romansh

No! That is the accepted paradigm. It is a mistake or at least misleading (frequently taught) to think of the second law in terms of order. That is an extrapolation of general relativity ... to where perhaps it is unwise to extrapolate. So what you say here is: reality could not have existed at all points in the past. Theories like the Block Universe postulate that not only all points exist in the past they exist in the future too. Of course this means this theory is wrong as it means we don't have free will and if we don't have free will, then dying for our sins becomes a nonsense. And indeed if you accept everything has an antecedent cause then you were destined to write your nonsense as I am mine. And we should bear in mind the scribes who wrote the testaments could not help but write what they did. See you on the free will thread!

Beg to differ. You claim to know that the universe is staggeringly improbable. So on top of that you claim the the existence of what at first glance would be an even more staggeringly improbable deity. An intelligent six year old, would understand that the universe exists and would not make up stories about how it came into existence. An intelligent six-year-old when asked how the universe come into existence would answer "I don't know."

And you are ascribing an integrity to your capacity to evaluate the data 2000 y after the fact. Not if one takes an agnostic stance ... it simply results in a lack of belief. You might see it as a red herring and yet over 74 million people voted for Trump and perhaps even believed in him to some extent. My point is perhaps 40 y after the death the scribes were also conned. Why were the apocrypha suppressed? Why is there so little written about this in the contemporary documentation? Perhaps it just was not important enough?

Although I can't call myself an engineer, I do have a PhD from an engineering university department ... I find the teleological argument a nonsense. An intelligent six year old could argue sensibly against it. The fact the universe exists in all its complexity is a fact (as facts go). Then suggesting a god did because you have insufficient intelligence to envisage how a universe might have come into existence spontaneously is an argument from incredulity. I am agnostic on the matter. Having said that the the chances of it being a Christian god creating the universe I find to be outrageously unlikely ... to the point I am an atheist to the concept of a Christian god ... I would give Zeus similar odds.

No it is not a reasonable conjecture. Take a look at the antics of the fake news provocateurs back in January. Anti vaxxers, flat Earthers. There have been really nice people on this very website taken in by Trump lies and this is over the last five years. So your forty years, over several languages Aramaic, Judean, and possibly Greek holds no sway. The fact that scribes could copy accurately is neither here nor there. The question is what they wrote down how believable was it? What was their motivation? What was their capacity to evaluate what they were writing down? So your reasonableness fails. While I am not overly familiar with the Rosetta Stone ... it works. It's like an engineer's handbook, for the most part it works. Bible stories ... not so much.

Are you conjecturing 2000 years after the fact that the authors were reliable?

For me ... Rex Wyler, put his journalistic/investigative talents to good use in the Jesus Sayings NO! What we have is a book (set of) largely anonymous authors claiming pharisees heard him say it. Your argument begs the question I am afraid. Also I would be careful not to conflate the myth of Christ with the historical Jesus.

Welcome Dan Your post epitomizes the legacy that reverberates around Christianity. Seeking of perfection and its unattainability. It is a cross that many Christians bear ... so to speak. If we accept that human beings and indeed everything else are the chemistry and physics doing its thing, then many concepts like perfection and imperfection fade. That we might think a one human being is more perfect or imperfect than another is nonsense ... at least in my opinion. Perfection, Christ's or someone else's is an illusion. rom

Can I suggest Gretta Vosper ... She is from Kingston ... I don't know where her ministry is now. Perhaps if you can get hold of her somehow, she can recommend something sensible. (I have heard her speak ... I think she is a good halfway house).

Yes especially in my province, BC, where where non-Christians outnumber Christians.

You are right Jimmy ... the story is all rainbows, fluffy unicorns and teddy bears. What the world needs is more:

Not being a Christian J3:16 leaves me cold. What a horrible concept, and based on a faulty premise too.

So effectively you are an atheist? Baring in mind Dawkins described pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". I never said you did, yet you seek out religious people in preference to say non religious ... with the exception of your atheist wife of course. "Divine" is one of these words that is bandied about, like "spirituality", I must admit I am losing my grip on the understanding of these concepts. Is the feeling of the divine an illusion?

For you how is this different from pantheism? Yes many describe this in terms of transcendence ie beyond understanding. Out of curiosity can you provide some examples of these values and and perspectives that unbelievers don't have? This is obviously false ... you appear to know God is unknowable. I agree I found that serious life experiences can make one amenable to all sort of things.

I must admit, I find this the logical position to take. I am not sure how it limits us to wondering about this supposed 'more' and perhaps we should consider a supposed 'less' while we are at it. But we can be reasonably confident things are not as they seem. As you likely are aware I am not overly fussed about any alleged gods, but I am curious as to how people ascertain the alleged properties of their god. And probably as I mention before, pantheism seems the closest position to any theism I could entertain. I can't help thinking when people point to God, in reality it is a distraction. The wonders of the universe are my 'more'.

Fair enough Steve. But my point remains the more well defined Gods like those of the Norse, Greek, Roman and Abrahamic versions, or at least the literal interpretations of them can be discarded. I suspect we hang on (as progressives) to the various labels for a variety of reasons. We take the stories and interpret them as metaphor and debate which interpretation is better. With the science being in the "knowledge business", the knowledge is always provisional and in fact could be seen as fundamentally as agnostic to the understanding it produces. And the eighth and final letter has been issued. Have not read it yet ... but we can find some commentary here.

Yes belief is like that. Until it fades. Welcome again.

Welcome fuzzy ... and I must admit I like the concepts of fuzziness and chaos. I transitioned to atheism/agnosticism in my mid twenties and haven't looked back. Having said that I never was a strong believer. For awhile I looked at God as a loving God, but there was too much evidence against that. Anyway, glad to share a path with you for a while. I live in Canada and find the politics in the USA completely bewildering, makes our nonsense seem sane rom

Could the world be other than what it is? The universe is unfolding and our actions are part of that unfolding. This is all part of the free will debate. And a quote by Joseph Campbell: You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. I'm not suggesting Campbell believed in evil, but that seeing the world through the lens of good and evil (better and worse) is where the mistake is made. Genesis 3:22 gives us a clue to this point of view, if we are inclined that way.

And here's the mistake.

Is this true for the metaphorists as well? Or are they OK to make up their interpretations as they go along?

Well ... if we define God in some substantial way or with properties we can interact with, then we could argue we can disprove the well defined God. For example the "God is Love" brigade, would seem to imply God is fairly limited, unless we delve into some heavy semantic shell game. Now of course some people will point out quite accurately (I think) science is not in the proof business. But disproof, is slightly different. Take the Morley Michelson experiment for luminiferous ether or do we still need to consider the concept of phlogiston as a viable prospect. I think when "metals" get heavier when they burn, is sufficient evidence that the concept of phlogiston is on the wrong garden path.

My question is, what are the reasons I should care? It's not as though the Bible is some oracle I need to decipher?

I get it ... Me thinking of the chair as red benefits me more than the chair. But I am not sure how ignoring the illusory nature of forgiveness or the chair being red is of an 'ultimate' benefit. Would not "understanding there is nothing to forgive" be of benefit as well? To think of forgiveness as a benefit, one would have to think that there is some sort of independent good or not good floating around. Think of Alan Watts' Chinese farmer story here. Maybe?

The strange thing ... in a no free will universe there is nothing to forgive. Actions that seem to require forgiveness are like objects that are red. And the irony is ... Christianity as practiced by many is a really judgemental religion. Even here ... some actions have been judged as requiring forgiveness?