Why don't christians know more?

[elliotfc]

I don't think you can divide the line that finely. Among other things, it also shows that the conditions under which viruses can evolve are broader than the conditions under which humans can, which in turn implies that viruses are more likely.

Here's another way of thinking about it.

Let's say you had a program...that started from the most simplistic point...and you had simple entities "evolve" over time. I'd agree that it would be more likely to have simple entities (commensurate to viruses) than more complicated entities (commensurate to humans), because the simple entities would necessarily have to be intermediate steps to the complex entities.

Here are some possible problems.

1) The *design* of the program could be that complex entities would necessarily or inevitably come into meaning. Meaning, a watchmaker God believer could disagree, saying the probability was one because God constructed the rules so that evolution would necessarily lead to humans.

2) Like I said earlier, the fundamental premise does not account for entities, like God, who are not dependent on the constructed program.

3) Simple entities may become irrelevant over time. There could be a point in time where simple entities, which may have been plentiful in the past, would be nearly non-existant in the future, depending on the influence of the complex entities or something.

There are probably more problems but that's just off the top of me head.

But it's not a bad thought experiment.

-Elliot

 

[drkitten]

Here's another way of thinking about it.

Let's say you had a program...that started from the most simplistic point...and you had simple entities "evolve" over time. I'd agree that it would be more likely to have simple entities (commensurate to viruses) than more complicated entities (commensurate to humans), because the simple entities would necessarily have to be intermediate steps to the complex entities.

Bingo.

Which, in turn, implies that the simpler entities are more probable (technically, "at least as probable" since probability is bounded by 1) than the more complex ones.

Here are some possible problems.

None of which actually deal with the fundamental question.

1) The *design* of the program could be that complex entities would necessarily or inevitably come into meaning.

"Could be." It could also be something else. Which in turn means that the existence of the program is more probable than the existence of a program with that particular design. Absent specific and conclusive evidence of that kind of "design," simple entities are still more probable than complex ones.

Furthermore, you're making the implicit assumption that the program operates properly and that no untoward event (e.g. someone kicking out the power cable) interrupts the program midway through. Absent this assumption, we again have a demonstration that less complex entities are more probable than more complex ones.

2) Like I said earlier, the fundamental premise does not account for entities, like God, who are not dependent on the constructed program.

Er... assumes "facts" not in evidence. More accurately, assumes "facts" for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

3) Simple entities may become irrelevant over time.

This appears to be a demonstrably counterfactual assumption.

 

[Bri]

The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the less likely its existence. God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so his existence is infinitely unlikely. QED.

Many theists believe God to be the simplest being possible. Does that mean that God's existence is infinitely likely (i.e. that it is certain that God exists)?

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

None of which actually deal with the fundamental question.

Was there a stated fundamental question? I mighta missed it, if so, or, I did.

"Could be." It could also be something else. Which in turn means that the existence of the program is more probable than the existence of a program with that particular design. Absent specific and conclusive evidence of that kind of "design," simple entities are still more probable than complex ones.

But...yeah. Exactly. That was my point. That's why I assumed design in the possible ways of rejecting the premise that simple is necessarily more probable than complex.

All I'm trying to do here is indicate ways in which the premise would be false. If your point is to reject my assumptions...I'm merely admitting the assumptions. I'm not rejecting your thesis outright, just suggesting the ways in which it *would* be incorrect, and then openly admitting the assumptions behind that.

This isn't an attack, just a conversation. Why do you have to jump on everything?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Many theists believe God to be the simplest being possible. Does that mean that God's existence is infinitely likely (i.e. that it is certain that God exists)?

-Bri

Aquinas believed that (or something like it...I'll have to brush up), and new age theists have written books championing this idea.

If God is the pre-existent unbegotten given of the universe, then everything comes from God. Inductively speaking, you could say that everything is therefore more complex than God because it is God *doing* something, as opposed to God merely being. I don't know how useful such an idea is, but there it is anyhow. No need to attack me on this point, unless there is.

-Elliot

 

[drkitten]

Was there a stated fundamental question? I mighta missed it, if so, or, I did.

Yes. The stated fundamental question what whether or not simpler organisms were more likely than complex ones -- the extent to which Kimpatsu's epigram, " The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the less likely its existence," is true.

But...yeah. Exactly. That was my point. That's why I assumed design in the possible ways of rejecting the premise that simple is necessarily more probable than complex.

But in the process, you incidentally proved that it was.

 

[Bri]

Aquinas believed that (or something like it...I'll have to brush up), and new age theists have written books championing this idea.

If God is the pre-existent unbegotten given of the universe, then everything comes from God. Inductively speaking, you could say that everything is therefore more complex than God because it is God *doing* something, as opposed to God merely being. I don't know how useful such an idea is, but there it is anyhow. No need to attack me on this point, unless there is.

-Elliot

Here are two references:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

Similar concepts are found in both Christian and Jewish thought (and perhaps others).

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

Genesius

Also, not all religions require an infinitely powerful god. I've had discussions with a few folks here who believe that an "omnipotent" god is still limited by what is logically possible (i.e. the "can god make a rock so big even he can't lift it" paradox).

Yes, but those people are morons and basically redefine omnipotent to something they want to understand.

elliotfc – Whom apparently has me on ignore because he can’t answer basic questions.

No, we offer biblical verses which are said, by you, to *not* be evidence. Unless they actually are, but I don't know if you're capable of being open-minded about that possibility.

Which biblical verse, from what edition and translation and what about the next verse that contradicts the first? What about the ones that are flat out wrong and have been shown as such (flat earth comes to mind here)?

However, if an entity is independent of that chain, the probability argument is irrelevant.

Can you show independence? If not then the basic assumption which has proven accurate still holds.

Ossai

 

[Genesius]

Yes, but those people are morons and basically redefine omnipotent to something they want to understand.

Was that ad hom really necessary?

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the response elliotfc. I think the site you linked to is on point about this issue. I am not familiar enough with the arguments on each side of this issue to be able to say anything about the correctness of the arguments in the site that you linked to.

I will say that in a casual reading of some of the biblical references on this I didn't find a place where Paul said unequivocally that good works aren't important and that only faith is.

One of the arguments put forth is that it is the author of James that seems to be aware of the thoughts of Paul on this and he is making an explicit attempt to show his disagreement. Even there, I thought the evidence was ambiguous.

I am a little surprised that Christians don't find the idea that there was an early Jewish Christian Church that was theologically different from the later Paul derived church. troubling. Of course, I don't think most Christians are aware of this possibility or the idea that their relgion was something that was created not by Jesus but by the people, mostly gentile, that came after him. Still, some Christians must be and of those that are what do they think about this?

 

[ceo_esq]

Yes, but those people are morons and basically redefine omnipotent to something they want to understand.

Ossai, you're the one who doesn't accept the longstanding, prevailing definition of omnipotence. You're the one who insists on redefining it into something that, with respect to most of the the history of Western philosophy of religion, is essentially a strawman. Nobody can really understand the concept of omnipotence the way you prefer to define it, because it is intrinsically meaningless and nonsensical. That's why most people (particularly in philosophy, in which omnipotence is a term of art) don't adopt that usage, and it's been that way for many centuries.

 

[Ossai]

Genesius

Was that ad hom really necessary?

It’s not an ad hom if it’s fact. Or, are you saying I need to be more precise as to their specific type of idiocy?

ceo_esq

Ossai, you're the one who doesn't accept the longstanding, prevailing definition of omnipotence. You're the one who insists on redefining it into something that, with respect to most of the the history of Western philosophy of religion, is essentially a strawman. Nobody can really understand the concept of omnipotence the way you prefer to define it, because it is intrinsically meaningless and nonsensical. That's why most people (particularly in philosophy, in which omnipotence is a term of art) don't adopt that usage, and it's been that way for many centuries.

All that and you still don’t understand the basic definition.

Ossai

 

[Sandy M]

Parochial Education

My wife was brought up Catholic, and learned just about zilch about the bible, the Church, its history, its doctrine, or much of anything else that wasn't drilled into her in catechism. Considering how much of her time was spent in sunday schools, catechism classes, confirmation classes, and even a few years in parochial school, her religious education was astonishingly bad.

Interesting. If it's not rude to ask, how old is your wife or when was she in parochial school? While I am firmly a non-believer, I had 13 (count'em, 13) years of parochial school - kindergarten through high school, and while my grammar school religious education was mostly catechism, my high school "religious" education consisted of church history, the old testament (nice horror stories like the Maccabees), and apologetics (arguments to support belief). Obviously, none of it took, but it certainly covered a lot of ground. That was in the '60s. Perhaps the emphasis has shifted since then? (Though if it was not for the religion classes, why would one send a child to a Catholic high school? Oh wait, I know. Most are NOT co-ed!) I was sent because then - in the '50s and '60s - it was thought that the general education was better than in public schools. I don't know that that is still the case. My father was a pretty much lapsed Catholic, my mom a baptized Episocopaliam cum Buddhist.

 

[Genesius]

It’s not an ad hom if it’s fact. Or, are you saying I need to be more precise as to their specific type of idiocy?

I'm saying you need to prove everyone who believes that is a moron before you can make such a claim.

<sigh> I'm so tired of believers and non-believers both who think they have all the answers. . .

 

[bruto]

Interesting. If it's not rude to ask, how old is your wife or when was she in parochial school? While I am firmly a non-believer, I had 13 (count'em, 13) years of parochial school - kindergarten through high school, and while my grammar school religious education was mostly catechism, my high school "religious" education consisted of church history, the old testament (nice horror stories like the Maccabees), and apologetics (arguments to support belief). Obviously, none of it took, but it certainly covered a lot of ground. That was in the '60s. Perhaps the emphasis has shifted since then? (Though if it was not for the religion classes, why would one send a child to a Catholic high school? Oh wait, I know. Most are NOT co-ed!) I was sent because then - in the '50s and '60s - it was thought that the general education was better than in public schools. I don't know that that is still the case. My father was a pretty much lapsed Catholic, my mom a baptized Episocopaliam cum Buddhist.

Not rude at all, at least she's not ashamed that she's 51. She came to the U.S. in 1962 and lived most of her childhood in Hartford, CT. She may have gotten bible stories, but not much real substance. It seem smostly to have been nuns telling the kids all the ways they'd go to hell if they were naughty. I should mention that she left parochial school partway through high school, I think, so it may be that she missed the more rigorous religious education there, but still, when I compare what she says they covered to what, say, I got from my congregational Sunday school even at the grade school level, the difference is pretty dramatic.

She was sent in part because her family was Catholic, and partly because it was hoped, at least, that the quality of education would be better. But tuition was a financial burden for them, so when she started rebelling against the religious part of it, her mom decided there was no point in it, and took her out.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Interesting. If it's not rude to ask, how old is your wife or when was she in parochial school? While I am firmly a non-believer, I had 13 (count'em, 13) years of parochial school - kindergarten through high school, and while my grammar school religious education was mostly catechism, my high school "religious" education consisted of church history, the old testament (nice horror stories like the Maccabees), and apologetics (arguments to support belief). Obviously, none of it took, but it certainly covered a lot of ground. That was in the '60s. Perhaps the emphasis has shifted since then? (Though if it was not for the religion classes, why would one send a child to a Catholic high school? Oh wait, I know. Most are NOT co-ed!) I was sent because then - in the '50s and '60s - it was thought that the general education was better than in public schools. I don't know that that is still the case. My father was a pretty much lapsed Catholic, my mom a baptized Episocopaliam cum Buddhist.

Interesting that both your parents and you fell away from the faith. Could it be that maybe all three of you just never really got saved? I question this because if someone is a true believer in Christ and receives the babtism of the Holy Spirit, then when we study the scriptures they apply to our lives more on a personal level. It's not just reading the Bible like a peice of liturature.

One must first believe, receive, and then be taught what it truely means to be and grow in Christ's love and understanding. The fruits of the Spirit is evident in a true believers life, and these attributes are or should be evident in our lives...patience, kindness, gentleness, joy, love, and peace. Until I met Jesus I did not possess these attributes, but now I do and it's because of God's grace and mercy that I am changing to become more Christlike.

 

[Kimpatsu]

So humans are less likely to exist than viruses?

Yes, that's right. That's why viruses came first, and are far more numerous than people. There's nthing special about humans.

I think you still need to prove your inital assertion. . .
Also, not all religions require an infinitely powerful god. I've had discussions with a few folks here who believe that an "omnipotent" god is still limited by what is logically possible (i.e. the "can god make a rock so big even he can't lift it" paradox).

Yes, paradoxes aside, let's not be disingenuous. When we talk of god on these forums, we mean the omnipotent Abrahamic god (in his various flavours as God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.) unless otherwise specified.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Many theists believe God to be the simplest being possible. Does that mean that God's existence is infinitely likely (i.e. that it is certain that God exists)?

-Bri

The simplest thing likely is also the most powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient)? The notion is inherently impossible.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I'd agree with this if I were a materialist. Materialists believe in a chain from the simple to the complex. However, if an entity is independent of that chain, the probability argument is irrelevant.

-Elliot

As there is nothing independent of that chain, however, your hypothesizing is mere pie in the sky.

 

[davefoc]

...

Yes, paradoxes aside, let's not be disingenuous. When we talk of god on these forums, we mean the omnipotent Abrahamic god (in his various flavours as God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.) unless otherwise specified.

I don't disagree with this sentiment since it seems to be part of the general Christian, Muslim and Jewish view that God is omnipotent, but the bible repeatedly suggests a less than omnipotent god.

Right from the start God doesn't sound that omnipotent. Whichever of the two basic adam eve stories in the bible that you pick, the point of that story seems to be that human beings were less than perfect and didn't do what God wanted them to do. So did God intentionally create creatures that would do things he didn't want them to do? OK, I suppose as an omnipotent God he has the right to do things to piss himself off. But it doesn't strike me as the most logical behavior for an omnipotent God.

But then we go forward. Stuff really turns to crap. ALmost every creature that has come out of his original attempt to populate the world he created is so useless to him that he decides to kill almost all of them with a vast flood. Couldn't he have used his omnipotence to populate a world with creatures that didn't need killing after a few years?

But then things take a turn for silly. The human he picks to lead band of survivors that will populate the world is Noah. And one of the first things that Noah does after the flood is get drunk. So is this really the model human being that above almost all others was the guy that God wanted to save? Of course it doesn't stop there, one of Noah's sons sees him naked while Noah is drunk and Noah is so pissed off at this that he disowns his own son. Nice going God. You've got a whole world of people that you might save and you pick this one? Once again, it seems that God is using with his omnipotence in strange ways.

But let's fast forward a few years and get to Moses. He's led his people out of Egypt while God helps him along with some really amazing miracles. Miracles that you would think would impress just about anybody enough into being a true believer. I know if I was being chased by the Egyptians and the Red Sea parted so that I could walk across it and then fell back and drowned a bunch of the people who wanted to kill me I'd be thinking this is the real deal when it comes to gods. But not so the followers of Moses. For them, it doesn't take much before they are worshipping false gods. So God with all of his powers can't convince the Israelites to worship him. Once again this seems like a biblical story where the omnipotence thing is not fully engaged.

Ah, OK, you're a Christian and the OT is kind of a mixed bag, OK for being a basis to condem homosexuality but at least some of it is a little dodgy to be completely relevant to your faith.

So let's just take a couple of NT examples that I never got. Jesus is being crucified and is about to die and he yells out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Hmm, why is the perfect divine Jesus not aware that he is God at this point? Seems like there is lots of non-omnipotence going on here. First, getting himself horrifically tortured was the only way that this omnipotent God could save the world? Secondly, even after he has done this he only manages to save a small percentage of the world because the great majority of the world doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or any of this.

OK, but at least all this getting crucified thing is going to really work out well for the Christians that come to believe in the divinity of Christ. Well not exactly, a lot of them end up in jail, a lot of them end up committing suicide. A lot of them were probably massacred along with thousands of other Jews by the Romans in 70AD. Then of course there is Constantinople. A town absolutely packed with Christians. In fact a town named after the guy who really gets Christianity going in the Roman empire. Does that save it from Ottoman invaders. Nope. God chosses to show Christians that believing in him can get you massacred, dispossed, and or converted. So if God/Jesus wants you to believe in him he is using his omnipotence in strange ways to accomplish this.