Is there a God?

[Huguenot]

On the subject of improbabilities, I dropped my cigarette the other day and it fell on its end. Right on the end, on the filter tip and stood there erect, like the Burj Dubai.

That's the honest truth. As I stood there looking at it I reflected that it was never going to happen again in my life, and for some people it never would happen.

I also reflected that there are people in the world with such mental disorders that they would insist it didn't happen, because it's unlikely. But it did, there you go.

And it's not because I'm the messiah, it's not because the universe revolves around me. It's not because someone was watching over me, and it doesn't prove the existence of an omnipotent moral presence who was sending me a message.

It just happened.

I may write a book, or a collection of books. Or I may simply relate the story to some literary enthusiasts who can write a book themselves, using the series of events to draw greater political metaphors or moral fables.

It wouldn't negate the fact that if anyone read such words and concluded I was God, that they would be an idiot.

[Brendan]

I don't think god wants you to smoke.

[Huguenot]

Prove it.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> On the subject of improbabilities ...

Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising on Earth by chance to that of 10^50 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people simultaneously solving a scrambled Rubik's Cube.

> I dropped my cigarette the other day and it fell on its end.

> Right on the end, on the filter tip and stood there erect ...

That has happened to me ? only once, though. I?ve also dropped a pound coin that came to rest standing on its edge.

[Huguenot]

He clearly never played Spore ;-)

Assuming that figure to be reasonable (which is quite a leap of faith), if you rolled a dice 100 times you'd achieve a string of numbers that was even less likely to happen than life on earth being generated.

Yet you still did it. That exact sequence.

It doesn't make you God, simply because the alternative was "too unlikely".

The anthropic principle notes that this coincidence must have taken place, because if it hadn't you wouldn't be here to observe it! It requires no supernatural creature with a strangely human-centric approach to the universe.

[Curly]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> Curly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > HAL9000 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: ... appear

> to

> > > be a contradiction in the scriptures?

> >

> > One genealogy is through Joseph, the other

> Mary.

>

> Please provide the Scriptural authority for that

> interpretation.

In Matthew 1:16 Matthew does not write 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but instead Joseph was 'the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born'.

And Luke, after acknowleging in Luke 1:32-35 that Jesus was the Son of God by Mary he says in Luke 3:23 'Jesus...being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli.

If you want to do further research have a look at the commentary of Luke by Frederic Louis Godet or The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (revised edition of 1944), under ?Genealogy?, or McClintock & Strong?s Cyclop?dia (1882) under ?Genealogy? (page 773, col. 2, of Volume III), etc.

Or sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus??lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making an attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ?playing the harlot with carpenters?; but the same passage concedes that ?she was the descendant of princes and rulers?.

[Curly]

> Huguenot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > > > I dropped my cigarette the other day and it fell

> on its end.Right on the end, on the filter tip and stood

> there erect ...

We are talking about very different odds here.

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > On the subject of improbabilities ...

>the probability of life arising on Earth by chance to that of 10^50 (ten

> with fifty zeros after it)

Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occuring of less than 1 in 10^50 (1 with 50 zeros).

[Curly]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> He clearly never played Spore ;-)

>

> It doesn't make you God, simply because the

> alternative was "too unlikely".

>

> The anthropic principle notes that this

> coincidence must have taken place, because if it

> hadn't you wouldn't be here to observe it! It

> requires no supernatural creature with a strangely

> human-centric approach to the universe.

So if I leave a pile of bricks, sand and cement in my garden, one day there is a chance it might turn into a house - all on it's own. Or if I get a stick of dynamite and blow it up (like the big bang) there's a chance I might get a new shed.

[Brendan]

Oh brother.

[Huguenot]

Not at all Curly.

As I pointed out, if you roll a dice 100 times, the probability of obtaining the string of digits you end up with is around 1 in 10 to the power 50. If you'd like worse odds, roll it 200 times. The probability is even less. Significantly. You choose the number of times.

It still happened. I'm still not God.

QED.

It would take an odd mathematician to deny it (and as a retired mathematician I'm familiar with the odds).

[Huguenot]

In hindsight Curly I'm entralled with this one...

"So if I leave a pile of bricks, sand and cement in my garden, one day there is a chance it might turn into a house - all on it's own. Or if I get a stick of dynamite and blow it up (like the big bang) there's a chance I might get a new shed."

Is that then to assume that the "house' or 'shed' was created by God too? My recollection of Genesis maybe poor, but I don't remember the creation of 'house' or 'shed'. Was it the fourth or fifth day?

Of course you may allow that apple from 'tree' became 'bivouac' and hence it progressed. And likewise 'log' may have become 'wheel' and so on to Audi.

But at which point did 'seedling' become 'shrub' and 'shrub' become 'tree'. Of for that matter 'algae' become 'fungus' and 'fungus' become 'lichen' and 'lichen' become 'plant'.

All plausibly may have been the creation of the Lord Almighty - but if you admit that progress was established at some point (no VW in Leviticus), then why the arbitrary start point?

Come on kooky, start rolling the clock?

Or does the clock not exist, because of some random superannuated medieval text? Woooooo freeeky.

[HAL9000]

Curly Wrote:

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

> HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Curly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > > HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > > > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: ... appear

> > > > to be a contradiction in the scriptures?

> > >

> > > One genealogy is through Joseph [Matthew], the other

> > > Mary [Luke].

> >

> > Please provide the Scriptural authority for that interpretation.

> In Matthew 1:16 ...

> And Luke ... 1:32-35 ... 3:23 ...

Neither of those verses explicitly states or confirms your interpretation.

An early Patristic source, the Protevangelium of James, names Mary's parents as Joachim and Anne. The Cave of Treasures names Anne?s father as Paqud son of Eleazar. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of Judah. Later redactions name her mother as Susanna. In the Qur?an Mary is identified as a daughter of ?Imr?n.

Africanus, the first Early Church Father to address the apparent contradiction, opined that both genealogies are those of Joseph, explaining that he had two fathers - biological and legal - through levirate marriage. That interpretation stood for over a thousand years as the Church's official doctrine.

Some of the earliest theologians held that Matthew presents Mary's genealogy.

The idea that Luke presents Mary?s genealogy appears in a tract of pseudo-Hilary (quoting from a medieval text) and was revived by Annius of Viterbo in 1498 to become the most popular explanation held today.

> the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making an

> attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ?playing

> the harlot with carpenters?; but the same passage

> concedes that ?she was the descendant of princes

> and rulers?.

The Talmud considers Jesus to have been a mamzer - the bastard son of a Roman soldier called Panthera - and therefore prohibited from taking part in the congregation of Yahweh by the Deuteronomic Code.

In an earlier post you said:

> Luke does not name Mary ... because women were not

> named in genealogical links ...

In fact, four women are named in the genealogy of Matthew: Tamar (a sexual seducer and adulteress), Rahab (a Gentile harlot from Jericho), Ruth (a Gentile Moabitess - ?No ... Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever (Deut. 23:3)), and Bathsheba (the Gentile wife of Uriah the Hittite). See also Gen: 11:29; 22; 23 and Num: 26:33; 27:1. How do you explain that?

Furthermore: Matthew claims Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah whose linage is cursed in Jeremiah 22:24-30: "Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.? Matthew also skips several generations as recorded in 1 Chronicles 1-3.

The point I am making is that your 'understanding' is not explicitly supported by the Scriptural canon. In fact, it is contradicted by external sources and was not even considered until quite recently in the history of the Church.

I put it to you that your 'understanding' is a recently devised apologia that attempts to rationalise an intractable contradiction in the Scriptures.

[Curly]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

>Neither of those verses explicitly states or confirms your interpretation.

If it was so explicit the question would not have arisen.

>An early Patristic source, the Protevangelium of James, names Mary's parents as Joachim and Anne. The Cave of Treasures >names Anne?s father as Paqud son of Eleazar. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of >Judah. Later redactions name her mother as Susanna.

Particularly from the second century C.E. forward there has developed an immense body of writings making claim to divine inspiration and canonicity and pretending to relate to the Christian faith. Frequently referred to as the ?Apocryphal New Testament,? these writings represent efforts at imitating the Gospels, Acts, letters, and the revelations contained in the canonical books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. These writings attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus? life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it. Thus the so-called Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are filled with fanciful accounts of miracles supposedly wrought by Jesus. Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter?s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: ?Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.? (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962) Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments: ?They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.?

>The Talmud considers Jesus to have been a mamzer - the bastard son of a Roman soldier called Panthera - and therefore >prohibited from taking part in the congregation of Yahweh by the Deuteronomic Code.

As said before there were plenty who wanted to discredit Jesus and that includes writings in the Talmud. However the quote demonstrates that despite the Rabbi?s opposition he could not deny Mary?s ancestry.

>Africanus, the first Early Church Father to address the apparent contradiction, opined that both genealogies are those of >Joseph, explaining that he had two fathers - biological and legal - through levirate marriage.

But then why does Matthew 1:16 not just say ?Joseph became father to Jesus??

>four women are named in the genealogy of Matthew. How do you explain that?

Yes they are mentioned in genealogies, as was Mary in Luke but not as the genealogical link. Says M?Clintock and Strong?s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): ?In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter?s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).?

>Matthew also skips several generations as recorded in 1 Chronicles 1-3

To prove genealogical links it was not necessary to name every link. For example at Ezra 7:1-5 several names were omitted in the priestly line at 1Chron 6:1-15. So it was not essential to name all the ancestors to satisfy the Jews.

>Matthew claims Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah whose linage is cursed in Jeremiah 22:24-30: "Write this man >childless, a >man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or >ruling again in Judah.?

While in Babylon, Jeconiah fathered seven sons. (1Ch 3:16-18) In this way the royal line leading to the Messiah was preserved. But, as prophecy had indicated, none of Jeconiah?s descendants ever ruled from earthly Jerusalem. It therefore was as though Jeconiah had been childless, with no offspring to succeed him as king -Jeremiah 22:28-30.

>The point I am making is that your 'understanding' is not explicitly supported by the Scriptural canon.

The Pharisees made similar claims on Jesus. They spent most of their time following Jesus around trying to ask him trick questions that they already thought they knew the answer to.

[Curly]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> As I pointed out, if you roll a dice 100 times,

> the probability of obtaining the string of digits

> you end up with is around 1 in 10 to the power 50.

> If you'd like worse odds, roll it 200 times. The

> probability is even less.

Ok let's say the impossible did happen and by chance a simple protein molecule was formed by the right atoms and molecules falling into place. You would then have to replicate those odds for the other 2,000 different proteins for just one life cell to remina active. Then the protein molecules need information from DNA molecules and DNA molecules need several forms of specialised RNA molecules all occurring by chance at the same time.

Then you have to consider all the other factors that would have had to come about by chance. For example, by chance the earth is exactly the right distance away from the sun - any nearer we would burn to a crisp or any further we would freeze. By chance the earth rotates on its axis at the right speed to produce moderate temperatures and the other planets just happen to be there to prevent earth from shifting from its orbit. By chance we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force all required for the earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker atoms could not combine to form molecules; if stronger electrons would be trapped preventing chemical reactions needed for life - so just be chance it's the right strength. If the strong nuclear force was weaker 2% weaker only hydrogen would exist. If stronger there would be no hydrogen - again by chance it's the right strength along with the weak nuclear force which is just weak enough so the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. By chance, the extremly complex process of photosynthesis provides the large variety of food we enjoy using the taste buds that just happened. Then there is our complex brain, language, emotions, nurvous system, organ function and immune system that is all just chance.

If you walked into a room and found ketchup on the carpet and a child said the ketchup got there by itself you would believe them would you?

Now please excuse me from retiring from this thread but the kids want to play Monopoly.

[Brendan]

If you think that the options are ?believing? the world was created in the way described in Genesis or ?believing? that it can be explained away as a random accident you're missing the entire point.

Scientific inquest doesn?t give you some new set of definites to form a world view from.

Some people may think it does but they don?t get it either.

[mockney piers]

"If it was so explicit the question would not have arisen. "

I thought the starting point was that interpretation was misunderstanding, that you either understood or didn't. So how can any questions arise at all especially as all the facts are in the bible and there is no need for any interpretation at all. Everything is either explicitly there or not.

I'm lost. Anyway forgive me from retiring as it's become silly. It feels

to me like arguing the interpretation of the armor class

modifiers over different editions of AD&D ... I imagine someone who may or may not have been a bit of a nerd at school might say.

[Huguenot]

Well this one's got me...

"By chance we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force all required for the earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker atoms could not combine to form molecules; if stronger electrons would be trapped preventing chemical reactions needed for life - so just be chance it's the right strength. If the strong nuclear force was weaker 2% ......"

So it's not that you believe in Adam and Eve then, it's that you think that God created the physical attributes that allowed evolution to flourish?

That's an entirely different position, and in that sense the God you describe (rather than the Biblical one), is quite in lines with current options under discussion by empirical scientists the world over.

[Brendan]

I believe that time is a constraint created by a perpetual recreation of ourselves in order to house us. The world was actually created tomorrow out of itself. As we can not see into tomorrow we cannot disprove this theory therefore it is true.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Tommy rot! I'm following the omnipotent chap who can drop his cigarette on it's head.

[Narnia]

This may be interesting tonight

Stuffed up the link but it's at 7pm

[PeckhamRose]

I am really enjoying this thread.

Just thought I'd say.

There some smart folk here.

[The Eye]

I reckon Sooty and Sweep have been running the show all along. Sooty looks like the bossy type.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/content/images/2005/03/04/sooty_sweep_150_150x180.jpg

[KalamityKel]

Apparently, according to those who attend St. Barnabas church (and according to the sermon at midnight mass on Christmas Eve) Christmas is not for children... I am a little confused as I am always reminded that children are our future... if that is so then Christmas is not for the future so I figure we are all DOOMED!!! No?

However, on the opposite side the service at St. John's on Christmas day suggested quite the opposite and gave a little hope for followers (and non-followers like myself)

It's all rather too deep for me this whole subject and this has just confuzzled me even further!

[HAL9000]

Christmas within the context of the Christian faith is about as Kosher as a pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah.

It's worth reading this Jewish article - The Real Story of Christmas - before worrying about what it means.

[The Eye]