God as the creator of spacetime cannot, by definition, be of spacetime (be of nature). — Devans99

...but we have no evidence of anything existing that is not part of spacetime, so you can't just assume it. Without evidence, it's merely a bare possibility - infinitesmal probability. So if we start with this question, we're done: no need to consider anything else. The fatal flaw in your argument is that it's a biased framework - choose questions that are loaded with biased assumptions.

As to whether God is made of some sort of material and whether he is complex or simple, I am not sure. — Devans99

If a material creator exists it's not God - because the same questions arise for the creator's material existence as for the universe's existence.

"Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis.
— Devans99
It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated.
— Relativist

The meaning of life is surely information - more information of good quality results in a better life. This applies to us and God equally. Which contains more good quality information - a non-life supporting universe or a life supporting universe? It is the 2nd, and that is what a god would seek to create.

In addition, God is constrained by logic to being benevolent. That means given the choice between creating a non-life supporting universe and a life supporting universe, he would always take the 2nd path. — Devans99

You're interjecting your prior beliefs about God, which means you're reasoning is circular. My original point stands that your fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that life is a design objective. Since that entails a designer, you are basically assuming God exists in order to prove he exists; i.e. it's circular.

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I'm just trying to help you understand why "proofs" of his existence fail.

If you're seeking a rational reason to believe in God, consider reading Alvin Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief." It contains nothing that is persuasive to a nonbeliever, but it proposes a rational framework for believers.

2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created.
— Relativist

I think this question overlaps with question [1] so it is not right to consider it separately in the probability analysis. I also think you are assuming that God must follow your common experience of what applies within spacetime. God is from beyond spacetime so I not believe that temporal constraints such as energy expenditure would apply. We as humans are only familiar with a tiny fraction of what might exist and trying to say that everything in existence must follow the tiny fraction (of what we know) is a fallacy. — Devans99

If the supernatural exists, that makes certain things possible that are othewise impossible. If God is natural, it raises other questions - like energy conservation, what he's made of, how he came to exist....The point is that the question of God's existence is complex, and creating some yes/no questions to which you apply 50%probababilities cannot possibly be an objective approach - the specific questions chosen are subject to bias, and the probabilities attached are subjective.

We run simulations of the universe on our computers, so it is not even beyond our very limited abilities; why then should it be beyond God's? I think this is therefore 100% yes. — Devans99

We simulate gross behavior and get general results. This simulation entails modelling from a pre-big bang state to the formation of 1st generation stars, to 2nd generation star systems with the building blocks of life and the conditions for abiogenesis- and determining in advance what life would look like. More importantly, when we model physical systems, we are applying known science. Observing and determining how the world works is of negligible complexity compared to designing how the world will work, from the ground up.

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis. — Devans99

Whether there was intent to create life is not relevant to the existence of a creator so this point does not belong in the probability analysis. — Devans99

It is relevant to your fine-tuning argument because that argument treats life as a design objective. Aside from the context of my questions entirely, this defeats the fine-tuning argument you stated.

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)
— Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist — Devans99

You're allegedly proving the existence of a creator, so you can't assume it.

[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.

You can follow both possibilities, and consider the probabilities. If he's material, and performing acts - he's expending energy; if the material and energy of the universe "must" have been created, then this material, energy-expending "god" must have been created.

[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang

This implies he didn't create the universe, he just played a role in shaping it - but this raises other questions: can energy come into existence, violating conservation of energy?

[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first

There is zero basis for your claim that it is possible.

[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?

Artistic pleasure; the joy of problem solving; scientific experiments to see what might result.

Your answers reveal your bias, and it demonstrates that your approach of applying the Principle of Indifference(POI) to carefully selected loaded questions also reflects bias. Compare this to a case where the POI is applicable, like coin flips: there is no alternative set of questions that leads to a different result.

Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials. — NOS4A2

What exculpatory evidence did I dismiss? I made a point of listing the facts of which I'm aware, and invited you to provide additional facts. You didn't do that.

A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.

Very little in life is certain, but we adopt beliefs along the way on a pretty constant basis. As I said, we should always remain open-minded and be willing to revise our beliefs based on new evidence.

Show trial? Sure, sort of - in that the Democrats were making a show of presenting the facts that had been discovered. I invited you to challenge them, and/or raise additional ones. Instead, YOU played the same as the House Republicans: you failed to confront the facts and just dismissed them with a wave of the hand as being partisan - as you're continuing to do. All I see is you engaged in a genetic fallacy: you assume the facts are wrong because they were presented by Democrats.

Instead of making these after-the-fact charges about me, why don't you go back to the list of facts I posted, comment on them individually and directly, and provide additional facts that I overlooked. That is the sort of discussion I was looking for in the first place. If I merely wanted to engage in partisan bickering, I would have merely stated my opinion rather than providing the basis for it.

Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking. — NOS4A2

Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.

It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.

"Proof" is ambiguous: it can imply absolute certainty, or it could simply refer to the evidence at hand. I'm referring to justified belief, and it is reasonable to belief a hypothesis that best fits the evidence and can plausibly be considered more likely than not. Adopting beliefs doesn't entail closing ones mind: beliefs should be revised if additional facts change the initial conclusion.

As an example, I remind you that I presented a set of facts pertaining to Trump's Ukraine scandal. I explained that IMO, the best explanation for those facts was that he did something wrong. I invited your input. I did essentially the same thing in another forum. No one disputed the facts or offered additional ones. This seems a reasonable justification for my belief that Trump did something wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if Trump would do something like this?

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not? — Relativist

I think you have to be careful with the question selection, but certain questions can be said to be normally distributed (between yes and no): — Devans99

Sure- when we have prior knowledge of the probabilites, as in a coin toss. When else is it reasonable?

If applying the Principle of Indifference (that's what is called when you apply equal probabilities to a set of possibilities), to a yes/no question is reasonable then the order and mix of questions should result in the same conclusion. Let's test that with a different sequence of questions:
1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)

Clearly, this doesn't lead to the same conclusion as in YOUR questions. Are any of my questions unreasonable?

One school of thought is that he says that she is ageing more slowly than he is, on both the outbound leg and on the inbound leg, but that he concludes that she instantaneously ages by a large amount during the instantaneous turnaround. — Mike Fontenot

I don't understand why he concludes she is instantaneously aging by a large amount at that turnaround. Suppose the turnaround were not instantaneous, but rather there's an instantaneous stop , a 10 minute delay to turnaround, followed by an instantaneous acceleration back to near light speed.

Shouldn't he conclude that during that 10 period, they are aging at (pretty close to) the same rate? As we shorten the turnaround interval towards zero, the same-rate-aging period gets shorter, and at a zero turnaround - the same-rate-aging period is zero.

What am I missing?

But you have statistical evidence (common experience) that there are no elephants in your backyard. So the question does not have a boolean sample space; it is loaded with evidence towards 'no'.
. — Devans99

You're trying to have it both ways. First you said:

By showing that the 2 possibilities are not symmetrical, you are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. — Devans99

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not?

By showing that the 2 possibilities are not symmetrical, you are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. I was assessing the proposition as 50%/50% - before introducing evidence for/against (as a separate step in the probability calculation). — Devans99

OK, let's treat what I said as evidence. The fact that you are ignoring this evidence demonstrates assymmetry and bias.

I think we can assume the probability space is normally distributed and so assign a 50%/50% chance of either. ... — Devans99

Normal distribution of 2 possibilities (creator, ~creator)? You're just restating your unsupported claim that we should consider these equally probable.

Like when we toss a coin 100 times, it comes out heads about 50% of the time.

Coin toss outcomes are symmetrical: each possibility is clearly of equal probability. We can't say that about the existence of a creator. Consider the possibility of an elephant in my backyard. There are exactly two possibilities (elephant, ~elephant), and (per your claims) we should ignore evidence (e.g. no elephants have been sighted in the vicnity), so that suggests we should consider the probabilty of an elephant in the backyard as 50%. That's silly.

That's laughable to call a presumption of innocence a "precious human right, considering your support for President who so frequently accuses people of crimes with little or no basis.

The presumption of innocence is a legal standard in a criminal trial. It's an appropriate standard for that, because of the consequences of conviction. That doesn't mean it's a good, general epistemic standard. Imagine being on the jury of an alleged child molester. You decide the evidence did not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, and because of your decision he's acquitted. Would you consider hiring this person to babysit your children? Would you even want that person living nearby? If not, what became of your presumption of innocence?

We are within our epistemic rights to judge people on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence if we've made an effort to understand all the available facts.

Thanks for the insight. I agree there was a historical mistake made, but there's no changing that. Do you have any thoughts about a path forward? e.g. two-state? one-state?

The existence/non-existence of a creator is not symmetrically balanced. How likely is it that the supernatural exists?
— Relativist

You are loading the question with evidence. My approach is to start at 50%/50% for analysing an unknown boolean proposition and then adjust that estimate in light of evidence.In this case, I do not think you have valid evidence against a creator. Supernatural is a rather loaded word with all sorts of connotations to ghosts and unexplained phenomena. — Devans99

I didn't give you any evidence. I merely showed that the 2 possibilities you presented are not symmetrical. You're obsessing on exactly one of the items of complexity I mentioned (supernatural), but that's beside the point. The point is that there's no objective basis for assigning prior probabilities to the two possibilities you stated (creator vs ~creator); the POI cannot be applied.

Furthermore, this is false:

If there is a creator then there is a 100% chance he is interested in life. — Devans99

There could have been a creator completely indifferent to what his creation might eventually result in.

. Is the universe life supporting by chance? That seems very unlikely. A billion to one shot maybe. — Devans99

Consider a random number generator that generates numbers between 1 and a1 billion. The number 379,219,771 is generated. It's odds were 1 in a billion. Should we be suspicious that the generator was not truly random?

2. There is separately (say) a 50% chance of a creator. If there is a creator then there is a 100% chance he is interested in life. That gives the chances of a creator who is interested in life at 50%

The principle of indifference can only be applied when the probabilities are symmetrically balanced, as in the probability of a coin coming up heads or tails. The existence/non-existence of a creator is not symmetrically balanced. How likely is it that the supernatural exists? that intentionality can exist without a physical basis? that an intelligence is omniscient/omniscient (or at least sufficiently knowledgable and powerful) to act? I could go in, but the point is that the POI is not applicable.

So [2] is more likely than [1].[/quote]

I agree that if one assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life, this entails a fine-tuner. The problem is that you cannot show that the universe was likely to have been fine-tuned for life. Your unstated premise is that life was a design objective.
— Relativist

It is extremely unlikely for a randomly specified universe to support life. There are about 20 fine tuned constants that have to be at or near their current values for life to be supported. — Devans99

You're missing the point: you are implictly treating life as a design objective. Indeed, if the goal was to have life, the designer needed to carefully tune those parameters. But that doesn't prove life was a design objective. Low probability things happen all the time purely by chance.

But X in this case is life - the prime reason anyone would create a universe. — Devans99

Sure -IF someone created the universe, life is a plausible objective. But you can't assume a creator if you're trying to prove there's a creator.

There are 2 possibilities: 1)life was an unintended consequence of the universe's properties. 2) life was a design objective.

You haven't given a reason to think #2 is more likely than #1.

Is there a creator? is a boolean question. It has a unknown sample space so we have to assume a normal distribution (IE 50%/50%) before taking any evidence into account. — Devans99

That's nonsense. It's a naive use of the Principle of Indifference.

I think it is necessary that the two biological sexes have certain areas that are separated from each other. A transwoman may feel comfortable in a women's restroom, but this is unfortunately a violation of a standard safe space for women. — darthbarracuda

I agree with much of what you said, but take issue with the above.

I actually agree with the first sentence - it makes sense that women would like to feel safe in the restroom. However, the second sentence is a bit tricky. A biological male who dresses as a women would feel unsafe in a men's restroom - particularly if they look like males.

I've noticed that some places of business are putting in multiple single-person restrooms that anyone can use. This sort of thing seems to me the best solution for all considered.

I say he's a criminal. Does anyone say differently? (A simple question: it will be interesting to see who cannot or will not give an appropriately simple answer.) — tim wood

Criminal: A person who has committed a crime. (source)

This definition does not say that conviction is necessary, just that the person committed a crime. So the question becomes: is it reasonable to believe Trump has committed one or more crimes?

There's pretty strong evidence that Trump is guilty of multiple counts of the crime of obstruction of justice, so it's reasonable to consider him a criminal on this basis.

There's a good bit of evidence he's guilty of sex crimes (sexual harassment and/or rape) ( source). My impression is that there's more evidence of his guilt than there was for BIll Cosby - so it's reasonable to consider him a criminal on this basis as well.

There's evidence he's guilty of violating campaign finance laws with respect to Stormy Daniels. His lawyer pleaded guilty to this and provided some evidence of Trump's guilt. There may or may not be enough evidence for a criminal conviction, but we can justifiably consider him a criminal because the preponderance of evidence supports the view that he committed a crime.

He's certainly guilty of multiple counts defamation (source: his twitter feed), although that is not a criminal offense (it's a tort). He certainly deserves to be sued, but this is not a basis to consider him a criminal.

It's murky as to whether or not he can be considered a criminal for killing Suleimani. (See this).

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99

I agree that if one assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life, this entails a fine-tuner. The problem is that you cannot show that the universe was likely to have been fine-tuned for life. Your unstated premise is that life was a design objective.

Life exists as a consequence of the universe's properties. Had the properties differed, there would be no life. So what? Just because something exists does not mean it's existence was planned.

In general, suppose the universe had a different set of properties, and this resulted in objects of type X. The mere existence of X objects does not imply X objects were a design objective rather than merely being an unintended, accidental consequence.

Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree. — Brett

Here's the statement of yours that I disagreed with:

The problem is that we have our own take on things and seek information that contributes to that view. There’s nothing wrong in that, unless you think that view is wrong, then the news source one has is either leftist or right wing. — Brett

I disagreed because it seems a wallowing in comfirmation bias. Now you suggest we might reach a point where one might think one's conclusions are correct. But that's the root of the problem.: we think we have correct conclusions, and we then only go to news sources that confirm them. A person who challenges his beliefs by seeking contrary views has a stronger epistemic basis for his opinions than someone who only seeks confirmation.

I agree its a different thing, but Trump still owns all the unintended consequences of what follows. It is part of the ledger upon which his actions will be judged by history.

But it is possible that this aircraft downing will actually have positive consequences - since Iranians are pretty pissed off that their government did this.

That does not follow, but if it's true - those other instances of inflation would not be detectable to us because they would be causally disconnected.
— Relativist

I do not believe they would be causally disconnected; they would be overlapping in time and space and there would be evidence of multiple instances of inflation. — Devans99

That's another big, convenient assumption. Why assume they should be causally connected (which just means they are detectable)? The fact that others have not been detected could mean there's just the one, or it could mean they are merely causally disconnected. You eliminate possibility #2 by assumption, and that's irrational - there's no basis for this, and so it simply sounds convenient.

I'll also add that even if there is but one inflationary landscape, that doesn't preclude the scenario I gave of inflation occurring from a high energy eigenstate, which results in the quantum collapse of the other eigenstates.

take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake. — BitconnectCarlos

Your point about indirect responsibility has some general merit, but not necessarily with Presidential actions that can have wide ranging consequences. History will judge his decisions based on the totality of consequences, whether they are intended or not - and that's how it should be. We don't yet know what will be the longer term total consequences, but this data point is clearly not in his favor.

Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence. — NOS4A2

Sure, but it's an unintended consequence of the tense state of affairs Trump got us in. So although Iran is directly responsible, Trump bears indirect responsibility for heightening tensions.

Personally, I cannot force my reasoning mind to believe something, no matter what might happen. — Carolyn Young

Agreed. On another forum, I've pointed out that this is simply not the way beliefs are formed. I'll share the best rebuttal I received.

This depends on having a benign view of some religion, despite not believing it. The benign view entails seeing that this religion encourages moral behavior (ideally, consistent with Piaget). Keep your true beliefs to yourself and join them; become an active member - participate in doing good works for the community. Engage socially with the best among them.

This might result in your coming around to to their way of thinking. This actually IS consistent with the belief formation process - we humans have a tendency to think in ways consistent with those around us. We become influenced by the context: everyone around us is doing good things, motivated religious beliefs, and we're hearing their reasoning - which can be quite rational, even if the ultimate intellectual foundation of their religious belief is shaky. After all, how many of our beliefs about the world are truly a consequence of pure reason, rather than largely just accepting the worldview of those around us?

In terms of Pascal's wager, it means choosing a course (which is feasible) - not directly choosing to believe something (which doesn't work). This seems fairly reasonable. I really doubt this would work for me (an agnostic-deist), but it could potentially work for some.

I do not believe quantum fluctuations can give birth to a whole dimension (time). — Devans99

The potential for time would have to have been present in the initial state.

If what you describe happened naturally, then there would be many instances of it (inflation).
There is but one instance of inflation so it is not a naturally occurring event.

That does not follow, but if it's true - those other instances of inflation would not be detectable to us because they would be causally disconnected.

As I expected, you're coming up with assumptions that dismiss the non-preferred alternative. It's futile to try and show that God's non-existence is impossible, and many philosopher's of religion would agree with this. You'd be better off just striving to show that your belief is rational - I acknowledge that it MIGHT be, but it is NOT rational if if depends on proving the unprovable, as you're trying to do.

Unless you live without a view on things at all, or oddly enough believe you are wrong, what else can you do and why? — Brett

Of course we all have a worldview, but we're also fallible and I think we should value truth. You won't get to truth simply by seeking out reinforcement for what you already believe. One should challenge his own beliefs, and this is best done by seeking alternative perspectives and trying to understand them.

Haven't you ever been in a conversation with an individual with whom you disagree strongly about something that you have a lot of knowledge about - so you are certain they're wrong? Wouldn't it be nice if that other person would be receptive to hearing the actual facts? We've all been in that situation, and probably on both sides of it. Only if you're willing to be wrong will you be receptive to learning what the truth actually is.

The problem is that we have our own take on things and seek information that contributes to that view. There’s nothing wrong in that, unless you think that view is wrong, then the news source one has is either leftist or right wing. — Brett

I disagree. There IS something wrong with that. As individuals, it reinforces confirmation bias.

We have established separately that there is a start of time. The start of time requires a cause. An uncaused cause. Quantum fields I feel are part of spacetime and so I doubt they can preexist spacetime (there is no time/space for them to fluctuate in). — Devans99

In theory, spacetime CONSISTS of quantum fields. Collectively, these comprise a quantum system. In this context, a quantum fluctuation is not a temporal event. The initial quantum state is zero-point energy; a quantum state is a superposition of all possible eigenstates, each with an energy value of (zero + a value associated with the uncertainty principle).

An eigenstate with high energy/low entropry will necessarily inflate, either collapsing the quantum system to this state, or (if Many-Worlds interpretation is true) - in a world that branches off the initial superpositioned quantum state.. The "cause" of this inflation is the high energy of that eigenstate; the existence of that high energy eigenstate is just a consequence of the quantum uncertainty of a zero point energy system - the quantum system as a whole has "zero" energy. Therefore nothing external needs to cause it to inflate.

A start of time needs a cause from from beyond spacetime. — Devans99

"Spacetime" may not be the right label to apply to the initial state I described, but it is clearly doesn't require anything external to inflate and become what we call a universe (spacetime). The "cause" is its high energy, and the initial high energy is a consequence of the quantum uncertainty of a zero point energy.

But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. — Devans99

Agreed. But a feature of time is not beyond time.

So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.

Not "beyond", but yes, of course there is no time prior to the state of affairs that is the first cause.

Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible — Devans99

Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist.

; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, — Devans99

Here's the assumption I anticipated. You assume there cannot simply be an initial state of affairs at an initial point of time. As I said, you're rationalizing your prior belief, not showing it must be true.

I think we have been here before. A natural cause implies the universe is a dumb mechanical system. Dumb mechanical systems cannot start themselves without input from an intelligence and end up in equilibrium. — Devans99

Yes we have, and that why I knew your argument was dependent on convenient assumptions. Here you have pontificated another - asserting, without proof, that an intelligence must be behind it. You also seem to be stuck in a classical (non-quantum) view of physical reality.

Basically, you choose to believe in God, so you choose to believe things that preclude other possibilities.

There is an explanation for God's existence; he is uncaused because he is from beyond causality, IE beyond time. — Devans99

That doesn't explain God's existence it just asserts that he's uncaused. Any first cause is uncaused, so this alleged "explanation" is equally applicable to any first-cause state of affairs.

The first cause cannot be "beyond" causation, it obviously must be the initial point in a continuous causal chain. Nor can it be "beyond time", because causation reflects change over time - there can be no causation without an elapse of time.

You will undoubtedly rationalize all this, but it will require making just the right assumptions that preclude a natural first cause while permitting a supernatural one. But this doesn't actually prove anything.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up. — NOS4A2

There was lots of debate on the JCPOA at the time, and there were smart people on both sides of it. I accept that it wasn't a perfect deal, and perhaps a better one could have been obtained - but absolutely no one can say for certain. On the other hand, once it was in place, it was idiotic to withdraw from it - and that's exactly what Trump did, over the objections of the military and his own Secretary of State. We will never know what would have happened had the US stayed in it, but we will know what will happen following Trump's actions. I don't know what the future will bring, and I hope it will be bright. However, the situation at the present does not look good, and Trump owns it.

The zero energy universe explains inflation (the big bang) and all that ensued. It does not entail an infinite past. The only thing it does not explain is the existence of the quantum system that could inflate. But of course, it seems inevitable that there would be SOMETHING unexplainable at the root of it all: neither is there an explanation for a "God's" existence.

It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. — NOS4A2

I'm sure you're right that Trump doesn't want war - he's extremely isolationist. Instead of a "better nuclear deal", we have NO nuclear deal: he pushed Iran into abandoning the JCPOA entirely. The chances of negotiating with them at all is low, because when Trump abandoned the JCPOA, he showed them the US is faithless in their negotiations.

Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted.

And Trump's presence in the White House hasn't slowed this a bit. Incidentally, the experts you disdain predicted that toppling Saddam would lead to this. I don't think it was preventable by either Obama or Trump, but Trump's behavior with the Kurds and with Iran puts him on the poorest of footings to negotiate anything. Trump has made us even more unwelcome in Iraq. I do not expect him to withdraw our troops, but it does mean the troops will be surrounded by growing hostility towards them.

He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani.

Honestly, I hope his saber rattling works, but I expect that sooner or later, our enemies may realize that his threats are empty.

He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle.

Verbal support for protestors doesn't get you much. The real problem is that Trump's action has kindled the flames of Iranian nationalism, shifting the focus from internal Iranian leadership to the hated US.

Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.

I agree that other possibilities should be exhausted. It's unfortunate that Trump's big misstep of withdrawing from the JPCOA got us to this point. I predict Iran will not respond with open warfare, but will instead step up their support for terrorist activities.

The bottom line is that Trump has put us in a worse position with respect to Iran and Iraq than when he took office. That seems indisputable.

The Jewish court which sentenced Jesus had no temporal powers. The Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, probably because they considered him as a potential rebel. Suggest you study the history of the Jewish rebellion against the Roman rule. — Jacob-B

I'm familiar with that. I was referring to the evolution of story of Pilate's sentencing Jesus to death. Over time, blame is increasingly shifted from Pilate to that Jewish public. A key point is that only in Gospel of Matthew (which came later than Mark and used Mark as a source) does Pilate wash his hands, and declare that he is innocent of Jesus’ blood, while the Jewish crowd (all the crowd, not just the leaders) cry out those infamous words, “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matt 27:25). That sort of thing is a plausible seed for eventual anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the evolution of anti-Semitism is more complicated than that. A few years ago, I read John Gager's "The Origin of Anti-Semitism", and he lays out a good bit of historical context to support his theory for developing anti-Semitism. The above is a small factor, but moreso is the competition that grew between Jews and Christians in the second and third centuries. I honestly don't remember a lot of detail, since its been awhile, but it does seem an excellent source for anyone interested in learing about the earliest roots of anti-Semitism.

Tim - I re-read our earlier exchages and I now see that I misinterpreted your position. Sorry about that, and going off on what was apparently a silly tangent.

And you evaded my parenthetical question. I'm satisfied there was an historical person corresponding to the literary creation of the Bible, but I am under the impression there is no evidence outside the bible of such a person. And certainly none outside the bible that recounts what what the bible says about that person. On this, however, I accept correction providing the sources are generally accepted as authoritative. — tim wood

I think you're asking about Jesus, so I'll respond accordingly.

Yes, I think it much more likely than not that there existed a man of that approximate name, upon whom a religion developed. There IS some limited extra-biblical record of his having existed, but probably the best evidence is the fact that Paul discusses his own interactions with Jesus brother (James), and his #1 disciple Cephas/Peter.

What really drove individuals to explore nature?
— Relativist
You're not getting that observing/exploring nature is not what modern science does. — tim wood

You're mincing words. I described the various reasons why I believe it's impossible to know how western society would have developed had Christianity not developed as it did. (The hypothetical is: what if Christianity hadn't developed as it did? And you seem to be claiming that we would not have modern science).

Tenuous except where and when it's a matter of record — tim wood

Sure, but that's pretty sketchy. But there isn't what one would need to truly understand ancient world views, and how and why world views evolved over time, but you seem to think you have a strong handle on this. Are you a historian? Have you researched this?

Feel free to educate yourself on this before assuming you are all that knowledgable in the matter. — christian2017

Jeez! All I said was, " I don't think any Christians today keep kosher. ". When someone says, "I think...", that's a good sign they aren't claiming to be "all that knowledgable". But thanks for setting me straihht on that issue. Next time I'll say "most Christians do not keep kosher."

The error you're making - that I think you're making - and a common error commonly made by folks who do not really understand history (itself) is that those folks in their thinking were just like us folks in ours, only maybe not-so-far along. And they weren't. — tim wood

I don't think that at all, and I've raised that point myself in other discussions. But neither do you know how they thought, and your claim depends on your speculations about their world views, and that these assumed world views were so ubiquitous that it would be impossible for science to develop.

What really drove individuals to explore nature? What external enablers (e.g. prosperity, education...)were there? What other enablers might have arisen? There are likely to be many answers to these questions.

For that matter, why did Christianity spread as it did? Under this hypothetical, had Christianity not spread - would something else have arisen? Because surely, the societal enablers for Christianity could have resulted in other directions equally productive to science, or even more so.

The history of the Western World is bound up with the development of Christianity. Had Christianity not developed as it did, history would have been very, very different - so much so, that no speculation can have a good basis. I guess you could write a story of speculative fiction, in the vein of "The Man in the High Castle", but nothing more.

I've done a fair amount of reading about the historical Jesus and it's pretty obvious to me that our knowledge of the distant past is very tenuous. And if we can't really know the actual past with any certainty, it is folly to think we can figure out what would have happened under this hypothetical.

Relativist
How do you know Jesus actually said that?
— Relativist

All that the supernaturally based religions have to offer are lies and speculative nonsense about god.

I am not a literalist but write to engage them and I have to use their ball to play on their field — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You didn't answer my question. How do you know Jesus said that?

FYI, I do not believe there exists an "immortal soul".

They seem to have ignored that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How do you know Jesus actually said that? I presume it's because "Matthew" attributes those words to Jesus. However it's very possibly an apologetic invention by "Matthew" to convey his view that Mosaic law was to continue to be followed.

If you choose to believe everything in the Gospels is true, that's religious faith. You are free to believe whatever you like, but obviously YOUR faith isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't share it.

. Christianity was an influence that allowed those presuppositions to evolve and change. I — tim wood

I see no reason to think science wouldn't have advanced had Christianity not gained the big following that it did, but historical what-ifs like this seem an exercise in futility.