Chapter 4 is now open. Sorry for the delay I did not have enough online time this week.

I can see enough in the world about human nature, about the way things work, about what the Bible says of sin and the way to a better living on Earth... that I am willing to also believe that it's right about the things I can't observe - Zarm

So because the Bible has some valid insights about human nature, you’re willing to buy into all the supernatural elements with no doubts? I think this is how Tom Cruise got into Scientology. What percentage of the Bible would you estimate that you know to be true, as opposed to how much you’re guessing about?

Finally, flash forward to the events of Revelations (sic). Christ returns, sets up Heaven on Earth. The dead, those in Heaven, those still alive at the time, etc. are all gathered at the judgement seat of Christ.....But even in that time, there does not need to be ONE SINGLE PERSON who ends up being cast out, because that sacrifice that Christ made is truly for everyone - Zarm

Are you saying that the dead will get another chance to be saved before they’re cast into the fire? Most Christians, in my experience, don’t believe that, but if you do, that’s cool. That's always been one of my main problems with Christianity: the apparent value placed on believing in the unseen and unsensed, as if that's not only some sort of commendable act (which I don't understand at all), but an actual requirement for avoiding eternal fire. But this way, God would be right there in front of you and you couldn’t deny his existence. Then people would have the ability to make an informed decision before they get burned as opposed to guessing. If God wants the maximum possible number of people in heaven, that’s certainly the way to do it. I wish more Christians believed it.

I don't see that reading in Zarm's post, but I guess I'll let him explain himself. To me, as a Christian, it doesn't make sense that one could be saved after death; it wouldn't seem to require faith, and according to the Bible, that's what we are saved by. I don't see the faith in only believing in a God post-mortem when He's fully revealed.

So because the Bible has some valid insights about human nature, you’re willing to buy into all the supernatural elements with no doubts? I think this is how Tom Cruise got into Scientology. What percentage of the Bible would you estimate that you know to be true, as opposed to how much you’re guessing about?

Bill Maher touched on that one when people were talking about Mitt Romney running for president and Christians thinking that his Morman religion was a little crazy. He said he felt that was very unfair since it was coming from members of a religion that has some members who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in a talking snake.

The basic conceits of almost every religion are rather odd-sounding; rare is the faith that does not require the belief in something extraordinary. The "talking snake" is also believed by Jews and Muslims. American Indians believe in many talking animal stories.

I don't see the faith in only believing in a God post-mortem when He's fully revealed. - Mikec

Wouldn't the faith be trusting in/accepting God once he is revealed? It's been a while since I read the Bible extensively, but does the faith mentioned in the Bible always refer to faith in God's existence, as opposed to trusting God? Also, is it possible that faith is portrayed as the only way you can reach God at present in your earthbound state? That might not rule out another way after death. I don't know that you can interpret it that way, I'm just wondering if it's possible.

That's an interesting point--I don't know if I agree with it, but I'm not God.

Whoa! The thread jumped back to life and I missed it! :-)

"I can see enough in the world about human nature, about the way things work, about what the Bible says of sin and the way to a better living on Earth... that I am willing to also believe that it's right about the things I can't observe - Zarm

So because the Bible has some valid insights about human nature, you’re willing to buy into all the supernatural elements with no doubts? I think this is how Tom Cruise got into Scientology. What percentage of the Bible would you estimate that you know to be true, as opposed to how much you’re guessing about?" -Nove

Please, no matter how good natured, don't ever compare me to Tom Cruise. As a personal favor. thanks. ;-)

Seriously, though, I would pose the problem to you this way:
What criterion do you use for determining your beliefs on something that you cannot observe/discover/prove?

The first method is to pick and choose your beliefs at random based on whatever feels like the right answer. This is not an especially well-reasoned method.

Another is to conclude that nothing which you can't observe/discover/prove exists. This is a foolhardy and arrogant method unless one can conclusively determine that one knows everything there is to know in all of existence (in which case I'll make an exception.)

The third method, and to my mind, the only viable one, is to determine your stance on what you don't know based on what you do know. In some cases, this takes the form of simply basing your beliefs based on your current worldview. In the case of religions, and specifically the Bible, it comes down to a source making claims equally on subjects you can observe, and subjects you can't. If everything said about the subjects that you CAN observe matches up to what you can observe about reality... then it makes sense that what it has to say about the unobservable could well be true. It's not absolute proof, by any means, but it's the best method I can figure for making a reasoned determination about things that, by nature, you cannot observe anything about directly.

As for percentages... I don't know, as I haven't finished reading it yet. :-) I would say the majority of the archeological/historical data, and the statements made on human behavior, the nature of man, etc. is the part that I can observe. The portions about prayer, moral law set forth by God, etc. are those that I can observe the effects of. Those about the existence of Heaven, the existence of God, etc. are the portions that I cannot observe directly, and must take on faith.


"Finally, flash forward to the events of Revelations (sic). Christ returns, sets up Heaven on Earth. The dead, those in Heaven, those still alive at the time, etc. are all gathered at the judgement seat of Christ.....But even in that time, there does not need to be ONE SINGLE PERSON who ends up being cast out, because that sacrifice that Christ made is truly for everyone - Zarm

Are you saying that the dead will get another chance to be saved before they’re cast into the fire? Most Christians, in my experience, don’t believe that, but if you do, that’s cool."-Nove

No, I'm not. See, the judgement in question is NOT the determinant of salvation. So while I believe the judgement will occurr, it will occurr INDEPENDANTLY of any mechanism of salvation.


"That's always been one of my main problems with Christianity: the apparent value placed on believing in the unseen and unsensed, as if that's not only some sort of commendable act (which I don't understand at all), but an actual requirement for avoiding eternal fire." -Nove

Well, yes and no. Technically, the only requirement for 'avoiding eternal fire' is accepting Christ's gift of salvation, saying "Yes, I allow you to pay my debt," as referenced on the previous page. It's just that the prerequisite of sincerely accepting that offer... is believing that He exists in the first place. :-) As for the requirement of faith, and it's importance... I'll leave the theology of that to someone more knowlegeable than I. :-)


"But this way, God would be right there in front of you and you couldn’t deny his existence. Then people would have the ability to make an informed decision before they get burned as opposed to guessing." -Nove

But the thing is, people still can make an informed descision. They have the Bible. They have the testimony of Christian witnesses. All of the information is there. The only thing missing is the evidence of their senses. That would make a COMELLING case, admittedly, :-) ...but any choice made- say, whatever choice you make today on whether to believe in Christ or not- cannot be claimed to be an 'uninformed' one.

>The third method, and to my mind, the only viable one, is to >determine your stance on what you don't know based on what >you do know. In some cases, this takes the form of simply >basing your beliefs based on your current worldview. In the >case of religions, and specifically the Bible, it comes down to a >source making claims equally on subjects you can observe, and >subjects you can't. If everything said about the subjects that >you CAN observe matches up to what you can observe about >reality... then it makes sense that what it has to say about the >unobservable could well be true. It's not absolute proof, by any >means, but it's the best method I can figure for making a >reasoned determination about things that, by nature, you >cannot observe anything about directly.

Very well stated. What you've described is indeed an excellent benchmark for determining the trustworthiness and reliability of any source. Let's then take a general overview of the Bible and see how well it confroms to our own observations about reality. Based on this, we should be able to come to a general approximation of its overall trustworthiness, which will show us how much we should rely on it on matters of the mortally unobservable (such as the nature of God, life after death, et al)

To begin:


• The Bible several times implies as well as unequivocally states that the earth is flat or that all of its inhabited surface can be seen at one time from a single vantage point, which conflicts with what we know. Related to this is the number of verses which imply that the Biblical authors erroneously thought of the earth as a flat plane beneath a celestial dome.

• The Bible declares that the earth does not move, whereas we know for a fact that it does move.

• The age of the earth according to the Bible cannot be much over 6000 years, yet scientists have determined that the earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. The evidence that it is much, much older than 6000 years comes from many different fields of science and is overwhelming.

• According to Genesis, the earth was already in existence when the sun and the stars were created, yet scientists have determined that most of the stars in our galaxy (including our sun) existed billions of years prior to the earth.

• The Bible has fruit trees and other plants created one day before the sun, but that is impossible. The earth without the sun would have been an inhospitable place for such plants as fruit trees. They could not have survived under such conditions for a few minutes, let alone one whole day.

• According to Genesis, birds were in existence before reptiles and insects. But scientists have established that there were reptiles on the earth 150 million years before there were any birds and that insects go back another 100 million years before reptiles.

• The Bible places whales in existence before insects, reptiles and rodents, but scientists have determined that the origin of whales is relatively recent, in geological time, compared with those species.

• Again Genesis says that there were fruit trees on the earth before there were any animals, but the fossil record proves that there were animals on earth many hundreds of millions of years before there were any fruit trees.

• According to the Bible, there were no carnivores before the Fall. But science has shown that carnivorous animals have existed for hundreds of millions of years.

• Genesis I describes the various species of animals on earth as being specially designated and created in less than a week’s span of time. But science has excellent evidence that the earth’s species evolved separately, over a long period of time, some of them hundreds of millions of years apart from each other.

• Genesis also says the time span from the appearance of fish on our world to the first appearance of mammals was one day. But science has established that the actual time span was over a quarter of a billion years.

• According to the terms of the curse upon the serpent according to Genesis, the snake would be forced to eat dust. This is re-echoed in Isa. 65:25. But the fact of the matter is that snakes do not eat dust.

• Genesis describes people living for several centuries, some Biblical cvharacters being said to have lived as much as 800 or 900 years old. But we know that humans have never had a life span anywhere near that long. The lifespan of homo sapiens has increased, not decreased with the passage of eons.

• Genesis describes a worldwide flood that covered all the mountains on earth, but such a flood could not have happened based on what we know about our world. Among other problems, there is nowhere where such an enormous quantity of water could have come prior to the flood and there is no place it could have gone afterwards.

• The Biblical story of Noah’s Ark must be false in at least some of its details since it flies in the face of what we know about the behavior and needs of various animal species and their current distribution around the planet. It maintains that a small handful of humans cared for what must have totaled at least a million different animal species on a closed boat for over a year. It is also impossible that all the species distributed around the world migrated within the past 4000 years from Mount Arrat in Turkey.

• According to the Bible, the various languages of earth originated all simultaneously at the site of the Tower of Babel. But scientists and linguists have shown that languages have evolved over time at many different geographically separate places on earth. Furthermore, they can point to evidence of the existence of many different language which long precede the time that construction was supposed to have started on the Babel Tower.

• According to the Bible, Abraham’s wife bore a child at age ninety, and Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt. But such events are physically impossible. This is also true of dozens of other alleged miracles throughout the Bible. We know they are mythical rather than factual because they are contrary to natural law. It stands to reason that a document which continually describes such events as factual occurrences cannot be trusted as infallible in other matters.

• Taking the numbers supplied by Exodus and Numbers, it can be computed that the Isrealites population, according to the Bible, was about three million. Combining that with Deut. 7:1, it may be calculated that the total population of Palestine was over 21 million. But historians know that the population of Palestine was never anywhere near that figure.

• Leviticus contains several incorrect statements about different species of our planet. It claims that the hare chews the cud, the a bat is a bird, and that there are four-footed birds and four-footed insects. All cataloged species of birds have just two legs and all species of insects at least six.

• According to Genesis and Numbers, respectively, snakes and donkeys spoke. But we know that neither snakes nor donkeys have either the physical or mental necessities to mimic human speech.

• According to Joshua, the sun stood still in the sky. This implies that the sun moves around the earth, rather than the actual situation of it being the other way around. Some have tried to defend this story by saying the phrase is used figuratively and that what actually happened is that the earth itself stopped moving. However such an event as the earth stopping in its orbit would have caused cataclysmic destruction to the world and probably would have killed all life upon it. Therefore we know that the story of Joshua could not have occurred the way the Bible relates it.

• According to the story of Jonah, a man lived for three days inside of the belly of a fish, but we know that that is impossible.

• According to Matthew, a star moved in the sky until it was directly above the town of Bethlehem, but we know that that is impossible.

• Also according to Matthew, Herod ordered a massacre of every child below the age of three in his province. But there is no corroborating historical evidence for such an event and much historical evidence against it.

• According to the Bible, the cause of mental illness and various infirmities is possession by devils. But civilization today knows that such ailments have physical and physchiologal, non-supernatural causes.

• According to Matthew, dead bodies emerged from graves and wandered around in Jerusalem and were seen by many. If such an event had occurred, there would have been some mention of it outside of the book of Matthew (one would at least expect to find it corroborated by at least one of the NT authors!) But there is no such mention by any other historian or observer of the period, anywhere. That is good reason to deny that such an event ever happened.

• According to the Bible, the author of its first five books was Moses and the author of Psalms was David. Yet you would find few Biblical scholars even among the devout who would accept either of those claims. Apart from inconsistencies in style and content within those books, Moses’ own death and burial (as well as events following) are recorded in Deut. 34:5-9.

• The Bible contains numerous prophecies which have not been fulfilled or which have proven out to be definitively false. Such a poor track record at successful prophecy tends to cast doubt upon the Bible as a divinely-inspired work.

• The Bible contains many internal contradictions as pertains to matters of fact. Axiomatically, for every contradiction, at least one of the verses must be a falsehood.

Now that I've effectively exhausted all the space on this brand-new board, I'll leave it up to the individual reader, based on the case just presented, to decide how well the information dispensed by the Good Book jibes with our observable and accumulated knowledge about the world and universe we live in.

I almost expected to see:

"Jesus rises from the dead. This is impossible as death is not an mutable state."

"The people of Israel eat a food called manna that spontaneously appears. Things do not spontaneously appear."

"God creates humans from dust. A human cannot be created by dust."

If your point was that the Bible was fantastical, then yes, that's true. That's why they're called miracles.

My point actually was that miracles by definition are contrary to the observable day-to-day laws of the universe. Thus any document treating miracles as real occurences fails the main standard of the credibility test that Andrew himself established above. (everything being said about the subject you can observe matching up to that observable reality).

I'll let Andrew take that one, as I have to be honest I was a little fuzzy as to what he meant by credibility test (not a criticism, just generally unsure). I would assume, though, that his test allows for the existence of the supernatural/miracles.

"Very well stated. What you've described is indeed an excellent benchmark for determining the trustworthiness and reliability of any source." - Todd Pence

Why thank you.


"My point actually was that miracles by definition are contrary to the observable day-to-day laws of the universe. Thus any document treating miracles as real occurences fails the main standard of the credibility test that Andrew himself established above. (everything being said about the subject you can observe matching up to that observable reality)." -Todd Pence

Wrong. The stated miracles are presented as historical events in which the standard laws of nature were overturned by specific divine intervention, thus placing them in the category of 'the unobserveable.' Claiming that stating miracles (specific interventions of divine intervention overriding the standard laws of nature) as reality disqualifies a source is similar to a stated disbelief in God (a being who, by nature and internal definition, CANNOT be proven scientifically as He exists beyond the limits of what we can scientifically prove) because He cannot be proven scientifically, in that both are intellectually dishonest because they grade the subject matter on an arbitrarily-imposed standard which is impossible to meet, as that standard is contradictory to the inherent nature of the subject being discussed. If the subject being discussed is 'abberation from natural law based on an intervention of power from outside of natural law,' and it is failed due to 'not fitting within natural law,' that is not a disproof, but a miss-understanding of the nature of the 'abberations' being spoken of and an attempt to conform them to a human-knowledge-centric standard which their very nature puts them outside of.


"The Bible several times implies as well as unequivocally states that the earth is flat or that all of its inhabited surface can be seen at one time from a single vantage point, which conflicts with what we know. Related to this is the number of verses which imply that the Biblical authors erroneously thought of the earth as a flat plane beneath a celestial dome.

The Bible declares that the earth does not move, whereas we know for a fact that it does move." - Todd Pence

Not that I want to get into the whole Evolution vs. Creation/science facts about the Earth in the Bible discussion here (it tends to derail all other topics of conversation) but where exactly do you see the Earth described as flat in anything other than poetic, symbolic terms? Likewise for your statements about the Earth's non-movement? Finally, where do you see the Earth being viewable from a single point anywhere other than Satan's showing Christ 'the kingdoms of the Earth' from a high mountain, which never states that they are seen naturally from that vantage point, merely that a being with supernatural power showed representations of them whilst on a mountain?


The issues of the Genesis account I would be happy to discus elsewhere but are a little too numerous and would consume this board. Evolution vs. Creation board? I'll try to post there when I have time later this week. Let's just say that any disproof of the Bible based on evolutionary theory or fossil record... bears closer examination. Take a look at "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," playing in theaters now. :-)

"Genesis I describes the various species of animals on earth as being specially designated and created in less than a week’s span of time. But science has excellent evidence that the earth’s species evolved separately, over a long period of time, some of them hundreds of millions of years apart from each other." - Todd Pence

Actually, science has shoddy theory that the earth's species evolved seperately, over a long period of time, which is highly contested by the fossil record, DNA-icly unsound, and heavily challenged.


"Genesis describes people living for several centuries, some Biblical cvharacters being said to have lived as much as 800 or 900 years old. But we know that humans have never had a life span anywhere near that long. The lifespan of homo sapiens has increased, not decreased with the passage of eons." - Todd Pence

Which does not factor in altered climalogic (is that a word?) conditions in effect pre-flood.


"Genesis describes a worldwide flood that covered all the mountains on earth, but such a flood could not have happened based on what we know about our world. Among other problems, there is nowhere where such an enormous quantity of water could have come prior to the flood and there is no place it could have gone afterwards." -Todd Pence

That is called 'Divine Intervention.' I note that this bullet point leaves aside the OVERWHELMING fossil evidence of a worldwide flood.

"According to the Bible, Abraham’s wife bore a child at age ninety, and Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt. But such events are physically impossible. This is also true of dozens of other alleged miracles throughout the Bible. We know they are mythical rather than factual because they are contrary to natural law. It stands to reason that a document which continually describes such events as factual occurrences cannot be trusted as infallible in other matters." - Todd Pence

See my above points on 'missing the point' and intellectual dishonesty. This 'proof' is not a proof at all.


"According to Genesis and Numbers, respectively, snakes and donkeys spoke. But we know that neither snakes nor donkeys have either the physical or mental necessities to mimic human speech.

According to Joshua, the sun stood still in the sky. , etc." - Todd Pence

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, divine (or, in the case of the serpent, satanic) intervention overriding natural law is the specific POINT of these stories.


"According to the story of Jonah, a man lived for three days inside of the belly of a fish, but we know that that is impossible." -Todd Pence

Actually, it happened to a whaler- name of Charlie, I believe, off the coast of New England in the 1800s.He was fortuitously rescued when the fish (I believe it was a shark, but I could be wrong on that, it's been a while since I;ve seen the pictures) that swallowed him was actually caught by the fishers in his boat. Though scarred by stomach acid, he was quite alive. I'll try and find the reference.


"According to the Bible, the cause of mental illness and various infirmities is possession by devils. But civilization today knows that such ailments have physical and physchiologal, non-supernatural causes." - Todd Pence

Demons, actually, and I don't believe anywhere that it was stated that this was the cause of all mental illnesses- just specific cases.

"According to the Bible, the author of its first five books was Moses and the author of Psalms was David. Yet you would find few Biblical scholars even among the devout who would accept either of those claims. Apart from inconsistencies in style and content within those books, Moses’ own death and burial (as well as events following) are recorded in Deut. 34:5-9." - Todd Pence

I'm not sure if Moses authorship is actually Biblically stated or just traditional. In any event, I have no problem with the post-script of his death being added after his death by other authors. Likewise, the Psalms already have specific internal notes that denote Psalms contributed by other authors, so it is already acknowleged internally that it is a multi-author book.

"The Bible contains numerous prophecies which have not been fulfilled or which have proven out to be definitively false. Such a poor track record at successful prophecy tends to cast doubt upon the Bible as a divinely-inspired work." - Todd Pence

Sorry, that is patently untrue. name one prophecy was not fulfilled that cannot yet be fulfilled. (I.E. A single prophecy that's 'failed.')


"The Bible contains many internal contradictions as pertains to matters of fact. Axiomatically, for every contradiction, at least one of the verses must be a falsehood." - Todd Pence

Such as? More than general claims without substantiation are needed to count this as a factor.


"Now that I've effectively exhausted all the space on this brand-new board, I'll leave it up to the individual reader, based on the case just presented, to decide how well the information dispensed by the Good Book jibes with our observable and accumulated knowledge about the world and universe we live in." - Todd Pence

But let the individual reader note that few, if any, of the points noted PERTAIN to 'our observable and accumulated knowledge about the world and universe we live in,' and most pertain to issues of miraculous claims being discounted due to their miraculous nature, which is inconsistent with an honest evalutation factoring in their nature-based criteria. :-)

As you can see, some points I skipped (I'll try to come back to them later,) and some, I simply have no answer for. I'm not the world's most knowledgeable guy. :-) But I think the point of miracles not being a disproof- in fact, by NATURE not a disproof based on physical law- which applies to pretty much the entire creation story as well- has been well-made. :-)

On the topic of Jonah:
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/real-life-jonah-a-man-who-survived-in-the-belly-of-a-whale.htm

(Okay, the name wasn't Charlie.)

I really hate to burst your bubble on this, but:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/newjonah.htm

Interesting. I stand corrected.

Sort of irrelevant, though--Jonah is a supernatural-driven story; God's the one behind everything.

>Sorry, that is patently untrue. name one prophecy was not >fulfilled that cannot yet be fulfilled. (I.E. A single prophecy
>that's 'failed.')

That's easily done. To avoid filling up space on this board, I'll refer you to a list i compiled on another discussion forum. While a few of these can arguably be said to have no fixed or specified time limit for their fulfilment, the vast majority of them do indeed qualify as failed prophecies.

http://www.amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdItems=25&asin=0915138646&cdThread=TxWP12ZSI4ALYW

These can be subdivided into:

METAPHORS
*God said Adam would die instantly. And spiritually he did.
*No, the Nile never dried up. But Egypt was certainly defeated.

READING ADDITIONAL MEANING
*God said Cain would wander forever. While it is true Cain built a city and had a family, it never says he stopped wandering (perhaps a temporary pit stop?)

CONDITIONAL PROMISES
*Some of the "Israel will drive the Canaanites out," "Israel will not scatter" stuff was conditional on the Israelites having faith and obeying God. Which they did not.

SILLY NITPICKING
*I think God can call Jacob both Jacob and Israel and not get confused, being God.
*Jeremiah told Zedekiah he would die in peace and not by the sword. Zedekiah apparently died in prison and not by the sword. Yes, he had his eyes blinded out, but that didn't kill him.

POSSIBLE FUTURE REFERENCES
*A lot of the OT prophecies could be referring to the future, either symbolically or literally. It's hard to tell. Certainly the main gist of their prophecies came true (those other empires were destroyed). It is also probably certainly true that some of the prophecies were not referring to at-that-time events.

MISSING THE POINT
*When it says there will always be a king on the throne in the house of David, it's talking about Jesus. He's still king, according to Scripture. This is symbolic--the literal sense can be still be used, though, which explains why God also said that no descendant of Coniah will sit on the throne of Israel (literally true).

NOT PROPHECIES
*Moses' edict on Moabites is not a prophecy, it's just a rule.
*David's not prophesying he will be killed by Saul; he's just thinking about it. My translation: "One of these I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is escape...I will slip out of his hand." Doesn't sound like a prophesy.

JUST PLAIN INCORRECT
*Ahaz is not killed by the two; he dies much later. It's his sons who are killed.

But the discussion is patently absurd on its face. I'm reminded of when I discussed creationism with Mark Morgan; when you have two people with violently different perspectives and starting foundations, it's tough to really have a valid discussion. I'm sure you could come back and refute the refutations very easily.

Wow! Nicely said, MikeC. Not much to add to that, except:

Re: Adam- at that point, Todd, mortality was not a part of the human race; near as we can tell, the human lifespan was indefinite (and yesm yet again divine power overriding natural law.) Eating of the fruit of the tree would introduce death into Adam and Eve's lives, bringi it to them where it previously had not existed, which it most certainly did- but nowhere does it say "Eat of the fruit and you will instantly die." :-)


Also, something I note both here and at your amazon list (which I have yet to finish going through) is your notation that a number of prophecies remain unfulfilled to this day. Given that the Bible spans from the beginning of time to the end of the Earth, this is not an especially valid criteria for a 'failed' promise- the same might have been said at fifty years after for a prophecy that took 100 years to fulfil, and it would have been no more true then, either- the only category for a 'failed' prophecy is one which could not come true because the time/events involved with it have come to pass and no possibility of repeat exists.

I would say that there are very few of the prophecies in my tabulations which fall under this category. Many of the Old Testament prophets, for example, were quite clear that they expected the things they prophesized to occur very soon.
Anyway, the point is somewhat moot, as a prophecy which gives itself no time limit for its fulfillment does little to the credit of the prophesier. Until it is fulfilled, it is every bit as worthless as the prophesy which has been demonstrated to be false. So appealing to prophecies which haven't come true but might is no help in establishing credibility for its source. And of course the river Nile probably will dry up and the city of Babylon probably will cease to exist at some time in the far future. I could sit here today and say the Mississippi River and the City of New York will one day in the future be no more. Has such a statement significantly enhanced my credibility?

>*Ahaz is not killed by the two; he dies much later. It's >his sons who are killed.

Yes, blatant error on my part. However, it does not invalidate the inclusion of the prophecy on the list, because while Ahaz was not killed by his two nemesi, he did suffer heavily in battle, which to my mind invalidates the promise to him that they would "harm him no more".

Another thing I'd like to note about my list is that the prophecy Jesus makes in Matthew and Luke about Peter denying him before the •••• crows IS fulfilled internally in each of those accounts. It is of course, in Mark, that the stipulation is given for two crows instead of one, and the •••• already crows once after Peter's first denial. So it would be better to classify this as a contradiction rather than a failed prophecy.

I always interpreted the Ahaz prophecy that "you're going to suffer a little bit now, but it's going to be good in the long run, so don't be a moron and bring in Assyria because that will be so much worse." Ahaz didn't listen and got bit.

I think the OT prophets were making a mix of future and contemporary references. I also think you may be interpreting literally what is meant symbolically--many prophets, at least in literature, talk in symbols. Did the trees REALLY rise up and invade Macbeth?

"example, were quite clear that they expected the things they prophesized to occur very soon.
Anyway, the point is somewhat moot, as a prophecy which gives itself no time limit for its fulfillment does little to the credit of the prophesier. Until it is fulfilled, it is every bit as worthless as the prophesy which has been demonstrated to be false. So appealing to prophecies which haven't come true but might is no help in establishing credibility for its source." - Todd Pence

From an establishing credibility point, perhaps. But neither does it detract credibility or count as a disproof, as you claim. It falls again under the category of "The unknown half of things," not "The known half by which things can be judged."


"I could sit here today and say the Mississippi River and the City of New York will one day in the future be no more. Has such a statement significantly enhanced my credibility?" - Todd Pence

And as it is, as you said, most likely to be truthful... it establishes that you are more likely to tell the truth about the future. ;-)
Joking aside, though, no, it does not enhanceyour credibility- but neither does it detract from your credibility. Likewise for Biblical prophecies not yet fulfilled, and, sorry, but as many of the prophecies- including some you cited- pertain tot eh end of the world, complaining about Biblical accuracy because they have not yet happened would be, yet again, not especially intellectualy honest.

"Did the trees REALLY rise up and invade Macbeth?"

Nope, but then we don't have a religion based on the Scottish King :-).

Are you saying that the dead will get another chance to be saved before they’re cast into the fire? Most Christians, in my experience, don’t believe that, but if you do, that’s cool."-Nove

No, I'm not. See, the judgement in question is NOT the determinant of salvation. So while I believe the judgement will occurr, it will occurr INDEPENDANTLY of any mechanism of salvation. - Zarm

I thought I was probably wrong, but when you used the phrase “even in that time,” that’s what it sounded like to me. Of course, if God did give people another chance to accept him after death, that would (if it had any effect) increase the number of souls in heaven. But I guess sticking by a deadline is a higher priority. Sounds kind of Pharisee-ical to me.

Technically, the only requirement for 'avoiding eternal fire' is accepting Christ's gift of salvation, saying "Yes, I allow you to pay my debt," as referenced on the previous page. It's just that the prerequisite of sincerely accepting that offer... is believing that He exists in the first place. - Zarm

But somehow, knowing that he exists excludes you from being able to go to heaven, because there’s no faith involved. Is that correct? Which means the only way to heaven is to make an assumption about God’s existence without certainty. Coincidentally, that’s also the only way one could believe in a god that actually didn’t exist.

But the thing is, people still can make an informed descision. They have the Bible. - Zarm

Sure, people can read the Bible (and assorted commentaries to tell them what it really means). But when I said that people could make an informed decision once they meet God directly, I didn’t mean informed as in “knowing what the doctrine involves,” I meant informed as in “knowing that God actually exists.” Is it really an informed decision without having that knowledge?

And is there anything in the Bible to contradict this premise: If you know with absolute certainty that God exists, that does not include you or exclude you from heaven. You must have faith in his trustworthiness to keep his promises. With this premise, you can get to heaven based on certainty of God’s existence, yet still have faith as well.

If everything said about the subjects that you CAN observe matches up to what you can observe about reality... then it makes sense that what it has to say about the unobservable could well be true. - Zarm

Wouldn’t it be more “intellectually honest” to say, “What is said in this book that I CAN observe matches up with reality. What is said about the unobservable I can’t confirm, therefore I won’t take a position on it.”

And speaking of your “test,” basically this is what I gather from your description: if the assertions in the Bible match your observations, you believe those assertions. If they contradict your observations, you say that it’s due to the fact that God is outside of natural law and can perform miracles. If your observations can’t confirm or deny a particular Biblical assertion, then you say, “That’s part of the unobservable part that I’m assuming is true.” So what use is the test if no part of the Bible can possibly fail it?

As for percentages... I don't know, as I haven't finished reading it yet. - Zarm
So not only are you trusting the parts of the Bible that you can’t observe, you’ve already decided that you will believe the parts you haven’t even read?

"No, I'm not. See, the judgement in question is NOT the determinant of salvation. So while I believe the judgement will occurr, it will occurr INDEPENDANTLY of any mechanism of salvation. - Zarm

I thought I was probably wrong, but when you used the phrase “even in that time,” that’s what it sounded like to me. Of course, if God did give people another chance to accept him after death, that would (if it had any effect) increase the number of souls in heaven. But I guess sticking by a deadline is a higher priority. Sounds kind of Pharisee-ical to me." - Nove

I dissagree. The Pharisees stuck to the laws (and hypocritically ignored them) for legalism's sake. Sticking to the laws because they are right or wrong, or based on the nature of things, is a different matter entirely.

In any event, there is a major status change that happens in-between here and now, and the judgement: You kinda... die. You move from a physical being to a purely spiritual being (at least until you get a new glorified body.) The choice to accept salvation form Jesus is a choice that must be made while you're still alive. I don't see anything unfair about having to make a descision by the time you die and not being able to reconsider afterwards; after all, you've had your entire life to make it! :-)



"But somehow, knowing that he exists excludes you from being able to go to heaven, because there’s no faith involved. Is that correct?" -Nove

No, I shouldn't think so.



"Sure, people can read the Bible (and assorted commentaries to tell them what it really means). But when I said that people could make an informed decision once they meet God directly, I didn’t mean informed as in “knowing what the doctrine involves,” I meant informed as in “knowing that God actually exists.” Is it really an informed decision without having that knowledge?" -Nove

Yes, absolutely it is. You have the truths the Bible points out. You have the testimony of those involved. You have the world around you serving as evidence of God's creation. You have the stories and experiences of His influence in people's lives. The only thing you're missing is the direct five-senses personal confirmation of God's existence. And while that may be the 'evidence' that most people prefer to work with, lacking it certainly does not make you uninformed. Heck, unless you travel abroad or happen to live in the land down under, you probably believe in Australia's existence with less evidence than that. ;-)


"And is there anything in the Bible to contradict this premise: If you know with absolute certainty that God exists, that does not include you or exclude you from heaven. You must have faith in his trustworthiness to keep his promises. With this premise, you can get to heaven based on certainty of God’s existence, yet still have faith as well." -Nove

I don't believe there's anything in the Bible to contradict that, no. And I never tried to suggest a premise that 'knowledge of God precludes salvation by faith.' But likewise, neither is direct 'proof' of God, in whatever form the (rather demanding) human may accept as valid, necessary for Salvation, either- nor is it somehow the God of the Universe's responsibility to prove Himself to us; especially when He has already surrounded us with the entirety of His creation bearing witness to His works!

My point is that God has given us everything we need, and all the 'evidence' we need to believe in Him. Some people may decide "I won't believe unless I see Him," or "I need to touch Him to believe He's real," but even with such arbitrary self-created standards, it can't be said that God has not given them everything that they need- only that they are self-settings standards beyond that.


"Wouldn’t it be more “intellectually honest” to say, “What is said in this book that I CAN observe matches up with reality. What is said about the unobservable I can’t confirm, therefore I won’t take a position on it.”" - Nove

Why? I don't see how that would be more honest. I think that's operating off of the innate human need to 'prove' things to ourselves by directly observing with our five senses. But it could be that I'm miss-thinking things; I never claimed to be the world's most logical thinker.



"And speaking of your “test,”" -Nove

And before we go any further, I should point out that this is no no way some empirical, philisophical, be-all, end-all, or any other such kind of 'test'- just the way that I think of things, personally.


"basically this is what I gather from your description: if the assertions in the Bible match your observations, you believe those assertions. If they contradict your observations, you say that it’s due to the fact that God is outside of natural law and can perform miracles. If your observations can’t confirm or deny a particular Biblical assertion, then you say, “That’s part of the unobservable part that I’m assuming is true.” So what use is the test if no part of the Bible can possibly fail it?" -Nove

No, that's incorrect.

The first category- things I can observe- excludes miracles. Why? Because the Bible never claims that these are standard occurrences. "And from this day forth, five loaves and two fish will be able to feed thousands of people, and they shall love it, and it shalt not become a fast food franchise" is nowhere in the New Testament. Nor is "And the sun always standeth still for a day, because that art how the sun worketh, scientifically." :-) The point of the miracles is that they are one-time, historical events, which I can't observe. Thus, they fall under the third category, 'The unobserveable part.' That is, until Doc Brown perfects his time machine. :-)

The things the Bible says that I can observe include, for example, the nature of man. the power of prayer. The benefits and effects of following the moral laws laid out within it. Etc.

The things the Bible says that I can't observe include, for example, the historical existence of miracles, the existence of life after death. Etc.

The portion that you claim, " If they contradict your observations, you say that it’s due to the fact that God is outside of natural law and can perform miracles." is assuming that the Bible makes miraculous claims and says 'this is how things naturally work,' and my observations of nature contradict this. That's not true. The Bible says that 'God overrode nature to do that on this occasion, which is why it's called 'a miracle,'' and nothing about my observation of how things naturally work WITHOUT divine intervention counteract this!

Make sense?


"As for percentages... I don't know, as I haven't finished reading it yet. - Zarm
So not only are you trusting the parts of the Bible that you can’t observe, you’ve already decided that you will believe the parts you haven’t even read?" -Nove


I'm sorry, but please don't twist my words to try and discredit me. :-) You asked what percentage was observeable versus what percentage was unobserveable- and I made a half-jesting remark that since I haven't finished reading through it (which is true; I still have the area between 1 Samuel and Psalms to finish before I've read it through completely) I can't accurately catalogue what I'm able to observe and what I can't. But, as most of what lies between the two either involves historical Biblical kings and/or what goes on between married people... I'd say that (at least until my wedding next year) it would likely all fall under the category of 'can't observe.' ;-)

Congratulations on the engagement.

Thanks! :-D

Lovely YouTube video using cupboards as a metaphor for religion.

I'm not about to come out and say there's a pro-Christian bias on wikipedia, but a couple of articles relating to the history of Christianity I've looked at in recent days have a very strong slant that portray certain aspects of the religion in a light more positive than an unbiased viewing would yield.
The article on Constantine the Great is almost hagiographic, seeming to characterize one of history's most ruthless and amoral butchers as a paragon saint of religious tolerance. It's as if someone were to write an upbeat article on Hitler. Constantine's murder of his wife and child are glossed over, and completely ignored is the true reason he championed Christianity: because it was not only the one religion that promised to forgive his past sins, but the one that allowed him to continue to sin in the future.
The article on Luke, the author of the third synoptic gospel, has a section on "The Historical Reliability of Luke." This is full of glittering generalities about what a great and accurate historian Luke was supposed to have been. Chief among the sources quoted for this section is apologist Josh McDowell, an author notorious for his pseudo-scholarship, distortion of fact and intellectual dishonesty. More reputable Biblical scholars typically don't share this glowing view, noting the numerous historical accuracies in both Luke's Gospel and Acts, such as having Cyrenius be governor of Syria while Herod was still alive (in real life, Herod had died a few years prior). Luke's knowledge of the geography and the customs of the people he writes about have also been shown to be deficient, although in all fairness most of his errors come from the earlier two gospels which were his sources. In Supernatural Religion, Walter R. Cassels notes and demonstrates in detail that Acts is written by an author who seems to be completely unfamiliar with the place, time and society he is writing about, and concludes that "the work is not historically accurate, and cannot be accepted as a true account of the Apostles and their Acts." So it seems that the view of Luke as an ace historian is supported neither by the facts nor by prevailing Biblical scholarship, but you'd never know that by wikipedia.

More reputable Biblical scholars typically don't share this glowing view, noting the numerous historical accuracies in both Luke's Gospel and Acts... - Todd M. Pence

I think you meant "inaccuracies". Incidentally, Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, which I've just finished reading, mentioned the fact that while Cyrenius did issue a tax, he couldn't have done it when the book of "Luke" claims - during the time of Herod, as that king, as you've noted, Todd, was already dead by that time.

No matter how much some may support and enthuse about Wiki, it's still a site to be taken with a grain of salt and not to be totally trusted for its info. (I say this while acknowledging that I have read several articles from the site in recent months.)

Wikipedia is great fun and a great resource. However, the more "academic" you get, the less reliable or informative it becomes. If you want to know stuff about "24" or the Secret Society of Super-Villains, though, it's A1 because people who care about that stuff will be all over it to make sure it is right.

Wikipedia is also always a work in progress. It's a great jumping off point to find information about stuff but it's hardly a be all & end off of anything. On articles about religious history and politics this can be especially bad because zealots on both sides often rewrite articles to suit their own personal biases. Indeed most articles like that end up needing protected status or semi protected status from vandals.

The opposite is true, Mike. The more academic topics tend to be better-sourced. An independent study, in fact, examining 50 science articles from Wikipedia and Brittanica found that Wikipedia had an average of four errors per article, whereas Britannica had three.

By contrast, you're more likely to see a lack of citations when you read an article on pop culture.

Perhaps a better way of saying what Mike meant is that the quality of controversial subjects, especially those where the popular understanding falls short of academic rigor, seem to fare the worst in Wikipedia, as they do in any open forum. That is why one should not take Wikipedia as authoritative in those areas.

I have continued this discussion on the Wikipedia board in the Kitchen Sink.

Wow. It's not every day you get called "brilliant":

http://3rdchimp.blogspot.com/2009/08/case-for-perseus.html

Zarm,

Since Tim decided to cut off the discussion on the “Doctor Who and Religion” board, I’ll just post my thoughts here.

I asked whether God decided that eternal torture was the appropriate punishment for human sin. I’ll try to summarize your answer to make it easier and you can tell me if I’m wrong. As I understand it, God created the lake of fire (eternal torture) to punish Satan and his angels for their sin. Then man sinned as well and God had to include him in the same punishment. But he didn’t want this to happen to mankind, so he sent Jesus to try to rescue as many as he could from this punishment.

So God’s actions led to a consequence that he didn’t intend and didn’t want. Does that sound like a perfect being to you? It sure doesn’t to me.

You gave the analogy of Bob building a smokestack and telling people to stay on the bridge so they don’t fall in. Therefore, it’s not his fault if people don’t listen and fall in. It’s a good analogy but incomplete. Bob puts up signs saying, “Don’t leave the bridge or you will be burned.” Someone comes up to Bob and says, “Hey, can I put this sign here too?” Bob says, “Sure, I can’t stop you.” So this person puts up a sign saying, “The bridge is dangerous. Stay near the ditch.” Bob allows another person to put up a sign saying, “There is no smokestack here.” Another sign says, “The smokestack is certified to be safe.” Pretty soon, you have dozens of signs saying contradictory things, some even saying to disregard other signs. Someone else comes along (call him Nove) and he has no choice but to cross this area. He sees all these signs and he has only a finite period of time (the duration of which is unknown) to decide what to do in order to proceed safely. What does Nove do about his dilemma?

Let’s suppose that somehow, through ignorance, perhaps rebellion, or just confusion, Nove walks around on the ditch and falls into the smokestack. He’s burning and in pain and he cries out to Bob.

Nove: Bob, there you are! Help! I’m burning!
Bob: Oh, I see you fell in. I’m so sorry to see that happen. You should have obeyed my signs.
Nove: There were so many signs! Help!
Bob: You chose to fall in.
Nove: I didn’t mean to! Help! I’m sorry!
Bob: I’m truly sorry about this, but I can’t help you. I didn’t make any provision for getting people out of the smokestack.
Nove: Why not?!
Bob (walks away)

How does Bob look in this story? Perfect? Or not even a nice guy?

I answer the "hard" questions!

Source:
http://thefinalhour.blogspot.com/2009/02/hard-questions-to-ask-atheists-skeptics.html

>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

Maybe Odin or Zeus or Allah did it.

>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and >people?

Provide some examples, please. While archeology confirms the existence of places the Bible mentions, this does not give credence to many of the mythological stories that are set in those places. Indeed, archeology disproves many Bible myths.

>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever >failed (and there are hundreds), how can one >realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible >is of Divine origin?

Wrong. Dozens of Biblical prophecies have failed, including God’s that Abraham would possess all this land that he never actually got and Jesus' that he would return to establish God's Kingdom on Earth within the time of the generation of his disciples.

>How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of >Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 >years before Christ lived?

I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Psalm 22 says nothing about Jesus or about anyone dying by crucifixion.

>How do you explain that the prophet Daniel >prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would >come and prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterward 500 years in advance? >(Daniel 9:24-27)

The figures given by Daniel from his time do not correspond with the time Jesus was supposed to have been born or the destruction of the temple. They’re not even close.

>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before >the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

The individual being spoken of in Micah chapter 5 was supposed to have spurred a revolt against the Assyrians. Since the Assyrians relinquished power 600 years before Christ was born, and if the passage in Micah is indeed a prophecy of Jesus, isn’t it a stark failure?

>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th >power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament >prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.

Odds are irrelevant, since Jesus fulfilled not one of them, and in most cases they were not even prophecies to begin with. By the way, where did you learn math? 48 out of 300 equates to odds of 1 to 10 to the 157th power???

>How was it possible for the Old Testament >prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of >Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

The verse in question was not intended as a prophecy, it was speaking about events completely unrelated to Messianic speculation, and there is no mention of a "virgin" in the original Hebrew.

>How can anyone doubt the reliability of >Scripture considering the number and proximity to >originals of its many copied manuscripts?

How can anyone trust the reliability of scripture considering the lack of those primary sources, and the evidence of interpolation in the copied manuscripts?

>Are you able to live consistently with your >present worldview?

Yes. I would not be able to say the same if I was a Christian.

>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does >exist than as though He doesn't?

This is a pretty empty theology - to believe in God just to be on the "safe side". It indicates both a lack of conviction and a selfish, opportunistic nature. Besides, just in case the Muslim religion is true, wouldn't it be even safer to live as though Allah existed?

>In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was >lying in His claim to be God?

Jesus actually denied that he was God several times in the New Testament. The verses cited in which he is supposed to have claimed to be God are very ambiguous, and in any case are in the minority.

>Do you think that Jesus was misguided in >affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, >Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?

Of course. But I'm not the one claiming that Jesus was infallible.

>If the Bible is not true, why is it so >universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?



Because of a centuries-long campaign of mass propaganda and of vicious suppression of viewpoints to the contrary.

>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone >claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 >times?

If I claimed to be the mouthpiece of God 2601 times, does that make my claim more true?

>Did you know that the Bible has been the number >one best-seller every year since the 1436 >invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

Most best-sellers are fiction. What's your point?

>From whence comes humanity's universal moral >sense?

Obviously not from a belief in God, as there are far less atheists in prison then there are in the general population. Constantine, Christianity's first great champion, chose the religion specifically because it required no moral accountability for the believer.

>If man is nothing but the random arrangement of >molecules, what motivates you to care and to >live honorably in the world?

The knowledge that I am answerable to my behavior to fellow human beings, not to some invisible man up in the sky.

>Explain how personality could have ever evolved >from the impersonal, or how order could have >ever resulted from chaos.

Explain how the specific God of the Bible is the only possible answer to this all-encompassing question.

>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would >twelve intelligent men (Jesus' >disciples) have died >for what they knew to be a lie

If Mohammed was a fake, why would two dozen intelligent men hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers for what they knew to be a lie?

>How do you explain the fact that a single, >relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, >dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?

Lots of totally mythical people, or real people whose lives have been mythicized beyond recognition (Robin Hood, King Arthur), have had an impact upon culture today.

>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers >been believers? Have you ever wondered why >thousands of intelligent scientists, living and >dead, have been men and women of great faith?

Many more of history's greatest thinkers and scientists have been non-believers. Please try to refrain from using the argument from authority.

>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that >countless churches and people(including men like >Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in >their view of the Bible?

Abraham Lincoln thought the Bible was myth. So answer your own question. How arrogant is it for countless churches and people to claim they have all the answers?

>How do you account for the origin of life >considering the irreducible complexity of its essential >components?

Again, what does this have to do with Christianity being the one true religion? With all the possible Gods out there, you hurt your case more than you help it with abstract arguments like this.

>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be >reconciled with progressive, naturalistic >evolutionary theory?

Another completely irrelevant question. I seriously doubt, based on the low level of intellect and education you've shown so far in these questions, that you even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is.

>How do you reconcile the existence of human >intelligence with naturalism and the Law of >Entropy?

Now you're just throwing around random phrases you read in your Freshman Physics text.

>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's >'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of >future events?

Again, why are most of those prophecies outright failures?

>Is it absolutely true that "truth is not >absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are >relative?"

It is absolutely true that everything I say is the absolute truth. That's a lie by the way.

>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is >actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

••••, you're right! That's exactly it! I don't believe in God because I actually DO believe in him! That makes perfect sense! How about you? Is your unwillingness to believe in Allah actually an unwillingness to submit to him?

>Does your present worldview provide you with an >adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

Sure. My current purpose in life seems to be showing up the efforts of Christian apologists as the nonsense that it is. It's a worthy one.

>How do you explain the radically changed lives >of so many Christian believers down through >history?

Self-delusion. Next question.

>Are you aware that every alleged Bible >contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and >credible manner?

Please don't make me laugh.

>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly >books that carefully document the veracity and >reliability of the Bible?

I'd say stop throwing around vague generalities and start providing some specific examples.

>Why and how has the Bible survived and even >flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide >attempts to destroy and ban its message?

Please take a history course before you ask any more imbicelic questions like this.

>Have you ever considered the fact that >Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to >have risen from the dead?

No, because that's patently untrue. Scores of ancient religions have leaders who rose from the dead. Is it possible that you are this ignorant, or are you hoping that your readers will be?

>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in >light of all the evidence that has now proven >essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

If the story of Perseus is just a myth, how do you explain away the dead body of the Gorgon?

>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the >dead, how could He (in His condition) have >circumvented all of the security measures in >place at His tomb?

Well, gee, I thought he was the son of God, gifted with divine powers. Surely making himself invisible wouldn’t be too hard?

>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why >would they have perpetrated the very scenario >that they most wanted to prevent?

Ask the guy who made up the story.

>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how >did He deal with the Roman guard posted just >outside its entrance?

Jijitsu.

>How can one realistically discount the testimony >of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus >following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?

What testimony? All we have is that one account in Corinthians of 500 supposed witnesses which in itself is not corroborated by anything. None of those 500 gave any of their own testimony. We don't even know who they are. So the Corinthians passage is worthless in terms of evidence.
Besides, if 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, then why, at the time of Acts 1:15, were there only 120 Christian disciples? Did 380 of the 500 not believe what they had seen?


>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the >result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence >lunacy in any other areas of His life?

Do you consider someone cursing a fig tree because it won't bear fruit out of season to be a sane act?

>If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that >one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that >he/she is “God” therefore isn't God?

If God is unchanging, would he wish that he had never created mankind, as he is said to do in the Bible?

>Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the >result of a bad experience with an imperfect >Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and >therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

>How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and >living on three separate continents, ever manage >to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?

Some college-level education might help answer these questions for you. You really think the Bible, taken as a whole, is “unified”? Have you even read it?

>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence >with error in affirming that "all men are >endowed by their Creator..."?

Sure. This archaic phraseology doesn't detract from the value of the DI as a political document.

>Because life origins are not observable, >verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' >amount to anything more than just another faith system?

Science doesn't make a pretense of being dogmatic.

>What do you make of all the anthropological >studies indicating that even the most remote tribes >show some sort of theological awareness?

What do you make of the fact that none of them have any awareness of Christianity?

>If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself >is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as >some non-Christians suggest), what or who >then caused the universe?

It was Zoroaster.

>How do you explain the thousands of people who >have experienced heaven or hell and have >come >back to tell us about it?

Show me one Muslim who claimed to have experienced the Christian heaven or the Christian hell, and who then converted from Islam to Christianity. Come on, there’s “thousands” of people who experienced the afterlife, surely one of them must have been a Muslim who converted as a result? No?

>How do you explain the countless people who have >received miracles from God?

They were the bounties of a merciful Odin.

>What would be required to persuade you to become >a believer?

A hell of a lot more than what you've offered up, my friend.

Come to think of it, these weren't really 'hard' questions. They were more like softballs.

Todd, I hereby give you a standing ovation for your wonderful answers. Truly masterful, mi amigo!

So in other words, no answers at all, only snark.

Okay, more fairly... a high degree of snark mixed in. :-) But the issues bypassed with 'Jujitsu' and 'Odin' are not really answers... they seem to be... well, 'hard questions' that you don't have a legitimate answer for. Thus undermining the entire post...? ;-)


">Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the >result of a bad experience with an imperfect >Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and >therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?

Do you know what a straw man argument is?"
How is that a straw man argument? Is it not a legitimate statement that, if you are rejecting God due to bad experience with a group of flawed, fallen people who are imperfectly representing him, then you're doing so unfairly and intellectually dishonestly? Or are you saying that some other element of this question is a straw man? I ask out of genuine curiosity...

A straw man argument presupposes a belief or stance on the part of another which they may or may not actually have. It then proceeds to attack that belief. In this case, the questioner presumes that one's atheism is due to the "result of a bad experience" with church.

Admittedly, the Odin answer is snarky, but it does provide a counter-response to the broad claim that people have "received miracles from God." Which God, and how do they know which God?

And yes, the "jujitsu" answer was totally flippant, but it is difficult to take the question seriously. Few skeptics of Jesus' resurrection that I know of actually use the argument that Jesus revived in the tomb. Most simply dismiss the whole resurrection account as mythical.

">Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the >result of a bad experience with an imperfect >Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and >therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?"

This is a kind of loaded question, weighted with such terms as "a misunderstanding of the facts" and "an unfair rejection of God himself." It presumes that not only is Christianity right but that the atheist is unjust and ignorant. The question does not allow for the possibility that one can (and often does) intelligently and reasonably choose not to believe in a supreme being.

That said, yeah, I've had bad experiences with churches and the people therein. I also have had bad experiences at movie theaters, hotels, restaurants and other such places. Earlier this year, I had a bad experience at a La Quinta hotel. Won't ever stay at one again. Doesn't mean I won't be going to another hotel. Just not one from that particular chain. The same would hold true for churches. A bad experience at one would not in and of itself turn me against the concept of god. It's an unreasonable assumption that it would be central to my atheism.

And yeah, my church experiences lead to me getting out of going to church. (That, and I've always found church services to be terminally BORING). But it did not make me an atheist. The two do not go hand in hand.

What lead me to become an atheist are the questions I had about the nature of god, religion in general and being exposed to the fallacies and contradictions of religions. The more I learned, the more I asked, the less realistic religions in general and Christianity in particular became.

There's more to it than that. I'm being fairly simplistic here. But again, the question on the page Todd linked is a loaded and unfair one.

"A straw man argument presupposes a belief or stance on the part of another which they may or may not actually have. It then proceeds to attack that belief. In this case, the questioner presumes that one's atheism is due to the "result of a bad experience" with church." - Todd

Ah. Understood. I read it to be more of a "Is A. true? If so, B." essentially covering one possibility, rather than an assumption that this was true and rebuttal. Hence my confusion.


"Admittedly, the Odin answer is snarky, but it does provide a counter-response to the broad claim that people have "received miracles from God." Which God, and how do they know which God?" - Todd
True... but then, it does seem to weaken an atheistic position as the best answer that can be formulated was "Well, it was definitely a god, but maybe not yours..." ;-) Okay, now I'm just being snarky too. :-)

"The question does not allow for the possibility that one can (and often does) intelligently and reasonably choose not to believe in a supreme being." - Benn

Really? Again, I must be reading it differently, because I only see it saying "Is this the reason? If so, then it's an unfair reason" as opposed to a blanket "all reason are unfair/missunderstandings/ignorant" statement. Hmmmm...

"A bad experience at one would not in and of itself turn me against the concept of god. It's an unreasonable assumption that it would be central to my atheism." - Benn

Would that it were an unreasonable assumption; but while your statement and position are well-reasoned and intellectually honest, I have personally heard from a number of people that are not quite so reasoned and will reject the notion out of hand based on bad experiences with an individual church (or at the very least, have claimed that as the reason.) I would assume- not having read the original document, mind you, just jumped in when I saw the above post- that the author likewise had encountered such individuals, hence the assumption that it was a possibility.

In any event, I'm not going to leap to the defense of a document I haven't even read, nor try and challenge your beliefs... I just saw the statement differently, as a non-leading, non-straw man "if/then" statement, hence the query.

G'day, gents! :-)

I stand by my statement that the question is loaded. Instead of merely asking, "Is your unbelief in God the result of a bad experience with the Church?", the author added such weighted phrases as "a perfect God" (unproven and unlikely as I do not believe he exists), "imperfect Church" (and since the Church is imperfect, there's bound to be mistakes, so shouldn't we be a little more lenient and forgiving?), "or a misunderstanding of the facts" (what "facts" I am supposed to have misunderstood is not identified. But the supposition is that I am the one who screwed up and am in the wrong. The Church/God/Religion is right. Not only that, but there's a hint that disbelief in God cannot be supported by facts. It's just wrongheaded.) and "an unfair rejection of God Himself" (a blatant attempt to appeal to my sense of fair play and justice. Which is doomed to fail since far as I'm concerned, we're talking about a fictional construct.) So yeah. I consider the question to be loaded. It's constructed in a very manipulative manner.

Andrew: So in other words, no answers at all, only snark....Okay, more fairly... a high degree of snark mixed in. :-) But the issues bypassed with 'Jujitsu' and 'Odin' are not really answers... they seem to be... well, 'hard questions' that you don't have a legitimate answer for. Thus undermining the entire post...? ;-)
Luigi Novi: This is a pretty interesting criticism coming from someone who has a history on this site of repeatedly obfuscating when asked direct questions that rebut his statements and arguments, often chickening out completely of answering them.

Benn- fair enough. Again, I would suggest that the perfect God/imperfect church is more of a comparison/contrast device; though I would agree that the 'misunderstanding of the facts' bit is poorly worded. Just one of those imperfect authors... ;-) But then, aren't we all?

But the "comparison/contrast device" is unnecessary and manipulative. The author can get the information he seeks - more honestly - by merely asking, "Is your unbelief in God the result of a bad experience with the Church?" While having no proof to back this up, I rather suspect the author purposefully wrote the question as he did. Note the simplicity and neutrality of many other questions. The question seems to be more significant to the blogger. (As for why the question was written in such a manner, it may be that it is intended to illict feelings of guilt for being an atheist or, again, the author simply cannot conceive of someone becoming an atheist for any reason but "a bad experience with the Church".

>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would >twelve intelligent men (Jesus' >disciples) have died >for what they knew to be a lie

How do we know with any certainty any of this happened? We only have the Bible's word that Jesus died and was resurrected and the disciples died for their beliefs. I do not believe there is any other corroborating evidence to support these events.

>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers >been believers? Have you ever wondered why >thousands of intelligent scientists, living and >dead, have been men and women of great faith?

Well, there have been times where pragmatism dictates one proclaim oneself to be a believer. Otherwise, you ran the risk of being killed for daring to declare Christianity is untrue. Or tried as a witch.

>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that >countless churches and people(including men like >Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in >their view of the Bible?

The majority is often wrong on many things. Once upon a time, people believed the sun circled the Earth and the Earth was flat. Is it "somewhat arrogant" of me to say these people were wrong. Most people I know believe in cr4p like "Karma" and ghosts and I'm more than willing to say I think they're wrong. I also have to wonder how much peoples' belief in religion is a matter of peer pressure.

>How do you account for the origin of life >considering the irreducible complexity of its essential >components?

Junk science. See this Wiki article for more details.

>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be >reconciled with progressive, naturalistic >evolutionary theory?

See this Wiki article (particularly the section on "Complex Systems in Creationist Arguments") for details.

>How do you reconcile the existence of human >intelligence with naturalism and the Law of >Entropy?

Uh, excuse my ignorance and stupidity, but just what exactly is being asked in this question?

>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's >'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of >future events?

What about Nostradamus?

People for centuries have been claiming we are "Living In the End Times" and Jesus will be coming back soon. What this tells me is the "prophecies" of the Bible are so vaguely written they can be interpreted in a manner which allows the believer to claim they have been "fulfilled".

>Is it absolutely true that "truth is not >absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are >relative?"

I'm sorry. I missed where the point of this question. What does it have to do with me being an atheist?

>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is >actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

This is yet another loaded and manipulative question. It presumes I "know" there is a god and that I am rebelling against him. Given that I do not accept the existence, much less the reality of god, I cannot be "unwilling to submit to Him". That'd be like me being unwilling to Spider-Man, an equally fictitious being.

>Does your present worldview provide you with an >adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

I'd say so.

>How do you explain the radically changed lives >of so many Christian believers down through >history?

Their desire to believe. Moreover, from personal experience, I'd say that many of these "changed lives" were temporarily changed and most people revert to type after awhile. Like after the euphoria of their conversion experience has expired.

>Are you aware that every alleged Bible >contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and >credible manner?

Nope. Because they haven't. Tortured logic and selective evidenced are often used by the biblical apologists to "explain" these contradictions.

>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly >books that carefully document the veracity and >reliability of the Bible?

Biased writers. They look for evidence that confirm their biblical beliefs and ignore any evidence that contradicts that belief.

>Why and how has the Bible survived and even >flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide >attempts to destroy and ban its message?

The Torah and Koran have also been victims of such attacks. Hell, almost all major religions have been banned, their obliteration sought. That doesn't make Christianity special.

>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in >light of all the evidence that has now proven >essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

What tomb? Seriously, do you - or any other Christian - know which tomb was Jesus'? Tradition doesn't count. The only source for Jesus' resurrection (and for an empty tomb) is the Bible. That does NOT make it a true event.

>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the >dead, how could He (in His condition) have >circumvented all of the security measures in >place at His tomb?

What non-biblical evidence do you have that this event occured? It's a work of fiction. How Jesus did all that is the writer's problem. If they can't figure it out, I'm not doing their job for them.

>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why >would they have perpetrated the very scenario >that they most wanted to prevent?

Again, how do we know the event actually took place. Aside from the Bible, there is little to no record of Jesus' life, much less his death.

>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how >did He deal with the Roman guard posted just >outside its entrance?

That again presumes the event took place. I have no evidence it did.

>How can one realistically discount the testimony >of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus >following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?

The Bible is not evidence in and of itself of its accuracy. Just because it says there were 500 witnesses does not mean there really were 500 witnesses. Moreover, there are thousands of witnesses who claim to have seen ghosts, UFOs and Elvis. I don't believe a d@mn one of 'em. There are either lying or mistaken.

>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the >result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence >lunacy in any other areas of His life?

Even assuming Jesus existed, I would still consider the gospels to be a fictionalized account of his life. As such, in order to glamorize (or would "lionize" be a better term?) Jesus' life, any possible acts that could be construed as showing Jesus to be of unsound mind would be omitted. (To put it another way, the gospels were written by people who believed in Jesus' divinity. They most certainly weren't going to portray him in any negative light, much less as a lunatic.)

>If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that >one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that >he/she is “God” therefore isn't God?

Jack Miles' book, God: A Biography certainly disputes the concept of an unchanging god. The book shows how God grew and developed as a character throughout the Old Testament.

>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence >with error in affirming that "all men are >endowed by their Creator..."?

I would say they were being politically correct for their times. It is difficult, even today, to be a politician and not lay claim to being some kind of a Christian.

>Because life origins are not observable, >verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' >amount to anything more than just another faith system?

Unfortunately for the author, much of evolutionary science is verifiable and testable. Thus evolutionary science (not "historical" science) is not "another faith system". (Interesting that the author tries to conflate the term "historical" with "evolutionary" [through the term "life origins".])

>What do you make of all the anthropological >studies indicating that even the most remote tribes >show some sort of theological awareness?

Humans have inborn need to explain the world around them and their place in it. Religion is often the first and easiest method of doing so.

>If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself >is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as >some non-Christians suggest), what or who >then caused the universe?

Bad question. Because one can just as easily ask, "If every effect has a cause, what - or who - then caused God?"

>How do you explain the thousands of people who >have experienced heaven or hell and have >come >back to tell us about it?

Mmm. NDE - Near Death Experience. It is generally considered that those who have NDEs are, at the time of near deaths, interpreting the chemical reactions in their brains according to their religious bias. Check out this Wiki article for more details.

>How do you explain the countless people who have >received miracles from God?

In the Bible, they were made up. In modern times, people are mistaking coincidences and other such events are miracles. And by the way, why did God suddenly decide that after the time of Paul to stop doing these breaking-the-laws-of-nature type of miracles that occur throughout the Bible. Is modern Man unworthy of a miracle along the lines of the parting of the Red Seas or the feeding of the multitude or being miraculous teleported from point A to point B?

>What would be required to persuade you to become >a believer?

Uncontested, verifiable, empirical proof that God exists and the Bible is true. A personal meeting with God would suffice. With the Almighty providing better answers than he gave Job to whatever questions I might have.

Benn, where do the questions about God being unchanging and the Declaration of Independence come from? I can't find them anywhere on that page.

I can't either. I merely copied the questions Todd posted. Looking over the page again, I notice there are questions Todd did not post. I'm wondering if it's been revised since Todd initially posted it?

Todd? Where those two questions on that page when you first read it?

What happened was I originally got those questions from a link that no longer works. That is where my quotes of the questions come from. I assumed that the site I linked to here had the same questions. However, it appears that there are, I see now, a few subtle changes.

Thanks.

Todd: I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Psalm 22 says nothing about Jesus or about anyone dying by crucifixion.
Luigi Novi: Yes it does. The first two verses are:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.

But did the author truly have Jesus in mind when writing that chapter or has it been, shall we say, retconned into being about Jesus' crucifixion?

Almost all of the questions that the poster Shattered Paradigm asks are based on notions that he/she presumes as facts, long-debunked fallacies and falsehoods, and just plain ignorance. It's amusing to think that Paradigm thinks that these are "hard" questions.

Sorry if some of what I repeats what Benn and Todd already did, but I wrote the following last night. Since it's too large for Blogspot to accept (since Paradigm did answer a large number of questions), I'm posting it here, and will post a link to my post on Blogspot for anyone who wishes to read it.

How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?
You have not established that there is a high degree or design or order in the universe. You merely assume it, because you live on a planet that has survived long enough for you live a presumably content life, particularly in a country/society where your rights and freedoms are secure. But entire stars go nova across the universe, some of which presumably take planets with them, which wouldn’t signify “a high degree of design and order in the universe” if there were intelligent inhabitants on those planets who knew that end was coming. Nor do people on this planet who live in squalor necessarily see such “design” and “order” if they lack the basic necessities of life, and I wouldn’t presume to assume that they did unless I had some documentation of this. To put it mildly, this assumption on your part is subjective.

How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
By virtue of the fact that some of those places and people existed (though I unaware if that number is “vast”). This does not mean that all of them did, or that the Bible is a history book, as it was written to promote religious ideas, and long before the modern practice of historiography was developed. Many elements in the Bible, after all, have been disproved by modern sciences. All writings are grounded in some element of truth or reality, whether it’s a real setting, historically real people, or just ideas that readers can relate to. That doesn’t mean that 100% of a given work is true if just some details of it are. England and Scotland are real places, but that doesn’t mean that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is as well.

We do know that some of those people and places exist because we have lines of evidence that are independent of the Bible, which converge upon those conclusions. We know where Rome, Masada, the Red Sea, etc. are because we can go there today, and we know of the existence of people like Julius Caesar because there chains of evidence that document their existence. The same holds true for some non-Biblical things as well. The city of Troy, for example, was considered a legend until ruins were found in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries that confirmed its existence. If the same type of evidence is found for things such as Moses or Jesus, then empirical conclusions about those figures will be revised as well.

Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin? Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?
You have not established that “no Bible prophecy has ever failed”, you are again merely assuming it. There is no evidence that anyone has ever correctly made a prediction specific enough about a future event that later occurred that could not be accounted for mundane explanations. The simplest, explanations that involve phenomena that are known to us must be excluded before one can assert that a supernatural or non-mundane one must be employed. The simplest explanation for instances in the Bible in which a prophecies appears to be fulfilled is that those writers who described the latter event in question did so in order to give the appearance of the earlier prophecy being fulfilled.

An example of this occurs with Jesus. There are no contemporaneous accounts of his existence, as all the earliest ones are heresay accounts that were written years, decades and even centuries after the year when he is believed to have been crucified. Even Flavius Josephus, who is often cited by Christian apologists, was born several years after Jesus was supposed to have died, and the two instances in which he mentions Jesus in his Antiquities are considered interpolations or forgeries, as they make little sense in context, and are completely inconsistent with what is known about Josephus. If someone from Second Century Palestine traveled to Rome to assert events that happened in First Century Palestine, for example, what means would be available to the people of Rome to investigate the matter to confirm or debunk these events? History was not documented in the same manner or with the same degree sophistication of technology that it is today, and travel was much probably more difficult back then, especially if you did not have the financial means. Even if someone from Rome did travel to Palestine, who would be around to corroborate what happened a century prior, especially when you consider the lower life expectancies of people back then?

When one considers that the books considered canonical enough to be a part of the Bible were decided by a committee, and that the Bible was not even published in single-book form until the invention of the Guttenberg printing press, it’s reasonable to state that it’s difficult to document the provenance of its prophecies with any reasonable certainty. Since everyone from religious figures to magicians and even outright charlatans have made a practice throughout of convincing people of things that are not true, and given how so many people are ignorant or gullible enough to facilitate this, it is not difficult to understand how beliefs such as the Abrahamic religions became widespread centuries or millennia ago. Even today, educated people are susceptible to ways in which thinking goes wrong, and/or ignorant of the proper way to think critically about certain claims, and end up believing all sorts of irrational things.

(This answer also holds for the six prophecy-related questions that followed this one, but I have devoted separate space to the one about the prophesized virgin birth, which is next.)

How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?
He didn’t, as Mary was not described as a virgin. She was described with the ancient Hebrew word “almah”, which means “young woman”. It does not mean, nor does it even remotely connote, virginity. The ancient Hebrew word for “virgin” is “bethulah”.

This confusion occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered “almah” into “parthenos”, which usually does mean virgin. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version, as all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical, It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the now-mistranslated prophecy would appear to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible have rectified this by correctly using the phrase “young woman” rather than “virgin” in Isaiah. They do, however, leave the word “virgin” in Matthew, because in that book, they are translating from the Greek.

In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?
We do not know that the Jesus we know from the Bible even existed (that character may have been based on someone named Jesus who really existed—it’s difficult to say), let alone that he claimed to be God. Even if we granted for the sake of argument that he existed, and claimed to be God, you again assume that if his assertion was untrue, that it must mean that he was lying. But why is this? Why do you not consider that he might’ve genuinely believed he was God, but was merely wrong?

If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?
It isn’t “universally” regarded as the Good Book. Many do regard it as such, and those who do, regard it as such because they believe its content is true. But whether they believe its content to be true does not make it true, any more than belief in astrology, psychic powers, alien abduction, homeopathy or O.J. Simpson’s innocence makes those thing true.

Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Yes, it has. So what? The fact that it’s a bestseller means that it’s content is factually accurate? This is a non sequtur. If this notion were valid, then the content of the Qur’an, Quotations from Chairman Mao, The Hobbit, The Da Vinci Code and Valley of the Dolls must also be true, since those books are among the all-time bestsellers too. (Or do you arbitrarily assign this idea only to the number one bestseller, and not other bestsellers?)

If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?
Like all other behavior, it evolved naturally.

If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
Man is not a “random arrangement of molecules”, and you have not established that this notion is widely held by atheists, agnostics or secularists. Man, like all other organisms, evolved through the process of natural selection, which is non-random. While the appearance of mutations is random, whether they will be selected is not. As for what motivates my compassion and attempt to live honorably, that is derived from a combination of my nature and my experiences, the former being a product of natural selection, as aforementioned.

Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos? How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory? How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
Through the transmission of energy. When a system receives an input of energy, order can manifest. This is how water can turn to ice, how heavy objects can fall to the bottom of a container of water while lighter ones can rise, it’s how diamonds can form, etc. Ordered systems can emerge on Earth because it receives a constant input of energy from the Sun.

If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie? If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?
If the resurrection was a fiction, then the disciples could’ve been too, as could Jesus (at least the version of him that appears in the Bible).

Even if we assumed that Jesus and his disciples lived and the resurrection did not occur, you have not established that they “knew” it was a lie. Human beings are capable of believing all sorts of things that are not true, and be quite sincere in those beliefs. You again assume that a believer can either be correct, or a liar, while neglecting the possibility of simply being incorrect. Have you never had some type of belief or notion that turned out to be incorrect? Does this mean that you were lying?

As with much of your other questions, these are based on presumptions rather than reasoned conclusions or givens. If Jesus existed, we don’t know that Jesus was delusional or a lunatic, and even if he was, we do not know that he didn’t show evidence of this in other areas of his life. This is because the scribes who wrote of his life did so in order to present a story that would inspire adherence to his beliefs, and not to create a historically accurate record.

If you believe that the mere assertion of such events in the Bible makes them true, then the question must be asked if you hold the same conclusion about other events in non-Abrahamic texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the \Egyptian hieroglyphs, Homer’s Odyssey and The Illiad, etc. These works describe worldwide floods (hundreds of years before the Book of Genesis did), sea monsters, Cyclops, sirens, resurrections, etc. Do you accept the truth of those events?

How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day? How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?
Again, we do not know that the person you describe existed, particularly in the form described in the Bible. We only know that belief in him changed lives, and that is because of the nature of belief. As aforementioned, human beings can come to believe all sorts of things, whether true or untrue. One positive outcome of this, irrespective of whether the notion they believe in is true or not, is that it causes believers to do positive things. But by the same token, it sometimes causes them to do bad things. Whatever effects belief has on a person or society, it does not effect the question of whether the belief is true. If I come to believe that 7 + 7 = 189, and form some type of organized belief system around this, and/or devote my life to saving and improving lives, and attract others to do the same, the fact that we did good things does not mean that seven plus seven really equals one hundred and eighty-nine. The question of an idea’s truth, and the effect is has, are two different things.

Some believers find motivation to change their lives through belief, whereas other do not. But in either event, this does not mean that the assertions made by those beliefs, in particular those that lie within the realm of facts, are true. If believing in Jesus motivates a believer to go build houses in New Orleans for charity, whereas an atheist might be motivated to do the same for non-religious reasons, the good they are doing is equal, but it in no way means that someone came back from the dead three days after being crucified 2,000 years ago. To argue that it does is a non sequtiur.

Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?
For the same reason that many of history’s greatest thinkers and scientists have been non-believers: There is no correlation between being a great thinker on the one hand, and whether one has religious beliefs on the other. (Although recent surveys have shown that there is some correlation between non-belief and higher levels of education, for reasons that are not currently known for certain. There is also a much higher incidence of non-belief among scientists than in other parts of the population.)

If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?
I was unaware that time goes “backwards infinitely” or has gone through an infinite number of cycles. Can you provide reliable documentation or refer to reliable reference sources for this?

How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals? But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?
Our brains can understand what they do because they evolved by natural processes to do so, a phenomena that does not require nature itself to have a brain, or for our brains to be able to create other brains (though we do create other brains when we procreate).

Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?
No. The evidence clearly shows that it evolved through natural selection. It looks exactly the way one would expect it to look if it were the result of a non-directed process. It looks nothing like what one would expect it to if it were designed by an omnipotent, omniscient creator, as one sees by looking at various biological traits, such as male nipples, the laryngeal nerve, goosebumps, the human coccyx, etc.

When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those? Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?
Finding colors in nature aesthetically pleasing is probably a result of the way our brains evolved, as those colors are the result of natural selection themselves. There is no empirical evidence that a being “came up with them”.

How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?
Life is not irreducibly complex, and you have not established that it is. Irreducible Complexity has been debunked by within the scientific community by peer-reviewed research papers, and was exposed as an unscientific religious belief in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover court case. Michael Behe, the leading ID proponent who coined the term “irreducible complexity”, and testified in a witness in that case, was completely discredited upon cross-examination.

Behe had stated, for example science would never find an evolutionary explanation for system as complex as the human immune system. In court, he was presented with 58 peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbooks chapters about its evolution. His response was that it was not "good enough" and "unfruitful". But when cross-examined, he admitted that hadn't read most of them, thus completely destroying not merely his position, but his credibility as well.

How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us?
Because design, and quality of it, are subjective (“The early bird gets the worm” seems like a great setup if you’re the bird, but not if you’re the worm), and many things in nature do appear that way, in part because it is visually intuitive, whereas development from natural processes seems counterintuitive. But despite natural selection seeming counterintuitive, it can be understood with relative ease to anyone who makes a genuine, good faith attempt to understand it. When one closely examines many of nature’s biological systems, we see evidence of designs that do work, but which do not appear to be designed optimally, as they would if they were intelligently designed. They instead appear to be cobbled together or co-opted from systems or parts that were used for different things. It is for this reason that we know that tings such as nature’s colors developed naturally. They appear to be beneficial to us because the organisms that survive tend to be those that were best adapted to their environments.

Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"
I think some types of truth are absolute. 1 + 1 = 2 is certainly absolute. Other truths are true in general, or provisionally. I do not believe that all things are relative, nor do accept moral relativity. Some are, but not all.

Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him? Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
Sure. All possibilities, after all, exist. And just as it’s possible that I’m an atheist because I am unwilling to submit to God, or because of a bad experience, so too is it possible that you believe in him because you’re ignorant, or you were brainwashed. But “possibilities” are the beginning of inquiry, and not the end. While myriad possibilities exist at the outset of one’s attempt to understand something, inquiry should seek to eliminate the less probable ones through evidence and reason. And just as I would not assume that you are ignorant, so too should you not assume that my atheism is caused by what you think it is, nor should you conclude it to, unless you can provide some type of evidence or reasoning that leans toward this explanation to the exclusion of others.

Indeed, it makes no sense to say that I lack belief in someone or something that I refuse to submit to. How, after all, can I “refuse to submit” to someone if he doesn’t exist?

For my part, my atheism came late in life, after over 30 years of Catholicism. I was baptized a Catholic, went to parochial school for grades 1 – 8, had all the sacraments, went to church every Sunday, and was an altar boy during grades 4 – 8. My experiences in the Church were pretty positive, and I remember the priests during my childhood quite fondly (far more so than some of my teachers). My atheism later came gradually. I was always a moderate in my beliefs, as I have tended to spot irrational or fallacious thinking or reasoning when I saw it, and as I got older, my belief in God was reduced to a somewhat provisional, or vague open-mindedness to the concept. The crystallization of my skepticism began with Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things. I continued to believe in God after I read that book, rationalizing that not everything needed to have an empirical explanation, though the seed of atheism had been planted, and for intellectual reasons, not because of emotional doubt. If anything, I continued to rationalize belief because I wanted to continue believing. However, as I continued to read related works, both for and against belief, I eventually became an agnostic, as I felt this was the most reasonable description for my viewpoint. That changed on May 5, 2007, when I attended the debate between Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of Way of the Master, and Brian Sapient and Kelly O’Connor of Rational Response Squad in Manhattan. After the debate, I spoke with Kelly, and explained that I was an agnostic. She pointed out agnosticism denoted lack of knowledge, whereas atheism denotes lack of belief, and that the two were not mutually exclusive, as people could be agnostic atheists (lacking both knowledge and belief), or agnostic theists (people conceding that they did not have knowledge about God, but still held a belief in him). Since I tend to be more convinced by solid evidence or reasoning, I tend to revise my viewpoints when I encounter it. I could not find any flaws in Kelly’s reasoning, and since I acknowledged that I no longer had any belief in God, I realized that I was an atheist, as I no longer harbored a belief in God, and that perhaps I shied away from that term in favor of “agnostic” because of the greater stigma attached to the former.

Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
“Creator” can mean a religious deity or nature. Since Thomas Jefferson was a deist, it is not clear that he was referring to the Abrahamic God. But if he was, then yes, I would say that he was in error. Since belief in an intelligent creator is somewhat intuitive, and scientific inquiry had yet to reveal many natural phenomena that could account for things that only religion could explain when the Declaration was written, belief in one is not surprising.

Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose? Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yes.

Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
No, it is better sense, both pragmatically and morally, to live as though it is best to live in a way that maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness of both yourself and those around you. Whether some people use the Bible as the prism through which they do so is up to them, but it is not needed, and indeed, many people who become fanatics as a result of an extreme and unquestioning interpretation Bible do not live lives that I would say exhibits “better sense”, or morality.

Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?
Again, to ask if I’m “aware” of this presupposes that it is true. It is not, and you have not established that it is. The fact that apologists attempt to explain such contradictions does not mean that those attempts exhibit solid reason, consistency, or intellectual rigor. Much in the Bible cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic, history, science, reason or its own contradictions, which are inevitable in a work that was written over a period of millennia by countless different writers with different points of view.

What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
We know that such books attempt to do this. That does not mean that they have succeeded. For many of these attempts to allege the Bible’s content as completely accurate, there are counterarguments that debunk them.

Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
I was not aware that there even were “worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message”. I was certainly aware that Christians have been persecuted at different times and places in history, but a worldwide attempts to destroy and ban the Bible’s message? Where and when was this? Can you document these instances?

The Bible survived for the same reason that many other ancient works survived, including ones that predate it. Either they were sturdy enough or ended up in environments that preserved them long enough for them to be discovered later, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or they were carefully passed down through the ages.

Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Again, in order for me to “consider” this, you’d have to first establish that it’s true, and perhaps point me in the direction of information that supports this idea.

But in fact, it’s completely false.

Putting aside the fact that Jesus is not Christianity’s “leader”, but its central figure, other religions include resurrection of their gods, such as Baal, Osiris, Amun, Tammuz, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Odin, Baldr, Inanna/Ishtar, Persephone, Orpheus, Quetzalcoatl, Melqart, Bacchus, Izanagi, etc. Resurrection is so common across religions that one would be surprised to find a religion that did not feature resurrection of its deities.

How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries? If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb? If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent? If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
You have not established that Jesus existed, or that he was crucified and buried in a tomb, or that there was a Roman guard or any other security measure in place there, or that it was discovered to be empty at some later point, or that his body was stolen, or that he resuscitated or resurrected. You presume all of these ideas to be facts. They are not. They are religious beliefs.

How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
By virtue of the fact that we have no way to vet this “testimony”, and therefore, cannot conclude it to be anything other than a myth written by a scribe who wanted to create material for a new religion. Accounts such as this, were written before the modern practice of science and scientific skepticism, before the practice of modern historiography, and before the advent of modern recording technology, so there’s no way to substantiate it.

We also know that humans beings, even in large groups, are capable of believing things that are not true, even claiming that they saw things that it can later be documented they did not see (eyewitness testimony, contrary to how it’s portrayed in popular media, is among the weakest forms of evidence, as it’s often wrong). Cargo cults are one example of this.

How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
They didn’t. That the Bible exhibits a unified message is your belief. It is not a fact. Many find contradictory messages in it.

Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?
You have not established that the origins of life are not verifiable or falsifiable. Like any other scientific idea, when firm theories are developed for this, they will indeed conform to these criteria, and it is for precisely this reason that it is not a “faith” system. But right now, we only have general ideas about what might have happened to begin life. We do not know for certain.

What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
That religion might be hard-wired in to our brains, since we are pattern-seeking animals, and sometimes observe patterns or come up with explanations for the phenomena around us. Some times we come up with one that’s right (“Some objects in space seem to move around us or around each other”) and sometimes we come up with one that’s wrong (“The events in our lives are controlled by the position of the stars”).

If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?
As I understand it, we do not yet know what caused the Big Bang, and are only able to determine events right after it occurred. But theories abound. The fact that we do not yet know this, however, does not mean that the universe was not caused by natural means.

How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it? How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?
You have not established that people have experienced heaven, hell or miracles. Near-death experiences are easily explainable via conditions that can cause the brain to experience things are later interpreted as such. Miracles are events that people simply choose to interpret as such, and those depicted in the Bible could simply have been made up.

Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?
The former. If verifiable empirical evidence were provided that for which natural or mundane explanations were excluded through an objective examination, and the notion of the existence of a god or gods were confirmed through proper empirical processes, then yes, I’d accept the existence of such beings, just as I once did.

The latter, however, seems to be a far more accurate description of your approach, if the premises assumed as facts, threadbare logic, long-debunked fallacies and falsehoods and apparent lack of inquiry that would’ve made your questions informed ones are any indication. That anyone would think that these are “hard” questions says more about the stagnant nature of creationists and their ability to gain new knowledge than it does about non-believers.

"If verifiable empirical evidence were provided that for which natural or mundane explanations were excluded through an objective examination, and the notion of the existence of a god or gods were confirmed through proper empirical processes, then yes, I’d accept the existence of such beings, just as I once did." - Luigi

What kind of empirical proof could be offered of an infinite being that is, if He exists as sources claim, literally beyond human ability to comprehend... and especially what empirical proof could exist in this category that would not in and of itself serve as a direct contradiction of the infinite nature of the stated being?

Maybe this is more a philosophical question, but what kind of empirical proof can be offered for a being for whom proof would be, in essence, a disproof?

Uh, yeah. A god that walked with Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, a god that spoke with Abraham, Moses, Job and many other patriarchs, etc. shouldn't be all that incomprehensible. The people in the Old Testament/Torah he spoke with (some on an almost daily basis) didn't have any problem comprehending him. To me, to say god is an infinite being and therefore incomprehensible is a cop-out. If the Bible is in any way true, human beings who encountered the Almighty comprehended him pretty well.

Congratulations, Zarm, you have just summarized olon_Colluphid's arguments in "Well, that just about wraps it up for G-d", and "Where G-d went wrong".

I'm not trying to be snarky. But you've just hit the crux of the argument.

I'm reminded of a conversation about the paranormal that I had at work with a customer the other day. We were talking about how things like UFOs were often reported by pilots during WWII and beyond, plus by all kinds of people on the ground who would sware that they saw all kinds of crazy stuff that was as big as life hovering right above them. Now that pretty much all millitary & commercial jets are wired full of in-flight recorders & most people are carrying around video cameras in their cell phones all we can get some faint points of light in the distance which could be anything. No more close encounters when everything can be video recorded.

Similarly in The Bible we had God, presumably, changing the rotation of the Earth so that his followers could win a battle. We had Moses turning a staff into a snake, rivers being turned to blood, frogs falling out of the sky, the parting of the Red Sea. In the modern age we have no such things.

Today we have someone who quit drinking & than got a good job after they started going to church. We have a cancer patient who was given a 5% chance of survival living while 20 other cancer patients died that same day. We have people interpreting lucky breaks & positive changes as the result of God's work; while tragedies are written off as "all part of God's plan." That plan looks a lot like random chance.

Once we had modern historiography & modern recording stories of miracles became either seconds hand stuff or became a lot more mundane. I'd say implying that most/all of those larger than life miracles in ancient holy books were probably more the result of the human imagination rather that things that actually happened.

"To me, to say god is an infinite being and therefore incomprehensible is a cop-out." - Benn

I'm not saying that we are unable to comprehend a part of God; but I don't think any of said Biblical patriarchs would ever claim that they came close to comprehending the entirety of God. And for empirical proof, it seems to be that the entirety of God is what's up on the table; which seems to be beyond our ability to prove- is, then, a standard of proof an intellectually honest one when the thing you're trying to prove is, by nature, if it exists, beyond your ability to?

Now, there are, as you note, plenty of personal encounters- but this entire page has been spent debunking those in the Bible as unreliable myth and those claimed in modern-day (near death experiences, miracles, etc.) as unreliable opinion or interpretation of events, so I am assuming they are not valid either.

So that's what I'm asking- for a perspective of "If there is a Biblical God, and He is everything the Bible claims Him to be- what kind of empirical proof would actually apply?" It seems to me that while God could certainly 'fail' the standards of empirical proof arbitrarily applied to Him, that would not have any bearing on proving or disproving Him, just serve as evidence that we don't have any sort of proof method that can possibly apply to something so much bigger than we are.

So I'm wondering, what standard of proof honestly, realistically, and intellectually honestly (I.e. Not demanding something that will fail due to our incapability to prove it instead of it's inability to be proven) would apply here? Again, this isn't a challenge, but a genuinely honest curiosity on my part.


"Congratulations, Zarm, you have just summarized olon_Colluphid's arguments in "Well, that just about wraps it up for G-d", and "Where G-d went wrong".

I'm not trying to be snarky. But you've just hit the crux of the argument." - ScottN

Without being exactly sure what I hit (I assume something to do with demanding scientific proof of God being futile when such proof would be a disproof?) I don't know whether that's a good thing or not... ;-) I think that's part of the reason that faith is so important to the equation of salvation; because while everyone honestly claims a "show me this, and I'll believe it" evidence in their own minds, ultimately there is no proof that could truly satisfy every critic because there is no way to prove something that is by nature far more expansive than any of your abilities for proof are. God made the crux of faith... well, faith, especially because all proof systems will, eventually, fail when trying to prove infinity. :-)

But that may be, perhaps, not even close to what you are talking about. :-)

My old professor, Dr. Ted Drange, takes on spin doctor William Lane Craig in debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebOVjgmZJM

First, we do have to admit that Dr. Drange is not as polished and Charismatic as Craig, and so was at a disadvantage.

I think the place where Dr Drange had the biggest job in refuting Craig's logic was in the probability argument concerning Intelligent Design. He failed to make it clear that the job isn't to refute the One in Ten to the Ten to the whatever power that exactly this universe could be created, but merely the One Hundred in One Million chance that a self-sustaining universe exists.

The way I usually do this is with lottery tickets. If you buy one lottery ticket, you have a one in a thousand chance that it is the winning ticket. If your neighbor buys one lottery ticket he has a one in a thousand chance. For every lottery ticket sold, there is a on in one thousand chance. But when all thousand tickets are sold and the number drawn, there is a 100% chance that one of those tickets did win, despite the odds against it. (This is what Dr Drange meant by a "brute fact," and should have been clearer about)

Andrew - First of all, sorry for the delay.

The best answer, or rather analogy I can give you is... Well, the Universe. It's huge. (Which is an understatement.) We cannot and will not know all there is to know about it. It almost beyond comprehension. Yet, we know it exists. Though we can only know a fragment of the Universe, we know it exists. We have no comparable evidence when it comes to the existence of god. There is not the tiniest thing that can be looked at and not accounted for in a naturalist manner that points to the existence of god. And yet, you'd think that given the nature of god, we'd have ample evidence of him. We don't.

That's about the best answer (which isn't really much of an answer, I admit) I can give you.

Oolon Collophid was a character in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series. (The topic "Babelfish" is the relevant one.)

Benn - no problem; it's been a busy week for me, too. :-)

I guess that is the difficulty, though... again, we have numerous accounts of miracles, near death experiences, historical records, and what many would claim to be evidence pervading every level of the Universe around us, from the microscopic detail of a flagellum motor to the incredibly precise conditions necessary for life on Earth to innumerable wonders of deep space.... but as you say, many people can account for such things naturalistic-ally, debunk, or dismiss these various elements... which leads to the question of whether there is a lack of observational evidence... or a lack of observational evidence that one deems 'acceptable.' Which, I guess, leads to the core of my prior question... if God cannot be proven because He is infinite, beyond scientific analysis (as per previous discussion)- and, if, as it appears, the 'observation' side of empirical analysis is subject to personal interpretation (as indeed I think many observational analysis would be, as they rely on one's individual senses and perceptions of the observed)... then it comes back to the question of what an acceptable and intellectually honest standard is.

This all being complicated, of course, by the notion that, should faith be an integral component of reality due to the literal impossibility of an empirical proof that would satisfy everybody (again, per previous discussion) then it's entirely possible that no such 'indelible evidence' that couldn't be rationalized away or accounted for otherwisely by someone that wanted to discount it exists- not put in place by God in the first place- as it would be in direct contradiction to a faith-only approach. Which would complicate matters of empirical evidence immensely. (Though of course such an arrangement is a mere musing on my part, not something that I'm contending to be the case.)


Anyhow, that's more of an 'in principle' notation; in specific to your answer, which I appreciate as honest- I am curious; what kind of evidence would you personally count as empirical observational evidence, in the manner of the universe that you describe?

Andrew: ...which leads to the question of whether there is a lack of observational evidence... or a lack of observational evidence that one deems 'acceptable.'
Luigi Novi: It's not about whether "one deems it acceptable". That implies that acceptance of evidenced is based on something capricious like human whim. It isn't. It's based on whether natural processes or more mundane explanations can be provided for them, as you yourself allude to.

Purported miracles can easily be explained via human beings' tendency to be in error, yet believe things that may not be so. NDE's are explainable via conditions that can cause them. Not only is the bacterial flagellum not irreducibly complex, but I gave you a detailed explanation of it right here (fifth paragraph). It's not that this explanation wasn't "acceptable", as there is more than sufficient evidence provided for it. The problem is that the evidence didn't favor your predisposed belief, and you stated that you didn't care if evidence was provided for it, because as far as you were concerned, you were going to continue believing that the principle of IC was accurate, regardless of evidence presented for it (a comment you made two posts above the one I just linked to.) Had the evidence supported IC, we can be certain that you would've cited it happily, as you did with Stephen Meyer's bogus "peer reviewed" paper (PM: EvC; Board 3; 10.23.04), even though it was discredited and disowned by the publication into which it had been sneaked, or IC itself, even though it's been thoroughly shown to be false, in the scientific literature.

Andrew: …and, if, as it appears, the 'observation' side of empirical analysis is subject to personal interpretation (as indeed I think many observational analysis would be, as they rely on one's individual senses and perceptions of the observed)... then it comes back to the question of what an acceptable and intellectually honest standard is.
Luigi Novi: The Scientific Method, and the various tools it uses to filter out personal interpretation, bias, such as blind and double-blind tests, peer review, etc. Here's an example:

In 1996, a girl named Emily Rosa saw a video in which Dolores Krieger, the co-inventor of a healing system called “therapeutic touch”, claimed that she could sense what she called the “Human Energy Field”, or HEF, when she held her hands over the human body, and manipulate this HEF, without touching it, in order to treat disease. Emily conducted a test of a number of therapeutic touch practitioners by having them sit at a table, and extend their hands through a screen so that they could not see their own hands. Emily sat on the other side of the table, and after flipping a coin in order randomly select which of the practitioner’s hands she would hold her hand over. She would then ask the practitioner which of their hands detected Emily’s HEF. Subjects were each given ten tries, but could only locate Emily’s hand an average of 4.4 times. In other words, the practitioners, when they could not see their hands or Emily’s could not “sense” this HEF in order to report which hand Emily was using more accurately than would be account for by chance. The study was published in Journal of the American Medical Association, making Emily, at age 9, the youngest person ever to have a research paper published in a peer reviewed medical journal.

Because TT practitioners cannot provide any evidence that survives this type of scrutiny, it’s why we cannot conclude that this “HEF” exists, and with respect to its proponents’ claims, probably doesn’t.

This is an example of an honest standard by which reality can be examined in such a way that biases or “interpretations” do not affect the outcome. The outcome does not have to “satisfy” anyone. It would only have to survive examination in such a way that more mundane or naturalistic explanations could be excluded.

Emily Rosa rocks. She's actually one of my myspace friends. She's grown into quite the pretty young woman too.

I happened to stumble across her after she appeared on "Penn & Teller's B.S." and we sent a few messages back and fourth about her experiment. She said that after it was published TT practitioners came up with all kind of nonsense trying to explain why her experiment came up with the results that it did. One said that as a child her energy field wasn't strong enough. One even said that the AC being on in the room must have messed with the fields.

"Luigi Novi: It's not about whether "one deems it acceptable". That implies that acceptance of evidenced is based on something capricious like human whim. It isn't. It's based on whether natural processes or more mundane explanations can be provided for them, as you yourself allude to."

And you don't think that's subject to human interpretation? "I can explain this one away, it doesn't count." With no set standard of what constitutes an observation of a part of an infinite being, isn't it solely a province of what the observer finds an acceptable observation and determines that they cannot provide an alternate explanation for? In what way is it not based- if not on human whim- at the very least on human preference and opinion?


In other news; I would ask that if our discussion is to continue, you would DIScontinue your hostility; I do not need cited chapter and verse of my supposed failings, especially as the cited issues are, at best, tangential to the principle being discussed here... And it is why I do not get involved in much outside of the Trek/Who/SG1 boards on Nitcentral anymore- I apologize if our past discussions have created baggage for you, but I'd appreciate a cessation of the continued dredging it up.


Now then, as for your notation on scientific method... the problem is, once again, that this was a controllable, contained environment in which a theory based on a human 'power' could be tested. The problem being that, as this entire discussion has been noting, the same conditions do not even remotely apply to seeking a scientific rationale proof of God. I am not debating the value of scientific method; I am merely asking by what rational, intellectually honest standard that is not subject to human bias and takes into account the actual nature of the subject being tested can be applied to the so called 'proof' of God (as we were discussing empirical evidence)- especially as observation is, as I contend above, a very personal, interpretational field. (For example, you site that things like a near-death experience or a miracle could be explained away by other means. This does not necessarily mean that they are not valid; simply that they are not solid evidence as they theoretically could be caused by something else as well; there's more than one option, so they do not serve as bedrock proof of a single option. Yes? That comes back to the question I was asking- perhaps a bit unclearly: What evidence then, realistically, would serve as such only-one-explanation empirical evidence of God in your eyes? (Well, actually, I was asking in Benn's eyes- but I am curious about yours, too.))



"This is an example of an honest standard by which reality can be examined in such a way that biases or “interpretations” do not affect the outcome. The outcome does not have to “satisfy” anyone. It would only have to survive examination in such a way that more mundane or naturalistic explanations could be excluded." - Luigi Novi

Understood; but again, the question is- unlike such a trial as described above, where the human subjects and conditions were under the tester's control, how does one propose for such an observational but non-biased 'test' of God- one that is intellectually honest, considerate of God's nature, and not not require a presumption, such as "If He is really there, He will do X"- which is not a valid evidence of any free-willed being with the ability to decide actions of their own accord?

What I am asking is, is there such a standard- one that doesn't require God to act specifically as you demand Him to in order to confirm, as that is not a nature-considering or intellectually honest condition- by which the existence of God can be measured?

As an addendum to my first point, I understand what you are saying; in terms of observational evidence acceptable from an empirical perspective, the point is to locate an observation whose results cannot be accounted for in another manner, thus removing whim or bias from the equation.

Personally, I find this a shaky standard at best given the human propensity for self-deception and the tendency to come up with any irrational alternate rationalization for something that challenges our viewpoints... something that Brian points out well. :-) (That notion is what I was arguing in my first statement above.)

But as a standard of empirical evidence, it is logical. Therefore, in context of the discussion of empirical evidence, ignore that first paragraph.

Andrew: And you don't think that's subject to human interpretation?
Luigi Novi: I just answered that question. The methodologies by which matters of empirical fact and reason are examined are designed to filter out such things, and I gave you an example of this.

Andrew: In other news; I would ask that if our discussion is to continue, you would DIScontinue your hostility.
Luigi Novi: One more time: Offering legitimate criticism that is relevant to the discussion at hand is not "hostility", nor “baggage”.

So far, you've made two points that required a response on this matter: First, you criticized Todd Pence for not offering what you felt were answers to the questions on that blog. This is relevant, because you've made a habit of doing this multiple times. Therefore, pointing this out is legitimate.

Second, you question the reliability of the methods used to test empirical knowledge, and the manner in which human perception or bias can affect the results. This stands in stark contrast to your previous admission that you do not care about evidence that conflicts with your pre-determined conclusions, and your documented history of deliberately cherry picking information to suit those conclusions, while ignoring that which does not.

Thus, my bringing this up was entirely relevant, and therefore, does not denote "hostility" or "baggage" on my part. Just because you don't like someone pointing out when you're wrong, or when you've exhibited behavior at odds with the principles you espouse, does mean that that person is "hostile" or has "baggage". Suggesting that it is is just an ad hominem argument that you think will distract from the substance of the counterargument. Well, it didn't work the last time you tried this, and it will not work now.

But if you really insist on this line of reasoning, then I would suggest that at the very least, you have to explain how what I've said about you is not legitimate criticism, is not relevant to points you yourself have brought up, and/or is not sound in its reasoning or the evidence I provided. Can you do this?

Can you explain how you criticism of Todd is not indicative of a double standard that reveals lack of genuine adherence to principles of straightforwardness in giving direct answers, given your history of dodging questions and refutations of your statements?

Can you explain how your ostensible concern for adequate empirical methodologies is not at odds with your previous statements that you will simply reject evidence that you don't like, and in general, your overall refusal to learn about these topics, even though I've offered repeatedly to help you on that point?

If you can do this, then your accusation of "hostility" and "baggage" could have merit. If you cannot, then it's just an attempt at distraction, and it's not going to work.

If you want to reserve for yourself the privilege of both dodging questions and refutations in this manner and criticizing others for not being forthcoming with answers that you think are substantial enough, then you’re either going to have to extend the same privilege to others to criticize you if they think this is a double standard, or explain why it’s not a double standard. If you’re going to reserve the privilege of compartmentalizing or ignoring evidence that conflicts with what you wish were true, you’re going to have to expect people to be skeptical of your sincerity when you express misgivings over the technical aspects of how empirical knowledge is examined, or else explain how that is not a double standard or contradiction. Why, after all, is it “hostile” for me to point out recurring behavior on your part that calls your statements here into question, but not hostile for you to criticize Todd for not being forthcoming with answers that you think are acceptable?

Andrew: Now then, as for your notation on scientific method... the problem is, once again, that this was a controllable, contained environment in which a theory based on a human 'power' could be tested. The problem being that, as this entire discussion has been noting, the same conditions do not even remotely apply to seeking a scientific rationale proof of God. I am not debating the value of scientific method; I am merely asking by what rational, intellectually honest standard that is not subject to human bias and takes into account the actual nature of the subject being tested can be applied to the so called 'proof' of God (as we were discussing empirical evidence)- especially as observation is, as I contend above, a very personal, interpretational field.
Luigi Novi: The standard in question should be that normal, mundane, conventional, natural explanations be excluded before we decide to use supernatural/paranormal/extraterrestrial/whatever explanations.

For example:

Shattered Paradigm, the Blogspot user whose questions Todd responded to, talked repeatedly about prophecies that were fulfilled in the Bible. But do we know that they were fulfilled, or is there another more mundane possible explanation? The answer is that there is a more mundane one, one that requires observation of important historical facts regarding the Bible, and its provenance: For one thing, the Bible was written before the practices of modern historiography, critical analysis, the scientific method, and modern recording media. So we have no way of knowing what exactly happened during the periods predicted by earlier prophecies. Someone could have written that events occurred that matched prophecies even if they didn’t occur, and could’ve done so decades or centuries after the fact: In fact, the existence of Jesus the Christ, who was prophesized to be the Messiah, was documented decades or centuries in hearsay accounts by people who admitted that they weren’t eyewitnesses, and were named as the four Gospel writers by Iraneus of Lyon. The books judged to be canonical enough to go into the Bible were decided by a committee, and the Bible wasn’t printed in a single book form for the masses until the invention of the Guttenberg printing press in the 15th century. Because of this we cannot discount the possibility that the scribes who wrote the Bible wrote about those “prophecies coming true”, even though they didn’t. Or perhaps they didn’t, but the scribed believed they had. Believing something to be true that is not, and spreading this belief to others, is recurring activity throughout human history. This is a fact, and is not subject to bias or “interpretation”.

So what standard would be needed to know that the Bible was inspired and written by someone other than Bronze Age humans? Well, if there really were prophecies that were detailed enough that one could not retrofit them after the fact, wouldn’t that do the trick? What if, for example, the planets Neptune, Uranus and Pluto, which cannot be seen with the naked eye, were predicted in a Bible text, with their specific position, mass, diameter, aphelion, perihelion, orbital periods, composition, etc.? Now that would be impossible to attribute to Bronze Age humans. Of course, some could attribute that to extraterrestrial visitors. So what if God himself appeared before humanity, displaying knowledge that no one else could possibility have, answering questions of each of the 7 billion or so people on Earth, including the major questions of science, religion and philosophy, performing miracles, etc.? Well, I think that would do it. I don’t see how where there would be room for “interpretation”.

Andrew: For example, you site that things like a near-death experience or a miracle could be explained away by other means. This does not necessarily mean that they are not valid; simply that they are not solid evidence as they theoretically could be caused by something else as well; there's more than one option, so they do not serve as bedrock proof of a single option. Yes?
Luigi Novi: Yes, absolutely. This is emphasized over and over again in the literature of scientific skepticism: That fact that phenomena attributed by credulants to paranormal/supernatural/divine/extraterrestrial causes can actually be accounted for or explained by more convention causes doesn’t mean that it could not have been caused by non-convention ones—it just means that we can’t conclude that they have. This is where Occam’s Razor comes in. Question about the things that we observe should be answered first by known phenomena, and we should only employ more exotic explanations when the normal ones are excluded. It is because we can’t exclude mundane explanations that it is not veridically possible to glom onto paranormal or ones currently considered pseudoscientific.

Andrew: What I am asking is, is there such a standard- one that doesn't require God to act specifically as you demand Him to in order to confirm, as that is not a nature-considering or intellectually honest condition- by which the existence of God can be measured?
Luigi Novi: I don’t know, Andrew. The existence of God is something that believers insist upon, so I guess they’d have to come up with something that could not be explained with natural explanations.

"Luigi Novi: One more time: Offering legitimate criticism that is relevant to the discussion at hand is not "hostility", nor “baggage”."

'Andrew, thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is,'
'This is a pretty interesting criticism coming from someone who has a history on this site of repeatedly obfuscating when asked direct questions that rebut his statements and arguments, often chickening out completely of answering them.'
'Had the evidence supported IC, we can be certain that you would've cited it happily, as you did with Stephen Meyer's bogus "peer reviewed" paper'
Etc.

Legitimate (in your eyes) criticism? There are no personal attacks involved? Look, I'm not as stupid as you clearly think I am, Luigi. I can read. If these are your ideas of valid, topical criticisms, then please keep those to yourselves until you can separate them from the personal commentary. That is what makes it 'hostile.'


"First, you criticized Todd Pence for not offering what you felt were answers to the questions on that blog. This is relevant, because you've made a habit of doing this multiple times. Therefore, pointing this out is legitimate." - Luigi
I was pointing out that several of the answers weren't really answers to the questions asked. I was also doing so- or attempting to- in a lighthearted manner. I was not attempting to criticize. And sorry, but no, that doesn't work. If I feel that you make a habit of harassing me with past discussions that ended before you desired them to, that does not make it legitimate to, say, jump into a thread on the discussion of a persecuted minority or a hassled land owner and make unflattering comparisons because I consider your behavior similar in principle. That would simply be me being a jerk, no matter how 'legitimate' I might consider the comparison... because it would be uncalled for, unnecessary, and not really applicable to a discussion on minorities or land-owners. So again, please... lay off. :-)


"This stands in stark contrast to your previous admission that you do not care about evidence that conflicts with your pre-determined conclusions," - Luigi
In your cited post, re: irreducible complexity, I stated that I frankly didn't care if one debater successfully trumped another in a single discussion and disproved an example, because that is not a valid critique of the entire principle. Likewise, I have seen debates in which atheists were trumped by their opponents in a single discussion, as were evolutionists by creationists- in both cases, unable to offer a rebuttal that addressed the points of their opponents. I doubt that, had I dredged up the times and dates of either, you would have taken them as evidence that atheism of the theory of evolution were validly refuted. My statement- if read without the inbuilt bias that you seem to have towards me, is very clearly that I did not care that one debater had triumphed over another; it did not affect the overall validity of the theory. (Now, if you were saying, and I misunderstood, that the entire notion- that something with multiple parts working in conjunction that would be nonfunctional up to the inclusion of multiple parts which could not have evolved concurrently was in fact a proof that said something did not evolve by an iterative mutation methodology- was somehow debunked at Dover in an irrefutable manner, or that all possible evolved organisms on Earth were covered at this lecture and determined to have no such systems, then I misunderstood- obviously, I would care about that.) I never said anything about not caring about new evidence- and if I omitted or repeated any arguments that you debunked in your next response (the one you linked to) it is likely because I didn't read past the "Andrew, thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is," opening, but simply left in disgust.

Which is becoming a more appealing option all the time... ;-)

If there was a different place in which I specifically stated that I did not care about new evidence which I missed, then feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I should like to get back to the FRIENDLY discussion I was having with Benn, Brian, Todd, and ScottN.


"But if you really insist on this line of reasoning, then I would suggest that at the very least, you have to explain how what I've said about you is not legitimate criticism, is not relevant to points you yourself have brought up, and/or is not sound in its reasoning or the evidence I provided. Can you do this?" - Luigi

I have tried to do so with relevant points above. But regardless... where do you think we are, Luigi? Where do you see this innate right or responsibility to criticize your fellow posters in the first place? What makes you think that I am here putting myself out for your personal review in the first place? If the so-called 'legitimate criticisms' are not warranted in the first place, sound reasoning or not, what exactly makes you think that it's your job, the purpose of this site, or even tactful, courteous, or socially acceptable to offer them?


"Can you explain how you criticism of Todd is not indicative of a double standard that reveals lack of genuine adherence to principles of straightforwardness in giving direct answers, given your history of dodging questions and refutations of your statements?" - Luigi

I have not dodged questions. I have dropped out of discussions when follow-up posts were still being posted, sure. And, as I believe I've stated before, I haven't offered rebuttals to points I've conceded... rather than posting "Very well, I concede." "Yes, you are right." "I have no answer for that; you win." etc. in endless streams during each post- perhaps these were interpreted as question-dodging, though they weren't intended to be. But I always try to give straightforward and direct answers, Luigi. I'm sorry you don't think that I do. This 'history', this 'documentation', this bizarre obsession with tracking what you seem to identify as my intellectual failings, however, is not healthy- and if you cannot see this, or continue to see the necessity of questioning my integrity as 'legitimate criticism' of my points, then I am sorry, but I am not going to engage you in discussion. I can go somewhere that I'm not visiting for recreational purposes to get that kind of treatment.

As for what I posted about Todd- which I will touch on briefly, as I have no quarrel with him, nor do I want to- I ask you in return; does my supposed lack of straightforward answers have any bearing on whether or not some of the responses Todd posted actually answered the questions they were linked to or not? If not, then all your accusation of hypocrisy really have no bearing on the actual content or substance of my statements- and are thus not necessary criticisms, even if they are, in your eyes, 'legitimate.' (Regardless, yet again, I had no intention or desire to criticize Todd or his posts, nor do I. I was merely pointing out that answers like 'Jujitsu' were not really answers to the questions raised, and did not actually refute them- not only was I trying to do so in as tongue-in-cheek manner as he posted his answers in, but in addition, to your point Luigi, the accuracy/truthfulness of that observation is not affected one way or another by my principles, positions, or history... making the challenge a logical fallacy in terms of applying to/refuting the discussion it was responding to... and an unprovoked personal criticism (what we in the business call a 'cheap shot' :-) ) injected off-topic into a discussion that neither concerned nor was addressed to you in terms of the overall thread.)


"Can you explain how your ostensible concern for adequate empirical methodologies is not at odds with your previous statements that you will simply reject evidence that you don't like," - Luigi

No such ostensible concern, my friend; merely an attempt to define/understand the bounds of such methodologies, and question how they properly apply to something that is apparently, by nature, beyond their bounds. And, as mentioned above, I made no such statement.


"your overall refusal to learn about these topics, even though I've offered repeatedly to help you on that point?" - Luigi

I would not reject such help, offered in a constructive, non-aggressive manner. And in fact I have already learned a good deal from you; even in the last few days, about observation and empirical methodologies. I apologize if I have ever seemed to reject such learning- I have continued to pursue knowledge on many of the topics in contention- such as evolutionary and biological theory- whenever I can; especially from the Chief's podcast.

"If you can do this, then your accusation of "hostility" and "baggage" could have merit. If you cannot, then it's just an attempt at distraction, and it's not going to work." - Luigi

Distraction from what??? Not going to "work?"??? I honestly don't know what you are talking about! Have we entered some strange parallel reality in which "I feel as if you are attacking me repeatedly and creating an unfounded hostile environment in a place where I come to relax, please stop." requires documented evidence and eyewitness reports in triplicate to be a valid request?!?


"If you want to reserve for yourself the privilege of both dodging questions and refutations in this manner and criticizing others for not being forthcoming with answers that you think are substantial enough, then you’re either going to have to extend the same privilege to others to criticize you if they think this is a double standard, or explain why it’s not a double standard. If you’re going to reserve the privilege of compartmentalizing or ignoring evidence that conflicts with what you wish were true, you’re going to have to expect people to be skeptical of your sincerity when you express misgivings over the technical aspects of how empirical knowledge is examined, or else explain how that is not a double standard or contradiction." - Luigi

Your statements would be entirely valid, were I in fact doing these things (dodging questions, compartmentalizing, ignoring, etc.) However, as it is, I don't have to explain anything, because I have not done these things- at least, not intentionally; and it is something that I am trying to watch out for on the chance that that may be the case. As it is, you have certainly interpreted my words as doing so; and I appreciate- in a slightly creeped-out, stalker-victim sort of way- the time and detail you've put into multiple referenced, cited, meticulously detailed posts attempting to satisfy the burden of proof that I am in fact doing these things, so as to ground your demands for accounting in a solid foundation... but the fact remains that, from my position, I have no such history to account for. I have tried to explain where such previous statements or actions (which I freely admit, are easy to interpret with my relatively loose and imprecise style of speaking; I am not going to claim great clarity, eloquence, wisdom, or wit) but am not going to be called to account for your personal interpretation of my past actions. Clearly, being hounded or unfairly attacked without provocation is in the eye of the beholder, here- as are my apparent 'past misdeeds'- but nonetheless, that is my perception, and while I do wish to resolve any past or present offenses I may have inadvertently caused, I would ask you to cease your character accusations, especially when they have no bearing on the legitimacy of the point being discussed.


"Why, after all, is it “hostile” for me to point out recurring behavior on your part that calls your statements here into question," - Luigi

Because it does NOT call my statements into question- it has no bearing on them! This is fallacy 101 territory; personal failings of a position's source do not affect a position's validity on it's own merit. If Gandhi advocated a flat Earth or Hitler (Godwin's law, just to get it out of the way :-) ) advocated gravity, the reality of either position would be unaffected by the personal merits or failings of the men stating them. While you may find me more similar to the latter than the former, ;-) I believe the principle applies universally, yes? :-)


"but not hostile for you to criticize Todd for not being forthcoming with answers that you think are acceptable?" - Luigi

I once again apologize- to you and to Todd- if I appeared to be criticizing. I posted a follow-up to my first almost immediately in hopes of dispelling that exact appearance, because I realized I could be coming off that way. If I was STILL coming off that way, I apologize, I did not mean or want to do so.

Secondly... I did not argue that the answers didn't satisfy me (a subjective criticism); I merely pointed that the answers did not in fact answer or rebut their questions in several cases. (an objective observation). No matter what my past history was or what you perceive it to be, that doesn't change the fact that claiming order for the universe came from Odin does not offer a rationale for such order, merely snarkily discounts God's role in it. Or that Jujitsu is not, in fact, a reasonable answer to the question of how a recovered coma patient who had been crucified could have dealt with a Roman centurion, whether one believes such an encounter actually occurred or not. These aren't even my questions, nor was I looking for any satisfaction in the answers... I was merely pointing out that if one goes to the trouble of posting answers to the questions someone has claimed to be unanswerable, one should actually answer all of the questions, because sidestepping or avoiding an actual answer appears to lend credence to the notion that the questions really ARE unanswerable and thus valid. (Though, of course, not having any actual basis to prove the questions unanswerable in a logical or objective sense. Still...) Which is a notion I found humorous, thus I pointed it out. Again, no criticism of Todd, or commentary on how acceptable the answers were to me, was intended.


"Luigi Novi: The standard in question should be that normal, mundane, conventional, natural explanations be excluded before we decide to use supernatural/paranormal/extraterrestrial/whatever explanations."

Right. I got that... it just took me awhile. :-) While I still have some reservations on human interpretability and integrity in applying that principle (there are, after all, elements of evolution, current formation-of-the-Earth theory, etc. that surpass statistical impossibility that are nonetheless considered 'normal, mundane, conventional, natural explanations' as an alternative to supernatural explanations- which, whatever your position on those theories, seem to indicate that the definition of "normal, mundane, conventional, natural explanations" can be stretched just a bit to preclude consideration of the alternatives...) I understand it, and accept that. as an 'ideal world' standard, applied honestly, it makes sense on the subject of determining fact without bias and accounting for what constitutes bedrock proof vs. potential but inconclusive (thus useless) scientific support.


"So what if God himself appeared before humanity, displaying knowledge that no one else could possibility have, answering questions of each of the 7 billion or so people on Earth, including the major questions of science, religion and philosophy, performing miracles, etc.? Well, I think that would do it. I don’t see how where there would be room for “interpretation”." - Luigi

Then clearly you have not read the Chief's book. ;-) I think that people will always be able to deceive themselves into believing what isn't true... or not believing what is- when they don't want to. Heck, the Trekkies alone ("Yeah, we saw Q do the same thing!") will probably account for tens of thousands of skeptics! ;-)
Seriously, though, in an intellectually honest, ideal world that may be sufficient proof; but somehow I doubt (heck, I'll make a wager to you, Luigi- not that I expect either of us will care about it much at the time)- that when this exact thing happens in the Millennial kingdom, someday (as I believe it will) that there will remain people unconvinced because they convince themselves otherwise. :-)

But, that is neither here nor there in the current discussion.

I'll admit that this is borderline on the criteria that I asked about; internal-consistency with God's stated nature. Minus the fact that He has promised/prophesied that such won't happen until, essentially, the end of the world (as per Revelations, Daniel, etc.)- so such conditions could, theoretically, be fulfilled. However, does this not make a requirement on God to still act precisely as deemed necessary in order to fulfill? In other words- if the proof of identity for a person was made requisite on their acting a certain way or fulfilling a list of required actions, would that be an especially realistic or honest standard for observers to hold them to? Regardless, this does not meet the "standard- one that doesn't require God to act specifically as you demand Him to in order to confirm, as that is not a nature-considering or intellectually honest condition- by which the existence of God can be measured?" As empirical evidence and internal consistency? I don't know... you tell me. :-)



"Luigi Novi: I don’t know, Andrew. The existence of God is something that believers insist upon, so I guess they’d have to come up with something that could not be explained with natural explanations."

I ask because you said "If verifiable empirical evidence were provided that for which natural or mundane explanations were excluded through an objective examination, and the notion of the existence of a god or gods were confirmed through proper empirical processes, then yes, I’d accept the existence of such beings, just as I once did." I am genuinely curious what, in that case, said acceptable empirical evidence is- again, keeping in mind internal consistency with the being in question, since something that violates His stated nature would invalidate itself as acceptable proof anyhow.

Andrew:

Luigi Novi: 'Andrew, thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is,'

'This is a pretty interesting criticism coming from someone who has a history on this site of repeatedly obfuscating when asked direct questions that rebut his statements and arguments, often chickening out completely of answering them.'

'Had the evidence supported IC, we can be certain that you would've cited it happily, as you did with Stephen Meyer's bogus "peer reviewed" paper'
Etc.

Legitimate (in your eyes) criticism? There are no personal attacks involved?
Luigi Novi: No. They are examples of your behavior that call into question your assertions here in this current discussion. There is nothing “personal” about saying “this behavior on your part calls into question these statements of yours”, and I provided a fairly detailed rationale as to why in my previous post.

You have claimed on numerous occasions, for example, that natural selection is “pseudoscience” and “junk science”. When you were asked if you knew what those things were, you either stonewalled, or provided a false definition. You have also been shown to cherry-pick and embrace information that you think supports your point of view, while deliberately ignoring the fact that it’s been discredited, along with any other information that does not support your point of view.

Thus, the three quotes by me above are not “personal” comments. They are based factual observations of your documented behavior, for which I can provide examples, and which call into question some of your statements here in this current discussion, which is no different for me to point out with you than with any other visitor to this site who is or was prone to such behavior.

Again, “I don’t like people pointing out stuff that I wish they didn’t” is not what it means when someone is “hostile” or “personal”, or exhibits “baggage”, “inbuilt bias” or “harassment”. These are just personal comments on your part.

Andrew: If these are your ideas of valid, topical criticisms, then please keep those to yourselves…
Luigi Novi: Refute them first on the basis of the evidence or reasoning that they employ, and I’ll do that.

Andrew: I was pointing out that several of the answers weren't really answers to the questions asked. I was also doing so- or attempting to- in a lighthearted manner. I was not attempting to criticize.
Luigi Novi: Even if we ignored the first post in which you made this point, the fact that you included a smiley in the second one does not mean that a reader should automatically conclude that you did not intend them as a legitimate view of Todd’s responses, especially since it’s hard to conclude such a thing in an all-text medium. In addition, the subsequent passage in that second post, and your subsequent posts after that, do not appear to be made ironically or seriously.

The point is valid, and you are simply using another evasion tactic.

Andrew: In your cited post, re: irreducible complexity, I stated that I frankly didn't care if one debater successfully trumped another in a single discussion and disproved an example, because that is not a valid critique of the entire principle.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what was said. This was our exchange:

Luigi Novi: Irreducible complexity has been refuted by people such as Richard Dawkins, and was refuted without any rebuttal offered by ID proponent Michael Behe in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. In that trial and elsewhere, numerous examples offered for ID, such as the bacterial flagellum, the bombardier beetle's spray, etc., have been shown to not be irreducibly complex, and all the analogies offered to supposedly refute natural selection, such as the watch on the beach, the tornado in the junk yard, etc., have been shown to be flawed analogies. This is why the attempt to teach creationism in a public school science classroom was defeated in the Dover trial.

Andrew Gilbertson: Whatever was said about Irreducible Complexity in Dover, I frankly don't care- the principle is accurate.

We were not talking about a mere “single discussion” or “an example”. We were talking about—as I referenced, numerous examples of systems that were shown to not being irreducibly complex, as ID proponents had insisted, in numerous places, such as in the scientific literature by people like Richard Dawkins, and in a major a trial in which the leading proponent of IC, Michael Behe, was completely discredited on the subject. As mentioned in a subsequent post by me (but which you could have discovered by researching it a bit), Behe was presented with 58 peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbooks chapters about the evolution of the human immune system, which he had insisted was irreducibly complex. His response was that this was not "good enough" and "unfruitful". But when cross-examined, he admitted that hadn't read most of them.

Your response?

Well, I don’t care what evidence and argumentation was provided at that trial that showed how the principle is not accurate—I’m going to continue believing that it is accurate anyway.

That is indeed an example of willfully ignoring evidence you don’t like, and has nothing to do with “one debater trumping another in a single discussion with a single example”.

Andrew: Likewise, I have seen debates in which atheists were trumped by their opponents in a single discussion, as were evolutionists by creationists- in both cases, unable to offer a rebuttal that addressed the points of their opponents. I doubt that, had I dredged up the times and dates of either, you would have taken them as evidence that atheism of the theory of evolution were validly refuted.
Luigi Novi: If anyone had provided evidence and reasoning illustrating their point of view that was sound, then I would’ve responded to it as such, as my history clearly shows, and you have absolutely zero basis to doubt this. When members of the Rational Response Squad asserted, on their website, that people who adhere to a religion have a “mental disorder”, I took them to task for that (one member in particular named Darth Josh), and was taken to task for this, with the RRS’s leader confiding to me at one point that some of the members thought I was a theist in disguise, simply because I refuted the arguments of those who stated this, and criticized Darth Josh’s evasive and intellectually dishonest behavior.

Although most atheists I’ve corresponded with or whose writings I’ve read are fairly polite, I’ve seen debates in which some exceptional atheists displayed open hostility and vitriol toward theists, and thus, it was not difficult for others to take the high ground with them. If that’s what you mean when you say they were “trumped”, then I have no trouble believing this. But if you mean that they were trumped by virtue of the arguments for and against belief, then I would wonder if you just remember these “debates” as you wish to, much as you see my statements the way that you wish to. Since you refuse to provide these debates, I guess we’ll never know.

Andrew: My statement- if read without the inbuilt bias that you seem to have towards me, is very clearly that I did not care that one debater had triumphed over another; it did not affect the overall validity of the theory.
The fact that it was debunked on the basis of evidence and argumentation does affect it. It’s why the conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones found in favor of Kitzmiller.

The validity of any theory in matters of fact rests on the evidence, and how that evidence can be examined. By that measure, ID and IC have been discredited.

Andrew: Now, if you were saying, and I misunderstood, that the entire notion- that something with multiple parts working in conjunction that would be nonfunctional up to the inclusion of multiple parts which could not have evolved concurrently…
Luigi Novi: I have never said this, nor has anyone who understands natural selection, as it has been stated countless times that systems are not “non functional”, because the parts in question had different functions, and were later co-opted for the newer function. Again, this is from my post on that previous board, regarding Michael Behe’s assertion that the bacterium flagellum is IC:

Research has shown that it was a Type Three Secretory System (TTSS), used not for rotary movement, but by parasitic bacteria for pumping toxic substances through their cell walls to poison their host organism. These mechanisms are often similar across bacteria that are not closely related, as the genes for making them have been widely copied from other bacteria. These components eventually became parts of the motor. Commandeering such components previously used for other functions is a way that complex mechanisms evolve. This example was illustrated with dramatic visuals in the Dover trial. I don't know if I'm conveying this adequately in this all-text medium, but if you watch the PBS documentary Judgment Day it'll explain it in a way that's easy to grasp. You can watch it here for free.

Andrew: Where do you think we are, Luigi? Where do you see this innate right or responsibility to criticize your fellow posters in the first place?
Luigi Novi: It’s built into the practice of exchanging ideas, critical thinking, and expression in a free and just society.

Bad ideas and bad behavior need to be criticized, regardless of whether you think you’re entitled to a free pass to express or exhibit without ever being questioned in venues that are designated as open forums.

That such criticisms employ sound reasoning is precisely what makes them called for.

Andrew: I have not dodged questions. I have dropped out of discussions when follow-up posts were still being posted, sure.
Luigi Novi: You’ve also continued in discussions after those follow-up posts were made, and not only failed to respond to those posts, but repeated the questionable statements you had previously made in subsequent discussions, using the same ad hominem “baggage” complaint, rather than simply saying “Very well, I concede…”

In one instance last December on Board 8 of PM’s GLBT boards, Brian Fitzgerald and I refuted a number of your statements. You disappeared from that board (while continuing to post on the Trek boards), and then ten days later, popped again, in the same discussion, making the same comments that had been refuted, with no response to what Fitz and I said. When I pointed this out, you claimed a number of excuses, including that you “jumped in again when you noticed a new comment on the Last Day board”. But in fact, the discussion continued during those ten days, uninterrupted, with new posts being made on each of those days, so it’s not as if you didn’t see that the discussion was ongoing. And, as I pointed out then, there was nothing precluding you from reading the posts made during those ten days, including ones made in response to your comments. Each one of your excuses was refuted by any reasonable standard of proof.

In other words, you were dodging questions.

As I showed in detail in those posts, your behavior was intellectually dishonest, and you resorted to the same personal ad hominem arguments with which you sought to discredit me in that manner, because you couldn’t admit this.

Andrew: As for what I posted about Todd- which I will touch on briefly, as I have no quarrel with him, nor do I want to- I ask you in return; does my supposed lack of straightforward answers have any bearing on whether or not some of the responses Todd posted actually answered the questions they were linked to or not?
Luigi Novi: Yes. It calls into question the standards and principles that you seem to imply should be adhered to, which you do not adhere to yourself.

If Todd wants to respond to Shattered Paradigm with a mixture of snark and serious answers, that’s his call. His “snark” is at least easily identifiable as such. But if he started passing off his snark as legitimate counterarguments, or exhibited the same behavior towards others here as you do, then I would call him out on it, just as I’ve done with atheists in the past on this site, such as Brian Webber and Roger Myers.

Andrew: No such ostensible concern, my friend; merely an attempt to define/understand the bounds of such methodologies, and question how they properly apply to something that is apparently, by nature, beyond their bounds.
Luigi Novi: And given the past contempt you’ve shown for those methodologies, I question the sincerity with which you do this.

Andrew: I would not reject such help, offered in a constructive, non-aggressive manner.
Luigi Novi: I’ve repeatedly offered to send you, as a gift, a copy of Dr. Michael Shermer’s book, Why People Believe Weird Things, which is a good primer on critical thinking. I’m sorry that offering someone a book as a gift is not considered “constructive” or “non-aggressive”. But the offer still stands.

Andrew: And in fact I have already learned a good deal from you; even in the last few days, about observation and empirical methodologies. I apologize if I have ever seemed to reject such learning- I have continued to pursue knowledge on many of the topics in contention- such as evolutionary and biological theory- whenever I can; especially from the Chief's podcast.
Luigi Novi: And I apologize if I come across as you describe here. But I really bear no personal hostility towards you, and I think that aside from the subject areas on which we disagree, you seem to be a very nice guy, one whom I’d rather hang out with than some of the other people with whom I’ve disagreed on this site. It is simply the questionable behavior you exhibit that I criticize. If you abandoned this (as there are many people with whom I disagree on these boards who don’t exhibit it, including theists), I wouldn’t call you on it.

Andrew: Distraction from what??? Not going to "work?"??? I honestly don't know what you are talking about!
Luigi Novi: Accusing me of “hostility”, making my comments “personal”, “inbuilt bias” “baggage” or “harassment” are ad hominem arguments with which you make this personal, and seek to avoid considering what I say in an intellectually honest manner. I have not “attacked” you. I have criticized you for certain behaviors, which is legitimate. Only in your mind is criticizing people for their behavior some type of cardinal offense for which one needs some type of special license.

Andrew: Your statements would be entirely valid, were I in fact doing these things (dodging questions, compartmentalizing, ignoring, etc.)
Luigi Novi: As aforementioned, I have shown that you have, by any reasonable standard of evidence, and not any “personal interpretation”, which anyone who looks though your history can see, the GLBT boards from last December being a fairly good summation of it. The fact that all you can do is play the victim by pretending that criticism is an “attack”, or cast personal aspersions upon me with comments like “stalker”, only to accuse me of somehow making it personal (when I’ve never resorted to such name-calling with you), only serves to underline this even further.

Andrew: Because it does NOT call my statements into question- it has no bearing on them! This is fallacy 101 territory; personal failings of a position's source do not affect a position's validity on it's own merit. If Gandhi advocated a flat Earth or Hitler (Godwin's law, just to get it out of the way :-) ) advocated gravity, the reality of either position would be unaffected by the personal merits or failings of the men stating them. While you may find me more similar to the latter than the former, ;-) I believe the principle applies universally, yes? :-)
Luigi Novi: It would if we talking about this.

But we’re not.

You were not advocating a theory about natural phenomena. You were questioning standards by which the scientific method is applied, a point is indeed called into serious question by the fact that you have shown willful ignorance or even outright contempt for it. In other words, you question an idea without wanting to learn about it.

Andrew: Secondly... I did not argue that the answers didn't satisfy me (a subjective criticism); I merely pointed that the answers did not in fact answer or rebut their questions in several cases.
Luigi Novi: But when I point out that you do this, I have a “chip on my shoulder”, I’m a “stalker”, have “baggage”, am “hostile”, etc.

And yes, I admit I haven’t yet gotten to the Chief’s book yet. There are piles and piles of books on my shelf, and I have no idea when I’ll get to them. Mea culpa.

Perhaps you’re right that people might still be skeptical. After all, what would be the difference between an immensely powerful extraterrestrial and God? Although this is a point that has been advanced before by skeptics and atheists, I neglected to keep it in mind when composing my last post, so yeah, you have a point. The very notion of God may be inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, which is why it isn’t considered empirical.

Andrew: Minus the fact that He has promised/prophesied that such won't happen until, essentially, the end of the world (as per Revelations, Daniel, etc.)- so such conditions could, theoretically, be fulfilled. However, does this not make a requirement on God to still act precisely as deemed necessary in order to fulfill? In other words- if the proof of identity for a person was made requisite on their acting a certain way or fulfilling a list of required actions, would that be an especially realistic or honest standard for observers to hold them to? Regardless, this does not meet the "standard- one that doesn't require God to act specifically as you demand Him to in order to confirm, as that is not a nature-considering or intellectually honest condition- by which the existence of God can be measured?" As empirical evidence and internal consistency? I don't know... you tell me. :-)
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I’m following what you’re asking. If you could clarify, I’d appreciate it.

Andrew: I am genuinely curious what, in that case, said acceptable empirical evidence is- again, keeping in mind internal consistency with the being in question, since something that violates His stated nature would invalidate itself as acceptable proof anyhow.
Luigi Novi: As I said, I don’t know. But I’d be willing to keep an open mind.

I have never met Luigi. I have seen photos of what purports to be him. I have a sketch that was supposedly done by him. One of my friends on Facebook is Luigi Novi. I have communicated with Luigi via emails and Instant Messaging, as well as here on Nitcentral. Yet, I have no doubt such a person exists. But that's because the photos, sketch and other communications come from a single source - Luigi himself. They do not come from say, Adam Bomb (who, IIRC, has met Luigi once). Virtually all of the evidence for god comes from second hand, indirect sources. The Bible? It allegedly was divinely inspired by god, but it was not written by him, therefore it is not a direct source of info. Miracles? Second hand sources. I have not directly experienced a true miracle. Not even during the time I was a Christian. Christians' testimony? Also second hand information. If all my sources of information on Luigi Novi was equally second-hand; others posting messages about him and what he supposedly has said, etc., I would question whether there really is a Luigi Novi and right to do so.

This is the problem. According to most Christian doctrine, god supposedly wants everyone to be saved and go to Heaven, yet he fails to provide direct evidence of his existence. It is strange that a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful being that has as his goal the salvation of the human race would make such an error. Surely, such an all-knowing being would know that many would require direct evidence of his existence and would make allowances for that. Instead, he only gives us second hand data that does little to prove there is a god. Either he's not all-knowing or he doesn't care about the salvation of the soul of everybody on this Earth after all. Or, more likely, there really isn't a god.

(My apologies to Luigi for using him as my example in this post.)

Well, now that I think of it, has anyone ever seen Luigi and Benn together in the same room?

Actually, I met Adam Bomb twice. (Pick, pick, pick! )

Y'all can pick all you want to. It doesn't mean I knew that the two of you have met twice now.

Fair enough.

One point I forgot to pose to Andrew though:

Regarding your challenging my right to criticize others, when you accuse me of being "hostile", having "baggage", "stalking" you, "inbuilt bias", aren't these criticisms?

Too late. He's done his creationist rant for the year and is now crawling back under his bridge.

"No. They are examples of your behavior that call into question your assertions here in this current discussion." - Luigi

In what way? A validity-of-claim-is-affected-by-validity-of-claimant routine? That is not valid and you know it.

Now, tell me, in what way is "Andrew, thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is" necessary, non-personal phrasing, countering to any points, or support of your own? It does not offer any evidence, it does not add to your own counter-points except in a rhetorical sense, and it is not necessary. Again, imagine if I'd done this. Said something like "Thank you for proving once again that atheists are dumb" or before positing my points. Be the points valid or invalid, that statement (which, for the record, is NOT my position! :-) ) would be completely unnecessary and tangential to whatever points were made or whatever points I was about to make- it would be a needless personal jab against my opponent. Are you seriously telling me that you see nothing insulting or unnecessary it the quoted examples? That any of your arguments would be weaker without them, or that they could be considered civil or constructive in any manner?


"You have claimed on numerous occasions, for example, that natural selection is “pseudoscience” and “junk science”. When you were asked if you knew what those things were, you either stonewalled, or provided a false definition. You have also been shown to cherry-pick and embrace information that you think supports your point of view, while deliberately ignoring the fact that it’s been discredited, along with any other information that does not support your point of view." - Luigi

I will not deny that I have posted in ignorance. But never in intentional denial of discredited or dis-proven evidence (that I am aware of) unless such discrediting or disproving is part of what I disagree with and am trying to disprove or debate- in which case I'd like to hope that I've presented evidential support or valid reasoning for those positions. :-) Quite possibly I haven't- if so, I am sorry.


"Thus, the three quotes by me above are not “personal” comments. They are based factual observations of your documented behavior, for which I can provide examples, and which call into question some of your statements here in this current discussion, which is no different for me to point out with you than with any other visitor to this site who is or was prone to such behavior." - Luigi

'Had the evidence supported IC, we can be certain that you would've cited it happily,' is presumptuous and assumptive; it is not a statement of fact or an observation, it is an assumption of behavior based on a personal opinion. It is also not a statement in support of any actual position or argument.

'thank you for once again showing that you do not know what science is' is, perhaps to your point, an observation- it is also an unnecessary insult and does not support or enhance a statement or position in any tangible way.

'someone who has a history on this site of repeatedly obfuscating when asked direct questions that rebut his statements and arguments, often chickening out completely of answering them' is indeed an observation based on your personal opinion of me- but also needless and insulting, and completely inconsequential and tangential to any of the points or positions ongoing in the discussion.

Frankly, I can't even believe this is a debated issue! If you are trying to discredit me, then sure, you could call these 'valid observations'. But since you are, presumably, trying to discredit and discus my positions and statements, which are independent and unaffected by behavior or history unless they are positions ABOUT my behavior or history, I am pretty certain that they are needless attacks.


"Luigi Novi: Refute them first on the basis of the evidence or reasoning that they employ, and I’ll do that."
They are tangential and unrelated to the topics under discussion. They have no bearing on points made or to be made. They are of a personal nature and not tied to the positions being debated. And once again, I should not have to refute insults in order for them to stop being offered. Or else we'd be going around making demands like "You're stupid! Disprove that!" or "Everyone here knows you'd whine about this given half the chance; refute my reasoning!"... which would just start getting plain silly. :-)


"the fact that you included a smiley in the second one does not mean that a reader should automatically conclude that you did not intend them as a legitimate view of Todd’s responses, especially since it’s hard to conclude such a thing in an all-text medium." - Luigi
I did not ask you to conclude that, I admitted that my poor choice of phrasing might have lead to a different conclusion. Which is why I was explaining and clarifying the intent- precisely because I realize the wrong conclusion may be easily drawable from them- which is why I posted a follow-up in an attempt to clarify in the first place.


"In addition, the subsequent passage in that second post, and your subsequent posts after that, do not appear to be made ironically or seriously." - Luigi
Yes, a serious discussion ensued. Not one based on criticism.

"The point is valid, and you are simply using another evasion tactic." - Luigi
You are incorrect. You are making a unilateral decision based on opinion, declaring it a position of fact, and then demanding I refute it- which is largely the problem this whole discussion is based on. There is no such evasion; I don't even understand what you're claiming I'm trying to evade by saying that I didn't intend to criticize another poster... especially when I did not, in fact, intend to criticize another poster (which clearly you do not believe, hence the point of contention)- but from my POV, telling the truth, then being told that I am evading an ephemeral 'something' and am in fact wrong in telling the truth is beyond baffling; it casts serious doubt in our ongoing ability to dialogue. :-) I really don't want to be involved in an ongoing "You are insulting me!" "No I am not, offer your evidence!" "Okay, here's where you offended me- *whine, whine whine*" discussion; it's not productive, useful, enjoyable, or... possessing a point. If a simple "Your comments appear to be off topic and personal, please desist" is not enough, then I will simply cease discussion on the matter. It is not worth this absurdity.

However, if that means a cessation of our conversation, please do not account that as 'chickening out,' 'trolling,' 'evading questions,' etc. as I have clearly defined an offense you do not seem to perceive, won't acknowledge, and cease to redress- and if your criteria for my 'conversation-ducking' involves my sticking around to be insulted in a pointless conversation when I have repeatedly requested the cessation of said insults... then I suppose you will simply have to continue falsely believing me a willful evader, because I am not going to continue in that mode. :-)


"Your response?

Well, I don’t care what evidence and argumentation was provided at that trial that showed how the principle is not accurate—I’m going to continue believing that it is accurate anyway." - Luigi

Look, I am not going to deny a certain thickness on my part here- but as you yourself state:
"Now, if you were saying, and I misunderstood, that the entire notion- that something with multiple parts working in conjunction that would be nonfunctional up to the inclusion of multiple parts which could not have evolved concurrently…
Luigi Novi: I have never said this, nor has anyone who understands natural selection,"

You admit that the notion, as stated, is indeed valid; the notion is simply disproved for other reasons. Now, I understand your contention that the overall idea is still dis-proven because of that. Fine. That is a separate debate; I would indeed need to study this further before venturing an opinion on it.

However, my statement at the time was indeed that regardless of whatever was said at the trial, that principle was still a valid one; from my perspective, I was reading your statement to mean that something said in the Dover trial discredited that basic principle, which you yourself stated in not in invalid principle- it has simply been shown not to be the case on other grounds (due to co-opting being a factor said principle didn't account for.) It was in this context that I was making the statement "Whatever was said about Irreducible Complexity in Dover, I frankly don't care- the principle is accurate." Meaning the principle that, 'something with multiple parts working in conjunction that would be nonfunctional up to the inclusion of multiple parts which could not have evolved concurrently' was indeed a valid principle. (It just wasn't, I this case, an accurate description of what was being discussed.)

Label this another evasion if you will; but that is what I meant; there was no willful ignorance of evidence I didn't like. There was, clearly, a misunderstanding of what you were saying- and I will certainly admit to being in the wrong on that one- the response was unclear, unnecessarily inflammatory, and based on a misunderstanding of exactly what you were saying was discredited- but it was not a willful ignoring of evidence presented.


"But if you mean that they were trumped by virtue of the arguments for and against belief, then I would wonder if you just remember these “debates” as you wish to, much as you see my statements the way that you wish to." - Luigi

It is possible. Is it such a stretch to acknowledge, however, that you see my statements very much in the way that you wish to?


"Since you refuse to provide these debates, I guess we’ll never know. " - Luigi
I'm sorry... was I asked to somewhere?
In any event, as I mentioned 'dredging up the times and dates' I admit to not recalling the exact particulars; I may very well be memory-filtering as you claim. I was not trying to assert these as any particular evidence (lest I would have looked them up) but in support of a principle. One that, as it turns out, was rather tangential to the ongoing discussion and even to the IR debate being discussed above. :-)


"Luigi Novi: I have never said this, nor has anyone who understands natural selection, as it has been stated countless times that systems are not “non functional”, because the parts in question had different functions, and were later co-opted for the newer function."
Understood.


"Bad ideas and bad behavior need to be criticized, regardless of whether you think you’re entitled to a free pass to express or exhibit without ever being questioned in venues that are designated as open forums." - Luigi
Were I not so tired of debating, I might note this might raise some very interesting implications in the field of absolute right and wrong (Whose standard of 'bad behavior?' Yours? What makes it more valid than mine?) and the continued practice of labeling Christians who criticize bad behavior as 'judgmental' for doing so. But, that is a discussion for another time.


"That such criticisms employ sound reasoning is precisely what makes them called for. " - Luigi
Sir, the reasoning is ENTIRELY unsound, as you are attacking the man and not the position; that you can't see this does not alter the fact that it is true.


"You’ve also continued in discussions after those follow-up posts were made, and not only failed to respond to those posts, but repeated the questionable statements you had previously made in subsequent discussions," - Luigi

You are right; I have tried to add 'one more thing' notes that have later occurred, or continue on a single thread of discussion, without wanting to slog through the entirety of a mega-post like this to respond to all of those points additionally. I realized that I was doing this during our last discussion, and have been trying to monitor that behavior. It was unfair and wrong of me. I apologize.


"When I pointed this out, you claimed a number of excuses, including that you “jumped in again when you noticed a new comment on the Last Day board”. But in fact, the discussion continued during those ten days, uninterrupted, with new posts being made on each of those days," - Luigi
Yeah, but I didn't visit the 'Last Day' board very often. Apparently... 10 days apart. Nowadays, I do every 3-4 days at most typically... so won't happen again. :-)


"And, as I pointed out then, there was nothing precluding you from reading the posts made during those ten days, including ones made in response to your comments." - Luigi

That is true. And I admit that, as I was averse to doing so because I was tired of the discussion, I should have done the honest thing and just stayed out of the discussion until I was prepared to do so. Once again, I am sorry.


"and you resorted to the same personal ad hominem arguments with which you sought to discredit me in that manner, because you couldn’t admit this." - Luigi

I am sorry. I do not recall that- what ad hominem attacks did I use? If I did so (and I don't deny this; I just don't recall it), that was also wrong, and I likewise apologize.


"Andrew: I ask you in return; does my supposed lack of straightforward answers have any bearing on whether or not some of the responses Todd posted actually answered the questions they were linked to or not?
Luigi Novi: Yes. It calls into question the standards and principles that you seem to imply should be adhered to, which you do not adhere to yourself."

That is absurd, sir. Whether an answer answers a question or not is a matter of fact; it either does, or doesn't, and that is not affected by the actions of the claimant. Even if I was applying a double-standard- which I was not, contrary to what you may think- that would not affect even remotely whether or not someone else's answers answered questions. If I was claiming "the man was morally bankrupt for positing such charlatan replies!" or implying that something equally silly about a poster's character because said answers weren't answers to legitimate questions, then perhaps there might be some applicability. But I was not. Simply making a tongue-in-cheek observation that, as answers that didn't specifically answer questions on a list that claimed to have questions that couldn't be answered, it was somewhat ironic. I don't believe that claim is any was affected by my past behaviors, real or, in this case, imagined.


"If Todd wants to respond to Shattered Paradigm with a mixture of snark and serious answers, that’s his call. His “snark” is at least easily identifiable as such. " - Luigi
Yes, it is. I never claimed otherwise! I agree with you! I was just pointing out the irony of posting a list specifically designed to answer unanswerable questions and thus debunk them and then not actually answering or debunking some of them, thus defeating the point of answering an unanswerable list! That is funny, yes? ...No? Maybe it's just me, then- but either way, I was in no way claiming Todd should be criticized for this, that he wasn't allowed to do this, that he was employing a double-standard, or being intellectually dishonest! I was just commenting on the humor in the situation! (And then posing a serious question afterward, as I honestly couldn't see where the 'straw man' claim entered the factual interpretation of the question that I included in the quote.)


"or exhibited the same behavior towards others here as you do," - Luigi
What behavior?!?


"And given the past contempt you’ve shown for those methodologies, I question the sincerity with which you do this." - Luigi
It is your right to do so.


"Luigi Novi: I’ve repeatedly offered to send you, as a gift, a copy of Dr. Michael Shermer’s book, Why People Believe Weird Things, which is a good primer on critical thinking. I’m sorry that offering someone a book as a gift is not considered “constructive” or “non-aggressive”. But the offer still stands."
That is true, you have. And I appreciate it. I do not wish to put you out the expense- but I appreciate the gesture. You are right. (Actually, I did go and get the book, I believe- it is simply languishing on the to-read pile as discussed below. :-) )


"But I really bear no personal hostility towards you, and I think that aside from the subject areas on which we disagree, you seem to be a very nice guy, one whom I’d rather hang out with than some of the other people with whom I’ve disagreed on this site." - Luigi
I hope that no offense is taken when I say that surprises me. But thank you! Sadly, such a chance will be relatively slim, as I'll be leaving NJ for PA come November. :-) But I do appreciate the clarification, and the kind words.


"It is simply the questionable behavior you exhibit that I criticize. If you abandoned this (as there are many people with whom I disagree on these boards who don’t exhibit it, including theists), I wouldn’t call you on it." - Luigi

I will admit that there are indeed questionable behaviors that I need to reign in and am attempting to do so. But again, I was not exhibiting any on this board; I was just making an ironic comment on Todd's post and then engaging in a serious discussion. If I do not seem to respond to constructive or valid criticism on negative behaviors, it is because the perceived 'hammer falling out of nowhere' coming down on a completely innocent discussion pre-disposes me to consider all such accusations groundless, regardless of the merit they have. I will try to be more attentive to that in future.


"Luigi Novi: Accusing me of “hostility”, making my comments “personal”, “inbuilt bias” “baggage” or “harassment” are ad hominem arguments with which you make this personal, and seek to avoid considering what I say in an intellectually honest manner."

I am considering what you say, but needless inflammatory statements such as "Thank you for demonstrating once again that you do not know what science is" or presumptuous, condescending statements such as "Had the evidence supported IC, we can be certain that you would've cited it happily," are, I'm sorry, not an objective, behavioral criticism- it is a personal snub launched from the platform of an associated behavioral criticism. Can you honestly look at either statement and tell me that their phrasing or inclusion was necessary to the point being made? That the latter isn't an assumptive presume-the-worst hypothetical based on a negative opinion and not a factual or constructive statement at all; or even an objectively true one, just an unfavorable opinion given voice for it's own sake?


"Only in your mind is criticizing people for their behavior some type of cardinal offense for which one needs some type of special license." - Luigi
No, only in my mind is adding insults to such criticism, or offering such criticism based on past actions when it is not currently applicable to a current discussion, just to bring it up again, an offense- not a cardinal one, just a violating of basic courtesy and tact.


"You were questioning standards by which the scientific method is applied, a point is indeed called into serious question by the fact that you have shown willful ignorance or even outright contempt for it. In other words, you question an idea without wanting to learn about it." - Luigi
No, sorry, but that is not correct. First of all, that's a little off the beaten track of what was being discussed- you asked "Why, after all, is it “hostile” for me to point out recurring behavior on your part that calls your statements here into question," and I responded "Because it does NOT call my statements into question- it has no bearing on them! This is fallacy 101 territory; personal failings of a position's source do not affect a position's validity on it's own merit." To that last I stand. Calling past behavior into question does not affect any factual statements I make; nor does it have any bearing on what questions I ask; I am not asserting anything when asking them. Nor was I asking them as a challenge in the first place; just out of curiosity. And my questions being 'called into question' by past actions? My asking questions in order to learn being called into question by my perceived lack of desire to learn? Especially when your initial claim was that my 'statements' were called into question, when you now admit that I was merely asking questions? That makes no logical sense. There was no initial justification for these 'criticisms'- and no connection between them and the discussion that was going on in this thread. The quoted statement seems to imply (and perhaps I am wrong in this) that you simply doubted my motives; as I stated above, that is your right. It is not a justification for a renewed criticism that did not apply to the current discussion.

There are three items in question: My questions, my factual contentions or points, and my statements or moral or behavioral rightness. Of the three, only the last would be affected by the supposedly valid criticisms being brought up... and of the three, the last is the only one that I haven't, to the best of my knowledge, made in the discussion up until this tiff began. So yes, an unprovoked criticism laced with what I continue to contend (as argued above) are needless slights and insults based on a personal bias? I would call that hostile- and this 'excuse' - to use your terminology, not mine- as to why it is valid does not hold water.


"I have a “chip on my shoulder”, I’m a “stalker”," - Luigi
You are right, I apologize about that. You must admit that the page-long posts with multiple chapter-and-verse references, links, etc. (I'm assuming just an attempt to provide adequate reference for claims?) can come off as being possessed of an undue and unhealthy amount of attention on one... :-) But those terms were unfair, and I apologize.


"Andrew: Secondly... I did not argue that the answers didn't satisfy me (a subjective criticism); I merely pointed that the answers did not in fact answer or rebut their questions in several cases.
Luigi Novi: But when I point out that you do this, I have a “chip on my shoulder”, I’m a “stalker”, have “baggage”, am “hostile”, etc."

Again, largely because of the tone- going back to the beginning, the perceived-insult statements tend to give such call-outs a challenging, aggressive impression (whether intended or not) that was most definitely not intended with Todd. Still, the point stands; had I been attempting to criticize or call Todd out on this, it would have been a hypocritical action. I will avoid doing so- if this discussion has taught me one thing, it's to try and be less free with my criticisms. (Those lobbed in 'self-defense' notwithstanding. ;-) )


"And yes, I admit I haven’t yet gotten to the Chief’s book yet. There are piles and piles of books on my shelf, and I have no idea when I’ll get to them. Mea culpa." - Luigi
I can actually empathize; actually, the last Nitpicker's Guide (X-philes) is currently one of my such books. All our dissagreements and differing tastes aside, I would recommend The Son, The Wind, and The Reign- I found it to be excellent.


"Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I’m following what you’re asking. If you could clarify, I’d appreciate it."
Oh, you would have to ask the HARD question! :-) Have I not ably demonstrated that clarifying things is NOT my strong suit? :-)

Basically, I am saying that a 'proof' of God is a difficult order to fill (Largely building toward the point you made "The very notion of God may be inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, which is why it isn’t considered empirical.") because it requires the satisfying of multiple criteria in order to be intellectually honest:
1. The empirical proof, which is more your area of expertise than mine, but what we were attempting to pin down.
2. Internal consistency with the stated nature of God (I.e. A 'proof' that proves God's existence empirically only by invalidating some aspect of his claimed nature- thus proving the proved being not to be the one you were setting out to test- would in fact be a disproof)- meaning that in cannot require Him to be finite, imperfect, sinful, etc. as those are contrary to His stated nature and thus would not serve as a proof, but a contradiction. It also must not require Him to do something against His nature or that He has stated that He will not do; if for no other reason than that would make him a liar, contradictory once again, see above, etc.
3. To my mind, it also requires not making a requirement that is, put simply, unreasonable. It can't require God- as a thinking, rational being with access to a far greater store of knowledge and understanding than the tester, to behave in a certain way. For example, a major 'Straw God' argument I once saw was a man saying, in essence "Supposedly, God loves us. Well, I love my children, and I would do X for them. I do not see X being done for me by God, thus He does not exist." This is not an intellectually honest proof, to me, because it requires someone else- especially someone that knows more than you- to act in a specific manner of their own free will in order to satisfy it- and one that may not even be accurate. After all, if God knows the future, something that seems to be best for us at present, from our own perspective, may not be. A desired apartment that falls through may be the site of a shooting the next year; a concert that didn't work out may take place on a rainy night in which a car crash would've taken place en route; but from a fixed temporal perspective, and a generous sense of entitlement which is common to modern humanity, being denied the apartment we wanted or not being able to buy the concert tickets we wanted may seem 'not best' for us; but from a cross-temporal perspective, they are indeed what's best.

Thus, a standard of required action ("If God did this-") is an intellectually dishonest requirement, to my mind; requiring Him to do something without a full understanding of the ramifications of it; not to mention a demand of an all-powerful being to dance to one's tune is always just a little bit dicey. :-) You may discount this third one, but I feel that it's also a requirement of being honest with oneself in seeking a truly legitimate 'proof.'

So, those three (or even the first two) requirements are integral to what I would say would be valid 'proof' of God for the seeker- both empirical, and intellectually honest... and in the unclear passage, I was asking if the stated scenario- or any scenario, or that matter, could satisfy all three- or even the first two- requirements adequately for there to be a 'proof' of God to be found. Or if, to once again quote you, "The very notion of God may be inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, which is why it isn’t considered empirical."


By the way- last, but certainly not least- I know it's a bit belated (sorry, I'm awful with Facebook notifications)- but Happy Birthday!


"It allegedly was divinely inspired by god, but it was not written by him, therefore it is not a direct source of info." - Benn
Depending on your definition of 'written by Him'. Not physically written, certainly. But in terms of authoring, divinely inspired is pretty much the equivalent of human 'writers' taking dictation. :-) the Ten Commandments, at least, are directly authored- though the original documents are missing. ;-)


"According to most Christian doctrine, god supposedly wants everyone to be saved and go to Heaven, yet he fails to provide direct evidence of his existence." - Benn
I would respond to this dually; first off, this comes down to the notion of faith- since, as we are discussing, true proof may be fully unattainable- which is a whole separate discussion.

Secondly, though, it comes down to the question of scientific method; which in part is what I was getting at earlier. Some would say that the evidence is in events and creation all around us. Now, the question is... with that not measuring up to the scientific method, is it that God has not provided sufficient proof... or that we have adopted and ill-applied a standard of our own creation that ignores the reality of the non-scientific but still real evidence provided? In other words... who ever said that, because we created the scientific method, God is required to provide evidence of the nature that fits within it in order to have provided it?


"Surely, such an all-knowing being would know that many would require direct evidence of his existence and would make allowances for that." - Benn
See, there, I'd disagree with you. That makes an implication that God would be required to pony up something for whatever standard we create, as humans... as opposed to the possibility that we, as finite and (according to my beliefs, if not all acknowledged beliefs) sinful beings, ought to be conforming to perfect divine standards, and are in no position to make demands. :-)

I mean, let's say that someone determined "I will not believe in God unless He makes me win the lottery." Is that something God should have known and compensated for... or is it the problem of the individual, putting a standard he has no right to on the existence of God and deceiving himself into being blind to it? Now, I'm not comparing all standards to that- just noting the principle; just because we have a requirement that isn't fulfilled doesn't mean that the requirement is correct, fair, or required in order for God to be truly loving.


"Instead, he only gives us second hand data that does little to prove there is a god. Either he's not all-knowing or he doesn't care about the salvation of the soul of everybody on this Earth after all." - Benn
Or, as previously discussed with Luigi up above, does indeed desire the salvation of everyone- but is not beholden to human-created standards, and has already clearly established a method of salvation based on faith that said humans are refusing to cooperate with, instead demanding a proof, which is in direct conflict with a requirement for faith (if something is proved, you don't have to have much faith in it :-) ) which has already been established.

Or, to put it more simply- the third option is that God does want salvation for everyone, has done everything He possibly can for that (including dying on your behalf and in your place), setting up a salvation for everyone on a faith-basis... and it is a stubborn humanity that then comes along and demands "No, don't save us THAT way, do it THIS way- or else you don't really love us!" demanding a salvation of a proof-basis... which doesn't really work anyhow. (With junctioning notations on faith, free will, etc. that, of course, intersect with and provide far more detail to, this notion.)


"Regarding your challenging my right to criticize others, when you accuse me of being "hostile", having "baggage", "stalking" you, "inbuilt bias", aren't these criticisms?" - Luigi

Yes, they are. And despite jokes about them being in 'self-defense' earlier, it is a fight-fire-with-fire mentality borne out of frustration at not getting true; not an especially noble or honest standard, not is it? :-) (Well, maybe not 'hostile'- I would consider that an observation about the tone of a post... anyhow...) I am sorry, as I never intended to descend into name-calling whilst in defense of being attacked; it kinda defeats the point. Plus, it's just plain wrong. I apologize.


Anyone else for a slice of humble pie? It doesn't taste that good, but I seem to have plenty stored up that I need to serve up for myself. :-)


"Too late. He's done his creationist rant for the year and is now crawling back under his bridge." - Brian FitzGerald

Brian... not cool. First off, that's a far more troll-ish comment than anything I've said on this site, my friend. :-) Second off, what, aside from a passing reference to the flagellum motor, did I say even remotely to do with creationism in this whole thread? (Or is that the umbrella under which all discussion about God and science is thrown nowadays?) Thirdly, if you look back through the thread, you'll see a perfectly civil ongoing conversation before this little 'tiff' with Luigi started. (Unless, of course, it came off to you, like it did apparently for Luigi, that it was based on criticism- something I did not perceive or intend, and again, I apologize to all involved if that's how I was coming off- I genuinely thought we were having a very polite, very friendly conversation, asking questions, and sharing ideas!) So... very, very uncalled for.

Have I done something to offend you?

Depending on your definition of 'written by Him'. Not physically written, certainly. But in terms of authoring, divinely inspired is pretty much the equivalent of human 'writers' taking dictation. :-) the Ten Commandments, at least, are directly authored- though the original documents are missing. ;-) - Andrew

There are a lot of books missing from the Bible (like the "Book of the Wars of the Lord") that one presumes were "divinely" inspired, but god chose not to preserve in his "infinite" wisdom. And a whole bunch of books now considered non-canonical that were once upon a time widely accepted as "divinely inspired" that did not make the final Bible cut. (Kinda feel sorry for the authors. "But God inspired me to write this book!" "Nope, sorry. We going against Divine Inspiration and leaving it out. Better luck next time.")

Another trouble with "divine inspiration" is that much of the Bible clearly has had verses and chapters added after its initial authoring, as well as stories that were taken from other older mythological sources (the Flood, much of Jesus' life), etc. Basically, if god really inspired/wrote the Bible, the tales wouldn't be derivative and would not need to be edited later on. (That is, lines added to the individual books.) That this has happened indicates the Bible is more a work of fiction rather than fact. Much less divinely inspired.

Secondly, though, it comes down to the question of scientific method; which in part is what I was getting at earlier. Some would say that the evidence is in events and creation all around us. Now, the question is... with that not measuring up to the scientific method, is it that God has not provided sufficient proof... or that we have adopted and ill-applied a standard of our own creation that ignores the reality of the non-scientific but still real evidence provided? In other words... who ever said that, because we created the scientific method, God is required to provide evidence of the nature that fits within it in order to have provided it?

If god exists, there must be something that is unique about him - something outside "events and creation all around" - that is detectable. Even if it is merely the supernatural aspect, it surely would be an anomaly that would have been noticed and detected by now. Yet no "event and creation all around" exists that cannot be explained in a naturalistic manner, that has anything to it that isn't purely natural.

Or put it another way: God leaves no signature energies or acts that cannot be acted for rationally, scientifically. Yet for something so all-powerful and vast, there should be something there, some trace that would point to the existence of a deity of some sort.

See, there, I'd disagree with you. That makes an implication that God would be required to pony up something for whatever standard we create, as humans... as opposed to the possibility that we, as finite and (according to my beliefs, if not all acknowledged beliefs) sinful beings, ought to be conforming to perfect divine standards, and are in no position to make demands. :-)

Who's making demands? I'm saying that an all-knowing god who wants everyone to go to Heaven could have found a better way of dealing with the salvation question. He should know that the Bible will have an relatively limited appeal. That atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will not be swayed by Christian rhetoric is something you'd think god would have taken into account and he would have had some sort of back up plan to get the rest of us inside the Pearly Gates. Of course, if he really was all that and a chocolate chip cookie, he'd've been smart enough not to have created sin in the first place. (Hint, if you made something and are all-knowing, you should have known Adam and Eve would eventually eat from the Tree. If he wanted to, he could done the simplest thing in the universe: not create the damned tree or anything like it. That is, don't set up the circumstances for Man to fall in the first place. Otherwise, you're just being a bit of a sadist.)

I mean, let's say that someone determined "I will not believe in God unless He makes me win the lottery." Is that something God should have known and compensated for... or is it the problem of the individual, putting a standard he has no right to on the existence of God and deceiving himself into being blind to it? Now, I'm not comparing all standards to that- just noting the principle; just because we have a requirement that isn't fulfilled doesn't mean that the requirement is correct, fair, or required in order for God to be truly loving.

Yeah, and a lot of people pray, "God if you get me out of this, I promise to go to church, etc." and this prayer seems to be granted. So apparently, god is willing to accede to that sort of demand. (In reality, it does NOT mean god has answered their prayers. It means a coincidence has occurred. An event happened that would have unfolded in the same manner with or without the prayer.)

What you're misunderstanding is that empirical proof of god is not so much a requirement as something that should be there. If god exists, there must be something that is uniquely "GOD" that is not attributable to anything else but "GOD". Some sort of "leakage" of his divine presence. There isn't.


Or, to put it more simply- the third option is that God does want salvation for everyone, has done everything He possibly can for that (including dying on your behalf and in your place), setting up a salvation for everyone on a faith-basis... and it is a stubborn humanity that then comes along and demands "No, don't save us THAT way, do it THIS way- or else you don't really love us!" demanding a salvation of a proof-basis... which doesn't really work anyhow. (With junctioning notations on faith, free will, etc. that, of course, intersect with and provide far more detail to, this notion.)

Or, as I've already noted, he could have been smart enough to eliminate the possibility/concept of Sin period. I mean, we are talking about someone who allegedly can see into the future (what else are alleged prophecies?), but fails to foresee Adam and Eve eating from the Tree? Really? Instead of trying to correct this problem by creating all these elaborate methods of cleansing and purifying and saving the souls (all the sacrifices that used to have to be done, dying on the Cross, etc.), you could skip making the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and save yourself and mankind a helluva lot of trouble. (Yeah, I know, we can't understand god or his plans, blah, blah, blah. It's a cop out answer that evades the fact that god didn't seem to have this whole let's create the human race thing well planned.)

Andrew - Here's my issue with you. You crop up every year or so with discredited creationist talking points. You sometimes post them here & sometimes on the TNG board. As soon as somebody tries to refute them you basically say "I don't want to hear it" and disappear. Well if you didn't want to hear it than why did you post about it in the first place?

Benn - In lieu of a long point-by-point (which I can send you if you so desire; feel free to e-mail me) I'd just say this- examine the positions as stated- about God, His salvation methods, the Bible, etc. and examine how many of them are assumptions. I would say that the majority of these issues are based on the notion that God would work one way- with no particular reason to think so. A few key notions that I'll add to the mix:
-On the topic of sin... in order for Free Will to exist, and in order for one to be able to do right, it has to be possible to choose wrong. Otherwise one is not actually choosing to do right, merely acting in default and performing the only possible actions. God did not create sin; sin is merely the term for free-thinking creatures (ourselves) choosing to do things other than the standard of right which we were given; sin is an entity of our own creation via abuse of the freedom of self-determination we were given.
-On the notion of empirical proof, I am simply asking what, in your opinion, could possibly constitute such a 'uniquely God' attribute.
-And on the idea that we can't understand or comprehend the plans and workings of an infinite, all-knowing, omni-present, extra-temporal, all-powerful being being a cop out... I'd actually call it a 'duh!' :-)

All that said, since I really don't have any desire to debate your beliefs- or to criticize them, I will simply say that those are points I would challenge you to consider- but whatever conclusions you come to, whether that changes anything or you come to the exact same ones, I wish you well and have enjoyed the discussion.


Brian - I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm here on the site year-round (and have been for about 12 years now); I only pop into RM and PM every now and then because... well, usually because this stuff happens, and I clearly haven't learned my lesson to stay well-enough alone. (Can't say that I recall ever posting any creationist content on the TNG board; occasional morality issues, sure, such as abortion/polygamy on the Up The Long Ladder Board, for example... but I digress.)

In any event, I do want to hear what other people have to say; that is why I am on a discussion site. I'm sorry that you feel I've said or acted otherwise- but I never disappear; I'm right here if you wanna contact me- I can start putting my e-mail back in the signature link if you like. :-)

In any event- I'd likewise appreciate a cessation of the hostile comments such as your earlier post; I do apologize if my behavior has been offensive to you.



Clearly, it's time for me to start sticking to the Trek/SG1/Who boards. :-)

Happy Labor Day!

I was going to post something else here, but I think, after all this time, I'm going to respond to a thing or two from Andrew's last post:

-On the topic of sin... in order for Free Will to exist, and in order for one to be able to do right, it has to be possible to choose wrong.

Hm. So here's god. Perfect, flawless, sinless, etc. By your definition, Andrew, god has to have the capacity to sin. Otherwise, how could he "do right" (be perfect and sinless) unless he, too, can sin?

God did not create sin; sin is merely the term for free-thinking creatures (ourselves) choosing to do things other than the standard of right which we were given; sin is an entity of our own creation via abuse of the freedom of self-determination we were given.

Since "sin" is a word in the Bible and god "inspired" the Bible, I'ma gonna go with - god still created it. Or at least approved of the term/concept, since he allowed it to be used in his holy word. He most certainly set up the circumstances whereby it could exist. Yet failed to foresee that it would come into existence and failed to even prevent it from happening.

-On the notion of empirical proof, I am simply asking what, in your opinion, could possibly constitute such a 'uniquely God' attribute.

That, I'm afraid, would be a matter of "We'll know it when we find it." The fact remains that a supposedly all-powerful, all present being would leave some unique traces of himself, there'd be some evidence that - once again - cannot be attributed to anything but a divine being. I mean, even if I had never seen electricity before (in, say, for instance, the form of lightning), I would still have evidence of its existence if only because it is what makes my TV, my TiVo, my computer, etc. work.

Was God's wife edited out of the Bible? That's the other item I was going to post before I chose to answer Andrew.

All ancient Indo-European cultures seem to have a triple goddess, who together with her consort, is separate from and of equal or greater power to the main pantheon: the Norns of Scandinavia and Germany, the Fates of Greece and Rome, and in the future Holy Land there were the Semitic goddesses Astarte (the lover or the temptress), Ashera (the wife), and Anat, (the mother). Their consort was El. Ba'al is in some myths identified with El, and in others he is El's rival.

In Israel, once El becomes identified with Yaweh, Ba'al is always El's rival. The goddess was worshiped by the Canaanites who worshiped Ba'al, and that is reflected in the Bible, where she becomes just another evil false god, except for the fact that, according to Dr Stavrakopoulou, in the linked article and Gary Dever in the book Did God Have a Wife?, there is evidence -- both archeological evidence and biblical evidence -- that she was worshiped in the Temple in Jerusalem alongside Yaweh/El.

It is an interesting theory. But I don't know enough of any of the many disciplines that would be necessary to properly confirm or refute it. One critcism of the theory is that only Ashera is named as being worshiped by the Jews, and not her older or younger sister-selves. The counter-claim is that Ashera is not completely eradicated like the others because ashera is also a noun referring to a grove of trees. And it is pointed out that Deborah judged Israel sitting like an oracle under a (sacred) tree in a sacred grove.

The criticism of this second level claim is that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (with apologies to Sigmund Freud).

Benn- I'm not diving into another debate- nothing good ever comes of my posting on RM. But I will shoot you back a one-off response since I caught this in 'Last Week' posts

"Hm. So here's god. Perfect, flawless, sinless, etc. By your definition, Andrew, god has to have the capacity to sin. Otherwise, how could he "do right" (be perfect and sinless) unless he, too, can sin?"
Except that right and wrong are standards created by God, based on His nature (which, being perfect, is more or less the best basis you could ask for). Thus, right and wrong are quite litteraly fixed and rooted firmly in His nature; He *IS* moral law. (For lack of a better phrasing.) His nature is quit elitteraly perfection, making 'doing wrong' a litteraly impossibility in a conceptual sense. I should clarify the statement "in order for Free Will to exist, and in order for one to be able to do right, it has to be possible to choose wrong." as applicable to humans only (the target audience to whom I was speaking) :-) , because God is more or less 'beyond' sin- in that He is its antithesis. He is not capable of sin, in that sin is a created-being-specific term to refer to doing what is contrary to God's law. Since neither God- nor anyone else- can be the opposite of Himself, He cannot sin. (Which is not a limitation on God, but a conceptual paradox).

"Since "sin" is a word in the Bible and god "inspired" the Bible, I'ma gonna go with - god still created it. Or at least approved of the term/concept, since he allowed it to be used in his holy word."
The Bible may have given it name, but did not create it any more than the Sun creates cold by not being in a place. :-) Cold is not a creation of the sun, but a condition of it's absence- a rough metaphor, granted. But in the same way, God did not create Sin. It is merely the absence of following His commands.

"He most certainly set up the circumstances whereby it could exist."
Errrr, no. That's covered in the first point you responded to, (which wasn't refuted, just added to with an additional theological question) in which I demonstrated that, conceptually, Free Will and the notion of choice by itself allows the possibility of Sin. So, if you mean that by creating sentience and the ability to make a choice instead of being mind-controlled, God created the circumstances by which it could exist, then I suppose I can see your logic- but so long as you want to be a free-thinking, sentient being, the possibility is inevitable by the nature of sentience. :-) (To use a rough analogy, you can create a child, and you are responsible for teaching them in such a way that they avoid wrong choices- but once they reach maturity and are able to make choices for themselves, you are not responsible if they choose to do wrong- what they choose to do with their free will is now their responsibility. If you provided them with a solid teaching on how not to do wrong, and on what is right or wrong, you have quite litteraly done all you can without taking away their ability to make their own choices.)

"Yet failed to foresee that it would come into existence and failed to even prevent it from happening."
Patently untrue. As noted previously, the only way to prevent it from happening would be to remove free will or sentience. Our very nature as beings created with free will enabled the possibility. God created us, and created circumstances in which sin never need occurr. Short of killing us or altering our nature to become non-sentient, there's no more 'prevention' that could occurr than that. And as for foreseeing it's existence, God is omniscient and omni-temporal; He cannot fail to foresee anything. The Bible refers to Jesus Christ as "The Lamp that was slain before the foundation of the world"- God knew even before He created us that we would use our freedom of choice to choose Sin, and even sacrificed His Son so that we need not suffer the consequences of our sins after we chose to do so. In other words, He foreknew Sin, chose to still allow us to be sentient beings and to exist, and sacrificed at His own cost- despite not bearing any responsibility for what we did with our freedom of choice that He created conditions for in which we never need abuse it- so that despite our choosing to Sin, we could still go to Heaven and avoid the consequences of our Sin, even when it would have been simpler to simply not create us and spare Himself the pain. Instead, He simply took all of the punishment for the choices we foolishly make with our own Free Will whilst ignoring His commands (which, if followed, would prevent sin from ever occurring), allowing each and every one of us to excercise Free Will, make choices, make mistakes or choose the wrong things, and STILL end up in the same perfect eternity that we would have had we not sinned.

"That, I'm afraid, would be a matter of "We'll know it when we find it." The fact remains that a supposedly all-powerful, all present being would leave some unique traces of himself, there'd be some evidence that - once again - cannot be attributed to anything but a divine being."
That's speaking in circles. You're noting that God ought to be able to leave evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way- whilst refusing to define what such an interpretation would be. As the one doing the interpreting, without any set criteria, you quite litteraly have the ability to interperet any and every sign in a manner contrary to divinity, since you 'set the rules.' Which is why I believe that the proof you seek is impossible- in order to believe, you want a proof that you don't even know the nature of, that you interpret freely, that must transcend any pre-conceived notions or biases that might be a part of your world-view that would interfere in such evidence, and even then, you still have the final say on whether such proof is satisfactory. With conditions like those... it seems that neither of us (litteraly) have any idea what kind of proof could even pass such a test! :-) I'm not saying that you have no right to do so (though I certainly believe that none of us have any right to demand ANYTHING from God)- just that (universally- not applying to just you or to any one person) I don't think it's a very well-defined or intellectually honest requirement when you look at it's criteria objectively- it's kind of a guaranteed-to-fail-before-it-even-starts test, because it's solely based on personal interpretation with no objective criteria to ground it in.

"I mean, even if I had never seen electricity before (in, say, for instance, the form of lightning), I would still have evidence of its existence if only because it is what makes my TV, my TiVo, my computer, etc. work."
But, as you say, you have never seen electricity before. But you have been informed that it is what makes those devices work. Likewise, I have never seen God before. But I have been informed that He is what makes the continued existence of the universe, the laws of physics, and my own sould work. Therefore, if we're judging simply by seeing the end result as a proof of the existence of it's motivator, these two examples are on equal footing. The only difference? Humans have created a methodology to prove that the former is actually the case to their satisfaction, by having an understanding of electricity and a scientific knowledge of how to ascertain it's presence or lack. As just discussed, no such objective standard has been created (or is ever likely to be, as, by nature of being infinite, He is litteraly beyond science's ability to quantify)- we have simply not devised a test or methodology for such proof the way we have for electricity. The lack of such evidence is neither a proof, nor a disproof, of anything... leaving the existence of God, in the absence of any evidence, down to what you believe. Which... is the whole point of faith, really. :-) I just think that it's a... mistake, shall we say, to take it beyond faith into the realm of demanding evidence unless one can define what evidence one is actually expecting... and do so in an intellectually honest and internally-consistent nature with the nature of God. Or to base the belief or lack thereof on the existence or lack thereof of any such evidence, until one can create a criteria for evidence which is internally consistent, intellectually honest, not self-deceptive, and objectively fixed in order to succeed or fail in the first place. To do otherwise is one's right- but is not intellectually honest in the slightest. Until the question of what would constitute evidence is required, and keeping such requirement in honest consistency with the nature of God as described in order to avoid a self-denying-because-it's-impossible-to-start-with requirement, then basing belief on the (un-defined) evidenc eor lack thereof is simply not being honest with yourself. One must define the test, and make it an honest test, before failure of the test can be a valid criteria to impact one's reasoning.

That said... you are free to CHOOSE to believe or not to believe in God for whatever reasons you want. My point is simply (and honestly, I can't remember if it was at the time or not :-) ), that I don't think saying "I don't believe in God because of lack of proof" is an objectively honest or reasonable position for anyone unless they first define what proof would constitue (and define it based on honest criteria, which includes not setting any arbitrary requirements which are contrary to the nature of God as you are already made aware of it, else it's just demanding that a paradox be fulfilled in order to give proof, which is another designed-to-fail criteria).


Right then- hopefully that answers all of the questions... and hopefully, this isn't one of the boards where I previously declared I would stop posting...? If it is, my apologies- no dishonesty intended. Like I said, I'm not really interested in getting into an ongoing discussion here, as nothing good ever comes of it. I'll answer direct statements, but since I usually get those out of the Last Day section, and mostly stick to skimming the Doctor Who and Trek posts, any future querries have a lot better chance of reaching me that way- I just caught this one on a fluke. :-) Or, just contact me via 'Nolinecinemas' - ".com" on the contact page, or "@juno.com", either way.

Hope the answers helped to clarify things, Benn. No offense intended in any of them. Have a great week!

Except that right and wrong are standards created by God, based on His nature (which, being perfect, is more or less the best basis you could ask for). Thus, right and wrong are quite litteraly fixed and rooted firmly in His nature; He *IS* moral law. (For lack of a better phrasing.) His nature is quit elitteraly perfection, making 'doing wrong' a litteraly impossibility in a conceptual sense. I should clarify the statement "in order for Free Will to exist, and in order for one to be able to do right, it has to be possible to choose wrong." as applicable to humans only (the target audience to whom I was speaking) :-) , because God is more or less 'beyond' sin- in that He is its antithesis. He is not capable of sin, in that sin is a created-being-specific term to refer to doing what is contrary to God's law. Since neither God- nor anyone else- can be the opposite of Himself, He cannot sin. (Which is not a limitation on God, but a conceptual paradox).

It's not a "conceptual paradox". It's arbitrary. You're basically accepting the word of this "god" that says he is good, perfect, etc. He is, of course, also quite vain and childish, given to throwing huge tantrums and killing people over the least infractions. (At least that's how the Old Testament portrays him. Some of that survives in the New Testament.)

The Bible may have given it name, but did not create it any more than the Sun creates cold by not being in a place. :-) Cold is not a creation of the sun, but a condition of it's absence- a rough metaphor, granted. But in the same way, God did not create Sin. It is merely the absence of following His commands.

By that analogy, sin is an accidental by-product of god's creation of mankind. In which case, it sounds like god really didn't think this through too well, did he? (But then, your analogy is kinda a bad one. God did create cold. He created ice and snow. Or are they also accidental by-products god failed to account for? Not to mention the sun itself lacks sentience.)

Errrr, no. That's covered in the first point you responded to, (which wasn't refuted, just added to with an additional theological question) in which I demonstrated that, conceptually, Free Will and the notion of choice by itself allows the possibility of Sin. So, if you mean that by creating sentience and the ability to make a choice instead of being mind-controlled, God created the circumstances by which it could exist, then I suppose I can see your logic- but so long as you want to be a free-thinking, sentient being, the possibility is inevitable by the nature of sentience. :-) (To use a rough analogy, you can create a child, and you are responsible for teaching them in such a way that they avoid wrong choices- but once they reach maturity and are able to make choices for themselves, you are not responsible if they choose to do wrong- what they choose to do with their free will is now their responsibility. If you provided them with a solid teaching on how not to do wrong, and on what is right or wrong, you have quite litteraly done all you can without taking away their ability to make their own choices.)

First of all, if a child disobeys me or veers away from what I taught them, I am not going to punish them by throwing into fire. That's not just abuse, it's effing overkill. I mean, yeah, if the kid was a mass-murderer or a serial killer, that might be justice. But for lying? Engaging in premarital sex? Stealing? Being gay? That's ridiculous.

Secondly, I'm not god. I'm not all-powerful, all-knowing. I cannot predict the future. Supposedly, god is all-powerful, all-knowing. He should have seen it (sin) coming. He failed to take steps to prevent it, thus condemning (if you believe the theology) millions to hell.

(This leads me to a question: If Heaven is supposed to be a place without sin, does this mean that god finally decides to remove the capacity for sin when you get your new body? Or will you still have your free will and thus the ability to sin in Heaven?)

Patently untrue. As noted previously, the only way to prevent it from happening would be to remove free will or sentience.

The only way that you know of. This is god we're talking about. He can do anything - supposedly. Your argument is comfortable as it absolves god of any wrong, but it limits his powers. Just because you cannot think of how to create man without sin and retain free will does not mean the deity you worship couldn't have.

God knew even before He created us that we would use our freedom of choice to choose Sin, and even sacrificed His Son so that we need not suffer the consequences of our sins after we chose to do so. In other words, He foreknew Sin, chose to still allow us to be sentient beings and to exist, and sacrificed at His own cost- despite not bearing any responsibility for what we did with our freedom of choice that He created conditions for in which we never need abuse it- so that despite our choosing to Sin, we could still go to Heaven and avoid the consequences of our Sin, even when it would have been simpler to simply not create us and spare Himself the pain.

Jesus' alleged sacrifice didn't come until thousands of years thus condemning thousands, if not millions to hell. Not to mention the death happened in a localized area with the news spreading very slowly and only after hundreds of years in many cases. Again condemning thousands, if not millions to hell. Not a very good plan.

And I really can't get that worked up and excited that god became Jesus and sacrificed himself and - Yippie! - we's saved! I mean, other than the fact that god seems to enjoy a good blood bath now and then (I mean, he has had a very well documented habit of killing people and demanding animal sacrifices), exactly how does letting Jesus get crucified "save the world"? I don't see the connection there.

And it's not really that much of a sacrifice in the first place. You're god. You know you're not really going to die, that death has no real meaning to you. It's sort of like death in the Marvel or DC Universe. You know it's a revolving door. You'll come back. So don't sweat it.

That's speaking in circles. You're noting that God ought to be able to leave evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way- whilst refusing to define what such an interpretation would be. As the one doing the interpreting, without any set criteria, you quite litteraly have the ability to interperet any and every sign in a manner contrary to divinity, since you 'set the rules.' Which is why I believe that the proof you seek is impossible- in order to believe, you want a proof that you don't even know the nature of, that you interpret freely, that must transcend any pre-conceived notions or biases that might be a part of your world-view that would interfere in such evidence, and even then, you still have the final say on whether such proof is satisfactory. With conditions like those... it seems that neither of us (litteraly) have any idea what kind of proof could even pass such a test! :-) I'm not saying that you have no right to do so (though I certainly believe that none of us have any right to demand ANYTHING from God)- just that (universally- not applying to just you or to any one person) I don't think it's a very well-defined or intellectually honest requirement when you look at it's criteria objectively- it's kind of a guaranteed-to-fail-before-it-even-starts test, because it's solely based on personal interpretation with no objective criteria to ground it in.

Since god is supposedly so far beyond us... It's kinda like defining "pornography". "I know it when I see it." Is that "speaking in circles"?

First of all, I'm not "demanding" proof of god. I'm saying it should already be there. There should be something about the nature of god that leaks through that cannot be attributed to any other forces of nature. It's like trying to detect ghosts or psychic ability. If these things existed, we should be able to confirm it - even if they are "supernatural" in nature. The same holds true for god.

Likewise, I have never seen God before. But I have been informed that He is what makes the continued existence of the universe, the laws of physics, and my own sould work.

Excluding the bit about your "sould", god is not needed to ensure - or explain - "the continued existence of the universe and the laws of nature", etc. Moreover, if I were so inclined, I would not have to accept the word of others that electricity exists. I could independently conduct my own research and "discover" electricity for myself. I can very confirm and verify all scientific studies done on the phenomenon, getting the same results as others have, thus confirming electricity's existence. This cannot be said to be true of god.

The lack of such evidence is neither a proof, nor a disproof, of anything...

However, the lack of proof tends to increase the likelihood of god being nothing more than a myth.

BTW, I have said this before: I used to be a Christian. And I can tell you that any feelings I had of the "presence of God" was of my own creation. It didn't originate outside of me. It came from me and nowhere else. That, for me, is one of the proofs that god really doesn't exist.

I've got a question, Andrew, instead of demanding to know what would be considered proof of god's existence, how about telling us what proves his existence to you? What's your evidence there is a god?

First of all, if a child disobeys me or veers away from what I taught them, I am not going to punish them by throwing into fire. That's not just abuse, it's effing overkill.
Luigi Novi: I'd think a simple time-out would be enough.

That's covered in the first point you responded to, (which wasn't refuted, just added to with an additional theological question) in which I demonstrated that, conceptually, Free Will and the notion of choice by itself allows the possibility of Sin. So, if you mean that by creating sentience and the ability to make a choice instead of being mind-controlled, God created the circumstances by which it could exist, then I suppose I can see your logic- but so long as you want to be a free-thinking, sentient being, the possibility is inevitable by the nature of sentience.

If I understand what you're saying, it's basically sin exists as a result of mankind having free will and the only way god could have created mankind as sinless creatures would be to remove free will? Is that correct? Because if so, I have a problem with that supposition.

One of the basic tenets I learned as a Christian was summed up with the phrase, "With God All Things Are Possible!" Which I've always taken to mean god can do everything. Except, as Andrew and other Christians would have it, give man free will and a sinless nature. In reality, god should be able to do that. Saying he can't limits him. Not to mention reveals how limited his followers' imagination is that they cannot conceive of humans having both free will and lacking in sin. (Interestingly enough, this is in many ways a basic of STAR TREK's philosophy: That we can outgrow most of our flaws. [All the while, the characters clearly retain their free wills.])

Of course, granting that god can do that begs the question of Why didn't he? So in the end, it's better for Christian theology to deny god had the power to do it, since it reveals a flaw in the god concept.

Benn... now, you've put me into a difficult position, haven't ya? :-) I said- free and clear, the first thing, that I didn't want to get into an ongoing debate. And after the major argument with Luigi on (this board?) last year, I'm trying to stick to what I say. I only answered in these forums 'cause you addressed me by name, and I was trying to be polite.

But now 'yer callin' me out again. Which means I either go back on my word and answer all of the answerable points (and presumeably be roped into a deabte until one or both of us dies of exhaustion or old age), or else ignore your follow-up posts to me so as to maintain the honesty of my no-response declared intentions, and thus be very rude to you. So... what do you propose I do with this darned-if-I-do-darned-if-I-don't Kobyashi Maru? :-)

P.s. Got a response to every point all written out and I'm happy to e-mail it to you; I just want to know your honest opinion- ought I to put it here when I said I wouldn't?

I honestly don't care whether you respond or not, Andrew. These debates are a zero sum game. I sincerely doubt that anything you've got to say is going make me decide to reconvert to Christianity. And you're not going to see the error of your ways and abandon the myth. I engage in these debates both as a mental exercise and for entertainment purposes. And I'll straight tell you up, I'll keep it going til I'm bored with it. So you do what you want. This is just for my own amusement.

Allright, then. If it's not a problem to ya, then I'll retract the one-time statement and answer your questions.

"It's not a "conceptual paradox". It's arbitrary." - Benn
Yessir, it is a conceptual paradox. I said it right there- you are asking if God can sin. Since sin itself is derived from being the opposite of God, you are asking him to be the opposite of Himself. An inability to be the opposite of yourself is not an arbitrary limitation, it's a conceptual paradox. More on this for the final point... but the short answer is, no- He cannot sin, because He is the basis for determining for what isn't sin. And, y'know... perfect. :-)

"You're basically accepting the word of this "god" that says he is good, perfect, etc." - Benn
Well, yes, I am- but in this case, I was articulating the concept. I am also accepting the existence of this God on His word, so it would be entirely inconsistent of me to take one without the other. :-) God being good, and perfect, and part and partial to the entire concept of His nature, so in articulating or debating a theoretical theological question based on knowledge of God at hand, they are part and partial to the equation.

"He is, of course, also quite vain and childish, given to throwing huge tantrums and killing people over the least infractions." - Benn
As you yourself say later on, "Secondly, I'm not god. I'm not all-powerful, all-knowing. I cannot predict the future." No offense intended to you, Benn- but that is an entirely subjective opinion of a finite being on an infinite, omni-temporal, omniscient being capable of comprehending things that you cannot imagine. There is no objective statement there- and it doesn't actually touch on the point about God not sinning, so- thus far, my original point remains.

"By that analogy, sin is an accidental by-product of god's creation of mankind." - Benn
No, not an accidental byproduct of God's creation; an inevitable and conceptually-inbuilt by-product of being able to choose. There is a difference of by-product by nature, and 'accidental' by-product.

"God did create cold. He created ice and snow." - Benn
Very scientific. No, cold is an absence (someone want to back up or correct my science?) Like a vaccuum, cold is not a 'thing,' cold is an absence of something. (In this case, molecular motion and energy, yes?) Cold and vacuum are just words. Words were created, but like the numeral '0,' the concepts they describe are not creations, but the concept of a lack of a different creation. (Cold being the absence of heat, vacuum being the absence of anything physical, 0 being the absence of any conceptual numbers). God created heat, and He created water, which in the absence of heat (cold) takes on the form of ice and snow. He didn't create cold, as cold is not a created thing. It's an absence. Likewise, God defined right. He also created humans with a free will to chose between alternatives, which could choose right, or choose it's absence (sin). He did not create sin. Here's another bad metaphor: if the inventor of the Xbox mass-produced his machines and gave one to every person on the planet, and then a few people threw those out, would you claim that the inventor created "Not having an Xbox?" No, I think not. Because "Not having an Xbox" isn't a creation, it's a condition resulting from a person throwing away what they were freely given.

So, yes, the analogy may be poor, but the point it made is unhindered by the points raised against it here. :-) The point being that the condition created by the absence of a created thing is in itself not a creation of the created thing's creator. :-)

"First of all, if a child disobeys me or veers away from what I taught them, I am not going to punish them by throwing into fire. That's not just abuse, it's effing overkill." - Benn
This does not touch even remotely on the point that you are not responsible for a child's actions once they are capable of makiing their own decisions, and branching the analogy off into an entirely different debate. Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion being had.

"Supposedly, god is all-powerful, all-knowing. He should have seen it (sin) coming." - Benn
Refer to the post you are responding to. I already answered this; yes, He did.

"He failed to take steps to prevent it," - Benn
Refer to the post you are responding to. I already answered this; yes, He did. He prepared to personally die for every wrong choice you, I, and every other person who ever lived has made before the Earth was even created. He also placed His sentient creations in a sinless, perfect world, and gave them instruction which, if followed, would result in a perfect sinless life. What other safeguard could you possibly ask save for a sentience-removing lobotomy, whivch is tantamount to killing or preventing the creation of sentient beings in the first place?

"thus condemning (if you believe the theology) millions to hell." - Benn
Errrrr... no. God has never, once, in all of human history, condemned a single human to Hell. Hell was created for Satan and his followers (the former-angelic ones). Humans were never intended for it. By their freedom of choice, they do have the ability to 'buy a share' into it. :-) But God created them perfect, gave them the standards of right and wrong to avoid sinning, and also died to personally give every single person who ever lived, from (Godwin's Law!) Hitler to Mother Teresa to you to me, and beyond, an absolutely, 100% free, complete reprieve from the consequences at 0 cost to us, requiring only acceptance. Not only do people have to make a conscious choice (with the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong as a prerequisit, and intentionaly choosing to do something wrong) in order to sin, but they must intetionally refuse the freely offered salvation from the consequences of sin in order to continue on the path to Hell. People condemn themselves, and God has given them EVERY option (again, everything short of removing their Free Will) to avoid it.

"If Heaven is supposed to be a place without sin, does this mean that god finally decides to remove the capacity for sin when you get your new body?" - Benn
Not entirely certain of the specifics myself, but from my understanding, you'll be restored to a perfected state in a perfected environment; but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable. That said, the phrasing here is disingenuous- as if this is something that God could simply remove without removing your Free Will any time and fails to do so. I'd think that the altered status might have something to do with DYING first and entering a completely different realm of being from the physical world. :-)

"The only way that you know of." - Benn
Ummm, no. Benn, we're talking about the concpetually possible and impossible. As established right up there in the start, it is impossible to have freedom of choice unless you have at least two alternatives to choose from- otherwise it is not a choice, it is the default. Thus, it is impossible to choose good unless you can also choose it's alternative. The very nature of freedom of choice necessitates the alternative. It's conceptually inbuilt. Again, this does not refute the point, it just denies the reality it's based on. This isn't about limits on power, God's or otherwise- it's about conceptual impossibility. You cannot create "un-free freedom of choice", which is what an ability to choose without an ability to choose wrong would be. It's not an issue of creativity, it's a conceptual contradiction. Again, see the last point.

"Your argument is comfortable as it absolves god of any wrong, but it limits his powers." - Benn
Untrue. This is a concept that a lot of people seem to struggle with. Just because you can use the English language to create a sentence with the word "Can't" in it doesn't mean that the sentence has any actual meaning. You can ask "Can God become not-omnipotent?" and, if the answer is no, claim "See! God's powers are limited!" However, nothing has actually been proven there, because all that's happened is that a nonsense concept, a paradox put in words, has been crafted, and then offered up as an actual feat.

Now then, if BY NATURE the ability to choose necessitates being able to choose between alternatives, then saying "Couldn't God create freedom of choice without being able to choose certain things freely?" is not a question of God's limitations, but a failure on the part of the questioner to understand that what he's asking is pure gibberish- it has no meaning. It's a paradoxical request, because it cannot be done- not because of a lack of power to do it, but because you are asking something to be made in such a way as to defy it's own parameters. You cannot have freedom of choice, or free will, if the ability to make a certain choice is denied you- it is then no longer 'free' will, but limited will. This is not a limit of my imagination, it's a logical and concpetual FACT. If you had no ability to NOT choose good, then you would no longer be a thinking being, you would be a programmed automoton. You cannot choose if you do not have alternatives to choose between. Since sin is choosing not to do what is right, or choosing to do what is not right, 'locking out' those choice would litteraly mean that you were compelled to go through life always doing a specific set of things, no longer in control of your own actions, because to choose not to or any alternative would be choosing something that's been 'locked out' for you. In other words, conceptually and logically, it is impossible to have freedom of choice, free will, or sentience without the ability to choose wrong as well as right. Otherwise, it is not a choice.

"exactly how does letting Jesus get crucified "save the world"?" - Benn
Because he is taking the death that each of us has earned by sinning, that time in Hell that we have by right "bought our share" into, that you are complaining is unjust, upon Himself. In that moment, He litterally took upon Himself every single sin committed by every single person in all of time- before and after- and took the punishment in Hell for every single one of them, being separated from God- litterally, separated from all life, physically and spiritually, at the same time.
Now, I don't pretend to know, as per the paragraph above, how that worked for people pre-crucifiction. But, I not only believe it did, the notion of "condemning thousands, if not millions to hell" is a complete supposition, not supported by any evidence. In fact the Bible references people from pre-Christ's-sacrifice is Heaven on several occasions. No, I do not know how that mechanism works, for those before the time of His sacrifice, or for those that have not heard it since. I honestly don't know. But, I do have faith that there is something in place for them, supporting (if vague) biblical evidenc ethat it does, and a complete lack of evidence to the contrary. :-)
Regardless, the punishment and time in Hell for every single sin ever committed by any human being in all of history has already been paid for specifically by Jesus, who committed no sins of His own and yet still died and went to Hell, specifically for the sins of everyone else. All that is required is that a person accept it. (And yes, believe in Him, because you can't truly accept something that you believe is a fiction or fairy tale, now can you?). Now, as per Free Will, we still have to make that choice. God won't force us to do anything- that includes serving Him, not sinning, and even accepting His gift. Because of our freedom of choic, we can choose to accept or reject that gift. but it's 100% freely offered and available to all. That's the connection.

"And it's not really that much of a sacrifice in the first place. You're god. You know you're not really going to die, that death has no real meaning to you." - Benn
Jesus was still human. He was whipped, beaten, andscourged within an inch of His life. And yes, He really DID die. He really did experience death. And Hell. And He did all this having never done a single thing wrong. He suffered just as much as you or I would having gone through the same things. (Mel Gibson's "The Passion" is pretty accurate at depicting exactly what that entailed- if a little looser on some of the other details.) But compounded to His suffering is the fact that He is God. He never knew pain; He was immortal, and- quite litterally- the source of all life. And yet He died and went to Hell. And just because He rose again doesn't mean that He didn't experience every second of it, just the same as you or I would- amplified by whatever power taking on the entire weight of all sin ever committed would add to the experience, which I would imagine is considerable.

"Since god is supposedly so far beyond us... It's kinda like defining "pornography". "I know it when I see it." Is that "speaking in circles"?" - Benn
If you're saying that such proof should exist and be incontrivertible, yes. There is a major difference between a subjective/quantative value judgement ("Which of these works constitutes pornography?") and the required proof or evidence of a hypothesis. Proof, by nature, can't be subjective- especially when you are saying it needs to be of a kind that can transcend objective bias or alternative explanation. More or less, you (by which I mean 'universal you,' not you specifically, Benn) cannot demand a certain standard be met without defining what the standard is.

"There should be something about the nature of god that leaks through that cannot be attributed to any other forces of nature." - Benn
But if it is simply a subjective "Know it when I see it" standard, then it leaves the attributor the power to attribute any such proof in any way they choose. In other words, such proof could exist but still be attributed to a different source via denial or misperception, because no objective standard has been set by which to judge. Not to mention that you are assuming that some aspect of the nature of an infinite, beyond-space and beyond-time God ought to be able to leak through in such a way that a single-planet bound, time-bound, space-bound, finite being with our current level of scientific understanding can quantify- which is a heck of an assumption. :-)

"Excluding the bit about your "sould"" - Benn
Heh. :-) Oops- lousy typos. :-)

"Moreover, if I were so inclined, I would not have to accept the word of others that electricity exists. I could independently conduct my own research and "discover" electricity for myself. I can very confirm and verify all scientific studies done on the phenomenon, getting the same results as others have, thus confirming electricity's existence. This cannot be said to be true of god." - Benn
Yes, that is exactly my point. You can indeed do that for electricity. You cannot for God by nature, because He is litterally infinite and beyond human ability to quantify. Which is why looking for scientific proof or evidence is rather futile, and determines nothing. As I said, the concept or proof- in the absence of an objective, self-consistent, conceptually honest standard with which He could be tested- is simply not possible, but by the same time, that DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT SCIENCE IS TOO LIMITED TO ENCOMPASS THE SUBJECT BEING TESTED. (Caps for emphasis, not with intent to shout. :-) ) One can say "The lack of proof means something"- but that one is simply being intellectually dishonest, because the ability to gather proof of an omnipotent being is beyond us. (Unless, as I said, anyone can come up with the previously discussed reasonable objective criteria that doesn't require and biased assumptions such as "If He existed, He would do THIS" that would not even serve as a valid proof of one's OWN existence if taken in a vacuum.)

As I said in the previous post, my entire point is that hinging a belief of God on proof is a fallacious excercise, because no one can define a standard of proof that honestly COULD serve as a legitimate proof. God is litterally beyond the realm of proof or disproof (again, unless abnyone cares to prove me wrong by defining a realistic, reasonable, non-assumptive criteria that is consistent with the stated nature of God that they are trying to prove or disprove.) Which means that it is really just a matter of belief or disbelief- which I have maintained all along. And one is free to believe or disbelieve on any criteria one chooses- however, if one is doing so on lack of evidence, then I submit that that person is being dishonest with themselves, because they are hinging their decision on an undefined and impossible concept as a way of putting off having to truly consider the notion. Or... for some other reason entirely. But regardless of reasoning, one cannot say "I am waiting to believe until I see proof" unless they are willing to define what proof it is that they are seeking and continue to be intellectually honest at the same time.

"However, the lack of proof tends to increase the likelihood of god being nothing more than a myth." - Benn
No, it doesn't. Yet again- and I feel that, on such a touchy subject, I can't emphasize this enough- no offense, Benn, but that is a completely subjective statement. Yet again, when the subject is completely beyond all ability of the observer to prove, disprove, or even observe, then neither proof NOR lack of proof have any bearing whatsoever on it's liklihood. A lack of proof would increase the liklihood of something being false IF there was a defined criteria of proof that could honestly serve as an objective judgement standard which was being failed. However, so such criteria have been set (nor, I submit, can be, due to God's infinite, extra-temporal, extra-spatial, etc. nature), thus no test of proof has been failed; no honest test has yet been set up. The serach for proof has, essentially, not started yet because no one has defined what they are searching FOR. Thus, anyone declaring God's nonexistence due to lack of proof is making a biased declaration and has already decided the results before the test can actualy begin, because they have not defined or initiated said test, because they have no criteria on which to test God. And until they do, they cannot make a decision based on the criteria of proof without being dishonest.

"And I can tell you that any feelings I had of the "presence of God" was of my own creation. It didn't originate outside of me. It came from me and nowhere else. That, for me, is one of the proofs that god really doesn't exist." - Benn
But what proof do you have for that? I, yet again, mean no offense, Benn- but I think the term 'proof' is being thrown around liberally without actual basis (quite possibly for me as well.) You do not have any objective way of measuring that, you've just decided it's so. (Belief). Which is your right, and I don't disparige it- but I don't think you can call it a proof.

"I've got a question, Andrew, instead of demanding to know what would be considered proof of god's existence, how about telling us what proves his existence to you? What's your evidence there is a god?" - Benn
Well, that's kind of my whole point, Benn. Evidence is a meaningless excercise in the absence of a criteria for it, and I don't believe such a criteria can honestly and rationally exist without violating one or more intellectually honest principles. Thus, I maintain that belief or disbelief is the only thing that has any meaning in relationship to God. I don't claim to have any evidence, because I don't believe evidence is a valid issue to bring to the table. I just have my own conviction. And you have yours- which, again, I don't intend to disparige or begrudge you. I'm merely arguing the points that you were challenging- that is, that anyone's belief or convictions should be based on evidence or a lack thereof.

"If I understand what you're saying, it's basically sin exists as a result of mankind having free will and the only way god could have created mankind as sinless creatures would be to remove free will? Is that correct?" - Benn
Yes. Due to the nature of free will REQUIRING there to be an ability to make all decisions freely. If one was created without the ability to choose wrong, no matter the method or reasoning, one would not have freedom of choice, and would in fact not be in control of their own actions because they would be forced to always do the right thing, every time; they would lose all ability to choose. Thus, the very nature of sentience requires the ability to choosde wrong as well as right, or no choice ie being made, no action is being taken- only an externally-controlled puppet making the default 'good' actions that are the only option available to it.

"Not to mention reveals how limited his followers' imagination is that they cannot conceive of humans having both free will and lacking in sin." - Benn
Uhhh... no. Actually, that is the exact nature of Adam and Eve, pre-apple eating. No such lack of imagination exists. If you mean a person with free will and an inability to choose to sin, that is a conceptual paradox, for reasons defined multiple times, above and below.

That said, though, a lack of sin is litteral perfection. It's 100% goodness, with no flaw. Even a single sin is enough to marr this entirely. Even a single misdeed, a single minor flaw, is enough to disqualify someone from the category of "100% flawless." So, is it hard to believe that there could be a human who doesn't sin, ever, of his own volition, not even once, when it's that easy- just make a single decision to do something you know is wrong just once in your life? Yeah, it's hard to believe. Impossible to imagine? No. Believing that, by our nature, it's not ever going to happen because no one is that good? Yes.

"(Interestingly enough, this is in many ways a basic of STAR TREK's philosophy: That we can outgrow most of our flaws. [All the while, the characters clearly retain their free wills.])" - Benn
True, they retain their free wills and 'better themselves' (usually becoming pretentious and arrogant about how much better they are in the process :-) ) but never once has there been a Trek character who didn't still sin or do something wrong. Sinning LESS is quite different to being without sin. :-)

"Of course, granting that god can do that begs the question of Why didn't he? So in the end, it's better for Christian theology to deny god had the power to do it, since it reveals a flaw in the god concept." - Benn
Uhhhh... that is a basic missunderstanding of what Chistian theology is: changeable. It's not. And anyone who tries to change it... well, is no longer practicing Christian theology. And I do not grant that God can do that (thus invalidating this whole statement)- see below on my final point for why.

"One of the basic tenets I learned as a Christian was summed up with the phrase, "With God All Things Are Possible!" Which I've always taken to mean god can do everything. Except, as Andrew and other Christians would have it, give man free will and a sinless nature. In reality, god should be able to do that. Saying he can't limits him." - Benn
I saved this one for last because it cuts to the heart of things.
No, it doesn't limit Him. This is a conceptual fallacy. As I said above, just because you can form a phrase "Can't" and stick it onto God doesn't mean that it has any significance or meaning. If you say "God can't be evil," you have not just found a loophole, a limitation to God's infinite power. You've just created a paradoxical nonsense statement with God's name in it.

Let me quote David Hume (in turn quoting CS Lewis), as he addresses this issue directly: "This last example points to a distinction: the distinction between relative impossibility and absolute impossibility. Things being what they are, I can't lift a cow. But there is nothing deeply impossible about this. Other things are impossible, period. It is impossible, period to make a round square.

I've noticed that a lot of people scoff at this idea. They say "Oh! Maybe God could just do something we can't understand or imagine, but if only we could understand it, we would see that he had made a round square.

Nonsense.

Literally.

A square has straight sides. That's part of what it is to be a square. Round things aren't straight. If they were, they wouldn't be round. There is nothing deep here. To say that something is a round square is to talk nonsense. It means only marginally more than to say that something is a furpled burgledurff. God can't make a furpled burgledurff because it doesn't mean anything. God can't make a round square because what it means is incoherent. Nothing God might do would count as making a round square. And to say that all this is beyond our comprehension is simply wrong. It isn't beyond our comprehension at all that straight things aren't round. It is as obvious as things get.

Lewis's point is that it is no limitation on God's power that God can't do contradictory things. The reason God can't is that there is nothing that would count as doing them, so there is nothing here for God to do. (The original "There's no there there"...)

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternative; not because His power meets with an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
That pretty well sums it up. Now, consider the initial statement re-instated, yes? There's really not much more to be said on the subject, so- unless you have any objections, I'm out.

>Hitler to Mother Teresa

It's kind of curious that you presented the name of the fraudulent, swindling, embezzling "lying nun" Mother Teresa as if she was some kind of an Alpha to Hitler's Omerga. She was anything but. If Mother Teresa was a good person, then so was Leona Helmsley.

The Good Book: A Humanist Bible. I may have to get me a copy.