New God Thread

[Guest wizzywig]

To all--

 

Something seems to have gone kerflooey with the original God thread as it was approaching 600 posts. Too bad. It doesn't even show up on the main page of topics.

 

You should still be able to access the last few pages by clicking on these links:

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-35.html

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-36.html

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-37.html

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-38.html

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-39.html

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/Forum3/HTML/001110-40.html

 

Meanwhile, maybe we should continue the discussion on this thread.

 

--wizzywig

 

 

[Guest theahnfahn]

I hope it isn't gone for good. I was meaning to go through and save the whole thing. Procrastination never pays off.

 

------------------

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Guest Conor]

Well, that isn't good. It was here this morning, I wonder what happened?

 

------------------

"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

[Guest Conor]

Hmm, there's some kind of phantom post after the last one in it. Wonder if that had anything to do about it?

 

------------------

"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

[Guest theahnfahn]

If you click to edit that last post, it shows roguetwo's first post in the whole thread. Just a thought, but roguetwo - you may want to edit that post and then delete it to see what happens. It is registered in your account.

 

Does anyone find it strange that this also happened in the Cantina with the other God debate? I bet it might have something to do with the length of the posts, but who knows. For those who know roguetwo , please tell him to delete that last post. He hasn't been around lately, and it is rather hard to reach him. I think what might have happened is that the memory allocated for the thread went clear through the roof, and it most likely popped the last memory address back to the start. We may not be able to post in there again, but the online reference would be a help.

 

*My conclusion: George Lucas doesn't want any Star Wars discussions going out of hand, so any and all topics that supercede his movies and video games must be eliminated.*

 

------------------

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Zoom Rabbit]

Just the day before yesterday, I saved the whole thing on floppy disks because I'd heard of this happening to long threads.

 

--Safe!

 

I, for one, don't even begin to suspect foul play. The conversation was unusually cordial for such a topic, and seemed to be pretty steady in that regard.

 

I'm in for continuing the conversation. Where were we?

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Zoom Rabbit]

Ummm...concerning that cryptic last post on page 40: "blank, 1900"...could this be one of those Y2K things?

 

(This question probably shows everyone here exactly how little I actually know about computers... )

[Guest roguetwo]

Sorry guys, this is like my first time posting in five days. I kind of lost interest in the forums...

 

Sure, I'll try if you want me to.

 

------------------

Being a Jedi is an easy task!!---

All it will take is to have a father who was a little strong in the force, then you have to find his lightsaber, and then you acquire force powers just like stickers in a couple of days. Isn't that so easy!!

[Guest roguetwo]

Guys, it's better that we don't tamper with the threads...I followed what you said AhnFahn, and it deleted at least the first page of the God Thread.

 

------------------

Being a Jedi is an easy task!!---

All it will take is to have a father who was a little strong in the force, then you have to find his lightsaber, and then you acquire force powers just like stickers in a couple of days. Isn't that so easy!!

[Guest theahnfahn]

Oops, sorry roguetwo. I should have known that would have happened, and I think it confirms my earlier guess on what could have caused it. I will continue to post in threads pertaining to this topic. I have much to research, so I may not post anything huge for about a week.

 

*hey roguetwo, now why don't you go and try deleting that first topic and see what happens *

 

------------------

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[Guest wizzywig]

To all--

 

I have the entire original God thread in a single MSWord97 file--nearly 600 pages, 2.9MB, and I'd be happy to email it to anyone who wants it. Just email me and let me know.

 

--wiz

 

 

[Guest Conor]

I'd love it.

 

cnorthup@ualberta.ca

 

------------------

"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

I saved the whole thing, for future reference. I think we basically stretched the UBB to the limit with the thread. ; )

 

Anyway, go ahead and start a couple of new ones. ; )

 

Kurgan

[BeastMaster]

That subject line startled me; I thought this was a thread about a "new God."

 

I've been working too hard. . .

 

------------------

"The Beasts know much that we do not." -Ancient Jedi proverb

[Guest wizzywig]

A new God?!! I'm satisfied with the old one, thanks! (It never occurred to me that "New God Thread" could be taken that way!)

 

I just wanted to add an additional thought to my resurrection post on the original God thread a few days ago:

 

In Acts chapter 2, Peter stands up in Jerusalem and preaches to the people of the city about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the course of his statement to the people, Peter says, verses 32 & 36, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ... God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

 

Hearing this, the people asked Peter and the other apostles, verse 37, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

 

Peter responds that they should repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and receive God's forgiveness. Acts 2:41 records that "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." In other words, the early church went from a handful of people to over 3,000 in a single day.

 

A little later, in Acts 17:32, Paul travels to the city of Athens in Greece and preaches the same message. But Paul's resurrection message is greeted much differently in Athens, Greece, than Peter's was in Jerusalem, Palestine: "When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered..."

 

Why did 3,000 people repent at the resurrection message in Jerusalem while the same message was greeted with sneers in Athens?

 

I believe that it's because in Athens, the people only had Paul's word for the resurrection--but in Jerusalem they had something more to go on. They had the evidence of the empty tomb, just a ten-minute walk outside the city gates.

 

Here again is another strong argument in favor of the resurrection.

 

--wiz

 

[BeastMaster]

Could also be because Athens was a centre of the Greek religion, Lady Athena's temple was just up the hill.

 

------------------

"The Beasts know much that we do not." -Ancient Jedi proverb

[Guest Conor]

Jerusalem was the center of Judaism, and Rome was the center of the Roman religion. I am not sure if that criteria is relevant.

 

Just my take.

 

------------------

"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

[Guest wizzywig]

Good thought, BeastMaster, but I agree with Conor. Judaism was fiercely entrenched and zealously defended, much moreso (IMO) than Greek polytheism, which was past its prime and had largely lapsed into agnosticism and cynicism by that time.

 

--wiz

 

 

[Guest wizzywig]

TheAhnFahn--

 

I'm going to repeat the essence of the post I wrote last night on that other new God thread, the one that the Snail started then wiped out. The subject was Satan. You had posted and I responded, but I don't know if you got to read my response before the thread was obliterated. Since the thread is gone, Ahn, I can't quote your post precisely, but you said something along the lines of:

 

Those of you who believe in God because he answers your prayers, why do you believe in Satan? I'd like someone to prove to me that Satan exists.

 

Here's the answer I gave before (and I trust this time it won't get wiped out):

 

AhnFahn, I have absolutely no interest in proving the existence of Satan to you. None.

 

Why not? Simple: If you accept the scientific and transcientific evidence for God and the historical evidence for the resurrection, then the issue of the origin of evil is not a problem.

 

And if you don't? Then, if you don't believe in God or in Jesus Christ, what difference does it make if you believe in Satan?

 

Either way, I can't see the point.

 

I wanted to respond to the question you raised, but I don't want to get mired in a lengthy exchange of posts about a side issue. We still have the main issue on our plate, along with a boatload of evidence that I poured out for your inspection.

 

Your post in the alien thread in the Cantina sounds like you are backpedaling on some concepts that you had once seemingly accepted. I am baffled by that. The Anthropic evidence still stands. So does all the other evidence.

 

I am curious about the recent direction of your thinking.

 

--wiz

 

 

[Guest theahnfahn]

My thinking has not changed, but I did that post because I felt what I perceived as YOUR thinking has changed Wiz. My position is hard to present, I tried my best, but I only had a few short minutes last night to spill my thoughts. Let me repost what my main point from last night was.

 

This is where my argument is leading. We are all biased to one concrete thing, whether we like it or not. This thing shapes how we perceive reality. We live within it, we learn from it, and we fear death because we will leave it. We are all biased towards humanity. We love ourselves, we love each other, and we are bestowed at birth with the need to prioritize humanity as the greatest heap of matter to ever assemble. There is only one law that governs us - the law of existence. We exist, and therefore there must exist something we exist in. We exist in the universe, and to prescribe our reality with a statistical number that shows intention is unjustified, for the universe in and of itself is beautiful beyond belief.

 

Here is where I see a contradiction in your argument Wiz, and no matter what the circumstance a contradiction spells trouble. Here are the two main assumptions I have witnessed you to hold as truths.

 

1)The Anthropic Principle, with each and every fine-tuned law that we have already recognized, depicts a universe blessed for life. In all likelihood this universe was intended with intelligent life in mind.

 

2)The planetary evidence, with each and every fine-tuned law that we have recognized, depicts a universe that is so extremely hostile to life that it is absurd to believe any life exists at all. Either we are a fluke or this theory is invalid.

 

There is one AND ONLY ONE way that you can accept both of these assumptions simultaneously, and that is to believe the universe was created for humanity and humanity alone. Thus the universe has the means to support a life, OUR LIFE, but it does not have the means to randomly start and sustain life. This does make sense, but only in the biased eyes of humanity. As I tried to explain everything is beautiful, and we as a mere humans in no way match to the awe-inspiring complexity of the millions of galaxies. My sole point in last night's discussion was an attempt to show how all of these theories, whether the Anthropic Principle or the harsh-worlds theory, are basing there findings as well as there search, on the basic premise that everything must explain why WE are here. This is an invalid way to approach an answer because there is nothing placing our existence above any other, save our own self-induced bias. If we look at the big picture, examining emperical evidence that depicts the nature of reality(as we have been doing), then we will come to an understanding of our purpose. BUT, and there is always a but, accepting the Anthropic evidence, accepting the harsh-worlds theory, and accepting that we are the greatest accomplishment of our universe can only lead to one conclusion: God intended humanity and humanity alone. If this is not the case, and God did not have humanity in mind, then either the AP must go or the harsh-world theory must go.

 

I hope this refines everyone's beliefs on what kind of circumstance we are really in.

 

------------------

And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

 

[This message has been edited by theahnfahn (edited February 11, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

I think I am getting what you are saying, so let me try this:

 

If we accept the Anthropic principle as well as the harsh-worlds bit, a rational conclusion is that life cannot be random, but specifically intended, as the evidence points away from the possibility of life. I believe this is what you are saying.

 

I disagree with the your ultimate conclusion that accepting both ideas means the universe was intended for humanity alone. If the universe was intended for intelligent life, why couldn't God's Will transcend the harsh world theory twice? Or more?

 

If the universe is fine-tuned to harbor life, as it appears it is, as well as making it statistically impossible for life to start on its own, which the evidence also points to, something must have broken the odds by precise engineering of our planet. Couldn't this engineering happen again?

 

------------------

"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

[Guest Kroffus the Snail]

I sure think the engineering could happen again. There HAS to be some other form of live in this universe. A few trillion trillion quadrillion to the eight millionth power cubic miles of space can't be occupied by just us (I may have been a few billion trillion off on the volume estimate )

Hey, we have Pauly Shore and Carrot Top as other-worldly presences (of idiocy)

[Guest wizzywig]

TheAhnFahn!

 

Ah! Now I see what you're getting at!

 

I'm glad you made your point more clear, because I now see that I have not been clear, and this gives me a chance to put all the pieces together.

 

It's too bad that we are discussing the same subject in two different threads, in two different sections of the forum (maybe I should post this on the alien life thread as well, to make my position clear).

 

You began with this:

 

My thinking has not changed, but I did that post because I felt what I perceived as YOUR thinking has changed Wiz.

 

I read that and thought, What the heck...?!

 

And then I read further and saw what you meant:

 

Here is where I see a contradiction in your argument Wiz, and no matter what the circumstance a contradiction spells trouble. Here are the two main assumptions I have witnessed you to hold as truths.

 

1)The Anthropic Principle, with each and every fine-tuned law that we have already recognized, depicts a universe blessed for life. In all likelihood this universe was intended with intelligent life in mind.

 

2)The planetary evidence, with each and every fine-tuned law that we have recognized, depicts a universe that is so extremely hostile to life that it is absurd to believe any life exists at all. Either we are a fluke or this theory is invalid.

 

First, could we relabel what you call the "harsh worlds" concept? That's in large part where the misunderstanding comes in. A better name would be the title of the book Conor cited in his original alien life thread post, Rare Earth. Because this concept is not really about the universe being harsh to life, but about the Earth being so incredibly, even miraculously well-suited to life.

 

The Rare Earth evidence is really an extension of the Anthropic Principle. In fact, it builds on the Anthropic evidence, and uses many of the Anthropic coincidences as evidence to build the Rare Earth case. All of these many conditions are incredibly balanced and fine-tuned in order to make life possible.

 

All the evidence I have previously cited in the God thread and in the chapter I showed you applies to the way the universe as a whole has been designed to be fit for life (the creation of heavy elements, the balance of the various forces and physical constants, etc.). The Rare Earth case takes it a step further and shows that without conditions being balanced even more precisely with regard to the parent planet, life is still an absurdly improbable happenstance. The Rare Earth concept simply shows that the Anthropic coincidences that begin with the big bang and the quantum structure of the universe keep going on and on and on at the planetary level.

 

The result: The Anthropic evidence shows that the universe is miraculously fine-tuned to produce life; the Rare Earth evidence shows that the Earth itself is also miraculously fine-tuned to produce life.

 

Does that mean there cannot be other lifeforms out in space somewhere? That we MUST be the only lifeforms in the entire universe?

 

Of course not. If the Cosmic Designer chose to create a miraculous universe, and within that universe, a miraculous Earth, then he certainly could have repeated the miracle elsewhere in the universe. In fact, I strongly suspect he did.

 

Does the Rare Earth concept mean that the universe is hostile to life? No, it just means that, once the universe has created heavy elements and done all the other things that must take place to make life possible in the universe, there is still more work to do on the local, planetary scale in order for life to arise. There are still more balancing acts to perform. And by raising the odds against life arising by chance a few more orders of magnitude, it strengthens the case that the universe in general and the Earth in particular are the artifacts of a Cosmic Intelligence.

 

(Hey! I'm REALLY glad you brought this up, because it just occurred to me as I was typing this that the Rare Earth concept strengthens the AP considerably, because it makes the possibility of the Many Worlds Interpretation even more impossibly remote than before!!)

 

I hope this clears up the confusion I inadvertantly created about these two interlocking bodies of evidence. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify--and the opportunity to be struck by a really cool idea!!

 

--wiz

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited February 11, 2000).]

[Guest wizzywig]

TheAhnFahn--

 

I'd like to know if the above message clears up my meaning re: the AP and the Rare Earth concepts.

 

Meanwhile, some additional thoughts on the Resurrection evidence I presented in the old God thread--

 

In that thread I presented a strong evidential case for the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is, in fact, the only verifiable resurrection claim in history. Significantly, the only time a resurrection is known to have taken place, it involved a person who made unique claims.

 

Jesus clearly believed and taught that he was God's chosen spokesman on earth; he repeatedly told people that he himself and he alone revealed the entrance requirements for what he called "the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of heaven," and he called people to respond to that message. He also claimed that his message would be validated by the miraculous nature of the resurrection.

 

That is why the resurrection evidence is so significant.

 

Your thoughts...?

 

I know you've been pressured by schoolwork lately, and I hope the pressure is lifting. I'm intensely curious about your response to the issues and evidence I've raised in recent weeks.

 

BTW, I finally finished that business book that's been busting my chops these last three months. Finally, I'm on to other things.

 

--wiz

 

 

[Guest theahnfahn]

I will respond tomorrow. Too tired now. Good night world. Good night moon (I can't believe I remember that book )