The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
1. Who said believing in God was the crutch. Perhaps the real crutch is believing that we as insignificant human beings have any right to say we know enough about the universe to tell someone else he's wrong, much less we're right.

Maybe, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for an infinite personal being. In the last two thousand years, whenever science advanced, religion espically Christianity retreated. Things used to be in the realm of the supernatural now have perfectly natural explanations. Still, people are pointing to the gaps in our understanding and yell, "Look, God!"

Originally posted by gsmoove23
2. Your definition of "no fundamental difference" may be a little strange. If you mean that Christianity is no different because it argues an order for the universe and an explanation perhaps it is also similar to some forms of atheism. Otherwise, if your only definition of a religion is a belief in some form of divinity, then by that limited definition you are correct.

I don't see how Christianity argues for "an order" and "an explanation" for this universe. What it argues for is exactly the opposite. There is no order to this universe, because YHWH can rearrange things whenever He pleases. There is no explanation, because YHWH is forever beyond our comprehension.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I have often heard the argument that monotheism encourages science because belief in one omnipotent God encourages belief that nature operates in a regular, predictable fashion.

Two problems with this argument:

1. The polytheistic Greeks were rather good at science.

2. In the Bible, YHWH appears to be a fickle, emotionally unstable manic-depressive type. Certainly not regular or predictable.

[Urban Ranger]

It might be possible that some forms of monotheism encourage science, but certainly not Christianity. The bible says, "Ignorance is bliss."

[Dauphin]

I thought that the argument was not that monotheism encourages science, but that it advances the unification of scientific theories. A belief in a single overarching principle has lead to the desire to unify theories.

Greek science saw events, in the main, to be unrelated, renaissance science saw all events as related to a single cause - science has retained this mindset to this day.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It might be possible that some forms of monotheism encourage science, but certainly not Christianity. The bible says, "Ignorance is bliss."

This post deserves the treatment.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by monkspider
John- I think you misunderstand the purpose of what is considered to be free will. Free will in this context is a general sentience of self, the Descartesian "I" if you will.

"Free will" is sentience? That certainly isn't the impression I have of the phrase. Let me look it up... Hmm. That's odd. My dictionary only gives it as an adjective, not a noun. But the definition is "voluntary", which fits in with the way I've always understood the term. Anyway, my point was that we can still free, even if our actions are predetermined, or random, or a combination of the two, as indeed they must be.

But anyway, now that I understand what you meant by "free will" (I hope), looking back at what you said earlier, it seems that you were saying that humans sin because they have sentience. Well, sentience may be required to sin, but that doesn't mean that a sentient being can't be created that is guaranteed never to do wrong. I don't see why such a being would be theoretically impossible. If that were the case, then God can sin, which would seem to be very bad news. On the other hand, it would explain a whole lot. Heck, we already know that the universe isn't perfect. Which brings us to our next topic.

Originally posted by monkspider
The purpose for our free will is to learn various lessons in this life that will bring us closer to God. Would you ever get any better in Civ III if you always played it on the lowest level? Or would you ever get any stronger if you never tried benching more than ten pounds? The purpose of an imperfect world is not to torture us, but to teach us.

The problem with that argument is that so many of the lessons we learn would only seem to be relevant in an imperfect world. For example, in an ideal world, there would be no need to sacrifice for others or to love the wicked (because everyone would have everything they needed and everyone would be good). Why put a flaw into the world when the only lesson it teaches us is how to deal with that flaw? Isn't not having problems in the first place better than knowing how to solve them? And even if it isn't, why don't we just have that knowledge built into our minds from the start, instead of having to so painfully learn it?

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think II and III are in effect the same thing. I think the physical world is the way it is because it can't be any different and remain consistent.

Ah, yes. Einstein, IIRC, asked whether God really had any choice in creating the universe. This is an interesting notion, but what evidence is there to back it up?

And I'm not talking about whether, for example, the charge on the electron is the only value that fits a particular equation. I'm thinking about universes with entirely different particles and equations (or rather, natural laws that could be described by equations) of their own. I never seem to hear that consideration discussed by the proponents of this theory.

The artificial "world" of a computer simulation follows its own rules. Such a world is internally consistent, as evidenced by the simple fact that it exists -- that is to say, we can extract data from the virtual world through the computer, just as we can extract data from the real world with our senses. I don't see why one of these virtual worlds could not theoretically exist in reality instead of our own, instead of as a simulation. I see no reason to believe that such a world could not support intelligent beings, either. One could argue that such a world requires an underlying substrate in a universe with our laws of physics. But I would ask "Why? Why could such a world not, theoretically, exist in and of itself just as much as our own does?".

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
2. In the Bible, YHWH appears to be a fickle, emotionally unstable manic-depressive type. Certainly not regular or predictable.

Good lord, and Zeus wasn't? The greek pantheon is probably the most likely to fit in just fine at a madhouse. There is essentially nothing divine about them besides their powers... more like superheroes than deities.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
The artificial "world" of a computer simulation follows its own rules. Such a world is internally consistent, as evidenced by the simple fact that it exists -- that is to say, we can extract data from the virtual world through the computer, just as we can extract data from the real world with our senses.

I don't see why one of these virtual worlds could not theoretically exist in reality instead of our own, instead of as a simulation. I see no reason to believe that such a world could not support intelligent beings, either. One could argue that such a world requires an underlying substrate in a universe with our laws of physics. But I would ask "Why? Why could such a world not, theoretically, exist in and of itself just as much as our own does?".

I think that the reason is that the real world is complete and self-contained, the simulated world is not.

That is to say that it is theoretically possible to explain why the laws and the constituents of the real world act as they do and are as they are. In a simulated environment you have to input specific variables that have no derivable reason (as far as the simulation is concerned) to be as they are.

Basically the difference between the real world and your simulated realities is that simulated realities require an external input.

I wouldn't be surprised if other realities with unimaginable differences to our own existed. But if they do I'm inclinde to think mathematics (Etc) would be be changed too. This because maths, physical constants and constituent matter are all inter-related.

I hope that makes sense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
The purpose for our free will is to learn various lessons in this life that will bring us closer to God.

This doesn't cut it, because YHWH is omniscient. Omniscience excludes freewill.

Of course, the bible doesn't say God is omniscient. However, if you go by that route, you need to drop all orthodox Christian doctrines that cannot be found in the bible, including such interesting bits as Trinity.

[Dauphin]

What does YHWH stand for? I can't work it out.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
What does YHWH stand for? I can't work it out.

Yahweh - it is the biblical name of God. It means "I am who am".

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think that the reason is that the real world is complete and self-contained, the simulated world is not.

Let's say X is a simulated world and R is the real world. If X were the real world instead of R, I think it would be complete and self-contained, just as R is.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That is to say that it is theoretically possible to explain why the laws and the constituents of the real world act as they do and are as they are. In a simulated environment you have to input specific variables that have no derivable reason (as far as the simulation is concerned) to be as they are.

I'm talking about a simulation that requires no input once it starts running. It's initial state and its rules are no less arbitrary than those of our own universe. You could claim that our own universe's initial state and physical laws are dictated by logical necessity, but that brings us back to why I was talking about simulations in the first place -- to show that one can give examples of self-consistent "worlds" other than our own. So, of all these self-consistent hypothetical worlds, why is ours the only real one? (Personally, I think that this is a trick question.)

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I wouldn't be surprised if other realities with unimaginable differences to our own existed. But if they do I'm inclinde to think mathematics (Etc) would be be changed too. This because maths, physical constants and constituent matter are all inter-related.

I think that things like "1 + 1 = 2" and "A or not A" would be true in any universe, because they don't really have anything to do with the physical world. (I'm talking about the facts that the statements represent, since it's possible to construct a language in which the symbols have whatever meaning you want.) In fact, it's misleading to talk about them being true "in" a world, because they're not implictly talking about a specific location. In a similar fashion, "English is the most commonly spoken language in the country" may or may not be true depending on where you are, but "English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States" is true wherever it is uttered; its truth does not vary from one location to another. While mathematical and logical statements may look simple, they are presented in complex languages carefully constructed to guarantee the truth and falsity of certain statements. Math and logic aren't defined in terms of the physical world, and thus their truths are independant of that world.

[JohnM2433]

Oh, by the way, SD, I like your new sig.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yahweh - it is the biblical name of God. It means "I am who am".

Yahweh is a guess. There are no vowels in the big G's name, so exactly how it is pronounced is a mystery. It could just as easily be YaHoo WaHoo!

[Boris Godunov]

Or YeHaw, WooHoo, which would be the ultimate surprise: that God is indeed a redneck.