Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #1

Post by otseng »

The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories" (Kukla 2009).[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, the Earth, humans, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged or exceptional.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Current cosmology assumes that the mediocrity principle is true. Our solar system, the earth, and humans are not special. But, is this assumption true? Why or why not?

User avatar
scourge99
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:07 am
Location: The Wild West

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #61

Post by scourge99 »

otseng wrote:
scourge99 wrote: And if the mediocrity principle was proven false, I doubt anyone would think it is a strong argument for theism.
Suppose that the Earth is special and unique. We are the only life in the entire universe. We are located at the center of the universe. Do you still think it would not be evidence for Theism?
Special and unique in what way? How does that NECESSITATE (not just make it logically possible) that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm waiting for you to hammer out a clear and concise argument because clearly you are convinced. But you seem to be dodging every time i ask for anything that isn't vague. Please share this irrefutable or undeniable argument that has convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that cosmology NECESSITATES an intelligent creator.



otseng wrote:
scourge99 wrote: What scientific theories would change or need reconsidering if the mediocrity principle was neither rejected or accepted?
We're discussing several right now.

One is whether the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Prior to measurements being made that determined the universe to be flat, it was assumed to be non-Euclidean. Now, evidence points to it being Euclidean.
I have no idea what it means for the universe to be Euclidean or not Euclidean.

Why does it matter either way to the god question? Does it somehow PROVE theism? Seems highly unlikely.

The problem with the god hypothesis is it can be used to explain everything and anything. For example, if the universe is Euclidean then there is some explanation about why that is consistent with the god hypothesis. If the universe is non euclidean then there is some explanation why that is consistent with the god hypothesis.
otseng wrote: Another is why people believe aliens exist. There is no evidence of ETs actually existing (though I realize Divine Insight disagrees with this). The only reason people would believe they exist is because of the principle of mediocrity.
There are a variety of reasons people might think aliens exist. But we don't have enough information one way or another to know with an certainty either way.

It seems that many people (theist and atheist alike) have trouble admitting IGNORANCE or that we don't know the answer to some questions or problems.

otseng wrote: Another thing that would change if the mediocrity principle is wrong is inflationary theory.

"Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Inflationary theory did not result from actual evidence that the universe underwent a brief period of hyperexpansion, but was theorized to account for things such as isotropy and homogeneity, which are assumptions of the cosmological principle.
I know next to nothing about inflationary theory, why scientists think its true, and what evidence supports it.

Once again, why does it matter either way to the god question? Does it somehow PROVE theism? Seems highly unlikely.

The problem with the god hypothesis is it can be used to explain everything and anything. For example, if the universe is isotropic then there is some explanation why that is consistent with the god hypothesis. If the universe is not isotropic then there is some explanation why that is consistent with the god hypothesis.
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #62

Post by otseng »

Divine Insight wrote: What atheists deny are the religious claims that can be shown to have no evidence to support them. Prayer has been shown to not work in any measurable way. Even highly dedicated religious believers have confessed to the fact that their religions and gods have not kept the promises made in the doctrines.
I don't think this is a good example. Because peoples' prayers are not "answered" shows that God does not exist?
Mother Teresa comes to mind as prime example,
You've mentioned this before, but have not elaborated on it. What exactly has Mother Teresa said that is a prime example?
The lack of evidence for the Biblical God does indeed show that the Biblical dogma at least is false.
Sure, I can agree that the God that you portray does not exist. But, it's not the view that I hold (or most other Christians that I know).
But yes, if they are trying to claim that no possible concept of "god" in general can exist, then I agree with you that they are over-stepping their bounds.
Yes, we both agree on this.
Put a capital "G" on it and claim that it's the God described verbatim by the Hebrew mythological Biblical canon, and I can assure you with 100% confidence that it most certainly does not exist.
I think you are equating "verbatim" with your interpretation of the Bible.
Divine Insight wrote:
otseng wrote:
scourge99 wrote: And if the mediocrity principle was proven false, I doubt anyone would think it is a strong argument for theism.
Suppose that the Earth is special and unique. We are the only life in the entire universe. We are located at the center of the universe. Do you still think it would not be evidence for Theism?
Evidence for which Theism? :-k

All it would be is evidence that we're special. But that certainly wouldn't point to Hebrew mythology as being special.
I'm not pointing to any specific theism. I use it in a generic sense.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is special.
I would disagree.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #63

Post by otseng »

FarWanderer wrote: Not everyone thinks that. Flat Euclidean space implies infinite extension, and quite a few people would have serious intuitive problems with that.
Only if there was no boundary would it be infinite. As you say, it's doesn't make any intuitive sense to believe in an infinite universe. It makes more sense to me to believe there must be a boundary and thus be finite.
Take any Euclidean entity (with or without a center) in 1, 2, or 3 dimensnions and envision it evenly enlarging itself at a certain rate. From the vantage of any point within the entity, everything else of that entity will be moving away from the point at a speed in proportion to its distance.
Only if you assume the metric expansion of space (which also has no evidence to support it and is the result of the mediocrity principle).
Why not? How does this movement inhibit gravitational coalescence?
It does not inhibit it, but gravitational attraction is a very weak force. If all matter exploded from a central point, the initial force of the matter receding would be much greater than the gravitational force of matter to form a solar system.
Even allowing this invented loophole (that stars don't count as "created" until their light reaches Earth), current scientific calculations indicate that there are quiiiiite a few stars older than Earth by a lot more than the time it would take for their light to reach us.
Not sure if it's a loophole. It's just going by what would be observed. But, I agree with you that it doesn't solve everything. There's more to the story, but I'll get to it later after hashing out if we really are at the center.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #64

Post by otseng »

scourge99 wrote:
otseng wrote:
scourge99 wrote: And if the mediocrity principle was proven false, I doubt anyone would think it is a strong argument for theism.
Suppose that the Earth is special and unique. We are the only life in the entire universe. We are located at the center of the universe. Do you still think it would not be evidence for Theism?
Special and unique in what way? How does that NECESSITATE (not just make it logically possible) that there is an intelligent creator?
I'm not arguing that it necessitates a creator. It could be possible that by sheer luck we are at the center. And it's also by sheer luck that intelligent life arose on the planet that happened to be at the center. But, I think it's more tenable to believe that we were intentionally placed here.
Please share this irrefutable or undeniable argument that has convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that cosmology NECESSITATES an intelligent creator.
Where have I ever said that cosmology NECESSITATES a creator?
otseng wrote:
scourge99 wrote: What scientific theories would change or need reconsidering if the mediocrity principle was neither rejected or accepted?
We're discussing several right now.

One is whether the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Prior to measurements being made that determined the universe to be flat, it was assumed to be non-Euclidean. Now, evidence points to it being Euclidean.
I have no idea what it means for the universe to be Euclidean or not Euclidean.

Why does it matter either way to the god question? Does it somehow PROVE theism? Seems highly unlikely.
You asked, "What scientific theories would change or need reconsidering if the mediocrity principle was neither rejected or accepted?" I'm simply answering that. And where did I ever say anything about PROVING theism?
It seems that many people (theist and atheist alike) have trouble admitting IGNORANCE or that we don't know the answer to some questions or problems.
I would agree with that.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #65

Post by Divine Insight »

otseng wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: I don't think this is a good example. Because peoples' prayers are not "answered" shows that God does not exist?
I think that in Christianity it's a perfectly good example.

John 14:
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.


The Christian demigod Jesus promised to answers prayers. He promised to do any thing that is asked in his name.

I think it's reasonable to allow that this would only apply to requests that are wholesome and righteous, but even allowing for that restriction the lack of evidence that this demigod does anything that people ask of him is overwhelming.

Ironically Christians are the greatest example that their prayers to Jesus aren't being answered. We see them continually asking other people and entire congregations for "Prayer Requests". Clearly their own prayers aren't being answered or they wouldn't feel the need to ask other people for prayer requests. Moreover, there is also an extreme lack of evidence that any of these prayers are being answered. The few occasions where they seem to have been potentially answered don't happen anymore than what can be expected from pure chance.

So there's really only two possible conclusions. Either the demigod Jesus was a liar. (and clearly that makes no sense). Or he was no demigod to begin with. That is the most likely truth.

otseng wrote:
Mother Teresa comes to mind as prime example,
You've mentioned this before, but have not elaborated on it. What exactly has Mother Teresa said that is a prime example?
You don't know about Mother Teresa?

“I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true�

Mother Teresa is a prime example of someone who had such great faith in Jesus and such great love and respect for Jesus, yet he never answered her prayers like he has promised to do. And I'm quite sure she was praying for totally selfless and wholesome things. She just wanted to make the world a better place. But she couldn't even get Jesus to keep his promise to help.

otseng wrote:
The lack of evidence for the Biblical God does indeed show that the Biblical dogma at least is false.
Sure, I can agree that the God that you portray does not exist. But, it's not the view that I hold (or most other Christians that I know).
I speak solely to the God of Christianity which is both Yahweh and his supposed demigod son Jesus. Christians who are in denial of what I say are in denial of their very own dogma.
otseng wrote:
But yes, if they are trying to claim that no possible concept of "god" in general can exist, then I agree with you that they are over-stepping their bounds.
Yes, we both agree on this.
Pretending the Jesus is something other than what the Bible claims doesn't help Christianity. So trying to claim that Jesus or Yahweh are something different from Christian mythology isn't going to save them.
otseng wrote:
Put a capital "G" on it and claim that it's the God described verbatim by the Hebrew mythological Biblical canon, and I can assure you with 100% confidence that it most certainly does not exist.
I think you are equating "verbatim" with your interpretation of the Bible.
I'm talking about what the bible actually has to say.

If you reject what the Bible actually has to say then you are actually in agreement with me whether you realize it or not.

Making up your own personal Jesus does nothing to salvage the Biblical Jesus.
otseng wrote: I'm not pointing to any specific theism. I use it in a generic sense.
Well you're not doing that if you think that a generic sense of theism can support the Bible. The Bible is specific dogma, it's not generic.
otseng wrote:
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is special.
I would disagree.
Well, of course you would. But that doesn't change the fact that no such evidence exists.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
FarWanderer
Guru
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
Location: California

Post #66

Post by FarWanderer »

otseng wrote:
FarWanderer wrote: Not everyone thinks that. Flat Euclidean space implies infinite extension, and quite a few people would have serious intuitive problems with that.
Only if there was no boundary would it be infinite. As you say, it's doesn't make any intuitive sense to believe in an infinite universe. It makes more sense to me to believe there must be a boundary and thus be finite.
I'm no expert, but it appears to me that if you are saying the universe can be both Euclidean and finite, you are disagreeing with wikipedia:
wikipedia wrote:Curvature[edit]

The curvature of the universe places constraints on the topology. If the spatial geometry is spherical, i.e. possess positive curvature, the topology is compact. For a flat (zero curvature) or a hyperbolic (negative curvature) spatial geometry, the topology can be either compact or infinite.[9] Many textbooks erroneously state that a flat universe implies an infinite universe; however, the correct statement is that a flat universe that is also simply connected implies an infinite universe.[9] For example, Euclidean space is flat, simply connected and infinite, but the torus is flat, multiply connected, finite and compact.
In general, local to global theorems in Riemannian geometry relate the local geometry to the global geometry. If the local geometry has constant curvature, the global geometry is very constrained, as described in Thurston geometries.
The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10−4. If the true value of the cosmological curvature parameter is larger than 10−3 we will be able to distinguish between these three models even now.[10]

Universe with zero curvature[edit]

In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforementioned 3-Torus universe.
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
A flat universe can have zero total energy.
Bold added.
otseng wrote:
Take any Euclidean entity (with or without a center) in 1, 2, or 3 dimensnions and envision it evenly enlarging itself at a certain rate. From the vantage of any point within the entity, everything else of that entity will be moving away from the point at a speed in proportion to its distance.
Only if you assume the metric expansion of space (which also has no evidence to support it and is the result of the mediocrity principle).
You said this:
otseng wrote:
Everything appears to be moving away from us at a speed proportional to its distance from us.
Right. There's only two possible explanations. If the universe is non-Euclidean or the universe is Euclidean and we're at the center.
Like I said. Nonsense. False dichotomy.

Furthermore, what kind of alternative expansion of space are you proposing exactly? As far as I can tell from poking around some websites, "everything moving away from us in proportion to their distance" is precisely the same thing as "the metric expansion of space". As in, by definition.
otseng wrote:
Why not? How does this movement inhibit gravitational coalescence?
It does not inhibit it, but gravitational attraction is a very weak force. If all matter exploded from a central point, the initial force of the matter receding would be much greater than the gravitational force of matter to form a solar system.
Was the matter of earth not affected by this "exploding" force somehow?
otseng wrote:
Even allowing this invented loophole (that stars don't count as "created" until their light reaches Earth), current scientific calculations indicate that there are quiiiiite a few stars older than Earth by a lot more than the time it would take for their light to reach us.
Not sure if it's a loophole. It's just going by what would be observed. But, I agree with you that it doesn't solve everything. There's more to the story, but I'll get to it later after hashing out if we really are at the center.
I'm ready to hear that story right now. I'm perfectly happy to debate both topics.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #67

Post by otseng »

Divine Insight wrote: I think it's reasonable to allow that this would only apply to requests that are wholesome and righteous, but even allowing for that restriction the lack of evidence that this demigod does anything that people ask of him is overwhelming.
I don't necessarily think this is true. Jesus never said, whatever you ask that is wholesome and righteous will be answered. It all depends on what "in his name" means. Now, I'm not saying I fully understand it. But, like I've said before, I don't think it's some magical incantation that would cause anything we ask for to be answered.
Moreover, there is also an extreme lack of evidence that any of these prayers are being answered.
Sure, I can agree with that.
So there's really only two possible conclusions. Either the demigod Jesus was a liar. (and clearly that makes no sense). Or he was no demigod to begin with. That is the most likely truth.
Or it could be that what it means to pray "in his name" is not what we think.
“I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true�
Mind you that this was all private communication to her confessors. And her desire was to have it all destroyed.
Mother Teresa is a prime example of someone who had such great faith in Jesus and such great love and respect for Jesus, yet he never answered her prayers like he has promised to do. And I'm quite sure she was praying for totally selfless and wholesome things. She just wanted to make the world a better place. But she couldn't even get Jesus to keep his promise to help.
Yet, to my knowledge, she never became an atheist. Yes, she had doubts. And it'd be a miracle if she did not have doubts. She's experienced and witnessed more pain and suffering than anybody should. But, having doubts does not have to be the same as rejecting and leaving Christianity, which she never did. It could be that Jesus did not answer her prayers for all the suffering around her to stop. Then again, Jesus might've actually "answered" her prayers by showing how one light can illuminate the world. Her life has inspired many, including myself. People even wanted to travel to Calcutta just to see her in action.

What inspires are people who are real and go through hard times and do not fold. They stay the course, even though it is very difficult. In face of hardships, they still serve and love others and hold on to their beliefs.

What is Mother Teresa a prime example of? I believe not of atheism, or a rejection of Christianity, but of God's heart for the world.
I speak solely to the God of Christianity which is both Yahweh and his supposed demigod son Jesus. Christians who are in denial of what I say are in denial of their very own dogma.
Um, how can you as a non-Christian say what is the true dogma of Christians?
Making up your own personal Jesus does nothing to salvage the Biblical Jesus.
Sure, I agree with that.
Well you're not doing that if you think that a generic sense of theism can support the Bible. The Bible is specific dogma, it's not generic.
To defend Christianity would be a sequence of steps. One needs to get to the theism step first before going on to defending Christianity. For this thread about cosmology, the only step I would claim it leads one to is theism.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #68

Post by otseng »

FarWanderer wrote: I'm no expert, but it appears to me that if you are saying the universe can be both Euclidean and finite, you are disagreeing with wikipedia:
Yes, I'm disagreeing with Wikipedia. The only reason they would think that it is infinite is because of the mediocrity principle. If the universe was Euclidean, then in order for no place to be special, it would require positing an infinite universe.

Since we both agree that that an infinite universe makes no intuitive sense, then it must be that the assumption of the mediocrity principle cannot be true for a Euclidean universe.
There's only two possible explanations. If the universe is non-Euclidean or the universe is Euclidean and we're at the center.
Like I said. Nonsense. False dichotomy.
You never did address stars moving on the other side of the center. Furthermore, stars on the sides of us would not appear to be moving.
Furthermore, what kind of alternative expansion of space are you proposing exactly? As far as I can tell from poking around some websites, "everything moving away from us in proportion to their distance" is precisely the same thing as "the metric expansion of space". As in, by definition.
No, it's not by definition the same.
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space (emphasis mine)
Was the matter of earth not affected by this "exploding" force somehow?
Actually, I don't know what the force was. However, to my knowledge, nobody knows what caused the Big Bang to explode either.
I'm ready to hear that story right now. I'm perfectly happy to debate both topics.
OK, if you insist. We'll go step by step.

Let's assume that at the very beginning, space-time existed. In this space-time, all the matter of the universe was in a spherical mass. The gravitational field around this mass would be so great that nothing can leave its event horizon. Would you agree that this would be equivalent to a black hole?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #69

Post by Divine Insight »

otseng wrote: Or it could be that what it means to pray "in his name" is not what we think.
If that's true then Jesus wasn't a very good teacher. I mean, if you have no clue what he meant then clearly he's a lousy teacher.

otseng wrote: Yet, to my knowledge, she never became an atheist.
So what? Neither have I. But she clearly doubted the reality of Jesus.
otseng wrote: Yes, she had doubts. And it'd be a miracle if she did not have doubts. She's experienced and witnessed more pain and suffering than anybody should. But, having doubts does not have to be the same as rejecting and leaving Christianity, which she never did. It could be that Jesus did not answer her prayers for all the suffering around her to stop. Then again, Jesus might've actually "answered" her prayers by showing how one light can illuminate the world. Her life has inspired many, including myself. People even wanted to travel to Calcutta just to see her in action.

What inspires are people who are real and go through hard times and do not fold. They stay the course, even though it is very difficult. In face of hardships, they still serve and love others and hold on to their beliefs.

What is Mother Teresa a prime example of? I believe not of atheism, or a rejection of Christianity, but of God's heart for the world.
Mother Teresa was clearly agnostic for sure. And, as far as I'm concerned that's the only honest thing to be. And she made it clear that she lost any reason to continue to believe in Jesus. She stayed with the church out of a personal sense of responsibility to those who basically worshiped her. That's certainly respectable. And the fact that she did this as a clear agnostic is even more respectable, but it doesn't shine any light on Jesus or Yahweh at all. In fact, to give either of them credit for Mother Teresa's agnostic determination to not let down other people is actually an insult to Mother Teresa.
otseng wrote: Um, how can you as a non-Christian say what is the true dogma of Christians?
I'm, not a "non-Christian", on the contrary I was born, raised, baptized and born again as a Christian. Historically I'll always be a Christian for that very reason. What I am is a Christian, like Mother Teresa, who has simply realized that the religion if false.

In fact, if you stop and think about it, for Mother Teresa to continue on supporting the Catholic Church and pretending to be a Christian Nun when in truth she no longer believed was actually quite dishonest. She was basically living a lie.

Ironically for me to own up to the truth is actually a higher act of morality than Mother Teresa was willing to reach. She continued to live in a LIE for the sake of supporting an institution that she no longer believed in.

So Mother Teresa was failing to be honest with people. I could not do that. When I realized that Christianity was false I had no problem sharing that TRUTH.

And that's precisely because I didn't want to live a LIE.
otseng wrote:
Making up your own personal Jesus does nothing to salvage the Biblical Jesus.
Sure, I agree with that.
But that's what you must do if you want to continue to support Christianity. Because the Biblical Jesus doesn't hold water.
otseng wrote:
Well you're not doing that if you think that a generic sense of theism can support the Bible. The Bible is specific dogma, it's not generic.
To defend Christianity would be a sequence of steps. One needs to get to the theism step first before going on to defending Christianity. For this thread about cosmology, the only step I would claim it leads one to is theism.
Cosmology most certainly does not even remotely point to Hebrew theism.

At the very best it could be said to not conflict with Eastern Mysticism.

It definitely does not support Hebrew mythology.

You say that do defend Christianity would be a sequence of steps. But in truth, there are no steps at all that can support the theology and this has actually been already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by Christendom itself.

Here are some steps to think about.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all begin with the same fundamental God myth.

Let's assume that we conclude from cosmology that there "Must be a Creator".

Where does that take us? Well that merely suggests that some spiritual philosophy or religion might be true. But even if there is a Creator God that doesn't even mean that any religions actually describe that God anymore than Greek Mythology did.

First you'd need to eliminate Taoism and Buddhism and show why they can't be a correct picture of the "Creator". Good luck with that.

Now let's assume that you actually get to the Abrahamic Religions (which is one WHALE of an assumption).

Now what? Well, now you start with STEP ONE:

You must first show that the original God of the Old Testament makes sense. But we already have a huge problem right there. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all disagree on precisely what this original God is like in the details.

Moreover, let's just look at the Christian Picture. This supposedly all-wise God does the following:

1. Curses Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days.

Did that solve the problem of Satan? No it didn't.

2. Curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth.

Did that solve anything? No it didn't. Things only got much worse after that.

3. God drowns out the bulk of humanity for being sinners.

Did that solve anything? No it didn't. Sin continued and nothing this God has ever done has ever solved anything.

And there are plenty more examples all through the Old Testament where this God intervenes in human affairs and NEVER solves a problem ever.

So why should anyone believe that these ancient myths have anything to do with a supposedly all-wise God when this God can never solve anything? :-k

And keep in mind here too this this supposedly omniscient God who knows what in the minds of men also commanded men to judge each other and to stone sinners to death to remove them from their midst. Why would an omniscient God who knows who's been naughty or nice have mere mortal men who have no clue what's in the minds of their neighbors judging people and stoning them to death?

If God wanted the sinners to be removed from the midst of the good people why didn't he just do that himself? He's the only one who has the omniscient knowledge capable of doing that correctly. All he'd have to do is give evil people heart attacks or whatever.

So I don't see how you'd ever get past STEP ONE.

But just for the sake of granting absurd arguments let's assume that you actually succeeded in STEP ONE, and made a case that the Old Testament could actually represent a valid all-wise supreme creator. Now you've got to move on to STEP TWO. And show why this then leads to Christianity rather than just Judaism or Islam.

But here you run into extreme problems. Why? Because Christianity itself is in extreme disagreement. In short, the Christians haven't even been able to convince each other that their unique versions of Christianity are true.

In fact, you even confessed above in your last post that you have no clue what Jesus meany when he said, "In his name". In other words, you confess that even you don't understand what Jesus was supposedly trying to say.

And now you're going to try to "defend" a religion that even you confess you don't understand? :-k

Your probably better off just leaving the cosmologists to figure out the true nature of reality. There's no way that you are going to start from cosmology and end up with a case for Christianity.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Cosmology and the mediocrity principle

Post #70

Post by otseng »

Divine Insight wrote: Mother Teresa was clearly agnostic for sure.
I wouldn't even say she was an agnostic. Just because someone expresses doubts (privately I might add), that does not make one an agnostic or an atheist. Now, if she had come out said said publicly that she no longer believed in Jesus, then at that point I'd agree that she's not a Christian.
What I am is a Christian, like Mother Teresa, who has simply realized that the religion if false.
You claim that you are a Christian, yet you also claim that it is false? It doesn't make any sense.
She continued to live in a LIE for the sake of supporting an institution that she no longer believed in.
Where did she ever say that she no longer believed in the Catholic church?
But that's what you must do if you want to continue to support Christianity. Because the Biblical Jesus doesn't hold water.
It all depends on if you or I have a closer view on the Biblical Jesus.
Now what? Well, now you start with STEP ONE:

You must first show that the original God of the Old Testament makes sense. But we already have a huge problem right there. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all disagree on precisely what this original God is like in the details.
Actually, I would not make that step one.

But, I'm not really going to address this because it is not the point of this thread. Again, you seem to want to turn every single thread that you participate in into a Christian bashing rant.
Your probably better off just leaving the cosmologists to figure out the true nature of reality. There's no way that you are going to start from cosmology and end up with a case for Christianity.
I'm not trying to make a case for Christianity through cosmology. Actually, I would say that it's impossible to do. But, I would say that it can make a case for generic theism.

Post Reply