Dear Grateful,

I once had the privilege to hear a lecture by Gerald Schroeder in person.

To summarise, he pointed at something with the following 4 properties:

1. Non physical.
2. Acts on the physical.
3. Created the physical from nothing.
4. Predates the universe.

That put together, he claims, is the Biblical Definition of God, with the conclusion that "science has indeed discovered the Biblical God".

---

Well first, I read the bible and I don't recall God being defined anywhere. Not that this is possible anyway, but I cannot even find anywhere in the bible an attempt to define God. Can you?

Second, Schroeder's god is not non-physical: it's just external to this particular universe.

Third, Schroeder's god is not immutable: previously (in some external, non-relative sense of time), before the universe was created, he was not a Creator, but later he BECAME a Creator. Further, Schroeder's god is affected by the actions of man: when man for example invented trains, Schroeder's god suddenly became the primordial cause for the existence of trains, which he previously wasn't.

Fourth, Schroeder doesn't mention consciousness, only matter.

Fifth, Schroeder provides no reason why his god ought to be worshipped, why it is good to do so.

Only objects can be defined, which is why all attempts to define God are bound to fail.

One ought to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's means - not to try to understand and analyse God as if He were a mere object.

Jayb wrote:
<<I don't feel it proves that there is a God.>>

I don't like the expression "prove" either. Its more about saying that there are passages in the Bible that are not inconsistent with science, which of course does not address the issue of other passages which are inconsistent with science (such as creation of the universe in a period of 7 days and the sequential creation of the sun then earth, etc).

I came across this Christian website drawing upon science to put the case for fine-tuning. Its quite long, but worth a read. IT concludes:

Informed scientists now universally recognise that the Universe is exquisitely finely tuned to allow the coming into being of intelligent life.
The only reasonable debate is whether this is due to:
1. A Loving Ultimate Creator (the universe was designed by God !)
2. An extraordinary coincidence (No self-respecting scientist champions this idea because the odds against it makes winning the lotto like a sure thing)
3. There exists an infinity of "other Universes" in which the constants are different (and we are so lucky to be living in the universe with the "right constants").

Note that none of the choices 1, 2 and 3 are scientific - science deals with observable and repeatable phenomenon.

Choice 2 is the least logical - it's just as scientific as playing a mega lotto (something like picking 100 numbers between 1 and 1,000,000 and win with your first ticket)... Talking about "against all odds".... - further reading: "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe", Martin Rees - Here is a summary: click here

Choice 3 is an "onthological (a priori) argument" - since we already know the universe that we live in provides all the necessary molecules to support life, therefore there must be a "logical explanation" for it. And one of the possible logical explanation is the "theory" that there are infinite number of universes and we are so lucky to live in the right one.

cont...

grateful,

Oh dear! You’re not resorting to the fine-tuning argument now, are you?

And poor Jayb. Why subject him specifically to it? I'm at least used to it.

I watched your video, now watch this video that thoroughly debunks the ridiculous fine-tuning argument:

http://youtu.be/_jU42uC9vag?t=3259

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Watch that and let us take it from there. That should lead to a more productive discussion.

Yuyutsu,

Wow, what a co-incidence!

<<I once had the privilege to hear a lecture by Gerald Schroeder in person. To summarise, he pointed at something with the following 4 properties:>>

Why, they’re exactly the same four properties that I just listed two days ago! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325077)

Seriously though, that's taking your snubbing of me a little too far. You don’t need to keep making a point of it. I got it after your passive-aggressively timed response to Rhian earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324707).

I realise you're probably still traumatised after our last marathon discussion (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0#199366). That’s why I understood your choice of wording when you mentioned “playing with fire”, and took it as a compliment. But please, it's just getting ridiculous now.

Obviously you're still reading my posts. Your pretending that I don't exist won't make me go away. It just makes discrediting your unfounded claims all the more easier since we don't have to go through a tiresome back-and-forth to prove my point. Your silence alone does it for me.

Where and when was it that you saw this Schroder character give a presentation on the four points that I co-incidentally highlighted too? Because I have my doubts that this presentation ever happened.

You do raise an interesting point that I hadn’t gotten around to mentioning, though, and that is that I too cannot remember where the Bible actually describes God in such a way. It’s just assumed by Christians.

AJ: << Oh dear! You’re not resorting to the fine-tuning argument now, are you?>>

No, just exploring what happens when we assume and then seek to refute the hypothesis of no god.

AJ: << I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Watch that and let us take it from there. That should lead to a more productive discussion.>>

The anonymous author of this video objects to the probability argument on the grounds that we have only a “sample of one”. He also speaks of the possibility of multi-universes. He is suggesting that if and until we can collect are more reliable sample of universes we have to accept the hypothesis that the current universe has produced life not by design but by chance. Indeed, if there were an infinite number of universes being created by the nature laws, then it becomes a realistic possibility that the exact configuration of constants that we believe is required for life can occur.

The problem with this argument is firstly where is the evidence that there is an infinite number of universes? Secondly, if there are an infinite number of universes, one needs to demonstrate that the occurrence of life is sufficiently small so as to reject the hypothesis of design.

Finally, even if we were to accept an infinite number of universes of which we are the one instance of life, this still does not explain laws of nature governing the creation of the universe.

We could add another one. We are speaking of life. What about intelligent life involving the creation of a single thought or perhaps a sonnet? Any videos dealing with question?

Finally, what about free-will? Is it a delusion?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are stupid. However, they are formed by their culture. One reason Gandhi got as far as he did was that satyagraha was part of the Indian culture. Non-violence to some degree is part of every culture. In appropriate cases it has worked even against the Nazis.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/jorgen-johansen/hitler-and-challenge-of-non-violence tells of an occasion where non-violence worked in 1943 in Nazi Berlin.

If both the Israelis and Palestinians had been devoted to non-violence they could have formed one state in 1948 rather than being partitioned by the UN.

Both Judaism and Islam have a tradition of non-violence. However, it is not as known among those groups as it is in the Indian society.

https://centerforjewishnonviolence.org/ tells about a centre for Jewish non-violence. From that site:

“Just as other traditions around the world draw from their heritage to engage in nonviolent resistance to oppression, so too do we look within our own tradition for inspiration, from Shifra and Puah’s noncooperation with Pharoah’s instruction to slay Hebrew baby boys to Honi the Circle Maker’s insistence that “he shall not be moved” until the rains fall from the sky.”

“As Jews from around the world, we are implicated by the actions of the Israeli government when it claims to act in the name of all Jews. When our name and our religion is being used in ways that we disagree with and in ways that contradict international law, it is our responsibility to speak out.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e85OG3J2gsY tells about Palestinian non-violence. From that site:

“Taghyeer Movement advances non-violence as the foundation of a Palestinian national identity and core value of Palestinian state building. Informed by the civic transformation achieved by Mhatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, Taghyeer Movement is organizing a network of Palestinian community activists and leaders. Participants in Taghyeer are committed to a non-violent end of the occupation and peaceful community building. Embracing Palestinian values and culture, we transcend the narrative of victimization, nurturing peace, Palestinian independence, and mutual security with our neighbors.

If both groups can gain enough followers there will be peace.

And straight off the bat, grateful, you start with the ad hominem fallacy.

<<The anonymous author of this video…>>

The fact that YouTuber, AndromedasWake, hasn’t given his name says nothing about the validity of his arguments.

<<…objects to the probability argument on the grounds that we have only a “sample of one”.>>

Yes. Not to mention all the other problems with the fine-tuning argument that he was willing to let creationists have in order to get to the more fundamental problem of only having a sample size of one.

As someone who works in a mysterious field involving strange statistical methods, even you should have some idea of just how fatal that is to the fine-tuning argument.

<<He is suggesting that if and until we can collect are more reliable sample of universes we have to accept the hypothesis that the current universe has produced life not by design but by chance.>>

He doesn’t suggest that at all. Where did talk of design or accepting any sort of hypothesis come into it?

<<The problem with this argument is firstly where is the evidence that there is an infinite number of universes?>>

The author of the video never claimed that there is an infinite number or universes. Nor did his argument rely on such an assumption.

<<Secondly, if there are an infinite number of universes, one needs to demonstrate that the occurrence of life is sufficiently small so as to reject the hypothesis of design.>>

No, that’s the Switching of the Burden of Proof fallacy again. The onus is on those claiming that the universe is designed to demonstrated that. Furthermore, how could one ever determine what “sufficiently small” is?

<<Finally, even if we were to accept an infinite number of universes…>>

You’re still stuck on multiple universes. You didn’t absorb much at all of what was being said in the video, did you?

<<What about intelligent life involving the creation of a single thought or perhaps a sonnet?>>

What about it?

<<Finally, what about free-will? Is it a delusion?>>

It may only be an illusion. I don’t know. Why?