Biblical Contradictions

All I have to say is this: Whether or not contradiction exists in scripture
depends upon your interpretation of said scripture. There is a way to
interpret it so that no contradictions exist.

I'd disagree there.

Stuff like two accounts of the same thing being different are hard to reconcile, as is getting basic physical or biological facts wrong.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Yes, anthropic. ><


But why doesn't it? Surly a fine-tuned universe would, in fact, be fine-tuned for us in every way. Rather than vaguely in favour of us, sorta, at one point, even though plenty of stuff there can kill us instantly too.

It is impossible to say if life of a different sort would, or would not, arise had physical constants been different, but the unlikelihood of the universe appearing exactly as it has now is not really a good argument.

Gah, sorry, I need to collect my thoughts a bit.

Right, the unlikeliness of the universe supporting life only matters if life is there to wonder about it. (Mmmm, I've phrased that poorly, but can you see what I'm trying to say?) So if it had come out differently then there simply would be no life.

The weak anthropic principle, as an argument against fine-tuning and God, is just that: weak. For example:

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,

in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.

This is all I can reply to now, the basic argument is that it is absurd to say that it is no wonder that an improbability happened JUST BECAUSE you are here to witness it. It's basically a cop-out. But I'm on a tight schedule, so I'll discuss more later. Take care!

Originally Posted by Zauriel

This is all I can reply to now, the basic argument is that it is absurd to say that it is no wonder that an improbability happened JUST BECAUSE you are here to witness it. It's basically a cop-out. But I'm on a tight schedule, so I'll discuss more later. Take care!

Take magic out of the equation, and that's still a possibility. Put magic back into the equation, and an improbability occurring purely by chance is still a possibility, if not a lot more likely (as I believe).

The way I see it is, had that improbability NOT occurred, you would probably not be here to witness it. And as chemicals arranging themselves in such a way as to become organic and sentient is actually possible, there's no reason to believe that magic occurred to make it happen.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Take magic out of the equation, and that's still a possibility. Put magic back into the equation, and an improbability occurring purely by chance is still a possibility, if not a lot more likely (as I believe).

The way I see it is, had that improbability NOT occurred, you would probably not be here to witness it. And as chemicals arranging themselves in such a way as to become organic and sentient is actually possible, there's no reason to believe that magic occurred to make it happen.

I don't define God as "magical", and you shouldn't either, if you don't want to misrepresent my position. No premises of the cosmological argument are "magic happened".

You are appealing to the weak anthropic principle, which I have shown GDwarf to be a cop-out answer. The faultiness of this answer is explained well in this video. He doesn't really get into it until 3:30 min. into the video. You can also see the follow up here.

Originally Posted by Zauriel

I don't define God as "magical", and you shouldn't either, if you don't want to misrepresent my position. No premises of the cosmological argument are "magic happened".

"God did it" is the same as "a wizard did it", and there's only a difference if you happen to be religious and get offended by the idea that someone isn't taking God seriously.

You are appealing to the weak anthropic principle, which I have shown GDwarf to be a cop-out answer. The faultiness of this answer is explained well in this video. He doesn't really get into it until 3:30 min. into the video.

He is right, the anthropic principle doesn't answer WHY the universe is fine-tuned, it simply states that if it weren't fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to notice it. I don't see what's wrong with that, and I don't see how that means there must be a God to have done it. Saying that the anthropic principle doesn't explain this does not disprove the possibility that it was chance, and "chance" is an entirely valid answer, considering you should know only too well what "chance" is.

If it's chance that you and me can meet in a particular place at a particular time, thus creating that "meeting", it's chance that certain types of matter can align themselves in a particular way, thus creating life.

Also having watched the last part of that video, he seems to say that any right-minded person would think that the firing squad had deliberately missed, or used blank ammo. However, it is entirely possible that they did all in fact miss. The way he argues it, it's as if it's entirely impossible, without the equivalent of divine intervention, that they simply missed the target. It is unlikely, sure. It is INCREDIBLY unlikely, sure. It is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, perhaps. But it's not TOTALLY impossible. It could, entirely, be chance, and the universe's existence points to that in my opinion, since to be honest this isn't a universe that permits life (since as we know, most of it would kill us. I assume we're referring to things like electrons having JUST ENOUGH charge to hold an atom together or what have you).

And unless I had reason to believe that it was somehow rigged, I would not do so. I'd be suspicious, perhaps, but given the conditions of the event there may be good reason to believe they actually did miss (so I don't think you can really compare an execution to the existence of the universe =/), but there are a multitude of things that, if we are to assume design, could have created the universe. To choose any one religion's God as an answer to this is simply taking this argument to mean "Okay, so it could be that something DID create the universe purposefully. So everything in the (insert holy book here) must be true." And even then, you can only be SUSPICIOUS of a God at most if you look at the "evidence" (or lack thereof) in that light, but again, just like there's no proof that the firing squad actually did rig the event, and given the conditions of said execution there may be reason to believe they didn't, I again see no reason that a God must exist, unless I wanted to name whatever did result in the universe's existence "God" just to give myself the smug sense of satisfaction by using the word in an attempt to appear correct.

That argument also assumes that the creation of the universe is an unlikely thing, or the existence of a universe which sustains life at least. Given that we DON'T know what created the universe, we don't actually know how likely it is, and so we can't compare the likelyhood of the existence of the universe with the likelyhood of an entire firing squad genuinely missing their target. After all, we don't know of a case where this has happened, and so it must be unlikely, if not incredibly unlikely, if not actually impossible. We also know the nature of a firing squad, and we know all of the different factors that would contribute to the hit/miss ratio. But we don't know what created the universe, or of any of the factors that did contribute to it. All we know is that the universe does exist, and we know it sustains life, because look, here we are. So it must be POSSIBLE for the universe to exist at the very least, and possible for life to exist in this universe, and a bit more possible than "nearly impossible" at that, given evidence of life on Earth, Mars and possibly even Europa.

Regardless, just because we know something is "nearly impossible" doesn't mean we should assume that an external factor contributed to the event, because "nearly impossible" isn't "impossible", and unlikely things happen every day, so until there's reason enough to believe an external factor causing said event, (such as proof of said external factor), there's no reason NOT to believe that whatever is "nearly impossible" simply occurred. So if the convict isn't killed the first time, I wouldn't throw up a ****storm about whether or not they missed on purpose unless I had good reason to, and so, I'd simply move along, tell them to reload and try again.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

"God did it" is the same as "a wizard did it", and there's only a difference if you happen to be religious and get offended by the idea that someone isn't taking God seriously.

But as I've said before, we can use the "Occam's Razor" argument to "shave away" anything other than what the argument suggests. The argument, at no point, provides a premise in support for a wizard, or any other "magical" creature, for that matter. The argument(s) (counting the cosmological, teological, and moral arguments together) only suggests a personal, creative "first cause" who finely tuned universal constants for life. Any other "wizardly" details are assumptions.

He is right, the anthropic principle doesn't answer WHY the universe is fine-tuned, it simply states that if it weren't fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to notice it. I don't see what's wrong with that, and I don't see how that means there must be a God to have done it.

The problem with this is that, as true as it is, it's really a non-argument. It side-steps the issue, and bringing it up is irrelevant. Just because something is true (i.e. chance could have had a factor) that doesn't make it relevant to the discussion, and the anthropic principle simply isn't.

My argument isn't simply "Goddidit", it's that the universe was created and fine tuned. If you can agree to that, then we can move on.

Also having watched the last part of that video, he seems to say that any right-minded person would think that the firing squad had deliberately missed, or used blank ammo. However, it is entirely possible that they did all in fact miss. The way he argues it, it's as if it's entirely impossible, without the equivalent of divine intervention, that they simply missed the target. It is unlikely, sure. It is INCREDIBLY unlikely, sure. It is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, perhaps. But it's not TOTALLY impossible. It could, entirely, be chance, and the universe's existence points to that in my opinion, since to be honest this isn't a universe that permits life (since as we know, most of it would kill us. I assume we're referring to things like electrons having JUST ENOUGH charge to hold an atom together or what have you).

Again, just because it's possible for chance to be a factor, that doesn't mean it was. It's entirely possible for me to win the lottery 8 times in a row, but any sane person would assume that at that point, the lottery would be rigged somehow. Saying "it could be" doesn't really answer the argument.

And unless I had reason to believe that it was somehow rigged, I would not do so. I'd be suspicious, perhaps, but there are a multitude of things that, if we are to assume design, could have created the universe. To choose the Biblical God is simply taking this argument to mean "Okay, so it could be that something DID create the universe purposefully. So the Bible must be true." And even then, you can only be SUSPICIOUS of a God.

Your reason to believe that it was rigged, in the scenario given, is that these are trained marksmen, and that it's nigh-impossible that, while aiming directly at your heart, not even one gunman out of 100 couldn't have missed you.

Also, that is a straw man; I never argued the validity of the Bible using the cosmological argument. I have other arguments for that.

Originally Posted by Zauriel

But as I've said before, we can use the "Occam's Razor" argument to "shave away" anything other than what the argument suggests. The argument, at no point, provides a premise in support for a wizard, or any other "magical" creature, for that matter. The argument(s) (counting the cosmological, teological, and moral arguments together) only suggests a personal, creative "first cause" who finely tuned universal constants for life. Any other "wizardly" details are assumptions.

Well, if you're going by the religious "hypothesis" they say this guy not only created the universe, but can magic up all kinds of nasty crap to get you. Whatever you choose to call it simply to avoid saying "magic", I'll simply call it magic.

The problem with this is that, as true as it is, it's really a non-argument. It side-steps the issue, and bringing it up is irrelevant. Just because something is true (i.e. chance could have had a factor) that doesn't make it relevant to the discussion, and the anthropic principle simply isn't.

My argument isn't simply "Goddidit", it's that the universe was created and fine tuned. If you can agree to that, then we can move on.

Well, I don't argue that it needed to be "fine-tuned". It's like the idea that if we stick a million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters for a million years, they may come out with the entire works of Shakespeare. Purely by chance, somehow, the fact that them tapping the keys in a monkeyish way will result in a readable copy of Macbeth. (Well it's not possible to leave them in there for a million years, but the general gist of what I'm saying is that it might occur, and it might not. Just because one or the other side is more likely doesn't immediately mean you should wave away the possibility of one side in favour of the other being the only possible outcome.) This also assumes that the likelyhood of the universe's existence, and all these different things being "fine-tuned", is actually even comparable with the likelihood of Simian Shakespeare, which I mention in my editted post.

After this point I've edited quite a lot of my last post, so I'll let you adjust your arguments to my own adjustments before continuing.

Originally Posted by Soren 177

Lastly, GDwarf said something of every religion having their own book. They have their own book because they copied some things from the Bible or made it up to be similar to the Bible. Sin entered the world and therefore created these different religions. That's why other religions do not mention the others to be the creation of a bad thing. If you give it a try, Christianity makes so much sense because there is God who is willing to help, and all the other ones have fallacies because their god is not helping them. It's them helping themselves with no help from anyone or anything else. God is doing all the work for you. You just have to open your heart and let Him in. It's pretty easy, but some refuse and I don't know why. It might be because there's no absolute evidence for some of the Bible or maybe hesitation. I rest my case.

Haha! I sound like a courtroom person!

What about religions that pre-date Christianity?

Such as: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

Originally Posted by DarkVaati

Such as: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto.

YouTube - I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case)

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

What about religions that pre-date Christianity?

There are no religions that pre-date Christianity. That's why it says in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It only matters according to the Bible (For those who don't believe in it.).

The video you posted is a little funny, but worshiping every god would present conflicting viewpoints. I'll stop there because this thread is about contradictions, not religious comparisons.

Also, Zauriel made an interesting argument about Occam's Razor. I found this text in it:

In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

If selecting the "theory" means postulating the fewest entities, wouldn't that mean we should select Christianity, therefore meaning God as the Creator of the universe?

Originally Posted by Soren 177

There are no religions that pre-date Christianity. That's why it says in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It only matters according to the Bible (For those who don't believe in it.).

Chrstianity was only founded in roughly CE 30. Judaism goes back a few thousand years before that, but other religions certainly predate it.

Also, Zauriel made an interesting argument about Occam's Razor. I found this text in it: If selecting the "theory" means postulating the fewest entities, wouldn't that mean we should select Christianity, therefore meaning God as the Creator of the universe?

Not at all, since atheism has one fewer "entities".

However, I think you misunderstand. Ockham's razor is, essentially, that the simplest explanation that accounts for all of the facts is the one w