THE BIBLE CODE -- Fact or Fiction?

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by marc tressard, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. marc tressard

    marc tressard Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    108
    Jerusalem Post: Prof. Uri Gamedi at the Jerusalem University Theology Department has found one prediction of no small interest to tennis fans the world over. The item was decoded simply as: "sharapova wins grand slam." No, it doesn't say when, but those who believe are getting excited already. Prof Gamedi noted that The Bible Code cites past events and few, if any, have found future predictions, though this one looks plausible to experts.
     
    #1
  2. @wright

    @wright Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,567
    They should check the Bible code to see how many slams Fed will win...Bible code can't be truth, but it can be fascinating.
     
    #2
  3. pound cat

    pound cat G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    13,741
    Bible Code my foot. Chrissy Evert has already touted Sharapova to win AO.
     
    #3
  4. ty slothrop

    ty slothrop Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    552
    what the hell is the bible code?
     
    #4
  5. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    Bible means Sharapova, code means slam.
     
    #5
  6. Craig Sheppard

    Craig Sheppard Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,361
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    It's doomsday/alarmist mumbo jumbo that says future events were intentionally encoded in the Bible...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Code

    In more practical terms--if you take any sufficiently large set of letters, you'll find almost any pattern of letters given the subset is small enough. Obviously the larger the pattern, the lower the probability and the more peculiar. But believing small subsets were intentionally put there is just delusional.

    Craig
     
    #6
  7. It's a supposed code within the Bible, numbnuts.

    One future prediction I've heard about was a nuclear war breaking out in a certain year in this decade, I think. Of course, even that prediction was "found" as nuclear weapons were more and more talked about, not so much in the far future. The people that found that code could always say "Yeah, a couple small nuclear weapons detonated in an ocean--The code was right!" As you can tell, I'm pretty sceptical about the Bible codes; though I think it's cool that God would know the future to such a minute detail. For this Sharapova "code," God would have to forsee people playing tennis and establishing a professional tennis tour, notwithstanding having a Sharapova around and playing tennis.

    In essence, Bible codes don't support free will, do they?
     
    #7
  8. Right on. You can see anything you want in the clouds.
     
    #8
  9. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    The bible is a great book. The bible code is BS. The mathematics "proving" it have been found to be flawed. Do I think God could encode something in a sophisticated manner in writing...sure...did he? No evidence of it yet.
     
    #9
  10. pound cat

    pound cat G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    13,741
    God??? I like Nostradamus but he probably didn't have much to say about tennis.
     
    #10
  11. pound cat

    pound cat G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    13,741
    Here's another code to ponder, but probably doesn't say much about tennis either. http://hp.msn.com/4~/F!TJ2}!N~M2B2IFO2O55N6.jpg
     
    #11
  12. Evidence and God don't exactly go hand in hand, do they? :)
     
    #12
  13. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Total garbage.
     
    #13
  14. Mark55

    Mark55 Guest

    The Bible Code isnt authentic mainly because what you do with the Bible (putting the words from a certain page into a scrambler and pulling out letters and phrases using a specific pattern) can be done with any book that has relatively large pages with a large ammount of words. They proved this using Moby Dick on the history channel and found the words "Trade Center September 2001 Planes." They also proved this with other books.
     
    #14
  15. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    You can keep that opinion to yourself.
     
    #15
  16. Peter K.

    Peter K. New User

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Talking about God and the Bible on Tennis Warehouse? Very cool. Good to see we have a well-rounded bunch out there, although, at times it is very tempting to believe that the world revolves around tennis.
    I'm in graduate school right now, and the professors here convincingly demonstrate that we don't need to throw out our minds to believe in God, that though God seems hidden at times, He is there, and He is not silent. He has left His finger prints all over the place, and that there are many evidences that point to His existence, as well as evidences demonstrating the Bible to be trustworthy. This is the kind of stuff i'm studying in grad school, so i spend a lot of time thinking about these kinds of things. What do you all think about this? It would be interesting to hear what you think. If you want, you can even e-mail me to talk about it. Til next time, Peter.
    peterkanetis@hotmail.com
     
    #16
  17. katarddx

    katarddx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    you can keep that opinion to yourself.
     
    #17
  18. Superior_Forehand

    Superior_Forehand Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    299
    Yeah, if you believe in some invisible lord in the sky than you can believe most anything.
     
    #18
  19. dParis

    dParis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,743
    The nCode predicts that Roger the Fed will win a grand slam "some time this decade" and that Sammy Sosa has finished hitting grand slams.
     
    #19
  20. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    That's usually true Prestige...and they aren't meant to be! That's what faith is all about! 2 things that often bug me about existence of God debates:

    1.Christians tend to think they have evidence(usually bad science) that God exists.

    2.Non Christians tend to look condescendingly on the Christians and think that believing there is no God is somehow more intelligent and/or rational.

    In reality, I don't think either of these are true. I think philisophically and theologically there is no reasoning that shows either believing or disbelieving in God is logically a stronger position. The key is that you must make a number of assumptions about your basic existence, these assumption could involve a God or not, it's up to you, no proof either way.
     
    #20
  21. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    "The key is that you must make a number of assumptions about your basic existence..."


    Not necessarily.

    I believe the main obstacle when it comes to debates such as these is the human ego. Humans have a tendency to NEED to KNOW. This results in many people CLAIMING to know - as if they would feel less of a human being if they didn't at least BELIEVE they know, and tell others the same.

    I, for one, have long wondered why it is so imperative that people know why we exist; why we're here; what is our purpose. At this point in time, I believe that it is essentially the ego that demands answers to such questions. The ego cannot admit that it DOESN'T KNOW something. Not knowing is considered a lack of intelligence – and God (or whomever) knows, humans will never admit to lacking intelligence. And so the hypotheses begin. And seemingly never end. Scientists and theologians compete with each other for newspaper space in the great debate on How we got here, Why we’re here, and Where we are going. The Pope tells us that we are all God’s children, and throws in that h0m0sexuality, sex outside of marriage, and abortion are all sins against our creator, God. Yet he offers no valid evidence. Many religions warn that non-believers will suffer in an eternal Hell. Yet they offer no valid evidence. Stephen Hawking tells us all How and Why Black Holes are a key ingredient in solving the mystery of the Earth’s creation. For some 20 years, he tells us How and Why. And then he tells us that he was wrong all along.

    As for God, Creation, Heaven, Hell, Death, Life... perhaps we’re simply not meant to know. It certainly appears that way. Perhaps there is an entire realm of possibilities and ‘knowledge’ that we, as mere humans, are not privy to – perhaps several realms, even, that we do not have even the most remote capacity to ‘understand’. But humans are not able to admit that our not being able to understand is even a possibility.

    Rather than grasp at straws, making desperate attempts to claim knowledge where no knowledge truly exists, why don’t we just 'come clean' and admit that we don’t know? Is the ego really that powerful? That needy? That fragile? That insecure? We’ve existed as a species for long enough to be able to simply admit that we don’t know, haven’t we? And to admit that we’re no closer to knowing now than were the Ancient Romans, or even Neanderthal Man?

    I don’t need to know why I exist. I am here, therefore I am. Or perhaps I’m not. Perhaps we are all but figments of each other’s overactive imaginations. Or not. Whatever.
     
    #21
  22. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    I think you make some good points Deuce, but when I was talking about those basic assumptions I meant even more basic than is there a God or isn't there. All I meant were assumptions like, do I even exist? What is the general nature of my existence? How do I define the world around me? Do I trust my senses and do I believe they give me a complete picture of the world around me? Such questions are unanswerable by evidence, they by definition tend to exist beyond the scope of what is measurable and testable by our limited perceptions, but they form the foundation for whatever observations and beliefs we build on top of it. From there you can start to build the framework of your view of the universe.

    I do think to address such very fundamental assumptions you do have to put your ego aside and that was my very point, that already people tend to make certain basic assumptions about existence and I think one has to admit that do simply lack the perception to answer such questions....after we make these basic assumption and take the answers for granted then we can build a logical framework based on our senses and the reasoning that seems orderly to us based on our (probably) limited perception of the universe and part of that framework may be, is there a God?

    I do think that most people now, Christian or not would acknowledge that their are likely a great many things happening behind the scenes in our universe and existence that we are not aware of. Things that science cannot yet detect and may possibly never detect as the purview of science is the natural world. One thing that personally I find exciting is that some new areas like quantum physics are opening up new ideas and new perceptions of reality that are starting to hint that there is much more going on than our traditional limited view of reality. Do this "unnatural" world include something we could call God? I can't provide evidence either way....


    I hope some of this makes sense to somebody, I freely admit I'm a better tennis coach than philosopher.

    Also Deuce I do agree that Ego certainly might play a large part in our desire to assert we know the answers. I think though that there are other reasons why people might be motivated to think on such topics. I think one good reason to ask yourself this question(though I don't think most people stop and think this!) is because you want to know if you should embezzle money from the company you work for today ;-)

    I mean let's say you know you can get away with it....well why not then? Legality? Well, what makes one think that it's important to follow the law, if I can get away with it? Morality? Well where do my moral values come from? My parents? Church? Karma? Biological imperative? Morality tends to imply there is a "right' and "wrong" thing to do....so by whose measure do I determine that? Is there an objective measure inherant in the universe? If you break it down far enough, you end up at those increasingly simple and superficially silly basic assumptions. So, if you truly want to be a person who has fully thought out their actions, priorities and beliefs....well then it all comes down to deciding your answer to some fundamental questions. Now, I completely agree that you don't have to do this...and I don't think most people do. You don't even have to anywhere near as far as you have by even actually acknowledging the question and saying "I don't know if there is a God" It's a heck of a lot easier to simply flow through your life and maybe have a few unsubstantiated catchphrases "live and let live!", "what goes around comes around", "turn the other cheek", "do unto others...", "I believe in destiny", "I just want to be the best person possible", "you can't live forever so have fun".

    I don't even think the vast majority of Christians (or members of other religions) or atheists or agnostics have probably given this appropriately full thought to it's deepest fundamental level. Heck, I haven't given it the time it deserves...after all, they should be the most important questions on my mind....I will...but 1st I'm going to finish watching this episode of the Simpsons....
     
    #22
  23. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA

    Whatever you say, parrot.
     
    #23
  24. katarddx

    katarddx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    My point exactly - IGNORANCE...
     
    #24
  25. Peter K.

    Peter K. New User

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    It's good to see people responding to this topic. After reading the posts a few thoughts come to mind:

    It is impossible to prove a universal negative such as, "There is no God." Reason being is that we would have to have complete knowledge of the universe, of everything that is true and exists. In short, we would have to have as much knowledge as God does to know for certain that there is no God.

    No matter what religion or philosophy we choose to believe in we still have answer the same questions, such as: How did we (and the universe) get here? What is the purpose of life? What is morality? What happens after we die? Every religion has to provide answers to these questions. The heart of the matter, I believe is which religion offers the best explanation to what we do know about the world--the universe, human existence, etc.

    I'm a Christian, and one of the main reasons that I am is that it fits the world as I discover it. For example, science shows that the universe has a beginning, that it is not infinite, was not always here. And the more science learns about the universe, the more this is confirmed. Well, when I look in the Bible, I see that it describes the universe in the same way--that it did not always exist, but that God brought it into existence at a particular point in time.

    Science has also discovered that there are about 50 what they call "Cosmological Constants" that have allowed life to flourish here on this planet. In other words, there are fifty factors finely tuned in the universe, where if one of them were atered to the tiniest degree, life on this planet would perish. For example, if the gravity on earth were stronger or weaker, life would not be possible here. If we were any farther or closer from the sun, life would not be possible here. If were any farther or closer from the sun, life would not be possible here. If the speed of the rotation of the earth changed in any significant degree, or if the tilt of the earth were different, or if sun were closer to any other star than it is, life would not be possible here. On and on it goes, and the more factors discovered, the more scientists observe that for life to be possible anywhere in the universe, the odds are astronimically rare. Crazy rare. More and more scientists admit that the universe seems as if it was designed with us in mind. And I see that, this too, matches up with what the Bible teaches--that God is a God of order, purpose, and design.

    I really believe it takes much more faith to be an atheist than a believer in God. If I am an atheist, I've got to hold on to some ideas that are very difficult to hold onto. If I believe that there is no God than I have to believe that something came out of nothing--that the universe sprang into existence, fully charged, with energy--with no cause behind it--out of nothing with no cause. If I am an atheist I have to hold onto the idea that life came from non-life. Early on in the earth's history there was no life here, not even one living cell. Then life appeared. The Bible describes it this way. God created the earth and then He created living things later on. If I am an atheist, i've got to believe that the order in the universe came by accident--that order came from disorder, but that's not what we observe in our world, but rather the opposite.

    If I am an atheist I have to believe that morality came by accident or doesn't exist. And if morality is just created by people, then why should I follow it? Why should I just not behave in a way that pleases me? But we know better than that. In other words, if people are the ones to determine what is right and wrong, then morality becomes nothing more than a matter opinion--like choosing an ice cream flavor. And if that is the case, then there is ultimately no moral difference between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. If there is no objective morality, then the worst thing I could say about Hitler is "I don't like what he did," but I could never say he was wrong--in the ultimate sense. If there is no objective morality in the universe, then certain things follow, such as: 1.)I could never call anything ultimately "wrong" or "evil." 2.)I could not claim that anything is unjust or unfair. 3.) I could not place blame or accept praise. 4.) I could not complain about the problem of evil. 5.) I could not accuse others of wrong doing. 5.) I could not promote the obligation of tolerance. 6.) I could not improve my morality or claim that one morality is better than another, and 7.) I would not be able to hold a meaningful moral discussion. None of these 7 things would be possible, because they all presuppose an objective morality. Morality is built into us. It's intrinisic to our being. It's a straight jacket we can't get out of no matter how hard we try. The question then becomes, where does it come from? As stated above, it cannot come from people because then we're just back to opinions. It makes more sense that there is a Lawgiver who is above us and offers us the law. The Bible claims that we are creatures with a sense of right and wrong because we are made in His image, and morality, as well as justice, love, mercy, etc. flow out of His very nature.

    There is much more to say on all of this, but I've already typed up a novella here, so I take a break for now. I really enjoy discussing this stuff. I have several close friends who disagree with me, and the debates that come out of this are great. I make them think. They make me think. So I'd like to hear what you all think? Afterwards, we could then go back to debating who has the best forehand, backhand, second serve, etc...
     
    #25
  26. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,375
    Point 1: This should be moved to odds and ends... or maybe even rants and raves... really. This is no longer pro player talk...

    Point 2: hehe. I can't pass up a post like that without responding to it...

    No argument so far. I don't really see a definite "list of questions that a philosophy must answer," but that's a minor detail, no point in going in to it.

    Yes, if one of the many factors were different on Earth, then we wouldn't have life here. But we have no particular way for even estimating the odds of life existing "anywhere in the universe." We do not know what the probability of a rocky earthlike planet forming is. It might be a common occurence among sunlike stars to have planets, it might be rare. We do not know the probability of planets having liquid water. Heck, we don't even have any reason to suppose that OUR form of life is the only possible form. Basically - life on Earth is improbable, but we don't know anything about the odds of life appearing *somewhere.* An analogy is a lottery - you know that the odds of one specific person winning the lottery are miniscule, but you're not surprised when you hear that "someone won the lottery." The odds of flipping a hundred heads in a row is small - but not if you have a million people each flipping a million coins. The universe is frickin big - and we have no knowledge of whether earthlike conditions are unique or not.

    And anyway, we don't even know whether earthlike life is the only possible form of life. Sure, it's the only type WE can think of - because it's the only type we've seen. If the laws of physics were different, different life might arise. Or it might not. We've got no clue.

    I'll use an analogy I've seen on a different discussion board - imagine a puddle in the ground. The puddle looks around and decides that the hole in the ground was made specifically for it! After all, it follows its every contour, if it was shallower then the puddle wouldn't fit, if it was shaped differently then the puddle wouldn't fit, and so on. But is it designed? ...well, no, it formed during the last rain.

    (I can't wait until we get sensitive enough equipment to test string theory though. If it's shown to be true, then that would mean that there's only one or two fundamental constants, and even they can vary through different values. ...though you seem to be referring to things like the radius of earth's orbit as a fundamental constant.)

    And I believe that it doesn't, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any more reason for God to exist than for invisible pink monkeys inside each atom to exist, and it seems just as silly to claim that disbelief in a God takes lots of faith as to claim that disbelief in invisible pink monkeys inside each atom takes lots of faith. I believe one way, you believe another - in a discussion about something so completely unprovable, it seems kind of unreasonable to claim that one side takes "more faith" than another.

    And if I'm a theist, I have to believe that God exists with no cause. We know the universe exists because we can see it - we're not sure how or why it came into existence, but saying "God did it" is just pushing the problem back one step, because that leaves the question of why does God exist.

    And if you're a theist you have to hold that same belief, except you conjure up an invisible being in the sky and claim He did it. No thanks, I'll stick with saying "we're not sure how it happened" rather than saying "We don't have an explanation yet, therefore God did it."

    And that still doesn't say how it happened.

    No, as a consequence of the laws of physics. Not at all accident, even though nature is on a fundamental level random. Randomness averaged over large numbers gives very predictable patterns.

    And as a theist, you have to believe the exact same thing, except you push the question one step back and say "God did it" and claim that as an explanation.

    We see order coming from disorder all the time - look around you at all of the living things. Or look at snowflakes, or rock formations in caves, or ice crystals, or cracks in the mud.
     
    #26
  27. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,375
    No you don't. I'm an atheist and I believe morality come from the organization of society.

    For me, because that would be detrimental to society. I can't speak for all atheists because, not being an organized religion, we don't have any set of "universal atheist beliefs," besides the belief that God does not exist.

    And a societal opinion. There are some universal morals that exist in virtually all societies, such as the moral that murder is wrong. These are the morals that are necessary for the survival of a society - if a society does not condemn murder, it seems reasonable that such a society would collapse because of rampant crime.

    Of course there is. Hitler killed lots of people and caused lots of suffering.

    No, you could also say that he committed uncountable murders, ruined the lives of millions of people, and caused immeasurable suffering.

    Sure you can. He caused human suffering, and that is wrong because it goes against societal morals.

    Sure you can. Things that cause harm to others are morally wrong and evil.

    Of course you can. Equal treatment is just and fair whether or not there is a God or not; discrimination and unequal treatment without a valid reason is unjust and unfair whether or not there is a God.

    I completely don't see where you're coming from here.


    Again, I don't see why not. Actions that cause undue harm to others are "evil" or "wrong" whether or not there is a God.



    On the contrary. If you believe that your morals are absolute, objective, and right, then you could not promote the obligation of tolerance, because you "know" that you're right and they're not. If you believe that morals are not objective and not set in stone, then you have to accept the possibility that other people may be right as well, and therefore tolerance should be promoted.

    You got that right. You can change your morality and you'll think that the new one is better than the old one. But is it objectively so? Not necessarily.

    Maybe you wouldn't, but I can.

    No, they presuppose A morality, not necessarily an objective one.

    Societies, the evolution thereof. A society without morals would collapse, and so only societies with morals exist. Simple enough, to me at least.

    It comes from groups of people, or so it seems to me. In part from evolution as well - we've lived in societies for a while now, and it seems to me that it would be impossible to have a functioning society without some sort of moral code. So people invent one which is convenient, and pass it on.

    I'd like it to be that way - life would be much simpler and easier. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason - just because we want a God to exist to justify our morals doesn't mean He does.


    Also, a sidenote - the views on morality are my own views, thus they are opinions and not objective truth, and certainly don't represent the views of all atheists.

    Sure, we can talk. I have no interest in persuading you that God does not exist, that would be stupid and intolerant... but I definitely do want to justify why I believe my position is valid.

    PLEASE Admin move this to a different section, I really don't like spamming pro player discussion with what is completely NOT pro player discussion.
     
    #27
  28. Ibben

    Ibben New User

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    28
    okay this is off-topic but once i saw a real castle shaped by clouds. an actual castle that's very apparent. coincidence? not sure but i would like to assume that it has some ties with god of some sort. i believe in god and don't at times. is that even possible? i'm an aetheist so there are some things that don't convince me but i always find this religion stuff to be very interesting.
     
    #28
  29. Mark55

    Mark55 Guest

    Omg...delete this thread its making my eyes hurt.
     
    #29
  30. Peter K.

    Peter K. New User

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Hey Max!
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's great to see other people out there thinking about this stuff. You gave some responses that made me think, and I appreciate that. For the sake of time and space, I'm going to respond to one point for now.
    First, in regards to the universe being created by God: an argument that i found persuasive in this area is "The Cosmological Argument" (a.k.a. "The Kalam Argument"). It has 3 basic steps:

    1.) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
    2.) The universe had a beginning
    3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    The first step is something we observe in everday life. Anything that has come into existence has a cause. For example, you and I were caused by our parents. They were caused by their parents, etc. Things that have a beginning don't just pop into existence with no cause. To give a humorous (hopefully) example, I'm not worried right now that a tiger is going to appear out of thin air and attack me as i type on my computer. If i heard a loud crash in my living room and I ran out there and my roommate was standing there and when I asked him what happened he replied, "Nothing. That noise just happened by itself. Obviously we would not accept that. Enough for now on this step. Onto the next..

    As you know, the more and more science discovers about the universe, the more they observe that it had a starting point, a beginning, that it's not infinite. Einstein even discovered this when he applied his theory of relativity to the universe. Scientists across the board--theists to atheists--know this to be true.

    The last step, "therefore the universe has a cause" is the step that involves the most intrigue. From what I understand, there are only two types of causes that exist: event cause and an agent cause. Event causes are scientific explainations. For example, the apartment building i live in shakes. What caused it to shake? Here in Southern Cal it would be an earthquake. And we know how earthquakes happen--the plate tectonics shift, due to the gravity and molten activity in the earth, etc. etc. etc. In other words, an event (or scientific) cause can be explained in terms of initial conditions and natural laws, which explain how those initial conditions evolved to produce the phenomenon under consideration.

    On the other hand, an agent cause is best explained by a person--something happened because someone wanted it to happen. For example, a mother walks into her ten year old sons room. It looks like an earthquake has hit his room. Mom knows that an earthquake has not hit his room, so she asks the questions "Who did this?" In other words, it was an agent, a person, who caused this. It was a who, not a what that was the cause of the messy room.

    What we also oberve in life is when a "what" is not an adequate explanation for a cause, we always defer to a "who", as in the case of the messy ten year old. Another example would be Mt. Rushmore. We would never look at that and think, "Wow, that was caused by natural laws or by time and chance or by accident!" None of us would buy that. Instead we ask, "Wow, this is amazing. Who did this?"

    All this to say is that a scientific cause cannot explain the beginning of the universe. Since it's the beginning, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier conditions and natural laws leading up to it--those things were not in existence. So if there is an explanation to the beginning of the universe, it makes more sense if it was an agent--a who--who has the volition to create it.

    In regards to the question, "Who caused God?", this argument's first premise is that WHATEVER BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A CAUSE. The argument does not make the claim that nothing can be eternal or infinite. The Kalam argument makes the point that only things that come into being have a cause. God is not the type of thing or being that came into being, therefore not being subject to a cause.

    Much more can be said on all this by people who know this a lot better than I do. A good book on this topic is "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel (Barnes and Nobles would have it). What Strobel does in this book is he shows how the scientific evidence points towards God and not away from Him. It's not too long, and it's written on a popular level--which is more of my speed. He interviews professionals in each area of science, including physics, astronomy, biochemistry, biology, cosmology, evolution, and consciousness. Interesting stuff. I notice that you listed physics as one of your interests, so if you want something a little more challenging, let me know.

    As far as the moral argument for God, I'd love to discuss that further, but it's late and i've got to get some shut-eye so i won't be a zombie at work tomorrow.

    Let me know what you think, Max. You can always e-mail instead of posting here. my e-mail address is included in my bio. Thanks. Til next time...Peter
     
    #30
  31. Type40

    Type40 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    639
    This is the stupidest thread yet.
    How about keeping this board tennis related.
     
    #31
  32. katarddx

    katarddx Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    PLEASE delete this tread!!!!!!!!!!
     
    #32
  33. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,147
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Dear God:

    Hi. Could you please move this thread over to "Odds and Ends?"
    Thanks.
    Your pal,
    dedan penthouse

    p.s. I read posts #25, 26 and 27 and while I found them all to be earnest in tone and very well thought out, I nevertheless thought that "tomes" of that length (according to TW-law) had to involve a discussion on Sergi Bruguera.
     
    #33
  34. Brettolius

    Brettolius Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    Beyond Thunderdome
    dear dedans,
    i would move the thread, but i am not an administrator, not even a moderator. you may have more luck writing my good friends the easter bunny or jolly ol' st. nick. i know they screw around more on internet message boards than i, and may have weasled their way into a position to help. remember to honor and kiss my boots everyday, especially when you've done something wrong, because as you know, i love you all and created you, but i have a certain...propensity for petulance and wrath. so watch your step, i know if you've been naughty or nice...
    Sincerely,
    Gawd
     
    #34
  35. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    Thank you, Peter, for reminding us how narrow and limited the human perspective is - especially as concerns matters like creation...
     
    #35
  36. GGForehander

    GGForehander New User

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    HAHAHA BIBLE CODE!!!!!!!

    I think God would Bible Code some MORE IMPORTANT than tennis all you malakas who believe this bible coding OF TENNIS. hhahahaha!!!
     
    #36
  37. GGForehander

    GGForehander New User

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    sorry i mean "BIBLE CODE SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT"
     
    #37
  38. Morpheus

    Morpheus Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,136
    If God exists, he's either angry or has a poor sense of humor.
     
    #38
  39. Peter K.

    Peter K. New User

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Hey Morpheus!

    I've been a Christian for over 30 years (i'm 34), and I, for many reasons, believe that Christianity is the truth. But be that as it may, i must admit there are times when i still struggle with doubts, and wonder the same kinds of things as you have stated: "...he's either angry or has a poor sense of humor." But through all of that, i find it more reasonable, on many levels, to believe than not to believe.

    i was wondering, if i may pry, what your whole take on the "God-thing" is, as well as who's your horse for the AO.
     
    #39
  40. Peter K.

    Peter K. New User

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    by the way, i'm going with Agassi to win the AO (we're both 34!)
     
    #40
  41. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    You do have a point GG. LOL. Sharapova may be one of God's more impressive creations but still what's next? "Aniston and Pitt shall forsake each other"?
     
    #41
  42. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,147
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Btw Brettolius--LOL

    ~~~ "God's Comic" ~~~ (Declan McM****)

    I wish you knew me when I was alive
    I was a funny fella
    The crowd would hoot and hollar for more
    I wore a drunk's red nose for applause
    Oh yes, I was a comical priest
    With a joke for the flock, and a hand up your fleece
    Drooling the drink and the lipstick and greasepaint
    Down the cardboard front of my dirty dog collar

    Now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead
    And I'm going on to meet my reward
    I was scared, I was scared, I was scared, I was scared
    You might have never heard but GOD'S COMIC.

    So there he lay on his waterbed
    Drinking a cola of a mystery brand
    Reading an airport novelette
    Listening to Andrew Lloyd Weber's "Requiem"
    He said before it had really begun
    I prefer the one about my only begotten son,
    For I've been wading through all this unbelieveable junk, and
    Wondering if I should've given the world to the monkeys.

    Now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead
    And I'm going on to meet my reward
    I was scared, I was scared, I was scared, I was scared,
    you might have never heard BUT GOD'S COMIC.

    I'm goin' on a little trip
    Down paradise's endless shores
    They said that travel broadens the mind
    'Till you can't get your head out a door.

    I'm sitting here, on top of the world
    I hang out in the longest night
    Until each beast has gone to bed
    And then I say "God Bless" ... and turn out the light ....
    While you lie in the dark, afraid to breathe
    And you beg and you promise and you bargin and you plead
    Sometimes you confuse me with Santa Claus
    It's the big, white beard I suppose,
    I'm goin' up to the Pole, where you folks die of c-c-cold
    I might be gone for a while.....but if you need me......

    Now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead, now I'm dead
    And I'm going up to meet my reward

    I was scared, I was scared, I was scared, I was scared,
    You might have never heard, BUT GOD'S COMIC.
     
    #42
  43. Morpheus

    Morpheus Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,136
    1. Agnostic, practicing Unitarian, partial to Buddhist philosophy. In my view, the following quotation has merit: If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. (Voltaire)

    2. Federer's my horse, of course, although I see AA as the only guy with the game to beat him.
     
    #43
  44. adnankujundzic

    adnankujundzic Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    We are all atheists, the only difference is that you belive in one more god than I do. When you understand why you reject all the other gods, you will understand why I reject yours :).
     
    #44
  45. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    How about...

    "God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - also from Voltaire.
     
    #45
  46. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    GROAN!!!! So you've been a Christian since you were 4-and I suppose you made that choice on your own-at that age, no one would have ever "suggested" that you become one, right?

    You can pry all you want, but it shouldn't make much difference to you, since you've already declared "YOUR" belief as the "Truth"-so, therefore, everyone else is pretty much wasting their time, right?

    Whyn't chyew go and get ready for the Rapture, and let us heathens die in peace already, ya jagoff.

    Oh, BTW, I don't have a "horse" for the AO, but it's not exactly a stretch to predict Federer and Davenport to win it.
     
    #46
  47. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    Phil, Peter K said he believed his faith to be true. He never declared it as the truth. (I sincerely hope you were just being tongue-in-cheek about your post. :D)

    I am also a Christian.
     
    #47
  48. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
     
    #48
  49. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    Okay. :) Sorry for that, my own biases are showing. But he did say he believed it to be the truth, never that he declared it to be the truth, period.

    Ah well.
     
    #49
  50. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Now you're really grasping. He said what he said. Enough already.
     
    #50

Share This Page