Part 8
Email Debate
with Ed (anon)
Part 8
|
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...
Not
a very intellectual response Buckster....you have no reason to
believe that frogs have invisible wings. The point is, do we have
a reason to believe that God exists, and the answer is that we
have GOOD reason to believe that He does.
First, at least I HAVE responded to everything you
have attempted to assert, while you continue
to dodge my repeated requests for any actual
evidence from you. Have you reconciled the Easter story yet?
Have you provided me a source for the disciples tortures? Have you
attempted at all to define your god so that we even have a place to START
looking for evidence of him? No, none of the above.
As to this particular response, you say,
"IF god..." and I compare that to "IF frogs...". Neither position is
logically tenable, neither position is physically provable, neither
position has evidence to support it, neither allows us to continue on to
make claims based on something which started as mere "IF's". I have
as much reason and evidence to support invisible, undetectable frog wings
as you have to support an invisible, undetectable god - NONE. So
they are equal in that regard.
You continue to SAY there are GOOD REASONS
to believe god exists, yet in all our emails back and forth, you have
provided exactly NONE. That you prefer to believe it is NOT a GOOD
REASON. I'm sorry Ed, it just plain isn't.
I've answered your philosophical allegory
and conjecture extensively, and you simply refuse to accept the FACT
that philosophical allegory and conjecture are NOT PROOF of your
claims, even though that is the truth of the matter. Positing that
there "might" be a god, therefore... or "could" be a
god, so... or attempting to tie natural events or objects to a
god you cannot show proof of in the first place are not proofs or
evidence, anymore than my frog's alleged wings. You continue to fail
in your attempts because there is no way for you to get from allegory and
conjecture on to reality and proof.
Your own bible tells you that a fundamental
tenet of your religion is that it is based on faith alone. There IS
NO PROOF, physical OR logical. That's WHY it's based on faith
alone. You say you believe the bible is inerrant, yet you don't seem
to believe that part of it. You actually seem to think you can
somehow prove that an undetectable, non-physical being exists simply be
repeating the claim. You can't.
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 only
need to demonstrate that the evidence supports this statement: It is
reasonable to conclude that God exists. The four universal questions that
every worldview must answer, Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny, are
answered most adequately by Christian Theism.
They are
equally answered by every other religious view AND my non-theistic view as
well so, once again, you've managed to prove nothing.
It is reasonable only in your own
mind Ed. In MY mind, it is UNREASONABLE to posit a supernatural
entity of ANY kind, including all the gods mankind has ever
invented. Surely, you suppose that every god other than your own is
a figment of man's imagination, made up by men, right?
When you fully understand why you reject
all the other gods, you will understand why I reject yours along with
them.
"I don't
know" is not an answer. If you don't know that there is a God, you equally
don't know that there is NOT a God. How can you argue against something
that you admittedly don't know exists. You say you don't know or can't
know, but you sure don't argue that way.
I argue it
in the same way that EITHER OF US would argue against the possibility of invisible,
undetectable wings on frogs: There is no evidence or proof or reason
to believe it. I argue it in the same way that a civil court would
not allow a person to go free for murdering someone else because they say
god told them to: There is no evidence, proof or reason to believe the
claim. We do not allow ourselves to step outside of reality when
trying to prove claims.
If you want to step outside of reality to
embrace a belief system, you may do so, but that does not make your belief
system true or valid or in any way provable to others, and it never
will. I've seen schizophrenics on the streets of New York City while
I was there having arguments with invisible people that only they can
see. I refuse to believe there is actually an invisible person
standing there in front of them arguing back. I can accept that in
the mind of the schizophrenic they BELIEVE that person is as
real as you or I, but that doesn't make it actually real. They are
caught up in a belief system that is as real to them as your god is to
you. But neither of your belief systems can be substantiated as real
and true to those who do not themselves believe it, like me.
I don't know is an answer. I DON'T
know. I submit that you DON'T KNOW either. You may
believe. You may have faith. But you do not KNOW, for if you
KNEW, you wouldn't need faith. Read Hebrews 11:1 again: "Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Again, I don't KNOW, but I strongly suspect
the opposite that you suspect. You don't KNOW, but suspect there is
a god. I don't KNOW, but suspect there isn't. I have as strong
an argument for my convictions in that regard as you do. I still
feel mine are stronger, because they are grounded in reality, while yours
have no grounding at all, being that they involve the supernatural, just
like the schizophrenic. For all I KNOW, he really IS having an
argument with an invisible person, but I strongly suspect he is NOT.
What do you think?
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.
You
answers to the origin of the universe, its design, and moral law are not
answers. They are absurd statements that make no sense and do not
correspond with what we know to be true in reality.
In what way Ed? They are grounded in the known
physical laws of the universe we are a part of. They are founded on
the physical sciences. They are originally proposed by very learned
men who won Nobel prizes and things for these very ideas. They do
make sense, unless you haven't enough sense to grasp the concepts
involved. Is it that you just don't understand the various concepts
and theories regarding the natural origins of the universe, and that's why
you figure it must be god? If you just can't seem to grasp the
concepts, then I can understand your dilemma, and suggest you try a little
harder.
Maybe you're just confused because you can't seem to
let go of the Genesis cosmology that was written by an ancient tribe of
nomadic goat herders who didn't have a clue about physics. If that's
your hang-up, I don't know what to tell you, other than you might want to
look at some other sect of Christianity. There are some 2000 to
choose from, and very few embrace Genesis as actual science and history
anymore.
You deny
absolute morals but live as though they do. Why? It is the only way to
live. There is no acceptable alternative.
How many times
would you like me to explain it? Let's suppose for a moment that I
decided NOT to live a moral life. Suppose I decided to go on a
killing, raping rampage. What would be my fate in that case,
genius? What are
my chances of survival? Does this sound like a good thing to do, if
you're me and want to continue to live your life without being molested in
some way?
I mean, I KNOW I don't want to be in
jail. I KNOW I don't want to get shot. I KNOW I don't want to
be sitting on death row somewhere. I KNOW I don't want to die in a
gas chamber or electric chair or on a gurney by lethal injection. I
KNOW I wouldn't want to be raped and killed by someone on a rampage, so I
can guess that other people feel the same way. I KNOW I would try to
defend myself against someone on a rampage by going so far as to kill them
before they kill me, I have to believe that other people would react the
same way. I KNOW I wouldn't want anyone I love to suffer the fate of
rape or murder by someone on a rampage, so I can guess that other people
feel the same way.
So how would I benefit by going on this
rampage? I can think well enough to have some ideas about the
consequences of going on such a rampage, even if I suddenly got the urge
to do it for some reason, and frankly, I don't like any of them. Why
then would I go on such a rampage. It makes no sense.
And I didn't have to have a belief in god
at all to come to the conclusion that it is not in my best interest to go
on a rampage. I didn't need some higher authority to hold me
back. I didn't need the threat of eternal punishment to keep me from
doing it. All I needed was a survival instinct that helps me reason
what is in my best interest for self-preservation.
Animals do the same thing. When a
wolf goes nuts, breaks rank and starts killing other members of the pack,
the rest of the pack gangs up and kills it. That's the way survival
works. Individuals that break rank and start going against the other
members of the tribe, herd, pack, etc., end up dead. It is not a
good way to survive. Not for humans, not for animals. That's
just the way it is and it makes perfect sense, even if YOU CAN'T SEEM TO
UNDERSTAND IT.
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.
Your
circular reasoning falls far short. YOu claim God does not exist, but
refuse the to accept the evidence because your presuppositions will not
even allow for God to provide you with evidence. You dismiss miracles,
ipso facto, without any consideration whatever.
Asking you for the evidence and receiving none and
then concluding that there is none because you provide none is not
circular reasoning; It is a logical, deductive, reasoned attempt that
leads me to an inescapable conclusion: You're full of shit.
That this has happened countless times with other people JUST LIKE YOU
lends even MORE WEIGHT to my predisposition in the matter. That
predisposition CAME FROM those countless, fruitless encounters
Ed.
However, I continue to give you the opportunity to
prove your claims. I continue to ask: Show me a miracle. Show
me the proof. Show me the evidence. I keep asking. I
continue to dismiss it because people like you continue to fail, EVERY
TIME I ASK. Now, why don't you step up to the plate and prove me
wrong, OR be man enough to admit that you can't? 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.
To bring a
physical thing from "nothing" is indeed a miracle. It cannot be defined
within the laws of physics. Now you are bordering on the laughable. The
laws of phyics state clearly, from nothing, nothing comes. Matter does not
come from nothing. Not just non-matter, absolute nothing.
How have you concluded that it came from 'nothing'
Ed? Because Genesis says so? Wanna talk about black holes
Ed? Wanna extrapolate that to everything in the universe Ed?
Wanna tell me what you have there Ed? Can you say 'singularity'
Ed? It's not 'nothing', it's EVERYTHING, all in one place.
Everything all over the place (the current universe) came from everything
in one place (the singularity). Your "nothing" doesn't play a role,
except in your own befuddled mind Ed. Miracle indeed!
Now it follows that this God could have written a
message to us and confirmed it by miracles.
Why?
For this
purpose man came to be, to fellowship with his Creator God.
Prove your
claim.
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.
God
created everything that began to exist. He became a man in the person of
Christ. God is NOT only outside those parameters.
So NOW you want to put god back INTO the physical
realm, eh? Cool. That will make him much easier to define so
that you can show physical evidence for his existence.
Proceed. First, define the physical properties of god, then point me
to them so that I may examine the evidence.
By the way, I'll want proof and evidence
of your claim that god created everything that began to exist AND that he
became a man named Christ. Please present that to me at your
earliest convenience.
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.
You dog,
left to himself, eats his own dung and licks his rear....why don't you do
that? Your dog may eat his own vomit, why don't you? Your dog may bite a
stranger, why don't you?
Because I'm not a dog Ed. I'm a human. You
might have guessed that already. And while we have many similar and
parallel traits with other animals, and especially other mammals,
including the emotional responses and instincts we were talking about
before you decided to try some misdirection (or maybe you're just having
trouble following along or keeping up?), as remnants of our own
evolutionary progress, there ARE differences between humans and
dogs. You may have noticed that yourself. Quite frankly, I'm
not very hairy either.
The point, Ed,
is that I'm a creature with a brain and emotions, not a non-thinking stone or a tree or a
can. Can you tell the difference between thinking, reasoning
creatures and non-thinking inanimate objects Ed? Do try your best to
grasp these rather simple concepts, won't you?
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.
OK, this
is getting idiotic. A roach feels and has emotions just like
humans.
I never said that. However, they do not eat
their young, so they must have some fundamental understanding (from an
evolutionary survival standpoint, no doubt) that their other roaches are
not to be killed and eaten as food sources just because they're
available. My argument is that if YOU were a roach, you wouldn't
give a flying whit about a human baby's life, but you would NOT kill a
baby roach. Do you understand Ed? Do you dispute this?
So in
reality it is just as bad to crush the baby as it is to crush the
roach.
Nope. Sorry Ed. Gosh, I hope you're
just trying to play me here, because if you're not, you really aren't very
bright, and I'd hate to think I've spent all this time and energy on a
moron. I thought you had a college degree?
If you're a human, you have one view: Human baby's are
worth more than roaches and should be protected, while roaches may be
crushed at will.
If you're a roach, you have a different view:
Human babies are unimportant and may be eaten or crawled on (even crushed
if you can figure a way to do it, given your size), but other roaches
should not be molested.
Do you understand Ed? This was a
sub-conversation about perceptions.
Tell me
something Buckster, who was more noble and honorable, Hitler or Mother
Teresa? Which person displayed the higher moral qualities? In your view,
they are both morally equal.
Nope. Sorry Ed. You're wrong.
Gee, you really know next to nothing about atheist's views, as it turns
out... Anyway, to answer your question, Mother Teresa wins, hands
down, in my book.
Hitler was
doing what his emtions and heart told him to do in order to preserve the
human race and so was Mother Teresa.
Hitler imposed death on others without regard for their
feelings in the matter, which he surely understood. He must have
known they did not want to be killed, just as he did not want to be
killed, yet he killed them anyway. He was the wolf that broke rank
and started killing fellow humans. He was wrong, and died violently
because of it. He did not follow the basic survival instincts of
respecting the others in the pack so that they will respect you in
return.
By the way, Hitler was a devout Christian all his
life. Why didn't he seem to have higher morals than, say, an
atheist?
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?
The idea
itself, Buckster. The false ones are simply a copy of the True God. But
the concept of God must have began somewhere that is traceable.
I don't follow you on how you think it must
be traceable, when you certainly are aware from your own theistic studies
that it was handed down for many generations as an oral tradition before
it was ever first written. So how can we trace it to it's
source? Would you like to build a time machine and interview those
that told the story before it was ever written, ask who told them, then go
back again and ask the same question till you get to the silly old fart
that first thought it up?
Trust me, I know where you'd like to go with this, but
your line of reasoning is disingenuous. I mean, I'm willing to play
if you really want to, but trust me, it's not going to go far, because
pretty soon I'm going to have to ask you to show me the very
first, ORIGINAL manuscript of the Pentateuch in similar fashion
to your line of questioning, and you should already know what will happen
to your current line of argument at that point, right?
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.
You beg
the question. The desire to survive implies moral ought. We 'ought' to try
to survive. Therefore we need a moral law.
Illogical!
You've
extrapolated through faulty logic to a conclusion that is in
error. THAT'S why it's illogical. You're simply not very good
with logic, as we've seen throughout our discussion. Survival
instincts are not necessarily cognizant actions, which would be
necessary to use you 'ought' application.
If we are just an accident from some pond, why is
surviving any different that not surviving?
Because we descended from those that DID
survive. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
Lesser creatures do not think, "how do I survive? I must make up
some moral laws to go by." They survive because they
are able to do so. Some of the traits that enable them to
do so, you would term "moral laws" because you like that term better than
"natural survival instincts", but you can't suddenly make a leap of logic
that it means conscious acknowledgement of some kind.
Why do we have the instinct for
self-preservation?
Because every creature that didn't have it
DIED. We descended from one that did not die, inheriting that
instinct as part of the gene package.
It is certainly based on 'ought'.
No, I'm afraid it is not. 'Ought', by
definition, implies cognizance. We are talking about a time before
cognizance, so you are applying the word in error.
Secondly, it is universal. Everyone desires to
survive. Why?
The word 'desire' is out of place, but I'll answer
anyway for the sake of the point you're trying to make. It's simple:
Because we descended from those that DID have a predisposition to
survive. Those that didn't, DIED for lack of it, so they have no
descendants.
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.
Hmm, we do
know that, don't we. Does that evidence contradict what the scripture
teaches. Isn't it wild that even without science, we can use the bible to
come up with the same answer. About 6000 years ago, man was created. Very
interesting.
You really don't read well, do
you? Read it
again. This time, understand that I'm saying that men existed BEFORE
the earliest time frame of the bible (about 6000 years ago), which is the
earliest limit to your god-story. I don't say that's when man
appeared, for Pete's sake!! No, 6000 years ago is
about when your god-story probably first appeared. Man was
around MUCH, MUCH longer than that, by MILLIONS of years.
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 a 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 serious
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 desperatly 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 possibilty
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 awefully hard
at it, even going so far as to lie about it.
Think about it.
God
created Adam a full grown man.
Prove it. Show evidence for this.
It takes
about 20% of a person's life to reach that appearance. It would be a lie
if God had said I am creating the world so that it does not look old and
when finished, it looks old. God created the earth as it pleased him, not
us. We know the dating methods are full of flaws and cannot be relied on
anyways, no need to kick that around, it would be a waist of time.
You seem to demand the most perfect of evidence for God and accept the
most flimsy and flawed evidence for what you wish to believe.
Hahahaha!!!!! OMG, you're a riot!!! Show
evidence that the dating methods are full of flaws if you think you
can! Go ahead and give it your best shot, bible guy!
LOL!!! Oh shit! I asked for more proof of another one of your
dumb, baseless claims again, didn't I? Gee... so
sorry... that you have no proofs or evidence!!
LOL!!
Man!!! Do you always go to a gunfight armed
only with a bowl of Jello? You suck at logic. You suck at
science. You suck at reading and comprehension. You even
suck at defending the bible! I've gotten better arguments out
of Christian teens in chat rooms with no formal theistic training at
all!! You should try to get your money back from that Bible
college.
The
scripture refers to the earth as a Sphere and Job said that God hung the
world on nothing. This was well before scientific discovery of such
things. How did they know this?
Cite chapter and verse for the 'sphere'
reference. I bet it's
a 'circle', not a 'sphere'. And I bet you knew that when you wrote
it, which means you're a deliberate liar for your religion, which means
nothing else you've said can be trusted to be truthful either.
Your reply will have chapter and verse for a 'sphere'
reference or I will instruct my email program to automatically dump
anything else from you into the trash without having to waste my time with
it or you. Understand, Ed?
Best of luck to you,
Buck
I tell you what, Buckster, lets resume this debate on the other side. Sorry, I can't make it. I'll be dead.
Perhaps,
you'll be concvinced then that God is real.
Then again, maybe you'll be convinced that Mithra
is.
Sometimes
I wonder if guys like you won't find a way to convince yourself that God
really didn't sentence you to hell and these are not real flames, but only
your imagination or a dream or something else that cannot be explained by
scientific naturalism.
Well, at least hell is where all
the HOT CHICKS are! LOL!!!
I don't blame you for giving up Ed. Best of luck
with whomever you try to debate next.
Buck |