Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[quade 4]

Quote

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-idx.htm

Checked it out and at first glance there is such a large volume of material it's quite overwhelming. However, after peeking into a few random articles it seems to me that this site is trying to write some "new" form of creation myth taking parts of Genesis, mixing in mainstream science and coming up with conclusions that can not be fully supported by either.
I find this less impressive than people that believe the Bible on faith alone. I think I've mentioned before that to me religion does not require proof and as a matter of fact, it seems to me that an attempt to prove the existence of God means you have at least some doubt to begin with.
It also seems to me that this particular site is rife with logical fallacies in their propositions leading up to their final conclusions. I'll get into what is a logical fallacy in my post about St Thomas, so be looking for that in the near future -- probably later today.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[quade 4]

Quote

It will always take at least some type of leap of faith to believe in God. In fact the Bible says "without faith it is impossible to please God." Nevertheless, like I said, there is a lot of proof out there for the existence of God. So, to give you an idea, here are some general proofs for the existence of God, but this is not meant to be an all inclusive list by any means. Thanks go to St. Thomas Aquinas for first pointing them out. =)
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

Before addressing The Five Ways, perhaps it would be a good time to review a little of the man that wrote them so that we may understand their context. Rather than quote a quite lengthy passage, I'll give you a link to it HERE. For those that just want a brief synopsis . . .

Quote

Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274), a Dominican Friar and Theologian, is most renowned for his Five Ways of Proving the Existence of God, believed that both faith and reason discover truth, a conflict between them being impossible since they both originate in God. Believing that reason can, in principle, lead the mind to God, Aquinas defended reason's legitimacy, especially in the works of Aristotle. The philosophy of Aquinas continues to offer insights into many lingering problems in Metaphysics, the Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion and Ethics.

What concerns me most about The Five Ways are its inclusion of logical fallacies.
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
Examples of Fallacies
Inductive Argument
Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.
Factual Error
Columbus is the capital of the United States.
Deductive Fallacy
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)
Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).
Let's now look at The Five Ways as posted by Sinkster.

Quote

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

St Thomas subscribed to Aristotle's notion of a Prime Mover. For Aristotle this Prime Mover was the fifth in a set of elements. It was motionless but caused the movement of the previous four, these being: earth, fire, air and water. Straight away, you see where St Thomas is coming from.
Motion -- whether it be physical movement, or a change in temperature -- cannot have started on its own because nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, unless by something else which is in a state of actuality. Wood, for example, has the potential to be hot but cannot itself become hot without fire which is actually hot.
Now, in the same way that fire cannot be actually and potentially hot at the same time (because when it's hot it's potentially cold) something cannot be both mover and moved: a thing cannot move of itself. If there is motion in a thing, some thing must have caused it to move. And if that thing was also in motion when it caused motion in the first thing, then something must have caused its motion. Obviously, you can't go on forever, so the argument is made that there must have been a first mover, itself motionless and causing all other forms of motion.
In thinking circles, this is called Affirming the Consequent. St Thomas has not yet demonstrated god exists but he is "proving" God's existence by describing God's qualities. Why? Well, in opposition to Aristotle, St Thomas saw all motion as purposeful. A purpose denotes a plan and, if there's a plan, there must be planner. Therefore movement in the universe happening to the scale at which it does "proves" a very big planner indeed.
Aristotle didn't see movement as having an end as designed by god. His god did not appoint ends: they just were. Motion, to Aristotle, and to many atheists, can just be motion, with no particular plan behind it.
Further, the most popular model for the origin of the universe is still the Big Bang Theory, which created an awful lot of movement in one fell swoop. The resultant motion we see around us does not suggest an intelligent mover causing movement, no more than a patch of wet grass denotes rain. There are always other explanations: your wife may have just watered the lawn; your child might have spilt orange juice; your dog may have marked its territory.
Similarly, who is to say there was only one original Prime Mover? Why not two? Why not a whole team of gods, working on the project together? Perhaps our universe is one of many attempts, some good, some botched. Or our universe could be, in David Hume's words, the poor first attempt "of an infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance."
Strangely, St Thomas thought that this was the most self-evident, self-proving of his "proofs". Partly this is because humans are rational beings. They have reason-seeking minds and they habitually assume that everything has a reason. It is hard for humans to accept that some things may not have a reason, but there might be instances where this is actually the case. St Thomas did not account for this possibility because to do so would have meant challenging fundamental elements of his worldview.

Quote

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

Proof 2 is a furtherance of the notion that the first cause was also, in philosophical language, "efficient". That is, the Prime Mover has the power to make a change. This is an extremely debated and deep philosophical question. It ties into notions of cause and effect and the human ability to separate the two as necessarily having any connection.
Basically, the second proof is that there is no case known where a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself: because then it would have to come before itself which is impossible because cause and effect have a particular order. A match bursts into flames after it has been struck, not before. To take away the cause is to take away the effect. No striking, no flames. If something didn't start the universe then the universe wouldn't exist, so something must have started the universe. There must have been a first efficient cause.
It all makes sense up to this point but then St Thomas decides, arbitrarily, that this first cause is called "God" by everyone. He's sort of saying, "Oh, you know what I mean." Because this proof is based heavily on acceptance of the first proof, he is again assuming that motion has purpose, and that purpose denotes an intelligent planner. You have to decide here, as you did in the first proof, if you believe that motion always has a purpose.

Quote

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

Things are generated, they exist for a certain period of time, and then they perish. If everything was like this then one day nothing would exist. However, stuff patently does exist. And if stuff can only exist through being the product of stuff that already exists, the argument is made that because stuff exists now, stuff must always have existed.
Once again, this regress obviously cannot go on forever and so it's proposed that there are two types of beings: those that owe their existence to what came before them, and those that don't. There must be at least one being who did not owe its existence to something that came before it. Beings are normally necessary to make other beings but such a being has its own necessity. This very first being, this first piece of stuff, is called God.
This argument is based on another extremely wobbly assumption tackled on the very top of the Basic Arguments page, under the heading No Need for a First Cause. Just to remind you, one can choose to believe in a super-human, all-knowing, all-powerful god who has existed for eternity and who made the universe and everything in it, or one can choose to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no intelligent reason in particular.
If you ask the question "Who made the universe?" it is also reasonable to ask the question "Who made god?" Basing your belief system on the answer to the former of these questions is irrational if you cannot also answer the latter.
And, of course, if you can come to the conclusion that at least one being came into existence of its own necessity, why not two, three or a larger team?
And then there's the question of infinity. If there are only contingent beings (those beings that are capable of ceasing to exist) and this universe has existed through an infinite amount of time, then all possibilities of everything must have already occurred because there's been an infinite amount of time for all possibilities to happen. And one of those possibilities is the simultaneous non-existence of all beings. So, how come you're still here reading this? Mind you, this only rings true if all possibilities must occur within a certain period of time which is patently untrue. It must happen some time that all contingent beings do not exist, but it cannot have happened yet because, patently, we do exist and we can't have come from nowhere twice! But then, if it has yet to happen, that means we must have always been around, which is also absurd.
You can see that the third proof is so fraught with paradoxes, contradictions, absurdities and conundrums that it really doesn't prove anything. It's a good one for parties though.

Quote

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

If we take two things and say that X is better than Y then X becomes the "best". X is now held to cause all imperfections in whatever is less good than X.
X might be truth, nobility, goodness, etc. Reversing this logic leads us to conclude that "there is some cause of existence and goodness and whatever other perfections are characteristic of things, and this we call God."
But that's just plain nutty. St Thomas here is caught in a web of semantics (as is much of philosophy). He has confused human descriptions of perceptions of things with the objective actuality of things. Again, close but no cigar.

Quote

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

Based on notions "proved" in Proofs 2 and 3, the fifth proof proffers the notion that there must be something in the universe which is the source of all good, something by which all natural things are directed to their end, in much the same way as inanimate objects are directed by humans, e.g. an arrow shot to its mark by an archer.
Here, albeit in a roundabout way, St Thomas again affirms the consequent. "Good" is a notion that is dependent on the opposite notion of "bad" and when you say something is "good" or "bad" (in the sense that St Thomas meant it) you automatically infer that something also exists which can tell the difference between the two.
This "proof" is flawed because in its attempt to prove X it includes a quality of X as part of its proof. It does not say, for example, if A and B are both true it is rational to infer that C is also true. A more clumsy argument of this sort is the old "the bible is true because it say so" kernel.
So, that in a nutshell is my take on The Five Ways.
I freely admit that I begged, borrowed and stole quite a bit of the logic behind as well as some of the wording from other sites that have analyized this far more than I could ever hope to.
Perhaps The Five Ways made sense to St Thomas in his day, but to me they certainly do not.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[quade 4]

This didn't seem to quite fit the tone of my last post and I do not claim authorship, but it is another way to look at The Five Ways.

Quote

THE FIVE WAYS OF PROVING SANTA CLAUS*
Whether Santa Clause Exists
We proceed thus to the third article:
Objections
It seems that Santa Claus does not exist; because Christmas gifts are able to be given by good elves. Therefore, Santa Claus does not exist.
Further, if Santa Claus did exist, there would be no narrow chimneys. But there are narrow chimneys, and sometimes there are no chimneys at all. Therefore, Santa Claus does not exist.
On the contrary, Kay Starr says: "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus underneath the mistletoe last night."
I answer that, The existence of Santa Claus Can be proved in five ways.
The first and most manifest way is that taken from Christmas trees. It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are Christmas trees. Now no pine tree becomes a Christmas tree unless it is trimmed. Now to be trimmed means to receive ornaments from another. But this cannot go on to infinity in the trimming of Christmas trees. One must come to some first untrimmed trimmer; and this everyone understands to be Santa Claus.
The second way is from the nature of Christmas gifts. We see that in the world that Christmas gifts are given and received. Whoever, then, gives Christmas gifts either receives them from another or makes them in his workshop. If, however, no one makes Christmas gifts in his workshop, they are not given nor received. Therefore it is necessary to posit some first giver of Christmas gifts, who everyone calls Santa Claus.
The third way is taken from plastic images resembling Santa Claus. At all stores we see things of plastic that represent Santa Claus. These things are of such a quality that they are representations according to Santa himself or according to other images of him. But, it is not possible to proceed to infinity in images. Therefore, it is necessary to posit something which is resembling Santa Claus and hence Santa Claus exists.
The fourth way is taken from the grades which are found in Christmas spirit. Indeed, in this world, among men there are some of more and some of less Christmas spirit. But "more" and "less" is said of diverse things according as they resemble in their diverse ways something which is the "maximum." Therefore there must be something which has the most Christmas spirit, and this we call Santa Claus.
The fifth way is taken from the behavior of children. When Christmas day approaches, we see from their being good always or frequently that children, who lack understanding, are moved because of an end. But children would not be good because of the Nativity of Christ unless there were someone who strengthened them so that they were good. And this someone is known by all to be Santa Claus.
Replies to Objections:
Good elves, since they receive Christmas gifts from another, should be named the highest helpers of Santa.
It is not impossible that Santa Claus should use the door like everyone else.
NOTE
* Also known in various places under the name of Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, etc.

quade
http://futurecam.com

[james1010 0]

I really don't care for the word religion much, but I will agree that FAITH doesn't require proof.
The fact that there are infallible proofs in my opinion should direct those of us who believe them to put them out there for those who do not, however, that doesn't at all imply doubt . . in fact it's quite the contrary. My belief in God and the Bible is such that I believe it needs to be shared and I for one don't mind sharing it. If after all what I believe is in fact true as I believe it is then it follows that there should be evidences, and there are. One of the biggest for me personally is the change in peoples lives that I've witnessed, who have accepted Christ as Lord. This statement will no doubt draw critisism, but Christianity in general and Biblical literalists in particular have drawn some of the worst critisism and for that matter persecution of the past 2000 some odd years since Jesus walked this planet. That in and of itself for me is still further proof . . note these words from Jesus: LUK 21:17  "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake". Also: JOH 15:18  "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you".
In any case, I can see where you would introduce doubt, but for myself that's not the case at all.
James

[quade 4]

Quote

The fact that there are infallible proofs in my opinion should direct those of us who believe them to put them out there for those who do not, however, that doesn't at all imply doubt . . in fact it's quite the contrary.

Again we get into the semantics of logic here with the phrase ". . . infallible proofs . . .".
I submit to you that while there may be certain facts in the Bible such as the names of rivers which still exist today, it is very difficult to find any proofs, let alone "infallible" ones. As a matter of fact, depending on one's point of view, in some places there appear to be quite a few contradictions.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[james1010 0]

On the subjest of infallible proofs, let me show you one, copied and pasted for your conveinence, ofcourse. Please try and read all of it,
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
The first evidence the disciples had for the resurrection was that of the empty tomb, and this evidence is still unanswerable. As Peter and John entered the tomb, they saw an amazing thing. The heavy wrappings of linen clothes which Joseph and Nicodemus had wound around the body of Jesus (John 19:39,40) were still there, just as they had been, but the body had vanished out of them and the grave clothes had, as it were, collapsed inward on themselves. No wonder the record says that when John entered the tomb, "he saw and believed!' (John 20:8). His doubts and fears immediately gave way to an amazed faith; the collapsed grave clothes yielded no possible interpretation except that the physical body of the crucified Christ had returned to life, in such a remarkable form that it could simply pass through the linen wrappings and enter henceforth into the power of an endless life!
Peter and John then rushed back to John's home, probably to tell Mary, the mother of Jesus, the tremendous news (note John 19:27; 20:10) and, shortly after, the women who had first come to the tomb entered it and also saw the tomb was empty (Luke 24:3).
The fact that the tomb was empty shows clearly that the resurrection of Christ was a bodily resurrection, nota spiritual resurrection. The latter idea is a self-contradiction, in fact, because the spirit does not die and therefore cannot be "resurrected." Indeed, resurrection takes place when the spirit returns to the body from which it has departed.
So powerful is the testimony of the empty tomb that the enemies of Christ have resorted to many strange and wonderful devices to try to explain it away. The first such attempt was the lie that the disciples had stolen the body (Matthew 28:11-15). Such a thing was utterly out of the question, of course. The disciples were hiding in fear of their lives and nothing could have been further from their thoughts than this. Furthermore, the tomb had been sealed, a great stone rolled in front of it, and a watch of Roman soldiers set to guard it (Matthew 27:62-66).
Others, equally desperate for an answer, have suggested that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but only fainted from weakness. He was buried in the mistaken belief that He was dead, and when He came back to consciousness in the tomb, He arose and left it. How, in His weakened condition He had managed to disengage Himself from the great weight of wrappings and ointments, then break the Roman seal, roll away the giant stone at the entrance, overpower the Roman soldiers, and then search out the disciples, is apparently of little concern to the proponents of this odd theory. Nor do they explain how the sight of such a pitiful Jesus, beaten almost beyond recognition and weak past endurance by loss of blood on the cross, could have excited such a complete transformation in the cowering disciples. He must soon, or at least eventually, die anyhow, and thereafter any preaching of a resurrection could be nothing but fraud and hypocrisy.
Beside all this, there is no doubt that He really did die on the cross. Pilate was given assurance of this by the centurion (Mark 15:43-45). The savage spear thrust into His side by the soldier (John 19:34) made certain of His death, "and forthwith came there out blood and water," evidencing complete collapse of the heart cavity.
Some have thought that Mary Magdalene, then Peter and John, then the other women, all went to the wrong tomb. Such a stupid mistake was not very likely, however, especially since there was no other tomb there! This was a garden, owned by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:60; John 19:41), and no one else had been buried there.
Besides, if the body were still in any tomb whatever, it could easily have been produced by the Roman or Jewish authorities. A few weeks later, when multitudes were accepting Christ because of the preaching of the resurrection, these same authorities did everything they could to stop the spread of the new Christian faith, and they utterly failed. If they had simply produced the body of Jesus, on the other hand, the entire movement would have collapsed over night. But this was the one thing they could not do! That body, raised from the grave, had ascended up to heaven.
THE APPEARANCES OF CHRIST
Not only was the tomb empty, but the disciples actually saw their resurrected Lord, on at least ten separate occasions after He left the tomb. These appearances were probably in the following order:
1. To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9)
2. To the other women (Matthew 28:8-10)
3. To Peter (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5)
4. To the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12)
5. To ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-29)
6. To all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29)
7. To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23)
8. To five hundred followers (I Corinthians 15:6)
9. To James (I Corinthians 15:7)
10. To the eleven, at the ascension (Acts 1:3-12) There were probably many other times He appeared to one or more of His disciples. Luke says: "He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days" (Acts 1:3). He was apparently seen by Stephen (Acts 7:56). Finally, of course, He was seen by Paul (Acts 9:38; I Corinthians 15:8) and once again by John (Revelation 1:12-18).
Now, of course, skeptics have tried to avoid the testimony of these numerous post-resurrection appearances of Christ by pointing out various contradictions in the six accounts which list them (Matthew 28:8-20; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:13-51; John 20:11-21, 14; Acts 1:1-11; I Corinthians 15:5-8), or else by charging the writers with fabricating the stories themselves. Of course, the mere fact that there do appear on the surface to be a number of superficial discrepancies and omissions in the account is clear proof that the writers were not engaged in some kind of collusion. If they were making up the tales, each one evidently was doing so independently of all others. This in itself would be quite a remarkable state of affairs, especially since these discrepancies all vanish when they are compared under close examination. It is a well known rule of evidence that the testimonies of several different witnesses, each reporting from his own particular vantage point, provide the strongest possible evidence on matters of fact when the testimonies contain superficial contradictions which resolve themselves upon close and careful examination. This is exactly the situation with the various witnesses to the resurrection.
The only other possible device for explaining away the post-resurrection appearances is to assume that they were all merely hallucinations, or visions, perhaps induced by drugs or hypnosis or hysteria. Such an absurd hypothesis is surely its own refutation.
Such hallucinations, if this is what they were, are quite unique in human history and warrant the most careful psycho logic scrutiny. They were experienced by a large number of different individuals, all seeing the same vision, but in different groups, at different times, both indoors and outdoors, on a hilltop, along a roadway, by a lake-shore, and other places. Furthermore, they were not looking for Jesus at all. Several times they didn't recognize Him at first, and at least once actually believed it was a ghost until He convinced them otherwise. He invited them to touch Him and they recognized the wounds in His hands (John 20:27; Luke 24:39). They watched Him eat with them (Luke 24:41-43). On one occasion, over five hundred different people saw Him at one time (I Corinthians 15:6), most of whom were still living at the time when that evidence was being used.
The vision theory is thus quite impossible and therefore the numerous appearances of Christ must be regarded as absolutely historical and genuine. This fact, combined with the evidence of the empty tomb, renders the resurrection as certain as any fact of history could possibly be.
THE WITNESS OF THE APOSTLES
Now it is completely impossible that the apostles could have preached and written as they did unless they were absolutely sincere and under deep conviction of the truth of what they preached. They had instantaneously changed from craven runaways to bold Spirit-filled proclaimers of Christ and the resurrection. Such preaching cost them the loss of their possessions, intense persecution, and finally the loss of their lives, but they kept preaching as long as strength permitted. Multitudes who believed what they were preaching suffered the same persecutions.
If they were faking all this, if somewhere they had the body of Jesus hidden away, or if He were still barely alive in a sickbed somewhere, or if they were involved in some kind of plot, or if they were not really sure whether they had seen Him or some vision,—is it conceivable that all of them (as well as their hosts of converts) would have continued this make-believe right up to the point of death itself? It would seem there must be some things in this world which no one in his right mind could possibly believe, and this should be one of them!
No wonder then, in view of the combined evidences of the empty tomb, the numerous appearances, the change in the disciples, and the authenticity of the records, not to mention the testimony of two thousand years of Christian history, that such a man as Thomas Arnold, formerly Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, one of the world's great historians, could say:
"I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead." (1)
In like manner, Simon Greenleaf, one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced in this nation, top authority on the question of what constitutes sound evidence, developer of the Harvard Law School, after a thorough evaluation of the four Gospel accounts from the point of view of their validity as objective testimonial evidence, concluded:
"It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact" (2)
It is no exaggeration, therefore, to maintain that the bodily resurrection of Christ is as certain as any fact of history can ever be. If there is anything at all in which we can believe with absolute confidence, it is the fact that Jesus Christ died, was buried, then conquered death and is now alive!
Christianity hinges on this fact, I think it's great that God saw fit to allow so many unanswerable evidences.
James

[quade 4]

Quote

On the subjest of infallible proofs, let me show you one, copied and pasted for your conveinence, ofcourse. Please try and read all of it.

James I did read all of it. Unfortunately, these arguments also do not pass the test of being a proof.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Aristotle didn't see movement as having an end as designed by god. His god did not appoint ends: they just were. Motion, to Aristotle, and to many atheists, can just be motion, with no particular plan behind it.
Further, the most popular model for the origin of the universe is still the Big Bang Theory, which created an awful lot of movement in one fell swoop. The resultant motion we see around us does not suggest an intelligent mover causing movement, no more than a patch of wet grass denotes rain. There are always other explanations: your wife may have just watered the lawn; your child might have spilt orange juice; your dog may have marked its territory.

This criticism assumes that for the proof to work motion must be assumed to have a purpose or plan. It may be true that Aquinas saw all motion as having a purpose behind it but the argument is not dependent on that. It only points out the obvious that a "thing cannot move itself". I do not see anything in there that says the movement must have a purpose or plan. It only shows that because of this, there must be a source for the first movement. As far as the wet patch of grass goes, you will note that whatever the cause, there still had to be a cause external to the grass itself. Not only that, but each of those causes had to have a cause to ad infinitum to some kind of original source. I can only assume that what you meant for the criticism of this proof is that the original source doesn't have to be God. Yet, whoever wrote that criticism fails to realize that to satisfy the requirements and escape the infinte regression the source must be "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself". This is why God fullfills this requirement.

Quote

It all makes sense up to this point but then St Thomas decides, arbitrarily, that this first cause is called "God" by everyone. He's sort of saying, "Oh, you know what I mean." Because this proof is based heavily on acceptance of the first proof, he is again assuming that motion has purpose, and that purpose denotes an intelligent planner. You have to decide here, as you did in the first proof, if you believe that motion always has a purpose.

Here the criticism is better and more clear because it is saying "just because there cannot be an infinite regression, doesn't mean God had to be the source." (This must have been what the first criticism was saying as well!) I can definately give you that, but then there still has to be some kind of source that has the properties of "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself." See above.

Quote

If you ask the question "Who made the universe?" it is also reasonable to ask the question "Who made god?" Basing your belief system on the answer to the former of these questions is irrational if you cannot also answer the latter.

It still seems that to propose God as the source is more rational for the following reason. For God we can say that he always existed because by the very definition He is an infinite being which implies always existing. For the universe, we know that it as a certain age (astronomers estimate 12.5 billion years), therefore, it cannot have always existed. In this way, it makes more sense to say that God made everything instead of it just popping into existence for no reason at all. At least Christians have a complete and coherent (within the framework) explaination for how we got here, who we are, and why the world is the way it is. But again, everything whittles down to assumptions so one always must be made, like it or not, for anyone.

Quote

If there are only contingent beings (those beings that are capable of ceasing to exist) and this universe has existed through an infinite amount of time, then all possibilities of everything must have already occurred because there's been an infinite amount of time for all possibilities to happen.

Who said the universe has been around infinitely? See above.

Quote

You can see that the third proof is so fraught with paradoxes, contradictions, absurdities and conundrums that it really doesn't prove anything.

Really, if you look at the criticisms you posted they do admit that there is sufficient proof to believe that there has to be a source with *particular characteristics* to stop the infinite regressions. They just don't believe that it had to be God. Really, it seems to be a worse paradox and absurdity to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no reason because it does not fullfill that requirement for a source that is "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself."

Quote

But that's just plain nutty. The next-to-best tennis ball in the universe is not made by the best tennis ball in the world. It's made by a machines in a tennis ball factory. Frequently, children turn out to be far better in many respects than their parents.

Actually, the argument is not that given objects (tennis balls, children, etc.) must be made by something more perfect, but that their qualities insomuch as they are good and bad are only defined as being more or less perfect because of a continuum of perfection that already exists containing a maxiumum of all the values which is God. So therefore God must exist as a source to satisfy this maximum. Since we believe the children to be better than the parents we must have some notion of how they are better outside of how their parents are. This notion of goodness is dependent on a context of good and Aquinas says that it is also dependent on a maximum of those values. Therefore, says Aquinas there must be something "which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being." While the argument still assumes that there must be a maximum, it is not as absurd as you characterize it to be. But, you are right that this one is difficult to accept. (and fully understand :-) )

Quote

This "proof" is flawed because in its attempt to prove X it includes a quality of X as part of its proof. It does not say, for example, if A and B are both true it is rational to infer that C is also true. A more clumsy argument of this sort is the old "the bible is true because it say so" kernel.

You could have simplified this by just saying that "the first proof is circular because it assumes intelligent design." This criticism is correct because the only way to support the fifth proof it is to show that there is some kind of intelligent design to the universe instead of just random chance like I said in a previous post.
BTW, nice Santa Claus analogy. Good example of using mockery to ridicule a position.
In any case, I think it can be agreed that all proofs or theories or beliefs always ends up with assumptions of some sort. This is also like how theories or theorems in math are dependent on the axioms on which they are based. It is my belief that the existence and reality of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is self evident, but many people will obviously disagree. Still, as an American, I am proud to be a citizen of a nation who's declaration of independence was inked with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-Sinkster

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Now, of course, skeptics have tried to avoid the testimony of these numerous post-resurrection appearances of Christ by pointing out various contradictions in the six accounts which list them (Matthew 28:8-20; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:13-51; John 20:11-21, 14; Acts 1:1-11; I Corinthians 15:5-8), or else by charging the writers with fabricating the stories themselves. Of course, the mere fact that there do appear on the surface to be a number of superficial discrepancies and omissions in the account is clear proof that the writers were not engaged in some kind of collusion.

That doesn't prove there was no collusion. It just proves they didn't get their stories straight. The contradictions are blatant. One says that when they found the tomb empty they hid in fear, another says they proclaimed it to the masses immediately. If they were both at the same place at the same time, why are their stories so different.
And as long as we're talking about contradictions, how about the fact that the Trinitarian church (the group that officially debated the issue and then proclaimed that Jesus was God) felt it necessary to totally obliterate all Gospel manuscripts written before 325 AD when they officially introduced the "Trinity" to the world.
According to the Church, Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is claimed to be the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. You'd expect such a pivotal character in the Bible and the author of the majority of the New Testament books to be able to keep his stories straight.
For a book that is claimed to have remained 100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting narrations boggles the mind. These matters have been well known and documented by conservative Christian scholars for a long time now. The historical inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized and countless books have been written about them. People have generally believed that there is no way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible by the Church over so many centuries as well as the Pauline Church's massive campaign of destruction of all gospels not conforming to their personal beliefs.
These are where the "unaswerable proofs" that you present come from. I don't deny there was a man named Jesus who lived and had significant impact. But any so called evidence of divine power is clearly suspect. It's most likely that he was a militant leader during a time when the Jews were looking for a messiah to oust the Roman occupiers. He had a huge impact on the time and his name was used as a rallying point. Beyond that, the church has manipulated the supposed "historical texts" to suit their own purpose.No difference between what they did and any number of cult leaders have done, they just happened to be more successful at it (probably because they had political power and used it unmercifully throughout history).
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Even if you trace it back to chemicals coming together in some cosmic goo or whatever those things themselves must be traced back to some kind of origin.

Sinkster, I agree with that statement! But your five pieces of evidence are no proof... they merely indicate that cosmologists do not yet understand what happened in the first instances of the Big Bang.

Quote

There must be an original source.

Agreed -- but again, you haven't provided the proof you promised. By this logic, your god must have originated somewhere.

Quote

Now, if you meant *empirical* proof

Is there really any other kind?
Good debate !!!
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you meant *empirical* proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there really any other kind?

Yes, consider the following identity: e^(i*pi) = -1
This is a true statement that is provable using current mathematical axioms and theorems. No empirical evidence is needed to prove that equation. That's what I mean. There are different kinds of knowledge. Demonstrative knowledge such as math and ethics is one kind of knowledge while empirical knowledge like how an orange tastes is experiential. What kinds of knowledge really exist is a great source of debate among philosophers though. (ex. synthetic or analytic a priori or a posteriori knowledge)
Just to give you another example: Descartes believed that all knowledge gained through the senses was not to be trusted and that reason is the prime source of truth while David Hume believed that all knowledge was based on sensory experience and that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." This is the classic rationalism vs empiricism debate. There are also other beliefs about knowledge, but those are the most clear cut. Soren Kierkegaard is one example of a philosopher who definately does not fit in either camp.
I think I have shown that there is at least some good evidence for the existence of God. You are right that they are definately not undeniable proofs, but rather they provide some rational reasons to believe in God.
At the very least I hope I have shown that it is not irrational to hold religious beliefs and convictions. The thread started with an accusation that Bush was basically stupid for having moral convictions about cloning, so part of this was rejecting that accusation. That's what made me reply in the first place.
-Sinkster

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

At the very least I hope I have shown that it is not irrational to hold religious beliefs and convictions.

While I may not share your beliefs, I certainly respect you for defending them! I think that as long as we respect the rights of others to evaluate the world as best they can, come to their own conclusions, then act on those conclusions in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, we are doing ok. It's when people become fanatical, and try to impose their belief system on others (missionairies???), that we begin to have problems.
Back to the stem-cell issue -- more than 70% of the people in my country support stem-cell research. I'm with them! Is your president trying to impose his relilgous beliefs on others ??? I think so.
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[james1010 0]

Kevin,
There is a problem here . . I'm pointing out what I believe to be true, that is, the Bible. You're implying that it is full of errors, and there are some supposed discrepencies, but they resolve themselves when carefully studied and forced back into thier original context from whence they were pulled. My best arguments will not be good enough for you, and certainly yours will not for me. The problem is this:
CO1 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This is where I'll draw an abundance of critisism, but so be it. The Bible is Gods word to Gods people. Except a person has been born again, he will never fully understand the Bible. In fact, he will most likely do whatever he can to disprove it to justify his WILLING unbelief, because for him to accept it certainly would place him into a state of accountability before God, and that goes against his grain. A man must be born again to begin to fully understand the Bible. I believe the Word of God is w/out error, if He can't preserve His own word then He's not God. In any case, please see the following web page:
http://www.icr.org/bible/godsplan.htm
With this installment, I will reluctantly bow out . . . on to other threads. Any other questions, drop me an e-mail.
James

[PhillyKev 0]

I don't think it's really a problem. A difference of opinions/beliefs. I personally have no problem with you believing whatever you want. I know many people who have bettered themselves through religion. I also know many people who are good people without religion. And then there are evil people on both sides (note - my definition of evil is not the religious connotation, but I see evil as the inability to empathise with others).
I'm not doing whatever I can to disprove the Bible. And I don't think accountability to a supreme being is something that goes against the grain either. I have gone to church, I have read the bible several times, and I have looked to find something that would say to me that there is a God, a divine plan, an afterlife and everything that goes along with it. However, I just haven't found anything that is even remotely rational as to be considered evidence, let alone proof. What I've found is evidence of man's attempt to explain the unexplained, set up moral code for people to live by (good things in themselves), and a perversion of that used to advance political power.

Quote

I believe the Word of God is w/out error, if He can't preserve His own word then He's not God.

That's exactly how I feel. And there is undeniable proof that the Bible has not been preserved. It was translated from the Greek scripts which the Council of Nicea decided were legitimate, and those scripts which they disputed were destroyed so that there is no evidence of them anymore (I won't get into the Gospel of St. Thomas, found along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which many scholars believe to be the closest direct quotes of Jesus, but which the Catholic church has declared heresy because it challenges their authority).
There are a multitude of different versions and interpretations of the Bible, many of which contradict each other let alone themselves. And then there's Islam. Based on many of the same texts, with Moses, Noah, Jesus, and Abraham being some of their most important profits before Mohammed.
As you said, if God can't preserve his own word, then he's not God. As I see it, this word has not been preserved, but corrupted by man and therefore, a creation of man. God could have given man freewill, but still put his words out clearly with no room for interpretation and given man a choice between following them and not. What would be His reason for requiring interpretation?
At the end of the day, or more poignantly, the end of this mortal life, I think I'm in a good position. I feel compassion for others, I try to treat others with respect, and follow the basics of the Golden Rule. I don't do this because of belief, but because of empathy. If there is a God who will judge us, I feel I will be just fine. The one thing I don't live up to in the Christian religion is belief. But again, I feel that was just a construct in order to further the power of the religion. It's a chain....Believe....if you believe than you must act according to this moral code or you'll be punished.
I don't need belief or a fear of punishment to do the right thing, I'll do it because it's right.
And now back to stem cell research. I believe that is the right thing to do. It will save people and make their lives better. And morally, I believe we need to do whatever is in our power to help other people live better/healthier/happy lives.
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[james1010 0]

" God could have given man freewill, but still put his words out clearly with no room for interpretation and given man a choice between following them and not. What would be His reason for requiring interpretation? "
God doesn't require interpretation, He requires Faith. The problem is man trying to interpret something that interprets itself. God didn't leave a puzzle that only scholars and theologians could figure out. He knew exactly what He wanted to say and that's what He had written. The gospel message which is the undercurrent from Genesis to Revelation is so simple that with our puffed up intellectual minds, we miss it. We have to analyze it and break it down, look at it from this perspective and then from this other perspective, when in reality all we have to do is simply read it and study it within itself and nothing else. But, that would be to easy.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

You're implying that it is full of errors, and there are some supposed discrepencies, but they resolve themselves when carefully studied and forced back into thier original context from whence they were pulled.

The errors and discrepancies aren't implied. They're real.
If you want an exhaustive rundown of all of the innacuracies and inconsistencies of the Old & New Testaments, read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". He goes into excrutiating detail, and I have yet to read a decent rebuttal of his analysis.
FYI, Paine believed in a God, just not the God outlined in the Christian bible.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You're implying that it is full of errors, and there are some supposed discrepencies, but they resolve themselves when carefully studied and forced back into thier original context from whence they were pulled.

Quote

The problem is man trying to interpret something that interprets itself. God didn't leave a puzzle that only scholars and theologians could figure out. He knew exactly what He wanted to say and that's what He had written.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[rhino 0]

Damn.. My eyes are hurting.... LOL
Blue Skies .....

[jfields 0]

I admit to skimming quickly over a number of posts since I left off this conversation on Friday. I did see a trend which I want to address directly. So I'll throw this out to James, Sinkster and whoever else feels it applies to them....
Given the difficulties (perhaps impossibilities) of "proving" the existence of God, why bother? Is not the whole point of your belief in a supreme being that it transcends the limits of human experience and intellect, and must be based primarily on faith?
Thoughts?
Justin

[james1010 0]

Fair enough, Justin.
We should close this out for now and move on to simpler things, like . . . oh, I don't know . . skydiving, maybe.
Thanks for the cool debate, maybe we can take this up again in the future.
Blue Skies!!
James

[Muenkel 0]

Wow, I haven't tuned into this thread since Friday.
First, I am extremely impressed that this debate has been handled civilly and with full respect for the many different opinions.
Secondly, I am very impressed with the knowledge many of you have and the intelligence you have displayed in your points of view.
The bottom line though is that no one has proven their "belief" and cannot on their own. The only thing I know is we will all know the "truth" at the moment of our death. Let's face it, we are all mortal and are sub-divine. We are just a blip on the radar screen of humanity. What if there is a God? What if He really did give us Ten Commandments to live by? What will we do when or if that moment of judgement comes?
This stuff really makes me ponder.....
In the meantime, let's enjoy the beautiful blue skies that were created by something.Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[rhino 0]

Why bother??
I would rather have faith and be wrong than not have faith and be wrong.. I simply choose to have faith. It is something I had to mature into.. I didn't have it right off the bat.
Rhino
Blue Skies .....

[jfields 0]

Rhino,
I didn't say why bother being religious. Just why bother trying to prove what is based on faith. For those that believe, the faith alone is enough.
Justin

[favaks 0]

Quote

What if there is a God? What if He really did give us Ten Commandments to live by? What will we do when or if that moment of judgement comes?

Quote

I would rather have faith and be wrong than not have faith and be wrong.

Pascal's wager.
This is a sound argument if there is only two choices of belief, your God, or none. But if God is infinitely incomprehensible, then there is possibly infinitely many theologies about God and each is equally probable. What make you think you're betting on the right one? What's the probability of chosing a right number from an infinite set?
favaks

[rhino 0]

Jfields, cool. Favaks, Valid argument.. Can't argue.. I don't even know how I came into the faith that I have. I'm just glad that I finally have it.
Rhino
Blue Skies .....