FREE WORLDVIEW MAG FREE WORLDVIEW RALLIES
Faith, God, Bible, and Science
PAGE: 1

china credit card
Posted On: 01/04/08 10:03:35 PM Age 35, VT
People get credit cards for a reason. Yes, credit cards might entice you to buy more but most of the time you would have bought those things anyway. Credit card allow you to spend less but to save more if you make the right choice. An important thing is to compare credit card deals. Fortunately, it?s not that hard when you use the sites such as <a href= http://deliquentcreadt.cn/unsecured-orchard-master-00000.html >orchard bank unsecured 15 000.00 master gold card</a>
Click here to reply to this post



Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 05/03/07 03:47:17 AM Age 37, NY
Promotion of violence in the Bible is obvious. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. This is very clear and should not be considered out of context. Lets take a look at these laws. For now, I will refrain from making opinions about the laws themselves (thats another issue) but the instead notice the penalty vs. the crimes. Ex 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. Ex35:22 you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. Lev 20:10"The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death." Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.Lev 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire. Lev 24:16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. Again, none of this is taken out of context. In fact, there are a lot more that I had to leave out. Heres one on slavery and many verses that you can look up for yourself; Lev 25:44-46: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. Could it be clearer? Also see: Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Lev 25:48-53. Though God does not directly instruct us to commit genocide, he clearly shows his disregard for the innocent when he himself commits genocide; The flood at the time of Noah as described in Genesis. The Passover incident described in Exodus, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered. To give the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that all the wars described in the Bible were just wars, but that is no excuse for the murder of innocent people. The conquest of Canaan, in which God ordered the complete extermination of the Canaanite peoplefrom the elderly to newborns and fetuses. This is described throughout the book of Joshua. The near extermination of the entire tribe of Benjamin by the remaining 11 tribes, triggered by the rape and murder of a priest's concubine by a few Benjamites. See Judges 20. Jesus in Matthew 10:34-39 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. This is just a sampling.
Click here to reply to this post

  1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 05/03/07 01:30:55 PMAge 45, AR
    Below you argued that our sense of morality is an evolutionary phenomenom akin to our sense of taste and hunger. So, on your take, your moral complaint against the Bible amounts to nothing more than a preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, right? Or, are you pointing out real injustice based on universal, authoritative standards which do not depend on man? If the latter, identify the origin of the standards.
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 05/04/07 06:18:10 PMAge 37, NY
      This one is a response to your last one-- all the way at the bottom of the page. 1) This is not an academic philosophical debate we are having, so Im not against giving you emotive statements. These statements that you mention are the byproducts of the conclusions that I have presented. It maybe easy to attack those but you have unsuccessfully refuted any of my actual arguments and their conclusions. 2) Embarrassingly, I have only a novel understanding of epistemology and the tools of logic. So I must admit that all this time when you have referred to universals, I thought you were speaking in terms of physicsas in a lack of a unified theory or the theory of everythingwhich gives rise to the problem of induction. Now I understand that you were just talking about universals in the platonic sense. Well that question is a lot easier. Universals really dont exist. I would say that Im a conceptualist in this regard (although I will need to study it further). Universals exist as abstract concepts in our mind. I would say our understanding of things is subjective or contextual and actual truth if it exists is unobtainable. The things that I am saying are not truth claims but concepts formulated in my mind. Christianity only appears to provide a foundation for universals or so you interpret that it does so. You merely postpone the problem in an infinite regressWhat then provides the foundation for God ad infinitum. Im sure youre aware of Bertrand Russells teacup, well according to the ancient text that describe this teacup it also provides a foundation for universals. If you look inside the teacup you will find a lot of diversity, unity, and personality as well. Joseph Smith, the book of Mormon, and the mainstream legitimization of them illustrate, quite elegantly, the absurdity of how religions come into existence and survive-- it also provides a foundation for universals. I agree that we all rely on some concept of universals and that neither of us can provide an epistemic foundation for knowledge (if justified true beliefs do indeed exist) but Christianity by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary is not a good answer. Sure, we all make presuppositions but the premise must be sound. ALL non-inferential justifications are infallible, this WHY the premise must be sound. It all comes down to the dirty world that you try to avoid and that is FAITH. You assume that universals exist and you think that they need justification. You then interpret the Bible as that justification and believe on faith that it is true. Faith is the only thing that ties it all together. You admit that the Bible is improvable and I think you understand that it is irrational to simply believe it. A leap of faith against reason is required. I have no problem with this in principle. It is just that you seemed to be ashamed of your faith. You try to rationalize your decision to believe in God when you know that it cant be done. Pascal had flawed thinking but at least he understood that faith not reason was the motivation one needed for the belief in God. Evolution on the other hand is not the same kind leap of faith. Imagine a piece of paper that on one end is white and the other black. In the middle is a subtle gradation from white to black. Now imagine there are small sections of this gradation, here and there, that are erased. You can still visualize the entire gradation despite these erasures. It would not take a leap of faith to form a hypothesis on what might have been where those empty spots are now much less nessesary. It is simply amazing!
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 05/05/07 05:14:35 PMAge 45, AR
        Excellant. We are finally advancing the ball. And I apologize for not realizing we were not on the same track. You have now formally rejected universals and have postulated that only our concepts are real. Well, here is your problem. How can you know anything other than your own thoughts? How do you get correspondence between the real world outside your thoughts, which is not dependent on your thoughts, and your thoughts? All you can ever know is your thoughts. You see, all it takes is a few key strokes to deny universals, but the consequences are devastating. Realize it or not, you have just backed yourself into an epistemological corner where you now have to establish that you know everything, or else you know nothing at all. Frankly, whether it is academic and philosophical in nature or not, you have just lost this debate. You made a death move that disclaims your own knowledge, of anything. And, by the way, I am not avoiding the word "faith". I embrace it. My arguments with you have been consistently Augustinian. That is, I believe in order to understand (credo et intelligam). Knowledge depends on faith, faith does not depend on knowledge. To establish knowledge, we must pick the right faith commitment. So, I have been trying to demonstrate (1) you have a faith commitment (which I think you now acknowledge, and I commend you for it) and (2) as an atheist, you have picked the wrong faith commitment because your atheism destroys the very possibility of knowledge, and (3) Christianity provides a foundation for knowledge, and I do not know of any other worldview which does.
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
          Posted On: 05/06/07 11:34:46 PMAge 37, NY
          Is this whole possibility of knowledge business all you got? You have not been able to defend yourself against any of my arguments. You cant defend the violence and inconsistent moral guidelines of the bible. You admit that you cant prove the Bible. You cant defend the premise of your presupposition. You never even bother to defend the articles Im initially critiquing. You cant even defend my hypothesis about Gods twin brother (a very plausible one I might addif your argument is correct). Mormonism PROVIDES a foundation for knowledge. And now you claim that you won the debate. You try to steer every argument in the same direction and once there, you cry out GOTCHA! You lose!! As if winning the debate were more important than the issues at hand. All anyone knows is what he or she perceives things to be. And that means you too. When people perceive things the same, it becomes what you call a universal. You see an object as red. I see it as red. We all see red. Does that make the object red? No. The object is absorbing all the colors in the prism but red so it reflects it. More importantly, what you call red might be what I call green. We cant know what each others brain sees, thinks, feels etc. This holds for everythinglove, anger, morals, icecreamnot just the color red. Humans are very good at labeling things and putting them in categorizes. But none of that is truth. It is just a consensus on what we perceive things to be. We are all in the same boat in this regard. Early humans were excellent tool makers (still are) and all their tools were designed for a certain purpose. At some point they must have looked around and thought look how well designed we are. We must serve some kind of purpose. This notion might be how religion evolved. But evolution shows that we dont have a purpose. Instead we have only the ability to create one for ourselves. So do we want to create a world where people like Hitler kill and oppress, making millions suffer and the world unstable? Do we create a world where religious zealots wage war against each other and everyone else? Or do we create a world were there is peace? None of what I am saying is inconsistent with my Atheism. Your argument is just clever semantics, a form of sophism perhaps. I choose peace not because its what I think ought to be. I choose peace because it is what I want it to be. I want my children to have it so they can enjoy all that the world offers (to perceive all of the things we have labeled). So future generation can do the same. If science teaches us anything, it teaches us that life on the planet was a rare event. Why would anyone not want to preserve it? As Ive said before, I sense more and more that religions have no interest in this preservation.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
            Posted On: 05/07/07 10:47:47 PMAge 45, AR
            (1)If you would make an argument, I would defend against it. But you have not argued. You have admitted that you claim no universals. Truth is a universal. Therefore, you admit that you have not said or suggested anything which is true. Arguments require assertion of truth claims. Since you assert no truths you make no arguments. You are just telling me what you conceptually like and dislike. Until you make a truth claim, all I have to do is deny your premise, and you are refuted. If you want to argue, I will first require of you a predicate upon which you can universalize truth in a manner which is consistent with atheism. This, I promise, you will never do. (2) Regarding God's twin brother, you are right, I did not try to defend against that claim. If you recall, I agreed with you. If God had an evil twin brother, everything would fall apart. Therefore, your point is taken, if God exists, he cannot have a twin brother. (3) Mormonism? Well, Mormons claim the Bible is the word of God, then contradict it. You think that is a foundation for knowledge? Mormonism believes that God was once man and evolved. You think a mutable god is a foundation for knowledge? (4) Why do I claim to have won the debate? It is not for personal pride. Instead, it is because (a) it is true, and (b) you are not interested in the truth, you want to perpetuate the argument eternally so that you can immunize your rebellion against God. You are not really interested in debate in the sense of the law of the excluded middle. That is, either God or not God. You really cannot risk that. Instead, you want to keep the debate going, forever, replacing old questions with new, old objections with new objections, and on and on. This is why I do not like arguing specific Bible verses with atheists. Atheists will make you go through every verse in the Bible and they still will not be satisfied, so, why even get started? Instead, I try to make people like you more self-aware. It is fairly easy to reduce an atheist to epistemological self-refutation, as I have done with you. You have admitted that truth never universalizes and all you can ever know is your own concepts. Well, my friend, you have just destroyed the very possibility of knowledge. Thus, you have lost the debate, voluntarily. I just took you where you were willing to go. You would rather have a world in which no one can speak truth than a world with God in it. It always reaches this point with atheists. I have demonstrated that your worldview destroys the very possibility of truth, and in so doing, you really destroy man. That is the truth about you and your atheism. What you do with that truth is up to you. Given your hostility to the one truth that can save you, I have not much reason for hope. (5) Your desire for a peaceful world, one safe for your children, one in which zealots are restrained? By choosing a worldview which emancipates each individual from any absolute authority over them so that they are liberated to do whatsoever seems right in their own minds, you have guaranteed that your desired world will never materialize. Christianity presents one to you who can make this materialize. Unfortunately, are at war with that person.
            Click here to reply to this post

            1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
              Posted On: 05/08/07 11:24:28 AMAge 37, NY
              1) What you claim as universals or God is a consensus of thoughts from a collection of human minds. What I claim is also a consensus of thoughts from a collection of human minds. I guess if there is one universal, it would be that we can not know anything outside of our own mind and what we perceive things to be. Words like atheism and Christianity are opposing perceptions in a collective form. Does any of this matter in a purely materialist senseI guess not. But things do have consequences on our perceptions whether individual or collective. I perceive that that is what morality is founded on. Arguments are nothing more than an attempt at convincing one of anothers perceptions. But it is ridiculous to use the word perceive or perception in every sentence. So we call them truth claims or universals or whatever. Even science works this way. Scientist perceive things and convince other scientist to perceive them based on previous common perceptions and so on. My atheism is unimportant really. Do you go around claiming that you dont believe that Elvis is not dead? Do you argue with people who believe that he is alive? You might if you saw that those people were mucking up yours and others perception of the world. 2) I never said Gods twin brother was evil. Just that they are twins who created their own separate universesOurs and the other one. There is no reason to think that everything would fall apart if this were the case. How could that happen? The Bibles of each universe had to be written in such a way as not to revel the wager taking place (who can collect the most souls). Based on what God revels or does not revel in the Bible, it is totally in the realm of possibility. Thats only one story. Any number of things could happen once you are in heaven. Will you not still have free will? Maybe in heaven you will become more arrogant than even Lucifer was. God may create another world and let you rule it as Satan does here. You really have no way of knowing any of these things. You cannot claim to know the ultimate will of God. Your God has no obligation to be forthright with you. He may revel to you that his nature is not this way etc. But if he were a liar or just not letting you in on the whole truth, he could still revel the same the Bible that you believe. I agree that the God you believe in would not do any of these things that I say. But that would make God contingent on what you believe or just simply what you want God to be regardless of what he may or may not be. This defies the very belief that you claim have. So, if I were you, I would still argue the points you make to atheist but you should also warn them and your fellow believers that their eternal salvation might not be as sold as one might have thought.
              Click here to reply to this post

              1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                Posted On: 05/08/07 12:36:09 PMAge 45, AR
                (1) If consensus is as good as it gets, then there are no universals, no truth, no science. Consensus changes like the wind. To speak of that which is true today, but not tomorrow, is not to speak of truth. To speak of scientific conclusions which are true today, but not tomorrow, is not to speak of science. What is amazing to me is that you desire a world in which everything is loose and discrete and nothing ever coheres. The only possible benefit of such a world is that it allows you to think and do what you wish without any accountability. But, my friend, if we are not accountable, we really do not count. And that is the terminal point of your worldview. If arguments are never more than persuasion, then why argue? I am perfectly happy, content, and well adjusted as a Christian. If truth is not the object of your arguments, what is? Why do you molest me with your arguments? Why do you superimpose your values on me? What kind of power trip are you on, trying to change me when you know that nothing you say is true? Are you just being mean? No, you argue because you know that truth is real and truth does not depend on you. But, the context of your argument denies truth. So, you continuously assert and deny truth. This is an intellectual sickness which demands a cure. (2) If God had a twin, and they were at cross purposes on anything, unity is destroyed. Thus, are you here to defend dualism or atheism? If you have abandoned atheism for theistic dualism, I will deal with it. But, dualism does not work and I suspect you know that. Sorry, not interested in your bait. Since you concede that the God in whom I believe would not do any of the things you set out, there is no need for me to respond further to them. But, you then conclude that God is contingent upon my beliefs. Why? I love the quote from Phillip K. Dick (no friend of Christianity) "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Here is one from your camp who acknowledges that if reality is real, it is necessarily real. Thus, reality is not contingent. Beliefs are contingent. Our obligation is to conform our beliefs to reality, reality is not obligated to conform to our beliefs. So, in asseting the impossibility of a necessary God, you are also taking down at the same time the possibility of any necessary reality. We are right back to your conceptualist dilemma. All we can know is our own thoughts. You have destroyed the very possibility of knowledge. This really is too high of a price to pay for your atheism. Take it from a Christian, your hatred of God and Christianity is not worth it. Life is good on my side of the fence.
                Click here to reply to this post

                1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                  Posted On: 05/08/07 07:13:06 PMAge 37, NY
                  1) Science does change. We use to think the world was flat. Later we thought the sun revolved around the earth. Science is always trying to maximize the vantage point from which we perceive the world. 2) I agree that we do not count. Ive said this many different ways in our exchanges. We invent for ourselves what counts for us. Why do we argue then? Ive said many times what my motivation is. Also if you look at my original comment to Mr. Noebels article and you will see as well. The articles published on this sight have a very specific political agenda with no counter point. I like to be a counter point where there is none. Plus I like to challenge my assumptions. Why do you argue? To show people that they must be accountable? Do you surf atheist blogs in order to present your case? Or do you remain in this echo chamber and attempt to reason with the dissenters like myself? 3) Gods twin is my hypothetical based on your beliefs not mine. When the brothers made this bet, they agreed not to meddle in each others universes. I hope they are not cheating. If one cheats, could it destroy the unity of our universe? That would be horrific. When I say, I believe what you believe about God, Im saying that I believe that that is what is written and I understand that that is what you believeI dont actually believe it my self. Your belief however does not allow for God to be a lair or to even change his mindeven if he was lying when he dictated the Bible to man that he was not a liarthis is what I meant by contingent. I mean to say that your beliefs about Gods abilities and attributes are inconsistent with all the possible abilities and attributes of God. So yes, Philip K Dick is right in this sense. Im impressed, next youll be quoting Douglas Adams.
                  Click here to reply to this post

                  1. Re: Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                    Posted On: 05/08/07 09:58:00 PMAge 45, AR
                    (1)Nope, blew it again. Science does not change. Man's mind changes. The world was round back when people thought it was flat, right? Thus, again, reality does not depend on mind, mind depends on reality. (2) Since you do not count, I really do not have to take anything else you say seriously, do I? And, I guess you changed your mind about wanting a world safe for your children and all that. Your children do not count. Therefore, it does not matter what I or anyone else does to them. Do I do this and do I do that? Doesn't matter, doesn't count. Why do I argue? Sometimes I don't, I am moody like that. When I do, it is because my Lord commands it. (3) The twin argument? Out of gas, move on. Your conclusion that my beliefs about God are inconsistent with all the possible attributes of God is true only if God is subject to possibility. My God is Lord over the possible, not subject to it. Therefore, does not apply. But, as an aside, your worldview assumes that possibility is ultimate and that presupposition destroys all continuity and order. This also takes down the very possibility of reality, knowledge and ethics. Finally, and I do apologize for this because I fear I am piling on, but you stated that you visit these sites because you like to be a political counter-point. You wrote this just a few sentences after you admitted you do not count. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. If you do not count, you can not counter. It took you only 6 sentences to forget that you do not count. Frankly, if you counter, the God of the Bible is real and it is time for you to take repentence and faith seriously. You might as well convert, you obviously do not take your atheism seriously, you think you still count(er).
                    Click here to reply to this post

                    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                      Posted On: 05/09/07 02:47:44 PMAge 37, NY
                      My countering makes the Bible true because you say it does? Are we children at the playground now or what? If you’re just tired of the back and forth, I can understand. But come on...1) Your right and we cannot know reality or truth. We can only know our perception. Science is just part of that perception. Your concept of God doesn’t resolve this issue—it only creates a perception. 2) I haven’t changed my mind. I’ve said all along that in a purely materialistic or cosmic sense, we don’t have a purpose. The sun will explode one day and it won't matter. However, we create our own purpose based on our perceptions while we are alive here on earth—with the understanding that future generations will do the same. My arguing or with you or expressing moral positions is totally consistent with that. 3) I suppose that your God would not be subject to the laws of possibility as you say or the laws of what is merciful and just for that matter. You as a rational person have to accept the laws of possibility however. In order to have a rational belief you must acknowledge that God’s twin is possible. I just listened to a debate with Paul Manata and Dan Barker. Paul's position is very much your position and Dan shares my view. It is an actual debate with opening statements, rebuttals, conclusions and questions. They do not ramble on and on like us. So check it out if you wish. http://ia310107.us.archive.org/2/items/atheism_theism_debate/manatabarkerdebate.mp3
                      Click here to reply to this post

                      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                        Posted On: 05/10/07 11:20:44 AMAge 45, AR
                        Actually, what I am attempting to do is to encourage you to think about these issues at a level deeper than that of children on a playground. I am not trying to shut you up, I am trying to help you find a foundation for the opinions you wish to express. I probably agree with some of your opinions on world events, etc..., and I certainly do not agree with everything written in the blogs on this site. I argue with Christians over points of disagreement as vigorously, if not more so than I do with you. My hang-up with you is that you claim a world of no meaning, no purpose, nothing which transcends man, nothing which counts and then you want to create purpose and meaning which counts. If your worldview is correct, this is self-delusion. Thus, your foundation is a self-created pathological disorder. On the other hand, I offer you a true foundation on which your opinions do count. If God exists, and he has objectively revealed perfect truth to us, then when we align our opinions with his truth, our opinions count. And, you are free to counter on any point you desire. But on your foundation, you may opine, but your opinions do not count and they are delusional. So, the only pathway from opinion to counting is Christian theism. Ergo, if you count(er), then God. (1) The issue of science is whether science depends on perception or whether perception depends on science. Let me be blunt, you are wrong and I am right on this issue. You propose that science is dependent on perception. Thus, when the world was perceived as being flat, it really was flat. When the world was perceived as being round, it became round. Do you now see the absurdity of your position? Science, if it is real, must be a transcendental. That is, it is not dependent on the mind of man. The mind of man is obligated to conform to the reality of science, not vice versa. So, we now need a foundation for science which is not dependent on man. Christianity can provide this, atheism cannot. Thus, if science, then Christianity. (2) If purpose is dependent on perception, then you have an insurmountable epistemological problem. For one, you will never overcome Hume's skepticism about induction. We can only perceive that which is material. But, knowledge rests on the truth and the reality of the immaterial like causation, memory, relationships, contiguity, etc.... These necessary elements are never perceived, they are abstracted. Your very conclusion that perception gives birth to purpose is an abstraction which cannot be perceived. Thus, your conclusion is without purpose because it cannot be perceived. Knowledge requires a foundation for perception and abstraction. Christianity provides this, atheism does not. (3) As a rational person I have to accept the laws of possibility? I am not familiar with the "law of possibility". If all is law, total unity. If all is possible, total disunity. How do you get law and possibility together? If all is possible, nothing is rational. Rationality presupposes law. Where anything is possible, all is lawless. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. As a Christian, I presuppose a personal ultimate reality, not an impersonal total law, or total possibility universe. How do you get an impersonal total law or total possibility universe to work? How do you get law and possibility together in any meaningful way? I am not familiar with your debate, although I am familiar with Barker. He is an apostate Christian, right? Isn't that like a mass murderer lecturing on morality? No credibility. He wants to tell us how we shouldn't be like He was. Well, when he was a Christian, he told us not to be like what he became. Which Barker should I listen to?
                        Click here to reply to this post

                        1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                          Posted On: 05/11/07 08:38:39 PMAge 37, NY
                          Your points are well taken. If my worldview is correct your worldview would also be a delusion inside of that self-delusion. I would not label it self-delusion though. I would call it something like self-awareness of limited perception. Your concept of God can be considered a denial of that self-awareness--and within that context, a delusion. 1) I think we agree about science. But you are labeling “reality” as science. We, as well as science thought the world was flat but in reality it was not. Science is self-correcting as our perception of reality changes. We may one day discover other life in the universe that totally turn science and religion on their head. This would have always been true regardless of what our science or religions may or may not have taught us to be true. 2) Induction is a useful tool like a hammer. A hammer and nail don’t physically bind to pieces of wood together but it works for its purpose. Abstractions like causation, memory and relationships are perceived. How is the memory of my childhood not my perception? One finds dogs to be good in their my mind. They love dogs. They become a veterinarian and have a rich fulfilling life saving dogs and making them happy. That is what I mean by purpose. One creates for themselves who they are going to be. It has no ultimate cosmic purpose but purpose within the context of their perception of the world. Not everyone is free to create their own existence in this way. This leads me personally in fighting against injustices and war etc. 3) Sorry didn’t mean to say “law” of possibility. You had said, “God is not subject to possibility”. I should have just replied, but you are, so you must admit that God’s twin is possible. If God can A-Z, then God can’t M is not logical. 4) About the Barker. I was referring to his debate with Paul Manata based on our discussion in general not about “laws of possibilities”. Like Barker, I too was a Christian. Irrespectively, we make a similar argument—though he is much more articulate. I was pleasantly surprised when I stumbled upon this debate. I think you should listen to the new and improved Dan Barker AND Paul Manta. I imagine you will find it interesting no matter who you side with. I was merely passing it along, as we both share an interest in the subject.
                          Click here to reply to this post

                          1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                            Posted On: 05/11/07 11:46:56 PMAge 45, AR
                            Exactly. If your worldview is correct, I am delusional. If my worldview is correct, you are delusional. Our worldviews are antithetical, and the law of the excluded middle applies. One of us is wrong, one of us is right. And, the test of a worldview is a presuppositional test. A worldview must provide the necessary foundation for intelligence, science, reality, knowledge, ethics, love, beauty, etc..., or else it is not true. (1) I am not conflating reality and science. I am merely saying science is real. Science never thought the world was flat. Science is a label which man gives to his description of the material world and how it operates. But that world must be real and truth about it must not be dependent on man. Science is not self-correcting, science is man correcting. Science must tie into a reality which authoritatively obligates man and can communicate with man. As a Christian, my worldview accounts for all of this, your worldview does not. (2) I agree that induction is a useful tool, I am not anti-induction. But, induction has its limitations. One of which is that it is insufficient as a foundation for a worldview. This is not exclusively a Christian observation, Hume agrees with me. Abstractions are thought, they are not perceived. Perceptions pertain to the five senses and induction is limited to the abilities of the five senses. Thoughts are immaterial and they are not perceived by the five senses. Induction provides no foundation for thought. Your musings on purpose have a certain poetic appeal, but they are naive. If purpose never rises above self-interest, what occurs when my purpose becomes one of defeating your purpose? You have defined purpose along hedonistic lines. That is, purpose is unrestrained individual pursuit of whatever makes one happy. This undermines ethics because what makes me happy may be depriving you of your life or property. This undermines altruism, there is no room for concepts like love, beauty, excellance, dignity, sacrifice, and service in hedonism. For the hedonist, the pursuit of individual happiness justifies all conduct. This destroys any concept of community and therefore undermines political and cultural philosophies. Your worldview does not work. Worse, it is dangerous. (3) Might I suggest that you are so taken with your twin argument (which, seriously, is a lame argument) that you have totally missed a very important point I am making. To get your twin argument started, you have to presuppose a universe in which possibility is ultimate. Think about those ramifications. Seriously. If possibility is ultimate, anything can happen. You cannot set up this total possibility world for making a God has a twin argument and then just walk away from that world. If anything is possible, then everything you think and believe is possibly wrong. You possibly do not even exist. If your universe of total possibility is real, you have much bigger problems that Christianity. (4) I have not heard your particular debate but I have heard Barker debate before. I strongly suspected that you once were a Christian. In fact, I find very few atheists who argue with tenacity who have not apostated from Christianity. They have an axe to grind and guilt to assuage. Real atheists simply do not care and they do not argue. They eat and drink it up for tomorrow they die. But, I will put the same question to you. When you were a Christian, you would have agreed with my arguments and disagreed with your arguments. Given your world of total possibility, you must concede that your apostacy was possibly wrong. Given the stakes, what are you going to do about it? You have already mentioned your children. Are you really going to stake your children on your crazy idea that people do not count? Are your children cosmic accidents? Has your anger towards God really driven you to this point? Do you love your children? Is it a hedonistic love? That is, you only love them for what you get out of it. Your love is a means to the end of your personal benefit? This is not the Christian definition of love. Love should be self-denying, serving and sacrificial. Do your children love you or are they just using you for their personal jollies? Do you believe in real love? A love which is transcendent. If you do, you better return to the one worldview which makes sense of such love because your worldview is hostile to such a concept.
                            Click here to reply to this post

    2. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 05/03/07 08:04:21 PMAge 37, NY
      Wrong. I said LOVE and hunger. But if I were to use your analogy pertaining to taste, I would say that my moral complaint against the Bible is like that of my preference for vanilla ice cream over 2 to 3 thousand year old ice cream that taste of fresh cow manure. My point about morals has been the same along. As I mention above, the Bible is an extremely dubious moral guide. We cannot possibly derive moral consistency from it. I contend that our sense of morals have developed through evolutionary processes overtime (survival mixed with our ability to conceive of ourselves and our conditions and those of others). Moral standards are not universal, authoritative standards independent on man. They are developed over time and passed on by man. Religions contain many examples of them.
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 05/05/07 05:21:28 PMAge 45, AR
        Come on. Your philosophies, including evolution are also well over 2000 years old. And, I think your ice cream tastes like manure and I believe the morality of the Bible is far superior to man's morality. In other words, we disagree. So, how are we going to resolve this disagreement? Shall we continue arguing until kingdom come? To bad we do not have an authoritative standard and judge to appeal to, right?
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
          Posted On: 05/06/07 07:40:59 PMAge 37, NY
          But the Bible IS one of man's moralities. That's been one of my points all along.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. Re: Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
            Posted On: 05/07/07 10:20:40 PMAge 45, AR
            If the Bible was one of man's moralities, then you could not know that the Bible was one of man's moralities. Because, if the Bible is not the word of God, then we have no foundation for knowledge from a personal absolute outside of ourself. Thus, we only know our own concepts (as you have so graciously admitted) and we therefore can never correspond our thoughts to anything outside our thoughts. Result? You can never claim truth for a concept like "the Bible is one of man's moralities." Check mate. You cannot deny universals and then turn around and start asserting universals.
            Click here to reply to this post

Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 05/03/07 03:35:29 AM Age 37, NY
To: 45AR, I DID say, Judgment about the origin of life from no life IS on hold until further evidence is in. I never claimed otherwise. Whether scientists are working on it or not does not confirm your view that evolution is blocked. I was merely stating generally, let them figure it out. You should read Richard Dawkins if you want to know about the gaps.
Click here to reply to this post

  1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 05/03/07 01:26:01 PMAge 45, AR
    In which case I am very impressed with your ability to invest yourself completely in a myth propagated by prophets like Dawkins based on nothing more than blind faith.
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 05/03/07 07:07:50 PMAge 37, NY
      No. He is an evolutionary biologist who knows more about the "gaps" than you or I do.
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 05/05/07 05:23:32 PMAge 45, AR
        Sorry, didn't mean to blaspheme. But, how smart and degreed do you have to be to understand a gap, i.e., you can't get from here to there?
        Click here to reply to this post



Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 04/24/07 07:06:53 PM Age 57, OK
Nearly everything is either the product of your dishonesty, your ignorance or both. Whichever the case, your article serves to contribute more disinformation to an already ill-informed audience. Whether the topic be evolution, global warming, or the generosity of Christian Conservatives, your contribution to the discussion shows yourself to be one who has absolutely no regard for truth, and is willing to sink to any depth of depravity in your effort to win an argument. The great majority of you Christian Conservative warmongerers have blood on your hands, and it's not going to wash off with a simple profession of your belief in the Lord. "It is not those who say to me 'Lord, Lord', who will enter the kingdom of heaven. When the day comes many will say to me 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?' Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you, away from me, you evil men!" Wake up, and stop using the Lord's name in vain to promote your deceptions and your bloodthirsty evil works.
Click here to reply to this post

  1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 04/25/07 09:15:03 AMAge 51, AZ
    There is a recent, major comprehensive study that was reported in the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and all mainstreat media and accepted by all mainstream academics for its accuracy and methodology that concluded the majority of givers in this country are conservatives and live in the Red States with Blue States and liberal running very far behind in their actual giving. One can conclude that conservatives and Red Staters are truly obedient to God with regards to giving money and time in serving while liberals just talk about it and do not back it up. Are you reasonable to accept the truth or just your own version of it? If not, ask yourself if, in your rush to embrace worldly activism, if you have made and adopted values you like and not the values of God and ALL of those taught by Jesus (and not just the ones you like)? In other words, are you living a real Christian life focusing on God and Jesus or are living a life serving your own idol that you made up with values you want?
    Click here to reply to this post

Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 04/20/07 01:44:56 AM Age 37, NY
When speaking of evolution, you say, this is the only theory allowed in Americas public schools. You confuse scientific use of the term theory. In science, facts must be explained with reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are theories. Theories make predictions that can be tested. The phrase the theory of evolution does not in the least suggest that evolution is not a fact. One can talk about the theory of gravitation without casting doubt upon gravity as a fact of nature. You also say, Only someone of a very closed mind could believe that the cell, for example, could arrive and prosper by chance and tiny incremental steps but you dont think it is even the slightest bit odd to believe that a designer created (in 6 days) the entire world that we see today by just speaking it into being. You also dont seem concerned with the infinite regress of the designer himself, if he created everything, who created him? I agree on some levels that religion can be a positive aspect in peoples lives. I liken it to the placebo effect in drug testing. But I dont feel I need to drag out the history books to show the bad side of religionjust turn on the news. Ok, Conservatives may be more generous, but what other areas of their societal health? The 5 states with the lowest divorce rates are all in the liberal northeast (blue). The 5 with the highest rates are all red states. Of the 25 cities with the lowest rate of violent crime, 62% are in blue states and 38% are in red states. Of the 25 most dangerous cities 76% are in the red states, 24% blue. In fact the 3 most dangerous are in Texas. The 12 states with highest rates of burglary are red. 24 of the 29 states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the 22 states with the highest rates of murder, 17 are red. To take from your quote, there seems to be a connection between faith in God and the Bible and crime and divorce. Could it be that belief in God leads to societal dysfunction? Or maybe societal dysfunction leads to a belief in God? Maybe both or neither? Who knows? However, these statistics prove liberalism and atheism are compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure societys health.
Click here to reply to this post

  1. EVOLUTIONIST ARE PREJUDICE NOT SCIENTIST
    Posted On: 04/25/07 01:12:45 PMAge 63, OH
    You speak of the Theory of gravity; I attended several physic classes a few years back at my local university and no one ever used the term the theory of gravity. But getting back to evolution; the evolutionists had a theory of the origin of man that was the dominate theory and persisted for a long time. This was the fact they said that man came from a large number of individuals at a number of locations from all over the globe. Well this THEORY has been proven wrong by a large number of genetic studies. Now the current hypothesis started out being called the GARDEN OF EDEN hypothesis. It states that man originated at ONE location at a very recent time from a very small population. In fact genetics have proven that all of man that is on the planet has come from ONE WOMAN and one man. The woman goes back further than the man which tends to support the Bible. For all men came from one woman at the garden of Eden. Then there was a bottleneck for men at a later date in the flood. For the Bible says that all men who are on the earth now have descended from Noah or one man; but this one man is at a much later date than the one woman which was at the garden. There were four women on the ark and were probably all of different decent. When evolutionists came up with a theory that was proven wrong they refuse to admit that their theory has problems but just come up with a different theory. The facts put forth in the Bible have never been proven wrong but evolutionists refuse to even think of the possibility that the Bible is correct. How are we to call such prejudice science. Check out www.reasons.org Lou
    Click here to reply to this post

  2. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 04/21/07 09:30:58 PMAge 56, OR
    Sir, I am afraid I find your views confusing and unhelpful. Perhaps I am being dense, but it appears that circular reasoning is your 'main point'. You say:"However, these statistics prove liberalism and atheism are compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure societys health." (End quote) I do not see how the ever changing values of liberals can form any stable and lasting civil society. I see that 'enforced liberalism' in the USSR, beginning in 1917 was a really horrible leftist experiment. It may indeed be true that all mankind, Christian, Atheist or Agnostic have amongst their members those who err considerably. Like many statistical analysis 'features', almost anything can be proved by anyone with any number of anybodies doing anything. It "proves conclusively" NOTHING. We as individuals will be held to task INDIVIDUALY for our actions by a TRUE and JUST God, Jesus Christ. If we Christians have sold our birthrights downstream, muddied the clear waters of Truth and generally failed miserably at correctly divining, (understanding) and communicating the very uncomplicated Truth of the Gospel, then we are ALSO held accountable for the loss of souls that otherwise would have rushed to the life-raft of saving LIFE. One of the "simple cells" that we have been able to study is far more complex than the space-shuttle: its tiny engine spins its propellor at approximately 50,000 rpm. It is one of our 'building blocks' that defies evolution's theory for it cannot exist in part. It has to exist en-toto in order to funtion as an effective part of the cell it maintains. Remove it or constrain it and the cell dies quickly. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics also defy evolution. These are widely accepted scientific facts, proved over and over again by ALL scientific communities. They are NOT theories. There are thousands of such proven and verifiable facts that taken together show "self evidence" of our Wonderful Creator God. There is just no way to argue gainfully against such overwhelming evidence. The fact that, ipso-facto, Atheists and Liberals 'exist' in our civil society, therefore they are 'viable', is an unfortunate catch-22. They are being given the 'Grace Period' from on high to consider their ways, for "as in the days of Noe, people were..." doing just that before a terrible calamity hit the earth. The Lord God is tolerating our wayward and sinful society, but "the Spirit of God will not always strive with man."...PGW
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 04/22/07 11:15:27 PMAge 37, NY
      You are confused. 1. The Russian Revolution of 1917 ended with the establishment of the Soviet state that became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicstheir form of government was known as communism. Liberalism is something you are more likely to find in the US. It emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed. Sound familiar? 2. The simple cell you are talking about is Bacterial Flagella. You are making the claim that it is an example of irreducible complexity, but it is not. If a true example of irreducible complexity were found, it would indeed poke holes in Darwins theory, but none have been discovered thus far. The flagellar motor evolved from a simpler mechanism used from pumping toxic substances through their cells walls into their host organism (TTSS). The protein molecules (about 20) that form the structure of TTSS are very similar to the flagellar motor. It is clear that it TTSS components were commandeered for a new but not wholly unrelated function when the flagellar motor evolved. Obviously, it is more complex than that, so google Bacterial Flagella and learn all about it for yourself. But just because we think we dont know how something works doesnt mean that it must have been created by God. This notion kills science by asking us not to be curious. 3. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to physical events and chemical reactions. Evolution is neither of these things; it is a process undergone by populations of living organisms, such as bacteria, plants, and animals, as well as viruses. Evolution is the result of reproduction, which is itself contingent of biochemical reactions, some of which increase the entropy within an organism, and some which decrease entropy. However, reproduction is the same regardless of whether creation or evolution is true. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly does not forbid reproduction, sexual or otherwise, it follows that it cannot forbid evolution either.
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 04/24/07 10:30:00 PMAge 56, OR
        The Russian Communist Block is/was a disaster of Humanist proportion. Our free and transparrent government is getting bigger and we are getting to pay for it. Liberalism, communism, and most of the -isms come from man's attempt to be god, or God. Someone once said, that if there were a God, or if there were not a God, we are in deep trouble either way! No one has proven the 'evolution' of the simpler cell into the more complex. It has been ASSUMED by our 'free' society, that children should be taught evolution as fact, and God as myth. How come? I thought we were all free... or are some free-er than others? Our left leaning society is in a shambles. If you do not see that, then your beliefs are far stronger and more all-encompassing than mine are. I am in an enviable position though. My God can prove Himself without my help. Your god requires that you prove him. If you do prove your god, then all you are left with is you. I can hope that the God I know will prove Himself to you soon! PGW
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
          Posted On: 04/26/07 08:38:39 PMAge 37, NY
          How come? Because evolution is a scientific theory like the theory of gravitation and God is myth like Zeus. And no, I dont think schools are free to lie to students. If someone develops another scientific theory that compares in probability to evolution then they should teach both. Unless the new theory is so good that Darwin is only taught in history class. But no such theory has formed. Creation Science failed miserably. ID failed worse. But I do think we should learn about religions. They are very interesting. And more importantly we should teach philosophy in schools. Personally, this is my where my outrage about the public schools lays. Philosophy teaches people how to think rationally and critically. It is fundamental in understanding science and mathematics and critiquing history and literature. So yes, I do see that our society is in shambles. As our military might and credibility in the world shrinks, future ill-equipped generations will wallow in a failed economy and culture, as they can no longer complete in the world. To escape their depraved lives, they will turn to fundamental Christianity or become Islamic fundamentalist. Good luck.
          Click here to reply to this post

      2. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 04/23/07 01:41:17 PMAge 63, OH
        I would like to take issue with your definition of a liberal. But first I would like to point out that SOME of the people who most would label conservative that I have corresponded with on this web site are some of the most narrow minded, arrogant,and self centered people that I have ever met. But conservatives have not cornered this market by my observations. You say Liberals claim to emphasize individual rights. But I have observed MUCH different. For they seem to be in favor of laws that give them freedom to practice the things that they want to practice but laws that curtail the freedom of those who disagree with them. Liberals are for the freedom of thought as long as the thoughts agree with their thought but they are against the thoughts and speech that disagree with them. I have found this to be true of many that claim to be conservative also. It is no wonder that the two can not even discuss in a civilized manner. I find that the best way to find truth is to be open to investigate new and different ideas. It is also of a necessity that a person is willing to accept that they could be wrong. If someones testimony is that they can not be wrong about a certain issue then this is a guarantee that they can not find truth. Because they are stuck in a stagnate pool and out of the mainstream of truth. They are locked in their position and can never find the truth. I find that in my search for truth that my position on many issues has changed a lot as I get closer and closer to the truth. As even Christians that claim to believe in the Bible should know we all see in a foggy mirror and if our view is foggy then certainly everyones view needs to be clearer. But many act like they have already attained this crystal clear view and there is no possibility of them being wrong. This is the position the pharisees took who were the ones who crucified Jesus Christ. They were so sure that they were correct because they were sure in their interpretation of the Bible that they would not even listen to the One who wrote the Book. Lou
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
          Posted On: 04/25/07 01:21:04 AMAge 37, NY
          I tend to agree with you. The entire concept of America is a liberal experiment. It is a work in progress that has not always been perfect. Many mistakes have been made along the way. But the very notion of liberalism is to correct those errors for the sake of progress. This is what it means to be a progressive. To put it simply, my freedom stops when it infringes your freeform. Liberalism seeks to always be fine-tuning this notion so that all can be free. While I dont always disagree with conservative principles, it tends to ask that we not correct ourselves. But like I said it has not always been perfect. But just because you may not agree with something doesnt mean that that something is infringing on you of someone elses freedom. And if does, we should always try to correct it.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. IS THERE A GOD
            Posted On: 04/25/07 01:43:31 PMAge 63, OH
            I find your attitude different from most of the liberals I know. But the real question is: IS THERE A GOD. For if there is a God then all of mans thinking about what he thinks is right or wrong is vain and useless. For if there is a God who created all that exists His wisdom would certainly dwarf any attempt that we would make at deciding truth from lies or right from wrong. So it seems to me that the question of supreme importance was IS THERE A GOD. So I made that question my quest until I found the answer. I read the Koran, the book of Mormon, many eastern holy books, and the Bible. The Bible says that anyone who makes an honest search for the truth will find it. I have found this to be true. I challenge you to prove the Bible true or false. I have proved the Koran to be devoid of all life and to be full of statements that are not true. The book of Mormon is the worst thing I have ever read written by man; it is so evident as a counterfeit and full of untrue statements that it is hard to believe that anyone could take it serious. But I found the Bible the only Book that was worthy to be considered written by God. This search took a number of years. Are you aware that Ivan Panin was an atheist mathematician and set out to prove the Bible a work of man. He ended up proving that the Bible was a work that could have only been written by God and proved it mathematically. You can goggle his name. Some of the sites are very biased but you can pull out the true info if you are careful. I have actually done the math on some of the chapters of the Bible and can not believe that any man could do this. Lou
            Click here to reply to this post

            1. Re: IS THERE A GOD
              Posted On: 04/26/07 12:37:39 PMAge 37, NY
              Its not that some of those other sites are biased about Ivan Panin, its that theyve realized that one can take almost any text and apply Panins formula and find numeric patterns. Try it with the book of Mormon.
              Click here to reply to this post

      3. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 04/23/07 09:35:08 AMAge 45, AR
        Darwin provided a falsification test for his theories. He stated that if any pathway to evolution is blocked, his theory is doomed. Unlike neo-evolutionists, Darwin frobade any saltational solutions. So, how do we get the first cell? How does the non-animate give rise to the animate? How does the evolutionary scheme explain properties giving rise to their opposite? What is the pathway from inorganic, inanimate, impersonal, unintelligent properties to organic, animate, personal, intelligent humans? And, remember, no saltational solutions. Do not give us an evolutionary fairy tale, give us hard, lab room, reproducible science.
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
          Posted On: 04/24/07 04:07:32 PMAge 37, NY
          As far as I know, scientists have yet to answer this question. If one studies cell theory they will find lots of opinions. For example the earths oceans acting as an enormous laboratory where multitudes of naturally occurring experiments took place over millions of years. Or as observed in the lab, the cell-like structures that form with heating amino acids with phosphoric acid. Science doesnt claim to have the definitive answer to this question. But this does not mean we should stop investigating. There is no reason thus far that suggests that our not understanding blocks the pathway to evolution.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
            Posted On: 04/25/07 05:28:03 AMAge 45, AR
            Thus we get down to the rub, your atheism is not based on science or reason, it is a faith commitment. You are an atheist because it is what you desire, not because it is intellectually defensible. Frankly, you are an atheist because you are angry at the God you in fact know. Science has not discovered a pathway for the development of the first cell from non-organic chemicals because the pathway does not exist. Science will never discover this pathway, and your hope that further investigation will lead to a breakthrough is misplaced. Properties do not give rise to their opposites, period. The pathway is blocked, scientifically, and philosophically. Darwinism and evolution are falsified, yet you dig in and perpetuate your belief in them despite the evidence and reason. You are an atheist for moral and psychological reasons, not because of any intellectual reason. That is, you are a sinner, acting out, by jumping up and down and stomping your feet because you are mad at God.
            Click here to reply to this post

            1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
              Posted On: 04/25/07 02:52:05 PMAge 37, NY
              Sorry but your wrong. I could care two nickels about evolution being blocked or not. I would still be an atheist. Scientific theories get bunked all the time and/or advance, change and modify. So what. None of that would prove that your god or any god exists by default. But there is no block. It is a gap. A block would be like discovering a giraffe that has retractable helicoper-like propeller on his back that allows him to fly (irreducible complexity). There are also plenty of other reasons not to believe in God besides the theory of evolution. Im not angry at God, I dont believe in God. Im angry at the people and what they do in the name of God. Science has no problem admitting if it doesnt know something or is revealed to be wrong in someway. Religion on the other had claims to know without uncertainty all that it needs to know. This self rightiousnous tends to breed arrogance. This worshiping of TAG that I see more and more does so even more. To truly accept its premise one must claim a literal translation of the bible to appear consistent (keep in mind that an absolute belief that the world was flat did not mean that it was true). When one subscribes to absolute truths of this kind they become arrogant. They believe they can never be wrong. God is on their side. It is with this kind of arrogance that people fly airplanes into buildings and strap suicide bombs to themselves. Is this the type of truth hurts that we hear about? What about the arrogance of George Bush, who believed that God told him to attack Iraq? Or those who claim that Katrina and 9/11 were Gods retribution? Thankfully, Christian fundamentalism as a whole has not reached the level of the Taliban but we should not rest so easily. The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups and world domination. If the political and economic realities were as dire and oppressive in America as they are in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, it doesnt take much imagination to envision the results. I havent even mentioned the book of Revelations.
              Click here to reply to this post

              1. Re: Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                Posted On: 04/25/07 06:23:43 PMAge 45, AR
                You realize,I hope that, you are being reduced to all heat, no light. I have already conceded that Christians are sinners and they do bad things. Christianity is based on Jesus, not the moral consistency of Christians. But why direct your anger only at Christians? Do you equally direct your anger at the Godless who do bad things, are arrogant, and dogmatic? Do you become angry with yourself when you do bad things, are arrogant and dogmatic? Man is a mess, Biblical doctrine explains this. Are you going to do something about it which is productive or just stomp your feet and demonize those who you do not like? By the way, evolution is blocked by something far more impressive than flying giraffes. Evolution is blocked by life itself. You cannot get from non-life to life. At least both a non-flying and a flying giraffe are alive. See how obvious this is? But you have proven my point, your atheism is a faith commitment, it is not based on science or reason or facts. It is, as you have admitted, based on belief. But belief is trivial. Knowledge is the goal and knowledge is justified true belief. How are you going to get your beliefs across the bridge of justified truth in a Godless world? I promise you, it cannot be done.
                Click here to reply to this post

                1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                  Posted On: 04/26/07 01:33:51 PMAge 37, NY
                  Christianity and Islam promote bad things. If you can understand that Islam does this. You can see why one would also think the same of Christianity. And visa versa. The literally interpretation of both promote violence especially to those who dont believe. We are all godless, so yes I direct my anger at them when they do bad things. I also direct my anger at people who dont claim God when they do wrong, including myself. Mans messy nature is obvious. Bible doctrine is not required to see this. If our exchange of ideas is stomping my feet and demonizing then you are guilty of the same. And sorry, no point of yours has been proven about evolution. You yourself agree that truth exists outside mans own ability to understand it. Evolution is understood from the first cell onward. Because we dont how the first cell came into being, are we to assume that God created it? Ok, Ill buy that for now. This notion would still completely contradict your notion of God. So you which fairytale do you believe? The one that is compatible with the imagination of man at the time it was written 2000 some years ago. Or this new one created out of laziness that is more compatible with todays imagination? The later would blow your religion out of the water but it would be bad science. Therefore science must assume that there is explanation that we have yet to discover.
                  Click here to reply to this post

                  1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                    Posted On: 05/01/07 10:56:22 AMAge 45, AR
                    If you are assuming, you are not doing science. You should say instead that science suspends judgment in the absence of verified facts. The fact that you jump to assumptions in the absence of verified facts proves, once again, that you are not interested in science, you are only interested in your own dogma. Also, if evolution is solid from the first cell forward, give me the unimpeded pathway from a simple cell to a complex human. The scholars keep telling us that is one of those explainations yet to be discovered. Have you trumped the experts? Finally, you are a self-proclaimed angry man. Reasoned analysis of anything, including science, on your take, requires neutrality, does it not? Does not your anger disqualify you? How can you follow reason and facts wherever they lead if you are so biased from the outset?
                    Click here to reply to this post

                    1. Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                      Posted On: 05/01/07 01:34:25 PMAge 37, NY
                      1) Im not assuming. I was rhetorically assuming that God created the first cell to make a point. I even said that it would be bad science to do so. 2) I did overlooked the missing link. But again this is another gap not a block. 3) Judgment about the origin of life from no life IS on hold until further evidence is in. However this does not mean judgment on evolution must be withheld. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution despite the gaps. Evolution is about the origins of the species not the origin of life necessarily. But try to look at the universe at the atomic level or the other way around actually. Whether a bird or a rock, this is what all things are made of. If the nucleus of an atom were the size a marble, the electrons spinning around it would be a football stadium away. The physical world is mostly space. At this level it would be hard to tell where my foot ends and the floor begins. With this basic understanding, it is not inconceivable that what we call organic material could have come from inanimate material. So then we let the scientists do their work. 4) No, my anger was not self-proclaimed. Anger was just how YOU framed the question. The point that should have been taken is that I do not only direct my argument towards Christians. But the fact that Christianity and Islam promote bad things, as Ive said before and you have yet to refute, happen regardless if it makes me angry or not.
                      Click here to reply to this post

                      1. Re: Re: Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                        Posted On: 05/01/07 10:29:58 PMAge 45, AR
                        Okay, I will now refute your assertion that Christianity promotes bad things. Your assertion is unsupported, therefore, premises denied. Consider yourself refuted. Scientists are working on "gaps" between inorganic to organic life? Who are these scientists and what are they doing? The fact is, the path is blocked and the scientists know it is blocked. There is no ongoing work where scientists are trying to get life out of non-life. Most evolutionists cite morphology as the unassailable evidence for evolution. But, morphology does not prove evolution, it only proves similarities. Then, once having marshalled evidence of similarity, evolutionists leap to their conclusions. They commit the saltational error which, ironically, Darwin was jealous to protect against. I remain, humbly, unimpressed with your evidence.
                        Click here to reply to this post

                        1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
                          Posted On: 05/03/07 03:30:53 AMAge 37, NY
                          I'm going to respond in a new thread at the top
                          Click here to reply to this post

  3. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 04/21/07 08:52:36 AMAge 45, AR
    "Facts must be explained with reference to other facts." Herein lies the problem with science. Facts do not explain facts nor are facts self-referential. Man explains facts. Man refers one fact to another and then interprets. Science thus rests ultimately on the mind of man and not on facts. Thus, to justify science, one must justify the mind of man. Man's mind cannot justify itself, petitio principii. A justification for man's mind must exist outside of man's mind. Christianity provides this, atheism denies this. Thus, Christianity is the foundation for science, atheism undermines science. This does not result in infinite regress. Infinite regress addresses contingent causes, not necessary causes. God is not contingent. Next, I do not absolutely disagree with your social observations. Christians do bad things. Christianity explains this, we are all sinners. Interestingly, Christian "bad" acts occur when the Christian is inconsistent with Christianity. Whereas, atheists' "good" acts occur when the atheist is inconsistent with atheism. Atheism cannot even account for categories of "bad" and "good" because atheism denies all transcendentals. When you measure society in terms of "bad" and "good" you are inconsistent with your atheism. Finally, I agree that widespread belief in God does not ensure society's health. As Scripture states, even the demons believe. Widespread faith and obedience will ensure society's health because God has promised to bless faith and obedience.
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 04/23/07 02:22:53 AMAge 37, NY
      It may be desirable that God is necessary but that does not make it so. Man created Christianity. If a justification for mans mind must exist outside of mans mind, then according to your premise, Christianity cannot be the foundation of science. Yes, Christians do bad things. Christianity promotes this (killing, rape, and slavery) In 1865 America came to the conclusion that it was immoral to own slaves. This enlightenment came in spite of what the Bible says. Good and bad are not transcendent concepts. Morality is totally compatible with AtheismKant: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
      Click here to reply to this post

      1. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
        Posted On: 04/24/07 06:23:10 PMAge 45, AR
        Among your mistakes, you misunderstand Kant. The catergorical imperative presupposes theism. Remember, Kant saved science and left room for God. I am not here to defend Kant however, but to demonstrate the futility of atheism. I did not argue that you should believe in God because of desire. I argued that God is necessarily so. Necessity cuts through desire. It is true whether we desire it or not. Denying that Christianity does not provide a foundation for science is neither proof or argument, it is just prejudicial assertion. Christianity declares God, God is outside man's mind, God establishes man's mind. QED. You assert that Christianity and hence the Bible promotes killing, slavery, rape, slavery. That is a surprise to me. I will grant that the Bible chronicles immoral behavoir. And, the Bible justifies self-defense, just war, capital punishment, and permitted slavery in certain forms and times for morally sufficient reasons. But you are again giving us lazy prejudiced assertions. It was Christian abolitionists who were in the vanguard of the end of slavery both in the UK and in the states. Finally, if good and bad are not transcendent standards,what are they? Biochemical reactions? Convention? Desires? How are you going to escape the naturalistic fallacy? When you speak of good and bad are you not just speaking of what "is" as opposed to what "ought" to be? If you speak of what "ought" to be, what is the non-transcendent authority which imposes this obligation universally, eternally, and immutably? If you just speak of what is, why try to distinguish what is in terms of good and bad?
        Click here to reply to this post

        1. (1-4)
          Posted On: 04/25/07 01:51:36 PMAge 37, NY
          1) I had to do this post in 2 parts because it was to large. Look for the (5) above or below this post. Thanks 2) Kant was trying to establish that morality could exist without God. 3) Let me put it this way instead: You desire to believe, assume, or falsely conclude that God is necessary. 4) You said, to justify science, one must justify the mind of man. Man's mind cannot justify itself. A justification for man's mind must exist outside of man's mind. Christianity provides this. Again, man created Christianity. According to YOUR premise, Christianity cannot be the foundation for science. The numerous flaws in the Bible reveal that it was written by men or that if written by God, shows there is no good reason to trust anything he says. Numbers 23:19-20 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? God doesnt quite follow through on these things. To name just a few; Genesis 2:17 From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. Adam lived to be 930 years old. God says thou shall not kill. But soon after, Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor. Does that fall under just war? At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world. But Paul says that God is not the author of confusion. Many times we are told to love God, but also to fear him (he is actually pleased by our fear). So why does John tell us that there is no fear in love? Maybe Gods love is not that perfect. He also repents. In the beginning he thought his creation was good. Then the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart. He also repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. When in heaven, maybe you will displease God by not fearing him because you love him so much. He might be sorry that he let you in and then proceed to boot you out. But maybe 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 explains some of these inconsistencies: For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all. Perhaps Pauls own words were deluded. After all he was the one who offered Christianity to the Gentilessomething that I dont think Jesus would have been too happy about. Maybe Cornelius Van Til also believed what is false? Either God is completely unpredictable and we are all at the mercy of his will no matter what he says. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Romans 9:18 or they are the writings of men with predicable flaws and inconsistencies.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. Re: (1-4)
            Posted On: 04/25/07 06:27:35 PMAge 45, AR
            I have responded to this in the feedback section to Cahill's 4/19/07 blog.
            Click here to reply to this post

        2. (5)
          Posted On: 04/25/07 01:48:30 PMAge 37, NY
          5) To try to demonstrate the futility of atheism is the best you can do because there is no solid argument for the existence of God. This will go nowhere fast. You will keep on giving the same deductive argument with the premise that God is necessary for knowledge, Knowledge exists. Therefore, God exists. And to prove the premise, offer the same priori argument (something like; The Bible says that God gave us knowledge. The Bible is the true world of God because God said it was. Therefore it gave us knowledge). And round and round we go. But if God is necessary for science, logic and morality to exist, how do we know which God? Perhaps its not God but some universal force. I say that could not be the man made God of the Bible. But you do. How did you decide this? Which objective criteria do you use? For the sake of argument, lets say we believe on faith that your Christian Bible is the true word. Do we believe it literally? Do we believe in an actual 6-day creation? What morals do we glean from the story of Noah? That God took such a dim view of humans that he (with the exception of one family) drowned innocent children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well? What about Sodom and Gomorrah? Lot is supposed to be the good one, yet he offers his virgin daughters to the angels who came to destroy the city. They refuse the daughters, but later, Lot himself drunkenly impregnates the both of them. What about Abraham sacrificing his son? Was he actually going to do that or is that a symbolic story about how we should obey God without question? I would argue that we dont actually get our morals from scripture. How could we? If we did, we would strictly observe the Sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anybody who didnt. We would stone to death the non-virgin bride. But wait, there is more sadomasochism. God incarnated himself as a man, Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in atonement for the hereditary sin of Adam. What kind of moral foundation does one have if you are guilty even before doing wrong? Or do we just believe that some of the things in the bible are symbolic and other things are not? Do we pick and choose? If so, which ones? Why those and not others? By what standard do we do this? And which translation or version of the bible is correct? Why? What about the books they left out? Who did that? When? Why? Aside from what they threw out, do we even know if it is complete? And what about slavery? You really think it is morally justified? With whatever combination of answers to these questions you chose, the subsequent interpretation thereafter could hardly be considered universal or objective. It can never be the true truth. This is why the follower of TAG must claim a literal translation of the bible to appear consistent (keep in mind that an absolute belief that the world was flat did not mean that it was true). When one subscribes to absolute truths of this kind they become arrogant. They believe they can never be wrong. God is on their side. It is with this kind of arrogance that people fly airplanes into buildings and strap suicide bombs to themselves. Is this the type of truth hurts that we hear about? What about the arrogance of George Bush, who believed that God told him to attack Iraq? Or those who claim that Katrina and 9/11 were Gods retribution? Thankfully, Christian fundamentalism as a whole has not reached the level of the Taliban but we should not rest so easily. The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups and world domination. If the political and economic realities were as dire and oppressive in America as they are in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, it doesnt take much imagination to envision the results. I havent even mentioned the book of Revelations.
          Click here to reply to this post

          1. Frustrated?
            Posted On: 04/25/07 09:03:04 PMAge 56, OR
            Frustrated people sound off and blame others for their own lack of belief in something. To equate your fellow countrymen with the ones that perpetuated 9/11 is sad. It says (I think) that anything is more or less a question of degree. If this is so, then this frustration must drive you mad. To be upset at the Lord God appears to be a Biblical trait (like it or not) that eventually brings people to the end of themselves. When one has reached 'their end', there is hope for God's beginning. PGW
            Click here to reply to this post

          2. Re: (5)
            Posted On: 04/25/07 07:04:27 PMAge 45, AR
            You have not understood my argument. I actually agree that there are no solid arguments for the existence of God, if we presuppose, as you do, that man is the ultimate judge of truth. But, if man is the ultimate judge of truth, there are no solid arguments for any truth claim. Solid arguments already presuppose God. So, if you believe in solid arguments, you already know God. That is my argument. I have not, do not now, nor will I in the future give you a deductive argument for the existence of God. I will argue that if deductive arguments are real, then God exists. Deductive arguments, solid arguments, truth, knowledge, ethics, etc... cannot exist in an atheist universe. How do we know which God? That is easy, there is only one God, so it must be Him. Do you know any other god? I thought you were an atheist. Please introduce me to your god. My objective criteria? God's revelation of himself. How do we interpret God's revelation? We notice that He has first interpreted it for us and we think his thoughts after him. This is what we call the analogia fide. How do you obtain answers to all your questions about what the Bible teaches? Well, first you are going to have to lose your hostility. This will require repentence and faith in Jesus who alone can save you. Then you need to join a church and benefit from the teaching of those who know a lot more than you. Unless you are willing to do so, your questions are disingenious because you are closed to receiving true answers to your highly prejudicial questions. I have answered some of your questions under the Cahill blog to demonstrate how easy it is. I am not interested in an endless argument chain when you are unwilling to face the consequences of your atheism, to wit, you undermine your ability to know anything. If you are simply curious to find out if answers exist to your Biblical questions, go buy a good Bible answer book, there are plenty available and they address all the verses you challenge. Which translation? Any you find in your local bookstore are likely to suffice. Books left out? None were. How do we know none where left out? Because God is the author. Finally true truth and absolute truth cannot exist in your system. Thus, if everything you have written is right, then it is wrong. Because you have not spoken truth, by your own admission. Why then do you argue? Why do you trust your beliefs? After all, by admission, they are not true.
            Click here to reply to this post

            1. Re: Re: (5)
              Posted On: 04/26/07 06:14:10 PMAge 37, NY
              Neither here nor in Marks blog have you disproved my claims about the contradictions of the Bible. Ill concede the one about Adam, I just think that its funny that one condemned to death lived to be almost 1000 years. But wait. Is it correct for one to assume that Adam is heaven now? You see you prove my point. Your interpretation that it is not contradictory--is subjective. Any Bible answer book whether good or bad, will only offer different subjective interpretations. Attempts at literal interpretations will only lead to the justification of the violent arcane laws of the Old Testament (permission of slavery, death to prisoners of war, disobedient children, adulterers, and homosexuals, etc). Jesus and the New Testament confirm the validity of these laws. You have not denied them either and in fact, seem to view Gods overreaction as necessary justice and slavery morally justifiable. This is why I think the spread of radical Islam and Christian fundamentalism could lead to the destruction of the planet. Would you not see silver lining in a mushroom cloud were it to swallow New York City. I imagine you would be like a little boy on the night before Christmas. Also, your presupposition that God is necessary, if true, does not show that it should be the Christian God as you subjectively interpret him to be. I dont think such a necessary God would even have to reveal himself at all. You claim there is only one God. But perhaps there are two. Lets assume that your Bible is 100% true and I am doomed to spend all eternity in hell. But maybe God has a twin brother who also created a universe with an earth, humans and a Jesus counterpart etc. Perhaps they have a little wager going onto see who could gather the most souls into heaven. The concept of free will had to be implemented to keep things fair. Maybe the winner gets to eat the losers souls (you possibly?) or maybe the losers souls have to switch places with those in hell (me). This might explain why he gets so angry and jealous all the time. I know this all sounds blastfamous and hostile to you but there is nothing in Bible that suggests that this could not be a possibility. My absurd little story is no more absurd than the entire concept of the angry, jealous, and insecure God of the Christian Bible. The whole concept of heaven and hell, the birth, death, resurrection of a messiah seems so unnecessary for a one true God. According to the Bible we are nothing more than a glorified little tiny toy train set created by a whiny selfish brat who tends to throw temper tantrums and has difficulty dictating a cohesive instruction manual. Again, perhaps his bother is scoring more points on the wager. This child intends to smash the whole set in fit of rage and tear the heads from the toy soldiers and action figures (me) that dont comply. For an actual child who does these types things, we think they are lashing out. We do not call it justice. We dont applaud a child who kills a dog that refuses to sit. But this is the irrational nature of the God you worship. Basically youre using your faith in an irrational concept as a means to rationally justify for your human mind, something you know to be utterly irrational. I presume you do this to ease your rational fear of death--to give a meaning and a label to the unknown.
              Click here to reply to this post

              1. Re: Re: Re: (5)
                Posted On: 05/01/07 11:45:25 AMAge 45, AR
                My hesitancy in discussing the specifics of Scripture is borne of the fact (1)you have already decided Scripture must be wrong (2) we have antithetical presuppositions which prevent us from having any fruitful discussion of the specifics of Scripture and (3) you will always retreat to subjectivizing knowledge, as you have done here. Any time I pin you down, you will just say "thats your opinion". This response presupposes that knowledge can never rise above opinion. But, then you turn right around and again make assertions which you presuppose to be objectively true. Arguing Scripture with atheists is as productive and useful as herding cats. You continually oscillate between a subjective and objective theory of knowledge depending on what view serves you best at the moment. If knowledge is objective, Scripture can be objectively understood. You may not like that truth, but it is true, nevertheless. I concede that when the Bible speaks of slavery, murder, penal codes, those verses must be correctly interpreted. And, there are rules that govern proper interpretation. This are the same type of rules that a lawyer uses to interpret a statute or an English literature scholar uses to interpret a classic. One of the first rules of interpretation is to give the text the benefit of the doubt, to assume it makes sense, to give effect to the words of the text. You are so biased against the Bible that you are unable to correctly interpret it because you are not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. One God or two? You have answered your own question have you not? Two gods would not work. I agree. Now, my question for you, your attack against the Bible presupposes truth, justice, and the reality of evil for which I commend you. But, given your atheism, what is the universal source of truth, justice and the reality of evil? How is your view of truth, justice and the reality of evil objectively true?
                Click here to reply to this post

                1. Re: Re: Re: Re: (5)
                  Posted On: 05/02/07 10:27:36 AMAge 37, NY
                  For you, God answers the problem of induction. You believe that we know the laws of the universe will be consistent and universal because God says so in the Bible. Therefore you are free to use inductive reason in all manors of science, math, logic, and language etc. I contend that the belief in God only postpones induction in these matters. You still have to believe that the Bible is true and that God will keep his word or will not drop the ball as it were. Just as I can only conclude that the sun will come up because it has 100% of the time and I have no reason to believe that today will be any different. The theist still faces the problem of induction, it is merely labeled differently. Thus, theism doesnt provide the basis for universal truth anymore than non-theism. My attack on the Bible is based on that it is just as subjective as any literary fiction or statute that man could come up withyet it claims not to be. Im only bias after reading it. For example, I like the social message of Jesus but he contradicts himself when he fails to refute the laws of Old Testament. Justice and the reality of evil can only be understood by how we define it. What man thinks is bad, cancer cells may think are good. The morality found in the Bible is how man defined it at that time and that place. Ive stated over and over that our morals today have advanced passed the Biblical law of the Old Testament. But our belief that killing is wrong also precedes the Bible and it is not an objective truth. It is a byproduct of the evolutionary process just as love and hunger are. Moral codes have positive advantages to the survival of the human species. More than other animals, we have the ability to be aware of our own exisistense and our eventual death. Therefore we are also able to understand the suffering of others. This awareness seems to promote conduct that allows for the continuation of this awareness. Some interpret this unique awareness as divine and create religions around it. Regardless, the level of our understanding of the suffering of others has a direct impact on the moral codes that we create. This is why some Biblical laws, like the stoning to death of disobedient children, seem so arcane by todays standards, You on the other hand find these laws it to be the objective truth of the Bible. You have a first century understanding of the self and of others. I have argued before that this kind of notion promotes violence and war. I only dive into the objective to give you hypothetical examples to make a particular point. IF your Bible is trueit is totally possible that there are two Gods, with two separate universes, in an active bet to see who could gather the most souls in heaven. Why not? If you are to believe in the supernatural creation, miracles, heaven and hell etc, there is no reason that this could not also be true. God shows that he is prone to trickery game playing by telling Abraham to kill is own son just to see if he would obey (poor kid, imagine the issues he must have grown up with) or simply by giving us free will and then sadistically giving us the ultimatum of choosing him or eternal hell. God could easily have been lying when he instructed man to write that he does not lie. You can only trust on faith that it is not so. But faith will not make it truth. You may claim to know universal truth but that truth would be contingent on God.
                  Click here to reply to this post

                  1. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (5)
                    Posted On: 05/03/07 01:19:37 PMAge 45, AR
                    Awkwardly stated, but you are actually circling around one of the points I have been trying to impress upon you. You are right, I cannot establish induction, I cannot prove God, I cannot establish math, or science, etc.... Instead, my thinking must begin with presuppositions, as does yours and everyone else. Particular man cannot universalize his thoughts. Yet, man cannot think apart from universals. So, how do we justify our reliance on universals? Well, we do not establish universals by denying all predication upon which universals rest, which is the intellectual sin of atheism. Christianity provides a foundation for universals, I am not aware of anything else, including other religions which provides this foundation. Therefore, if universals, then Christianity. If no universals, then it would be impossible to even know that there are no universals. Without a presupposition of a personal absolute who can account for universals, personality, intelligence, obligation, diversity and unity, etc..., how do we provide an epistemic foundation for knowledge? The answer, of course, is we cannot. Thus, Christianity is true by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary. All of your arguments thus far have been little more than statements of how you do not like Christianity, how it makes you angry, how you would do things differently if you where in charge, how you do not like what the Bible says, how you prefer to believe in evolution despite gaps (blocks) and scientists who are "working on it" yet never producing anything of value. This is all very interesting and entertaining, but when are you going to engage with the epistemological challenge that I have been persistently setting before you? How do you, as an atheist, justify your thoughts and beliefs about anything in such a way as to make them obligatory on others and yourself? You see, my argument has not been that "I" can prove God, Christianity, and the Bible in such a way that my thoughts become universal and obligatory. My argument is that I must presuppose the truth of Christianity in order to engage in any thinking including doubt. No other worldview provides the necessary epistemic predicate for intelligent thought: atheism undermines universals; rigid monotheism crashes against the problem of the one and the many; Eastern monism undermines diversity; Eastern polytheism undermines unity; deism undermines personality; etc., etc.... Really, all I am trying to get you to do at this stage, with little success, is to get you to take your own thoughts seriously by accounting for them. Thus, you end up telling me how angry you are at injustice (as you perceive it) and then you tell me that morality is a bio-chemical reaction, no different from hunger. Simply amazing.
                    Click here to reply to this post

  4. Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
    Posted On: 04/20/07 11:02:45 PMAge 63, OH
    To have a valid study the sample must be valid. If a man claims to give you US currency that does not make it true. If someone claims to be a Christian that does not make it true does it. Would you pick a chicken farmer to do a study on quantum mechanics. If you are going to do a study on the results of Christianity the person doing the study should be an expert on Christianity.Your results are not valid because this is NOT a Christian nation. Most people who go to church are not Christians. This is not a statement made without much evidence. Lou
    Click here to reply to this post

    1. Faith, God, Bible, and Science
      Posted On: 04/22/07 11:18:34 PMAge 37, NY
      Well I guess that makes Mr. Noebel's essay invalid as well.
      Click here to reply to this post



Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 04/19/07 06:18:43 AM Age 63, OH
I would like to make a very important point while we will not change the mind of very many atheists; the larger agnostic middle can be influenced. Maybe there is a reason that the agnostic middle has been going with the atheist and not siding with the Christian conservatives. What is that reason. Lou
Click here to reply to this post

Re: Faith, God, Bible, and Science
Posted On: 04/19/07 06:05:54 AM Age 63, OH
This is by far the best article that I have read by you. I thank you for the effort and pointing out some truths. I would like to point out a very important question that you did not address. While you point out that Christians are more generous than liberals and that atheists are not concerned with truth but furthering their agenda, you do not say WHY ARE THE SECULAR HUMANISTS HAVING VICTORY OVER THE CHRISTIANS IN SO MANY AREAS. If we look to the history of this country we find that the Christians were the people who started at Plymouth. This nation followed a Christian agenda for many years. Our education system taught God and the Bible in school when I was a child. WHERE DID WE DROP THE BALL. If we look at the Bible and the example of Israel we can see that Israel was harassed by her enemies when God wanted her to repent. As soon as Israel repented and sought God, he would give Israel victory. In these areas that you are addressing, WHAT DOES THE CHRISTIANS NEED TO REPENT OF. You have clearly stated that the secular humanists are wrong but I ask WHAT CAN WE DO DIFFERENT TO HAVE VICTORY. Lou
Click here to reply to this post


Post Feedback
We would like to post your feedback, but please keep your feedback short and clean. All feedback will be reviewed before it is posted. We encourage healthy debating but will not accept feedback with personal attacks. Commenting on a person's public statements, actions and writings is not considered a personal attack. Please limit your feedback to less than 750 words. Comments written in ALL CAPS will not be posted.

All fields are required. Your age and state will be posted on the site, but your personal information will NOT. If you would like your name to be posted with your feedback, you must include it in your feedback text.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address:
City:
State: OR Country:
Age:
Feedback Title:
Your Feedback
(no HTML):
Save my information for next time.



Notice: By entering your email address, you agree to join the
Worldview Weekend email alert system.



Worldview Weekend
Family Reunion
Branson, Missouri
April 23, 24, 25, 2010
Worldview Weekend
Training Institute
Memphis/Collierville, TN
April 9th & 10th, 2010