email debate with Ed (anon) page 7

OK,

I have had enough of this absurd discourse. I guess you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the limitations of science. I guess you think that science is perfect and has no limitations whatsover.

It's limitation is that it cannot detect what does not exist. You readily admit it cannot detect god, so what does that tell you?

Forget about it. If you enter eternity in your condition, you will remember this exchange and you will regret it.

I submit that I will remember nothing, as I will cease to exist entirely as a sentient being with the event of my death. When my physical brain finally ceases to function from lack of oxygen, my mind, my thoughts, my memories, my emotions, all contained in that vessel we call the brain, will cease to exist.

Now, I can't prove that to you today, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

There is no logical reason for me (or you) to believe that it's true any more than it is for us to believe I will meet the tooth fairy, Zeus, Mithra or any of the thousands of other fictional deities made up by men to explain that which they did not yet understand.

Just like you can't prove empiraclly that OJ was guilty or not guilty. The facts are what they are, regardless of whether or not anyone can actually prove it or not. What happened, happened and all we have is evidence.

Still, we CAN prove that two people died. There is physical evidence of that. We don't have to guess that they were murdered in a brutal act by SOMEONE. I feel confident that the murderer is a real, physical person, rather than, say, a supernatural one, like a demon. I feel confident that the murder weapon was a real, physical thing, rather than, say, a supernatural, invisible, undetectable object of some type. There is nothing miraculous or supernatural about the events involved. Whether OJ is guilty or innocent, it does nothing to address whether or not god(s) really exist.

Oh, by the way, jurys convict people without actual eyewitnesses all the time. I guess it is a good thing that they don't follow your line of reasoning for determing what is admissible evidence and what is not.

They do not allow ghosts or other supernatural events or things as possibilities. They do not reason that because no one saw it, MAYBE a demon did it. They follow the same rules of evidence I do: They outright dismiss anything that is not defined as a known attribute of our physical existence.

I guess it's a good thing they DO follow my line of reasoning for determining what is admissible evidence and what is not. If they followed yours, lawyers would get their defendants off all the time by offering that "perhaps a demon did it."

All the best to you,

Buck

I never asserted that miracles occur today. I only asserted that they occurred in biblical times for specific reasons and that the data that we have to support my claim is reliable.

Once again Ed, what data? What evidence?

( I am also not ruling out there possibility today).

Naturally, you wouldn't, even though, again, you have no evidence to support the view as even being possible.

Logically speaking, my argument is quite plausible. If God exists, then miracles are possible.

It is equally as logical and plausible as me saying that if frogs had invisible, undetectable wings, they wouldn't bump their asses. The FACT remains however, that I have no way to prove or convince you that they do have invisible, undetectable wings. So it's a moot point, now isn't it? Of course it is. Imagine if you'd studied logical arguments at a REAL college... You might actually be able to compose a valid argument... Oh well...

It is reasonble that if God wanted to confirm a message and messanger, he could use miracles to do so. This would establish that this was God's message and messanger. So far, my view is reasonalbe if God exists.

If, if, if, if, if... Means... let's see... add this up... carry the 2... NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. IF frogs had wings, IF invisible poodles, IF Darth Vader, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum...

IF is not IS. Period.

I am saying that there is enough evidence in creation, in design, in moral law to conclude that it is reasonable to conclude that God exists.

And I'm saying there isn't. If there was, everyone would agree with you. They don't.

If that view is reasonable, then it follows that it is reasonable to believe that miracles could actually occur.

If, if, if, if, if... Means... let's see... add this up... carry the 2... NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. IF frogs had wings, IF invisible poodles, IF Darth Vader, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum...

IF is not IS. Period.

AFter all, we see the greatest miracle of all every single day, the universe.

The universe is not a miracle, it is a physical thing with physical properties and attributes that can be measured and defined within the laws of physics.

Now it follows that this God could have written a message to us and confirmed it by miracles.

Why?

If God did that, then we would conclude that this message must be important and should be accurate, because this God should be very powerful and intelligent, based on the universe and its design, and finally, the moral law reveals to us that God must also be very holy and just.

If, if, if, if, if... Means... let's see... add this up... carry the 2... NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. IF frogs had wings, IF invisible poodles, IF Darth Vader, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum...

IF is not IS. Period.

We see this in ourselves. That is we see great acts of kindness as well as evil.

This does not prove the existence of a supernatural being. It proves that we have an opinion as humans on how we want to be treated individually. Based on these opinions, we understand by default extrapolation that other humans desire that same treatment. We reason that in order to BE treated in the manner we desire, we must treat others in that same manner. There's nothing mystical about this. If you want to understand the 'mysteries' of the human mind; of emotion; of thought patterns and so on, go back to school (this time a REAL one) and study psychology. There ARE answers, believe it or not.

This being the case, God could have written to us, confirmed it to us with miracles so that we know it is a message from Him, and preserve reliable copies to all generations.

"Could"... Means... let's see... add this up... carry the 2... NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. Frogs COULD have wings, invisible poodles COULD, Darth Vader COULD, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum...

COULD is not DID. Period.

Reliable copies, eh? I'll bet that there will be reliable copies of nearly every fictional book written in the 20th century for as long as mankind survives, thanks to our ability to make reliable copies. Does that mean that 2000 years from now, any fictional book written in the 20th century that declares within it that it is a true story WILL BE TRUE because it's a reliable copy, or will it still be fictional?

Now there is nothing unreasonable about this view. It is intelligent, logical, and it corresponds with what we know to be true about reality.

No, it doesn't. Reality exists in the defined, physical world. Period. Your god story exists ONLY outside those parameters.

It is consistent with the historical records and the scientific evidence.

You have yet to cite any of these records or evidence!! You just keep saying it, like that's enough. For the umpteenth time, IT ISN'T. I'm sorry. It is not enough for you to simply SAY SO. You are obligated to back up your claims with actual evidence. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. Is ANY of this getting through Ed? Am I talking to myself? Are you a figment of my imagination? Do you exist in the same plane of existence as the rest of us? Work with me Ed, work with me!!

No other worldview can say that. Even your view is not consistent with reality.

My view is that natural, physical detectable reality is the ONLY reality there is. So you are stating, in effect, that 'reality is not consistent with reality'!! Dude! You're truly losing it here! LOL!!!

You deny absolute moral law, but live like it exists, every day.

That's right. And if our moral laws change or get some new addition to it tomorrow for some necessary reason, I will continue to follow that NEW moral law as I do the current one. As it COULD POSSIBLY change, based on necessary survival for instance, it is NOT absolute. Did you get that Ed? Anything that can change is, by definition, not absolute.

Imagine a world where no virture exists, no good, no honor, no evil, no love, no purpose, no meaning, nothing but emptiness.

If that were the case, we would not be here to discuss it. It is in the very nature of our survival to have those things in place. If we did not, we could not have survived as a species. We would have all killed each other off long ago. It is a NATURAL, necessary survival instinct Ed. Every culture in every part of the Earth had it long before they ever heard about any god(s).

But I bet you that if you had a little child, whom I took and abused, then ate, you would be outraged, insensed, and demand justice.

Of course I would.

But logically speaking, you have no logical reason for feeling such a way. None. It is completely inconsistent with your worldview. We are all a big accident, with no more value than any other accident, such as a stone or a tree, or a can. Yet, crush a can and no one feels anything. Step on a roach, and no one cares. Crush a baby and see what happens.

You're so wrong Ed. I am a sentient being. I think, I reason, I have emotions. I'm not a stone or a tree or a can Ed. I am a living, breathing, feeling mammal. Even my dog has emotions. If I raise my hand, she cowers in fright. She feels attracted to potential mates sometimes. Her pulse quickens when excited, and she begins to bounce around happily if I pick up her favorite toy and offer to play with her. Animals run from predators, hunt cunningly together in packs and prides in concert with one another, work together in hives and colonies, fashion and use tools and much more. Does that mean that they too can get to heaven or be condemned to hell because they are aware to some degree, just as we are? Did you ever have a pet Ed? They have personalities, much like humans. Some are just born mean it seems, while others are very friendly or courageous or timid.

I have every reason for feeling the way I do, just as every animal on the planet has reason for feeling the way it does. It is due to the way the chemicals and electrical impulses in our individual brains react to stimuli from our senses and store the information for future reference that make us who we are. No two animals, human or otherwise, experience exactly the same stimuli in exactly the same way, so no two are exactly the same. There's nothing magical or mysterious about this. It doesn't prove god, nor does having these traits as natural, physical qualities without a belief in god shut them down. They exist in all of us, with or without god belief. The two are not related the way you seem to think they are. It's not an either/or situation Ed.

That we care more for human babies than roaches is entirely based on the fact that WE are humans who empathize with other humans in ways we cannot empathize with a roach because we can't crawl into that roach's exoskeleton and experience life from a roach's perspective. If you were a roach you might care quite a bit more about roach babies than human babies, as your perception, your worldview, would be much different.

Tell me this, if God is invented by man, the same as moral law, tell me about these ideas. Who was the author of God.

Which one?

Who authored this idea of right and wrong?

Our survival instincts. Without the idea we would not have been able to survive. What you call right and wrong is simply a line of thinking that best ensures survival.

Can you trace history back before the idea of God existed?

Trace it? Not really. However, we know that men certainly did exist before 6000 years ago, so we know that they predate your earliest source for a god story.

We know that Darwin fathered evolution, and Kant, Modern Agnositicism. We know where Islam came from, and where Buddhism started as well as Hinduism, etc. But do we know where God came from? Why can't we go back to a time when God did not exist as an idea or moral law did not exist and nothing was right or wrong?

Let me tell you a story about my dog. She fears lightening. Hides under the bed every time there's a storm. Now, if she were a little smarter, smart enough to wonder what causes it, but not smart enough to actually figure it out to the extent we have, she MIGHT think it comes from a thinking, willful being big enough to do something like that - a god to her. She already fears lightening and thunder, so she might then decide that it is the god's weapon of some sort and that the god uses it when angry about something. If she could communicate these thoughts to other dogs, she might convince them as well, since they don't know either. One day while a storm is raging, she's hiding under the porch, fearing the god's lightening and booming thunder. Suddenly, a cat appears there with her, seeking shelter. Since she doesn't like cats, she snaps her powerful jaws and kills the cat before it can get away from her. Within minutes, the storm is over and the dog associates the killing of the cat as having somehow appeased the god of lightening and thunder. She communicates this to the other dogs, who readily agree that whenever the god of thunder is pissed, they should sacrifice a few cats to appease the god. The dogs now have established a system of god belief and a form of worship with sacrifice.

Did you like my little made up story? (she really is afraid of lightening and thunder, by the way) The point is (and you probably already get where I'm going) with man's first sentient questioning of the natural world around him, he had no way to KNOW; no way to deduce the real answer. He had only his emotional responses for survival, which included the instinct to run from things that could hurt him (we call this fear) and what he could perceive around him. The best explanation to man at the time was probably "god", but that doesn't mean that that's the real, true, final answer. It's just the only one he had at the time. We have better answers now.

The Adam and Eve story is not a historical, factual account of how everything in the universe came to be.

It is an explanation by a nomadic tribe of ancient people called the Hebrews to try to explain the origins of everything in the universe. There is no shame in that.

We can see that ancient man wondered, wanted to know, and ventured his best guesses throughout history based on what he had observed coupled with his fears, desires and beliefs in supernatural forces that, to him, must have seemed the only explanation for the workings of nature. There is no shame in that.

They thought about it: I have a father. He had a father. His father had a father. Where is the beginning?! This is a philosophical question that asks about time; of the beginning and end of everything. The answer, as a result, is philosophical. In a simplistic thinking, it made sense to them that if you go back far enough you have to get to the beginning, the first man. But then where does HE come from? Not another man, as he is the first. It must be something bigger; a god will fill this role. But then, where did the god come from? The answer they chose: God always was. There is no shame in that.

But if a god made the first man, why do we have all of the things that make life so tough like death and disease and war and floods? We must have done something wrong in the estimation of that god for him to have afflicted us in these manners. But what? The garden, the tree, the talking serpent, the downfall of man.

The story started as a parable of sorts. It has been pointed out that the story predates writing. We know it was handed down from generation to generation and probably refined along the way in the retelling. We have no idea what the story was in it's original form.

As it was passed down by mouth and ear over hundreds or thousands of years, it became legend. When wise men of the tribe proclaimed it, it became fact. When priests endorsed it, it became sacred. When it was finally written, it became law. It was not to be questioned. It was to be believed. It was THE accepted explanation, endorsed by the wise men, priests and elders of the tribe. As the writings grew, they became the beginnings of the bible.

Now, many thousands of years later, in retrospect, we can see how simplistic and implausible the ancient Hebrew story really was. Especially in light of the fact that there is no supporting evidence for it, but much supporting evidence for a different story - a story of the natural world around us that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled and closely examined. These are the things we've found to be true in those many thousands of years. There is no shame in that either.

Thousands of years after the ancient Hebrew tribes' explanation was written, mankind was STILL working on solving the ancient questions like, what holds up the earth, does it move, how big is it, what is beyond the sky, what is the moon made of, where does the sun go at night, what keeps the stars from falling to the ground, where does the water come from when it rains, and more and more and more. These are all questions that had no answers at the time. At that time, the ancient story had little to contradict it. Men continued to believe it. There is no shame in that.

In the thousands of years since it was finally first scribbled down by a man considered wise and holy by his tribe, we've discovered things that to the ancients could only be attributed to supernatural forces. As it turns out, they are not SUPERnatural, but SIMPLY natural. We no longer wonder and debate what holds up the earth, does it move, how big is it, what is beyond the sky, what is the moon made of, where does the sun go at night, what keeps the stars from falling to the ground, where does the water come from when it rains. There is no shame in that.

We're not done. We've not yet explained all. But we have certainly come a long way in finding the true answers to the ancients' unanswerable questions, rendering the guesses they made sacred unnecessary.

There is no shame in that.

Can you find any society today, in which nothing is wrong? You can do anything!

Of course not. Any such society would cease to exist. There may have even been cultures or tribes like that somewhere at some time, but they are now extinct because of it. Through evolution, only those tribes and cultures that recognized the basic principle of treating others the way you want to be treated survived. We are their descendants.

Remarkable isn't it. It is like a bad nightmare. The scientists of the world spend their lives climbing the mountain of knowledge and as they finally lift themselves to the top, what do they find? A group of theologians who have been there for centuries.

That's a cute story, but that's all it is. It's too bad you have nothing but allegory and conjecture with which to use to attempt to prop up your fantasy. I almost feel sorry for you Ed.

By the way, there are numerous christian scientists, who hold very conservatively to Christianity. William Craig, Hugh Ross, Michael Behe, etc. So Christianity is not anti-science.

I've read their work Ed. It is fundamentally flawed on all levels. It is not recognized by the scientific community at large because it is entirely unsupportable. Many of those Christian scientists got their degrees from diploma mills that require little more than a fee to purchase the document. It's all documented Ed, and it's a shame to have such unsavory individuals representing your interests when no one can possibly take them seriously because they've already identified themselves to the scientific community as charlatans. I hate to have to say that about someone, but the evidence they present speaks for itself. Their following is a small but vocal group of bible inerrantists who cling desperately to ANY nugget that might help them hang onto their outdated view of reality. Unfortunately, when examined by trained scholars, these nuggets always turn out to be nothing more than fool's gold, devoid of any real worth or value. Even more unfortunate is that their followers are so blinded by these carpetbaggers, they cling to the claims anyway, and the charlatans continue to use them until the scientific community at large finally gets incensed and loud enough to embarrass them completely into quiet on some wacky claim they've been making.

Here's something I wrote a while back in response to someone else who, as far as I can tell, shares your views (so when I say "you" in it, I don't necessarily mean Ed (anon), but if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it). I think you might find it interesting, as it ties in with where we are in the discussion:

1. With God, ALL things are POSSIBLE. That would have to include evolution as a tool of God.

2. Most religious people, Christians included, understand the truth of evolution as a fact well enough to know it's a reality. They STILL have no problem worshipping God.

3. God does not lie, according to you. So all the evidence that scientists are finding must show the true nature of God's work, mustn't it? Even if it shows us that evolution is real, it's OK, because the truth belongs to God.

4. All of the lies that the creationists have been caught in come from where? You told us that Satan is the father of all lies, didn't you? Yes you did. That would include the lies that the creationists have been caught telling, now wouldn't it? So who is behind this creationist movement, if it's full of lies?

5. We've all heard many times from Christians that Satan works hard to lead God's believers from the path. What better way than this creationist movement that has so many believers passing on all these lies? They don't even know they have been suckered by Satan himself!

6. Satan doesn't want you to make us believers in God, does he? No, he doesn't. He wants us to think you're morons who don't know what you're talking about. What better way than to fill your heads full of lies that he knows we will catch you in? We feel like you are morons with this creationist stuff, because it's so easy to see all the obvious errors in it. Too many creationist lies have been smashed to bits by reality. Christians lose face, and have no hope of reaching unbelievers this way, and Satan wins again!

Maybe you should think about the father of lies and the father of truth. Look a little deeper into the possibility that something evil is behind the creationist movement, if it has so many lies involved and so much ability to prevent God's message from reaching non-believers.

Think a little harder about how God would not create a world that looks old, because that would be a deception, and a deception is a lie. God wouldn't make the world look like something it's not. God gave us dominion over all the Earth. Certainly that means we are allowed to explore it and see it in every way that we can. God gave us all these talents for taking things apart and figuring things out and building and learning for a reason. It's no sin to do these things. What better way to glorify God, than to see the secrets of nature before our eyes? To see the truth as God has displayed it to us?

Only the Master of lies could come up with a way to block all that, and creationists seem to be working awfully hard at it, even going so far as to lie about it.

Think about it.

In fact, it is the most scientific view of all the religions.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

Feel free to present the scientific claims of your creationist 'scientists'. I've been actively reading their claims and refuting them with real science for many years. I'll be more than happy to help you toward the truth in these matters Ed.

You say that all religions are fundamentally the same and superficially different. I say that all religions are fundamentally different and superficially the same. The same in that a diety is worshipped, but that is about it for the similarities.

That deity nugget is the root problem of any religion Ed. That is what makes them all fundamentally the same. It cannot be defined, shown, identified or proven in any religion. Everything that is based on that nugget of nothingness, is then unsupportable as well. And that's all the superficial stuff, like tenets, laws, doctrine, figureheads, martyrs, supernatural events and so on. They all have them. And each of those superficial aspects of the religion can be shown to be unsupportable both on it's own AND because the nugget can not be proved by the claimant.

Every religion is like that. Every religion falls apart in the same manner. Every religion is unsupportable for the same reasons. EVERY ONE, without exception.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Go to part 8