The Irrational Atheist

Sounds a bit Presbyterian as well.

We live in an orderly and beautiful universe and it is not rational to claim that this "just happened".

So says Phaedrus. Others, however, would strongly disagree. It is also not rational to pretend you have all the answers either.

Doesn't this guy know you aren't allowed to criticize atheists? And if you do, you sound ``uneducated.''

But now you are not being consistent. You talked about atheists not flying planes into a building, but then when confronted with something bad an atheist did, you excuse atheism. How can you logically have it both ways? ``Bad things religious people do are the fault of religion, bad things atheists do are the fault of something else.''

Ironically, Atheists can be very *religious* when you debate their ideas with them.

And they can be as indoctrinated as those in a religious cult.

Many reject religion because, lets face it, religion has done a lot of bad throughout history. However, it is the human and the human's interpretation of religion that has done bad not the ideal itself.

Most religions teach a way of life that will improve the chances of the survival of the human species. Implementation and interpretation are the tricky parts and where fallible humans have difficulty.

Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.

Ewwww... This article is out of the gate with a lame assertion. This is like the nutjobs in the crevo discussions who still assert that biology violates thermodynamics. It kind of brings into question the competence of the individual to even be involved in the discussion.

The "Golden Rule", when more rigorously characterized, is mathematically optimal (c.f. "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"). Only a fool wouldn't follow the Golden Rule no matter what their religion or lack thereof. The fact that the Golden Rule appears to be universal should be a big clue that it is not a uniquely religious concept (or unique to a particular subset of religions, for that matter).

Other arguments might be interesting, but the assertion that atheists have no reason to live by the Golden Rule is essentially based in ignorance. Trivially falsifiable arguments are pretty distasteful no matter who is making them, and are a net negative.

But now you are not being consistent. You talked about atheists not flying planes into a building, but then when confronted with something bad an atheist did, you excuse atheism. How can you logically have it both ways? ``Bad things religious people do are the fault of religion, bad things atheists do are the fault of something else.''

No, I did not say the bad things religious people do are the fault of "religion" (although in the case of Islam, since it is a "totaletarian ideology" it does cause its adherents to do bad things). If you go back and read my posts I quite carefully said, it is ideology, not religion (or lack of it). They are usually not the same thing, but sometimes are.

Hank

Here are your won words:

How many atheists these days have you heard of flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people, or strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves and as many other people as they can to smitherines.

The most famous suicides and sociopaths, and the most common, have all been highly religious.

And what have you been smoking? Do the names Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Caucescu, et. als. mean anything to you?

Religion itself is not a good--as there are false and true religions...however the most bloodthirsty men in history have been atheists.

Thank you so much for this post, Tribune7!

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

Strangely, betty boop, PatrickHenry and I have been making a sweep of the same subject on another thread.

My apologies for the length of this reply, but I felt the Lurkers and participants on this thread might be interested in some points raised in that discussion, which support the view that atheists are on a very shaky foundation if they appeal to science and math:

betty boop at 1128

…So I imagine at the end of the day, having made such a “confession,” scientific materialists out there will have a great chuckle over my superstitious and quite ridiculous suppositions and myths.

What they may not realize is that I sometimes find myself chuckling over their superstitious and quite ridiculous suppositions and myths.

My favorite one these days is the theory of the “primaeval soup” out of which all biological life is said to have spontaneously arisen, out of the blind chemistry of inert matter, all on a random basis; and then organize itself for greater biological diversity and complexity on a random basis, under the guiding hand of the physical laws and Natural Selection.

In a nutshell, there are not a few problems with this theory, in light of recent discoveries/experiments in quantum physics, astrophysics, geology, microbiology, mathematics, probability theory, and information theory.

One big problem in another nutshell:

Haldane’s model of the “primaeval soup” and ensuing random evolution from inert matter to living organism was predicated on the assumption that the universe is eternal and infinite. If you have an infinite time for a stochastic process to work itself out, then anything and everything that does not violate the basic laws of physics will eventually happen. Including the evolution of species, presumably ever in the “progressive” direction of increasing survival fitness and genetic success.

But the Big Bang theory, almost universally accepted these days, kills this cosmology. No longer is there infinite time for a random process to work itself out, so to describe or account for the biological diversity that we see today.

As Dean Overman writes in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (2003):

“Haldane, Oparin and Wald wrote their papers at a time when the universe was believed to have no beginning or end and to be infinite in size. In an eternal, infinite universe, anything can happen. Data supporting the Big Bang theory from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite and new discoveries in the geological records change the perspective of the time available for the emergence of life. The time available on earth is extremely limited. The earth began to form about 4.6 billion years ago. Radioactive decay, the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, the production of thermal energy from the effects of gravity conversion, and crashing meteors made the surface of the earth sufficiently hot to make compounds of biological interest unstable for approximately 1.62 billion years. In other words, prior to 3.98 billion years ago, the earth was too torrid for the emergence of life. The fossil records, however, indicate that life formed on earth at least 3.85 billion years ago over a period of less than 130 million years….”

We turn now to calculations of the mathematical probability that unguided, random development accounts for the emergence of life from inert matter on earth, given the finite time limit of 130 million years in which random processes have to work…

Think about it: Logically, ‘natural selection’ requires something from which to select. That means there’s a “there” there already.

Yet the theory seems to want to explain the problem of natural evolution of species, the rise in complexity, etc., etc., while leaving the problem of the origin or basis of life in total obscurity – resting blissfully on materialist ideology, and faith in the guiding (yet invisible) hand of materialist Natural Selection (which being a concept, is hardly a “material” thing…).

I have to leave it to the reader to figure out what this all means.

Alamo-Girl at 1133:

...I agree that the disciplines of mathematics - particularly information theory and geometry - combined with physics, cosmology and molecular biology - will eventually reformulate evolution theory.

IMHO, the first pillar - random mutations - is already in jeopardy because the lack of mutability in regulatory control genes points to autonomous biological self-organizing complexity as a better explanation, i.e. evolution is not a directionless walk.

The second pillar - natural selection - has been placed in doubt (Wolfram) in that natural selection more often works against such a mechanism than for it.

And that is without even looking at the syntactic autonomy required for abiogenesis (Rocha) or the underlying physics of life v non-life (Pattee) or the information content necessary to sustain biological life (Yockey).

Finally, all of these efforts are set in the context of our understanding of the universe or multi-verse (Tegmark, Penrose, Ovrut) - which has a beginning - and the astonishingly improbable physical laws of this universe (Rees) - and moreover, the geometry or dimensionality of all that there is (Vafa).

betty boop at 1135:

I've just finished reading a wonderful book, by Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997). I enjoyed it so much, and I'd bet you'd like it, too. He quotes extensively from Yockey and Penrose, Hawking, many others. He points out that "order" and "complexity" are not synonyms, and elucidates the critical difference between them. By complexity, he means information content -- the minimum number of instructions necessary to specify and maintain a structure. So you can see information theory is very out front in Overman's analysis.

He writes, "Highly complex structures require many instructions. A structure may be highly ordered, such as a crystal, but contain very few instructions." Order displays pattern, sequence. Indeed, very simple instruction sets (and even chaos) have been observed to produce regular patterns. But highly complex structures -- such as DNA -- are nonperiodic, seemingly random sequences. DNA is "complex" in the way a crystal is not: Its complexity means it can encode an astronomically vast number of instructions/information content to specify its structure and realize its function.

Overman is also very keyed into issues in particle astrophysics. He wrote:

"Because the formation of life requires the formation of a universe compossible with life, the case against accident as an explanation for life is satisfied completely by an examination of the probabilities involved in the fine tuning of particle astrophysics without regard to issues raised by molecular biology. When one couples the probabilities in physics against an accidental universe compossible with life with the molecular biological and pre-biological possibilities against the formation of the first form of life from inert matter, the compounded calculation wipes the idea of accident entirely out of court."

The statement comes in the book's conclusion. It seems to have been thoroughly well argued and documented throughout.

Of course, there are things that cannot be known for a certainty. Most cases, we have to be satisfied with the standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think Overman makes an persuasive case against life arising by accident; but I'll be checking his thesis against future developments, new evidence, new discoveries....

Alamo-Girl at 1136:

It seems whenever we start speaking of complexity, order, randomness, chaos, probability and entropy the conversation tends to get caught up in a quagmire of definitions.

I certainly agree with the author’s measure of complexity – which roughly corresponds to the Chaitin/Kolmogorov view that complexity can be measured as the size of smallest program which will produce the subject string.

Sadly, there is a tendency around here to dismiss the importance of Shannon entropy to biological information content. Instructions flow through biological systems like communications between devices and thus, Shannon is very relevant in my view. Shannon entropy is roughly the uncertainty of that flow, the successful flow is information.

Likewise, when we speak of order there seems to be a tendency here to observe that when the universe dissolves in the end, it will have achieved both maximum entropy and greatest order. That is an interesting observation but it doesn’t really tell us much about order in biological systems.

Randomness raises the same kind of issue. For instance, both pi and Chaitin’s Omega will generate a string which – if you were to select a chunk of it at a respectable distance – would appear to be random. In the case of pi that impression would be false. In the case of Omega after a certain number of positions, that impression would be true.

Or would it? … since in both cases, the number itself is a derivation of algorithm and thus, not random. I believe this is Wolfram’s counter-point, i.e. that all randomness is only pseudo-randomness.

Indeed, on closer inspection (especially in alternative bases) - most candidate number generating algorithms have a high degree of auto-correlation.

The order and complexity of biological information content is frankly stunning. But if the greater the entropy, the higher the order, then the less the opportunity for complexity. On its own then, complexity can only form in lower entropy, higher chaos. But is that rational? IOW, for a metaphysical naturalist [atheist] explanation to prevail it must have gone from chaos to complexity to order to entropy to more chaos, more complexity, more order, more entropy and so on.

In sum, if the initial conditions are not random - indeed, if there is no randomness apart from pseudo-randomness - then the metaphysical naturalism theory of origins fails.

The counter to actual randomness around here has been the Brownian motion, but that (like pi and Omega) is an effect and not a cause, i.e. the consequence of ongoing bombardment by atoms and molecules….

And this [notion of an accidental universe] is the rub. Because the physical constants that exist – that absolutely, positively must exist – for biological life to have formed in this universe are stunningly improbable.

The only defense the metaphysical naturalists have to this is the plenitude argument – everything that can exist does, in some parallel universe.

Even for the die-hards who hold on to the hope of plenitude, they are nevertheless stuck with a beginning – and for that, they have no defense!

PatrickHenry at 1138 and 1139:

When asked "How's your wife?" a long-ago comedian (Henny Youngman?) used to say: "Compared to what?"

Which [cleverly] leads me to question how you arrive at your "stunningly improbable" conclusion. I'll give you an example of what prompts my question. Let's say the lottery in your state has arithmetical odds against a particular numerical sequence of 50 million to one. Fine. Let's say you win. Great for you!

Nothing supernatural about it. Someone's always winning. After all, some combination of numbers comes up every week. We agree that your winning is no miracle. Now let's suppose you win again. And a week later you win again. And then again! Now that's "stunningly improbable" enough to trigger an investigation.

Anyway, in concluding that your streak of wins is "stunningly improbable," we have some understanding of the genuine odds involved, how many players there are, etc. We have experience with lotteries, week after week. We know something of which we speak. But -- here comes my point -- when it comes to universes, we know nothing but this one. So how can anyone conclude that it's "stunningly improbable"? Compared to what? Given the data we have, it may just as well be stunningly inevitable.

By the way, I think that either conclusion about the universe (improbable or inevitable) is consistent with divine creation. I have no ax to grind there, and that's not what prompts my response. I'm genuinely curious about the "stunningly improbable" conclusion. Personally, I just don't see it.

A bit more on this (I hope you can put up with me). If the universe, and life, were really "stunningly improbable," then this brings to mind a deity that interferes continuously with the natural order of things (whatever that might be) in order to bring about this "stunningly improbable" universe in which we find ourselves. When I think of a continuously interfereing deity, I can't help coming up with this kind of image: [picture of Charlie Chaplin]

Now this "Charlie Chaplin Modern Times" kind of deity, running around flipping switches, pulling handles, turning dials, adjusting mixtures of chemicals, tweaking relationships, etc., may be just what it takes to generate a "stunningly improbable" universe. It seems that way to me, but I don't know. My personal opinion is that a universe where things just had to turn out this way, complete with life, consciousness, intelligence, and free will, is a far more elegant, even sublime creation, than a Rube Goldberg situation that requires constant attention.

So, for what it's worth (don't tell me), I suspect that this universe, and life, and everything, isn't "stunningly improbable" at all.

Alamo-Girl at 1140:

Here’s the view from Martin Rees:

Why is there life? - Martin Rees

The Universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely.

"It's quite fantastic," says Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, waving a hand through the steam rising from his salmon-and-potato casserole...

In his newest book, Just Six Numbers, Rees argues that six numbers underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and that each is the precise value needed to permit life to flourish. In laying out this premise, he joins a long, intellectually daring line of cosmologists and astrophysicists (not to mention philosophers, theologians, and logicians) stretching all the way back to Galileo, who presume to ask: Why are we here? As Rees puts it, "These six numbers constitute a recipe for the universe." He adds that if any one of the numbers were different "even to the tiniest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life." ...

Faced with such overwhelming improbability, cosmologists have offered up several possible explanations. The simplest is the so-called brute fact argument. "A person can just say: 'That's the way the numbers are. If they were not that way, we would not be here to wonder about it,' " says Rees. "Many scientists are satisfied with that." Typical of this breed is Theodore Drange, a professor of philosophy at the University of West Virginia, who claims it is nonsensical to get worked up about the idea that our life-friendly universe is "one of a kind." As Drange puts it, "Whatever combination of physical constants may exist, it would be one of a kind."

Rees objects, drawing from an analogy given by philosopher John Leslie. "Suppose you are in front of a firing squad, and they all miss. You could say, 'Well, if they hadn't all missed, I wouldn't be here to worry about it.' But it is still something surprising, something that can't be easily explained. I think there is something there that needs explaining."

Meanwhile, the numbers' uncanny precision has driven some scientists, humbled, into the arms of the theologians. "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine," contends Vera Kistiakowsky, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But Rees offers yet another explanation, one that smacks of neither resignation nor theology. Drawing on recent cosmology- especially the research of Stanford University physicist Andrei Linde and his own theories about the nature of the six numbers- Rees proposes that our universe is a tiny, isolated corner of what he terms the multiverse.

The idea is that a possibly infinite array of separate big bangs erupted from a primordial dense-matter state. As extravagant as the notion seems, it has nonetheless attracted a wide following among cosmologists. Rees stands today as its champion. "The analogy here is of a ready-made clothes shop," says Rees, peeling his dessert, a banana. "If there is a large stock of clothing, you're not surprised to find a suit that fits. If there are many universes, each governed by a differing set of numbers, there will be one where there is a particular set of numbers suitable to life. We are in that one."

A review of the book to name the six numbers:

So what are the six numbers? One is the number of dimensions we live in: three. The rest are, at least at first sight, more obscure. For the record, they are N, the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism; epsilon, the ratio of mass lost to energy when hydrogen is fused to form helium; Omega, describing the amount of dark matter; lambda, the cosmological constant; and Q, related to the scale at which the universe looks smooth.

Here’s another set of constants from my Origins article:

http://sparc.airtime.co.uk/users/station/cosmic.htm

…Gravity. Suppose gravity was stronger or weaker than it is.

The forces show a very wide spread of strengths, which our Universe depends on to greater or lesser degrees. Suppose gravity was stronger, by a factor of 10^10. This seems quite a lot, but it would still be the weakest force, just 10^-28 of the strength of electromagnetism. The result would be that not as many atoms would be needed in a star to crush its core to make a nuclear furnace. Stars in this high-gravity universe would have the mass of a small planet in our Universe, being about 2km in diameter. They would have far less nuclear fuel as a result, and would use it all up in about one year. Needless to say, it is unlikely that any life would evolve or survive long under such conditions. Make gravity substantially weaker on the other hand, the gas clouds of hydrogen and helium left after the Big Bang would never manage to collapse in an expanding universe, once again leaving no opportunity for life to emerge

Water. What if ice was denser than water, as are most solids compared with their liquids?

These and other odd features of water are a consequence of the hydrogen bond - the attraction of the electron-rich oxygen atoms of water molecules for the electron-starved hydrogen atoms of other water molecules. This in turn is a function of the precise properties of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which also determines the H-O-H bond angle of 104.5 degrees - only slightly less than the ideal tetrahedral angle of 109.5 degrees. It is (incidentally) the hydrogen bond which holds together the two strands of DNA. It is also the hydrogen bond which is responsible for the crystalline structure of ice, which is in the form of an open lattice: this makes ice less dense than the liquid. As a result, ice floats. If ice was denser than its liquid form (as is the case with most other substances) then it would collect at the bottom of lakes and oceans, and eventually build up until the world was frozen solid. As it is, it forms a thin insulating sheet which prevents evaporation and keeps the waters below warm.

Carbon Resonance. A "put up job" according to Professor Sir Fred Hoyle.

A carbon-12 nucleus is made from the near-simultaneous collision of three of these helium-4 nuclei [within stars]. Actually, what happens is that two helium-4 nuclei merge to make beryllium-8, but beryllium-8 is so unstable that it lasts only 10^-17 of a second, and so a third alpha particle (which is what a helium nucleus is) must collide and fuse with the beryllium nucleus within that time. Not only is this triple encounter a relatively unlikely event, but any such unstable beryllium nuclei ought to be smashed apart in the process. Therefore, it should be expected that carbon itself (and consequently all heavier elements) would be rare in the Universe.

However, the efficiencies of nuclear reactions vary as a function of energy, and at certain critical levels a reaction rate can increase sharply - this is called resonance. It just so happens that there is a resonance in the three-helium reaction at the precise thermal energy corresponding to the core of a star... So if there was another resonance at work here all the carbon would be quickly processed into oxygen, making carbon very rare again. In fact, it turns out that there is an excited state of oxygen-16 that almost allows a resonant reaction, but it is too low by just 1%. It is shifted just far enough away from the critical energy to leave enough life-giving quantities of carbon untouched.

Supernovae. How critical are the properties of neutrinos in dispersing a star's heavy elements through space?

This ejection of rich material into space is carried by an enormous flux of neutrinos generated in the explosion. The neutrino is normally such a ghostly particle that it could pass right through many light-years of solid lead, unaffected. In blasting apart a supernova, its precise interactivity (or lack of it) is such that it should have enough time to reach the stellar envelope before dumping its energy and momentum, but not so much time that it should escape. This property is partly a function of the weak force in a complex relationship which must be just as we observe it, to one part in a thousand. If the star's matter was not so effectively redistributed, it would simply collect about the dead star or fall back. It would not be available for new stars to make planets capable of bearing life. A universe without our particular kind of neutrinos would be a dead universe.

Strong Nuclear Force. What would have happened if the strong nuclear force had been different by just a few percent?

If the strong force had actually been just 13% stronger, all of the free protons would have combined into helium-2 at an early stage of the Big Bang, and decay almost immediately into deuterons. Then pairs of deuterons would readily fuse to become helium-4, leaving no hydrogen in the Universe, and so no water, and no hydrocarbons… An increase in the strong force of just 9% would have made the dineutron possible. On the other hand a decrease of about 31% would be sufficient to make the deuteron unstable, and so remove an essential step in the chain of nucleosynthesis: the Universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and again life would be impossible.

Flatness. What if the Universe was not so precisely balanced between ultimate collapse and unending expansion?

The Universe has been expanding for 15 billion years at a rate fantastically close to a knife-edge line between recollapse and ultimate dispersion. Even at this point in time we can not tell for sure which side of the line we are on: whether Big Crunch or Heat Death is the ultimate fate of the Universe. It is lucky for us that the Universe is flat in this way since the tiniest deviation from its initial value (which must have been exact to one part in 10^35) would have led to a rapid Big Crunch or cosmic dissipation. And, as usual, no life.

Proton-Neutron Mass Difference. Suppose protons and neutrons were not almost equal in mass.

The difference in mass between a proton and a neutron is only a little greater than the mass of the relatively tiny electron (which has about 1/1833 the mass of a proton). Calculations of relative particle abundances following the first second of the Big Bang, using Boltzmann's statistical theorem, show that neutrons should make up about 10% of the total particle content of the Universe. This is sensitive to the proton:neutron mass ratio which is (coincidentally) almost 1. A slight deviation from this mass ratio could have led to a neutron abundance of zero, or of 100%, the latter being most catastrophic for the prospects of any life appearing. Even if there were 50% neutrons, all of them would have combined with the remaining protons early in the Big Bang, leading to a Universe with no hydrogen, no stable long-lived stars, and no water. And no life

Antimatter. Why is there any matter in the Universe at all, but no appreciable quantities of antimatter?

In the colossal energies of first millionth of a second of the Big Bang, particles and their anti-particles would have been created and destroyed in pairs, equally. Once the temperature fell sufficiently, photons could no longer be readily converted into particle-antiparticle pairs, and so they annihilated each other. The present ratio of photons to protons, 'S', is 10^9, which suggests that only one proton (and one electron) per billion escaped annihilation

Dimensionality. What if there were more or fewer than three dimensions of space and one of time?

One consequence of having a three-dimensional space is the inverse square law of forces. In particular, only in such a space are stable planetary orbits possible: more or fewer dimensions introduce instability. By a series of complex arguments it can also be shown that stable atoms and chemistry also require three dimensions of space, and the distortion-free propagation of any wave-based signal also requires exactly three dimensions of space.

Of course if our Universe was actually hostile to life, we couldn't be here to remark on the fact. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle. To put it another way: without the right kind of physics you don't get physicists.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01o.html

Moreover, the Sun's circular orbit about the galactic center is just right; through a combination of factors it manages to keep out of the way of the Galaxy's dangerous spiral arms. Our Solar System is also far enough away from the galactic center to not have to worry about disruptive gravitational forces or too much radiation.

When all of these factors occur together, they create a region of space that Gonzalez calls a "Galactic Habitable Zone." Gonzalez believes every form of life on our planet - from the simplest bacteria to the most complex animal - owes its existence to the balance of these unique conditions.

Because of this, states Gonzalez, "I believe both simple life and complex life are very rare, but complex life, like us, is probably unique in the observable Universe."

Going back to the Martin Rees article, there are basically three reactions to these stunning improbabilities:

1. God – only His being can explain all of this. (Alamo-Girl)

2. Plentitude – everything that can exist, does in some multi-verse (Rees)

3. Anthropic Principle – without the right kind of physics, you don’t get physicists (PatrickHenry)

In my view, #2 only moves the goal post because if everything that can exist does in some multi-verse, there would nevertheless still be a beginning, thus the answer is still #1.

As a #1 – I consider #3 to be giving up. Conversely, as a #3 you might consider #1 to be giving up. But perhaps we can both agree that #2 ought to be pursued?

PatrickHenry at 1141

I don't know that I could that easily be classified as a #3. There are many versions of the anthropic principle. I may be what's described in your post:

The simplest is the so-called brute fact argument. "A person can just say: 'That's the way the numbers are. If they were not that way, we would not be here to wonder about it,' " says Rees.

And that doesn't rule out God. It just rules out the "Charlie Chaplin" type of constantly tinkering God.

I see no hope for #2. It's kinda wishy-washy. And it's rather untestable. But #1 and #3 are also untestable, now that I think about it. It may be that we'll have to have a knife-fight to resolve all of this.

In sum, it is in the face of what science has already discovered about our universe, that some choose to believe there is no God. Fine, but that is a statement of faith; science does not confirm metaphysical naturalism – indeed it tries diligently not to speak to metaphysics at all.

"Kindly alert me to one"

Now you know I can't do just one!

And I dissagree that Revelations has happened repeatedly. It has been predicted repeatedly, but chapter 6 on has not happened.

The book is a little cryptic at times and written the way a first century man might see the modern world, there is also a lot of specificity as you will see in the following. Specific percentages and numbers are included that should allow us to distinquish that these events have not happened yet. No events in history match these events recorded here. This should allow us to be certain that Revelations from Chapter 6 on has not happened.

In addition to these very specific prophecies, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem in time for the Anti-Christ to desecrate it half way through the 7 year tribulation.

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; 9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. 2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. 3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. 4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. 5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. 6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. 7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. 11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. 12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.
13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, 14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. 15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. 16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. 17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. 18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. 19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. 20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. 11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. 14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

I can't be certain that you will see these in your lifetime. Of course your lifetime could end today. There are other prophecies that have occurred, that should not be ignored. Why you discount the fulfillment of prophecies that have already occurred, and need fresh prophecies and miracles is beyond me.

It's like asking the men who walked on the moon to do it again. What will be different, color video instead of black and white. If you didn't believe the prior proofs, why will one or even several more make a difference?

Some answers are easier than others.

"The "Golden Rule", when more rigorously characterized, is mathematically optimal (c.f. "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma").

If I remember the prisoner's delimma correctly, the prisoner who manages to cheat while the other prisoners don't wins more than if everyone cooperates and much more than if everyone cheats. There is no incentive on an individual level to adhere to the golden rule.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html

You're making me famous by including me in your posts. Here's another pic of Charlie Chaplin from "Modern Times," my metaphor for a constantly tweaking deity: HERE.

" Strawman! "

Actually, It was you that shifted the context, creating a “strawman” as you say.

DannyTN spoke in a universal context when he said that God provides the Atheist with ample proof , a general presence of evidence that should be convincing to any rational mind (or risk being considered irrational). That was the context, very relevant to the human condition.

After I called that kind of proof “objective” you were the one who introduced that strawman scenario so unlikely that it doesn’t warrant consideration beyond its amusement value. The irrelevant consideration that there’s less than a one in a trillion-trillion chance that all existence an illusion, varying in the way that it’s subjectively perceived, and therefore nothing is objective.

And besides introducing that strawman, calling existence a “leap” of faith is such a distortion of the English language that it’s symptomatic of something more disturbing.

"Chill, elfman. I didn't call anyone names. Try to follow my example."

Quoting myself: "Only a fool or an intellectual could be an atheist". Human arrogance is boundless.

“Fool” and “arrogant” was a complement? Come on guy, I know enough about your faith to say that it promotes honesty, especially with oneself.

|y? |nla fool wouldn't follow the Golden Rule no matter what their religion or lack thereof.

Most people don't follow it.

The fact that the Golden Rule appears to be universal should be a big clue

Do you know what the Golden Rule is?

You're making me famous by including me in your posts.

LOLOL! You are famous in your own right! Hugs!

Thank you so much for this post, Tribune7!

:-)

Vox is among my favorite columnists. If you aren't familiar with him you may enjoy him. He's at WND.

If I remember the prisoner's delimma correctly...

The iterated prisoner's dilemma. The only time defection might be a net positive is in the case of a single instance in isolation; iterated over multiple instances defection is a net loss to everyone on average with the biggest loser being the person that defects the most. In the real world, interactions with people and society are iterated, not isolated, and so the IPD applies.

I repeat: Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Its what's for breakfast.