Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Noopti wrote: »
    I have been reading through this whole thread, and one thing is really standing out to me:

    DeVore is making extremely good cases & points, and Jakkass is ignoring every single one of them. A case of picking and choosing his arguments if ever I saw one.

    Noopti: Nice bold. However, one only looks at so many posts at a time. DeVore has made an excellent post about the infinites which are contained within finite numbers, and I never would have thought of it that way either. However, there seems to be a diachotomy between what mathematicians have calculated concerning the probability of the universe, the world, and life having come into existence, and what some people have said on this thread. The best explanation I have received so far was from sink, who basically said, it doesn't really matter. Yet I find that answer lacking.

    I want to know how possibly:
    1) The universe was formed
    2) The chemical conditions to sustain life were reached
    3) The earth was formed with a satisfactory distance from the sun to sustain life.
    4) The other planets were formed.
    5) How life came from non-life (abiogenesis)
    6) How the evolutionary process began.

    When you take the odds into each one of these steps actually being able to happen in and of itself, it's hardly something that is incredibly likely to happen based on what mathematicians are saying. I'd like DeVore to substantiate why he thinks that the universe is probable considering that so many people consider it to be rather improbable.
    liamw wrote: »
    Jackass, I actually find it hard to believe that someone, in the 21st century, still believes in a resurrection.

    Well here I am, and there are millions more like me.
    liamw wrote: »
    I will try to understand you. Please give me a reason, other than you read it out of a book written hundreds of years ago, that you think the resurrection happened. Why do you need to invoke it at all?

    There is no point in going over this again. Check out the reasoning in the link on my signature. There are reams and reams of Christian apologists who argue for the Resurrection for other reasons apart from "The Bible said it". There is no point in answering a question pertaining to a hypothesis, by quoting the hypothesis right back at them. I love the way people assume that I believe in the Resurrection merely because the Bible said so, even though you had no reason to suggest that.
    liamw wrote: »
    I mean, what's the point? Why do you trust the words in this book so blindly?

    I don't trust in them blindly.
    liamw wrote: »
    Try looking at this from a rational and logical point of view, and tell me what your saying isn't ridiculous. If you can't, then I guess your still brainwashed.

    Ah the atheist view that they dominate "logic and reason". You do realise that there are two means of attaining knowledge, empiricism, and rationality. Empiricism means the source data that one uses. Rationality means the thought process that one carries on it.

    So in my empiricism, I gain my knowledge that a crucifixion event happened from external historical sources to the Bible. I gain my knowledge of the advocacy of a Resurrection event from the efforts of evangelism made by Peter. We know that the Resurrection was preached by Christians earlier than 55AD, as Paul's first letter to the Corinthians contains heavy reference to them. We know of the Christian efforts to evangelise around the world historically. That's my empiricism.

    My reasoning behind it is what we can glean from this source data. This is contained in my signature.

    So I put it to you. You have no reason whatsoever to claim that you somehow have the ultimate degree of what is logical or illogical. Seeing your lack of understanding of how knowledge is actually gained I would assume that you don't have this ultimate degree of what is logical or illogical. I'll leave this in bold for you, and I'll leave it to seep in:
    Atheists have no monopoly, and they have no reason to think that they have a monopoly on reason and logic.

    However, as for your assumption that I am brainwashed, or that Christianity is mere foolishness. I got a quote for you, to the same effect:
    1 Corinthians 1:18 wrote:
    For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    If you can't relate to the Christian position of course you won't relate to it as the power of God. As such I can assume that you consider it to be foolishness. I'm rather okay with you considering it to be foolishness, I really couldn't care. I know that I have adequate reason to believe in what I do however.


  • Options
    #93
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I want to know how possibly:
    1) The universe was formed

    We don't know yet. Given that, some people say "we don't know yet" and you say "It was God".
    2) The chemical conditions to sustain life were reached

    An inevitable consequence given the composition of the universe.
    3) The earth was formed with a satisfactory distance from the sun to sustain life.

    Chance. By the way, the habitable zone is not that narrow - it's probably a corridor about 60 million kms wide. And we're not the only planet in the universe.
    4) The other planets were formed.

    Gravity.
    5) How life came from non-life (abiogenesis)
    Over a long, long time. But seriously, why don't you just type abiogenesis into Google or Wikipedia, it's all well documented?
    6) How the evolutionary process began.

    Again, you can find these answers out if you wanted to look for them.


  • Options
    #94
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I want to know how possibly:
    1) The universe was formed
    2) The chemical conditions to sustain life were reached
    3) The earth was formed with a satisfactory distance from the sun to sustain life.
    4) The other planets were formed.
    5) How life came from non-life (abiogenesis)
    6) How the evolutionary process began.

    Before I begin, I don't believe for one second that these haven't been explained to you countless times before. Yet you continue to stand there with your fingers in you ears.

    1) We don't know (I assume you mean 'began'). A far more humble and truthful statement.

    2) 14 billion years should be enough time for it to occur.

    3) Only the earth? There are approx one billion trillion trillion stars and planets in the universe. Are you suggesting that earth is the only ball of rock which orbits in a habitable zone around a star? :rolleyes:

    4) A quick synopsis? A gas cloud in space became denser due to gravity, as heat increased towards the centre it created a reaction, leading to the birth of a star. The early star erupted violently, like a giant nuclear reactor, spewing new elements out into space. Once this reaction has calmed down, and the star has cooled, the elements orbiting the star also cool and begin to join together because of gravitaional forces. This leads to planets being formed. Christ on a bike, have you ever watched the Discovery channel?

    5) We don't know. Although huge progress has been made on this front over the last 50 years. A far more humble and truthful statement.

    6) Once a carbon molecule began self-replicating, and the copying process was faulty.


  • Options
    #95
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam Vimes:

    Problem: The 9/11 terrorists actually believed in Islam. They didn't fly planes into the WTC based on the view that it was false. If you had read the point that was put forward to me, it implied that Christianity was under false pretences, and that the disciples were lying. Theres a clear difference there, and you know it.

    9/11 was only one of my examples to show that people can be convinced of something to the point of being willing to die without witnessing anything supernatural. You missed out the other examples where people knew what they were saying was false but thought the overall cause was important enough that the lie was justified. That has happened many times and could have happened then no?


  • Options
    #96
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Yes, but Sam, you're missing the point here. The disciples didn't believe that they were lying from what we have received of their writings. As for L. Ron Hubbard and others, I don't know if they truly believed what they would believed. However I don't think L. Ron Hubbard was in as serious a threat of death as the disciples were (infact he died from a stroke).

    As for Bush lying about WMD's. This is a political issue that was made from the safety of the White House. The disciples didn't have any such privilege concerning the truth of the Gospel.

    You really haven't compared like with like at all actually.

    Anyhow, I'm off to university, I'll check your response later no doubt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Chance. By the way, the habitable zone is not that narrow - it's probably a corridor about 60 million kms wide. And we're not the only planet in the universe.

    This is true. Based on the fact that there are trillions of planets that have been around for billions of years, life evolving on at least one is almost inevitable. But the point has been made to him many times in many ways by many different people and he just keeps saying that it couldn't have happened without god

    He doesn't actually want an answer from us about how the planet could have formed, the fact that he keeps asking the same question despite getting the same answer every time he asks it shows that. He already has his answer: god did it


  • Options
    #98
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, but Sam, you're missing the point here. The disciples didn't believe that they were lying from what we have received of their writings. As for L. Ron Hubbard and others, I don't know if they truly believed what they would believed. However I don't think L. Ron Hubbard was in as serious a threat of death as the disciples were (infact he died from a stroke).

    As for Bush lying about WMD's. This is a political issue that was made from the safety of the White House. The disciples didn't have any such privilege concerning the truth of the Gospel.

    You really haven't compared like with like at all actually.

    Anyhow, I'm off to university, I'll check your response later no doubt.

    You're nitpicking slight differences between the two scenarios as if that makes one quite likely and the other completely impossible

    Firstly, the disciples weren't lying because they're writings say they weren't :confused:
    The point is that people believe in their cause so much that they use a lie to help people to believe. If they write down in their book that they're lying or they don't write convincingly, well it's not going to work is it?

    And secondly, if you put a man in the white house it's perfectly reasonable to suggest he might lie to support a greater cause but anywhere else it's so unlikely that a supernatural event is more likely :confused:
    And even with the ridiculousness of that suggestion you're still ignoring my other examples where it happened outside of the whitehouse, with the 9/11 conspiracies and the movie Zeitgeist. There are millions of examples of someone lying to support a cause that they believe in and you can't give some fundamental difference between all of them and this one case. The fact is it happens all the time so it's quite likely that it happened back then

    Just the other day on AH someone was trying to say how bad the recession is so he said that there were 3 jobs going in Londis and 2000 people showed up for the interviews. In reality there were 150 jobs and 500 people. When those cartoons depicting Mohammed were sent around the muslim world, three extra very offensive cartoons were added to build up anger that had nothing to do with Denmark and they were told it was a government newspaper that printed it. Several people were killed and churches were burned to the ground over those lies. The fact that the disciples were dedicated does not mean the resurrection happened, it could mean any number of perfectly natural and far more likely things


  • Options
    #99
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Jakkass wrote: »
    When you take the odds into each one of these steps actually being able to happen in and of itself, it's hardly something that is incredibly likely to happen based on what mathematicians are saying. I'd like DeVore to substantiate why he thinks that the universe is probable considering that so many people consider it to be rather improbable.

    ??? :confused:

    Just because something is improbable, does mean it is any less possible. You seem to be getting this confused. If you where to calculate the odds of your parents meeting and having a baby, your grandparents meeting and having a baby... etc back a few 100 years only, the probability of you coming into existence would be infinitesimally small. Yet here you are reading my post. Your existence was highly improbable, yet it was still possible. You are proof of this, and so is the Universe.


  • Options
    #100
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    ??? :confused:

    Just because something is improbable, does mean it is any less possible. You seem to be getting this confused. If you where to calculate the odds of your parents meeting and having a baby, your grandparents meeting and having a baby... etc back a few 100 years only, the probability of you coming into existence would be infinitesimally small. Yet here you are reading my post. Your existence was highly improbable, yet it was still possible. You are proof of this, and so is the Universe.

    Unless his mother/grandmother was 'seen to' by god...


  • Options
    #101
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Just watched Dawkins on the Late Late. I'm kind of disappointed that Kenny didn't make a knob of himself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    When you take the odds into each one of these steps actually being able to happen in and of itself, it's hardly something that is incredibly likely to happen based on what mathematicians are saying. I'd like DeVore to substantiate why he thinks that the universe is probable considering that so many people consider it to be rather improbable.

    There is a bit of confusion going on.

    A universe is probable.

    This universe is infinitely improbable.

    Think of it this way. You are on top of a very tall building and you throw a beach ball out of the window. It slowly falls to the ground, being tossed up and down by the wind, back and forth until eventually it lands in a specific spot on the ground 20 stories below.

    What are the odds that the beach ball would land in that specific spot? Given the number of variables involved, from the wind currents at all levels of its flight to the strength and direction you threw it out of the window, to the air pressure in the beach ball itself, the odds are ridiculous. Trillions to one.

    So, given that, why are all the people watching not fainting and collapsing with awe that the beach ball fell on that spot? Because that spot has no significance. The beach ball had to fall some where, where specifically it fell has no great value. If it fell 2 meters to the left or right no one would have cared either way. The odds of it falling in that spot are still trillions to one, but that doesn't mean anything to anyone.

    Now, repeat but this time place a small target on the ground. You throw the ball out the window and it floats down and down until it lands exactly on that target.

    Now the crowd are all standing there with wide open mouths amazed at what they just saw. The ball actually hit the target. Instantly the first thought in everyone's head is that this was fixed. There is no way the ball would hit the target unless someone was fiddling with something.

    See the change that takes place when you introduce a desired outcome. The odds stay the same. The odds that the ball would fit that spot are the same, or roughly the same, as that it would hit any other spot. Without the target no one cares what spot it hits. Introduce the target and that instantly turns the situational into a hit or miss affair. If it hits the target it is a hit and if it doesn't, no matter where it lands, it is a miss.

    This is how religious and spiritual people tend to view our universe. They introduce a target, this universe or often more specific than that, carbon based life in this universe, and then start looking at the odds this would happen.

    The odds that this specific universe would form are ridiculous. Every second the odds that this specific universe would exist increase. It is hard to imagine that you would ever get this exact universe if you did it again, just like it is hard to imagine the beach ball hitting the same spot twice.

    The question though is why the introduction of the target.

    Remember before the introduction of the target no one gave a monkey's where the beach ball landed. It was all the same, despite the fact that the odds that it would land at any specific point were trillions to one. Introduce a target thought and people get really interested in the odds.

    What people do with our universe is this in reverse. The beach ball is thrown out the window, it lands somewhere, and someone comes along, marks the point where it landed with a target and starts being amazed at the odds that the ball would land in that specific spot.

    The first response to this thinking is not trying to explain the odds in some other way, or saying that it was in fact likely that the ball would land there. It wasn't likely at all, it is ridiculously unlikely that the ball would land there. The person is right, the odds of that specific spot are ridiculous.

    But that isn't the point. The first question we should ask is why is that spot significant? If the ball had landed 2 meters to the left or 4 meters to the right would that matter?

    So when thinking about the universe what is the rational for thinking that this universe is a target? Would it matter if we didn't have this universe?

    Because it is only after you establish that is there any point in looking at the odds of this specific universe and wondering how that could happen naturally.

    The odds that this universe would form are ridiculously unlikely. But the question is why does that matter?


  • Options
    #103
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The odds that this universe would form are ridiculously unlikely. But the question is why does that matter?

    Precisely what I was trying to convey but far more eloquent than my attempt. Thank you.


  • Options
    #104
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Let me borrow the analogy to convey what is required for the resurrection to take place. Dead tissue reanimating after 3 days of decay would be equivalent of dropping the beach ball and it landing on the moon. It is not possible without the current laws of physics, chemistry and biology ceasing to work the way we currently understand them.


  • Options
    #105
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    After listening to the actual Late Late bit I can state that there are many people who clearly don't understand the argument. The one I particularly liked was the woman who claimed her getting faith was a miracle.
    She failed to understand faith, miracle and what Dawkins said about the comforting factor religion has and how that doesn't make it true. It appears that other people posting on this thread also have similar issues. I get why people don't want their safety blanket removed but why they would want to stamp around the world saying they are right seems to be against their own religious teachings and smacks of desperation and a need to reassure themselves. I am sure some believe they are spreading "the word" but there is difference between faith and logically derived belief that some people can't even grasp as a concept. :(


  • Options
    #106
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Very well explained Wicknight. I may borrow that from you some time if you don't mind.

    Jackass, I really couln't be bothered getting into a big argument about the semantics of what the words logical and rational mean. The fact is, a resurrection entirely disobeys so many laws of our universe. Now, if there were significant evidence to show that this resurrection did actually happen, we as humans, would have to rethink our entire model of the world?!

    The other reason I'd rather not expend too much time arguing this with you is because it's so ridiculous I don't even want to entertain it. I think the only reason that arguments from people like you are entertained by the scientific community in the first place is beacuse it's kind of worrying and dangerous to us that so many people can be so deluded.

    As Dawkins said, the reason he doesn't stand up and argue in a serious debate with creationists, is becuase that makes it look like there is some serious argument to be had in the first place. Would you argue with a flat earther? The resurrection is just as ridiculous.


  • Options
    #107
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    jackpalance wrote: »
    Just watched Dawkins on the Late Late. I'm kind of disappointed that Kenny didn't make a knob of himself.

    It's actually funny that this thread has begun to discuss probability as this is the exact point that Dr. Casey from UCD got hung up on near the end of that clip. It was regarding the fact that Dawkins made mention in his book of God like beings being probable. I loved the expression on Dawkins face when he said "you can't be serious?" it was a look of complete frustration and exasperation... made worse by the fact that the audience actually applauded Dr. Casey's ridiculous point.


  • Options
    #108
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    sink wrote: »
    Let me borrow the analogy to convey what is required for the resurrection to take place. Dead tissue reanimating after 3 days of decay would be equivalent of dropping the beach ball and it landing on the moon. It is not possible without the current laws of physics, chemistry and biology ceasing to work the way we currently understand them.

    Yeah I always get tickled when people demand a "rational" explanation for the story and then say the only plausible explanation left is that the resurrection happened as described.

    When did all known laws of physics were suspended for a period of time become a "plausible explanation"? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #109
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It's actually funny that this thread has begun to discuss probability as this is the exact point that Dr. Casey from UCD got hung up on near the end of that clip. It was regarding the fact that Dawkins made mention in his book of God like beings being probable. I loved the expression on Dawkins face when he said "you can't be serious?" it was a look of complete frustration and exasperation... made worse by the fact that the audience actually applauded Dr. Casey's ridiculous point.

    I wouldn't worry about it. the Late Late Show studio audience are often regarded as the lowest common denominator of the Irish community.


  • Options
    #110
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I wouldn't worry about it. the Late Late Show studio audience are often regarded as the lowest common denominator of the Irish community.

    *Ahem* I suggest tuning into the callers that LiveLine attracts.


  • Options
    #111
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    toiletduck wrote: »
    *Ahem* I suggest tuning into the callers that LiveLine attracts.

    I doubt tLL people would have anything better/smarter to say if given the chance.

    edit: by tLL I mean the Late Late, not the fine forum that is the Ladies Lounge


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It's actually funny that this thread has begun to discuss probability as this is the exact point that Dr. Casey from UCD got hung up on near the end of that clip. It was regarding the fact that Dawkins made mention in his book of God like beings being probable. I loved the expression on Dawkins face when he said "you can't be serious?" it was a look of complete frustration and exasperation... made worse by the fact that the audience actually applauded Dr. Casey's ridiculous point.

    I know. I felt embarrassed while watching it...


  • Options
    #113
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    liamw wrote: »
    Very well explained Wicknight. I may borrow that from you some time if you don't mind.

    +1

    Great analogy, very well put.


  • Options
    #114
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Naz_st wrote: »
    +1

    Great analogy, very well put.

    Indeed, just a variation of the Anthropic Principle really, but it's sometimes difficult to explain and not entirely satisfying.


  • Options
    #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    liamw wrote: »
    Jackass, I really couln't be bothered getting into a big argument about the semantics of what the words logical and rational mean. The fact is, a resurrection entirely disobeys so many laws of our universe. Now, if there were significant evidence to show that this resurrection did actually happen, we as humans, would have to rethink our entire model of the world?!

    Fair enough. You're still not understanding what I actually said. You are more dealing with what you wanted me to say.

    A resurrection isn't argued to be natural, but rather supernatural. I've been through this with other people on this thread. If we argued that it was natural, indeed we'd certainly be wrong, precisely for the reason you gave. However if the being who created the world, and who had created the natural laws that you are speaking about raised Jesus from the dead, that's a rather different question.

    As for rethinking our model of the world. I don't see why we would. Miracles by their very nature are rare. Extremely rare.
    liamw wrote: »
    The other reason I'd rather not expend too much time arguing this with you is because it's so ridiculous I don't even want to entertain it. I think the only reason that arguments from people like you are entertained by the scientific community in the first place is beacuse it's kind of worrying and dangerous to us that so many people can be so deluded.

    Your post contains more rhetoric than substance. We could argue about who is deluded until our faces go blue, facts are we can't objectively determine this. I personally think that you and other atheists are in error.

    As for "scientific community". You're trying to argue that science and religion are opposed when this clearly isn't the case. People who have had faith have been scientists in the past and there still are faithful scientists to this day. Hence, your appeal to the scientific community (a fallacious argument by the way) is even more false due to this fact.
    liamw wrote: »
    As Dawkins said, the reason he doesn't stand up and argue in a serious debate with creationists, is becuase that makes it look like there is some serious argument to be had in the first place. Would you argue with a flat earther? The resurrection is just as ridiculous.

    Why are you appealing to Dawkins? I couldn't care:
    1) What he thinks of theists like me.
    or
    2) What you think of theists like me.

    No, I don't argue for a flat earth, because a flat earth deals with claims about the natural world.

    The Resurrection does not claim anything about the natural world, but it is a claim about the supernatural or rather about God's impact on His creation. There is a difference between:
    1) Something caused as a result of the natural world
    and
    2) Something caused by God.

    You argue that the Resurrection is ridiculous, however, you really haven't explained why. I've explained how it is not ridiculous in my signature. Many other Christians have also argued this in several writings. If you don't have a blind objection due to stubbornness, you should raise your objections to a Resurrection caused by the supernatural (N.B supernatural, not natural before we have to deal with this again).


  • Options
    #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you don't have a blind objection due to stubbornness, you should raise your objections to a Resurrection caused by the supernatural (N.B supernatural, not natural before we have to deal with this again).

    Isn't that bit that puts firm in the realm of the ridiculous.

    How do you determine in any meaningful way anything about the supernatural? The objection to a claim of the supernatural is that it is claim of the supernatural. You might as well be pulling explanations out of a hat.


  • Options
    #117
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Jakkass wrote: »
    (N.B supernatural, not natural before we have to deal with this again).

    How convenient. Almost as convenient as the whole 'faith' debacle. I can win any argument by invoking the supernatural...


  • Options
    #118
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ...You argue that the Resurrection is ridiculous, however, you really haven't explained why. I've explained how it is not ridiculous in my signature. Many other Christians have also argued this in several writings. If you don't have a blind objection due to stubbornness, you should raise your objections to a Resurrection caused by the supernatural (N.B supernatural, not natural before we have to deal with this again).

    I don't think a resurrection is completely ridiculous nor do I understand why it goes against the laws of physics. It's highly unlikely that it actually happened but if it did what does it really mean. Matter was reorganised from one arrangement to another arrangement and back again. No problem for your average super being(natural) no need to invoke the supernatural which is the best escape hatch the religious have. I'm no expert on the resurrection but man anything could have happened there according to the witnesses' perception but how that equals "God exists" is beyond me.

    In other words. A guy rose from the dead (supposedly). So what? After a few thousand years mere humans are splitting atoms, building particle accelerators, even challenging death, given enough time its not hard to imagine to ability to resurrect the dead.

    Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about :D


  • Options
    #119
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about :D

    This is the point about beings that can reshape reality. It becomes pretty impossible to tell anything about them.

    Say Jesus was resurrected but not by God. How would you tell


  • Options
    #120
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is the point about beings that can reshape reality. It becomes pretty impossible to tell anything about them.

    Say Jesus was resurrected but not by God. How would you tell

    Exactly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I don't think a resurrection is completely ridiculous nor do I understand why it goes against the laws of physics. It's highly unlikely that it actually happened but if it did what does it really mean. Matter was reorganised from one arrangement to another arrangement and back again. No problem for your average super being(natural) no need to invoke the supernatural which is the best escape hatch the religious have. I'm no expert on the resurrection but man anything could have happened there according to the witnesses' perception but how that equals "God exists" is beyond me.

    In other words. A guy rose from the dead (supposedly). So what? After a few thousand years mere humans are splitting atoms, building particle accelerators, even challenging death, given enough time its not hard to imagine to ability to resurrect the dead.

    Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about :D

    I'm not a physicist so bear in mind that I don't fully understand what I'm about to say.

    It violates the second law of thermodynamics because in order for living tissue to be reanimated it would have to reverse to a previous state which would require entropy to be reversed. The laws of thermodynamics are some of the most fundamental laws in physics, if they don't hold up in all situations our understanding of reality has to be thrown completely out and what is more because the laws of thermodynamics underpin 'cause and effect' and 'cause and effect' is the basis for all our understanding we will never be able to truly understand anything.

    Now theoretically there are way's to get around this by replacing the body Jesus with a clone including the same memory and personality but somehow I don't think that is going to fly in religious circles (probably wrong on this) and is actually more of an argument against the existence of god.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement