h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Alji. I think Moth has confused infinity and perfection. The perfect must be unchanging, because any change would be away from perfection. Hence a perfect God has to be unchanging.

There are problems with a static universe. Static relative to what? Or by 'static' do you just mean 'unchanging' anyway?

Moth. You're getting it wrong here and I hope you don't mind my explaining. Your contributions here are so interesting that they don't deserve to be spoiled by slips.

First: you can't describe something as being 'infinite'. It has to be 'infinitely large', 'infinitely old' or whatever. It is a common error that I get rather tired of encountering.

Second: you really do mean 'perfect' rather than 'infinite' I think. Perhaps you would prefer to say 'infinitely good' as a sort of compromise.

Third: things that are not infinite have unchanging features too. There's nothing in logic to say that all the features can't be unchanging for a while.

Fourth: 'cause and effect' doesn't always entail change. The presence of a cannonball on a cushion causes there to be a depression in the cushion. This does not change unless we *remove* the cannonball. OK, this can be seen as a verbal trick in one sense, but in another it is correct.

Bod. On this one I find Moth's logic rather persuasive! You should address the logical points more, rather than quibbling about your personal circumstances. If you are correct, you could reduce the amount of freewill and evil in the world by killing off yourself and, logically, everyone else! If you prefer to retain a world containing both, you can hardly criticise God for creating such a world.

Hi Ted. I call myself an agnostic, but I'm in search of the most plausible theory of God, perhaps in order to doubt it! That has to be the only fair way. No point in knocking down a straw man. Deism has considerable attractions, I have to admit. Maybe it's only my upbringing that wants the theory to be compatible with Theism as well as being plausible.

Refreshing post, but you committ the 'infinite' fallacy (see recent message to Moth) and a god who is perfect (= infinitely good) is easier to understand than one that has imperfections .... why would He have them? The imperfections would need more understanding, not less.

Yep, I know about the 'God of the gaps' reasoning. I don't think it follows that nothing needs God as an explanation just because science was able to take over in certain cases.

I've never noticed any contradiction, so looking at them I'll assume what you mean is that Daniel says God sets up the kingdom, but Jesus refers to it as his (That's all I can see that you could think is a contradiction). Daniel 7:13,14 explains, "13 “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man (the name Jesus often used to refer to himself) happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days (God, being the most ancient person there is) he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were GIVEN rulership and dignity and KINGDOM, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin." (Brackets and capitals mine!) So God sets up the kingdom, and gives it to Jesus. (And a later scripture (1 Corinthians 15:24) says that when all things have been put right, Jesus will give the kingdom back to God.)


What is this a quote of? I can find no such scripture, even using the internet search tool of various translations.


Jesus sacrifice was a provision of mercy, so that mercy could be shown while still upholding justice, which God must always do. If a person does not accept that provision, which a non-christian assumably doesn't, what more mercy is there to be shown?


Actually kat, all true Christians do, just as Jesus did, and the apostles did, and all the early Christians did.
(Although of course, it was never forced - by 'convert people', what we really mean is 'teach people the truth and hope that they will decide for themselves to convert'.)


What is life if there's no free will? I guess you could still experience things, but what would be the point if there were no actions you could base on those experiences? And don't forget that if there was no free will, there wouldn't really be any good either - you could never choose to do something for someone, to give to them or love them. Any appreciation you expressed for what you had would be hollow, as you would have been forced to have it - indeed, any feelings would be hollow. You say my earlier suggestion would be selfish, but under your idea there wouldn't really be any such thing as unselfishness, you would only do good things because you were forced to. I just can't see the point of such an existence.
That's assuming, of course, that such an existence could logically exist. Consciousness isn't really understood - it may not be logically possible to have awareness without free will; perhaps there can be no input without output as well.

Hi Toxx,

"You should address the logical points more, rather than quibbling about your personal circumstances."

Sorry if I was unclear, but I was using personal circumstances to illustrate a logical point. What's wrong with that?

The logic is this:

If God is omnipotent, then presumably it is within her powers to have created a world in which there was both free will and yet no evil.

Free will necessitates the POSSIBILITY of choosing evil, but does not necessitate that possibility becoming ACTUALITY.

On what point do you disagree?

Bod

blicky

"Infinite in terms of the universe refers to its size. As it encompasses all matter it is the biggest thing there is(physical dimensions)."

It is not commonly believed to be eternal or unchanging and in that sense will not be infinite in lenght(time)

that's what i said , but badly.
although 'size' again is one of those concepts that we feel the need to have alongside time when we try to comprehend things.

God

Life isn't without purpose in anyway you choose to use the word.
you said earlier it was survival.
I said evolution.
A volcano and a man are not similar.
A volcano is a product of cause and effect in nature. a man has an awareness of what he is and could be.
A volcano cannot extrapolate the potential future from known facts for example
It's a bad comparison if you don't mind me saying so
i'm not a volcano expert, but don't they 'let off stream' to relieve pressure? if so is this not a purpsoe anyhow?
Is evolution random?
It's a question we've raised here more than once and we seem not to have arrived at a conclusive answer.
And as you say, it is no longer as random as it was with the introduction of genetics.

Toxx
infinity is perfection.
I'm not confusing the two in my mind, I am viewing infinity without the physical laws of time and space interferring with the perception.
infinity has no physical laws that we comprehend, that's why it's infinite.

sorry, what was the question again??????? oer lolpmpinteresting though!!!

Q. "What use is religion if it does not make a person wiser and more compassionate?"

A. None

Q. Are compassion and wisdom the exclusive possesions of the
religious?

A. No

If all of the objectives of religions, personal happiness, equality, social justice and cohesion, deeper understanding of an respect for nature etcetera, can be achieved in the absence of religion; what use is it, except as a topic to keep us talking and exploring abstact ideas late into the night? Simone de Beauvoir is a wonderfully articulate example.

"faith is believing in what cannot be proven." Acutely put.

Ted, if you are looking for a better expaination all you need do is look, try Charles Darwin, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, John Maddox,
Merlin Donald... the list goes on and on. Science does not fear the unexplained, it is constantly looking for new and better questions an does not rest on it's laurels. Philosophers like Karl Popper see to that.

Enough name dropping.

Blickbadger, yes we do do evolution, in a way that no other species, to our knowledge, ever has on this planet before. The way we think, act and communicate causes physical changes in the structures of our brains. Vitally, this is the result of conscious acts, like learning new languages, skills, how to respond in novel situations, developing new tools etc.,even just listening to music and viewing art. We are also actively evolving our external memory fields, that is, media for recording, reviewing and responding to our own and others thoughts, and the really big factor, culture, with which we have a symbiotic, plastic relationship. We transform it, it transforms us.

eggs
rosi

Good logical point Bod

Good try, Bod. I think you were illustrating an irrelevant point from your own personal case. A possibility without any chance of the actuality is NOT a possibility. One thing God cannot do is the logically impossible. That's because whoever asks for it is making a meaningless request. It isn't God's fault that the meaningless is meaningless. Do I detect a spot of squirming? Maybe you should stop digging.

Moth. Pleased that I was right. You're confusing the issue in the minds of the rest of us. Infinity and perfection are unrelated. You won't even find them in the same section of Roget's Thesaurus!

Infinity is a mathematical concept. That is why it has no physical laws. Mathematical concepts only have mathematical laws.

Hi Bod

Re: Post 9674 & 9675

Religion should be a private matter....when I said it should be left Out of What is going on in the world, I guess what I was referring to is the Religious Wars that always seem to come about....Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Muslims and Christians in the Middle East....I feel everyone has a right to their beliefs and it should not be an issue when it comes to politics and heads of state, and land issues.

MY opinion is that "Formalised, Institutionalised Religion" is an outright contradiction. It's a business. The Catholic Church Collects MONEY....what exactly do they do with that? Renovate churches, OK, Nice living quarters and threads, I must say....and I'm sure some $$ goes to helping the needy? I have witnessed "Clothing Collections" that I thought were to be for the 'Poor' and considered "donations".....Ah... but to find out that these items are set up in Flea Markets, and other organizations..(don't want to mention names), to be SOLD...at a fairly inexpensive profit of course....I just don't get it.....If the items are to be "donations", then I think the Church should have a FREE Market instead of a Flea Market....GIVE to the needy....not have them pay for other's donations.....

The Church makes the decisions to change the "rules" so to speak, apparently for their convenience(a horribly perfect example is how they chose not to expel the priests who were accused of sexual molestation)....they gave them a slap ont the wrist and let them just fade away somewhere...

The Pope is just a man who made it to the "Top of the RC Ladder" Just look at the Vatican...not exactly a "humble abode"...All the flashy stuff, such a display of "material things" should I say?

I think Martin Luther had the Right Idea....

Anyway....About RE/RI... You are absolutely right..... Religious Instruction Classes should be done away with.....Religious Education is just that....Educating the children about their religion....That I believe is vital..ANY EDUCATION has it's place...and I believe it should start at HOME. Parents should 'Practice what they Preach' if they want their children to have respect....

Barb

It wasn't GOD who said that life is without purpose. It was your friendly neighbourhood Badger.

Life (the many and varied actions of cellular organisms is about as random as techtonic plate movement. Both obey the same physical principles and both are merely phenomena. That is the similarity I was getting at. Forming salt crytals through evaporation, the conception and birth of a baby or the melting of ice are all part of the chemical and physical interactions and reactions that just happen every day.

Sure a volcano can't wonder why its here or remember its Birthday, (well i can't remember most of my Birthdays but I know why that is ).

So yes we are different in that way, but as the late, great Bill Hicks said "We're just a virus with shoes" There is no purpose nor meaning to life other than that which we choose to apply for or to our selves. "Its just a ride."

Like wise the "evolution" of ideas through experimentation or logical prgression is similar but not the same as the Biological process' that generations of living organisms go through.

Seeing the 'son of god' thing coming up again I'd like to offer the following to those whose logic and reason are struggling with the literal possibilities of such a claim.

In ancient times, paternal loyalty, reinforced by tribal custom, was pretty much the way of the world. I remind you of the biblical story of the prodigal son. It was simply 'not on' to wander off and pursue one's own interests. To do so was to give to whatever pursuit one followed, all the attributes usually associated with one's paternally ruled family. Abandoning the family and tribe for some other interest was a major and radical step.

If a young man chose not to follow his father's trade and set out to dedicate himself to another cause he might be referred to as a son of the sea, or a son of the desert or a son of the saddle. This is in large part because he would have been 'disowned' by his real family for such a breach of custom. The term was meant to suggest that the new realtionship carried all the inherent meaning - a life in service to, and being heir to, something other than the bog standard traditional family generational passage.

Whatever the cause, club, philosophy or occupation any errant son might choose as an alternative to inheriting the family farm or business, he would be seen as a son of it. He would refer to it as my 'father' in the widest sense of progenitor, mentor, keeper, cause and ongoing source of life and reason to live it. [See: the Sorcerer's Apprentice or Pinochio] We can see the term still used today as the Sons of the Pioneers, the sons of Apollo, the sons or Eire, the sons of America or a son of a gun.

And we still say the Lord's prayer which begins "Our father.." but (hopefully) none of us is claiming god's personal paternity. In the same way Christ, like most dedicated to a religious calling, called god, "my father". But he neither claimed that this was unique nor of real biological connection. He did not claim to be god's 'only son'. All these attributes were assumed later by those using reverse logic backwards from 'my father'. It would be similar to making assumptions about a nun who says she is 'a bride of Christ'. The term is figurative not literal; else, Christ would be a polygamist.

Any dedicated rabbi, priest or follower of any god could have been called 'a son of god'. Those who are particularly adamant and succesful in this relationship (such as Alexander the Great) often became known as 'THE son of god'. Again this was not always entirely expected to be taken literally, but was meant only to distinguish that particular Alexander from all the other Als, like John THE baptist, or John THE revelator. Such descriptors often take precedent and dominate the identity, especially when sufficient cultural understanding and other background information is lacking in modern readers.

Jabba the Hut was not really a hut. He was more like a tent or a big girl's blouse.


~jwf~ son of cyberspace

I think that's biblically inaccurate, ~jwf~. Jesus rarely if ever called himself the son of God. Most frequently he called himself the son of MAN. If your idea applies, some interesting consequences follow. Not, however, those that you suggest.

The God everyone is describing doesn't sound like any God that I would want to believe in. You say that you don't believe it Him, but gathering from what you have said about Him, you don't know much about the One you don't believe in.

I came across a book that might hold some answers. It's called The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an athiest who was trying to disprove Christianity but on his search for answers, he discovered a lot. A description of the book..."A Seasoned Journalist Chases Down the Leads in the Biggest News Story in History. If you were a journalist, how would you handle a news story so big it would utterly eclipse all other world events? How thorough would your investigation be? How many hard-hitting questions would you ask? How carefully would you consult with top experts to get detailed, accurate answers? Lee Strobel knows firsthand. It was as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist that he first investigated the greatest news story of all--the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, in The Case for Christ, he presents compelling evidence and expert testimony for the claims of Christianity. As a seasoned journalist with a Yale law background, Strobel systematically tracks down his leads and asks the blunt, tough questions readers themselves would want to ask--questions that can make or break the Christian faith. He refuses contrived, simplistic answers. Instead, he pieces together hard facts through interviews with more than a dozen of the country's top scholars. Written in the style of a blockbuster investigative report, The Case for Christ is apologetics at its most imaginative--gripping, compelling, marshaling expert testimony and incontrovertible evidence. With unerring instincts, Strobel ferrets out Historical Evidence: Do we possess reliable documents concerning the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus? Scientific Evidence: Is there archaeological substantiation for the historical accounts about Jesus? Did Jesus perform miracles?Psychiatric Evidence: Did Jesus really claim to be God? What evidence is there that he fit God's profile? Fingerprint Evidence: What does prophecy have to say about Jesus? Other evidence: Jesus' death, the missing body, eyewitness accounts, and claims of personal encounters. The Case for Christ reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting journey to the truth about the most remarkable event in history: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it's a revealing, personal testimony to his power to transform people yet today--even the most cynical, hard-bitten journalist."

see more about the book at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310209307/qid=1057853848/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-0132667-7959341?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

So, is the Bible really all that accurate? You've heard it before. Maybe it's by friends or a teacher....but, you've heard it: "Sure the Bible is a good book, but, it's got mistakes." Well, take a look at the evidence and decide for yourself. With regards to the Old Testament, the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures had to follow strict rules:
1. Each copy had to be written in a certain number of columns of 30 letters width and with a certain number of lines to each column. · Each copy had to be made from a certified original.
2. Every letter was copied one at a time from the original. They could not even write one letter from memory.
3. The distance between each letter was measured by a single hair or thread.
4. Every letter on every page and book was counted against the original. The number of times each letter occurred in the book was counted and compared against the original.
5. If one of these rules (and many others) were broken, the entire copy was destroyed.

What about the New Testament you ask? There are two important factors involved in determining the reliability of a historical document:
1. The number of manuscript copies still around and,
2. The time between when it was first written and the oldest copy still in existence.
Let's compare the New Testament with some other writings of olden days. The New Testament was written over a time period of 60 years. We have over 24,000 copies and some of the copies we have are only 25 years removed from the originals! Caesar's work, The Gallic Wars, was written over a 56 year period. We have 10 copies, the closest to the original is 1,000 years removed. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad and there is a 500 year span between the original and oldest existing copy. So you see, no other work comes close to the New Testament. So why do so many put down the Bible as being inaccurate and untrustworthy? Plato wrote between 427 - 347 B.C. The earliest copy still in existence today is from 900 A.D. The time span between the first written & oldest copy is 1200 years. The number of ancient copies in existence today is 7. Aristotle wrote between 384 - 322 B.C. The earliest copy still in existence today is from 1100 A.D. The time span between the first written & oldest copy is 1400 years. The number of ancient copies in existence today is 37. The New Testament was written in 48 A.D. The earliest copy still in existence today is from 130 A.D. The time span between the first written & oldest copy is 80 years. The number of ancient copies in existence today is 24,630.

The Scriptures were written by over 40 different authors, over a period of approximately 1,500 years. These authors not only lived in different time periods, but were also in totally different cultures, living in totally different environments, over 3 different continents, in a wide variety of occupations. Yet, miraculously, all the books of Scripture are in complete unity and agreement, revealing the Nature of God, man and his relationship to God, and how God planned to restore that relationship. Scriptures are completely in agreement in controversial matters such as God, the meaning of life, etc...Try getting even 5 people in 1 period of time, in 1 culture, to be in complete unity and thought about even a simple controversial subject, i.e. "What about T.V.?". Scripture are one in thought because the were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is the only book that bases its authenticity and authority on prophecy. No other books, such as the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon, the sayings of Budda or Confucious, have the element of prophecy in them. There were 25 specific prophecies of Jesus’s birth,betrayal, trial, death, burial, etc.... These were made by different men living between 1000 BC and 500 BC (500 years apart). Yet all were perfectly fulfilled be Jesus. There were a total of 109 specific prophesies fulfilled at Jesus’s first coming. There are hundreds of fulfilled prophesies in the ancient and modern history of the Jewish people.

If you think about it, some of the stories in the Bible would make good tabloid headlines or talk show topics. But, those who reported the stories expected them to be taken as fact. Let's look at the New Testament. The reporters of the events knew that these things might cost them their lives. Some ended up in prison for sharing these stories and some even died. The apostle Paul is a good example (Acts 26:24-26). These Bible stories were witnessed by many people. The events were done in the open and many, throughout history, have died because of their beliefs. Plus, throughout history, many have tried to discredit these writings, but, the stories have stood the test of time. Unlike myths, legends, and mystery religions, the events recorded in the Bible have happened in the presence of many credible witnesses (2 Peter 1:16). It's also interesting to note that the Bible records eyewitness testimony from women, even though back then, a woman's word was not taken seriously. Let's look at this from another angle. Some have claimed that Nostradamus is one of the greatest prophets of all time, but, ignore the Bible and its prophecies. Did you know Scripture contains dozens of specific predictions that came true with 100% accuracy (compared to Nostradamus' vague "prophecies" which could be applied to anything). For example, could you find all 48 major prophecies concerning the Messiah fulfilled in any one man? Science says "no". The chance of that occurring by coincidence is 10 followed by 157 zeros! I'd say those are pretty high odds! But, Jesus is that one man. Try as you might, there is nothing that even comes close to Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).