To better understand this, think of a Hindu. To her, Vishnu is very, very real. Vishnu isn't real to me however. But she believes in Vishnu just as strongly as I do in Jesus. What independently verifiable and objective means do we use to definitively establish who is correct?
How about all the prophecies foretold in the Bible, that came true, some of them millennia later?
I purposefully chose Hugh Ross to make it easier for you, because I know you also have huge problems with a literal Bible, just as he does:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
“Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter - no errors.”
Can you show me such predictions in other faiths? Not two thousands, but at least 100? How about only 10? Or even only 5? Tell you what: why don’t you show me a
single major prediction in any religion in the world, other than Judaism and Christianity.
By major prediction I mean something in the league of Jews returning to their land (Israel). Or the cosmic expansion, predicted in the Bible millennia before the big bang theory. (Ironically, expansion lately turned to disprove the big bang, but it still proves the Bible right and that’s all that matters).
Now, just as I don’t agree with Ross’ physics (big bang, but also Einstein’s GR), I also don’t agree with his maths (I changed the form of the number in the quote below, because I found that this forum apparently doesn’t allow numbers with powers):
“the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10^2000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!”
Actually, it’s not 2000 zeroes - it’s immensely more than that. Ross himself gives an indication to that by presenting 13 prophecies and concluding that the chance for fulfilling all those prophecies is 1 in 10^138 (1 followed by 138 zeroes), which is obviously different than 10^13 - by
many orders of magnitude.
So it’s not that we simply put the number of the prophecies as the power. Instead, it depends on each prophecy, and there are so many prophecies that cannot have, in my view, a chance lower than 1 in 100. Because the factors involved in each prophecy are almost always larger in number than 100.
Which means a larger minimum for all prophecies than what Ross claims:
“since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively)”.
[ But even such a minimum, his minimum, would lead to a number one order of magnitude larger than the number he presents: 10^2000. ]
However, it’s true that some prophecies depend upon one other (are connected), so the end result will have to be adjusted for that.
It’s also true that other sources give a lower number of prophecies - for example J. Barton Payne’s
Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecylists a total of a total of 1,817 for the entire Bible (both the Old Testament and the New Testament).
So in the end let’s accept the number Ross gave, to have an actual number to talk about. So let’s take it as chance of all those 2000 prophecies fulfillment as 1 in 10^2000 (that’s 1 in the number of 1 followed by 2000 zeroes).
Now, Ross makes a very poor job of putting that number into perspective, so let me help you with that:
either try to write down 2000 consecutive zeroes, or think about this:
(all figures presented below are mainstream numbers; I don’t agree with some of them, but you do agree with them - and that’s all that matters here)
The observable universe is 10^26 m (meters) in size; its mass is 10^53 kg.
A galaxy usually has the size of 10^21 m and the mass of 10^42 kg.
Now, compare each of those latter numbers respectively with the previous numbers. Note that a galaxy’s size is
only 5 orders of magnitude smaller than
the entire observable universe. Do you now have a perspective of what the number 10^2000 means? That’s 2000 orders of magnitude!
Let’s continue: a single star, such as the Sun, has the aprox. size of 10^10 m and the mass of 10^30 kg.
Again, compare those numbers respectively with the previous set of numbers. Yes, there are only eleven orders of magnitude between the size of a star and that of a full galaxy (hundreds of billions of stars). Now compare a number with 11 zeroes with a number with 2000 zeroes. Quite a road, right?
Let’s continue: a continent such as Africa or Australia would have these numbers: 10^7 m, 10^17 kg. Compare those numbers with the numbers for a star. Yes, a continent is only three orders of magnitude (aprox. 1000 times) smaller than a star (the diameter of a star). OK, the Sun is not the biggest star, far from it, but still, you can have an idea. (Sun’s diameter is about 109 times that of Earth.)
And many mountains (not the Andes, as this is the longest, and in general not the longer mountain ranges) would have these numbers: 10^4 m, 10^8 kg.
Finally, consider one star. And then consider all the stars in the observable universe (that is, not the stars that astronomers can observe
now, but the stars that they’ll
ever be able to observe - all this if big bang is true, of course). The difference between those two numbers is 7 × 10^22. That’s ‘only’ 22 orders of magnitude. Compare this with 2000 orders of magnitude.
Now do you have a real perspective of what 10^2000 means? That’s really huge. So huge that there is nothing in the universe that can materialize that number. Even if you take the smallest thing in the universe (the smallest thing mainstream scientists claim to be
ever able to observe, the smallest possible length: Planck length), which is 10^-33, and then take the largest possible thing scientists could
ever observe in the universe. Which is not actually, even if big bang would be true, the observable universe, but only about 2 thirds of that: 62 billion light years instead of 93 bly. But let’s consider, as above, the figure of 10^26 m.
So the separation between the smallest thing ever (for mainstream scientists) and the largest thing ever (for mainstream scientists) is only of 59 orders of magnitude. And the difference (actually proportion) between 2000 orders of magnitude and 59 orders of magnitude is 1941 orders of magnitude. Indeed, you barely took anything out of that 2000, isn’t it?
So now you could have a perspective of what 2000 orders of magnitude mean: you take an entire universe out of that, and you can barely notice.
And if you somehow believe in mainstream nonsense such as string theory, then this is the number you’re concerned with: 10^500.
Yes, they
must postulate the existence of 10^500 universes (instead of just one: ours) in order for them to ‘explain’ away our anthropic universe (in other words, to get rid of God).
But even if we take away all those universes from 10^1941, we are still left with 10^1441. That’s how huge that number, 10^2000, really is: if we take out not only this universe, but all the other universes some of us can think of and we’re still left with a number immensely huge (
much larger than everything that was taken out).
Indeed, a chance of 1 in 10^2000 actually means one single chance in a billion of billions of billions […] of billions. A
zero more zero than any human mind can conceive. And yet God couldn’t care less about our maths and fulfilled all those prophecies. Proof that we shouldn’t use worldly views (be them actually scientific or not), but instead put our faith in Him. How about that…
So, does all this respond to your question:
“But she believes in Vishnu just as strongly as I do in Jesus. What independently verifiable and objective means do we use to definitively establish who is correct?”
And even if you cut that 10^2000 number down to please Hindu mathematicians or even
atheistic mathematicians (they would most likely dismiss many prophecies, as well as increase the chances of success for the remaining ones), you’d still obtain a number larger than 10^80. Which is, by the way, the number of all the
atoms in the formal
universe. Now you tell me, if we presume they’re all within your reach, how do you call the chance to ‘catch’ one
particular atom from all 10^80 atoms? Great? Small? How about zero…
If you can figure that out, you will have solved much of the world's problems.
Well, I did that just above - and many (probably thousands) other Christians before me. Now you tell me: did it solve “much of the world's problems”? Did it solve
any of world's problems?
Of course not. Simply because the world
wants to be without God. It has always wanted that.
Are you suggesting that we Christians should change our paradigms? And according to what? Could it be according to formal,
untheological, paradigms?
But do you know how many things previously formal views have meanwhile been proven wrong? Even when considering only the
current formal paradigms, do you know how many times they have changed?
For example, big bang cosmology - along the decades it has had tens of minor changes, and quite a few major changes. And by major I mean things like: the universe is decelerating (now accelerating), it expands into space (now expands with space), the initial ‘explosion’ threw away galaxies readily formed (now we have cosmic evolution), the universe is cyclical (now it’s not, or at least not necessarily) - and others.
So, if formal paradigms (aka formal ‘knowledge’) change so much and so rapidly, why exactly should they be the glasses we’re required to put on when reading the Bible? Why to interpret the universe by worldly theories proven wrong by the very fact of endless change in their claims? Why not instead interpret the universe through God’s Word, the Bible? After all, wasn’t God the one who actually made the universe? Was it Hawking? Was it Krauss?
And:
If the Bible is God’s Word then isn’t it true at all times? What could possibly be the circumstances in which God’s Word isn’t true anymore?
Because the Bible says there is no change in God. Or is that verse part of those verses that we shouldn’t consider to be true? But if so, why to believe in God at all? For example, why to believe that we Christians will go to Heaven, if we claim that God changes His mind? How could we know that He wouldn’t change His mind on
that?
So you see, as soon as you make compromises in regard to the Bible, as soon as you drop parts of the Bible and replace them with worldly theories, then it
all falls apart.
Oh and to claim a local God (either in time or space, or both), which is implied by your expression (“Conservative Christians”) is equal to claiming no God (Creator) at all. Because God
cannot be subject to His own Creation (time or space, in this case). If He obeys time or space or anything else that He created, then He didn’t actually create that particular thing. Which means He didn’t create anything. And if He’s not the Creator, then He’s not God.
often argue that God is the only source of moral authority
Are you claiming that God
isn’t “the only source of moral authority”?
and therefore in the absence of belief in God, we cannot have morality.
No. That’s a very wrong conclusion. I am not even aware of a single Christian that makes that assertion. To my knowledge, all Christians, including me, claim that in the absence of God (not in the absence of
belief in God) we cannot have morality. And that’s a very different thing.
the clear observation that "morality" varies greatly across human societies (both in time and space), which necessitates that morality is subjective
Could you give me examples of locations, “both in time and space”, where stealing was (is) considered good and no stealing was (is) considered bad?
And I find ironic your claim that “morality is subjective”, since hardcore atheists such as Shermer have had so much trouble in explaining morality outside God, while you on the other hand appear to not have...
A further irony is that Shermer had recently to deal with allegations (if not accusations) of rape…
that leads to the obvious conclusion that humans develop their own morality, oftentimes based on what works to maintain a functioning society.
No, it doesn’t lead to that conclusion. See above.
If God simply imposed His morality upon us, then we would not have true free will.
Of course we would: we would choose between being moral and not being moral. Which is exactly what we do, by the way.
