The complexity of the universe strongly suggests there to be a creator behind it. Name an equally likely alternative that accounts for all the evidence
The account of the person Jesus presented by the sources of the NT, primarily Paul and Luke, strongly support his death and resurrection. Name an equally likely alternative that accounts for all the evidence
Other urls found in this thread:
newsweek.com
youtube.com
unm.edu
en.m.wikipedia.org
now.tufts.edu
en.wikipedia.org
aish.com
twitter.com
>The complexity of the universe strongly suggests there to be a creator behind it. Name an equally likely alternative that accounts for all the evidence
Christian here -- your logic is flawed, brother.
Tell me, what degree of complexity would you expect in a Universe that arose without a Creator? How many other Universes, created and not, have you examined to reach that opinion?
how do you calculate the probability of there being a creator or not?
because scientists agree that for all intents and purposes, the universe ex nihilo statistically shouldn't even agree, let alone a universe capable of sustaining a complex life like our own.
newsweek.com
>statistically shouldn't even agree
exist* not agree
If the universe is so complex it would need an equally complex creator, which according to you would mean they would need a creator too, who would also need a creator, etc
>accounts for all the evidence
Jesus or someone(s) like him existed, who may or may not have preached the things he is claimed to have in the NT, and Paul then created a cult(not meant particularly pejoratively) around him along with stories of him being the messiah, son of God, and many other things that contradict the OT and Jewish theology. There are probably better alternatives, that's just what I came up with.
>which according to you would mean they would need a creator too, who would also need a creator, etc
not according to me. I said the universe needs a creator, not God
God is the one who made every concept you know, even the concept of creation. He existed before the concepts of complexity or material. The laws of nature don't precede him, he is the lawmaker
>Jesus or someone(s) like him existed, who may or may not have preached the things he is claimed to have in the NT, and Paul then created a cult(not meant particularly pejoratively) around him along with stories of him being the messiah, son of God, and many other things that contradict the OT and Jewish theology
okay so whats your evidence for all this? particularly what inspired Paul and the other NT writers to suddenly be dishonest and start a cult?
>The account of the person Jesus presented by the sources of the NT, primarily Paul and Luke, strongly support his death and resurrection.
Wrong.
Early christianity exploded into a multitude of extremely heterogenous churches. The gnostic stuff once was a large current and if you look at Mandeans which are a leftover from that time you see Jesus condemned and John the baptist as one of their most holy figures.
Its much more likely there was a dense net of cults centered around holy men that only later codified the new testament to its current canon.
Good yt video on this subject
youtube.com
Deism and the theory that an alternate universe with different laws of physics than our own created our universe are the two most rational arguments for the creation of the universe.
>Early christianity exploded into a multitude of extremely heterogenous churches.
that doesn't change whether Paul was honest or not. He is known to be one of the earliest teachers of Christianity and cites being taught by those who knew the Lord personally
>The gnostic stuff once was a large current
As far as I know, no gnostic texts existed until about 100 years later, and they're considered very dubious with apostolic names attached only to compete with the authentic writings.
>Deism
why would a God made the decision to create something but not care for the creation?
>the theory that an alternate universe with different laws of physics than our own
then what created that universe, and how do we determine its laws of physics when we don't even know it really existed, and how does a universe even create another universe?
>let alone sustaining complex life like our own
First of all, your source is a click bait article. Second, it makes no mention of the probability of a universe containing life, or even of probability at all. All it deals with is that anti particles and particles always form in equal proportion, but there would need to be an imbalance for matter to form, and thus we don't know how to explain this apparent discrepancy.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
–Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle
“Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.”
–Former Harvard University Research Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science Owen Gingerich
Why does the apocalypse which got dated to around 95AD does not fall under the same scrutinity then as the gnostic texts?
Of course they are considered dubious, since the strains of christianity that won out during the codification period and got the power of rome at their hands purged heretics and more importantly their texts.
>taught by those who knew the creator of existence personally
that is a rather dubious claim but a fascinating one if you see it in relation to other cultures. Strong beliefs and living in crisis seems to do something with a few people. There are other cases of people getting visions and then commiting to a religion until death even in modern times. I remember an article about secular koreans becoming shamans after suffering from spirit sickness and weird dreams.
Hittite texts mention the wish for divinily possesed people to turn up and give them directions, getting visions and instructions seems to be an old phenomenum.
Emanuel swedenborg while being a reasonable and educated person wrote heaps of theology after seeing god. If hed been martyred his views might have gained traction too as people are impressed by sacrifiece the most.
The case of Paul stands out as extraordinary as he persecuted christians himself and ended up dying as one for his beliefs. Sceptics may point to many others martyrs of history and the vivid visions of people whose beliefs are not compatible with the narrow road to heaven laid out by christianity.
Either visions can be explained by science and neurotransmitters going amok if faced with certain perceptions shaped by anthropologic circumstances, god gives visions to many religions which carry a piece of truth, or christ is right alone (other visions being demonically inspired) which cannot really be backed up by more then faith it seems at leaves us at personal choice.
>I said the universe needs a creator not God
But that's the thing, your argument seems to be because you said so. In the OP you seem to imply the reason it must have a creator is because of its complexity.
Paul and the other NT writers would have obviously been inspired by the idea of the messiah found in the OT and possibly other ideas going around amongst the jewish community at the time. As to why he was dishonest, It could be for many of the same reasons anyone starts a cult even in contemporary times, or it could be that he wasn't dishonest, and his original writing/teachings were a completely honest description of Jesus that didn't contain any supernatural elements, and he personally believed that Jesus was the messiah and would return to fulfill messianic prophecy. These teachings could have then been corrupted over time by new converts who either exaggerated or simply misunderstood what was taught (see the game 'telephone') and it became what it is today. This is of course a very rough explanation of something that COULD have happened, and is probably not accurate, but is just meant to demonstrate the general idea.
>why would a God made the decision to create something but not care for the creation?
Why would God need to actively poke his head into a universe when he already knows everything that will happen in it? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to set it in motion and then let it run by itself, because to Him, it's already a forgone conclusion?
>then what created that universe
Maybe in the other universe it is possible that something can come from nothing. Or maybe that universe was created by another universe where that's the case, or maybe it was created by a universe that was created by a universe where that's the case, and so on.
>how do we determine its laws of physics when we don't even know it really existed
We don't need to know these details to argue this theory. It's simple logic and it is supported by science.
We know that something can't come from nothing. However, the universe is something, and it obviously must have begun at some point. Therefore, it was created by some kind of force outside the laws of physics. Hence, some force that doesn't conform to the laws of physics as we know them must have created the universe.
papyri of Revelation has actually been found in Egypt which is unusual for something of such a late date. 95 AD is a liberal suggestion, but its been usually attributed to John in his old age. Some scholars like (I think?) Justo Gonzales attribute it to a different John than the apostle
> since the strains of christianity that won out during the codification period and got the power of rome at their hands purged heretics and more importantly their texts.
not true, Constantine sympathized with the heretics and was even baptized by one
>Either visions can be explained by science and neurotransmitters going amok if faced with certain perceptions shaped by anthropologic circumstances
science does not explain multiple people having the same vision at the same time.
1 Corinthians 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
I admit I skimmed your post so if I passed by an argument you made, feel free to direct me back to it so I can respond
>But that's the thing, your argument seems to be because you said so.
not at all. You don't think complexity implies a creator? for example, alphabet cereal spilled out on the floor with the message "I'm in your house" didn't just happen by chance right?
As to your Paul theories, thats all suggestions you've made up. Pick one and give me historical evidence for it please. I don't know what "the same reasons anyone starts a cult" means.
Two people is hardly a consensus, and personal incredulity isn't proof against something. They don't have any actual statistics to back up their claim that it's not likely, it's literally just their opinion.
btw I tried to respond to you longer but I got a "comment too long" notification. If I missed something you really wanted me to respond to, feel free to direct me to it
>Why would God need to actively poke his head into a universe when he already knows everything that will happen in it?
now we're leaving philosophy and getting into Christian theology. For his glory, to show his wonderful attributes
>Maybe in the other universe it is possible that something can come from nothing. Or maybe that universe was created by another universe where that's the case, or maybe it was created by a universe that was created by a universe where that's the case, and so on.
thats a lot of assumptions. "maybe". Simple explanation is better, yes?
"If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate that the Universe was created for man to live in."
John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer),
could do this all day my man
unm.edu
>i-its just these astronomers and astro physicists opinions...
>The complexity of the universe strongly suggests there to be a creator behind it.
No it doesn't.
okay sorry
the "comment too long" remark was meant for
getting a bit confusing responding to everyone, sorry
>skimmed your post
Is fine im not that invested atm., Didnt knew about the multiple people vision in jesus case which makes it more understandable to have made that impact.
>You don't think complexity implies a creator
But that's my point, if it's the complexity is what means it probably has to have a creator then that same logic would also apply to the creator. And those weren't theories, they were just spitballs i put out as to why someone might do what he did, the point being it's not unlikely or unheard of for someone to create a cult that either is initially dishonest or becomes dishonest later on, and in fact the same can be said for other religions such as islam. The usual reasons for someone starting a cult are unknown to me but I'm sure you could find them by reading about scientology or one those wired ass "christian" cults that popped up in relatively recent history.
>now we're leaving philosophy and getting into Christian theology. For his glory, to show his wonderful attributes
So that he can show off? Aren't his wonderful attributes already programmed into what he created?
>thats a lot of assumptions. "maybe". Simple explanation is better, yes?
I don't claim to know for sure, like you do. There is really no way of knowing for sure (yet, at least), so the best we can do now is conjecture.
There's no hard evidence, or even logical induction, to substantiate your claims. You simply write with such certainty because you've convinced yourself that you know for a fact how all of these things came to be. Present evidence that God has shown "his wonderful attributes".
yes, hes basically telling the Corinthians "if you don't believe me then go ask them, most of them are still alive"
>But that's my point, if it's the complexity is what means it probably has to have a creator then that same logic would also apply to the creator.
why would the creator be subject to the laws of nature that he created?
>And those weren't theories, they were just spitballs i put out as to why someone might do what he did, the point being it's not unlikely or unheard of for someone to create a cult that either is initially dishonest or becomes dishonest later on,
I'd like to know what you really think happened, not "spitballs". What accounts for the evidence? Why can't we take Paul at face value?
>Aren't his wonderful attributes already programmed into what he created?
yes but not all of them. Later we will also see mercy and wrath and justice.
>Present evidence that God has shown "his wonderful attributes".
I thought I did already with the complexity of the universe? Complex things don't really just pop out of nothing, you know
I don't see your point, three isn't a consensus either, and the fact that they're astronomers and astrophysicists, besides being an appeal to authority, is irrelevant since many more astronomers and astro physicists would disagree with them. Being intelligent in one area doesn't make your opinions have some kind of all encompassing value, look at the unabomber for an example.
fucked up again, part of that second response is for
>is irrelevant since many more astronomers and astro physicists would disagree with them.
alright, I gave you three (in reality a lot more in that link, but sure) so now you give me three that disagree
Unfortunately I don't have more than "spitballs", I'm admittedly not well read on this particular topic. As for not being liable to the laws of the universe, I agree, but I don't see why then there needs to a divine intelligence to create it, why can't the laws just not apply to the universes creation entirely? The assumption that it is some kind of concious entity that created the universe is still based in our understanding of the rules inside of our universe.
have you ever observed laws creating something on their own?
>The assumption that it is some kind of concious entity that created the universe is still based in our understanding of the rules inside of our universe.
you could literally say that for anything, man. doesn't make it less rational. You only think 2 plus 2 equals 4 based on our understanding of the rules inside our universe
>Unfortunately I don't have more than "spitballs", I'm admittedly not well read on this particular topic.
if you want, you can pick one that you think is strongest and we can discuss it.
some of the people I quoted are atheists. give me exact quotes
>I thought I did already with the complexity of the universe? Complex things don't really just pop out of nothing, you know
I know that they don't come from nothing, I never said that. Also, as others have said, "complexity" is relative. We don't know of other universes to compare this one to, so for all we know, ours could be a simple universe relative to others.
Ultimately, I don't think I will be able to convince you of anything here. You seem too dogmatic to discuss this rationally.
>pop-sci
fake news
post an actual paper
What makes Christianity more plausible than Judaism or Islam?
>We don't know of other universes to compare this one to, so for all we know, ours could be a simple universe relative to others.
it would still be complex relative to our own comprehension though. So God maybe created more complex universes, doesn't make a difference to the argument. You're just tacking on more assumptions and variables
>Ultimately, I don't think I will be able to convince you of anything here. You seem too dogmatic to discuss this rationally.
I think that applies to most people, but I'm trying to my best to understand everyones perspective and reply honestly
Ultimately, the resurrection of Christ. Judaism and Islam deny it. Good question, I like this one
Gonna poop very quickly, brb friends.
The resurrection.
>The resurrection
I don't believe in """historical""" documents.
thats not a reasonable position at all then
This is me every time I read a newpaper and they call legitimate deductions """"""tax loopholes""""
The MACRS depreciation system is fucking accounting 101
btw, OP here, I'm back
>The complexity of the universe strongly suggests there to be a creator behind it.
why?
>bro this computer doesn't have a creator behind it just resulted from a particularly violent sandstorm.
nothing comes from nothing
it could always be argued that our current universe came from a proto universe where time and space didn't exist and thus undetectable by us.
okay then argue it
ok it can't be argued. but it's not implausible.
>it could always be argued
>ok it can't be argued
...
>>it could always be argued
>>ok it can't be argued
>scientists agree with clickbait title
kek
so what do you believe regarding the topics of this thread
>so what do you believe regarding the topics of this thread
Super K e K
>the universe is a computer
so if something must come from something, then the universe always was and there's no need for god to explain it because there never was "creation" to begin with
>so if something must come from something, then the universe always was and there's no need for god to explain it because there never was "creation" to begin with
eh? not sure I follow
now.tufts.edu
It's not reasonable to think that an over 2000 year old document that claims things happened that defy the laws of physics is inaccurate?
*almost
>then the universe always was
Nobody believes this. Mostly because it is impossible.
Who said absolutely everything else that exists is inferior to the laws of physics?
so you believe its inaccurate 1- because of its age and 2- because your world view doesn't account for divine intervention?
1- age is a good thing in historical documents, because its closer to the event in question. more important is the source of the information, in this case Paul and Luke is who I'd cite, and their apparent honesty.
2- divine intervention is the best argument we have for the origin of the universe
Then you just run into infinite regressions with no prime cause, and have to explain how we're not in heat death right now.
So Christianity is true because a tenant of it is supported by its founding documents? Documents which are contradicted by countless other documents, including the very group documents these founding documents cite?
the original claim (don't know if it was you or not) was that "nothing comes from nothing"the implication is that the big bang could not have occurred because it "comes from nothing". according to the premise above, all things must come from other things, therefore there must have been a creator who created the universe.
if indeed "nothing comes from nothing" is true, and the universe came from god, then what did god come from? he could not have come from nothing according to the premise. the usual answer is that he is self made or just always was. but if that can apply to god, why can't it apply to the universe?
nice article ty
What are you babbling about?
>then what did god come from?
Are you serious?
But what about the Big Bang Theory?
well "the big crunch" is still a theory going around. the increasing expansion of the universe seems to disprove it though.
yes.
It isn't, actually. It's already been rejected.
>the implication is that the big bang could not have occurred because it "comes from nothing"
not true. I don't know if the big bang happened, but I would only say it was caused by a Creator. Perhaps the big bang was his method of creation
>if indeed "nothing comes from nothing" is true, and the universe came from god, then what did god come from? he could not have come from nothing according to the premise.
I've addressed this here
and here
You have never heard in your entire life, not once, that God is eternal.
Never.
The fact that God is eternal has escaped you somehow.
ok thanks for the heads up. lookin forward to the heat death of the universe now/
Look around. We are not in heat death.
Therefore an infinite series of big bangs and big crunches has not happened.
>I don't know if the big bang happened, but I would only say it was caused by a Creator. Perhaps the big bang was his method of creation
i think that's a fine view in terms of a practical reconciling of science with theology, but in terms of pure logic it doesn't really follow.
>God is the one who made every concept you know, even the concept of creation. He existed before the concepts of complexity or material. The laws of nature don't precede him, he is the lawmaker
not to be rude, but this is nonsensical and doesn't address the question of who created the creator. it merely lists some properties of the supposed creator in a context where properties don't exist yet.
also complex things can be explained by the concept of "emergence" without recourse to divinity. en.wikipedia.org
i was joking. isn't heat death the inevitable consequence of an expanding universe that will never contract again?
>but in terms of pure logic it doesn't really follow.
why not?
>not to be rude, but this is nonsensical and doesn't address the question of who created the creator.
not rude at all bud. It directly addresses the concept of who created the creator by explaining why he doesn't need a creator. He made the laws when you are trying to apply to him. He is above those laws, he precedes them
>also complex things can be explained by the concept of "emergence" without recourse to divinity.
how about explain it to me in a couple sentences, and then I'll check out the link if it seems appealing
>He made the laws when you are trying to apply to him.
which* not when
really need to proofread.
...
>people actually falling for this garbage bait
> the usual answer is that he is self made or just always was. but if that can apply to god...
okay so where do the atoms come from
very worthwhile post. please post more
Either. Every iteration of a big bang/big crunch would result in the irretrievable loss of usable energy.
Reject the Messiah.
Murder the Messiah.
Reject the Kingdom.
Then bitch that the Messiah did not bring about the Kingdom as you were murdering Him and rejecting His Kingdom.
Typical Jew.
I Am.
That's the placeholder for his name. I Am That I Am. I Will Be That I Will Be.
Eternal.
I don't understand how the idea of the universe and laws of physics "just starting" is more ridiculous than an eternal personified being "just existing" and then creating the universe. Why do the laws of physics have to apply to the creation of the laws of physics?
BECASUE FROM NOTHING, COMES NOTHING
If there is nothing there are no rules, therefore that rule didn't exist.
Still not seeing why Christianity is more plausible than Judaism or Islam.
...
>2- divine intervention is the best argument we have for the origin of the universe
No
give alternative
Even if he was resurrected, so what? The Quan and Torah have true claims in them as well.
christians accept the torah, no problem there
what historically reliable miraculous claims does the quran have?
It just showed up because the laws of physics didn't exist.
has anything ever been observed to "just show up"
>The resurrection
>Historically reliable
