The Globe and Mail has an article on the advantages of atheism.
Here's my response:
Fearing where you may end up is a perfectly valid reason to turn from sin to God. Jesus, faithful man that he was, spoke more of hell than heaven. He wasn't called "Saviour" for nothing. And he didn't endure the cross just for the fun of it.
The fallacy of thinking you should just get on with "being good for goodness' sake" is the idea that a person can be truly good without God's help. We sin in deed, word, and thought, making us utterly unworthy of, undeserving of, and unsuited to God's heaven. To think otherwise is astonishingly misguided and misapprehending of our human condition.
That God has made a way for us is good news. That man should say one way isn't broad enough, or this way isn't the way we had in mind, is the height of arrogance -- the reason we are in this mess in the first place.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
94 comments:
Even if we assume for a moment that its better to choose belief out of fear (who knows if what God wants is belief?); how does one know which is the correct religion and guarantees a good place in the "afterlife" (if there is such a thing)? There have been thousands of religions throughout human history and each has a relatively weak evidentiary foundation.
You just assume (presumably because you are one) that they should choose Christianity. Upon what logical basis should they choose that particular religion?
You could start like I did by studying world religions.
You could pray. If there is a deity, presumably he is powerful enough to reveal himself to you and answer your sincerely held questions and reservations satisfactorily.
The evidentiary foundation of Christianity is unparalleled -- fulfilled prophecies and strong historical attestation to the resurrection of Christ.
I affirm that they should choose Christianity, after diligent investigation, as I did, because I found the One to whom Christianity points to be true.
I'm undecided about my Christian faith. What I *AM* certain of, is that I am sick and tired of "born-again" atheist smart aleks attacking Christianity.
They *say* they attack it because of the lack of evidence but my guess is that they simply want to live in a "no-responsibility, no consequences, Whomever-has-the-best-lawyer, anything goes" world because it's easier to live in a world where all can be justified.
Spoiled brats who simply cannot stand the word "NO".
To hell with them, (metaphorically, and who knows, maybe LITERALLY as well).
"The evidentiary foundation of Christianity is unparalleled -- fulfilled prophecies and strong historical attestation to the resurrection of Christ."
Of course, you realize you're WRONG about this? The same sorts of after-the-fact "prophecies" are seen in EVERY religion, not just yours, and, likewise, every religion claims that this sort of wishful thinking "proves" that theirs is "the one true faith". Even the foundations of Christianity have been stolen from earlier religions, ranging from the creation and prophet myths of the Greeks and Egyptians, to the "this is my blood, this is my body" rites of the Mithraens (and if you had actually studied past and present world religions, you would know that). There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about your chosen superstition that makes it any more believable or worthy of belief than any OTHER superstition.
Every religion? Really?! Have you done a sober analysis and comparison and actually studied this, or should we file this under wishful thinking?
The idea that the foundations of Christianity come from other than Judaism is a popular one among ardent disbelievers, but it is discredited by historical-critical research and generally rejected by serious historians.
As for the link the Mithras cult, the meagre sources of our knowledge of the Mithras cult come from two centuries after the time of Christ -- hardly a strong evidential basis for concluding the Mithras cult influenced Christ or Christianity. A stronger case could be made for the influence going in the other direction.
Before spouting off about Mithras, I suggest you at least familiarize yourself with the writings of Edwin Yamauchi and then perhaps we can discuss this.
I reaize you probably just dashed off your comments in the heat of the moment, but I must say you betray the heated emotions and certainty of an ardent fundamentalist.
Yes, I HAVE done an analysis and comparison of the various (major, at least) religions, and they all (save for Buddhism and Judaism) share the same "god-given" moral certitude that THEY are the "one true religion", and that everyone else is an unrepentant heathen who deserves to burn forever more in the depths of their particular imaginary hell.
Now, you'll note that NONE of these religions (including yours) has any sort of proof whatsoever to back their tales up, but that never matters to a zealot, whether that zealot is claiming that George Bush bombed the Twin Towers, or that aliens are landing next Thursday morning, or that Elvis is alive and well and living in Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas. What matters to them (and you), is simply that they "BELIEVE".
Since SO MANY of the "miraculous" things that Christians credit their particular "prophet" with doing, are seen in EARLIER religions (such as being killed, and then resurrected), how can you seriously claim that your supersition is somehow special? In the end, your religion comes down to "trust me, this is true because you can read it right here in my little magic book", but ANY religion can claim that, whether it's the Mormons and THEIR little magic book, the Muslims and THEIR little magic book, the Jews and THEIR little magic book, the Aztecs and THEIR little magic book (assuming that anyone was still around to read the Popol Vuh), the Vikings and THEIR little magic book, the Scientologists and THEIR little magic book, and so on. I don't believe any of THEIR nonsense based on such scanty "evidence", so why should I make an exception in your case?
Also, your time-frame for the Mithraens is off-kilter; the followers of that particular superstition pre-dated yours, and it grew out of Zoroastrianism at least 3-400 years before your superstition even existed.
I'll assume from your comment that you are not acquainted with the writings of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi.
Also, you should simply re-read what I wrote. I did not assert that the Mithras cult originated after Christianity, I claimed that the sources of our knowledge of it, especially those practices that seem to parallel Christian practice, come well after the establishment of Christian practices, which are clearly rooted in Judaism, and not mystery cults or other sources.
You wouldn't be talking about the self-identified "evangelist Christian" Edwin Yamauchi, would you? Colour me surprised, but I think you'll find me performing hemmorhoid surgery on myself with a pair of chopsticks and a belt sander before I can find a self-identified Christian evangelist saying anything unflattering about his religion, a Muslim evangelist saying anything unflattering about HIS religion, a Scientology evangelist saying anything unflattering about HIS religion, and so on.
The Mithraen religion and its use of specific rituals, rites, and other assorted fairy-tales as key parts thereof, BOTH predate the Christian religion, and this is part of a pattern in Christians' co-opting of previous religous belief in order to make itself more palatable to converts; ie. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the whims or wishes of an imaginary "god", but is simply an exercise in politics.
Providing evidence for Christianity to an unbeliever is like playing soccer with an opponent who keeps moving the goal posts.
No matter how much evidence I supply it will never meet the evidentiary requirements of the person opposite.
Just as Paul gave up arguing philosophy with the Athenian philosophers so I have given up trying to provide evidence.
I know whom I have believed, not because of what someone else told me but because of the experience I have had in interacting with Him. I know this interaction is true because after I have had the experience I inevitably read the account of someone, usually centuries before my time had the same experience.
That is why I try simply to proclaim the Gospel without trying to argue over it. I often use the analogy: Arguing about the reality of God is like discussing the colours of the sunset with a man born blind.
Just as I thought :-)
Joe -- when you "know whom you have believed, and are persuaded that he is able to keep that which you have committed unto him against that day", you are happy indeed!
We trust in the One we know, and we know the One in whom we have trusted -- unlike others who vainly beat the air fighting things they cannot see and do not know.
What an argument!!
I know Jesus saved me, literally, because He changed me. I know the Holy Spirit guides me, literally, because He tells me quickly when I am doing wrong. It is so simple.
For me, studying all these other religions, is a waste of time. I see goodness and mercy for me and forgiveness for my past. And with Jesus as my life my belief is concrete.
Betty G
Ha ha...you guys believe in magic and talking snakes.
Not snakes, Anon, snake. Who whispers in your ear, "go ahead and sin -- there is no god!". A snake who Jesus crushed on the Cross. A snake who is also a dragon. Whose doom is certain. Who wants to take as many down with him as he can.
Well, staunch atheist here. Haven't killed anyone yet. If fear of divine retribution is all that is keeping you in line, then I'm legitimately concerned for your mental health.
Fear of divine retribution is an entirely appropriate attitude for the unrepentant to take. Those who have believed on Christ for salvation have rather better prospects and are perfected in love rather than fear.
Christ commended those who repented at his preaching -- which included healthy doses of warnings of divine wrath.
A common warning goes out: "There's a train coming -- get off the tracks". Some say, "I don't believe in trains". Others say, "the train would never run over us". Still others, "fear is no good reason to jump off the tracks".
Well, I think fear of getting whacked by a train is a perfectly legitimate reason to get out of the way.
But, in this case, since the train is entirely imaginary, you're in the same position as one of those wingnuts I see prowling the streets with a shopping cart and screaming that the aliens are coming to probe us all next thursday morning ;-)
For some the fear of Divine retribution is entirely appropriate. It never was one of my motivators despite a dream I had while still an unbeliever. In that dream I was standing in an open field when I noticed the sky being split in two like a rag being torn from east to west. From the rend I saw a whole host of heavenly beings bright shining as the sun coming and in their midst was one like the Son of Man. Some how I recognized Him as Jesus the one I proclaimed I didn't believe in and He was coming toward me! My heart began to overflow with joy and I started jumping up and down. Without saying a word Jesus kept on His appointed path and left me standing in that suddenly cold barren field.
A few years later in the midst of a great depression I met Him again as I knelt beside a small white stone poking up just above the native prairie wool. I asked His forgiveness and in that moment I knew that I would not be left behind again for I was His and His alone.
Things have changed over the last 30 years yet the Love I felt that lonely afternoon has only grown deeper as I have come to understand that indeed all that I am and all that I have is by His Grace alone.
For those who so strenuously deny Him I feel the deepest sorrow even as I get a belly laugh out of the petulant childish nonsense that is supposed to show my faith for naught. Little do the naysayers realize it is their faith that unsustainable from a scientific point of view simply because it is they who deny the preponderance of hard evidence all the while clinging to mindless conjecture.
Joe, there's a name for people who base their lives on the things they "see" in dreams; they're called "lunatics", and most people are able to discern reality from things that are the product of their imagination. What is it that separates your fevered imaginings from the fevered imaginings of say, Jim Jones, or Khomeini, or Tom Cruise, or any OTHER wingnut that decides they have some sort of "message from god"?
Anonymous:
Did I ever say that I based my life on a dream? No I didn't. Now do you see why I said that debating with you is like playing soccer with someone who keeps moving the goal posts?
The problem with you is that you are basing your reality entirely on what you think rather than admit that there might be more to life than what you have experienced. Hence my statement earlier about debating the colours of the sunset with a man born blind.
You have never experienced the Truth and so you are in no position to argue His existence or lack thereof. I along with literally billions of others have experienced His existence but you won't allow our testimony into evidence and so you stand on the outside thinking yourself wiser than all the rest.
In the mean time men moved by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit have laid down the very foundations of of civilization. On the other hand we could allow avowed atheists to set the norms just ask Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung etc. We could follow some guy who called for the extermination of anyone who does not agree with him like Mohamed or we could follow someone who when asked to judge a capital case said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
I don't know about you but I know what kind of society I would rather live in.
This discussion is pointless. As soon as someone starts claiming that Stalin, Pol Pot and/or Mao were 'atheist' dictators and tyrants, then I have to claim Poe's Law on them. No non-retarded person would be unable to see the incredible stupidity of such a comparison. I'll give you a hint: None of those guys did any of their bad deeds in the NAME of ATHEISM. They did it in the name of some political ideology that included atheism as a policy. I might suggest you look up cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In fact, you might start by reading a book on critical thinking so that you don't make the same silly mistakes again.
They may not have done it "in the name of atheism" but their atheism certainly gave them permission to do it.
The idea that there is a disconnect between one's most fundamental beliefs and one's resulting behaviour is a non-starter.
As for dreams, I'm with Joe; don't discount them. The guy who discovered DNA got the key idea in a dream.
Furthermore, God often speaks in dreams. He's a great communicator. And dreams are one of the tools at his disposal.
They may not have done it "in the name of atheism" but their atheism certainly gave them permission to do it.
You mean like the Bible gives you permission to stone your wife to death for cheating? Great morality there.
Rulers of all stripes have existed with all manner of religious beliefs. I doubt that anyone gave any of them 'permission' to do most of what they did, be it good or bad.
In any case, did you even read the 'correlation does not imply causation' article? If you did, is that your mechanism explaining the causation? You're claiming that atheists have no morals? If so, you're wrong. You don't need an imaginary objective basis for morality. Well, clearly YOU do. But some people don't, as hard as it is for you to comprehend.
This is all so pointless. It's like explaining quantum mechanics to a dog.
One day you will stand before God; perhaps you will lose a bit of your smug superiority at that time.
You're claiming that atheists have no morals? If so, you're wrong.
Strawman.
You don't need an imaginary objective basis for morality. Well, clearly YOU do.
Ad hominem.
This is all so pointless. It's like explaining quantum mechanics to a dog.
Jesus spoke of what comes out of the heart and the dreadful consequences to the unrepentant.
No, Joe, I base my life on what I see EVIDENCE FOR, and what I can reason to while following that evidence. Since there is no more evidence for what you claim to believe in than there is to believe in magic, or ghosts, or fortune-telling, or palm-reading, or any other sort of hocus-pocus, I simply don't believe in it, any more than I believe in any OTHER foolish superstition.
I can understand you WANTING to believe in your chosen superstition, because you feel it gives you some sort of control over your life, but that's true of ANY superstition, and I simply can't understand someone being so desparate for reassurance that they're willing to believe something that is so plainly ludicrous.
David: Might I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote instead of just becoming angry. I have never said that atheists have any less morals than Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. They may have similar morals or very dissimilar morals depending on the personal philosophy of the individual. However to say that the rejection of Christianity by the various German atheistic philosophers like, Hegel, Nietzsche, Engels, Marx didn't have influence in the Nazis and Communists outlook and actions is silly.
Now if I were to get all Christian on you I would say that in every individual there resides a certain thing called Grace. A very wise man, watching the execution of a murderer was heard to mutter, "There but for the Grace of God go I". You were, and it is still evident up to the present time, given the Grace not to be a murderer. I similarly have been so blessed as evidenced by the fact that I have not killed anyone. However I would never claim it as an innate ability. It is a gift to be thankful for everyday. I know that should that Grace be withdrawn from me I would be the most vile killer in the history of mankind.
Anonymous: You simply proved my point debating colours with a man born blind. You demand that you see before you accept it as evidence. Does that include your belief in evolution? No one has ever seen evidence of it but I'd be willing to bet that you believe in it. The fact is that you believe what you believe based on your own ego. "I shall be the arbiter of what it acceptable evidence". A billion people today could stand before you and testify to the Truth but you would reject it. A few nutbars could run out and testify that a cow just became a slug and you would believe it since by believing it keeps you firmly on the throne.
οτι λεγεις πλουσιος ειμι και πεπλουτηκα και ουδενος χρειαν εχω και ουκ οιδας οτι συ ει ο ταλαιπωρος και ο ελεεινος και πτωχος και τυφλος και γυμνος συμβουλευω σοι αγορασαι χρυσιον παρ εμου πεπυρωμενον εκ πυρος ινα πλουτησης και ιματια λευκα ινα περιβαλη και μη φανερωθη η αισχυνη της γυμνοτητος σου και κολλυριον ινα εγχριση τους οφθαλμους σου ινα βλεπης.
If you have trouble with the Greek try any good English translation of Revelation 3: 17,18.
"You demand that you see before you accept it as evidence."
Is there any other intelligent way to find things out? Absolutely not; yet you insist that someone has to first BELIEVE in something in order to find evidence for that something. Sorry, but that's not the way the real world works.
And, yes, there is PLENTY of evidence for evolution, and it is seen in every transitional fossil that is found. If there WASN'T any evidence for evolution, the entire theory would be no better than YOUR theory, ie. an invisible being that no-one has ever seen, and that we have no evidence for, is treating us all like insects in an ant-farm. How on earth, by any stretch of the imagination, is that any sort of a realistic explanation for what we can see, feel, and discover around us? Don't get the idea that I'm "picking on" Christianity in particular, your superstition is just one of thousands, but NONE of them offer anything better than "trust me, would I lie to you?" Well, I don't make decisions like that; I don't do it when it comes to nonsense like global warming, I don't do it when a politician is trying to sell me a bill of goods, I don't do it when someone is trying to get money from me, and I certainly don't do it when someone is trying to convince me of hokum like "gods".
Anonymous Did I ever suggest that you believe first? I don't see it in any of my writings. I suggested that you accede myself and others who testify to the truth of Christianity the same critical thought you no doubt leveled at those who told you about "transitory fossils". You did level them with untold critical thought didn't you. I know that when I heard of "transitory fossils" I immediately thought of what would happen if a future scientist found a very old skeleton of a donkey, a newer skeleton of a zebra and a still younger skeleton of a horse. Of course global warming has wiped all three species and of course you and I both know that ancient writings are not to be trusted. What would that far future scientist say? Might he not say that the donkey died out and or evolved into the zebra which likewise died out and or evolved into the horse? I mean who is to question him he is a scientist and you and I both know that science never gets things wrong based as it is on real observation.
By the way how are you making out on the Greek?
Joe, that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting, and it makes no more sense for me to "believe" in your superstition without critical thought than it does for me to "believe" in anything ELSE without critical thought.
As far as transitional fossils go, they are subject to far more scrutiny than your mystic claims of what a given imaginary "god" might do, say, or think. That's part of the scientific process, where if something DOESN'T make sense, additional evidence has to be found in order to either confirm it or rule it out as a plausible theory. In the case of your donkey/zebra/horse example, in order for a scientist to claim that one of these is a transitional species of the other two, they would have to be separated in the geologic strata by a long enough period to allow any changes seen to occur.
Yes, I'd be the first to admit that science does sometimes get things wrong (usually, by jumping to conclusions that aren't adequately supported by the available evidence, which is PRECISELY what your superstition does), but the scientific method deals with these cases by having no sacred cows whatsoever. If something EXISTS, it has to be explained, and it can't be explained away by nonsense like "oh, well, this is obviously a trick of a god that we can't even prove exists"; when you eliminate what is impossible, what remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.
And yes, I looked up the passage that you alluded to (but if it's not in English, German, or Russian, I have to use a translator), but whoopdie-do; need I remind you (AGAIN) that almost EVERY superstition takes great pains to claim that they, and they alone, are the "one true religion", and that anyone who doesn't believe in that specific religion is going to its specific imaginary "hell"? Once again, your superstition is no different than anyone else's, with nothing better to offer than the "BELIEVE OR ELSE, HEATHEN!" that they do.
"Did I ever suggest that you believe first?"
So what does this mean then? Joe: "You demand that you see before you accept it as evidence"
What could that mean other than 'until you believe you won't recognize the evidence'.
It's really simple for me - nothing in my life has EVER pointed to a god(s). There has been NOTHING to make me believe in ANY religion.
To the believers here: is this the fault of god? Who's fault is it that ~I~ don't believe? Nothing has been presented to me which would indicate that god exists - how can ~I~ find god then? If god made me, he made me a skeptical atheist - wouldn't you blame him for that? Should I abandon my sanity and embrace that which I don't believe to be true? Is that what god wants?
Joe Agnost.
You’re right Anonymous Joe Agnost, every superstition claims to have the unvarnished truth to which its adherents must swear unwavering fealty. Preeminent amongst them is Science. To even voice an opinion contrary to popularly held "scientific fact (opinion)" will bring out all kinds of rabid response from people like you. People like you who do not understand the "scientific principles" like never declaring a theory a fact simply because it suits your world view. A true scientist would hold all points of view to be equally valid until there is evidence to support one view or the other. That is why I don't take the fossil record to mean much. There are too many plausible explanations as to why there are different fossils in the ground. Not the least of which is the analogy of the three contemporary animals similar in nature whose single skeleton is found in three different geological strata. One can not logically say with absolute certainty that one animal became the other. Yes they may have "evolved" or they may have simply died out
I know that you think because you have never seen any evidence of God that therefore God doesn’t exist. I had the same discussion with a man born blind when I was discussing the colours of a sunset. He had seen no evidence for a colourful sunset therefore, colourful sunsets do not exist. In other words that you have seen no evidence simply shows me that you are still blind. Having once been blind myself I know whereof I speak. I too was once an avowed believer in Science. However that changed when my eyes were opened to the Truth. I discovered that the reason I couldn’t see the evidence was because I refused to see the evidence. I was like the poor man complaining of my lack of money yet refusing to go get a job. I was like the single guy complaining that I didn’t have a girl friend but refusing to ask a girl out on a date.
I am reminded of the old scientist who swore there were no living beings in a drop of water. After all he had never seen a living creature in a drop of water. He was using the same logic you just applied; no living creatures exist in a single drop of water because he had never seen evidence of one. You may well say that, “yes but reputable scientists the world over state emphatically that there are creatures so small that they live in a drop of water”, but that would be my line of argument not yours and by the way you already been discounted that line of argument when you placed your accumulated evidence as paramount. Using my line of argument, others might state that there a cause and effect link between drinking water, with said living creatures in it, and illness. The people who use your line of argument would say that they have been drinking water all their life and have never been made ill by consuming water. Yes they get sick but there is no correlation or causation.
So how then shall we prove the truth? I suggest that we experiment. If you are so certain that the Christian God (Yahweh or Jesus) doesn’t exist then you will have no difficulty in doing this. Speak into the air in total privacy so as not to embarrass yourself, saying, “God of Richard and Joe if you exist please reveal yourself to me”. That’s all that is required. At the end of six months I’m sure Richard will allow you space to say that your experiment failed. Write back and let us know the results of your experiment
If you are not going to do this experiment then you are not a scientist and it would seem that in your heart of hearts you are afraid that Yahweh might actually exist. After all if He doesn’t exist what harm would there be in asking Him to reveal Himself? It would be like asking empty space to create a new star. Other than you look silly in your own mind it will do no harm right? If you are so certain that God doesn’t exist there can be no harm in asking Him to reveal Himself as it will just be empty words spoken to empty space.
BTW if the experiment is a success from my point of view then you shall have the answers to the questions you just asked.
Peace
"Speak into the air in total privacy so as not to embarrass yourself, saying, “God of Richard and Joe if you exist please reveal yourself to me”."
To humour the crazy old man, I carried out this little experiment (again, for probably the third or fourth time) at 8:28 pm, on January 12; I will report back on July 12, whereupon your response will be "Oh, you just need to believe", or some such nonsense.
Now, because scientists since Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) have known that living beings too small to see with the naked eye exist in non-sterile drops of water, I have to wonder exactly how "old" this supposed "old scientist" was? Or, perhaps more likely, this is just another homily you saw on "Answers in Genesis", right? ;-)
No true scientist is afraid of the truth, and they are more than willing to change or even DISMISS a theory if it does not meet the evidence; this is one of the biggest differences between science and superstition, since superstition will cling to its theories despite an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, or a lack of evidence in support of that superstition. Science welcomes and seeks out evidence and alternative explanations; religion and superstition run away from those things.
Actually both science and religion seek to explain things according to their own world view. Its called the human condition. I suppose that is why I am no longer want to be a scientist or religious. My most fervent wish is that I go to where the Truth is. I have no desire to stare at dead bones and postulate what might have been. I have no desire to partake in endless mindless ritual. I do seek that I might be transformed, not by my wishes nor by my might nor even by the will of any man. Rather I would be transformed by His Grace into putting off this thing called the human nature that I may more fully partake in the Divine Nature. Of course that is only possible by Him who has called me and though I have been following Him for 30 years I am far from being complete.
BTW I am very glad to hear of your open mindedness. I hope and pray that He will give you the Grace that you are able to open your spirit so you may hear Him while He introduces Himself to you.
Peace
BTW, Joe, since you have so recently become so "open-minded", surely you wouldn't mind if I were to undertake a separate test immediately following your test? On July 12, at 8:29 pm, I will prostrate myself in front of my cupboard, and say (alone, mind you) "Oh, great and terrible box of instant mashed potatoes on my top shelf, if you exist, please reveal yourself to me in your good works." Now, if something good DOES happen to me in the 6 months following that little experiment, surely that must be the work of the supernatural deity I have residing in my kitchen cupboard, correct? Or, maybe it would just be a case of desperately assigning a cause to something when no such cause could reasonably be inferred? ;-) After all, everyone KNOWS that the box of instant mashed potatoes I have in my cupboard is not a deity, and trying to convince you otherwise would be like trying to debate the colours of the sunset with a man born blind; you simply need to open your mind to the possibility that I have a deity living in my cupboard, between the soup and the sugar.
"To even voice an opinion contrary to popularly held 'scientific fact (opinion)' will bring out all kinds of rabid response from people like you."
This is an outright lie. Or can you back it up?
"People like you who do not understand the 'scientific principles' like never declaring a theory a fact simply because it suits your world view."
What a load! What the hell are you talking about? What "theory" has been called a "fact" simply because of a world view?
"I too was once an avowed believer in Science."
And now you ~don't~ "believe" in "science"?? My god - are you really THAT ignorant?
Science isn't even about "belief"! There is no "belief" necessary - but it DOES take understanding, and that might be your stumbling block.
Education would be the solution to this - go educate yourself. Then you can "believe" that your computer actually works - yup, the computer SCIENCE created!
"I am reminded of the old scientist who swore there were no living beings in a drop of water."
The scientist you just made up? You don't need to make up stories like this to show your complete immature ignorance - it was shown in your previous paragraph.
Like "anonymous" who posted after you, I don't have a problem with your "experiment" - except that it wasn't thought out well enough. If I don't get an answer what does that prove? Anything?
And anonymous is BANG ON about science welcoming descent. Disproving a theory is a GREAT thing in science - an act that brings fame and (likely) awards!
Good idea Anonymous. However to be truly scientific the experiment would have to be replicable. In other words even if I worshiped your box of mashed potatoes as a god and all those supposed feelings you think occur when I follow Jesus occur when I worship the box of potatoes would it be replicable by billions of others or would they simply call me a nut bar and avoid me like the plague. Don't forget that there are literally Billions of people who have experienced what I have experienced and some maintained that testimony even unto death as they too follow(ed) Jesus. I can't think of too many people who would testify to a box of potatoes and willing surrender their lives over a feeling of well being coming from a box of mashed potatoes.
However your analogy is instructive in a minor way in that for centuries men like you have been declaring themselves atheists all the while worshiping the god of their own creation. Every opportunity you have you try to shove your god, science, down my throat. You declare that your god science shall be your arbiter as you make your way through this world.
The funny thing is that I too grew up in the "scientific" age and to be perfectly honest am actually trained in a scientific discipline. However unlike you I actually grew out of that childish mindset by asking myself if all there is to life is what I can see, do, or feel. I actually began to question whether my limited set of knowledge was reflective in the reality of the universe or just a little pile of pebbles that a child might accumulate to make a sand castle. In other words I began to question knowing and knowledge. If you ask any of the true trail blazers in scientific advancement or any great artist they will all tell you that their knowledge and the ability comes from somewhere beyond themselves. I'm not saying that they all are Christians or even deists simply that they recognize that there is something more.
Over time I began to realize that small minds think they are the penultimate. Great minds recognize that they are but vessels for the usage of Something Greater. So the real question is should I become a small mind and worship a box of potatoes or should I strive to be a great mind in the service of I AM, Who Created All That you and I can sense with our physical being?
Having been in the gutter of science and come to an understanding I can tell you that as for me and my family, we shall serve the LORD.
Oh and a little hint to help you on your way read 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 Note especially 1 Corinthians 13: 12
Indeed our knowledge is imperfect for we but look through a glass darkly seeing but a pale reflection of the greatness that lies beyond. Why would anyone limit themselves to the worship of their belly? Why would anyone reduce themselves to mere brutishness. Why would I worship a box of potatoes when I can dance amongst the stars.
For I shall slip the surly bonds of earth and float on heaven's wings....
"I can't think of too many people who would testify to a box of potatoes and willing surrender their lives over a feeling of well being coming from a box of mashed potatoes."
As organized religion has shown for thousands of years - people will believe ANYTHING!
A box of mashed potatoes? Jesus? Xenu? What's the difference?
"However unlike you I actually grew out of that childish mindset by..."
In the typical hypocritical way you denounce science as "childish" while typing away on your computer. You enjoy the fruits of science EVERY DAY - and you have the nerve to denounce it!
I love the idea that science is childish - and that religion is legitimate! What a laugh! :)
Religion. (shaking head).
Joe Agnost
And to be fair, Joe, YOUR experiment would ALSO have to be repeatable; however, that's never the case when it comes to religion/superstition, because the classic "out" of "my god doesn't answer to the whims of humanity" is invoked.
The sheer NUMBERS of people who may or may not believe in a given superstition is likewise no indicator of whether or not that superstition is true, otherwise all we would need to do is take a vote, and the results of that vote will change drastically with time, place, or how a given question is asked; eg. you would get drastically different answers to the question "Is the earth flat?" depending on whether you asked that question in the Stone Age or today. To put in into a homily which you may understand, "If your friends jumped off of a bridge, would you jump off too?" Facts are facts, and voting on those facts doesn't change them.
Finally, I'm not trying to "shove" anything down your throat in any way (a marked contrast to what your superstition is known for), since the truth is the truth, and what you think your imaginary god has to say on the matter is no more relevant than what an African witch doctor has to say on the matter.
Well the truth be told the computer is not a product of science. It is made possible by the laws of nature which are a product of their Creator. Just as the idea of how to build them is a gift from the One who created us. In other words you may think that I am being cavalier in my treatment of science but I would respond by saying you are being even more cavalier in your treatment of Yahweh. I know that is way above your head but I'll let it stand.
I am reminded of the proud scientist who came before God boasting that he could make life out of inert matter. God said that's wonderful now go make some matter.
Yes science is a wonderful servant but it is a horrible master. In science we can find the answers to many things but in science we will never find the answers to the important things.
As I follow the debates raging in the physics and mathematics faculties about the foundations of the universe I can't help but think that, "Science labours at the foot of the mountain theology rests upon".
BTW to which ever anon (could you kind folk please pick a handle so I can differentiate between all the anons) that keeps confusing Christianity with organized religion let me explain something to you. There are millions of people many like you who can not think for themselves. They become slaves to a school of thought. Some like you have become enslaved by is science, not that you are a scientist rather that you think that science holds the answers to all things. Others become enslaved to a church, a mosque or a temple. However for many Christians there is no church, mosque or temple that could have lead them where they have gone in their world outlook. Many came to be Christian before they ever set foot in a church. Many have been in churches and walked out when the church carried on down the dead end road of 'this is what you shall think or believe'. Yes there are many Christians who take whatever is told to them as truth for a time but most over time realize that what the church is telling them and what they are experiencing are two very different things.
I could carry on for years with examples but what would be the point. It is impossible to tell such truths to ones who prefer the lie to the Truth. The lie of course is that you can know everything with your all too human mind. What I will testify to is that there is a Spiritual realm of which you are completely ignorant. You may call it superstition, magic, hocus pokus or any other derogatory term you choose except that when you do so it is you that comes across as the idiot for you know not of what you speak. I have experienced it as have billions of others and it is of that spiritual reality that we testify in unison.
"Well the truth be told the computer is not a product of science."
And mary was a virgin... ;)
Pull the other leg, there's a bell on it.
"you are being even more cavalier in your treatment of Yahweh."
In the same way I suppose I'm cavalier in my treatment of unicorns and xenu... imaginary things don't deserve, nor require, any other treatment.
"I am reminded of the proud scientist..."
I am reminded of the christian who used his scientifically designed computer to rail against science and expected to be taken seriously.
Let me guess: when you get sick you go to a doctor. When you're seriously hurt you go to a hospital.
If science isn't to be "believed" why not just go to a church? Oh yeah - because you don't ~really~ believe science is a farce. Deep down you know science is the ONLY one who will save you when you are sick/hurt.
"in science we will never find the answers to the important things."
"important" is subjective. I think curing cancer is important. I think the question 'why are we here' is NOT important.
"As I follow the debates raging in the physics and mathematics faculties about the foundations of the universe..."
I don't believe that for a second. Like the old 'I used to be an atheist but now know better' line it's usually BS.
"BTW to which ever anon that keeps confusing Christianity with organized religion let me explain something to you."
Don't bother. Christianity IS an organized religion. You don't have to step foot in a church to fall for that (christian) scam. It's organized, well funded, and powerful... oh, and WRONG!
"Some like you have become enslaved by is science..."
How am I "enslaved by" science?? You sure are an odd chap.
"It is impossible to tell such truths to ones who prefer the lie to the Truth"
Your error here is calling one "the lie" and the other "the truth".
"The lie of course is that you can know everything with your all too human mind."
Is it possible to "know everything" with our all too human minds? Maybe. I don't know, nor do I much care.
What I do know, though, is that organized religion most certainly IS a lie.
Joe Agnost
Once again, Joe (Anon 1 here, but you can call me SDC if you wish), what is it that makes you think that YOUR particular superstition is any better than any of the thousands of OTHER superstitions that exist or have existed? Simply your "feeling" that you're right? In that case, what makes your "feeling" any more accurate than the "feeling" of the follower of any OTHER superstition? That's right, NOTHING AT ALL.
The reason that you have fallen prey to this fallacy is the same reason that billions of people have fallen prey to any other fallacy, be it believing in ghosts, or seances, or "magic", or any other nonsense you'd care to name; you believe it not because it's true, but simply because you WANT it to be true, and that's what has sustained belief in ghosts, fairies, unicorns, and gods for as long as man has imagined "evil spirits" that he wanted protection from. Religion is a fairy-tale sold to adults, no more and no less.
You know Joe Agnost, SDC its fun to sit around and debate until you finally get down to "yes it is no it isn't." As this debate dragged on it became more and more apparent that we are talking two different levels. Your point of view is a very basic. My point of view is a bit more elevated than you seem to be able to go. You seem to want to debate knowledge whereas I want to debate the human condition which precludes us from true knowledge. You seem to believe that the tiny bit we think we know actually has made a difference to the human condition where I maintain that what we can't know is part of the human condition.
It is nice to live as you choose, in a comfy cocoon constructed by the hands of men. It is entirely something else to stand intellectually naked before the cosmos and realize that we are here by plan.
Wonderful it is to stare at an 'empty' stretch of sky, then look through a powerful telescope only to find untold galaxies beyond the human reach or understanding. It is awe inspiring to realize that there is more energy in a cubic foot of empty space than the nation of Canada uses in a century. It is astounding to break things down into to their smallest components and see the same pattern as one sees in the largest assembly of those self same components. Yet having broken them down we realize we still don't know what makes it.
It is amazing to think that could I understand a grain of sand I could understand the universe, yet I can look at the universe and not understand why I do the things I do.
Yet no matter how lost in my own thoughts I become about the most obscure thing; this I know that before this universe came into being there existed a Will. From that Will sprang Reason and because both are inextricably connected by Their Nature we exist.
We struggle for a short time with the nature we have been given, undeserved, unearned, unmerited, a nature that we can never surmount because that nature is death. Yet we are not hopeless nor are we helpless. For the Will, Reason and Nature that existed before the foundation of the universe has determined that we whom He has chosen shall indeed partake in His own Divine Nature which is Life Itself.
You may choose to live like a pig, snout firmly planted in its slop trough squealing with delight over the most recently discovered rotten apple core and I will never say you must change. I know you can't change. After all you can shave a monkey but its still a monkey.
I can tell you all about the things you will never know but you won't care for your nose is full of the smell of that wonderful sour milk that was just added to your slop trough. And so I close this with this little line:
Hush squealing swine
Do you not know
Swinehood hath no remedy.
Yet should you look up there is Help indeed.
Peace
Joe, I am fully aware that there are things that we do not know, and may be unlikely to EVER know (because not enough evidence remains or is available). However, that is absolutely no reason to do as YOU do, and throw up our hands and say "Oh well, if I can't explain it, that must mean an invisible (box of mashed potatoes, teapot, pink unicorn, god, what have you...) is responsible for it". You and your ilk would STILL be living in caves, huddled around a campfire and wetting yourselves everytime one of those "evil spirits" outside the cave made a sound, if it wasn't for the scientific process. For exactly the same reasons that you dismiss every superstition but yours, I dismiss ALL superstitions, including yours.
SDC
Wow Joe - the only thing your rant was missing was the disclaimer: "this is what your brain sounds like on religion. Please children, just say NO to religion."
I cannot imagine a loonier comment than the tripe you just typed... the only part that made it worth the read was when you started insulting me:
"You may choose to live like a pig, snout firmly planted in its slop trough squealing with delight over the most recently discovered rotten apple core and I will never say you must change. I know you can't change. After all you can shave a monkey but its still a monkey."
That was entertaining in the way it opens a window into how you view other people with differing views. Was it jesus who said: 'hate those who differ. Belittle them and insult them whenever possible.'
I might have that quote ~slightly~ off - but in my dealings with theists it's close enough, that's how they behave anyway.
How, exactly, do I "live like a pig"?? What are you talking about?
"I can tell you all about the things you will never know but you won't care..."
Oh the hubris! Too funny!
Joe Agnost
First of all SDC I would invite you to go back and read all of my postings and tell me where you think I said that we should stop seeking knowledge. I have never said it because I don't believe it. I think one of our greatest joys is to find the answers to the mysteries hidden by Him who created it all. I found it fascinating to read how science and mathematics are now postulating that empty space is actually full of energy. I'm not sure how we can harness such energy for our usage but it would be exciting to learn how! I often thought that if there are such things as UFOs and I have never seen enough evidence to say aye or nay that the UFOs must be using something similar to that energy in order to travel the distances some suspect they have traveled.
But you see the God I have come to know allows all of these things to potentially exist. The God I have come to know contains the entire universe within Himself. I see no reason that He would limit Himself to putting life on one planet circling one star in one galaxy.
You see my Christianity is actually more 'scientific' than most scientist. We must dig deeper, go farther, change our minds as evidence leads us down different paths. To do so is exciting and enlivening. However to limit oneself to only what we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell is exactly contrary to Christianity. What if there are other senses upon which we can rely? What if there are beings all around us which we can not see but with whom we can interact? What if there are ways of abrogating the laws of physics an chemistry?
You see those the boundaries I seek to push back through my Christianity. In so many ways I look at what passes as science today and I think that the scientist is far more superstitious than I am. Science seeks to flatten and deaden everything with "plausible" answers that we can tell a child to calm them from fussing. I'm not interested in quieting children. I want to lay the universe bare that I may understand it all the more fully. However I want to understand the entire universe including that which 'science' refuses to investigate.
The more research I do the more I come to realize the Truth that is in Christianity. In science so many of these things are impossible but through God ALL things are possible. I don't know how its done but I have seven friends who swear that they drove for two vehicles 5 hours on two empty tanks of gas. I don't know how but I have seen 8 people fed with food enough feed only two adults and two children. Not only were they all fully fed but there was food left over.
As I have repeatedly said before it is foolish unto death to limit oneself to 'science'. Science is just about the here and now, and offers only physical solutions. That's wonderful except what happens if there is more to life than a bunch of amino acids bumping together? Shall we be like swine focused on what is immediately before us and what satisfies our belly, or shall we seek after that which is more?
That is why I say that atheists are not true scientists because they limit themselves in their investigation and denigrate what they do not understand. I as an engineer would be silly to denigrate a doctor because I didn't understand medicine. Just as it would silly of the doctor to denigrate an engineer because he didn't understand the stresses on a truss. Expertise in one area does not give credentials in another. There are things in this life which only Christianity can answer.
"You see my Christianity is actually more 'scientific' than most scientist. We must dig deeper, go farther, change our minds as evidence leads us down different paths."
No, Joe, you do exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim above; despite what any amount of evidence points to, and the lack of any evidence in support of your position, you continue to claim that your imaginary "god" is somehow the "cause" for whatever you decide to claim it is; this is doubtless because you also claim that said "god" is omnipotent, which raises its own logical non-sequitors. If your imaginary "god" WAS actually omnipotent, then your imaginary "god" would be responsible for everything, both good and bad, and you wouldn't need to dream up an equally-imaginary evil "god" as a counterpoint.
Therefore, you make your mind up ahead of time what your conclusions are going to be, irrespective of any evidence. How is this "scientific" in any way? This is like me claiming that the can of low-sodium mushroom soup next to the Instant Mashed Potatoes in my cupboard is somehow responsible for all the world's ills. No, it doesn't make sense, and I can't prove it, but that's the beauty of your imaginary world-view; you don't HAVE to prove it, you can make whatever ludicrous claims you want to, and say "Believe or else, heathen".
SDC
"I often thought that if there are such things as UFOs {snip snip} that the UFOs must be using something similar to that energy in order to travel the distances some suspect they have traveled."
You might think this makes you sound educated and scientific - but it is actually a ridiculous statement.
Why would these HUGE distances be any easier to travel with energy derived from this empty space - than with nuclear energy? Or wind energy, or solar energy?
Can you explain that?
Space travel isn't an energy problem - it's a TIME/DISTANCE problem.
SDC already responded admirably to your "my christianity is more scientific than most scientists" hilarity. Holy deluded batman! (and again with your hubris!)
"What if there are other senses upon which we can rely?"
Yeah! "What if"? Well, if there ARE other senses upon which we can rely then I look forward to seeing evidence of them/it.
How else could we make use of such a "sense" if we had NO EVIDENCE of it? Don't you see how that doesn't make sense?
"What if there are beings all around us which we can not see but with whom we can interact?"
Again - I look forward to seeing the evidence of this because without evidence it is USELESS!
ANYTHING, and I do mean anything, is fair game in science. Science doesn't limit itself to what it wants to be true - if there is evidence then science will 'have at it'!
But without evidence an hypothesis is useless.
"I look at what passes as science today and I think that the scientist is far more superstitious than I am."
Is there any chance we can get you to provide (sorry, I know you don't like this word) evidence of this? It sounds like BS to me, so I'll need an example of this "science" you claim is more superstitious than you.
"I want to understand the entire universe including that which 'science' refuses to investigate."
What does science "refuse to investigate"?? What are you on about here??
"I have seven friends who swear that they drove for two vehicles 5 hours on two empty tanks of gas."
Really? Wow, that sounds totally believable. I don't know why anyone would doubt such a story (roll eyes).
"I don't know how but I have seen 8 people fed with food enough feed only two adults and two children. Not only were they all fully fed but there was food left over."
Again - your fantastic stories mean nothing. Not only are they patently untrue - but they weaken your position because they make you sound insane.
"Science is just about the here and now"
Except that it isn't. The more you talk about science the more clear it becomes that you don't know anything about science.
Or do you think (for instance) that the study of fossils is "here and now"? Star formation? The age of the universe? The big bang?
"here and now"? Really?
"I say that atheists are not true scientists because they limit themselves in their investigation"
Yeah - they limit themselves to SCIENCE! As they should!
"and denigrate what they do not understand."
Any examples of this? Probably not.
I know I ask some tough questions Joe (as your ignoring them indicate)... sorry about that.
Joe Agnost.
Joe Agnost and SDC due to the fact that you as is usual with those who profess scientism/atheism/agnostisism are invariably small minded bigots that have little to contribute to any meaningful discussion I will end these postings with you.
Time and time again I have answered your every objection only to be told that which I and billions of others have experienced is imaginary. Well guess what; your inestimable opinion of yourself is the inverse of my opinion of your thoughts and opinions. Your imbecilic screeds are little more that poorly thought out hate speech and as such are not worthy of further reply. Please place your snouts a little farther in the slop trough that we who are capable of looking beyond ourselves won't have to listen to your incessant yammering. Please go on with your imaginary self satisfaction, bow down before your mirrored image as often as you see fit and in the end I'm certain that as you lay on death bed your mirrored image will stand before you and verify that indeed with your deepening scorn and dazzling wit have done well, good and faithful son.
As for me I would say begone you vexatious little sprite. Your have the intellectual power of a gnat and the spiritual depth of the dull side of tin foil. That you remain completely lost and unable to see beyond your self imposed intellectual blinkers is not the result of my effort. I would lift the veil for you but like your kind you prefer darkness to light. Go therefore and enjoy. Enrapture yourself with Nietzsche,and Darwin. Inveigle yourself with the simplistic pap of the Discovery Channel. Drink deep the simplistic answers that remains the swill of pop science.
Having cast off the enlightenment of mankind I tell you, rest well in the dimness of you own withering soul.
Oh and lest I forget. God Bless
Once again, we see the "depth" of the religous mind, eh, Joe? "If you don't believe my non-provable, non-repeatable theories that lack any evidence in support of them, that means that you're a bigot." Well, Joe, I don't buy that argument from anyone else (and neither do you, except when it comes to your superstition), so would you care to try to explain why it is that I should simply stop asking questions and accept your (or anyone else's) bogus "explanations"?
SDC
"Time and time again I have answered your every objection only to be told that which I and billions of others have experienced is imaginary."
What's this? A christian with a persecution complex??? I've never heard of one of those before. (roll eyes).
Poor poor christian. Spreading nothing but love and getting nothing but shit in return. You sure are a piece of work!
And for the record - you have ~not~ answered my (or our with SDC) objections/questions... in fact, about the only thing you seem able to do is drop insults (though not very well I might add).
In this post alone:
"small minded bigots"
"little to contribute"
"Your imbecilic screeds are little more that poorly thought out hate speech"
"place your snouts a little farther in the slop trough"
"begone you vexatious little sprite."
"Your have the intellectual power of a gnat and the spiritual depth of the dull side of tin foil."
It continues but it's all the same. OF course what else could we accept when you have NOTHING ELSE with which to argue! Certianly not truth, evidence, reality, logic... I guess insults is all we should reasonably expect.
Why not just admit that you've met your intellectual superior and you wouldn't have to embarrass yourself further with your posts?
"Oh and lest I forget. God Bless"
Oh I love it! Your entire comment above this is insulting and rude - but you wouldn't want to disappoint your god so you add your little 'god bless'. Classic. I'm sure you fooled him! ;)
If you actually believe the tripe you pretend to them the answers to my questions should come easily... but all you have is insults. Case closed.
A word from the moderator: I've been monitoring the debate. The score is 49.001 to 50.001 - a statistical tie!
Here's my ruling: the last person to post a comment wins.
So keep those slagging comments coming! Don't let the other guy have the last word!
Joe Agnost, SDC please since you are so into science and think I am not, follow this link.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god?page=full&comments=true
I assume you know how to cut and paste?
Once again, Joe, you take your pre-conceived conclusions, and then try to make them fit the observable facts, rather than building from facts to reach conclusions; not that I'm surprised, that's just what religions/superstitions do. Yes, I read the linked-to article thoroughly, and it says (surprise, surprise) that there are some things that we do not have enough evidence for to reach a conclusion on. I'm happy to say "OK, keep on looking for more evidence." You, on the other hand, take that as an excuse to say "Aha! This must mean that my "god", and my "god" alone is somehow responsible for that which we cannot explain", which is ludicrous and insupportable bug-dung. At this point in time, all that science knows for certain is that all matter was compressed into an amazingly tiny space, and that before that tiny space expanded into the universe we know now, time and space did not exist as we know it. That doesn't mean that anything "created" it, it doesn't mean that we don't live in a continually-rebounding universe that regularly collapses back onto itself, it doesn't mean that my Instant Mashed Potatoes said "Let there be spuds", in fact, it doesn't mean anything at ALL, unless we can collect evidence to back up some sort of a theory. And that's really where your narrow-minded little superstition ends; you're happy to NOT look for that evidence, because if you were to find it, your whole world-view would collapse in on itself (just like when a witch-doctor who promises that his potion will make a wearer bullet-proof finds out that no such thing occurs).
Also, Richard, 49.001 + 50.001 = 99.002.
SDC
You get .005 bonus points for pointing that out.
SDC Please re read my first post. I don't try to provide evidence because no matter what evidence is presented it will be rejected by someone like you.
I didn't read the linked article to seek evidence for God. As I read the article I realized the philosophical implications. If time started it must have started from something beyond time. If matter came into existence it must have come from something beyond matter. If all these things came into being from something greater then what is that 'something greater'? What is it that is beyond time, space, matter and energy?
If I take your position then you & I can't exist! If I take your point of view all the stars in the sky, can't exist! The fact that you and I and all the stars in the sky exist puts your rationalist, scientific thought pattern into what is philosophically known as a conundrum.
You do know what a conundrum is don't you? It's when two mutually exclusive ideas are both held as true. In other words when one 'truth' proves the other 'truth' is a lie.
You see my philosophy allows for Something that is beyond space and time. His Name Is YAHWEH which translates into I AM. Quite a fitting Name don't you think?
" I don't try to provide evidence because no matter what evidence is presented it will be rejected by someone like you."
No, you don't try to provide evidence because you realize there is no evidence that supports your superstition, and your "explanation" for things makes no more sense than claiming that my box of Instant Mashed Potatoes (blessed be His name) is responsible for everything. Invariably, when something is presented as some sort of "proof" for a "god", what it actually turns out to be is nothing more than a case of wishful thinking, and the saps that jump to the conclusion that a "god" was responsible for that something (for example, a "miracle") are indulging their own pathetic fantasies.
And what sort of warped sense of logic do you operate under when you can say something ludicrous like "If I take your position then you & I can't exist!"? I certainly know I exist, and unless you are a computer program designed to imitate a facile superstitious dingbat, I have a pretty good idea that you also exist.
Wisdom (Philosophy), lost on those who need it most.
Please go back and re-read my last posting. You are embarrassing yourself and I typed it really slowly just for you.
Sorry, Joe, just because YOU imagine that you have some sort of amazing insight into something doesn't mean squat, any more than it does when any OTHER religous wingnut feels the same way. That's where E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E enters the picture, and it's where your superstition falls flat on its face, just like any other superstition. Now, you'll note here that this is even before we get into the intricacies of your particular superstition, since all of you are in the same boat, no matter whether you're Christian, or Muslim, or Scientologist, or Buddhist, or Animist, or Voodoo, or any of the OTHER superstitions that people have dreamt up in order to give themselves a feeling of control over their lives.
You see Anonymous the posting that I spent an inordinate amount of time typing just so you might understand it simply refuted all your evidence. It had almost nothing to do with providing evidence in support of my point of view.
It simply pointed out that according to science, the natural has a beginning point. However the problem with the beginning point is that there is no 'natural' explanation for its occurrence. The Big Bang theory, it is revealed, presents more problems than it solves. I read one mathematician who said it is like there are seven missing dimensions. Other renowned scientists are now referring to the creation event as SUPERNATURAL simply because there is no natural explanation that fits the criteria.
From those 'scientific' insights I conclude that science has not precluded the existence of God. In fact science at this moment seems to indicate that there may well be a Supernatural Intelligence that created all we see and know.
In other words your stupidstition is at far greater risk from science than what you refer to as my superstition.
Oh and by the way Anonymous, I have never been a Christian because it gave me a sense of control in my life. I can't speak for anyone else or any other religion except science and Christianity and I can assure you that as a scientist I felt far more empowered and in control than I ever have as a Christian. In science I had nice little pat answers to complex problems. In Christianity I know that I don't understand the problems nor do I have to solution to them. I know Someone who does know the the problem and the solution but He is not under my control. I can ask and He sometimes graciously gives me the solution but not always and seldom in the way I find acceptable.
However thanks for sharing your complete ignorance of Christianity. Its amazing what our schools are turning out these days.
Joe, what you so clearly fail to understand is that until you can show some EVIDENCE (there's that horribly inconvenient word again) for your superstition, it makes no more sense for me to believe it than it does for me to believe that my supernatural box of Instant Mashed Potatoes is responsible for everything. I personally couldn't care less what sort of far-out nonsense you choose to believe in (provided you don't frighten the livestock or hurt anyone else), but that is a long, LONG way from any sort of a convincing argument in favour of your superstition.
Why should I show you any evidence? You wouldn't accept it anyway. I just pointed out that your philosophy is a sand castle built in mid air. Your concept doesn't actually work and your worried about my philosophy?
I'm not trying to be nasty but when your house is in order come talk to me about mine. Until you explain to me how the "singularity" became the universe I have no need to provide evidence. BTW just what was that singularity? Was it like a black hole? But don't black holes just 'suck' everything in and give nothing out?
However might I suggest that if you are looking for evidence stop being so blasted lazy and go find some. Do your own research. If you wish to prove the non existence of God be my guest and have at it.
If you want to discuss these matters like a mature adult, drop the sophomoric knit wittery and bring up some valid points. So far all you have done is throw insults.
I have quoted the words of men from 4000+ years ago that are still in common usage around the world. I have quoted the greatest Teacher the world has ever seen with 2000 years to be knocked off His teaching pedestal. I have quoted men upon whose teaching our western culture is based. I have quoted scientists who have received the Nobel Peace Prize in their fields of expertise.
In response you have come back with "You're superstitious". Well guess what you're going to have to do better than that. As much fun as it is to sling mud it is far better to discuss things with a bit of maturity and mutual respect.
Wrong again, Joe. I'm HAPPY to accept evidence, but you show nothing of the sort; you tell stories of "miraculous happenings" that no-one without an axe to grind would accept (which is exactly what YOUR superstition says when another superstition makes a claim of a "miracle", let me remind you).
As imperfect as science may be, it at least has impartial, repeatable evidence to back it up, something that neither your superstition, nor anyone else's has.
As for what a singularity is, we may never know, but there are multiple possibilities; they may conceivably even be entrance points into "other universes", for all we can tell at this point. Now, maybe if you can do something other than spout fairy-tales dreamt up by semi-literate nomads, you would have a chance of convincing me that you're interested in truth, instead of peddling your superstition.
And so we shall remain at loggerheads.
I'm still waiting for evidence from you to back up your point of view. You do know what evidence is don't you? I don't mean idle speculation, I want some hard evidence from you as to why I should abandon my point of view to accept yous. You do have evidence don't you?
Well OK if you don't have evidence how about a valid philosophical argument. You do have at least one of them don't you? Well if not I guess I have won the argument.
Peace
Step back and think about what you just said, Joe; you're asking for evidence that something does NOT exist, which is a logical impossibility. It is equivalent to asking for proof that there is not a pink teapot orbiting a planet that we haven't even discovered yet, or asking for proof that Bigfoot and Elvis do not have a love-child hiding in a subterranean base on the moon. If you're making the claim that something exists, YOU'RE the one that has to show evidence that it exists, not the other way around. Now, since you're the one making the claim that some mystic supernatural being exists, YOU'RE the one that has to prove it, otherwise, you are in EXACTLY the same position as someone claiming that the "volcano god" will cause a volcano to erupt and kill us all unless we make an appropriate human sacrifice to that "volcano god".
On the other hand, there are boatloads of evidence showing that evolution is a natural process, and that it explains why things on this planet are the way they are today. Given a choice between that, and an argument that boils down to "invisible magic man in the sky done it", do you REALLY have any difficulty understanding why I can not believe in your myth? As I said before, as long as you're not frightening the livestock or harming anyone, I really don't CARE what myths you choose to believe, but that leaves you in exactly the same place as every other superstition; without any evidence to back you up, but clinging desperately to your ghost stories in an attempt to feel like you have some measure of control over your life that others don't.
No anonymous I'm asking for proof that your theory works the way you speculate it works. I'm not talking about conjecture and speculation. I'm asking for proof of the autogenesis of inert matter. I'm asking for proof of auto-organization of the building blocks of matter. I'm asking for proof that life spontaneously sprang from non living matter. No speculation allowed I want hard and fast proof. As a hint; existence does not prove genesis.
Until you provide this kind of proof your line of attack against Christianity is null and void. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Joe, your OWN SUPERSTITION does not provide the sort of "proof" that you're now asking me for; it simply gives you a "feeling" that you're right. Why the sudden about-face now? OTOH, your superstition has made claim upon claim that can be conclusively proven to be false, so you simply keep on moving the goal posts further and further back. You are in the position of someone that claims to have been kidnapped and "probed" by aliens; without any sort of objective evidence to say that you were, in fact, kidnapped and probed by aliens, you have nothing more than your fantastic stories, stories which you yourself discount when they come from any other superstition. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, yet you don't even bother trying to reach the ordinary standard of proof that we as ordinary humans would normally require in order to be convinced of something.
Here's an example of something claimed to be a bona-fide "miracle" by many Catholics; the supposed "miracle of Fatima" in 1917, during which it is claimed that three children spoke with an invisible apparition, and which ended with "the sun dancing around the sky for 10 ten minutes". Hundreds of people like yourself claimed to have actually witnessed this, but there is a fly the size of Mount Everest in this particular ointment, because NO-ONE ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET NOTICED ANYTHING OF THE SORT. No astronomers, no pilots, no sailors, no-one out walking their dog, and certainly none of the thousands of soldiers that were on sentry duty in the trenches in France at that time. So, do I believe the "miraculous" line of BS that the Catholics spin out for this story, or do I believe that this was simply a combination of mass hysteria, hallucination, and good old-fashioned "making it up", because those people wanted to be in on something special? I know which one I believe, and exactly why I believe it; how about you?
SDC
SDC how do you know what my philosophy gives me? Would you like me to share it with you? My philosophy gives me a sense of humility. It tells me that I don't know it all. It tells me that pat answers just don't cut it. It tells me that there is Something out there that is far Far FAR greater than I. It tells me that even if I understood everything there is to understand I would still miss the big picture. It tells me that how I treat the most lowly being is important. It tells me that in order to be in harmony with creation I must be in harmony with its Creator.
Now as for proof well let me just close this too long discussion with this. If I need proof of a Creator I simply look around. I exist because He exists. You exist because He exists. The entire universe exists because He exists. How do I know that? Simple science says it can't be any other way! Science says that existence is impossible from simple natural law. Science says that in order for existence to be there must be laws above natural laws ergo the Supernatural. Since Science says that there must be a Supernatural and Christianity says that there is a Supernatural what kind of fool would I be to say there is no Supernatural?
You see the problem here is that I have done far more research in science than you have. I have also done far more research in Christianity than you have. In my research I have found that both at their roots say the same thing. Funnily enough both have their branches that wander away from the basic truth but that is a debate for another day. If I could give you a little advice.
Seek before you speak.
As for me I would say that when I was a child (scientist) I thought like as child (scientist) and acted like a child (scientist). As I have matured in my Christianity I have put childish ways behind me.
In short you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are hopelessly out of your league. Give yourself 20 years of hard research and life experience and then maybe we can have a mature discussion. That is assuming of course that you can actually get over yourself and admit that you don't know it all.
Its been a fun debate kind of like swatting flies on my end but we are spending way too much time saying, "yes it is no it isn't"
If you have something else to say except spewing your preconceived ideas of what I must think or feel get back to me. But please have some real debating points not just the simplistic "you're a poopy head" nonsense.
Joe, the only thing your "philosophy" gives you is the same thing that OTHER superstitions give THEIR followers as well; a pat on the head, and a condescending "Don't you worry your little head about anything dear, because our god is in charge and anyone who doesn't believe that is going to be punished horribly for not believing".
As for your misguided insistence that our existence proves anything other than "We exist", you have no more evidence for the existence of your particular sect's "god" than anyone elses's, and to even get to that point, you'd have to show the existence of a "god" to begin with. After you do that, maybe then you can start work on convincing me that your particular version of a "god", out of all of the other countless possibilities, is something that comes close to approaching the truth.
As much as you'd like to deny it, you are your superstition's version of a witch doctor, someone who makes all sorts of extravagant claims, but has nothing but bluster and empty threats ("Believe or else, heathen") to back you up. I'm still waiting for that "proof", and will report back on July 12 as to the results of your experiment, but if your "god" is anything other than a figment of the imagination, I challenge you (and s/he/it) to make itself known, and right now. .... Nope, nothing at all. Well, for such an omnipotent being, this "god" character seems to be falling down on the job, eh, Joe? If you're happy lying to yourself in an attempt to make it seem like you have control over your life, that's fine and dandy for you, but I'm not about to do the same to myself.
SDC
"Science says that in order for existence to be there must be laws above natural laws ergo the Supernatural"
Just to add, what exactly have you been smoking to arrive at this particular gem above? Find me ONE source that says that science says that there must be laws above natural laws.
Yes SDC just as your stupidstition gives you comfort blah blah blah and you're a poopy head. Yawn Heard it all before and you still haven't met one of my challenges.
Anonymouse 2 did you follow the link I posted earlier. If not then get with the program. The fact that you don't know about it indicates to me that you don't know a thing about science above and beyond a high school course or two. You did graduate high school didn't you?
Yes, Joe, I've already TOLD you I read through the earlier linked-to article, but NOWHERE does any scientist make any sort of laughable claim like "Science says that in order for existence to be there must be laws above natural laws ergo the Supernatural"; any such meaningless drivel that you claim to be able to see in that article, is, like the "god" your superstition is based on, simply a figment of the imagination.
Now, since you claim to have some sort of "proof" that this imaginary "god" of yours exists, I'm still waiting to hear some sort of good reason for me to believe in 1) a "god" in general, and 2) your specific "god" in particular. Otherwise, I may as well stick to my great and wondrous box of Instant Mashed Potatoes; I can at least prove that it exists.
Anonymous the scientist admits that there must be something beyond the natural and even greater than the natural which is to say the Supernatural. I know its a difficult concept but don't get hung up on the spooky connotations so often associated with the word supernatural. It simply means beyond nature which is exactly what is required for the big bang to have occurred.
He says no such thing you fool; he says (paraphrased) that we do not have sufficient evidence to yet offer a scientific (ie. natural) hypothesis for something; now YOU come along with your stone-age mythology and say "Aha! Well, if science can't explain it right now, that must mean it's "supernatural" (ooh, spooky), and therefore, my imaginary "god" must be responsible for it." Joe, that crap didn't hold water when it came to explaining lightning, it didn't hold water when it came to explaining diseases, it didn't hold water when it came to explaining the motion of the planets, and it certainly doesn't hold water when it comes to anything else. Since you're the one claiming that your imaginary "god" is responsible for something, it is up to YOU to prove the existence of your imaginary god, just as it was up to the scientists that discovered anything to PROVE that they weren't just making things up.
SDC
Yes anony and you're a poopy head too. Please get back to me when you have something positive to contribute. As it is you've just shown yourself as being incapable of following the English language and logic. Of course I knew that at the outset of this discussion after all a wise man once said, "A fool says in his heart, "There is no god".". Now go play in the traffic the adults want to have a conversation here.
And when the only thing you have left in support of your baseless superstition is bile, Joe, that should be a big clue that it's no more true than any OTHER superstition; you're in exactly the same position now as one of these fraud "psychics", who when pressed for some evidence that they're nothing more than con artists and shysters, can only spit and threaten the investigator with "evil spirits". Get on that proof thing, Joe, and I'll add your imaginary god to the long list of other imaginary gods that I'll have to start worrying about one of these days. ;-)
SDC
Well Annony I already told you that I'm not providing evidence since any evidence I provide will be summarily rejected by you. I have now turned the table and asked for proof of your contention. You haven't provided any either. At least I've been honest from my first post, too bad the same can not be said of you. Where's your evidence. I follow the theoretical physics and show that existence is supernatural because there is no natural reason for it. You are now under the obligation to prove that existence is purely natural. Quid pro quo if you please. Can you refute the second law of thermodynamics? If so please provide proof.
Joe, I start with an absolutely blank slate, and build from there. You, OTOH, start with your belief in an imaginary "god", and try to build from that. How on earth have I not been "honest" at any point; the point at which I decided that I was not going to accept any of your claims without evidence to back them up? Finally, I'm not the one making the insupportable claims here, YOU are. You claim that your particular "god", out of all of the thousands of "gods" that have been dreamt up, is somehow responsible for "creating" the universe and everything in it, while I say that there are things that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to form a hypothesis on. However, what we DO have is a distinct lack of evidence for any sort of "supernatural" causes, whether those "supernatural" causes are "gods", or boxes of Instant Mashed Potatoes, or little green men dressed like Elvis. My evidence is the LACK of evidence for your position. It is a basic rule of logic that the person making a claim (YOU, in this case) has to be able to provide evidence for that claim, which is what you cannot and will not do. Additionally, you are trying to apply entropy to a circumstance to which it does not apply; if it DID apply in this case, animals and plants would not be able to reproduce.
The fact remains annony that until you provide proof that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect then your faith in science has even less evidence than my belief in Yahweh. At least my belief in Yahweh is not self contradictory.
The problem you have is that you think my God is too small. That little tidbit is your problem and not mine. My God is not some little guy floating around on a cloud. My God does not resemble a man in any physical way. My God contains the entire universe within Himself. Not only is the universe within Him, He is aware of every thing that exists and takes place within Him. Going beyond that; time is not fixed for Him since He is eternal everything and event that is, was or shall be, is now for Him. What's
more He is not dependent in anyway upon our acknowledgment of Him nor is He influenced by our attempts to appease Him. This Yahweh of Whom I speak is comprised of three parts. He is Will, Reason and Nature or Presence, three in one. The universe and everything in it is a product of His Will carried out by His Reason and taking place entirely within His Nature or Presence. His stated goal in this universe that He created is to bring into existence beings like Himself. You and I are just such beings because He has imbued us with will, reason and nature. That being said ours is a broken nature and so we strive toward His Perfect Nature which is in effect living in perfect harmony with His Will and Reason.
One of the best illustrations of this is in the movie Men In Black II. In the movie the Tommy Lee Jones character is looking for his watch. Remembering he opens a drawer and around his watch is a bunch of little aliens bowing before his watch. The Will Smith character laughs at the little aliens whereupon Tommy Lee Jones kicks open a door marked DO NOT OPEN only to reveal to Smith that we too are living in a drawer.
Now if you want to go worship science you go right ahead but just remember this in so doing you are the one closest to worshiping that legendary box of mashed potatoes since both the mashed potatoes and science are the creation of man. In fact science is little more than discovering the ways the universe is put together by Him who put it all together in the first place.
Aah, it starts to make a little more sense now; if you can so easily transpose yourself into the part of an actor in a movie, why should I be surprised if you can believe in ghost stories? Your imaginary "god" is simply a product of the imagination, no different than "Thor" or "Zeus", or "Allah" or the "Volcano god", or any of the other dieties that pitiful people have dreamt up to explain things when they stop looking for the truth. You are more than free to believe in your chosen superstition (and, given your admission that your belief in that superstition is the only thing that's stopping you from going on some sort of killing spree, maybe the sane among us should be thankful for that), but it leaves you in the same spot as someone making sacrifices to their "volcano god". Enjoy your fairy tales, Joe ;-)
How's that thingy about the second law of thermodynamics coming Anonymous? Got it solved yet. When you are done we'll get together and have a party, OK. Who knows there might even be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for you.
OK maybe I'm asking a lot but at least give me a hint about your theory. You do have a theory don't you? I'd really hate to think that we spent all this time wasting Richard's bandwidth only to discover that you haven't got a clue!
Maybe instead of Anonymous you could change you handle to CAR.
which of course stands for Clueless At Richard's. Now don't waste anymore of your precious time ridiculing my point of view; get to work. I'm sure you will have all kinds of mathematical formula to show me tomorrow.
Have a good evening and I hope that Yahweh truly opens your mind so that you may more fully refute His existence. After all the "poopy head" argument is getting more than a little wearisome.
Don't stop now -- remember, the last person to post a comment wins!
Right now, I figure this post must be close to book-length. The only question is, will there be enough material to release it as a trilogy!?!
To keep things going, I suggest you consider the issue in terms of epistemology; you might want to consider the role of authority in knowing, and also knowing based on mathematical certainty vs. probability.
Don't run off just yet, Joe; since you're the one making the claim that we were all put here by this imaginary "god" of yours, it is still up to YOU to put forward some sort of evidence that this is the case (and no, your hallucinations, dreams, or other assorted feelings don't count as evidence). In fact, other than you claiming that this belief of yours somehow makes you feel good, you haven't given any sort of evidence at all; so why should I believe YOUR "feelings", as opposed to say, the Ayatollah Khomeini's, or Jim Jones', or Tom Cruise's, or the Three Stooges'?
As I said above, you're trying to apply the theory of entropy to something which it does not apply, so you can waste your own time babbling about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Now what precisely would you like to hear my theory of? How the universe was formed, why humans exist, or what? Since none of us were there, who's to say exactly HOW the universe was formed? However, given the absolute LACK of evidence for your point of view (ie. "an invisible magic man in the sky done it"), I can say there could be several natural possibilities; the universe may have always existed; the universe may be multi-dimensional, with occasional regions of cross-dimensional interference (such as black holes), and if you were to find yourself on the other "side" of a black hole, it would likely look like what we see now (that is, with everything expanding from a long-ago singularity). There are a number of other possibilities along these lines, Joe, but without some sort of evidence in support of them, no scientist is going to do what you and your superstition do, and say "This is what happened, and if you don't believe it, you deserve to be tortured." Since you and your superstition claim to be the "holder of truth" in this regard, surely you can provide some sort of evidence for your view, right, Joe? (Not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting.)
And Joe, if you bother to actually READ my posts, I haven't CALLED you a poopy-head; yes, I've ridiculed your ridiculous position, because it is absolutely without merit, but that doesn't make you or your superstition anything special in human history. Just as I'm curious how someone could claim to believe something as ludicrous as "ghosts", or "volcano gods", I'm curious to know how someone could delude themselves to the point you have.
Richard, as far as epistemology goes, it is useless in this discussion, because then it simply comes down to what someone else claims; why should I believe Joe (or you) when you make outlandish claims without any evidence to back you up, and NOT believe anyone else that makes similar claims? I don't do that in any other aspect of my life, and neither do the both of you, EXCEPT IN THIS ONE CASE; so, the question is not "Why don't I believe?", but is "Why are you both so desperate to believe in fairy tales that you will happily throw every piece of logic you might have out the window in order to believe them?"
In terms of certainty vs. probability, again, the ones making claims of "certainty" here are you and Joe; given the overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution, that shows me that your superstition was wrong about that (and so many other things), so that I'm not about to take ANY of it's claims at face value without some sort of evidentiary support.
SDC
So now you are trying to argue against the law that a few days ago you held sacrosanct. You do know that the world is waiting for a solid explanation of the big bang sans the second law of thermodynamics and I am sure you are just the person to do it. I await, with bated breath, your brilliant insights.
I remain as always yours in Christ. As I said before I KNOW whom I have believed. ITs too bad you haven't even come close to explaining how your theory works even just with broad brush strokes.
You have been too busy attacking my theory to present your own. Well guess what until you actually provide at least a working theory your attack on my point of view is moot.
"So now you are trying to argue against the law that a few days ago you held sacrosanct."
Joe, if you can show me where I have said ANYTHING AT ALL that can be construed in the way you have above, I will eat my keyboard with ranch dressing; since you have run out of ideas to the point where you are now LYING OUTRIGHT, it shows me that there is no depth to which you will not sink in defense of your superstition.
When you can present a hypothesis with supporting evidence other than "I know my superstition must be true because it gives me such a warm, cuddly feeling", then it might be worth looking at; unless and until it does so, your superstition remains in that big pile of other superstitions that most people (thankfully) recognize as nothing more than wishful thinking.
SDC
Obviously Anon if you believe in Science you must hold its laws sacrosanct. Don't you?
I mean I certainly accept the second law of thermodynamics as a law. If you don't accept that as a law then how about the law against auto-genesis? You know the law, its in biology, where it states that no living thing can begin from a non living thing.
Oh I see you don't believe that law either espousing as you do the THEORY of evolution. Boy you talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! BTW could you explain the 'Primordial Soup' to me and why it no longer exists? I was looking for some the other day but couldn't find it at Safeway.
You've already mentioned evolution so I assume that you are planning to tie it in to the second law of thermodynamics somehow. Oh and BTW I'm not too interested in hearing about a 'fossil record' I looked at it and its extremely spotty and I'm just never sure that those 'transition species' actually passed on any genetic information. Its not like we can go back and test for DNA on a 3 million year old rock.
However all this blather about evolution is void until you explain the factors beyond natural factors that must have been at play in order for the Big Bang to have occurred. After all with out the Big Bang all this talk is empty.
I eagerly await your brilliant insights as does the rest of the scientific world. God Bless you son for committing an entire day of your brilliance to explain these things to the rest of us dullards.
Joe, you are so far out of your depth here it is laughable; a "scientific law" is a statement which sums up an observed pattern in nature, ie. "whenever we see X under Y conditions, we know Z will follow", such as "an object in motion will continue that motion unless and until it is subjected to another force". Now, you're asking me to believe that all of that is irrelevant, because your imaginary omnipotent "god" is the explanation for whatever you either don't know or are unwilling to find out; as I said before, that crap didn't hold water for any of the OTHER things that your ilk has has claimed for your imaginary "god", so why should I believe you when it comes to this? And, given the spotty record of transitionary fossils, it at least EXISTS as solid evidence; your superstition has nothing of the sort to offer. Instead, all that you offer (just as every other superstition offers) is "trust me, would I BS you?". Yes, Joe, you and all other superstitions WOULD BS me if you thought that you would gain a convert; history is replete with examples of exactly that. If your imaginary god is interested in contacting me, s/he/it has until July 12 to do so, but you haven't yet given me any sort of a reason for abandoning logic in favour of your ghost stories.
"Obviously Anon if you believe in Science you must hold its laws sacrosanct."
More evidence that you don't have a clue what science is...
Nothing is sacrosanct in science - EVERYTHING is open to change provided that new EVIDENCE is produced! This is what makes science so great and powerful - it doesn't ignore contrary evidence, it changes to explain the contrary evidence.
I know that ignorant people think this is a weakness of science - but then that's why they are ignorant.
"I mean I certainly accept the second law of thermodynamics as a law."
"accept" it? You don't even understand it!! That's why you ignore the 'closed system' part of the law and attempt to apply it where it doesn't apply.
"the law against auto-genesis?"
Since no such "law" exists, this statement is meaningless. You seem to be under the (wrong) impression that 'idea' means 'law' in science.
"You've already mentioned evolution so I assume that you are planning to tie it in to the second law of thermodynamics somehow."
Of course you do! That's because you are (quite clearly) insane! The only person bringing the second law of thermodynamics into this discussion is YOU! You've been told (repeatedly) that it doesn't apply!
"Its not like we can go back and test for DNA on a 3 million year old rock."
It's too bad that there have been million year old bones preserved well enough to obtain DNA from it... that's gotta really hurt you eh?!
"However all this blather about evolution is void until you explain the factors beyond natural factors that must have been at play in order for the Big Bang to have occurred. After all with out the Big Bang all this talk is empty."
Hogwash! Evolution explains how life changes over time. NOT how life came into existance. That is a different topic and doesn't involve evolution in the slightest. It doesn't matter HOW life came to be - it's clearly here and evolution explains how it behaves.
Does it hurt gravitational theory that it doesn't explain how the matter got there in the first place?? Of course not - and it's the same with evolution.
You also seem to be under the impression that if I don't believe YOUR theory (that god exists) that I MUST have a different theory in it's place. This is not true.
I don't believe in your god, nor any gods, for the same reason I don't believe in unicorns. There is NO REASON to believe, and until a reason presents itself I will continue to not believe. I'm happy saying "I don't know" about how life started - it doesn't change anything for me, and it most certainly doesn't make YOUR pet theory (god) any more believable!
(Oh - and it's pretty obvious who is doing the insulting in this thread... you're not fooling anyone joe. Persecution looks good on you though!).
Joe Agnost.
I suppose I should apologize for not getting back to this discussion right away. Being away from a computer will do that as will the realization that there is no point of discussing! After all what is the point of a child of Almighty Yahweh (me) arguing with the spawn of a rock (Joe Agnost, Anonymous et al). After all since in your mind you are nothing more than a bunch of accidental amino acids bumping together there can be no such thing as an intelligent discussion. Your belief precludes intelligence. Just as according to your belief system there can be no such thing as wisdom, knowledge or even beauty. Sorry to say it but the bumping amino acids theory says that all such discussion is moot so why bother. In a few years your little conglomeration of amino acids will lose that ineffable essence called life and so that little conglomeration will fade into the nothingness it once was and future wise men shall say of your little puddle, "It could have never been since it is not".
Post a Comment