The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[Darat]

The main ones are:

Abraham. Moses. Jesus. Muhammad. Buddha. Laozi. Confucius.

There are many false prophets.

Which then demolishes your idea that your god is trying to be hidden - or rather it is rather inept at being hidden. Hardly what one would expect from the other attributes you say your god has.

 

[MikeG]

........The flagellum motor has a rotor, bearings, commutator, brushes, and a speed control mechanism. And is self-assembling. Unremarkable - really? It just happens to resemble a modern technology item of engineering?

Wrong. A commutator is a very specific thing in an electrical motor or generator. You can't assign mechanical names to biological parts just to back up a claim that one is the same as the other.

........What forces of natural selection cause this happen?

Natural selection is only part of evolution. But then, you knew that didn't you? This is just a little test to see if anyone is concentrating.

........ Just the law of big numbers?

No

........ So one could expect a self-assembling Boeing if we wait long enough? And unicorns in the closet?

Jeez, what sort of education system generates idiocy like this?

You really have swallowed the the creationist bait hook line and sinker, haven't you. Argument from incredulity (ie personal ignorance) is not a good argument.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Non-believers use their own "feelings" to dismiss such "communications" based on their core conviction that God does not exist.

...snip...

I have no core conviction about god, I simply have no evidence that the god that many claim exist i.e. major Christian, Islamic and Jewish denominations exists and I have plenty of evidence to show that those gods are "false" i.e. don't exist.

Feelings really don't come into it.

 

[MikeG]

I have no core conviction about god......

This is the bit that theists simply don't understand. They assign their thought processes to atheists.....in other words, they assume that we think the same way about these things as they do. They have convictions, ergo we must have convictions too. Well.............sort of no. I do have one conviction: my only conviction is that I shouldn't accept anything without evidence. Give me evidence of the existence of a god or gods, and I'll update my world view and move on with the new knowledge duly taken on board.

 

[Belz...]

He made humans to have free will.

And then threatened them with eternal pain and anguish should they make a wrong choice. Wow, the free will is really strong!

Just because he knows past, present and future, should he not allow you to choose?

I wish he would.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Because he wanted humans to be able to choose, like you have done.

You keep demonstrating that you haven't a clue on what you're talking about.

No, not at all.

Follow the syllogism.

My 9th graders have no problem doing so...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Although I support the religion of Christianity as being one of the better ones, I do not support the concept of all-knowing and omnipotent. I see God as one of the players in the Matrix Mind of the Ultimate Intelligence. For our purposes the Matrix Mind is irrelevant if God exists and plays according to certain rules.

God does not want humanity to die out and yet humanity is extincting itself by overpopulation and lack of restraint.

God may cause a pandemic to "re-direct" matters. There is the "hidden". It just takes a tiny change to an organism which then multiplies explosively. Can anyone prove such intervention? No. The clue is in the warning and the way the warning is delivered.

It may have started. See my post on the 2016 start of the die-out.

Death is not punishment if humans have souls. I believe souls evolve by entering new-borns after a while. Otherwise Heaven and Hell would be rather full, and when would it have started - with the Homo Sapiens? Earlier or later?

And what is a soul? Well, if we are in a Matrix mind, it is the container piece of code, and humans are instantiations of that code. That code evolves.

And does science has an alternative hypothesis for the Universe. Yes. Many, all with critical issues. Cosmology is now in crisis.

How is it, in your mind, that any of what you posted "supports" xianity? Chapter and verse?

 

[Desert Fox]

Some general notes.

Lawrence Krauss - A universe from nothing. Then he says there must have been something, but states it cannot be God because physics has no driving intelligence.
The flagellum motor has a rotor, bearings, commutator, brushes, and a speed control mechanism. And is self-assembling. Unremarkable - really? It just happens to resemble a modern technology item of engineering?

What forces of natural selection cause this happen? Just the law of big numbers? So one could expect a self-assembling Boeing if we wait long enough? And unicorns in the closet?

I thought I answered this one and I don't see if having got to AAH. . . . .And I don't see my answer as one that would have been sent there anyway.

I have listened to his lecture and I have read his book although it has been a while for either one. If I remember correct, Mr Krauss said nothing of the sort.

What he did instead argue is that the total energy in the universe is zero. I believe he also argued is that due to quantum fluctuation, you would expect a universe to create itself without any kind of creator.

I am curious why you want to invoke a more complex thing to explain a more simple thing anyway?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You mean you cannot do a bit of evaluation?

The falsehood is usually in the founding story. Do they spread a message that might lead to successful community and good living? Seems like it.

Do you mean, like the internally-inconsistent, ahistorical, and self-contradictory nativity stories?

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is the bit that theists simply don't understand. They assign their thought processes to atheists.....in other words, they assume that we think the same way about these things as they do. They have convictions, ergo we must have convictions too. Well.............sort of no. I do have one conviction: my only conviction is that I shouldn't accept anything without evidence. Give me evidence of the existence of a god or gods, and I'll update my world view and move on with the new knowledge duly taken on board.

Well said.

A person who, simply and for whatever reason, is aware that there is not evidence that 'god' exists, must, in the eyes of the superstitionists, be mad at it, or hiding from it.

"If you believed as we do, you would have all you need to know why you should believe as we do"...(and not those atheists, or worse, those apostates and heretics that believe wrong).

 

[Delvo]

That's the bit that there is no evidence for - that they could and did link the two in such a manner.

That part's not hard, even for prehistoric people. It's how they learned not to eat certain other things. You don't need an accurate theory of how the cause & effect work in order to notice that one thing (getting sick) tends to follow after another (eating whatever you ate shortly before getting sick). We're so good at spotting connections like that that we sometimes even do it when there's no real connection there!

But what about other cultures that didn't ban pork or shellfish? Did they not get sick or did they not notice the correlation?

They had competent cooks?

humanity is extincting itself by overpopulation

You need to explain how a population can grow so much that it becomes extinct. Increasing positive numbers do not eventually hit zero; they get farther from it.

Can anyone prove such intervention? No. The clue is in the warning and the way the warning is delivered.

Then the "warning" is what you need to prove.

Otherwise Heaven and Hell would be rather full

Now you need to show how you determined their capacities.

Cosmology is now in crisis.

Ah, there it goes again. Religionists talking about their religion never wander off very far from the home position of lying about science.

God and spirit are the "science" of the human mind and soul.

Umm... what? Is chicken the "science" of turkey?

Feelings are anything but irrelevant.

No. Different people can have different feelings about the same things regardless of what is real, so they have absolutely no use at all in finding out what is real. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Among the evidence of God is the communications God had with the prophets.

So what's the evidence for those? And why would believing in them not rely on believing in the gods first?

Also among the evidence are predictions which eventuate.

Such as...

According to science, predictions are impossible.

Another lie about science.

Non-believers use their own "feelings" to dismiss such "communications"

How can this possibly not be proof of the utter uselessness of using feelings to find out about reality?

It goes: God does not exist - hence it follows the only explanation is that the communication is false.

That is one way someone who doesn't believe the gods have been talking to humans could think.

Another is "This doesn't require gods, and postulating them doesn't give an explanation that's any better than without them".

I'm sure others could think of some more, which would generally be more similar to the latter than to the former. But you've just claimed that the former is the only one, even among people who've already said something more like the latter. What was the basis for that accusation?

Focus on the prediction.

Show us an actual prediction to focus on.

Lawrence Krauss - A universe from nothing. Then he says there must have been something, but states it cannot be God because physics has no driving intelligence.

Again with the perpetual lying about science. What's the point? Surely you can see that nobody is fooled by your lies.

The flagellum motor has a rotor, bearings, commutator, brushes, and a speed control mechanism. And is self-assembling.

Again with the perpetual lying about science. What's the point? Surely you can see that nobody is fooled by your lies.

 

[Pup]

You mean you cannot do a bit of evaluation?

The falsehood is usually in the founding story. Do they spread a message that might lead to successful community and good living? Seems like it.

It seems you've abandoned the question of their divinity, and are evaluating them on practical outcome now. Of course atheists can do that sort of evaluation. But that's not the question. It's how do you know they're prophets of god(s) in a supernatural way, not just good advice-givers and organizers, and if more than one are prophets, how do you reconcile the mutually exclusive messages coming from the same god?

 

[Delvo]

how do you reconcile the mutually exclusive messages coming from the same god?

This reminds me of something I sometimes want to point out to Christian apologists, but don't get the chance to because the conversation usually doesn't get that far. To get there, we would first need to skip past two other premises, in order:
1. Do(es) some god(s) exist?
2. If "yes" on #1, do(es) he/she/they take some interest in the lives of humans?

I don't accept a "yes" for #1, but if I did just for the sake of argument, it would only lead to #2, which I still don't answer "yes". Only if I then went along with that one, too, would we get as far as talking about the third question:
3. How many?

Because of the contradictions in attributed godly behavior, even for different reports of the same religion when they say they're talking about the same god, by far the simplest answer is that there must be multiple gods contending against each other. If there were just one, then what it wants would be perfectly clear, and (s)he would get it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The lady I was chatting to at the counter was a lawyer. Unusual because messengers are usually sent to file and collect. But this lady was different. Open, smart and likeable. Some-one I felt I could trust. In the last week, I have needed to consult with a lawyer because of critical decisions I need to take in 3 matters I am dealing with as a lay litigant, and the information I need as to practical process is not in the manuals, the practice notes, the rules, or the case law.

I got her name and will make an appointment. This was not a specific prayer by me, but one could say that it was an answer to a prayer even if I did not make it. Do you know how difficult it is to find a decent lawyer? In my many years of dealing with lawyers, I have tried all sorts of ways and have ended up disappointed. I may be wrong with this one, but I have become a better judge of people over the years.

The young lady turned out to be a candidate attorney and is not allowed to consult, but one of the partners was prepared to give me advice. I got 2 hours of really good advice. I am aware of the pitfalls, and things will go a lot smoother. The timing was soooo opportune. This is not the first time someone has appeared to assist.

About 10 years ago, I was hiking a mountain of Lesotho ("The Mountain Kingdom") on my own. It looks very different coming down to going up, and there were no paths. No people wandering around on the mountain as one can imagine, but a local appeared and said he would guide me. He refused to take any money for his help.

I crossed the river in the valley and then wondered which route I should take. A local young girl appeared while I was resting on the banks. She asked if I needed help as to the way back to the village/camp on another mountain. I said I was fine, but she sat down a little way up the side and waited for me to get up. So I followed her in silence on a route I would not have chosen on my own. I offered her money when we got back but she also said no.

Considering the lack of people on these mountains, and the timing of these appearances, it was like (note I said "like") two angels helping me out. Taking the wrong route(s) would mean a lot backtracking in order to find the river crossing.

 

[Donn]

.. it was like (note I said "like") two angels helping me out.

Why do you only so ascribe the good events that happen to you?

To what do you ascribe the fact that you did not perish yesterday in an atomic blast? How do you know that you missed disaster on the road when you looked the other way?

Please. Your cherry trees are empty after a life's harvesting.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Those two tales of... nothing.... are the most boring ever.
Seriously, sex them up a little. Or experience life.
Some very boring stuff happened - therefore god.
Nope. Not good enough.

I'm enjoying a chocolate-custard doughnut atm.
I didn't meet a rhinoceros on the way home with it.
Must be a miracle. Angels.

My socks are black.
I thought about wearing white ones.
But.... didn't!
Angels.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I said, and you highlight:
Lawrence Krauss - A universe from nothing. Then he says there must have been something, but states it cannot be God because physics has no driving intelligence.

I have listened to his lecture and I have read his book although it has been a while for either one. If I remember correct, Mr Krauss said nothing of the sort.

What he did instead argue is that the total energy in the universe is zero. I believe he also argued is that due to quantum fluctuation, you would expect a universe to create itself without any kind of creator.

I am curious why you want to invoke a more complex thing to explain a more simple thing anyway?

Simple? Surely you jest?

On page 146 of his softcover book he says:
Occam’s razor suggests that, if some event is physically plausible, we don’t need recourse to more extraordinary claims for its being. Surely the requirement of an all-powerful deity who somehow exists outside of our universe, or multiverse, while at the same time governing what goes on inside it, is one such claim. It should thus be a claim of last, rather than first, resort.

1 have already argued in the preface to this book that merely defining “nothingness as “nonbeing” is not sufficient to suggest that physics, and more generally science, is not adequate to address the question. Let me give an additional, more specific argument here. Consider an electron-positron pair that spontaneously pops out of empty space near the nucleus of an atom and affects the property of that atom for the short time the pair exists. In what sense did the electron or positron exist before?

Surely by any sensible definition they didn’t.

They exist before and not after? Of course they still exist. Science is not sure about the field that matter pops in and out of, but they know a lot about how to disturb it.

How does one explain the the pre-existence of this field before the Big Bang?

Krauss might also think that the cause for this remarkable event is that there exists a multiverse that has existed eternally.

Ultimately it would seem that "something" has existed for eternity, and "it" becomes the Prime Mover. But Krauss rules out an intelligence of sorts, preferring that the something is mindless. Can he prove the "something" is indeed without intelligence? Now we are definitely into philosophical speculation.

http://www.calphysic.../questions.html
In the view of modern physics, the vacuum is far from empty. Take away all particles and all electromagnetic radiation and you will have an apparently empty region of space at a temperature of absolute zero. But in fact this "vacuum" will still be full of energies and particle pairs (such as positrons and electrons): the electromagnetic zero-point field, the zero-point fields of the weak and strong interactions, and the Dirac sea of negative energy particle pairs. All of these energies and particles are collectively referred to as the quantum vacuum (making the vacuum in reality a plenum).

And then this:

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Zero-point energy behaves differently. For ordinary radiation, the ratio of pressure to energy density is w=1/3c*c, which is customarily expressed in units whereby c=1, and thus the ratio is expressed as w=+1/3. But for zero-point energy the ratio is w=-1. This is owing to the circumstance that the zero-point energy density is assumed to be constant: no matter how much the universe expands it does not become diluted, but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to be created out of nothing.

Some of the unsolved problems in cosmology: (Long list)

http://en.wikipedia....lems_in_physics
Cosmic inflation - Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some extremely distant place?

Baryon asymmetry....

Edited by Agatha: 

Snipped quote to comply with rule 4. The full list is at the wiki link above.

If you wish to use an argument from authority, choose a scientist who has some balance - not Krauss who sells books on the basis he knows all (sorry - nearly all) the answers.

 

[MikeG]

......If you wish to use an argument from authority, choose a scientist who has some balance - not Krauss who sells books on the basis he knows all (sorry - nearly all) the answers.

Huh? It was you who brought Krauss (whoever he is) into the thread.

 

[PartSkeptic]

PartSkeptic
Otherwise Heaven and Hell would be rather full

Now you need to show how you determined their capacities.

Okay. This might help answer your question, since it is in the same league as the exam question "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997
First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of the souls and volume needs to stay constant.
Two options exist:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster then the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...
Thus hell is exothermic.
Courtesy of http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/thermal/tpteacher/jokes/hell.html

 

[abaddon]

The young lady turned out to be a candidate attorney and is not allowed to consult, but one of the partners was prepared to give me advice. I got 2 hours of really good advice. I am aware of the pitfalls, and things will go a lot smoother. The timing was soooo opportune. This is not the first time someone has appeared to assist.

That is called happy circumstance.

About 10 years ago, I was hiking a mountain of Lesotho ("The Mountain Kingdom") on my own. It looks very different coming down to going up, and there were no paths. No people wandering around on the mountain as one can imagine, but a local appeared and said he would guide me. He refused to take any money for his help.

If you wish to argue by anecdote, fine.

I once shared a house with a Polish bloke. He was a jobbing carpenter. Anyhoo, he chose to drive uninsured and, inevitably, cops stopped him and seized his car. When told this tale of, I laughed. That's what you get for flouting the law. However, the seized car contained all of his tools of his trade and his broken english was insufficient to secure the release of same.

So I made it my business to find out what was required to release the content of the car, secured the requisite documentation on his behalf, drove him to the pound, loaded his gear into my car, drove him home and unloaded the gear from my car.

I asked for nothing nor expected anything. I simply helped a bloke I had known for less than a year out of sheer niceness.

How is this anecdote relevant? Well, I am an atheist, so the whole idea that morality derives from religion is obvious crap.

Indeed, at one point he owed me 1,500 bucks in loans I had made to him. He paid all of it back, albeit slowly. I loaned him that money in good "faith" (haha).

Really, the whole notion that atheists have no moral compass is utter rot. Do not play that game with me.

I crossed the river in the valley and then wondered which route I should take. A local young girl appeared while I was resting on the banks. She asked if I needed help as to the way back to the village/camp on another mountain. I said I was fine, but she sat down a little way up the side and waited for me to get up. So I followed her in silence on a route I would not have chosen on my own. I offered her money when we got back but she also said no.

Admit it. Those are song lyrics.

Considering the lack of people on these mountains, and the timing of these appearances, it was like (note I said "like") two angels helping me out. Taking the wrong route(s) would mean a lot backtracking in order to find the river crossing.

Bollocks. Coincidence must happen. If coincidence never happend then that would require all of physics and mathematics to be entirely revised.

You may as well admit it. Coincidence is inevitable.