Bible was infallible.

Prophecies always come true given enough time, just ask Nostradamus. These prophecies have a way of being vague enough and unspecific enough in detail and time-specifics.

Funny, a lot of his didn't come true...
The predictions of the holocaust are really not vague at all... nor the diaspora, etc...

edit: Did you know Luke invented a Roman head-count just to put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem to make the prophecies come true? There is no record and no reason for the Romans to have a headcount. It was pure fiction.

The Romans did censuses regularly, so that's a pretty interesting assertion...
Probably the local government did too (which is actually who I thought was doing it, the Jewish leadership, but don't really remember exactly).

The evidence for the Big Bang is that galaxies are travelling away from each other. So, if you turn the time flow around, it gathers into one point.

So, because two things are moving apart from each other, there can only be that reason?
Why would you turn the time flow around? There could be no other way?
Could a supreme being not have started the galaxies by use of a big bang?

Now the mechanics of the Big Bang are unknown, and subject to hypothesis.

Exactly... hypothesis, not at all certain.
It takes a certain amount of faith to believe this occured this way, and more to believe that the ideas you agree with within the theory are actually correct.... down to and including timelines, etc.

 

[warpus]

I should note that just because it is wishful that something exists, although obviously not a valid reason to believe it does exist, at the same time equally obviously is not a valid reason on account of it to believe it does not exist

But then you are still not left with a good reason to believe that it is true, making the overall situation one of "Hey, we don't have a good reason to believe this stuff"

As for what i referred to as "weak secondary reason", it is clear i gave an example, which you have read before from me. Namely the hyper-complexity of the human psyche. It seems a horrible waste for a human to stop existing after being something so intricate. Even ******** human beings can be said to be quasi-complicated, in the way that a billion euros is a quasi-large sum compared to Greece's debt! (around 300 billion)

But that's not a reason to believe that something is true at all. It's just wishful thinking.

It'd be like me wishing that my chocolate cake will exist after I eat it, because it looks so tasty.

It'd be like me wishing that Earth was the centre of the Universe, etc.

 

[warpus]

Well, the leap I make here is at least as logical as the leap big bang theory makes...

Oh man.. this is gonna be good! Write this out, please Let's see your mastery of logic and reason.

There is logic in it only to make it not a completely impossible theory. There is almost no evidence though. Just SWAGs (scientific wild ass guesses)...

There is tons of evidence for it, though. Clearly you don't really know enough about it to comment.

 

[Tani Coyote]

As I recall, they did once pick up sound waves that they believe eminated from the Big Bang.

As for the galaxies moving... unless there's something massive on the edge of the universe sucking them all in, chances are it's because energy is pushing them in one direction. Logically, if you trace this energy from each galaxy, it should lead to the same point. Indicating they were all one originally.

The universe is basically a giant shotgun shell.

Sure, there's the idea God could be pushing them all away from eachother for whatever reason, but I'm a bit more inclined to believe in something that's mechanics are simple - you need only roll a ball to see how it works.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How many prophesized they would be resurrected after 3 days? How many of them then were?

Assumption on your behalf: he was resurrected. No evidence for that. There are many more plausible reasons for the tomb to be empty that require no magic whatsoever.

Funny, a lot of his didn't come true...
The predictions of the holocaust are really not vague at all... nor the diaspora, etc...

No? Did they have a time period addressed in them? Or did it go: Us Jews, woe is us, you'll see?

Show me how specific they were.

The Romans did censuses regularly, so that's a pretty interesting assertion...
Probably the local government did too (which is actually who I thought was doing it, the Jewish leadership, but don't really remember exactly).

Oh they did censuses alright. The one talked about did so 10 years after Jesus was born.

Section 1: Historicity of Luke's Account

Luke's famous account of the census (Luke 2:1-6) reads as follows:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David . . .

P. Sculpinius Quirinius was legate (governor) of Syria in the years 6 - 7 AD. He did order a census. However, the assumption that Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius's census (6 AD) leads to irreconcilable chronological problems in the subsequent events of his life. It is entirely unlikely that Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius's census; most scholars put Jesus' birth around 4 BC, a good ten years before Quirinius's census.

The remainder of Luke's account is also highly improbable (I'm being generous here), for a number of reasons:

There was no census of "all the world" (read: the entire Roman Empire) declared by Augustus; at least, if there were, it's not mentioned in any Roman documents that we've uncovered so far. The census was of Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea--not Galilee (where Luke puts Joseph and Mary). Quirinius used the opportunity to also conduct a census of Syria.

The notion that each male would have to register in the home town of a remote ancestor is unbelievable. The entire Roman world would have been turned upside-down. There would surely have been records of such widespread dislocations, and there are none. Augustus was arguably the most rational of the emperors, and would never have ordered such an irrational thing.

Ancient census-takers wanted landowners to be connected to their land, for tax purposes. The census-takers traveled, not those being taxed.

So, almost all scholars agree that it is not reasonable to think that there was ever a decree that required people to travel for purposes of tax registration.

So, because two things are moving apart from each other, there can only be that reason?

Barring outside influences, yes. And there are no indications of outside influences.

Why would you turn the time flow around?

How else do you determine where a moving object's origins are?

There could be no other way?

Sure, but there isn't any evidence for another way.

Could a supreme being not have started the galaxies by use of a big bang?

It could. But remember that you brought it up and asked for evidence, I didn't raise the point to disprove anything.

Exactly... hypothesis, not at all certain.
It takes a certain amount of faith to believe this occured this way, and more to believe that the ideas you agree with within the theory are actually correct.... down to and including timelines, etc.

No, the evidence points to the universe emerging in one point. That's all I said. How this came about I made no claims about.


edit: you were right previously though. We have been down this road before. I remember the same irritation as last time when people easily dismiss mountains of evidence on one side, but see an empty tomb as evidence that whoever was in there must have been resurrected. As if that's a logical conclusion to make. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but an empty tomb is evidence of a missing body, Period. An empty tomb is not evidence of an event of resurrection, nor does it provide a timeline in which this supposed resurrection took place.