Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 9, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.” Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

See also:Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

LarTanner:
God may be incapable, as you say Mapou, of separating yin and yang, but modern civilization is undoubtably a great and human achievement, even if that (ongoing) achievement has gaping imperfections.
Sure, but we continue to die every day and lose our loved ones to diseases, old age, wars, crime, natural catastrophes, etc. Our world wars and various conflicts have been horrible. Even babies and small children suffer just by growing up. The whole world is suffering. Biblical prophecies foretell a time when the love of many will have waxed cold, a time of great trouble, so great that, unless God directly intervenes, no flesh would be saved alive. But soon, it will all come to an end. And then, as written in the book of Revelation, God will dry our tears and forget our trespasses.Mapou_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Just What Is The Question?
ks @ 119: No, the real question is this: What is the best explanation for the evidence we have? ks @ 151 You are running away from the question, which is: Why does God, whom you regard as good, permit so many things that you regard as evil? ks @ 179: This raises an obvious question: why would God create a world in which the Fall, and the resulting evil and suffering, are possible? ks @ 249: Rather, the question is “Why doesn’t God ever poof toilet paper into anyone’s hands when they get stranded?” ks @ 249: If you care about the truth, you want honest answers to these questions: Is God really there? If he is, then what is he really like? ks @ 274: Every thinking theist understands that this is an important question. Is God for, against, or indifferent to evil and suffering? ks @ 327: The question is whether your concept of God is coherent and compatible with the evidence.
Is it just me, or is keiths confused about just what the question is? keiths @ 274:
It’s only a mystery if you insist on believing in an omniGod. If you follow the evidence where it leads, you conclude that either a) God isn’t all-powerful; or b) God isn’t perfectly loving; or c) God doesn’t exist. In those three cases, the existence of evil is not a mystery at all. It makes sense.
keiths has an answer that makes sense of the existence of evil. Do tell.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

keiths: Like kairosfocus, you are afraid to answer those two simple questions. Since you seem incapable of grasping even the simplest answers, I reduced my answers to a single word in response to each question: 1. Pearls 2. Swine You give yourself entirely too much credit. I gave my answers. But somehow, after the fact, and in spite of the evidence to the contrary, you manage to convince yourself that I am afraid to answer two questions that I already answered. I guess we just have subjective moralities that differ. Let's take a quick look back to the past: keiths:
keiths @ 397:
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people…
Each of them with their own subjective morality, just like keiths. I guess the difference here is that I read what keiths writes and he doesn't.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Mung is particularly touchy about the problem of evil because he's been burned by it before. This was his attempt to "defend" his God two years ago: keiths:
That means that the excuse you’ve been giving for the Christian God — that he allows rape because he values free will — is bogus. He can value free will and prevent rape at the same time.
Mung:
Your problem, among other things, is that you don’t pay attention and you make things up. I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what? You need to define rape, and make an argument as to why rape is evil. You’ve done neither. You have no argument. [Emphasis added]
Congratulations, Christians. He's on your side.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Now he wants to emphasize the fact that there was no warning system. No kidding. The point is there that should have been.
You see, those infants and children deserved to die, because they didn't make sure that a multinational consortium installed a tsunami warning system in time for the 2004 tsunami. God is perfectly loving, and he did the perfectly loving thing: he issued no warning and allowed those children to die. It was their fault, after all.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Pearls. Swine. That’s my final answer.
Of course it is. Like kairosfocus, you are afraid to answer those two simple questions.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

keiths: I’ll let the readers judge your answer for themselves: See what I mean? This is just hilarious. As if readers OUGHT to judge or OUGHT to judge one way or another [i.e., in favor of keiths]. sez who? And this thread is just chock full of such pronouncements by keiths. He claims he just doesn't have to concern himself with the problem of ought but then makes constant appeals to what folks ought and ought not be doing or believing.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I don’t really like to keep using the word “liar,” since it tugs away at UD’s attempt to foster civil communication. Any ideas?
Lying Liars Lie. It's what they do. IMO, it would be uncivil of you to hide the truth about Lying Liars who Lie. The problem arises first and foremost when you assume that someone like keiths, an avowed atheist/materialist who allegedly has his own subjective "morality" is ever telling the truth in the first place. Objective truth can't be allowed. And there's no objective OUGHT to speak the truth. Everyone like keiths who comes here inevitably saws off the branch of their own rationality and argument. I think we forget this far too often. Like Dylan says, you gotta serve somebody.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

keiths: Mung, A reminder. keiths #407: And? You asked two questions I gave two answers. Here they are again: 1. Pearls 2. Swine Since you seem only to desire to discuss the undesirable [in your opinion] actions of others and to hold your own actions immune from discussion [in spite of the blatant self-refuting hypocrisy], those are the answers you get. You have no basis upon which to demand answers from anyone or to have your incessant whingeing about the responses you get, or lack thereof, taken seriously. none. Your actions are the actions of a troll, plain and simple. You claimed to be in possession of a book that sounds the death knell for ID. You claimed we'd be hearing from it a great deal. We're still waiting. You want to discuss ID, go for it. You want to discuss "the omnigod" that Christians purportedly believe in while at the same time admitting you don't know what you're talking about. Don't expect me to waste my time setting you straight on matters of faith and religion. It's your argument. It would behoove you to develop it before presenting it as an insoluble riddle for Christians. 1. Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami? Not an argument. 2. Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive? Not an argument. Pearls. Swine. That's my final answer.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Keiths
As amusing as StephenB’s tsunami gaffe is, it’s irrelevant, because there was no Indian Ocean tsunami warning center in 2004.
LOL Keiths, who has been caught in several lies, thinks that his latest lie is irrelevant. Well, now, isn't that special. Now he wants to emphasize the fact that there was no warning system. No kidding. The point is there that should have been. I have decided that I will not be violating UD's policy for civil discourse if I occasionally use the term Keiths, the "mythomaniac," since it is based in fact. Do UD admimistrators have any problem with that moniker?StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

As amusing as StephenB's tsunami gaffe is, it's irrelevant, because there was no Indian Ocean tsunami warning center in 2004. If God is omniscient, he knew that 220,000 people would die for lack of a warning. Why didn't he warn them? He knows who will contract Ebola, and when. He knows when earthquakes will strike, and who will die. Why no warnings? Humans are capable of loving complete strangers enough to warn them of danger. Why not God?keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

KF
It would also help to ask, what capabilities are needed to genuinely love, think for oneself, and decide for oneself, then ask, what happens if someone then decides to abuse that ability. And, what the world would be like without such abilities.
Those are great questions. Other related or restated: What capabilities are needed for creatures to be able to have a personal identity and to freely be able to: 1. share their personal self with others through love 2. learn the value of life, creation, risk, danger 3. understand the value of goodness and sacrificial/heroic love & actionsSilver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

KF #443
Jerad, you are starting to try to build without the foundation. Start with, what are the foundational things that reasonably explain evils as objectionable, rights as binding, etc. That is, what grounds OUGHT at world foundation IS level. Rhetorical approaches (which are typical in exchanges) are not really good answering to worldview level questions, where for instance the first comparative difficulties lesson is that if there were easy answers the question would not be a worldview level question. Hence, the significance of comparative difficulties.
If you have an answer as to how a loving, caring creator could condone behaviour such as that as exhibited in Northern Pakistan today then present it. Please explain how this event can fit into your proposed rhetorical framework. That's a fair question. KF you've frequently mentioned that you have been dismayed that members of your family have been threatened by online bullies. Since you seem to think such threats are credible and likely to occur, how can a loving and caring creator allow such things to happen to your family? Are these not reasonable questions?Jerad_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

To focus on one snippet in comment 439: "This current era is the time of our suffering." Would like to know when the current era began and who "our" refers to (i.e., who are "we"), but the suffering of earlier centuries is unimaginable to moderns. We have not lived through the great Plague. Nor the deep havoc caused by the Viking raids year after year. Nor the constricting socio-political orders of the pre-moderns. Nor the pogroms and atrocities in Russia, even into the modern era. Nor the systematic enslavement and displacement of African people. Nor the genocides of the early 20th century. Nor the terrors of Inquisition. Nor the endless wars and merciless killing of ancient states. Modern ciivilzation protects the lives and welfare of individuals (and business/political interests) much better and more broadly than at any prevous time in human history. Obviously, the current era has its own anxieties and terrors, but anyone who really thinks about it will immediately much prefer to live in a modern Western civilization than almost any pre-modern one. God may be incapable, as you say Mapou, of separating yin and yang, but modern civilization is undoubtably a great and human achievement, even if that (ongoing) achievement has gaping imperfections.LarTanner_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

You are forgetting Jerad, that most of those children were evil and deserved to die and the few that weren't are actually lucky to be given the opportunity to die (according to FMM)5for_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Jerad, you are starting to try to build without the foundation. Start with, what are the foundational things that reasonably explain evils as objectionable, rights as binding, etc. That is, what grounds OUGHT at world foundation IS level. Rhetorical approaches (which are typical in exchanges) are not really good at answering to worldview level questions, where for instance the first comparative difficulties lesson is that if there were easy answers the question would not be a worldview level question. Hence, the significance of comparative difficulties. KF PS: It would also help to ask, what capabilities are needed to genuinely love, think for oneself, and decide for oneself, then ask, what happens if someone then decides to abuse that ability. And, what the world would be like without such abilities.kairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

5for, there are several types of things that tend to get clumped with weather forecasting, probably for reasons of convenience. It's no surprise that a network with expertise on weather event warnings would be a convenient administrative head for tsunamis. Call it network economics if you will. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Joe #434
And God still isn’t beholden to keith’s definitions nor does God care about keith’s “judgments” and lack of vision.
No, but surely it is reasonable to ask how a kind and loving creator would have considered such an event? I don't see it being a problem asking such questions. Look at what happened in Pakistan today. Is there a problem with asking: how could a loving, caring, omnipotent and omnipresent creator condone such things? Okay, God granted us free will, allowed us to be 'evil'. But does that imply the right for us to impose great pain and suffering on others? What lesson are we and they learning in that case? That there are objective morals and standards but we can violate them if we wish because we can? That one person's need to explore their evilness overrides others' piety and grace? Let's look at it another way: what if it had been your child who was gunned down today while at school. Would that then just be part of God's plan or his willingness to let us make our own way? Would you still consider there to be a purpose to it all? I'm happy to have my assumptions proved wrong. I'm happy to have such events rectified and alined with a greater truth. That's all I'm asking. Explain it to me. Clearly.Jerad_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Box@ 438: no. But I wouldn't call that a weather forecast either.5for_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

keith:
The world makes so much more sense if a) God isn’t perfectly loving; or b) God isn’t all-powerful; or c) God doesn’t exist at all.
This is a strawman. There is a fourth option: d) God is perfectly loving but he cannot separate the yin from the yang. In other words, as I have said before, wanting to have happiness without suffering is like wanting to have left without right. This current era is the time of our suffering. A new era is coming in its time, one of happiness and unbounded joy. Wake up, keith. You are sounding like the devil's disciple. LOL.Mapou_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

5for #432: well as someone living in a country prone to tsunamis, I certainly have never heard them being featured in weather forecasts.
That's weird. Do you never check NOAA's National Weather Service - Pacific Tsunami Warning Center ??Box_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
I think you’re saying that all spirits have been in existence eternally. How was that finite number of spirits (513 trillion, for example) arrived at? That number just always existed – not one more or less?
Well, I would not say that spirits have existed eternally since time/change is a physical concept. Spirits do not change: they just are. As far as the number of spirits is concerned, who knows? The spiritual realm cannot be known directly, not even by God. We can only know spirits indirectly by their actions in the physical realm. By the way, this is the reason that consciousness is such a hard concept to understand. I have said it before. Consciousness requires a knower (spirit) and a known (brain). The two are opposites. That is to say, the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know.Mapou_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Keiths' struggle with the truth may not be fully under his control. We know he does it to discredit his adversary when he cannot argue on the merits, but it isn't quite that simple. There are two medical conditions that may define his behavior, but the practical use of language makes it difficult to personalize The first condition, psuedologia fantastica (compulsive or pathological lying) is difficult to convert to a single word. The term "psuedologiac," for example, doesn't fully capture the full meaning. The other condition, mythomania, lying to exaggerate, can be personalized as mythomanic, but it doesn't really serve to describe the tactical nature of the act. I don't really like to keep using the word "liar," since it tugs away at UD's attempt to foster civil communication. Any ideas?StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus,
Box #422: Can God endow a creature with wisdom and moral insight equal (or near equal) to His own?

Kairosfocus #423: that would require omniscience or near omniscience, where (just to illustrate) infinity – a finite number –> infinity, i.e. there is a qualitative difference between the finite and the infinite.
Kairosfocus, thank you for your answer. Endowing a creature with God's wisdom and moral insight would violate the unity/harmony of a being. It would be like trying to infuse the theory of quantummechanics into a baby. IOW it doesn't fit.Box_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Well, islanders and other animals heard the warning of the 2004 tsunami. And God still isn't beholden to keith's definitions nor does God care about keith's "judgments" and lack of vision.Joe_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Phinehas:
God’s answer is still the same: Who are you to question me?
I'm not questioning God. I'm questioning you. You believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God. How do you answer my two questions?
1. Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami? 2. Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive?
If your answer is "I don't know" or "God works in mysterious ways", then I have a third question for you: 3. Why do you continue to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God when there are much better explanations available? The world makes so much more sense if a) God isn't perfectly loving; or b) God isn't all-powerful; or c) God doesn't exist at all. Why ignore the evidence?keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Keith @430, well as someone living in a country prone to tsunamis, I certainly have never heard them being featured in weather forecasts. And I would say, StephenB, its ok to admit you made a mistake.5for_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Mapou
God can only create the physical, not the spiritual. Spirits, which have moral agency, cannot be created destroyed or modified. They just are. The spirit you had at birth is exactly the same spirit you now have as an adult. God only created our bodies which serve as receptacles for our spirits.
I think you're saying that all spirits have been in existence eternally. How was that finite number of spirits (513 trillion, for example) arrived at? That number just always existed - not one more or less?Silver Asiatic_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB #426, I'll let the readers judge your answer for themselves: keiths:
Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami?
StephenB:
Because there was no reason for God to do so. Haven’t you ever heard of a weather forecast? Do you think God should have warned us personally and not through the weatherman?
keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Mung, A reminder. keiths #407:
Mung, As a Christian, how would you answer my two questions?
1. Why didn’t God warn us of the impending 2004 tsunami? 2. Why didn’t God intervene to prevent Jessica Chambers from being burned alive?
You’ve been unable to defend your faith in the past. Here’s a new opportunity. Will you step up and deliver, or will you avoid the questions, like kairosfocus?
keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply