Full Version: Couldn't statistics prove or disprove god?
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
Statistics!!
A study by UC-Davis shows that 85% of statistics are made up!
Another study by Arizona State Univercity shows that 94% of statistics have no meaning!
A 3rd study by SUNY - Oswego shows that 78% of studies are a waste of money!
On a more serious side - studies have been done as you have suggested on the healing process, and those who engage in prayer have shown faster healing rates....but I defer these to my previous comments..
A study by UC-Davis shows that 85% of statistics are made up!
Another study by Arizona State Univercity shows that 94% of statistics have no meaning!
A 3rd study by SUNY - Oswego shows that 78% of studies are a waste of money!
On a more serious side - studies have been done as you have suggested on the healing process, and those who engage in prayer have shown faster healing rates....but I defer these to my previous comments..
file drawer effect, motivations of the folks who would finance this research, conflicts of interpretation of data... yeah statistics can prove a lot. 
No. Why? Because you're making way too many assumptions.
You're assuming that the god is an interventionist, that the god would be favourable to its followers, that it would demonstrate this by healing them.
You're assuming that the god is an interventionist, that the god would be favourable to its followers, that it would demonstrate this by healing them.
I think they have done some studies on this. Religious people tend to live longer, heal faster from injuries and get ill less often. This doesn't necessarily prove there is a diety watching over these people either. I think if anything it shows the psychological effect of religion. Religious people feel like they have god on their side, they think there is an afterlife - death is not final, they feel like they have unconditional love from their god, they most-likely go to church meaning they are involved in the community, they are social, active, feel useful and accepted by their peers, they feel like they are doing something truly important and fulfilling by doing god's will, they are participating in something they are passionate about. I think all of those factors and then some have an enormous psychological effect which keep the mind and body sharp - they have something to live and be healthy for.
But those studies prove nothing. There's no control factor...ei - no two broken arms are alike, no two bodies heal at the same rate, none of it means anything.
It is the placebo effect ,they believe it is doing them good and in a certain measure it does
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]1644239[/snapback]
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
Given that, at least for the God of the Bible, God wants man to approach Him by faith, there really can be no way to undeniably prove His existence since that would then nullify the need to faith.
Additionally, there will always be ways to question any statistics anyone else works out.
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]1644239[/snapback]
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
Numbers found in religious groups compared to numbers found in NON religious groups...dont matter
If a christian heals faster than a non christian is cobblers......................it is wrong to think such a thing
Not aimed at you or anything...but in general
Lots of non christians and non believers do lead very good lives...can heal just as quick as the christian...
I am not going to sit and say but look statistics show this..and that
a lot of the time statitics are baised
I certainly am not saying believers led better lives than non - I am an atheist and I think I led a pretty fulfilled life. I was just chiming in about something I had read and if it proves anything(not saying it does) it certainly wouldn't be the exsistence of god but rather the psychology behind religion. Thats all. I totally agree with whoever said it was a placebo effect - that was kinda what I was trying to get at in the previous post but obviously didn't communicate my point very well. 
Well the answers so far say no I guess. I just think that people who believe make statements all the time that god did this in their lives and god did that (or conversely when something bad goes wrong blame satan) and so if you could even find that things happen evenly between christians and non believers you might prove that god is not inteceding in their lives and that good and bad things happen the same. I still think that there could be information gleaned from studying this. As for healing studies and prayer studies that were done correctly (double blind) there was no more of a benefit, at least from the last study I've seen published. Heart patients were prayed for with out their knowledge and did not recieve any faster healing or benefit.
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]1644239[/snapback]
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
Studies like this have been done. The data would not prove or disprove that God as an individual entity exists, it would simply show whether people with faith healed more quickly than people without faith. When doing multi faith studies compairing the healing rates of people from different faiths/doctrines the subject's individual practice of their faith would need to be taken into account also. It is likely that a greater correlation would be found between the methods of practicing their faith and their healing rate than between the doctrine of faith and healing rate.
nn23
I remember reading about a prayer experiment for people undergoing surgery. They had about 1500 people undergoing surgery in 3 groups; the control group which wasn't prayed for, the second group which was prayed for but not told they were being prayed for and the third group which was being prayed for and told they were being prayed for. The control and second groups were more or less the same, but the third group had a much higher percentage of complications.
Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
These are the British statistics relating too religion and health. If you download the excel version (I LOVE EXCEL 
) Correlations can be drawn between S150 and S152 to find a basic result as to which religion is the least/most healthy.
It needs to be pointed out though, there are many other facters that affect peoples health state not just religion. Genes for example, some people of certain ethnicities that have a specific religion are also more vulnerable to certain illnesses than others. In which case specific research of that ethnicity could be done between practicing and non practicing participants health rates.
Authorities of areas where people of certain ethnicities congregate may have a lower budget than other areas and a poor healthcare agenda which would also need to be studied to do proper research.
He he, thats the thing you see, its never as simple as just comparing two variables, there are always so many other facters involved. Those are just a few off the top of my head
There are probably other studies that look at rates of immunity to disease but i didnt want to get carried away as i often do
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssda...7548&More=Y
I did a quick search into an american one, but it was a little more complicated, still this one would give a basic idea.
) Correlations can be drawn between S150 and S152 to find a basic result as to which religion is the least/most healthy. It needs to be pointed out though, there are many other facters that affect peoples health state not just religion. Genes for example, some people of certain ethnicities that have a specific religion are also more vulnerable to certain illnesses than others. In which case specific research of that ethnicity could be done between practicing and non practicing participants health rates.
Authorities of areas where people of certain ethnicities congregate may have a lower budget than other areas and a poor healthcare agenda which would also need to be studied to do proper research.
He he, thats the thing you see, its never as simple as just comparing two variables, there are always so many other facters involved. Those are just a few off the top of my head
There are probably other studies that look at rates of immunity to disease but i didnt want to get carried away as i often do
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssda...7548&More=Y
I did a quick search into an american one, but it was a little more complicated, still this one would give a basic idea.
QUOTE(Cradle of Fish @ Apr 24 2007, 08:04 PM) [snapback]1644388[/snapback]
I remember reading about a prayer experiment for people undergoing surgery. They had about 1500 people undergoing surgery in 3 groups; the control group which wasn't prayed for, the second group which was prayed for but not told they were being prayed for and the third group which was being prayed for and told they were being prayed for. The control and second groups were more or less the same, but the third group had a much higher percentage of complications.
Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
WOWWW Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
I love studies like that 
Do you remember where you read it?
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]1644239[/snapback]
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
People can use statistics to claim proof for anything. It just depends on how you set up the study and what questions you ask.
How do you know God doesn't intercede in the lives of nonbelievers? It seems to me if he created us he would intercede in all our lives whether we believe in him or not.
QUOTE(Cradle of Fish @ Apr 24 2007, 08:04 PM) [snapback]1644388[/snapback]
I remember reading about a prayer experiment for people undergoing surgery. They had about 1500 people undergoing surgery in 3 groups; the control group which wasn't prayed for, the second group which was prayed for but not told they were being prayed for and the third group which was being prayed for and told they were being prayed for. The control and second groups were more or less the same, but the third group had a much higher percentage of complications.
Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
Heres an article.Not saying this proves anything except that you're more likely to get through surgery by not worrying, but it goes to show that these religious studies don't always have the desired effect.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html
QUOTE
How do you know God doesn't intercede in the lives of nonbelievers? It seems to me if he created us he would intercede in all our lives whether we believe in him or not.
If God gave us true free will, his interceding in his creation in anyway would remove that free will. You would be affected by that intercession and no longer making decisions freely!
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]1644422[/snapback]
If God gave us true free will, his interceding in his creation in anyway would remove that free will. You would be affected by that intercession and no longer making decisions freely!
I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say he made our decisions for us. I was talking about him interceding in the way he mentioned above, such as curing disease and helping us out.
QUOTE
I was talking about him interceding in the way he mentioned above, such as curing disease and helping us out.
I understood what you were saying...intercession is intercession and removes free will...if you expect him to help, it will affect your decisions, your free will! The Creator cannot intercede without removing your free will. I do not believe in the "my way or the highway" type of free will that Christians tout...that is not real free will...kinda like having a gun stuck to your head and being told< "Choose, but ya better choose right!" That is not free will that is coercion!
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]1644239[/snapback]
I've had this notion for a while and I wanted to know what others think of it. If Christians (or other faiths for that matter I think it would work either way) wanted proof that believing in God has quantifiable results in their lives, wouldn't statistics either bear this out or not? In other words set a baseline using non-believers, I would imagine a large group to start with, and the take the same amount of a certain faith, lets just take Christians as an example and then compare data. For example, illness, do non believers heal faster, slower or the same as a Christian, do Christians have less occurrences of birth defects? The kind of thing to be looking at would be statistical anomalies that would tend to show that a deity is making some kind of difference in the outcomes of situations that come up in general and compare that to a group who does not believe. I mean if you believe in a deity, you assume that one you have a relationship with the deity, and in asking it for help that it can make a difference in the outcome of general life situations. If that is the case then there should be a visible difference in the lives of believers vs. non believers and if there isn't it, it would go a long way to disproving that a deity intercedes in peoples lives. It wouldn't rule a deity out completely, it would leave it at agnostic belief, that a deity exists just doesn't interfere in our lives. Is a comparison like this possible, what do you think?
Statistics is probabilistic. It can't absolutely prove or disprove anything. It can only prove a difference "beyond a reasonable doubt," like the lawyers say. The problem is in what is "reasonable." Suppose I ran a test that gave a 0.999999 chance that there is no god. The theist will argue that because there is a 0.000001 chance that I am wrong, I have failed to "prove" that God doesn't exist. This is due to the nature of statistics; it is an artifact of the process and has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god.
The second problem is that statistics requires a model. In your proposal, one group models another, so statistics can be used to tell if there is a difference. The problem is that we can only test the model, not the reality (or lack of it) behind the model. If I, as the experimenter, do not construct a model of god that you consider accurate, then you have reason to doubt my results.
Some tests have actually been run. In most respects, morality and ethics do not correlate with religion. Integris Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City tried to test the efficacy of prayer in healing. They concluded that, for the most-part, it doesn't work, but there is one exception: if it is family and close friends doing the praying, there seems to be a small effect.
One needs to look out for people using statistics. I can run 19 tests that give one result, but the twentieth may give a different one. If I then tell everybody about the 20th time and ignor the other 19, I am really just lying. An ethical statistician has to take ALL the data into account.
Over all, I think there is room for some serious science here, but good science usually raises more questions than it answers and you never know where the data will lead.
--DJS
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]1644504[/snapback]
I understood what you were saying...intercession is intercession and removes free will...if you expect him to help, it will affect your decisions, your free will! The Creator cannot intercede without removing your free will. I do not believe in the "my way or the highway" type of free will that Christians tout...that is not real free will...kinda like having a gun stuck to your head and being told< "Choose, but ya better choose right!" That is not free will that is coercion!
I don't understand what you're trying to say. God helping you doesn't remove free will. You're still making your own decisions.
Not really, you are waiting for "the other shoe to fall"...in other words your decisions are hedged, they take into consideration that your might get help from the deity...that is no longer free will. Free will is decisions made without the coercion (intentional or otherwise) from an outside party.
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1644518[/snapback]
Not really, you are waiting for "the other shoe to fall"...in other words your decisions are hedged, they take into consideration that your might get help from the deity...that is no longer free will. Free will is decisions made without the coercion (intentional or otherwise) from an outside party.
Does that not make all our decisions coerced then? Intercession takes place between each other every day so is our will not at the mercy of each other and the constructs of society? I find this a little paradoxical.
Coercion by natural things is normal and we simply adjust for them, this does not remove free will. Divine intercession changes the relationship between the individual and chance, by the nature of the very relationship. This removes freewill.
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]1644564[/snapback]
Coercion by natural things is normal and we simply adjust for them, this does not remove free will. Divine intercession changes the relationship between the individual and chance, by the nature of the very relationship. This removes freewill.
mmm so you believe that undivine intercession does not change the relationship between the individual and chance, how come?QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Apr 24 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]1644341[/snapback]
Well the answers so far say no I guess. I just think that people who believe make statements all the time that god did this in their lives and god did that (or conversely when something bad goes wrong blame satan) and so if you could even find that things happen evenly between christians and non believers you might prove that god is not inteceding in their lives and that good and bad things happen the same. I still think that there could be information gleaned from studying this. As for healing studies and prayer studies that were done correctly (double blind) there was no more of a benefit, at least from the last study I've seen published. Heart patients were prayed for with out their knowledge and did not recieve any faster healing or benefit.
Listen to my lil storey lol..its about a born again christian group.....
Well I'm not a born again...but i told Jor-el in a PM that I believe, that a born again group HELPED me once..........I was 7 odd months pregnant..had some trouble...my mom was out shopping with me...and at the end of the mall was her christian chuch hall.........it's where they go to hold meetings. To humour her I went along, and promised her, I wouldnt say anything to annoy them LMAO...cuz she feared I would....hmmmmmmm can't understand WHY??!!
lolSo I sat there, as she spoke to them...I recall thinking into myself -- "Gee I hope they dont try and convert me again...be like killing 2 birds with one stone..cuz I was pregnant with Becky at the time lol" ............ She then called me over............the head of the born again group, asked me for my hand...so I reached out to him.....................he say that he knows of the trouble I was having..and how scared I was ect...........my mood changed...I began to hear him out
Then all of them surrounded me....joined hands and began praying.......I sat there..and did what they did out of respect...........I didnt know the prayers they where saying...they kept repeating things like in reponces..........5 mins later it was done
I thanked them...and went .......
My following visit to the maternity clinic..went great...all the problems I was having, where GONE...just like that!!!
I couldnt believe it
...the born again group of christians did do something after all............well I believe they did....meh!!!!!!!my thats MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!! so i call that PROOF!!!
The troubles I was having..were serious..I may not have been a BM...without the help of a born again christian group..................the christian helped a BM LMAO!!
PS I sent them in a letter of thanks...they apprecaited it....meh!!
awwww, thats a lovely story BM
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]1644504[/snapback]
I understood what you were saying...intercession is intercession and removes free will...if you expect him to help, it will affect your decisions, your free will! The Creator cannot intercede without removing your free will. I do not believe in the "my way or the highway" type of free will that Christians tout...that is not real free will...kinda like having a gun stuck to your head and being told< "Choose, but ya better choose right!" That is not free will that is coercion!
I understand what you are getting at mako, however there are possibilities which may either negate or erode the certainty of your statement. Firstly God may not be apparent in the intercession. If the benefit gained appears to be natural then free-will is not lost. Secondly, if the situation is not life-threatening the intercedee (?) still has the option of not asking for the assistance so free-will is not lost.
QUOTE(nn23 @ Apr 24 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]1644619[/snapback]
awwww, thats a lovely story BM
lol ty...I never thought of it at the start of this thread..but then it hit me..I looked up and saw a pic of becky on my wall LOL..and then I remembered..and thought, I may as well share it with y'all
its the truth...as god as my wittness.......it did work
They knew I sinned against their bible...............but they didn't judge me.........NO...........they didnt even tell me I should repent....they just prayed for me to help me
thats how I see a REAL christian...
their prayers do WORK
im not sh*tting you lol
I am not being baised either.....................how can I be?? when I am not a born again myself...so no one can say -- Look at her trying to use that, to try and convince us that only born agains prayers work.....................nope not that at all
but me thinks....if a bunch of non christians DID post their story on how a born again prayer has worked for them................wonder if it would effect others?? hmmmm??
QUOTE(mako @ Apr 24 2007, 08:33 PM) [snapback]1644518[/snapback]
Not really, you are waiting for "the other shoe to fall"...in other words your decisions are hedged, they take into consideration that your might get help from the deity...that is no longer free will. Free will is decisions made without the coercion (intentional or otherwise) from an outside party.
No, you misunderstand what Christians mean by "free will". All it means is God doesn't control us by remote control. Our actions are not the result of our programming. We have the ability to make decisions without God's intervention. God can intervene in our lives in many ways. We still have free will so long as God doesn't control us.
Free will is a theory that some Christian philosopher came up with. It isn't Biblical. The Bible doesn't even mention free will. People like to think we have free will. That doesn't mean we do. For all I know our actions could all be a result of our programming.
QUOTE(The Mule @ Apr 24 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1644244[/snapback]
Statistics!!
A study by UC-Davis shows that 85% of statistics are made up!
Another study by Arizona State Univercity shows that 94% of statistics have no meaning!
A 3rd study by SUNY - Oswego shows that 78% of studies are a waste of money!
A study by UC-Davis shows that 85% of statistics are made up!
Another study by Arizona State Univercity shows that 94% of statistics have no meaning!
A 3rd study by SUNY - Oswego shows that 78% of studies are a waste of money!
Including these?
--DJS
QUOTE(Jim88 @ Apr 24 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]1644749[/snapback]
Free will is a theory that some Christian philosopher came up with. It isn't Biblical. The Bible doesn't even mention free will. People like to think we have free will. That doesn't mean we do. For all I know our actions could all be a result of our programming.
Free will - the idea, if not the words - was the issue behind the Pelagian Heresy in the early 5th century. The two protagonists in the controversy, Pelagius and Augustine, actually met, discussed their respective ideas and each admitted that the other had some points. BUT: by order of Emperor Honorius, the Church (Pope) declared free will a heresy. Thus, if you follow the Christian tradition, as it has evolved over the centuries, you do not believe in free will. However, if you're a heretic, then you can believe what you want: just remember that the church does not endorse your ideas and is quite likely to burn you at the stake.
--DJS
No, a statistic like that couldn't prove the existence of God - but there are plenty others that do.
Let's all agree on a fact - it is recorded history, outside of the Bible, that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem. It is recorded that he was in fact crucified, and it is also recorded by authors outside the bible that he did in fact appear to heal people. Knowing this is true, the odds of anyone fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about the messiah are 1 in 10^157 power.
Here's an illusstration of those odds. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 times 10^15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons.
If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 [nineteen million times nineteen million times nineteen million] or 6.9 times 10^21 years.
This is approximately the total number of electrons in all the mass of the known universe. In other words the probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling 48 prophecies is the same as one person being able to pick out one electron that I painted blue out of the entire mass of our universe. And these are only 48 of the 324 that he fulfilled.
I know those odds sound contradictory of believing Jesus is who he said he was, but there is a factor that changes this - The old (and new) testament used to be copied by hand. The jewish scribes (and later early christians) were so concerned with preserving the entire book as it had been written originally, that they actually counted and recorded the number of words and characters in the originals. When they made copies, if a copy was off by even one word or character, the entire copy was burned. So here's another statistic - the Bible is more accurate than 80-90% of high school textbooks.
Many scientists have been qouted as saying things such as "It's as if the creator left his fingerprints on creation" While they do not agree it is the God, most agree there must be some greater being that made all this. The odds that the laws of physics (inertia, gravity, etc.) would just occur on their own are the same as filling the entire continent of North America in dimes stacked up to the moon. Then take that, and do it on a hundred other North Americas. Now paint one dime red, mix it in with all the others, and ask your friend to pick it out blindfolded.
Can science prove Gods existence? Not exclusively, but the odds are definitely in favor of a creator - and even more definitely in favor of the God of the bible.
As for free will, it is obvious we have free will if you believe the bible. And no, I'm pretty sure the philosopher wasn't christian, or at least he wasn't necessarily. Think about it - if I wanted, I could stab someone I "hated" (qouted because I do not hate anyone, but people do irritate me sometimes). Of course then I'd have to live with the consequences - just like Adam and Eve. What you are really asking is, "If God knows everything, and he knows what I'll do in the future, do I really have any choice?" The answer is yes and no; yes because you will always have the opportunity to make the choice; and no, because really you already made the choice, as a result of everything in your life up to that point in time. God says "I knew you in your mothers womb," indicating that he knew the type of person you would be, and therefore the kind of descions you would make.
Let's all agree on a fact - it is recorded history, outside of the Bible, that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem. It is recorded that he was in fact crucified, and it is also recorded by authors outside the bible that he did in fact appear to heal people. Knowing this is true, the odds of anyone fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about the messiah are 1 in 10^157 power.
Here's an illusstration of those odds. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 times 10^15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons.
If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 [nineteen million times nineteen million times nineteen million] or 6.9 times 10^21 years.
This is approximately the total number of electrons in all the mass of the known universe. In other words the probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling 48 prophecies is the same as one person being able to pick out one electron that I painted blue out of the entire mass of our universe. And these are only 48 of the 324 that he fulfilled.
I know those odds sound contradictory of believing Jesus is who he said he was, but there is a factor that changes this - The old (and new) testament used to be copied by hand. The jewish scribes (and later early christians) were so concerned with preserving the entire book as it had been written originally, that they actually counted and recorded the number of words and characters in the originals. When they made copies, if a copy was off by even one word or character, the entire copy was burned. So here's another statistic - the Bible is more accurate than 80-90% of high school textbooks.
Many scientists have been qouted as saying things such as "It's as if the creator left his fingerprints on creation" While they do not agree it is the God, most agree there must be some greater being that made all this. The odds that the laws of physics (inertia, gravity, etc.) would just occur on their own are the same as filling the entire continent of North America in dimes stacked up to the moon. Then take that, and do it on a hundred other North Americas. Now paint one dime red, mix it in with all the others, and ask your friend to pick it out blindfolded.
Can science prove Gods existence? Not exclusively, but the odds are definitely in favor of a creator - and even more definitely in favor of the God of the bible.
As for free will, it is obvious we have free will if you believe the bible. And no, I'm pretty sure the philosopher wasn't christian, or at least he wasn't necessarily. Think about it - if I wanted, I could stab someone I "hated" (qouted because I do not hate anyone, but people do irritate me sometimes). Of course then I'd have to live with the consequences - just like Adam and Eve. What you are really asking is, "If God knows everything, and he knows what I'll do in the future, do I really have any choice?" The answer is yes and no; yes because you will always have the opportunity to make the choice; and no, because really you already made the choice, as a result of everything in your life up to that point in time. God says "I knew you in your mothers womb," indicating that he knew the type of person you would be, and therefore the kind of descions you would make.
A simplified version: Remember Moses who departed the red sea. So the people could escape their enemy. Well scientist and the V.I.P.s. in this world don't believe it was possible. And God, gave Moses power to do so. Well like I said, the real smart scientists said it was a big earth quake. That divided the waters. Or they say the wind made the waters divide. But whom caused the winds to be so strong to blow for hours and divide the sea. And dry the bottom of the sea. So the people walked on dry ground. There is proof somewhere here on this internet. But I can't tell where. Well lets say nowadays, the scientist wanted to know how deep the red sea is. So they got this long long rope with a special camera attached to the bottom of the rope. They dipped it in the sea. And the camera took pictures of the bottom of the ocean floor. And what they discovered was a passage way. Of big boulders and rocks were moved on purpose. Like the people made a pass, to get through and actually being able to walk on dry ground is a real miracle of God. Well it talks about it in the King James Version in the Bible.
QUOTE(ryujidrummer @ May 4 2007, 11:16 PM) [snapback]1660485[/snapback]
No, a statistic like that couldn't prove the existence of God - but there are plenty others that do.
Let's all agree on a fact - it is recorded history, outside of the Bible, that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem. It is recorded that he was in fact crucified, and it is also recorded by authors outside the bible that he did in fact appear to heal people. Knowing this is true, the odds of anyone fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about the messiah are 1 in 10^157 power.
Here's an illusstration of those odds. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 times 10^15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons.
If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 [nineteen million times nineteen million times nineteen million] or 6.9 times 10^21 years.
This is approximately the total number of electrons in all the mass of the known universe. In other words the probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling 48 prophecies is the same as one person being able to pick out one electron that I painted blue out of the entire mass of our universe. And these are only 48 of the 324 that he fulfilled.
I know those odds sound contradictory of believing Jesus is who he said he was, but there is a factor that changes this - The old (and new) testament used to be copied by hand. The jewish scribes (and later early christians) were so concerned with preserving the entire book as it had been written originally, that they actually counted and recorded the number of words and characters in the originals. When they made copies, if a copy was off by even one word or character, the entire copy was burned. So here's another statistic - the Bible is more accurate than 80-90% of high school textbooks.
Many scientists have been qouted as saying things such as "It's as if the creator left his fingerprints on creation" While they do not agree it is the God, most agree there must be some greater being that made all this. The odds that the laws of physics (inertia, gravity, etc.) would just occur on their own are the same as filling the entire continent of North America in dimes stacked up to the moon. Then take that, and do it on a hundred other North Americas. Now paint one dime red, mix it in with all the others, and ask your friend to pick it out blindfolded.
Can science prove Gods existence? Not exclusively, but the odds are definitely in favor of a creator - and even more definitely in favor of the God of the bible.
As for free will, it is obvious we have free will if you believe the bible. And no, I'm pretty sure the philosopher wasn't christian, or at least he wasn't necessarily. Think about it - if I wanted, I could stab someone I "hated" (qouted because I do not hate anyone, but people do irritate me sometimes). Of course then I'd have to live with the consequences - just like Adam and Eve. What you are really asking is, "If God knows everything, and he knows what I'll do in the future, do I really have any choice?" The answer is yes and no; yes because you will always have the opportunity to make the choice; and no, because really you already made the choice, as a result of everything in your life up to that point in time. God says "I knew you in your mothers womb," indicating that he knew the type of person you would be, and therefore the kind of descions you would make.
Let's all agree on a fact - it is recorded history, outside of the Bible, that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem. It is recorded that he was in fact crucified, and it is also recorded by authors outside the bible that he did in fact appear to heal people. Knowing this is true, the odds of anyone fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about the messiah are 1 in 10^157 power.
Here's an illusstration of those odds. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 times 10^15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons.
If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 [nineteen million times nineteen million times nineteen million] or 6.9 times 10^21 years.
This is approximately the total number of electrons in all the mass of the known universe. In other words the probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling 48 prophecies is the same as one person being able to pick out one electron that I painted blue out of the entire mass of our universe. And these are only 48 of the 324 that he fulfilled.
I know those odds sound contradictory of believing Jesus is who he said he was, but there is a factor that changes this - The old (and new) testament used to be copied by hand. The jewish scribes (and later early christians) were so concerned with preserving the entire book as it had been written originally, that they actually counted and recorded the number of words and characters in the originals. When they made copies, if a copy was off by even one word or character, the entire copy was burned. So here's another statistic - the Bible is more accurate than 80-90% of high school textbooks.
Many scientists have been qouted as saying things such as "It's as if the creator left his fingerprints on creation" While they do not agree it is the God, most agree there must be some greater being that made all this. The odds that the laws of physics (inertia, gravity, etc.) would just occur on their own are the same as filling the entire continent of North America in dimes stacked up to the moon. Then take that, and do it on a hundred other North Americas. Now paint one dime red, mix it in with all the others, and ask your friend to pick it out blindfolded.
Can science prove Gods existence? Not exclusively, but the odds are definitely in favor of a creator - and even more definitely in favor of the God of the bible.
As for free will, it is obvious we have free will if you believe the bible. And no, I'm pretty sure the philosopher wasn't christian, or at least he wasn't necessarily. Think about it - if I wanted, I could stab someone I "hated" (qouted because I do not hate anyone, but people do irritate me sometimes). Of course then I'd have to live with the consequences - just like Adam and Eve. What you are really asking is, "If God knows everything, and he knows what I'll do in the future, do I really have any choice?" The answer is yes and no; yes because you will always have the opportunity to make the choice; and no, because really you already made the choice, as a result of everything in your life up to that point in time. God says "I knew you in your mothers womb," indicating that he knew the type of person you would be, and therefore the kind of descions you would make.
First: I am a statistician. It's how I make my living. I make models (equations) of the real world and test them against data sets to see how well they fit. Statistics does not have the capability of resolving the "is there a god?" question because statistics requires a model to compare with reality. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has constructed a model (mathematical, statistical or otherwise) of god that can be tested against reality. Until that can be accomplished, the issue cannot be resolved. All the numbers you throw around about how many electrons there are and about stacks of dimes, don't change that fact. Without a model, statistics can't help you.
The only reason people can get away with lying with statistics is that most people don't know enough about statistics to call them to account (An intro course at the high school level would help.). The numbers you list are not statistics: they are numerical gibberish.
Second: historians who lived at the time Jesus supposedly lived, do not mention him. Philo even lived within a mile or so of the location where Nazareth would be built (Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' day.) and never mentioned him. Tacitus lived decades to a century later (His book on Agricola was completed in 94 AD.). Josephus didn't begin his career as a historian until after the Jewish Revolt: 36 years after Jesus' death, at a minimum. By that time, the legend was well known (Nero was already holding roasts.). For more information on this, see comments by Mako on the "Jesus - Was he a Christian?" thread on this site. There are NO historical accounts of Jesus written during his lifetime. Nobody actually says: "I saw Jesus do THIS."
Third: most of those "prophecies" are suspect: Walter Mattfeld (www.bibleorigins.com) lists a number of failed biblical prophecies. Once the prophecy failed, biblical writers just forgot about it and never mentioned it again. That allows failed prophecies to be used as a tool to determine when parts of the OT were written. Others, such as the forecast that the temple would be destroyed, were written years after the fact and are not prophecies at all. And others, such as the story of Peter being the head of the church appear to have been added later for political reasons to support the Roman Catholic claim that Jesus delegated the leadership of the church to them.
St. Paul comes closest to being contemporary, but even he admits he never met Jesus and most of his information he got in a dream: not the type of data source I would want to be caught using.
As for biblical mistakes and errors: Don Morgan (www.the-archon.com/guide/errors.htm) has compiled a 52-page list of them. Most of the ones he lists are trivial mistakes that are best described as "typos:" they're copying errors. One of my favorites is Joshua 15:21-32 which gives a list of 39 cities (actually, 36 because three are repeats), then says there are twenty. Joshua 15:33-36 lists fifteen additional cities, then says there are fourteen. If these aren't classical copying errors, I don't know what is.
Genesis 37 tells us that Joseph's brothers sold him to both "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites." One guy tried to convince me that these were different words, designating the same people, so I did a little research: Midian and Ishmael were half-brothers. Each founded his own clan. Midianites and Ishmaelites were two different clans. You want to apply some statistics? The name "Midian" in this story is used once; the name "Ishmael" is used three times. This data set, small though it is, follows the binomial model, from which one can easily calculate averages, standard erros and probabilities. One mistake is much more likely than making the exact same mistake three times: the story should have read "Ishmaelites."
Numbers 25:1 tells of a problem with a Moabite woman. By Numbers 25:15 she has become a Midianite. Numbers 25:16-18 say it had something to do with Peor. The temple to the Canaanite sun god, Shamesh, was on Mount Peor ("Baal Peor" translates as "God of Peor."), near the Plains of Moab opposite Jericho. They were deep inside MOABITE territory. They were dealing with Moabites, not Midiantes. This is another example of careless copying. Numbers 22-25 tells the story of Balaam, the priest of Peor, sort of an Old Testament televangelist. In 1967 a piece of pottery was found near/at Jericho with an inscription confirming that there actually was such a person. Balaam is probably the only person in the story of Moses and the Exodus who really lived, who was not a composite of other people and was not a myth. Note that in telling the story of Balaam, Numbers several times refers to the god worshipped by Balaam as "God," "LORD" and "the Almighty." That God was Baal Peor.
The Bible also contains many errors of fact. These aren't innocent typos - they are somebody assuming he knew something he didn't, these are based not on personal observation, but on speculation. For example: there are two descriptions of the crucifixion in which Jesus is given something to drink; in one version it is wine and myrrh; in the other, it is bile and vinegar. They can't both be right; one has to be an error of fact.
There are two very different descriptions of Eden: one in Genesis places it in the vicinity of the ruin Eridu which was located on the Persian Gulf. The other is pieced together from verses scattered throughout the Old Testament and locates it in the mountains of southern Arabia, north of modern Adan. The Bible also places Kush both in Africa and in the Zagros Mountains of modern Iran. Midian is located both in Aabia and in Africa. There are many of these "twins" and in each case, one has to be an error of fact.
Does science prove or disprove god? Science is not designed for that task. It has to have an objective reality to compare to a proposal. In other words, this problem requires you to reason from the observed physical universe to the hypothesized metaphysical one. Before you can prove god, you must prove that there is another, metaphyical, universe. That has not been done and so the question of god remains unresolved. Belief in god is, indeed, an act of faith. Do it, or don't do it, but don't claim scientific support because it doesn't exist.
Modern cosmologists speculate that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes making up the "multiverse." With an infinite number of chances, if any conceivable outcome is possible, then it will happen (Law of Regression combined with Descartes' Law). In that case, it is no miracle that the conditions needed to create us have happened; it is a mathematical certainty that they would.
It is sheer arrogance to say that we know anything at all about God. God - if he, she, it, or whatever - exists, is far beyond our understanding: "Those who say, don't know; those who know, can't say."
--DJS
QUOTE(ryujidrummer @ May 4 2007, 11:16 PM) [snapback]1660485[/snapback]
As for free will, it is obvious we have free will if you believe the bible. And no, I'm pretty sure the philosopher wasn't christian, or at least he wasn't necessarily. Think about it - if I wanted, I could stab someone I "hated" (qouted because I do not hate anyone, but people do irritate me sometimes). Of course then I'd have to live with the consequences - just like Adam and Eve. What you are really asking is, "If God knows everything, and he knows what I'll do in the future, do I really have any choice?" The answer is yes and no; yes because you will always have the opportunity to make the choice; and no, because really you already made the choice, as a result of everything in your life up to that point in time. God says "I knew you in your mothers womb," indicating that he knew the type of person you would be, and therefore the kind of descions you would make.
The person who originally proposed the idea of free will was Pelagius in the early fifth century. He thought he was a Christian; he even went to Rome and worked for the church. But after he proposed the idea of free will, the Pope said he wasn't a Christian - he was a heretic. SO: according to the Pope, free will is not something Christians believe in and because the Pope is infallible, he can't change his mind (If he did, that would mean he was wrong and so, not infallible.). So, if you believe in free will, you'll either have to join us heretics, or get burned at the stake (The Christian version of the Final Solution.).
I have heard that "God has a Plan." If He does, then prayer is a waste of breath, because if what you're asking for is already in the Plan, it will happen anyway. If it is not in the Plan, it is because God knew it wouldn't happen and if it's not going to happen, you're just beating your gums for nothing. SO, if you believe in intercessional prayer, you don't believe in "God's Plan;" - they are mutually exclusive.
Does God really have a plan? Where does it say that?
--DJS
QUOTE(annalaura @ May 5 2007, 12:12 AM) [snapback]1660524[/snapback]
A simplified version: Remember Moses who departed the red sea. So the people could escape their enemy. Well scientist and the V.I.P.s. in this world don't believe it was possible. And God, gave Moses power to do so. Well like I said, the real smart scientists said it was a big earth quake. That divided the waters. Or they say the wind made the waters divide. But whom caused the winds to be so strong to blow for hours and divide the sea. And dry the bottom of the sea. So the people walked on dry ground. There is proof somewhere here on this internet. But I can't tell where. Well lets say nowadays, the scientist wanted to know how deep the red sea is. So they got this long long rope with a special camera attached to the bottom of the rope. They dipped it in the sea. And the camera took pictures of the bottom of the ocean floor. And what they discovered was a passage way. Of big boulders and rocks were moved on purpose. Like the people made a pass, to get through and actually being able to walk on dry ground is a real miracle of God. Well it talks about it in the King James Version in the Bible.
In another thread on this site (I believe it is the Evolution thread.) I explain how it could happen. It wasn't an earthquake - just the ordinary interplay of wind and wave on a unique landscape.
About 10 miles south of Suez, jutting east from Gebel Attaqa, is an underwater ridge that gives a maximum least depth of 330 feet below mean sea level. No wind that blew ever moved that much water aside and no person ever stood upright, much less walked into, a wind that strong - and the Red Sea only gets deeper as you go south. But the "Red Sea Crossing" remembered in the Bible could, and I think did, occur at the north end of the narrows between the Bitter Lakes at what is now El Kubrit Station. It was not a "miracle" in the sense of violating natural law, but as you say, it had impeccable timing.
Due to its importance to navigation, the Red Sea has been thoroughly sounded. Charts of it can be downloaded from the Internet. From my cursory examination of those charts I do not recall any such rocks. Could you please provide a source for that item? Could you be thinking of Davod Rohl's claim that the "Red Sea Crossing" was the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba?
One problem with the Bitter Lakes: at the proposed time(s) of the Exodus, the Red Sea did not extend that far north. The connecting channel was either dry or shallow enough to wade across most of the time. At a depth of about six feet, a wind would be needed to move enough water aside that people could get across. I believe that is exactly what happened - to one of the mining expeditions the Egyptians sent to work the mines at Serabit El Khadim. The story got included in the Bible as the "Red Sea Crossing."
At the time the Bible was written, the Heroopolic Red Sea had only recently withdrawn from the Bitter Lakes, perhaps it still occupied the Bitter Lakes Basin. The crossing sight had been under 18 feet of water and the only explanation the writers could think of was an act of God. I note that in Exodus and Numbers 33, the list of campsites from "Ramses" down to "Rephidim" is precise and well-written; whoever wrote it knew the geography of the area. At Rephidim the quality of the list suddenly disintegrates. There are great gaps in it, two different routes and stations appearing out of their geographical order (In one short part, the stations are in reverse order.). How to account for this? I believe the part of the story from "Ramses" to Rephidim (including the "Red Sea Crossing") was added to the original story when parts of the Bible were first written in about the 9th or 8th century BC. During the Babylonian Captivity, the Temple was destroyed and records lost. Upon retruning from captivity (6th century) the priests and scribes recreated the lost books from memory and scraps of surviving texts. Memories weren't perfect, especially after 40 years without access to the written versions, and many a mistake was added.
So, while I believe the "Red Sea Crossing" happened; it was to a bunch of Egyptian miners who were traveling that way about 120 years after the original Israelites left Egypt.
The story of the Exodus DOES have a basis in Egyptian history, but the version that made it into the Bible has been badly damaged.
--DJS
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.