Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Arguments for the existence of God

2011-09-21T16:32:18Z

MaxB: /* Teleological argument */

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning to force an individual to accept the undeniable truth that [[God]] exists.

== Overview ==

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref> Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

These arguments do not generally tell us much about God, and certainly not the details that is revealed in the Bible.
Rather, they argue for the basics, such that God<ref>The term "God" is a reference to the ultimate being, not necessarily the Christian God. There term is here capitalised as it is a reference to ''the'' ultimate being, not a counterfeit or lesser "god-like" being.</ref> exists, although some characteristics of God can be deduced from the nature of His creation.

==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an [[infinite regression]] of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. With the advent of the [[Big Bang theory]] pointing towards a starting point, this line of defense has become rather shaky. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?" Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===
# What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

Often, X is life, but there are other values for which the argument works. For example, scientists have found that if the universal constants (such as the speed of light or the Planck constant) were only a tiny bit different life could not exist.

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply.

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by [[Blaise Pascal]], who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements.
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements.
* The elements themselves which we consist of, and nature itself, have no consciousness.
* Despite our elements themselves having no consciousness, we do.
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* Infinite regress of beings is illogical, therefore a single, uncaused causer must be the causer of consciousness.
* This uncaused causer of the conscience is [[God]]

===Objections===

* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
* [[Evolutionists]] typically argue that consciousness may happen by chance, and that for this reason, the argument is invalid. However, this is highly illogical and unlikely, so is yet another weak argument for atheism.
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
* The last point (that the uncaused causer is God) is unsupported unless it is taken as a statement of definition. If this is the case, the prior arguments are unnecessary.

== Argument from beauty ==

*[[Argument from beauty]]

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==

* [[Christian apologetics]]
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Creation science]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) 
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-21T16:23:09Z

MaxB:

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)