Design in the Universe + Evil + Suffering=???

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Information Theory | 182 Comments

 
«
»
 

182 Comments

martyboy says:
January 9, 2010 at 11:35 am

I can’t see how theories of a cyclic universe, infinite regression or multiverses to explain abiogenesis really helps when considering evolution. If the number of attempts to create complex organic matter from more elementary chemistry, with the potential to copy itself is approaching the infinite then even if it did happen what then? So we have a pool of amino acids, or a simple protein or even an elementary form of RNA. Theories concerning abiogenesis are interesting but don’t solve the question of whether purely random changes and natural selection, or Intelligence, is the cause of mind-boggling complexity and apparent purpose. Or as someone once said. ‘The universe consists of some hundred or so chemical elements some of which have associated in such a way as to contemplate their own existence’. It’s what happened after that first accidental organic molecule which is the real question.

Smurfmash says:
January 10, 2010 at 7:04 pm

@Martyboy Well I personally do not think abiogenesis is unlikely or even rare in a universe as large and as old as we find our selves in. However I used a infinite universe as a mathematical solution to this debate.

You see if a universe is infinite there are infinite possibilites therefore life is in fact impossible to have never occurred. Mathematically.

If anything can and will happen at some point due to the universe going on forever then “life” is a certainty. The first organic molecule evolved and from then on life never stopped evolving.

Order out of chaos is not unusual in this universe. Salt crystals, metal, snow flakes, solar systems, star fusion, there are many examples of ordered matter. Life is just the only one that has developed to the point that it is aware of the fact.

martyboy says:
January 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Smurfmash. With regard to the suggestion that given enough time and enough opportunities the first replicating organic molecule must have happened. Someone once suggested when questioning the credulity of that statement that ‘It doesn’t matter how long you shuffle a pile of bricks you will never get a Greek temple’. But assuming the premis is correct, as mentioned in my last post the real problem then begins. When you say ‘life never stopped evolving’ that is the essence of this whole debate, naturalism or supernaturalism or both. The big question is, could mega complex biological systems each consisting of many co-dependent components, themselves mega complex, have evolved without intelligence? I find such a thesis difficult to imagine. I also find the concept of a creator God difficult to imagine so my interest is confined to asking questions and not making assertions. But I have to say that what I have read from the ID theorists and philosophers who are sympathetic to ID, seems pretty compelling. They argue in great detail how they believe all these fortuitous random changes in biochemistry etc could not have happened naturalistically, largely based on probability, without some kind of intelligence. Now materialists or Darwinists seem to say ‘Well since the idea of God is ridiculous there must be a natural explanation’. They hand wave complex biochemical structures into place and fall back on random mutation and natural selection over vast periods of time. But that isn’t a scientific explanation it’s an idea. But neither is ID, and neither view is falsefiable as are proper scientific theories. Both views it seems to me are a question of faith.

Smurfmash says:
January 13, 2010 at 4:54 pm

I just watched a very interesting program called Horizon the topic of this episode was viruses. it detailed how we have made synthetic viruses.

You say “With regard to the suggestion that given enough time and enough opportunities the first replicating organic molecule must have happened. Someone once suggested when questioning the credulity of that statement that ‘It doesn’t matter how long you shuffle a pile of bricks you will never get a Greek temple’.”

What would you say if I told you we have created RNA in a lab by combining the ingrediants — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules and heated and cooled them?

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/#ixzz0cX9Emqc8

“They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.”

No RNA is not life…. But combinations of RNA in the right combination are… What would you say if I told you scientists have placed RNA in sequence and created a exact copy of the polio Virus? A SELF REPLICATING ORGANIC MOLECULE. They figured out the order then they ordered the RNA in ordered chunks from labs all over the country and then put them together in the right order. It began to self replicate. It took them less than two weeks and there were only 7500 pairs. Not that mind bogling really is it? Not massive numbers verging on infinity. And once you have a self replicating organic molecule that mutates… Well then evolution does all the rest.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-are-scientists-able-to-artificially-synthesize-a-virus.htm

“The polio virus, with 7,500 base pairs, has also been synthesized from scratch. Synthesizing the Phi-X174 virus was a rapid task — with contemporary technology, it only took two weeks. Synthesizing other virii has taken months”

We have created life. We have created RNA in a lab and then we have put the RNA in a sequence and it begins to replicate all by itself. LIFE.

So to create abiogenesis well we now know the maths… Its four ingrediants in the right order with heating and cooling occuring. Then you end up with lots of RNA in the sand. Then they have to line up in the correct 7500 sequence. Ah but they don’t that is just one viable sequence there are millions of viable sequences one for every kind of virus and limited numbers of RNA there are not 7500 different types of RNA .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Suddenly the fact humans can build a virus from scratch from 4 core components to make RNA and then 7500 RNA in the right sequence and create a self replicating organic molecule makes you realise that abiogenesis is not so unlikely after all..

If you use the drake equation and simply work out the number of habitable planets in the milky way alone it comes up with 50000 and there are at least 100 BILLION galaxies.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Then take into account the age of this universe which is 14 BILLION years.

This is like playing a LOTTO which to win you have to get 64 different balls in the right 7500 long sequence

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/583rnatypes.html
“It has been determined that the genetic code is actually based upon triplets of nucleotides which provide 64 different codes using the 4 nucleotides.”

Sounds tough… But then you have been playing every day every second for 14 billion years in 5000000 billion different “games” (planets) ”

Perry Marshall says:
January 13, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Paul,

*Excellent* question.

“7500 RNA in the right sequence”

and

This is like playing a LOTTO which to win you have to get 64 different balls in the right 7500 long sequence

You’re a smart guy, I’m sure you know how to do combinatorial statistics. It’s X to the power of Y.

How many possible combinations are there of 7500 balls, if you know that they have to be in the right sequence in order to work?

Smurfmash says:
January 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm

OK hands up you win one.

The smallest plant virus has just 300 RNA strands

The maths. ((1/64) to the power of 64)) x 300 = a number too small for my calculator to handle. = (A) = probability of a specific 300 RNA plant virus to form

Number of chances for life (B) = (by 50k habitable planets per galaxy) x (400 billion galaxies in the universe) x (14 billion years) x (525 948.766 minutes in a year)

My calc won’t even handle the numbers. If anyone does want to have a go feel free! It’s only A x B :)

So yes looking purely at “random chance” for this the odds are pretty near zero.

However. As I said there are MILLIONS of KNOWN working combinations. There are plant viruses with less than 300 RNA strands. Also There is repetition in the genomes of all Viruses and life forms repetition says to me replication and duplication of basic components which were once independent. Meaning there are simpler forms before the virus level. This has some validation based on:

Taken from Wikipedias page on viruses

“Prions are infectious protein molecules that do not contain DNA or RNA.[48] They cause an infection in sheep called scrapie and cattle bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow” disease). In humans they cause kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.[49] They are able to replicate because some proteins can exist in two different shapes and the prion changes the normal shape of a host protein into the prion shape. This starts a chain reaction where each prion protein converts many host proteins into more prions, and these new prions then go on to convert even more protein into prions. Although they are fundamentally different from viruses and viroids, their discovery gives credence to the idea that viruses could have evolved from self-replicating molecules.[50]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

So no RNA jumping to virus is pretty near impossible. BUT earlier forms combining from RNA into things like prions or even simpler building blocks for life is.

We currently do not know the genome for the most basic RNA sequence that kicked off the entire process of life. When we do I will do the maths again. :)

Steve says:
January 18, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Smurfmash’s statements about scientists synthesizing RNA and assembling viruses in the laboratory demonstrate that the creation of replicating life forms requires intelligence. It won’t happen spontaneously without the planning and guidance of intelligent agents.

Generating virus forms in the laboratory requires intelligent agents that understand how molecules will interact and assemble. Virus assembly is a very tedious, stepwise, and highly controlled experiment and it won’t occur without precise organization and planning devised by intelligent agents.

Smurfmash acknowledges the neccessary input of intelligent agents in creating a replicating life form as indicated by his three quotes below:

(1)”What would you say if I told you WE (intelligence) HAVE CREATED RNA in a lab by combining the ingrediants — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules and heated and cooled them?”

(2)”What would you say if I told you SCIENTISTS (intelligent agents) HAVE PLACED RNA in sequence and CREATED a exact copy of the polio Virus? A SELF REPLICATING ORGANIC MOLECULE. They (Intelligent agents) figured out the order then they ordered the RNA in ordered chunks from labs all over the country and THEN PUT THEM TOGETHER IN THE RIGHT ORDER (planning, organization, and intent).”

(3)”WE (intelligent agents) HAVE CREATED LIFE. WE (intelligent agents) HAVE CREATED RNA in a lab and then WE (intelligence) HAVE PUT THE RNA IN SEQUENCE (planning, organization, intent) and it begins to replicate all by itself. LIFE.”

martyboy says:
January 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm

I think the synthesis of RNA is some achievement but it took 21st century technology and scientific knowledge. That’s purpose and intention i.e. intelligence. Perhaps it could have happened from a primordial soup but it’s what happened thereafter that stretches the imagination, mind blowing complexity of co-dependent biological systems and conscious beings. And don’t viruses need a living cell in order to replicate? Presumably living cells preceded viruses. And viruses are still viruses. Is there any evidence for viruses, or bacteria for that matter which are far more complex evolving into higher organisms?

Smurfmash says:
February 7, 2010 at 9:56 am

21st century technology and scientific knowledge to break down the steps reverse engineer it and replicate it. Of course! But that is quite different to a planned or designed construction. Yes to replicate something we require a large amount of knowledge and skill. But this does not mean it took the same level of self aware intelligence to create it in the first place. The point is the scientists found methods for creating life that ONLY require heating cooling and positioning of RNA. IE right place right time. Certainly something that natural process are capable of.

The synthesised Polio virus self replicated in the protein it was created in it did not require cells to replicate. Which yes amazed scientists.

Is there any evidence for viruses evolving into higher life forms?

Check out this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC124369/

But in short once you have a self replicating organism that can mutate in a challenging environment. Evolution is proven to do the rest.

Now you see the steps… Doesn’t seem so impossible does it.. In fact the analogy of a 747 being built by a tornado is HARDER as a 747 has more than 300 components (RNA) and these components do not naturally occur. RNA does naturally occur and plant viruses only have 300 RNA strands

Perry Marshall says:
February 19, 2010 at 9:42 am

Re: RNA: If natural processes are capable of this then where are any other self-replicating machines?

Von Neumann determined in the 60′s that self replicating machines require code. Code requires a designer – no known exceptions.

If you can show me an example of a naturally occurring code that conforms to the model in http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq I’ll write you a check for $10,000.

Finally I have to challenge something you said: “Once you have a self replicating organism that can mutate in a changing environment, evolution is proven to do the rest.”

I submit to you that this is NOT true. Case in point: Computer programs and viruses can mutate all they want to. Computers can replicate them easily. They’re all in a natural selection environment.

But when have you ever seen computer programs evolve by themselves without first being programmed to do so? You’re computer guy – if such things existed you would surely know about them.

All things that evolve, evolve only because they’re designed to evolve. There are no known exceptions to this either.

Cells evolve not through random mutation but through highly ordered re-arrangement of genes, transpositions, horizontal gene transfer and internal cellular genetic engineering. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution and the papers referenced there.

Avron says:
January 31, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Dear Mr. Perry Marshall; you have stated this:
“If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.”
OK, well I have one. There are actually others, but you said one would be all it takes; so here it is: This code is a naturally occurring code that governs everything in nature from the shape a spiral galaxy takes to stock-market trading trends and many other forms of human as well as animal and plant behaviour. It was first seen by an Italian mathematician when he noticed
that the breeding of rabbits always followed a very distinct and predictable pattern; from there it became obvious that this pattern or “code” was everywhere in nature.
Your not a naive man Dr. Marshall, I’m sure you have figured out what I’m talking about, which is the infamous Fibonacci sequence.
You may be tempted to argue that “it’s a coincidence of nature” or that it’s “not perfect” but how can it be either Dr. Marshall? You implicitly stated that “no example of a code in nature can be anything but designed intelligently” but here is an example; an empirical, rock-solid example of a pattern or “code” that is not only seen in tree leaves, Nautilus shells and other forms of life including animal and human behaviour themselves, but is also seen in every purely physical phenomenon from crystal formation to the orbits of planets in solar systems to the shapes of galaxies themselves!
In fact Dr., this code is so important and useful that professionals ranging from floor-brokers working daily at the New York Stock Exchange to Astronomers and mathematicians of many genera use it every day.
So there you have it; a code (which by the way is also seen in those snowflakes you started your show with) that is seen everywhere in nature, yet exists *purely* as a result of natural processes and nothing more.
If you have a rational argument for this, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, unless you can show me where either this is *not* a code or where it *must* have been “designed” by an intelligence, your argument is now overturned sir…and like I said in the beginning; this is just ONE example; there are many others. The Fibonacci sequence is just the most obvious and well-known. Brian Harred, AuDCT., S.A.PhD.

Perry Marshall says:
February 19, 2010 at 9:47 am

The fibonacci sequence is real and I’m very much aware of it, but it is not a communication system, which requires encoder > code > decoder, all three operating together. If you do the full exercise and try to apply the Shannon model to the fibonacci sequence (see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq ) you’ll see what I mean.

Anton says:
February 19, 2010 at 5:44 pm

Hi Perry! You agree that God knew beforehand what Adam and Eve would do, right? If God did not want Adam to eat from the tree and therefore be punished, why did he put the tree there? Its only purpose was to give God an excuse for punishing man? On omnicient and onmipotent god would have known what would happen.
Its like not wanting your child to draw on passport then leaving the child in a room and deliberately handing him both your passport and a box of crayons. You know whats gonna happen so why let it?

Isn’t God all loving?

Perry Marshall says:
February 20, 2010 at 7:22 am

I think it is very clear that God knew what would happen, and that God put the tree there deliberately. Theologians have generally agreed on this for millennia. I would suggest to you that it was very important to God for us to have free choice. I do not see this as God looking for an excuse to punish us. But rather for him to by loved by us as a choice, not as a default position.

martyboy says:
February 19, 2010 at 12:32 pm

Dr Harred doesn’t seem to appreciate the real nature of a code. A snow flake does not form as a result of a code, it forms as a result of forces being applied to frozen water in accordance with the laws of physics. As I see it laws are not codes. A simple example is the Morse Code. Each letter of the alphabet is represented by a series of dots and dashes. The dots and dashes on their own mean nothing, they are senseless. They have to be de-coded or de-cyphered either by a human brain which has learned the code i.e. what each sequence represents or a machine which has been designed to de-cypher it.
The nucleotides in DNA bear no resemblance to the protein molecules they code for in their synthesis. They have to be de-cyphered like the dots and dashes in the Morse Code. As I see it the code in the nucleotides must pre-exist because it represents the synthesis of much greater complexity. A series of a, g, t, c, bases do not look like or act like haemoglobin for example.
Could a series of bases encode themselves into a specific sequence i.e. a code, so that the laws of physics and chemistry decodes it in order to synthesize staggeringly complex highly specific compounds which make a conscious human being? That’s the $64,000 question.

martyboy says:
February 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm

Perry, you are clearly influenced by Hubert Yockey’s work. I reproduce a criticism here from Amazon of Yockey’s book. I apologise for its length but would welcome some comment.

< DNA, DNA -> RNA, RNA -> DNA, and RNA -> protein. This is based on the known mechanisms of transcription and reverse transcription etc. in modern forms of life that we have characterized to date. Yockey shows that because a codon includes three bases each with four possible types (ACGT) that there are 64 possible codes that represent the 20-22 possible amino acids in a sequence. The genetic code is redundant according to the argument so that it is impossible that DNA could arise from proteins. Yockey’s ultimate conclusion is that DNA/RNA must have come before proteins and that the ultimate origin of life is unknowable. I find the argument naïve, most likely incorrect and essentially a DNA bias. If we can allow that the genetic code is redundant because of codons, we must acknowledge that in fact the genetic code is the product of complexes of proteins and are a consequence of these complexes. Each base is in fact metabolically constructed by sequences of proteins. It is entirely conceivable to construct new codes for unusual amino acids by altering the protein sequences, something that is being done today by biotechnology companies to generate new peptide based therapeutic drugs. So the information content of proteins is not just 20 amino acids but the trillions of proteins that can be generated through differing sequences which can produce unique catalytic reactions including generating new codes. In addition, the complexes of the proteins contain essential information, e.g., changing the sequence of metabolic reactions or the individual proteins. The protein information space is essentially unlimited and is much more redundant than the genetic code. It is true that the forms of life we characterize today utilize a process that is described by the Central Dogma but it is not true that this is necessarily the way it has always been especially during the origin of life. It has been shown by other scientists that the components of proteins, aminio acids and peptides are readily formed under the conditions of the early earth. On the other hand the bases, nucleic acids, are not formed in this way and are exceptionally unlikely to have existed before amino acids and peptides existed. I would turn Yockey’s argument on its head and state that the protein space is so much more redundant that it surely originated prior to DNA/RNA>>

I can’t see how the view that proteins existed before DNA casts any doubt on the thesis that DNA is a product of intelligence, or am I missing something?

Perry Marshall says:
February 27, 2010 at 3:39 pm

This person has not really said anything, other than saying that there is a very large number of hypothetically possible compounds.

He has actually implied the need for design since he talks about “constructing new codes by altering the protein sequences” which would require an intentional act in an actual experiment.

But complexes of protein do not contain Shannon information. He talks about a “protein information space” But he’s really just referring to the infinite possibilities of randomness. Those things are never known to create coding systems.

This person is deriving their premise from their conclusion.

By the way Crick’s Central Dogma is clearly not true. Barbara McClintock disagreed with it and Shapiro writes about that in this paper:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122652528/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

martyboy says:
February 28, 2010 at 5:07 am

Thanks Perry,
I love your comments that are clearly based on scientific reasoning and not the emotional wishful thinking arguments put forward by many apologists.

chiplinden says:
February 28, 2010 at 8:23 am

The “Big Bang” yet continues as latent energy is slowly released, even within our own small planet. Within a “Nano-second” (with respect to Cosmic time scale) there has been the earthquake in Haiti, off Japan´s coast and just yesterday (Feb. 27, 2010) In Chile.
The dynamics continue throughout the entire universe and we are only priviledged to witness a tiny portion of what is going on.
Again we are reminded-how small we are, not only on a planetary scale, but even smaller considering the solar system/galaxy and the never ending Universe.
Of course without events such as these there is no re-newal, without death there is no new life, so all these factors we are all still participating in the never ending – continuing “Bang”. When all these things stop, the universe will truly be dead.

Joe-materialistic says:
March 15, 2010 at 6:13 pm

Dear Perry,

I must apologise, i am extremely confused.
First off, i do not understand what exactly are you trying to prove, god simply doesnt exist, its a fact, everyone knows it that’s why people have doubt.
I read one of the articles, and someone asked, if god created us, then who created god.
My personal opinion is that we created god (our civilisation). Lets talk about sanity, If a human sees all around himself – normal – then he is sane however if a human sees something abnormal – non worldly, the human will not be sane, but think its insane what he expiriences as it is out worldly, if you understand what i mean.
Now, if you experiment with a simulation, say a Super computer simulates a small tribe of people, obviously, this tribe of people do not have the technologies we attained through the years, and ask them, what is that shining light known to us as thunder. Their knowledge of things is limited, and would most obviously say – Its a creation of the gods, it is a Devine demonstation of powers of which they do not know.

Now, as our scientists meddle with experiments, they come to discover that that indeed is not a divine demonstration but a simple effect of the polarization of charges.
If you ask a caveman what he thinks of our modern day quantum physics, hell answer, the gods have created everything. they are responsible for everything.

Now that you say that you have prevent that god exists through communication, i do understand metaphorically, however if you speak of facts, it is no proof at all!
i understand your thought of, if words are thought, therefore our world is sane through our thoughts, then why do you doubt this idea and say god exists when you know that god infact was created by our own thoughts. And, how do you explain the continuous creation and extermination of religions, im talking about religions from 2000 BC to our present day 2010 AD.
How do you explain Zeus, then Serapis, Then Christianity, then Mormens.
Is this not ridiculous to you?
Or Scientology, is that not ridiculous?

I understand that there is deep philosophical conflicts between people here, but thats what we are, are we not? – we are different. Thats what humans are.
And then there is God, our creation, Religion, Our creation, Knowledge, Our sane understanding of all Matter and non matter.

So, im a little confused here, when you tell me you have proof of gods existence
If you have seen “religulous” , there is a certain image displayed at the end of the movie. It is that of a Naked man with a penis, and is kept alive on the mountain top in, i think it was England.
The villagers of that camp keep the Giants image alive by redefining the outline of the giant. And the villagers keep the myth of a giant living under the mountain alive.
How do you explain that?, they dont know why their doing, they just are.

Then we have the doubts of our modern world, the myths of religion, the myth of Evil and Demonic Figures, and the Myth of Angels, All manipulative of our fears in hope of control over a mass of people.
Religion has become for a fact a political term, in my opinion.
God is nothing but our creation.
Our understanding of “all” is attributed to past philosophers and present ones too, becouse scientists are also a form of philosopher, are they not?
I believe our ”Faith” is nothing but a thought, our beliefs are nothing but a hypothesis, and our philosophy is an attempt of understanding the existence of all.

If you think graph sense – meaning using mathematics, measurements, statistics, chemistry, etc., you may gain much more understanding then quiting, and believing that simply there is a greater being than us, and this being whether divine or not, has the utmost power of creation and destruction etc.

Therefore, i apologise for the length of this comment, however i dare say, im absolutely confused.

A former Christian living in a Muslim country, that now is officially atheist.

Perry Marshall says:
April 7, 2010 at 11:33 am

Joe,

Please read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq very carefully, most of these Q’s are at least indirectly answered there. Then come back for clarification.

Joe-materialistic says:
March 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm

I am starting to pity the idea of using sciense to proove the existence of god, simply it is impossible.

God doesnt exist, point.
Why? Becouse the bible and the quran, and all other books are written by man.
True or not, i do not know, but i believe it is.

I beg anyone to tell me this is not true, i beg anyone to give me a full factuall truth that god exists.
From what i have learned, and im only 20, is that matter is what exists, and we are a mistake, nothing but a mistake, a small tiny little nothing that luckily evoluted in the span of a couple of million years, thinking how absurdly “no effect” we are to the ever existant space that is out there.

So a faithfull person i presume would say, God created space?
How if space was there forever, Before our limits of knowledge.
If space is unlimited, then, we are nothing. Then there is for fact aliens,
Not speaking sci fi here, but for a fact, if we exist in our galaxy, what makes us so sure were the only ones in an unlimited space?

AND what makes us so sure, that our understanding of our universe and our knowledge of Particles, quantum physics, time, matter etc, is all that there is.
imagine becouse that is what you can do, its a form of Hypothesis, something that we can do to create reason with which we can operate,
Imagine that, our understanding of physics, comes to the limit of our galaxy.

What then?

We have another 9999999999999999999999999 ——– Unlimited new things we have to discover, do you understand?
If that is true that space is unlimited, so wheres god in the middle of all this mess?
Nowhere but on earth, in our minds, thats all, fruit of our creation.
Tell me im wrong.

Eocene says:
April 12, 2010 at 9:58 am

Apparently Joe did’nt bother to read the FAQ.

Sweet.

Eocene says:
April 12, 2010 at 9:55 am

Hi Perry

You use to have a Topic followed by comments here. But now I can’t find them, so I’ll address my point in this section since it seems the closet to the subject asked by Richard Juergens.

“Another tangent…… concerning “hell”. I struggle trying to understand how a compassionate Creator can condemn anyone, no matter how monstrously evil and destructive, to “everlasting punishment in hell”. It seems more rational and “just”, to me anyway, to simply destroy an unrepentant and evil by choice, spirit…..Eradicating it forever from existence. Some faiths teach this as the “2nd death”. I’m curious what your thoughts on this might be. ”

Richard Juergens

You responded with this.

“Hell as everlasting punishment: I have some level of doubt that that’s what it is. I think there’s a case to be made that evil people are destroyed in hell. About half the passages in scripture seem to be saying that.”

Perry Marshall

One of the best ways to understand the truth of the meaning of the orignal words , Hebrew ‘sheol’ & Greek ‘hades’ is to look up their (and this is real important here) ORIGINAL (purpose / intent) meaning when used in the original biblical writtings by their writers. Rather than some hideous place of eternal damnation of torment and suffering, the actuall meaning is nothing more than the “common grave of mankind”. Fortunately for every person interested in learning about the truth of this matter, it doesn’t take an Intellectual Genius, College Professor or an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to look up words in Bible dictionaries and Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

The Hellfire doctrine did not enter into the modern Christianity until around 300 CE long after the death of the Jesus & his Apostles, both of whom warned that such spiritually unhealthfull teachings would enter in after they had died. While alive, these faithful christians kept such apostacy in check. Hence they were a deterent. As you can read from the record in the Greek Scriptures (NT) there were attempts to try and subvert the clean teachings, even the names of such individuals were recorded for our benefit.

It’s introduction into what was left of Christianity was more of a political move as opposed to some brighter light of understanding. What was left of the mighty pagan Roman Empire was salvaged and held together fusing both Christian and pagan concepts to satisfy both groups and hence became the “Holy Roman Empire”. The Hellfire doctrine as used by pagans was a way to control the ignorant masses. Pagan nations around the nation of Israel for centuries had promoted such a hideous belief. The Israelites never believed or taught such a concept.

Here’s an example.
Genesis 2:16-17 ( American Standard Version )
“16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Notice the penalty from the start was death, not Hellfire. This agrees with what is said at
Romans 5:12 ( New International Version )
12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—”

Now look at what is expressed at Romans 6:7 ( New World Tanslation )
“For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.

The key word above is “AQUITTED” literally – ‘has been justified or freed’ , but we all know what the Legal word ‘acquitted’ means. You cannot be tried again on the same charges. So a person ( good or bad ) cannot be punished by being sent to a place of eternal torment because death was the price paid for sin.

This agrees with what Moses told the Israelites in one of his farewell addresses. Recorded at
Deuteronomy 30:10 ( New International Version )
“19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live . . ”

Speficially he said the choices were life or death, not life or Hellfire.

You are rather fond of Wiki lookups, here are two references as to the original meanings behind ‘Sheol’ & ‘Hades’. When I have time and you’ve seen this, I’ll show you what I do with those who insist there is such a place. It’s actually a very easy way to illustrate what the bible hell actually means. It’s in Revelation where both death & hell are always associated together.

Enjoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades#Hades_in_Christianity

Eocene says:
April 15, 2010 at 3:15 am

Hi Perry

Just a bit further on the Hellfire controversey.

I always enjoy pointing folks to the scripture at Revelation 20:15. This is the last verse in that chapter. I’ll have them read it or follow along with me and then ask them what they believe that verse is referencing to.

Revelation 20:15 ( New International Version ) – (All translations/versions say the same)

15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

In almost every single case folks without hesitancy will say it’s describing Hellfire and Damnation. They will insist that this so-called “Lake of Fire” is the actual literal place called HELL that is ever eternal.

Knowing that most people (well , English speakers) use the favoured ‘Athorized King James Version’ , I have them read in that version, verse 14 just before that verse 15 we just read. Here’s what it says.

Revelation 20:14 ( King James Version )
14 “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

So this is interesting. This expression “Lake of Fire” obviously does NOT mean the literal mythological place of HELL taught by most all churches, since verse 14 clearly shows that both ‘death’ & ‘hell’ (hades – sheol) are thrown into there. Then the expression is defined as to what is meant.

“This is the second death”

So what is definition mean. Well obviously all people face death period. There’s no escape from that, but the second death simply means judged for having no hope for continued existance ever. So ‘death’ and ‘hell’ are to be eliminated forever from human experience. Here’s how we prove this is so. If you have any cross marginal reference Bible, several verses will come up supporting this conclusion. For example look at this scripture regarding the future foretold fate of ‘death’, since this scripture is talking about mankind’s future hope of renewal.

Revelation 21:4 ( King James Version )
4 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Now zero in specifically on what is said about what happens to ‘death’.

” . . and there shall be no more death”

So how is it that ‘death’ is gone forever ????????? It’s in a symbolic sense, thrown into the “Lake of fire”, for which it becomes no more. This also agrees with another scriptural cross reference in which Paul spoke about future resurrection of the dead at 1 Corinthians 15:26.

1 Corinthians 15:26 (King James Version)
26 “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”

1 Corinthians 15:26 (New American Standard Version)
26 “The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”

1 Corinthians 15:26 (Amplified Bible)
26 “The last enemy to be subdued and abolished is death.”

1 Corinthians 15:26 (New International Version)
26 “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

1 Corinthians 15:26 (Young’s Literal translation)
26 “the last enemy is done away — death; ”

Look up any cross references and they will take you back to Rev 20:14, Rev 21:4, 1 Tim 1:10 and you find the same thought in agreement. So the real import here is that ‘death’ becomes , “nothing” , “destroyed” , “abolished” , etc by being thrown into the “Lake of Fire” which is only a symbolic expression anyway and not some literal place. Hence this would also be the same foretold fate of the bible ‘hell’. Hell is NOT an eternal place of torment and suffering. ‘Hell’ likewise as ‘death’ becomes “nothing” , “abolished” , or “destroyed” or done away with forever by being thrown into the symbolic “lake of fire” (second death).

So the question has to be asked, “Why have the churches promoted this lie all these centuries when clearly the just reading the Bible’s own definition slams their belief ???” It’s true that the Jesus and his apostles warned of the great apostacy after there going away from the Earthly scene, but who really was behind this belief originally ??? When you consider that the teaching of this doctrine was quite foreign to the nation of Israel, it was however heavily promoted from the beginning by ALL pagan religions around the nation of Israel. But who started it ??? It was Satan (Hebrew word meaning slanderer) when he LIEd and told Eve that she would “possitively not die” , but would rather eternally live on forever. Rather than continued living, she and Adam are both dead. This was why Jesus called Satan a “liar and the father of the lie”.

Notice also that with the Hellfire doctrine of eternal torment and misery, Satan is also shown in that doctrine to run the so-called literal place of “Hellfire”, but this is a lie as well. Notice who else gets thrown into the symbolic “lake of fire”.

Revelation 20:10 ( New International Version )
10 “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, . .”

So Satan also becomes nothing, destroyed, abolished, no more eternally. The judgement dericted towards him way back in Eden mentioned at Genesis 3:15 always pointed towards this fate. The prophecy specifically said Satan would bruise Jesus in the heal, but that jesus would bruise Satan (the “original serpent” as Revelation identifies him) in the head. Technically a head wound is more fatal than a wound in the heal. Jesus died and was resurrected, but Satan has no chance of a resurrection ever. He will also be symbolically thrown into the symbolic “lake of fire” and his angels who sided with him also. The later part of Revelation 20:10 shows that Satan experiences a torment forever and ever, this however only means that he (and his angels) have ALWAYS known what their future fate would become and it has been a torment to them. Interestingly the Greek would for torment can also mean jail or prison. The will not be conscious of anything, just non-existant forwever. But for the moment Satan still misleads and wishes to take as many people with him to his fate of non-existance. It’s kind of like Hitler’s “scorched earth policy” at the very end of the war of destroying everything if he couldn’t have it his way.

I hope this makes sense and helps you with any future reference. Trust me when I say that what I’ve shown here on the subject of ‘death and ‘hell’ is only the tip of the iceberg. There is even far more proof than what I references here.

I see you don’t post and publish everything I’ve posted here. That’s okay as it may get things on the Original Topic, but i simply wanted you to understand it since the atheist always bring it up. Mind you, it will NOT be popular among most claimed theists who have not personally investigated most traditional church doctrines themselves and compared them to what the actual bible teachings themselves are.

You’ve got my email on record or file in the backoffice tools if you’d prefer to ask behind the scenes questions.

Thanks, Eocene.

Perry Marshall says:
July 1, 2010 at 10:33 pm

I am somewhat inclined to agree with you. This is something I am still researching.

christaras says:
February 18, 2012 at 12:10 am

People shall be calm and accept,not hate others who disagree with them. This is for all..evolutionists,creationists, christians,atheists etc. Sadly, religious and political groups are ‘told’ by their elite rulers to hate other groups. And dont be fooled to think
that ‘religious’ refers only to christian groups and theists, but also to every religious or political group including atheistic organizations. This hatred promotion serves no salvation or fight for victory, but only the economical interests of the political and religious clergies. These serve in turn, the purpose of the great business men of the Earth.

So instead of being united by universal truths, people are separated by disagreements in details of beliefs. Why is there so much suffering? Why destruction is running faster and faster? Could it be that WE and our MATERIALISM are the
responsible ones?

You might want to check.

http://www.greeksandnordics-wisdomandmyths.blogspot.com/…/four-yugas-ages.html

diva2009 says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:56 am

James 1: 17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation or shadow.

JohnM says:
July 6, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Thanks Chas for the reply,

Where are you getting your sources from? And who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Regards

MSABBAH says:
November 23, 2009 at 10:44 pm

This is the conversation between God and Jesus (PBUH) on the Day of Judgment:
116. And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

117. “Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, ‘worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

118. “If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise.”

Abdullah says:
February 24, 2011 at 8:32 am

Well although I’m not an atheist I would like to “hear ” your thoughts on this.In the recent past I heard a conversation with a preacher from the US about TRUTH.He strongly argued that truth is just like a coin hence always has two sides.My problem with that view is this:What if I view truth as a cube? It would have mmm,six sides? Now the big question is:Is truth relative or not? I thought truth is just that :truth!

How can one extrapolate this statement made by somebody? :”Although it seems easier to exclude all but one possibility, and thus resolve all uncertainty, often more than one thing is true at the same time. Indeed, most Bible doctrines have two apparently opposing ‘faces’. For example, God is love, but also He hates evil; God is One but has three persons; we are saved by God’s grace alone, but also we must exercise faith to believe in what Christ has done for us on the cross; we live in a corrupted world, but this is not our home; one day we will die, but those who are in Christ will live forever; we are saved by God’s grace through faith and no good works can contribute to our salvation, but faith without works is dead. And there are many other examples. Attempting to resolve each tension will produce a heresy either by excluding one of the truths or by merging them together in a way which removes the potency of each truth.”

kerry says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:23 pm

Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus: “What is truth?” The trouble was that he never stuck around for the answer. You are correct-Truth by nature is exclusive. One can readily see this by a word experiment: Suppose someone makes the proposition: “There is no such thing as absolute truth” If that was taken as true then that statement is contradicting itself because in saying “there is no such thing” it is itself an absolute statement, therefore it self-destructs. This proves truth exists, and that it is exclusive. Truth can be simply expressed as “that which corresponds to reality” Truth claims or propositions can be tested with the laws of logic or rational thought. The most widely used being the laws of non-contradiction. Simply stated they go like this:
1. the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A),
2.the law of identity (A is A),and
3.the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)

To relate to the metaphors of truth as a coin or as a cube, truth is not determined by majority vote. People today think in relativistic terms saying what is true for you is your personal truth but isn’t necessarily true for me. An easy way to settle this is to ask: “Ok if I sell you goods worth $20 and you pay with a $50 note, is it okay to give you $5 change? After all this is true for me, too bad if it isn’t for you, we both have different realities, tough!” No, when it comes to mathematical realities we soon see the exclusive nature of truth, why should we see philosophical or religious truth any differently?

What we have to be careful about is the difference between contradiction and contrariety. Many things appear as contradictions when in fact they are merely contrarieties. In scientific terms, light is seen as a wave, and experiments can verify this as empirically true, trouble is light can also be experimentally proven as a particle, it appears they cannot be both (a contradiction- violating the law of logic), so what has happened is that a new view of light has encompassed the truth of both views which is how we get “photons”.

Many views in philosophy and religion are treated as contradictions when in fact they can be reconciled. Opposing views held dogmatically tend to polarize people into either or camps. This fact alone is evidence of the exclusive nature of truth. People cling to what they believe to be true. However some things must be held in tension, or in balance. Observe a long straight railway line, according to our eyesight the two metal tracks converge to form a point in the distance. Our eyes tell us this, but our knowledge and experience of perspective knows that any idea of convergence wouldn’t just derail our thinking it would also derail the train! Jesus said not to judge by appearances. In Bible doctrines there is often what appears to be opposing views, or what look like contradictions when in fact they are merely contrarieties. To cite your examples:
“God is love, but also He hates evil” But when “love” is properly defined, not according to human sentimentality but according to and in reference to the holiness of God, we see it would be evil not to hate evil. Hating certain things then becomes a function of love rather than the antipathy of love. A creed which defines “love” as the ultimate criterion for life but does not adequately define love, ends up tolerant of every evil; but virtue- as the compliment hypocrisy honours it with shows- is rejected, for it is jealously exclusive. And thus as David Hume once said, the corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst.

“God is one, but has three persons”. The doctrine of the trinity is not a contradiction in terms, God is one- in one sense and three in another sense. This is not a contradiction in terms. God is one in terms of essence, but not in terms of personality. As with the problem of Love and hate with God so too with trinity. If we measure love in human terms then we will have difficulty reconciling God hating for example Esau. But who has a right to determines the meaning of love? God or humanity? When it comes to the trinity we can say that according to mathematical certainty one cannot be three. But we are not speaking in terms of maths, God is one in one sense and three in another. To say that God cannot be one and yet three persons is to measure God according to a human ruler. C.S. Lewis wrote “[T]he mysterious something which is behind all things must be more than a person…something superpersonal…The whole purpose for which we exist is to be taken into the life of God.”

“As you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you don’t leave behind the things you found on simpler levels; you still have them, but combined in new ways—in ways you couldn’t imagine if you knew only the simpler levels…On the Divine level, you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being…Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube.”
When thinking about the Trinity, we should not think it is an impossible contradiction or bad math (1+1+1=1). The idea is that there are three distinct persons, so tightly knit together that the three are united as one being. “Being” is something different than “person.” We do not know exactly how, and these words are no more than imperfect analogies to our human experience. All we can say is that the life of God is both more complicated and simpler than the human experience. There is both unity and diversity in the being of God; God is “the One who lives as three.” And to a large extent, we must be content with not knowing how this works. After all, we are talking about God; we cannot expect our minds to be capable of fully grasping the infinite.

Isaiah 40:18 says:
“To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?”
and Isaiah 46.5:
“To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?” If we measure God in human terms then we “create” a God in our image. Man is the measure of all things including God! This is the nature of humanism. The trinity may be beyond our grasp of logic but isn’t necessarily antithetical to it. We merely concede that the trinity may be beyond our grasp as finite humans but not necessarily contradictory of logic.

Abdullah says:”Attempting to resolve each tension will produce a heresy either by excluding one of the truths or by merging them together in a way which removes the potency of each truth.”
When we allow contrarieties to polarize us it is indeed as you say re. heresy, but as followers of truth we ought to make the effort to resolve these, but where there is definite paradox which does not contradict logic but goes beyond our ability to describe it we have to submit to the infinite knowledge of the most high God and acknowledge our own limitations. One of the most difficult anomalies is the tension between the human will and the sovereignty of God. Human freedom is guaranteed by the fact that “We love God” Intrinsic to the definition of love is that it cannot be forced or compelled. And yet God is ultimate being, therefore His plans cannot be hindered or his will thwarted. The only way to understand this is to see that one is absolute the other contingent.

MSABBAH says:
September 14, 2011 at 2:10 am

Perry,
Where did you come to know that God is one in essence and three in personalities? Who gave you the right to divide God into essence and personality as two distinct beings? You are using human logic and philosophical assumptions and theories and applying them to God. The separation between a being essence and its personality exists only in human minds and in philosophical books, but not in Reality. We never heard in real life about any being with a distinguished separate essence as a being by itself (the essence) and a distinguished separate personality as a being by itself (the personality)!
Besides, why only three personalities, why not infinite number of personalities? and why one essence, not infinite number of essences?
The best to know God is God Himself, and we know about Him only as much as He told us about Himself. And God (Allah) told : “They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord, and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah―Allah will forbid him the Garden and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (72) They disbelieve who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (73) Why turn they not to Allah and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (74) Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (75)” Qur’an- Surah-5 (72-75)
God will never convey to human being confusing information that contradicts with and breaks the “built-in” logic in them. The Human make and logic as well as all communication and intelligence human capabilities are sourced from God the Creator, for human to be able to learn and communicate, so any information or messages coming from God to human should adhere to the rules and logic of “built-in” human capabilities in order for these messages to do their job of conveying the right information to human beings. Otherwise, if you think God is conveying confusing information to human beings (Trinity Doctrine as an example)then this would make God look like playing games with us (Glory to Him! and High is He above what wrongly disbelievers think about Him).
What we human should know verily is that all God wants is for human beings to know the truth about Him to help human worship Him the right way. Knowledge about Him is strongly with Simple, Clear and Direct information about Him, to produce the True Knowledge about Him. Thus we conclude: “Any claimed truth about God, should not be accepted as a Truth until it meets two conditions: First it should be told by God Himself about Himself (conveyed to us via Authentic series of Men starting with God’s Human Messengers and Prophets and then carried to us by their Honest followers and their Honest followers, in a manner that this information can not be questioned for being faked), Second this information should adhere to Human capabilities and generally accepted logic (a layman logic, like seeing the sun in the sky in the middle of the day and not doubting that: “This is the Sun”). Kerry, at any time, if anybody come to you to claim about any information that it is conveyed to human beings from God, and you found this information ambiguous and breaking the human logic then, be 100% sure these are false and pure lies. My advice, Do not accept them.

Comment Page 3 of 3«123

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.