What if the God of the Christians was real?
Frank will be back in the US anytime soon, so he’ll be taking back the helm shortly. So as he returns, I’d like to ask our Atheist fellow travelers in search of truth this question:Â
Atheist readers, what if you were to suddenly find out tomorrow that the God of the Christian Evangelicals was real?
I.e. that He HAD created the world, had created you, the Bible was true, Jesus had died on the cross for your sins etc etc.
What would you do? Â
Now I realize that you may be wont to say: Ah, it won’t happen.
And I agree it won’t happen tomorrow and if you are right and I am wrong, it will NEVER happen.
But do humor me. What if it did happen?
I’m not asking HOW it would happen (see Frank’s earlier blog on this) but IF it happened, how would you react?
What is your response?
Anger? Agreement? Kowtowing to this being? Resigned acceptance, passive aggression, active aggression, resigned damnation?Â
Would you fall on your face and worship him? Why or why not?
What would you do?
Do you think a being that creates you automatically deserves your worship? (Note he does not needs it, but desires it.) Â Â
So what would you do if you found out tomorrow that the God of the Bible was real?
May 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
[…] Mammen, a guest blogger at Christian author Frank Turek’s blog, throws out a question to the atheists: Atheist readers, what if you were to suddenly find out tomorrow that the God of the Christian […]
May 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If god truly damns people to an eternity of torture, I wouldn’t worship him no matter what, though I would accept his existence.
Sadism and hate is never to be worshiped.
A rational person has nothing to fear from justice. If god is real, and he issues true justice in the ‘afterlife’ then there shouldn’t be any reason to fear that afterlife.
The problem is that hell is not equal justice as we understand it. To call it just, there has to be an appeal to a form of justice we don’t understand, which changes the meaning of the word into something we don’t know, which makes it meaningless.
Hell really is the issue here, isn’t it? I would have no problem worshiping a truly loving and just god if it exists, and I had proof of it. The doctrine of hell, however, precludes the christian god of being this god.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Well, provided that the evidence was good enough, I would accept it, and admit that I’d been wrong all these years. But as the commenter above says, if God were really like the God straight out of the Bible, or the God that people like Dobson preach about, I couldn’t in good conscience worship it. It’d scare the crap out of me, most likely, and I’d just end up roasting in eternal fire with my gay friends.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“Do you think a being that creates you automatically deserves your worship?”
No. Which is a problem many have with the “Honor thy father and mother” commandment.
If your parents are abusive and horrible people you should have no requirement to honor them. They may be the reason that you exist in the world, but that doesn’t absolve them of any future wrongdoings that they may do.
The same is for a particular god. Creating the universe, while impressive, does not necessarily deserve worship.
If a god exists and all he did was create the universe, then he gets my respect and my thanks for doing it. If, on the other hand, he did all the things that the Bible claims he has done, then he doesn’t even get my respect or thanks. I couldn’t respect an omnipotent being who seems to automatically resort to killing or torture to get things done.
“What is your response?”
Disappointment. If there is a god, I’d like to worship it. But the god of the Christian Evangelicals does not deserve that worship, and so I’d be disappointed that I didn’t have that opportunity.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Interesting that you changed the question part way through. At the beginning you ask if the “God of the Christian Evangelicals” was real and at the end you change it to the “God of the Bible” as if those two things were interchangeable. I think most Catholics and non-evangelical christians might have a problem with that.
And isn’t this question really just a reframed Pascal’s Wager when it comes down to it? If so it has been answered many times already.
Honestly, there are so many contradicitions in the Bible that it is hard to tell what that god would be like if he really did exist. That’s because the descriptions of god in the bible do more to reflect the values and assumptions of the people writing the bible than it does to shed any light on what an actual omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god would really be like.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
First off, if I ever came face to face with him, I would simply ask “Where’s the evidence God?” Now, of course, undoubtedly many Christians will claim that there is evidence all around us, but this is mostly argument from personal incredulity or ignorance. Just because you can’t fathom a way that the natural world around us could come to be without God or how the incredibly complicated workings of a cell came about, doesn’t mean there isn’t a natural explanation. So far, I have not seen anything that counts as real true evidence to me. Anyways, we’ve covered this fairly in depth on other threads, so I’ll restrain myself.
Also though, I definitely agree with Josh. If God is such that he makes decisions about people’s eternal fate based on whether they worshiped him for a short period of time on Earth, the purpose for which he created them, then failing to provide them with enough evidence to know that he existed, I’m not really sure he deserves my attention. Add to that, that he is the sort that sent his word down to earth in the form of the Bible, but did not provide the necessary means for it to reach large portions of the population, meaning that he was condemning all those people who he himself created but by his own folly had no way whatsoever of ever hearing about his existence to an eternity in hell, this character really does sound sadistic. Now, if, like Josh posits, all the Christians have it wrong, but there is a truly loving caring god out there, then him I would have no problem with, although I doubt he would need my worship and would rather I devote all my energies to working towards a better human future.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Initial reaction: disgust tinged with disappointment. If I could choose any particular deity to be real, the Christian Evangelical God would not be on my list, any more than the polytheistic gods who want to destroy humanity would be. Take the disgust you feel when a politician you don’t like is elected by a narrow margin, and then multiply that by a zillion, and you have approximately my initial reaction.
After a while, though, I think I’d start getting angry. The C.E.G. makes all kinds of claims about loving humanity, but never follows through. Look at all the natural disasters and diseases that plague us — these are not the result of human sin, they’re extra. And even the followers of the C.E.G. don’t get any fringe benefits — prayer doesn’t have any effect on causality, there are no special immunities for believers, and people who defraud the innocent are seldom punished (and NEVER punished by supernatural means, such as lightning bolts). The C.E.G. is a bigger fraud than a used car salesman — a celestial huckster. If the C.E.G. were real, then he would be a just target for any human retaliation, however ineffectual. So my next impulse would be to find the C.E.G.’s house and throw eggs at it. Then toilet paper. And then rocks. And then dynamite. Given his track record on miraculous rescues, there’s a good chance he’d turn out not to be able to save himself, and in any case I’m sure the C.E.G. would not forgive agnostics and atheists, so it’s not like my eventual punishment would be any worse as a result.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
There are still a lot of ifs in your question, clearly, as to what you say - the bible being real covers a multitude of possibilities.
Do you mean every word of both new and old testaments is the literal truth, or just some aspects?
On the whole, the idea that this super-powerful alien with a strange shadowy agenda could be real fills me with horror. Thankfully the idea is ludicrous
May 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
If god showed up and I could see it was real, I would begin re-investigating the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, and baby-delivering storks.
I could never quite figure out why faith people don’t believe in faeries. i know that elfs and stuff are not in their holy books, but their logic skills are low enough to justify other myths.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
If by “suddenly found out” you mean “were presented with strong evidence of God’s existence”, then my answer is that I would certainly believe that the God of the evangelicals exists. However, I would not worship him. Instead, I would ask him some questions, and my attitude towards him would depend on how he answers the questions:
1.) Why did you deliberately create humans to be imperfect and free, knowing full well that combining freedom with imperfection inevitably leads to sin, and then blame them for their imperfections and tell them they deserve eternal torture for being the way you created them? Why blame humans for being the way you created them?
2.) Why do you demand we be “thankful” for your “sacrifice” when you were the one that created the situation of needing sacrifice in the first place? Why should we be “thankful” that you “saved” us from a situation that YOU PUT US IN?
3.) Was turning yourself into a human and getting yourself killed really necessary to “save” us from being the way you created us? Wouldn’t it be better just to forgive and forget (you know, do what you demand that we do)? And why do you expect us to be impressed by this passive-aggressive pageantry of killing and resurrecting yourself (keeping in mind that sin is in this world because YOU created the lethal combination of freedom and imperfection)?
4.) How can you claim to be “all good” when you are the creator of a place of eternal torment? What possible reason could you have had to create a place like hell?
5.) You claim to be perfect and infallible, yet you “desire” to be worshiped. Why should you even care if people worship you? Desire implies lack, and desire for worship and adulation implies low self-esteem.
6.) Why do you punish children for the sins of their parents? How could a being who does something so cruel, so heartless, so megalomaniacal, so unjust, so evil as to harm a child because of his parents’ sin claim to be a God of justice?
7.) You claim to be both all-powerful and all-good, and you also claim to be free of any constraints. Since you can do anything, that means you deliberately created a world filled with natural disasters, famine, disease, evil, cruelty, and suffering. You weren’t forced to created the world the way you did–you chose to. How could you be so cruel to the creatures you claim to love so much? Did it ever occur to you that maybe people would be less inclined to sin and more inclined to worship you if you weren’t constantly raining down suffering and cruelty on them?
8.) Why did you create Satan? For a supposedly omniscient being, that was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
9.) Why do you demand blood sacrifice?
10.) If it’s so important to you that humans believe in you (why?), then why can’t you be bothered to provide more evidence for yourself? Why do you hide from people, and demand they believe on blind faith?
11.) Don’t you think that an all-powerful being desiring worship from and threatening eternal torture of puny, mortal humans is just about the biggest form of bullying imaginable?
12.) Why are your followers so obnoxious in trying to force belief in you on the rest of us? Why are they constantly telling others how to live their lives? What dysfunctional part of your divine mind thinks I, or any sane person, would want to spend eternity surrounded by you and your fundamentalist minions? Your Heaven sounds like Hell to me. Don’t you think it’s extremely presumptuous on your part that you simply assume that Heaven is a place I’d even want to go to?
Even if the evangelical God exists, I seriously doubt he could give a satisfactory answer to even one of these questions. I certainly see no reason at all to think he would be worth worshiping even if he did exist. If he does exist, he is an evil and capricious being who has not earned the right to be worshiped. But, of course, the numerous contradictions in the descriptions of God make me think that no such being could possibly exist, so I’m not too concerned about it.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Brian,
you made an astute observation. It was not my intent to try to imply that Catholics are not Biblical. So without getting into too many theological issues, please view the question as being about the Evangelical OR Catholic God as opposed to a New Age god who becomes whatever you want him to become.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Surprise, followed by various feelings I guess.
Anger at allowing so much needless suffering in the world which should be easily preventable by an all-powerful being
Anger and query at the ambivalence of the Bible which forces people to make their own interpretations instead. Such interpretations that lead to slavery and racism being acceptable etc.
Questioning on why an all-powerful being would allow such a weak proof for his existence that people would keep believing in other religions or not at all.
Criticism on the morality of endless suffering
Defiance on having to praise him.
Just off the top of my head.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Wes,
Good post. I have a question. It seems like most of your questions for the God of the Bible imply that the reality he created is somehow immoral. From where did you get your standard of morality to declare His creation immoral?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
It is easy to see that a God-created world that includes immorality is a creation of God.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Frank,
Wherever morals come from, they clearly do not from the God of the evangelicals, who has no morals at all. Are you trying to imply that a being who killed King David’s child because of something David did is “moral”? Or that a being who would create a place of eternal suffering to send his own creation there is the source of goodness? Ridiculous.
Social beings have rules which guide their societies, and humans are no different in that regard. I think basing one’s morals on our natural human tendency towards compassion for our fellows, our common social needs, and our common desire to live together with other members of our species, while very far from perfect, is a much better source of morals than a “god” who blames his own creation for being the way he created them to be, who tortures people for eternity, who allows needless suffering to exist even though he has the power to stop it, who punishes children for crimes they did not commit, who demands blind faith and groveling worship, and all other sorts of things that anyone with a conscience can see are grossly immoral.
At least basing one’s morals on our common humanity and our common social well-being is not moral relativism, even if it’s not perfect either. But it is simply logically contradictory to claim that such an obviously immoral being as the Christian God could be the absolute standard and source of all morals. Just think about it for a second. Set any preconceived faith aside, read your Bible, pay close attention to how God behaves, and ask yourself, “How could a being who behaves in such a way be ‘moral’?” It is the apex of moral relativism to excuse all of God’s immoral behavior and declare him moral anyways simply because he’s God and can behave however he wants, but that moral relativism is exactly what fundamentalist Christians want me to accept when they insist that I should believe their God is good.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Neil,
In spite of your statement not to concern ourselves with the question of HOW it will happen, I am going to start by doing just that. As best as I can figure, there are three ways I could find out that God exists, assuming he does: (1) God could directly reveal himself to me, in the miraculous sense, (2) I could convert to Christianity through naturalistic means, or (3) I could die.
You said, “I agree it won’t happen tomorrow and if you are right and I am wrong, it will NEVER happen.” So you believe that the probability of my finding out that God exists tomorrow is either zero or very low — rather than chide you for being loose in your phrasing, I’ll just assume you meant the latter — but that the probability of my finding out someday is 100 percent. The only option above that has a 100% chance of happening eventually is 3, my own death.
So, although I’m sure you’re open to the possibility of another option occurring, and would doubtless be delighted by my “finding out” at some point prior to my death, I’m going to assume that option 3, my death, is the means by which I “find out” that God exists in the context of your hypothetical question.
So let’s see — there I am, standing before God, discovering that I was wrong and that he exists. What do I do?
Do I explain myself? There’d be no need for that — being God, he already knows my motivations for being an atheist.
Do I ask questions? Again, being God, he already knows what information I’d desire in this situation, and he would either provide me with it or not, as he saw fit.
Do I fall on my knees, begging for mercy and salvation? I don’t see the point in that, as there’s nothing in the Bible or in contemporary theology that suggests that anything other than your actions PRIOR to death make a difference to the ultimate disposition of your eternal soul.
When I think about it, it seems to me that there’s nothing that I CAN do that would make a difference to the state of affairs as a whole. One action would be as good as another. Any answer I give to the question would be pretty much arbitrary. Even having considered my actions in advance won’t make a difference to what God will do to me.
Or will it? Perhaps, if I consider the question itself, picture myself in that situation, it may affect what I do between now and the moment of my death, which will in turn affect what God ultimately does to me at that moment.
But why would I consider the question itself? Why, because a guy named Neil posed it to me . . .
. . . and that’s really what this is all about, isn’t it, Neil? You’re not really concerned with how we answer the question, as it won’t affect your own views, nor will it affect what sort of response you give to us (unless we happen to mention an atheistic talking point for which you have an easily memorized and snappy sounding response, which would, of course, be a nice bonus, wouldn’t it?). You just want us to consider the hypothetical situation. You want us to see ourselves in that position. You want to frighten us.
Despite your rational-minded appearance, you’re really doing nothing more than posing the centuries-old dilemma, “turn or burn.”
I remain unimpressed.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I like to think I’ve got an open mind so under the extrmeley unlikely hypothetical situation that he was proven to me to be 100% real I’d probably worship him as requested.
If true, then that would mean hell exists, I don’t want to go to the hell decribed in the bible.
Of course, the god described by the evangelicals cannot exist (too many logical inconsistancies with omnipotence, free will etc)
Now, I wonder whether christians would be willing ot answer the same question from another POV. Say, if they found out that Allah as described by fundie muslims was real and they had been wrong all along??
May 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I would let him know that any God who based salvation only upon whether or not I believed that he had a baby with a girl engaged to a carpenter and that the progeny from that union died for my sins was immoral.
I would rather burn for eternity with Anne Frank and Mahatma Ghandi than feast with such a God, a bunch of Nazis, and Pat Robertson. I’d then go suffer eternal damnation knowing that my faith in what is right was strong and that I did not do wrong even when faced with an omnipotent force that wanted me to do so.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I’d acknowledge he was there but refuse to worship him. Ever read the essay “Civil Disobedience”?
May 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Wes,
So are you positing a God other than the Christian God to ground your morals?
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
BibleGod is obviously a pretend being. A moral creature would never torture its children, or leave them unprotected. A moral BibleGod I could get along with.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Frank,
Possibly. I’ve always had a soft spot for Spinoza’s and Einstein’s god. I am sufficiently convinced that theistic gods do not exist, but I still admit the possibility of a pantheistic or deistic god. I don’t completely exclude the possibility of a god existing.
However, even if there’s no god at all, I would still be moral. The primary basis of my moral decisions is humanity itself. It’s the only objective, reasonable standard for morality that I’m aware of. My ultimate standard for what is moral is what benefits humans, and my ultimate standard for immorality is what causes suffering for humans.
I know it’s not a perfect standard. But it is not relativistic, and it’s a standard that can be reasonably discussed and evaluated with others. It’s not absolute. It is subject to change based on experience. I’m willing to re-evaluate my moral standards based on my experiences with other humans.
A god might play a role in my morality, but it’s not necessary. I value morality whether god exists or not. I value morality because I desire to coexist peacefully with other people. Even if there’s no god at all, I still want to live and enjoy my short time here on Earth.
If you believe in God, good for you. I won’t knock on your door and try to convert you. I won’t interfere. I’m perfectly comfortable with your belief. All I care about is how we can co-exist and get along. You find your moral foundation in God, I find mine in humanity. What’s most important is whether we can both work together and make the world a better place.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The question of exactly how I would come to this knowledge is important, and changes the nature of the response.
If, for example, I decide that the God of Christianity is real because I am presented with compelling new evidence that lends strong support to that argument, then I acknowledge that I would then believe in God, and I would seek out more evidence and more information. This would be a significant change in my life, and I would need to pursue it with diligence. My belief would (hopefully) be in proportion to the strength of the evidence; the nature of the evidence would also likely determine if and how I would worship this being.
On the other hand, if the God of Christianity presented itself to me in it’s clear, undeniable presence (something one would presume an omnipotent deity could do) and this God has all of the attributes claimed by most Christians, I don’t see how there would be any reasonable choice but to worship it. An immensely powerful being requiring submission under threat of eternal torment is not something to be trifled with. Presumably I would be completely overwhelmed not only by its power but by its charisma.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:09 am
First, let me say that I appreciate the thought that my fellow atheists have put into their responses. However, my own first reaction to the question, and so probably the truest answer, was this: I would marshal Satan’s forces, lead a second coup that would this time end in success, and create a world that is truly moral. Not only would my new world be free of all the immoralities god has imposed on us, but my world will also be free of any doubt of my existence. And, as the person who finally ended suffering all across the globe, I would expect to be revered accordingly. I haven’t worked all the kinks out yet, but the best plans always allow for the fog of war.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Wes,
I do not claim to be Jehovah God, but I serve him and can answer your questions:
~~~~1.) Why did you deliberately create humans to be imperfect and free, knowing full well that combining freedom with imperfection inevitably leads to sin, and then blame them for their imperfections and tell them they deserve eternal torture for being the way you created them? Why blame humans for being the way you created them?~~~~
God did not create human imperfect. God created them perfect and they are still conceived and born that way (contrary to popular denominational beliefs). But God did create humans with free will because of infinite justice. Would it be just or unjust for you not to have the RIGHT to choose, Wes? That we are free moral agents and that we, not God, as free moral agents chose to do that which is wrong cannot be blamed on God. Our imperfection is our choice, our action, our responsibility. To throw that blame on God is to deny free will altogether.
~~~~2.) Why do you demand we be “thankful” for your “sacrifice” when you were the one that created the situation of needing sacrifice in the first place? Why should we be “thankful” that you “saved” us from a situation that YOU PUT US IN?~~~~
See above about free will. God, who is infinitely just, and our Creator has the right to destroy that which He created. Rather than doing so, He exercised mercy by not destroying humanity and grace by granting a plan by which man, who chooses to separate himself from God through sin, can return to God. That plan satisfies God’s infinite justice through the death of Jesus (the wages of sin is death) while granting mercy and grace, things sinners do not deserve and do not have the capacity to earn.
God did not put us in this situation, Wes, we put ourselves here.
~~~~3.) Was turning yourself into a human and getting yourself killed really necessary to “save” us from being the way you created us? Wouldn’t it be better just to forgive and forget (you know, do what you demand that we do)? And why do you expect us to be impressed by this passive-aggressive pageantry of killing and resurrecting yourself (keeping in mind that sin is in this world because YOU created the lethal combination of freedom and imperfection)?~~~~
Yes, it was necessary. Justice demands death for sin.
Forgiveness without the change of heart of the one forgiven is harmful. This idea that one should forgive all men of everything they ever do to you, whether they seek forgiveness or not is an illogical and devastating philosophy to both the forgiver and forgiven. It is unjust to forgive those who do not seek it out. God neither demands that we forgive universally nor does He do so. Forgiveness is available to all, but there are conditions, and they are all for our own good.
As for humans being impressed, again, we are responsible for our spiritual state, not God. God could have simply destroyed humanity as is His right as Creator, but instead He gave us a plan that satisfied all His infinite attributes, He paid the ultimate sacrifice one can pay for another, He died for us. This because He loves us.
~~~~4.) How can you claim to be “all good” when you are the creator of a place of eternal torment? What possible reason could you have had to create a place like hell?~~~~
By what standard do you judge that a place of eternal punishment is evil? I hear no one complaining about the place of eternal reward (heaven)?
If the reward for goodness is eternal then it is only just that the reward for evil is eternal.
If God has the right to punish, then God has the right to punish to any extent. What standard will you hold the Creator of humanity to and claim that such punishment is evil? Is it the human standard? How can the created hold the Creator to such an inferior standard? To a standard based on a finite mind?
~~~~5.) You claim to be perfect and infallible, yet you “desire” to be worshiped. Why should you even care if people worship you? Desire implies lack, and desire for worship and adulation implies low self-esteem.~~~~~
God cares that people worship Him because worship of God is beneficial to His creation. God needs nothing, certainly He has no need of our worship. He existed for eternity without mankind. He created us out of love and desires that worship out of love because worship of Him is good for us, healthy for us.
~~~~6.) Why do you punish children for the sins of their parents? How could a being who does something so cruel, so heartless, so megalomaniacal, so unjust, so evil as to harm a child because of his parents’ sin claim to be a God of justice?~~~~
This question I do not understand fully. If you are referring to the man made doctrines of hereditary depravity and original sin, God does not punish children for the sins of their parents. Ezekiel 18:20 is quite clear that children do not bear the guilt of their parent’s sins. The doctrines of hereditary depravity and original sin are not Biblical and quite stupid. If children bear any burden for their parent’s sin, it is the parent who is responsible, not God.
~~~~7.) You claim to be both all-powerful and all-good, and you also claim to be free of any constraints. Since you can do anything, that means you deliberately created a world filled with natural disasters, famine, disease, evil, cruelty, and suffering. You weren’t forced to created the world the way you did–you chose to. How could you be so cruel to the creatures you claim to love so much? Did it ever occur to you that maybe people would be less inclined to sin and more inclined to worship you if you weren’t constantly raining down suffering and cruelty on them?~~~~
God did not create the world the way it is today. God created a paradise for man to live. Man chose to do evil and the result is the world we see today. God is not responsible for these things, nor does He “create” hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like to “cause” men to suffer. These things are natural because of the way the Earth is now. If you wish to blame someone, blame those before the flood whose every thought was evil continually.
~~~~8.) Why did you create Satan? For a supposedly omniscient being, that was an incredibly stupid thing to do.~~~~
Based on whose standard, Wes? A single choice is no choice at all, but a lack of options. There is no justice in that.
~~~~9.) Why do you demand blood sacrifice?~~~~
Life is in the blood. The animal sacrifices were a type pointing to the sacrifice of the life of Jesus. It was required under the OT to show man the end result of his choice to sin. It is a gruesome and ugly thing, death. It is a horrible thing to kill another human being. Animals are innocent having no moral capacity. Jesus was innocent by choice. The picture of blood sacrifice was to show the horror of sin.
~~~~10.) If it’s so important to you that humans believe in you (why?), then why can’t you be bothered to provide more evidence for yourself? Why do you hide from people, and demand they believe on blind faith?~~~~
Who said God is hiding? Did man have any more faith when God spoke directly to him? When God separated out a nation to bring about the Christ child, blessed them with wealth, health, everything they could ask for, did it help?
No, God has given all the evidence that man needs to believe in Him. For those who have set themselves to not believe, no amount of evidence will be enough. I have set up a logical argument to prove God exists, unquestionably, in the Who Made God thread. Few have responded, and those hesitantly. The discussion has stalled for no reason I can see. I have taken all the burden of proof on myself in my argument and still have no takers really but one who is busy at the moment.
~~~~11.) Don’t you think that an all-powerful being desiring worship from and threatening eternal torture of puny, mortal humans is just about the biggest form of bullying imaginable?~~~~
Do you think that the threat of any kind of punishment for wrong doing at all is bullying? If not, where do you draw the limit and based on what standard?
~~~~12.) Why are your followers so obnoxious in trying to force belief in you on the rest of us? Why are they constantly telling others how to live their lives? What dysfunctional part of your divine mind thinks I, or any sane person, would want to spend eternity surrounded by you and your fundamentalist minions? Your Heaven sounds like Hell to me. Don’t you think it’s extremely presumptuous on your part that you simply assume that Heaven is a place I’d even want to go to?~~~~
The only part of this question that should be answered is why evangelize. The gospel is the plan of salvation. Everyone needs it. I’ll not force it down your throat, Wes. If you don’t want to hear it at all, why are you here “bothering” us.
If you don’t want to hear what I have to say, just say so, and I’ll not speak to you again about it.
But I expect the same courtesy from you and yours…
…and that means in the public school system among other places.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 5th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Dave said: [Neil] You want to frighten us [with this question].
Dave, I hate to disappoint you with my boring motives, but I’m just not that inventive. The thought of using this blog to “scare” anyone into believing never even occurred to me.
And to tell the truth I really can’t see it working. Perhaps you imagined that I’d never spent much time with atheists face to face and may think that I think such melodramatic ideas may work. Actually quite a few of my close friends are atheists and 90% are not Christians and I spend a lot of time with all of them discussing religion and politics and music and living life and designing some killer circuits and starting some fun startup companies. I can’t imagine that such scare tactics would ever work with them or anyone above the age of 12 and then too it would wear out after awhile.
So be assured my intention is not to scare anyone? I just want to understand more. Some of the responses will indeed change how I respond to people. Just because we don’t agree or see eye to eye, it does not mean we should not be friends or try to understand each other more. If others are also seeking truth and reality and do not wish to be misled, then we are travelers on the same journey.
And to tell the truth, if Christianity isn’t true, I have better things to do with my time and my money than blindly follow some ancient superstition. I always am up front with my atheists friends, and tell them that if they can prove that God doesn’t exist to me I will join their ranks in a heartbeat (of course they say it’s as tough as proving pink flying elephants don’t exist). The funny thing is that not all of them are eager to reciprocate, and thus the question.
May we all find the one truth together.
Neil
May 5th, 2008 at 2:34 am
NZskep said:
“Now, I wonder whether christians would be willing ot answer the same question from another POV. Say, if they found out that Allah as described by fundie muslims was real and they had been wrong all along?”
NZskep, if tomorrow I found out that Allah was true, I’d become a Muslim as fast as I could recite in Arabic “Allah hu akbar, bismillahi rahman hu rahim, la illa il allah, Mohammed rasul Allah”.
Why? Because if that is the truth then it’s the truth. I don’t really have a choice if I’m a truth seeker. I have to accept it.
That also goes for Hinduism, Buddhism or even African Animism and of course if there is no god then I’ll become an Atheist..tomorrow.
No questions, no if’s and’s or but’s.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:23 am
But of course there is no choice of that ever happening. The proof of Islam is as flimsy as the proof of Evangelicals as the proof of Dodecatheists etc.
The only real proof we have, in a sense, is that there is no sufficient proof to show the existence of any god, spirit or supernatural force. Indeed, if anything, there is ovewhelming evidence in the religion’s scriptures themselves to show that the god the explain does not exist.
So, allow me to be sceptical if even in the face of overwhelming evidence on the existence of Allah or the non-existence of any god, you would change you ming.
Since this is a kind of Pascal’s wager however, let me ask you another question.
What if the God of Atheists existed? This God does not reveal himself to you but will only reward people who believe that no God exists, even just statisticaly (not even him) and come to this conclusion through crirical and rational thinking.
Based on this God, who will never provide the overwhelming proof you need (I guess, nothing less than personal appearance at this point) to be converted, you will end up in whatever punishment he deems worthy.
How do you deal with potential existence of such a God?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:05 am
I’ll take the question at face value and not bother going into the details of how I’m convinced that the Biblical, Christian Evangelical God is real and that he is standing in front of me, and just respond as if I have been and he is.
I would of course accept that I had been wrong about the existence of God, now that it had been proven conclusively. But I would not worship him. He may have created the universe and us as stated, but his various actions would make him the worst, most evil tyrant the world has ever known. And I, as someone who loves liberty, freedom, and justice, would have to resist that tyranny to the fullest extent, even if it meant my own destruction. So despite the fact that this omnipotent being would probably reduce me to nothingness, I would probably use my last actions to spit defiantly in his face and say, “How tragic is it that the whole of reality has been shaped by such a disgusting example of hatred, divisiveness, exclusion, pettiness, and evil. No wonder our world is full of torment and evil if we were truly made in your image, for you are the most despicable of us all.”
May 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am
“Why? Because if that is the truth then it’s the truth. I don’t really have a choice if I’m a truth seeker. I have to accept it.”
So you’re really all about the reward and punishment?
I also think you’re a little confused, Neil. Believing does not necessarily mean worshiping and/or converting.
In a world where there was absolute truth of a god, that wouldn’t make me a follower of that god’s religion. But I would still believe that that god existed. And that goes for Allah as much as for the evangelical God.
My worship and/or conversion to their religion is based on the actions and nature of the deity, not whether I believe it exists or not.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:50 am
NZskep, if tomorrow I found out that Allah was true, I’d become a . Muslim as fast as I could recite in Arabic “Allah hu akbar, bismillahi . . rahman hu rahim, la illa il allah, Mohammed rasul Allah”.
That’s good. It amazes me how many Christians do not think like this though and say that they would never give up faith in god no matter what evidence was presented.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:07 am
When a Christian says:
“By what standard do you judge that a place of eternal punishment is evil? I hear no one complaining about the place of eternal reward (heaven)?
If the reward for goodness is eternal then it is only just that the reward for evil is eternal.”
You know they have lost the plot. I don’t find the god of the bible particularly scary. The bible is so contradictory, I don’t see how the god it describes could possibly exist.
Christians like the above scare me.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hi
I am neither Atheist nor Agnostic; if I am allowed to post here, I would say:
First of all JesusYeshuaIssa was neither God not Son of God; as per his own clear words he was Son of Mary and Son of Adam/man.
Then JesusYeshuaIssa did not die on Cross; though he was put on Cross, yet he was saved a cursed death on Cross as GodAllah saved his life and he was delivered in near dead position. He regained consciousness in the spacious and air tomb he was laid with the treatment of medicines/herbals applied on him by his freinds. So he never died for the sins of the so called faithful.
These are two points a ProtestantCatholic can hardly respond to rationally.
Thanks
May 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
What if the god of Atheism was real?…
This is directed to all my theist readers: What would you do if the god of atheism was real?
Imagine a God that provides no proof, or even hint, of his existence. He will only reward people who have lived their life believing that no gods existed, incl…
May 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
NEIL:
And to tell the truth, if Christianity isn’t true, I have better things to do with my time and my money than blindly follow some ancient superstition. I always am up front with my atheists friends, and tell them that if they can prove that God doesn’t exist to me I will join their ranks in a heartbeat (of course they say it’s as tough as proving pink flying elephants don’t exist). The funny thing is that not all of them are eager to reciprocate, and thus the question.
DAVE:
From that paragraph, particularly the last sentence, it seems that you are conceding the entirety of my post prior to (and not including) the sentence “You want to frighten us.”
But that sentence follows from the rest of the post. You can deny it all you want, and I’ll concede that it’s more or less guesswork on my part, but that being the case, the guesswork is borne out by a great deal of experience with the Christian community, with Christians who spend a fair number of days or weeks, even months or years, acting rational and open-minded but who all, in the end, resort to a variation of “turn or burn.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t read your mind, and can’t know your true motives. But I stand by my assessment.
As for your request for proof that God does not exist, your friends may or may not have given you sufficient proof, I don’t know. I probably could do it myself, if I had more time this morning. But sufficient proof does exist, it’s out there to find, and I’ll leave it at that for now.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Interesting post from Ernie. One thing he said stood out to me though. When Wes asked “Was turning yourself into a human and getting yourself killed really necessary to “save” us from being the way you created us? Wouldn’t it be better just to forgive and forget (you know, do what you demand that we do)? And why do you expect us to be impressed by this passive-aggressive pageantry of killing and resurrecting yourself (keeping in mind that sin is in this world because YOU created the lethal combination of freedom and imperfection)?”
Ernie’s reply starts with “Yes, it was necessary. Justice demands death for sin.”
That indicates that Ernie believes that God is answerable to a higher authority.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Another thing in Ernie’s post I want to comment on.
“The doctrines of hereditary depravity and original sin are not Biblical and quite stupid. If children bear any burden for their parent’s sin, it is the parent who is responsible, not God.”
When Wes spoke of God punishing children for the sins of their parents, I believe he was speaking of (one example of many) God murdering Pharoah’s son to get him to free his Israelite slaves. That was a truly despicable act. Not the action of someone who is infintely just.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am
God is neither above justice as if he is a tyrant enforcing his whims because he has the power to do so, nor is God below justice as if there is some power/authority higher than Him, meaning He is not omnipotent. God IS justice, just as God IS love. Justice is defined by the very nature of God.
Murder is the unlawful taking of life. As Creator God gave life to Pharoah’s son, it is not unlawful for Him to take it. Furthemore, given that Pharoah was evil and would have raised his son that way, God granted Pharoah’s son mercy. The son, innocent of sin because of his youth, will get to go to heaven at the end of time. Same goes true for every child of a wicked people killed by God (Flood, nations in Promised Land, etc.).
Did God kill Pharaoh’s son? Yes. Was it murder? No.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“As Creator God gave life to Pharoah’s son, it is not unlawful for Him to take it.”
So a parent would be just in killing their child? They did give them life, after all.
I’m sorry, but that is the most disgusting view of justice or morality I have ever heard.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I truly believe that those who have thoroughly studied the Bible and come to trust in Christ as their Lord and Saviour do understand that damnation is the result of an individual’s rejection of Christ (the individual’s choice of unbelief) rather than God’s choice to damn. Remember….it is God’s will that none shall perish, but all should have eternal life. He gives us the freedom to choose!! I do realize that before coming to this conclusion one must believe that God does exist and that the Bible is the infallible work of God. Dr. Turek does a marvelous job of providing evidence of these truths.
God Bless,
Ryan
May 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I don’t know why you make a big deal about this? If unequivocal evidence were presented, I would change my beliefs. It’s as simple as that.
That’s the difference between me and religionists. When religionists encounter evidence that conflict with their beliefs, they reject the evidence. Present me with evidence that conflicts with my beliefs and I adjust my beliefs.
I go where the evidence goes.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
What may be immoral for us is not necessarily immoral for God. God who gives life has the right to take it. (In fact, God takes all of our lives at some point.) God who made us can resurrect us and promises to do so.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Wes,
Thanks for your thoughful posts. A couple of questions on your basis for morality in humanity: Whose humanity: Mother Teresa’s or Hitler’s?
If you say “for the good of society,” it seems to me you are begging the question by smuggling in an objective standard of “good.” Where does this standard come from? (Note: I’m not asking you HOW YOU KNOW murder is wrong, but WHY is murder wrong.)
Blessings
Frank Turek
May 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
To add to Frank and Ernie’s comments. Remember Physical Death is not our final destiny.
If God exists, we should not view death from an Atheist’s perspective and expect it to make sense from a Christian or God’s perspective. Death to an atheist means annihilation, nothingness. It’s all over. Death in God’s eyes is merely the transportation of a being trapped in a limited 4D space and shell to a multidimensional space (the spiritual dimension). The person STILL exists, just not in the physical dimension. But remember after death, the Christian view is that they are STILL the same person, the same being. They’ve just lost their shell that used to limit them. It’s like losing a full body cast in some ways. So many more dimensions are now open to them. They’ve been set free and had their limited vision opened up.
Another example: To God, a human dying is loosely akin to someone being picked up out of their car and ending up on an other planet with far more dimensions and things than they could ever imagine. Meanwhile their empty rotting car (with no one to maintain it) is left behind for people to mourn over.
So while you may not believe it is true, at least conceptually it is self consistent that killing to God is not wrong though it is wrong to you. But you ask well does that mean I can go around killing people. After all I’m “freeing” them. Well no, it’s like a child and his friends (those left behind) crying because the child’s parents dragged him away from playing in the sewer with the friends and took him to the beach (to borrow from CS Lewis). However the parents are the ONLY ones who have permission to take him to the beach. If the creepy next door neighbor takes him to the beach without permission that’s wrong.
I’m not asking you to believe that God’s perspective is true at this point, I’m just hoping you can see that it’s self consistent in this area. (OK at least it seems self consistent to me. So if you think it isn’t I’d be interested to know why - though do remember all analogies fail at some point, so don’t feel that these analogies extend to gasoline or doors or air bags : ) ).
May 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
FRANK:
If you say “for the good of society,” it seems to me you are begging the question by smuggling in an objective standard of “good.” Where does this standard come from? (Note: I’m not asking you HOW YOU KNOW murder is wrong, but WHY is murder wrong.)
DAVE:
Let me save you a bit of typing, Frank. Wes, assuming he returns, is going to give a moral reason why murder is wrong. From that you are going to derive a system (or partial system) of morality. You will then critique that system — and if you’re like most Christians I know, you will do so on the basis that it lacks a means of cosmic enforcement. You will conclude that atheism, insofar as it relies on that moral system, is therefore flawed.
Two problems. First, cosmic enforcement is not necessary for the soundness of a moral system; if a criminal is never apprehended or even identified by law enforcement, that does not mean that no crime has been committed. Second, atheism does not rely upon that, or any, moral system. “Mere atheism” does not take any position at all on morality, except insofar as it denies systems of morality which necessitate the existence of a god — and with excellent reason, as it happens, but that’s for another post.
NEIL:
I’m not asking you to believe that God’s perspective is true at this point, I’m just hoping you can see that it’s self consistent in this area. (OK at least it seems self consistent to me. So if you think it isn’t I’d be interested to know why - though do remember all analogies fail at some point, so don’t feel that these analogies extend to gasoline or doors or air bags : ) ).
DAVE:
Self-consistency is a trivial matter for any set of propositions, including the set which constitutes a theistic worldview; one need only add and/or subtract propositions, as needed, to remove any logical contradictions. For example, in response to the logical argument from suffering, the Christian can avoid contradiction by subtracting one of the following propositions from his worldview:
1) God is all-powerful.
2) God is all-knowing.
3) God is all-loving.
4) Suffering exists.
5) Logic obtains.
Of course, arguing against 5 is self-defeating, and arguing against 4 is a sure sign of lunacy, so Christians will usually respond by arguing against 1, 2 or 3 — although they will usually mask it in the guise of a theodicy, “free will” or somesuch. If you want to call a being without 1, 2 or 3 “God,” then I can’t really argue against that — there are people whose call their toasters God. But I would respectfully disagree.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Dave,
That’s fine. As long as you see that the Biblical concept of death and killing is self consistent.
As to your changing the topic to a new one, you have merely restated the “How can God exist when their is so much suffering and evil in the word?” question.
In light of that, we end up back at Frank’s question, which I don’t think your responded to adequately. If we are just accidentally well evolved cells and if as you say ““Mere atheism” does not take any position at all on morality,” then why is murder/evil/suffering wrong? What standard do you have to say that it’s bad or wrong. What is your basis for insisting it’s wrong. Was Hitler evil or wrong? If so why?
My recommendation is that we move this question and your response to http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=52 where we’ve discussed this particular topic and there’s some history there that you may find pertinent and it will save us having to repeat some of what we’ve already said.
I also have a question for you stated there.
I am still interested in what Atheists would do if they found out that God was real tomorrow (which I don’t think you’ve really answered Dave. Not that you have to, but I’m still curious to know what you would do - no scare tactics : ) ). I’ve already described what I would do if I found out that God did not exist tomorrow. So what would YOU do?
May 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I seem to have been ignored. Oh well…
May 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
db0
An A-theistic deity is an oxymoron. Such a god is logically impossible by definition and has exactly 0 probability of existing so answering the question you posed is a futile exercise. It’s like answering the following question:
Have you stopped never existing yet?
Hence, no one responded to your point. Sorry you felt ignored.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Just reading this thread and some of the responses from Christians has convinced me even more how much of a confusing mess the Christian religion truly is. Thank you.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Ernie, this is incorrect. I defined the deity in a way that it can exist.
What is oxymoronic about it?
I took the time to write this challenge in more detail so perhaps I am more clear now.
Cheers!
May 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
db0 said: “What if the God of Atheists existed? This God does not reveal himself to you but will only reward people who believe that no God exists, even just statisticaly (not even him) and come to this conclusion through crirical and rational thinking.
Based on this God, who will never provide the overwhelming proof you need (I guess, nothing less than personal appearance at this point) to be converted, you will end up in whatever punishment he deems worthy.
How do you deal with potential existence of such a God?”
db0 I think this maybe a strawman. Here’s how I came to that thought:
I would respond: But db0 How can you worship something that you cannot be sure about and is only defined in such a fuzzy manner?
To which you will say: Aha, what about the Xian God. He’s exactly that.
I say: But that’s what we disagree about. That’s where the argument lies. Not in whether you can be 100% sure or not (i.e. OVERWHELMING proof - the strawman), but that REASONABLE evidence DOES INDEED exist and it points towards the Christian God. I’m trying to argue that it ISN’T fuzzy nor OVERWHELMING (the 2 extremes). It seems that you are trying to argue that it needs to be overwhelming and it’s way too fuzzy right now. Be assured db0 if I thought the Christian God was this fuzzy unknowable inconsistent no rational backing kind of concept, I’d be on your side.
So maybe the issue is that I don’t need a “personal” appearance of this God to have overwhelming proof and you do. All I need is a reasonable argument. Similar to what I’d ask for if I were a juror in a murder case. I don’t need to see Fred getting shot, I just need a good case (beyond a reasonable doubt) that John did it to convict John. I live my life like that. I don’t need to take a car on a 5 day cross country trip to make sure it will make a 5 day cross country trip. Consumer Reports, other people’s experiences, a test run, a mechanic’s check up. These things work for me. Could I be wrong? Sure I can. Can I ever be 100% sure? Rarely, and if I waited for that a lot of great things would never have happened (like marrying my darling wife of 8 years, pics at www.noblindfaith.com).
Even in my industry. We don’t test 100% of our chips at the full specification. We test samples in detail and apply it to the batch.
Ah but you say: I can show you a reasonable argument that God does NOT exist.
But is that the same and can you indeed? Most of my atheists friends agree and are quite right when they argue with me in this case, “But it’s hard to argue the negative” they complain. It IS hard to argue the negative. I agree. I can’t prove that invisible pink elephants exist. So I’m skeptical that you can show me a reasonable or overwhelming argument that God does NOT exist.
But I could be wrong. And I’d be loathe to NOT give you the opportunity. So if you can I’d love to see it. If it’s compelling and can refute most of my reasonable reasons to believe in God, I’d have to accept it.
But to help you let me say: If you can’t easily prove that God does not exist does that automatically means he DOES exist? Of course not.
But in the presence of that AND if there’s a reasonable argument that shows
1. There is a requirement for an extra-dimensional non-mechanistic first cause that no one can avoid without postulating unprovable multiverses or disproved collapsing and expanding universes. And the characteristics of this first cause matches the claims of Christianity.
2. There is a rational case for the accuracy of the New Testament documents and the historicity of Jesus.
3. There is a rational case for the death and resurrection of Jesus.
4. There is a rational case for the existence of an absolute moral value and thus a standard and thus a standard giver who has authority over all humans.
5. There is a rational case for the presence of multidimensional space and things that we cannot fathom.
If I see all those reasonable arguments (which I do) then I’d be swayed to believe it was more rational to believe in a first cause than not to.
(a housekeeping note:
Please note each of these above items can and should be debated, but if you wish to do so please debate them in the appropriate categories and not under this blog. If you need us to start a blog discussion site for any that are missing leave a message here and someone will do so. )
May 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Unfortunately. this is not what I was aiming at.
I am not attempting to challenge the fuzziness or instability of your belief as I see it. Like any other different theist, your belief in your deity of choice is absolute and rock-solid but in the same breath your disbelief of all other deities is also absolute. For you, all evidence for other religions is as fuzzy and inconsistent as the evidence for the existence of this particular god of atheism.
Thus, we cannot possibly reach a consensus on who’s deity exists or not and I do not bother trying to convince you otherwise currently.
The point I was trying to make is to make you see the impossibility of your last sentence where you claim that you will praise any other god that makes himself known to you. This god is thus, the proverbial rod in the gear.
By knowing that he exists, you have already lost the game.
He does not want your worship but rather wants you to use your mind to come to the conclusion that there is no god. If you wish, you can consider your non-belief on any gods to be the “worship” he requires.
You ask us then: What if the Christian God exists, what would you do (and list a bunch of questions which form an invisible Pascal’s Wager). I answer and counter back with my own query. The same way that you attempted to make Atheists think of something impossible to happen, I want you to think of this impossibility as well.
I could easily argue that point and you probably just as easily argue back. However you will agree that this will get out of the current topic.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
db0,
I guess there’s a technical problem here:
You said: “He [the atheist god] does not want your worship but rather wants you to use your mind to come to the conclusion that there is no god.”
But if he exists there IS a god. In which case as a truth seeker, I would not be able to come to the conclusion there is no god. This is a self refuting concept. So I’m not sure if it is a valid question that you are posing.
That’s like you saying: I don’t exist.
Well if you don’t exist. Who said that?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
NEIL:
As to your changing the topic to a new one, you have merely restated the “How can God exist when their is so much suffering and evil in the word?” question.
In light of that, we end up back at Frank’s question, which I don’t think your responded to adequately. If we are just accidentally well evolved cells and if as you say ““Mere atheism” does not take any position at all on morality,” then why is murder/evil/suffering wrong? What standard do you have to say that it’s bad or wrong. What is your basis for insisting it’s wrong. Was Hitler evil or wrong? If so why?
DAVE:
I can’t help but notice that you — and I mean you Christians in general, not just you in particular — often insist on sticking to that question when it comes to the subject of morality. For example, although a lot of points were put forth above, you and Frank and Ernie all stuck to the point of the morality of God murdering Pharoah’s son. And you have a pretty good reason for doing so: it places the atheist in a methodological dilemma. Either he responds to the question, in which case he submits a system of morality which the Christian invariably takes to be *the* atheist system of morality and critiques from an internally Christian perspective, thus sidetracking the conversation, or he doesn’t respond, in which case he is accused of ducking it. So the Christian either has an escape hatch onto more familiar ground or an opportunity to score rhetorical points. Hence any reluctance we might have to answer the question.
In the context of this discussion, however, it is sufficient to note that the problem of suffering, as I stated it above, does not appeal to any moral aspect present in the definition of God, but rather to the fact that God is defined as all-loving.
NEIL:
My recommendation is that we move this question and your response to http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=52 where we’ve discussed this particular topic and there’s some history there that you may find pertinent and it will save us having to repeat some of what we’ve already said.
DAVE:
I don’t see the point since, as I’ve stated, the problem of suffering is not a moral one.
NEIL:
I am still interested in what Atheists would do if they found out that God was real tomorrow (which I don’t think you’ve really answered Dave. Not that you have to, but I’m still curious to know what you would do - no scare tactics : ) ). I’ve already described what I would do if I found out that God did not exist tomorrow. So what would YOU do?
DAVE:
As I’ve indicated above, any possible answer I could give to that question would be entirely arbitrary. Perhaps I would cower in fear. Perhaps I would extend a series of questions as Wes did above. Perhaps I would eat lime jello. Perhaps I would challenge a nearby angel to a game of foosball. Who knows? If you can explain to me how, in the context of your theology, it would make a difference, then perhaps you can pin me down to a particular answer — but until then, what’s the point?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Let me quote part of the definition as I provided on my site
By this definition, it would be impossible for you to reach the conclusion that this God exists. You can only ever meet him in the afterlife (which you shouldn’t believe in either).
Once you get to reach him, he will ask you why you kept believing in flimsy evidence of false gods instead of reaching the reasonable conclusions that no god exist.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
What db0 is trying to do is say that the question you, Neil, posed is asking atheists to answer an impossible question. He could have done it in a less confusing way I suppose, but his point is made. I, too, don’t find much value in this question and don’t really ever use it in discussions in other places. It’s an emotionally based question “what if you are wrong?” There is no point served in an atheist answering it until after they are already convinced as being wrong.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Dave,
interesting. Many people see this AS a moral issue, as in:
If God is all powerful and doesn’t stop suffering then he is a bad God.
Therefore God is not all powerful or God is not good.
OK but lest I create a strawman let me clarify: Is your question then this:
Since suffering exists and God does not stop the suffering, he is therefore not an all loving God? Or he is not an all powerful God because he is unable to stop the suffering.
If this is what you mean. I’ll start a new blog entry to address it. If it’s not what you mean please clarify.
I actually had written up a blog entry to deal with this 3 days ago but was waiting to post it. Let me know.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I’ve found the answers very informative and enlightening actually and will blog about it at some point to clarify how.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
In short, the insurmountable problem of evil
May 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Hardly insurmountable, db0. Don’t call the game just as the first quarter is getting good!
I’ll wait for Neil to post the appropriate blog to comment further.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Fair enough. Lets see how the argument unfolds. I’ll be interested to see a potential refutation of it.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The blog is up: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=55
Neil
May 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I’ve taken my part in the discussion there.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Natural morality: If I want at least one person to live (anyone, even if it is just myself), then I cannot support a society of murderers. The probability that the one person will be murdered becomes too high when any murder is tolerated.
Faith people’s morality: Murder is wrong because God will send you to hell for it.
I find natural morality, based on logic and the human brain’s evolved emotional system, to be relevant, tangible, and immediately informative. Simple math makes the best moral arguments. If I want to live, I cannot celebrate my murderer.
I find the faith people’s morality to be flimsy, abstract, submissive, and reactive. Under their system, I don’t know if they will hug me or lynch me. What new interpretation of their vague little book will be popular this decade? Does it favor my minority, or will they burn me? How about next decade?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Frank: “WHY is murder wrong”
Because if people went about murdering each other human society could not survive and consequently humans would go extinct. That’s why murder is wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Murder is only wrong when people do it. When God does it, it is OK. That seems to be Frank and Ernie’s argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I would check myself in to a mental hospital and beg for therapy and medication as quick as possible. Hopefully, if all went ok, they would help me find my sanity again and I would realize I don’t live in a fantasy world you crazies call religion.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Kendenny,
Extinction would be the result of universal murder, but that is arguing in a circle. Why is extinction or murder wrong? If there is no God, by what objective standard is murder wrong? If only chemicals exist, how can anything be morally wrong?
BTW, if there is a God, when He takes life it is not murder. He is the creator of life and has the power to resurrect it. We do not.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
May 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
From what moral principle do you derive the right to kill a sentient being from the ability to create and resurrect sentient beings?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Anthony,
~~~~Faith people’s morality: Murder is wrong because God will send you to hell for it.~~~~
This is an incorrect perception. Murder is not wrong because of the punishment for murder. Murder is wrong because the Creator of the universe is the only being that rightfully may take life. He delegated that capacity to governments so that they can take the life of individuals who commit crimes worthy of death (i.e. taking of another’s life in such a way that is no in accordance with the law).
God cannot logically commit murder. He may kill as He deems necessary and is in accordance with His nature, but He will not do so in a way that is arbitrary, that show partiality.
The rest of your post about Christian morality is not worth responding further to.
Ken,
Perhaps if you were to DEFINE murder as you are using it we would be closer to the same page.
As I understand and use the term “murder” God cannot logically commit murder.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Why is extinction wrong?” Did you actually ask that? Are you that stupid? I am feeling a strong urge to type a heaping load of profanity here in 20 point font. I can’t argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge logic. Did God have to tell you that 2+2=4 before you’d believe it?
Ernie, you are just as bad Murder isn’t murder when God does it? How about I give you a nice gift then one night I sneak into your house and steal it. According to your logic I wouldn’t have done anything wrong.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Ken,
I did not say “murder isn’t murder when God does it”. That is a logical contradiction.
What I said was that it is logically impossible for God to commit murder.
I am still waiting for you to define murder for me in a way that lets me know we are communicating from the same foundation. If you have a different definition of murder than I do, we may just be mis-communicating. I don’t want to assume anything about your position so I am asking you to define explicitly what the word means.
Thanks.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Ernie, just to demonstrate that you understand the concept of logical impossibility, please identify the contradictory propositions entailed by God having the ability to commit murder.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Just taking a quick break….
Kendenny said: “Why is extinction wrong?” Did you actually ask that? Are you that stupid? I am feeling a strong urge to type a heaping load of profanity here in 20 point font. I can’t argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge logic.”
Kendenny, what you have stated is not an argument. It’s an ad hominum. Seeing your writing in the past leads me to know that you are capable of far more articulate responses. Why stoop to this?
I’d expected to see a number of things in response to the original statement from you:
1. Why is the extinction of something that “accidentally**” came to life “immoral”. Using the atheistic standards I can understand that it’s unfortunate, not preferred, not pleasant to a person or group, yes, but wrong or immoral seems surprising. So I would like to see your articulate argument about why it is “wrong”. It is not self evident to me or to many on this site.
2. Can you define what your standard of right and wrong is? If we have no common understanding or a standard for right vs. wrong, its hard to then determine if something like extinction is wrong.
Remember an appeal to the “obviousness” of something is only valid if it indeed is non-contradictory and follows logically and has no exceptions to the rule e.g. your example of 2+2 = 4. Or all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates was mortal. This is valid as long as each statement is true. i.e. Are ALL men truly mortal? Is Socrates really a man. If so then the conclusion follows, if one can show one of those statements is false e.g. Socrates is really a computer in my basement. Then the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
** Note using the Christian standard even something that “accidentally” came to life should not be killed, because that standard says that ALL Life is a gift from the Creator. But let’s not go down that rabbit trail right now.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Neil, just for clarification:
1) Are you asking Kendenny to state his own standard of morality, or that of a larger group of people?
2) Is it your position that, if objective morals exist then they are, by definition, self-evident?
Also — although I’m sure it’s been mentioned here, but I don’t have time at present to go hunting for it — what is your response to the ED?
Also also — do you intend to post in the problem of suffering thread? James has conceded the discussion, and I don’t know where Ernie’s gone off to.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Hi Dave,
I do plan to post the Suffering reponse, it just got really busy. I shouldn’t even be responding to Kendenny or you till I’ve done paying my employees and billing my customers…. : ). I’m sure you know how it goes paperwork is always tedious.
But here’s a quick response for now:
1. I think I’m asking Kendenny to state the standard that he thinks applies to BOTH him and whomever he was responding to. Since he expected that to be self evident to the person he was writing to.
2. The reason I brought up self evidence was because Kendenny seemed to expect that the “badness” of extinction was self evident. If he doesn’t think it is self evident then this can be ignored.
Sorry I missed the thread: What is the ED?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
NEIL:
1. I think I’m asking Kendenny to state the standard that he thinks applies to BOTH him and whomever he was responding to. Since he expected that to be self evident to the person he was writing to.
DAVE:
Just Kendenny’s standard, then? Fair enough.
NEIL:
2. The reason I brought up self evidence was because Kendenny seemed to expect that the “badness” of extinction was self evident. If he doesn’t think it is self evident then this can be ignored.
DAVE:
I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear — I didn’t ask you the reason why you brought the subject up. I asked if you believe that objective morals are, by definition, self-evident.
NEIL:
Sorry I missed the thread: What is the ED?
DAVE:
Euthyphro Dilemma.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
DAVE SAID:
Just Kendenny’s standard, then? Fair enough.
Yes, I think it’s a good start. Although this would make Kendenny’s “anger” irrational. He has a standard and he expects his reader to know that standard without it being the reader’s standard. It seemed that Kendenny was angry because he thought the reader SHOULD share that same standard and didn’t.
But even if we let Kendenny slide on that, at some point I think it’s valid to perhaps ask why Kendenny’s standards applies to anyone else.
One imagines that if it’s just his preference then why would anyone else be forced to adhere to it? How can you call something “bad” for someone else. You can say “I don’t prefer that I go extinct or that something else goes extinct.” To whit the response could be: Well I personally prefer that it does so why do YOU call it bad?
DAVE asked:
“I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear — I didn’t ask you the reason why you brought the subject up. I asked if you believe that objective morals are, by definition, self-evident.”
Oh my mistake. This is a slightly different discussion question and it didn’t click.
I don’t think that ALL moral values are self evident. But I think that at least 1 is.
I also know that culture and traditions can over ride much of what we think is moral. E.g. suppression of women, slavery etc. But that does not mean they are not, moral values that were always there. For instance not many of us want to argue that leaving your female baby out for the wolves to eat was always immoral even though the Romans thought it was a noble thing to do (to get rid of unwanted daughters). Is this self evident? Apparently not to the Romans. It wasn’t until the oppressed Christians started rescuing the babies that things started to change.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
NEIL:
But even if we let Kendenny slide on that, at some point I think it’s valid to perhaps ask why Kendenny’s standards applies to anyone else.
DAVE:
I can’t really answer that without knowing if Kendenny is a moral objectivist or a moral subjectivist — atheism is not committed to one or the other, and you’ll find many atheists in both camps. I can make a couple guesses at what his answer will be, but again, I don’t want to misconstrue someone else’s position, so I’ll let him address it.
NEIL:
I don’t think that ALL moral values are self evident. But I think that at least 1 is.
DAVE:
So it’s your position that some moral values are not self-evident. Okay. Again, just checking.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Yes, it would seem that some moral values are not self-evident primarily because culture, tradition and self-justification can over rule them. I could be wrong of course. Some moral values are self evident in that when someone brings your attention to them you realize that they are self evident.
I reserve the right to be wrong on this and change my mind though….: )
May 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Hello. I don’t have much of a comment, but I’d like to say that this is a very interesting thread. Imagine this! Atheists and theists talking about their similarities and differences (peacefully, I might add). Not bad
If nothing else, I hope that this goes to show that many (if not most) atheists have solid reasons for their beliefs. It’s not emotional or illogical. And we’ve thought things through (often, over analyzed before coming to our conclusions).
And Frank … I was at your “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” lecture at UNCW. I even asked a question! I’m still an atheist, and it made total sense to me that there weren’t many professors at your talk. From what I got in your lecture, you’re a creationist, but believe in the big bang (God guided of course). You also said that morality is your strongest argument for a God, yet that (in my opinion) is the weakest argument for a God. I think that our morality evolved. In order to live in civilized societies we had to have laws (established by reason and compassion - things that philosophers thought of long before Jesus).
I’ve made up my mind that I won’t be bullied into belief. I won’t let fear of hell force me into being a believer. As Al Gore says, “Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason.” Atheists are not perfect, but we’re no better/worse than Christians. If I ever become a believer (and I never say never) it’ll be willingly and because I love the message and not because of scare tactics.
Here’s to us understanding/appreciating each other more.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Kudo’s to you for not being bullied into belief.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
nonfictions, I’d be curious to your response to the blog question at top.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Neil said: “Christian standard”.
Please be more specific and use “MY Christian standard”. Christianity is a minority religion on Earth, and within it there are countless different interpretations. I know you don’t think you speak for everyone, right?
99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Our own species has come amazingly close to exictition at least once - no thanks to the Jesus that took 199,998 years to arrive and save us, and even then only showed up for backwards supersititious folk in the middle east.
I believe I am no greater than any other species (humility), and thus it takes signficiant work and effort to earn the right for our species to live and thrive. Many theists, on the other hand, since they know the mind of the creator of everything, know their specieis is greater than all other species on earth, and will be saved and protected over the others (hubris).
Extinction is not immoral in the eyes of natural selection. I do not call nature “immoral”, I just call it nature. Humanity holds the moral capacity, not rocks. So humanhuman behavior is subject to the human morality of logic, evolved emotion, and cultural zeitgeist.
199,999 years of living in superstition, believing in gods and faeries, practicing magic, and our species made little progress. 500 years of naturalistic, scientific, myth-reduced thinking, and we’ve tripled our lifespans, eliminated many diseases, and significantly reduced hunger and interstate conflicts.
Also note - In my world view, Neil and Ernie, you have never based any morals on the existence of God. Every moral decision you have ever made was based on your reason, your emotional system, and your relationship with a moral zeitgeist. This can include your theism. However, it does not require the truth-value of gods/magic/etc.
Ernie - When I say “I don’t know if they will hug me or lynch me”, I am serious. Christians are so wild and varied in how they think they know the mind of the creator of everything. Some christians think they know that the creator of everything wants them to, if not kill, then at least oppress certain types of humans. Other christians think they know that the creator of everything wants them to love everyone. Everyone knows what the creator of everything wants, and its frequently different depending on which christians you ask.
So I am quite serious when I say I don’t know if I can expect a hug or a lynching from any random christian. It’s a guessing game.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Anthony said: Please be more specific and use “MY Christian standard”. Christianity is a minority religion on Earth, and within it there are countless different interpretations. I know you don’t think you speak for everyone, right?
Yes you are correct. This is my interpretation of the Standard. I was using “Christian standard” in relationship to Abortion, specifically to unplanned pregnancies. I guess it was not obvious to you from the context. My apologies. But in fairness this standard is shared if I may add by a majority of the population of Christians (especially Catholics) and indeed recent polling showed by a majority of the US. 66% agree that Abortion should only be permitted in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in Danger and not because some teens were messing around and will be inconvenience by a baby that should be given up for adoptoin. I’ll start another blog on abortion if you wish to debate those issues.
Anthony said: Christianity is a minority religion on Earth.
Not that I think this is relevant to the argument but for the sake of information and factual accuracy, and interest:
While Christians are a large minority on the planet, Christianity is the dominant religion on Earth. There are more Christians than there are any other single religion (almost 2B). It is not the fastest growing religion in percentage but it is the fastest growing religion in numbers. The fastest growing religion in percentage is actually Bahaism (since there are so few of them). Yet every hour of every day 5,300 people are added to the Christian faith, every day 127,000, every year 45.4M. Most of these are through conversions vs. births. Converted Christians (vs. born Christians) tend to be more evangelical and tend to have a larger percentage of unsaved friends who then shortly become Christians as well (a shorter turn around time to replication).
Atheists in comparison have actually shrunk in numbers in the last 30 years.
Muslims are growing at a slight faster rate but are lower in raw numbers (2.77% a year vs. 2.33% for Christians). Interestingly most Muslim growth is from births not conversions and they have to wait till they are married to produce more Muslims, and it is been statistically shown that as many Muslim countries enter the industrial age or get rich the population will stabilize and grow less rapidly. This has been a major concern for Muslim scholars.
And here’s the final interesting point that I know people are wondering. The rate of Christian growth is 2.3x the earth’s total population growth. In other words the density of Christians (and Muslims is growing). Most of this growth is in Africa and Asia. China being the nation with some of the fastest growth. It is postulated that there may actually be more Christians in China than in the US today and all indications is that this rate is increasing rapidly through conversions.
Source: World Christian Trends, Barrett and Johnson.
Of course none of this means that Christians are right. Just that we seem to have a better marketing campaign.
It’s true that I personally think we are also right, but then isn’t that what this discussion is all about.
So Viva la discussion.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Anthony said: So I am quite serious when I say I don’t know if I can expect a hug or a lynching from any random christian. It’s a guessing game.
Anthony, let me assure you that if Frank or I or any of the Christians on this site and indeed any of the Christians at my church were to see you being lynched for your unbelief by “self claimed Christians” we would sacrifice ourselves to protect you. There is no justification in the Bible or in any of our creeds for that. We would call those men evil and fight to protect you.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Anthony said: 199,999 years of living in superstition, believing in gods and faeries, practicing magic, and our species made little progress. 500 years of naturalistic, scientific, myth-reduced thinking, and we’ve tripled our lifespans, eliminated many diseases, and significantly reduced hunger and interstate conflicts.
Anthony I’d be curious if you can cite the faith of those founding fathers of Science of the last 500 years and see what the predominate view of a Creator was uptil 50 years ago. I don’t mean what they tolerated, but what they really believed about a Creator, a first cause an uncaused cause.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I believe you, Neil. But unless your type start wearing certain clothes to distinguish yourselves, I cannot tell you apart from all the other christians - and indeed theists.
I also can’t tell if “they” are the “so-called Christians”, or if YOU are the “so-called Christians”. It’s a blurry, unpredictable mess from my perspective.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Anthony I’d be curious if you can cite the faith of those founding fathers”
Theists and deists galore, Neil.
199,999 years of superstition and mythology and we slowly and incrementally learned a better approach. The pioneers of this effort were surely still saturated with old ways.
You can’t do something for 199,999 years and not expect it to be a hard habit to break.
But within a few centuries, those that embraced the new ways rapidly dropped the old, hence the overwhelming majority of atheists/agnostics/Einsteinian pantheism in the hard sciences.
In a way, I respect your superstitions and beliefs in deities and magic, Neil. Because you are expressing the homo sapiens experience in its most natural, most traditional (two hundred thousand years of tradition), and most evolved form. I am exploiting evolutionary byproducts and loopholes (such as using an evolved causation system to apply to complicated mathematics) to reach my conclusion. You are more… natural… in your beliefs.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Anthony Said; I believe you, Neil. But unless your type start wearing certain clothes to distinguish yourselves, I cannot tell you apart from all the other christians - and indeed theists.
Anthony, I thank you for that.
You will know us by our love and compassion.
Prior to Christ there were no concept of unreturned benevolence. No hospitals for those who could not afford it, no charities for the downtrodden, no labor laws, etc. Having grown up in Africa, I can tell you anytime there was a calamity the first people on the scene with aid were the Christians with food, medical aid and no expectations. Many Christians died doing this (like the recent killings of the doctors I knew in the Middle East, doctors who’d work for free all their lives).
Americans gave over 260 Billion dollars to help the poor last year. Most came from Christians and Churches, conservatives gave 30% more than liberals.
(Source Albert Brooks: Who Really Cares).
As Captain Cook said (paraphrased), if you were on the savages seas and shipwrecked on an island with a tribe with a cannibalistic traditions, you would surely pray that some missionary was there before you and had converted them.
Or as another person said: If I were walking down a dark alley way in the city in the heart of some blighted neighborhood and suddenly a door opened and band of teenagers poured out of a home, I’d sure hope they were coming out a Bible study.
If you’ve met those who would harm you for your faith, I can confidentially say you have not met real Christians and would invite you to our church (Family Community Church www.fccchurch.com) any day. We will treat you with respect and love and compassion and acceptance.
I think you are really really safe with us Evangelicals. But remember tolerance is not approval.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Anthony said: In a way, I respect your superstitions and beliefs in deities and magic, Neil
Anthony, what on this site has led you to believe that the participants on this site are superstitious? Do superstitious people argue for logic and rationality: In my experience a superstitious person would respond as follows:
Atheist: God is irrational and Suffering proves God does not exist.
Superstitious Christian: Of course God is irrational. All faith is irrational. You must have blind faith to believe in God otherwise he is not happy (quotes Emmanuel Kant).
To which the Non Superstitious Christians on this site would respond: God is NOT irrational. We are trying to show why that is true using logic, arguments, rational discussion and no appeals to illogic. Blind faith is actually not only un-biblical but it was condemned by Jesus, Paul, most of the Disciples and in the Old Testament it was punished by God.
So welcome to the site and remember no superstitious Christians need apply.
Feel free to check out my personal website: www.NoBlindFaith.com
May 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Neil, flying ghosts, performing behaviors to satisfy the god(s), magical beings that control nature, spirits and souls that live in the body, mythical lands beyond our reality, divine avatars - I don’t see the difference between you and any other tribal superstitious belief over the past 200,000 years of human history. I don’t see how all myths are myths but somehow yours is .. magically .. exempt and not superstition.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Anthony, try this to start with: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=53
“Is the supernatural Impossible?”
Superstitious would imply that you believe blindly regardless of feasibility or possibility or evidence.
If a tribes person believed that there was a man from whom fire came from his hands and destroyed them, this would ONLY be a superstitious blind faith if no-one had ever done that. But what if 40 years ago a man had come by with a flame thrower and killed some of them. This would not be a superstitious blind faith faith would it? Of course they may enhance the myth and that would be superstitious. But condemning the entire story as impossible would actually be blind faith and close mindedness.
So don’t look at ONLY what we believe, but see if WHY we believe it makes sense. Dispute the evidence, don’t make overarching sweeping blind statements that discredit that which you have not studied carefully. THAT would be blind faith. As Frank so aptly states it in his book. I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist.
There’s your starting point to dispute the facts and arguments stated there. Only irrational people refuse to listen to reason because they’ve ALREADY decided that it’s not possible.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Is it impossible that the contents of my imagination are real?”
I can imagine a creator god. I can imagine a god listening to my prayers. I can imagine a holy spirit giving me energy in times of need.
I can look at the mystery of the origin of the universe and imagine a god there rather than simple energy, and feel satisfied in that answer.
But why stop there - I can imagine gremlins caused my MP3 player to crash.
There is countless evidence that humans have vivid imaginations which can produce tangible experiences. However, there is no evidence that I’ve seen that 1) indicates forces beyond nature and 2) rules out imagination.
So your question is nonsensical to me, Neil. I don’t know if you are talking about your wild imagination or… well I have no clue what you are talking about. I read the other post and, well, it just seems like you are excited about all the imaginative possibilities that you can brainstorm. Which is cute and all… but.. yea… no clue what you’re talking about.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Superstitious folk believe in a man with flames shooting from his hands. Then they see a man with a flame thrower. Now they have a rational basis for their superstition? Huh?
If you told me, “Anthony, we Christians believe that Jesus could shoot flames out of his hands” I would not be surprised in the slightest. In fact, I’m surprised you haven’t made this claim already. Might as well.
Neil, seriously, you believe in flying ghosts, performing behaviors to satisfy the god(s), magical beings that control nature, spirits and souls that live in the body, mythical lands beyond our reality, divine avatars. I don’t understand why you just can’t own that you are superstitious. Be proud of your 200,000 year old legacy.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Anthony, what you have stated are not arguments, but statements. Merely making statements does not refute nor present any arguments. Either refute some of our arguments or present your own logical arguments.
You can express incredulity or surprise or disdain all day long, but until you refute our arguments you are committing various fallacies. That’s as silly as a Christian saying: Anthony you actually think your father was a monkey? I can’t believe you are that gullible.
Obviously that statement contains multiple fallacies i.e.
a. this is a strawman ( evolutionists do not believe they came from monkeys)
b. this does not address the claim of speciation but attacks the intelligence of the evolutionist
So do present some arguments and let’s see if you are able to argue and debate rationally and logically.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Argue what, Neil? If I can’t even establish that your ideas exist outside of your imagination in the first place, then why should I dig through all the complex details of your imagination?
You invite atheists to your site, and I think I speak for a lot of atheists in saying that we don’t even understand the broad belief of magical being(s) controlling nature in general, let alone all your highly specific rationalizations.
Do you not think that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have complex, detailed, highly rational point-by-point breakdowns? Or muslims? Or UFO conspiracy theoriests? The wiccans? The scientologists?
You invite atheists to your site, and you start going off dozens of detailed rationalizations, and then call us fallacious in not going point-to-point with you.
I will go point-to-point with a historian. I will go point-to-point with a chemist, a physicist, or a geologist. I will go to point-to-point with a sports broadcaster, a chess player, or a software programmer. I will because all of them have lots of evidence, in addition to rational arguments.
You… I can’t figure it out, Neil. Voodoo, magic, deities.. I just don’t see why you think your so special as to deserve more attention. Why should anyone listen to you over, say, David Koresh or Mahatma Ghandi or Louis Farrakhan? What makes Neil Mammen the person with something different to say about mythical beings - that his magic spirits are real and everyone elses are false?
There are millions of people with amazing mythologies and ideas. As a simple man, I simply cannot consider them all carefully and debate them point to point in my lifetime. I need something… some tangible evidence… some predictive value… to even begin filtering them down to those most plausible, and thus worthy of consideration.
Mine is a common atheists view, Neil. If you are truly interested in our position, this is a common one. So you’re right, I won’t debate you on all your fine rational exercises, just as I won’t debate Solapurian Muslims on the specifics of dropping babies off towers for their health. If what you have to offer ever solves a disease, or hunger, or a mystery in mathematics, then I might enter into your imaginative stories. But until then, I, and many many atheists, think this is all in your head.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:45 am
See there you go again, making ad hominems. I have gone head to head with lots of blind faithists, 9-11 conspiricists and have pointed facts and logic to them to refute their arguments. I have not ranted or raved at them.
Yet sadly I have not seen a single refutation from you. You only express incredulity. Well I feel incredulous that you have not stated anything here besides some random opinions and some rants. It’s not much help in trying to understand you, and it won’t result in any useful discussion. So state an argument or provide a refutation.
You’ve already spent a few thousand words to say the same thing multiple times. i.e. “why should I argue with you.” Perhaps you could utilize some of those words and the time you’ve spent here to form a coherent argument. So far all you have done is argue that you don’t have the time or see the need to argue. Then why are you arguing about that?
You’ve already read my posts and have obviously spent time thinking about it and engaging with us. Why do that and then complain that you don’t have time to engage with us? I sense some disingenuousness.
And if your whole point is to try and berate other points of views without engaging in debate, then one wonders if you really can articulate a coherent logical argument. I would imagine you can. But until we see some of that we are left to wonder if you are just an “angry atheist”.
Remember the Monty Python Argument Skit? Well I think you think you are in “Abuse”. But you are in Arguments, Abuse is 4 doors down at perhaps at an angry atheists website. This is for atheists who are not angry and are truth seekers like the Christians on this site.
Saying that I believe in magic when I’ve clearly shown that I don’t is not a refutation, it’s an ad hominem. Surely my weak logic should be putty in the hands of a master thinker. And if you cannot change my mind, surely you can affect the 1000’s of others who read your posts.
Anthony remember opposing arguments are welcome here, we like them, but remember we are looking for ARGUMENTS, not rants. To tell the truth, writing 3 very long posts telling me that you don’t have time to discuss my arguments seems kinda silly and self defeating doesn’t it. If you didn’t have time to refute it, why spend all that time?
So bring it on - the arguments that is (just stick to the blog topics if possible) so people know where to find it. There are lots of blog options. I can even start a new thread especially for you like I did for Dave.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Meanwhile Anthony, perhaps you can answer the question already - what would you do if tomorrow you found out that the God of the Bible was real?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Oh I almost missed that: I didn’t realize that you needed me to qualify myself to speak with you. If you will go point to point with a physicist then go for it. I have a minor in Physics, a double major bachelors in Computers and Electrical Engineering, a double major Masters in Solid State Physics and Computers and have worked in the Technical scientific field for over 25 years, have founded 4 startup companies in the US and one overseas, been Chief Technology Officer for two companies, VP of R&D of one and have over 16 technology patents either pending or issued to my name. Oh and I won the grand prize Saturn EV1 Car for the EE Times inventors competition.
Now will you go point to point with me? : )
By the way what are YOUR qualifications if we are playing that game?
Oh and I bet my dad can beat up your dad in Physics too (he’s a professor in Physics and an ex Atheist). : ) Did you want to discuss my mom? Well she (and dad) were personal friends of Mother Teresa (who used to come over to our house all the time -seriously - I have a funny story about that too - of course we didn’t know she was THE Mother Teresa. She was just one of our friends with a horrendous accent). But you’d probably like one of my favorite uncles. He was a communist and an atheist. Nicest guy but the Prime Minister of India in the 50s had a price on his head for being a commie and he had to go underground for years. Of course he became a lawyer and become filthy rich later on. Always use to spoil us kids when we visited. What a great guy.
Oh and my cat’s a genius too. (OK I”m just kidding about my cat…she’s really a lazy purring drooling slob and only knows how to come when called but can’t do addition…but we love her anyway).
So come now Anthony, some arguments, some refutations, no ad homimems.
Come let us reason together.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Haha Neil, I wasn’t asking for qualifications. But I hope you enjoyed yourself.
I was asking for something, anything, that distinguishes your magic beings from Tom Cruise’s magic beings. I could walk down the street in New York and gather a dozen different mythologies that people believe in, each with fantastic rational exercises, each a great subject for debate in any formal logic class.
So why you, Neil? What makes your magical being so much more useful? How can I tell you are not just rationalizing for the sake of rationalizing?
I am sure your blog will get a few atheists who are willing to delve into your imagination with you, and explore all your certainly fine and careful rationalizations. But I think the majority of us don’t see what makes you so special over any other persons imaginations in the first place, and thus need something to filter through the hordes before delving into the details.
I offer you the Courtier’s Reply, Neil. I’ll be totally honest and say I just don’t know how to handle all the fanciful imaginations six billion people have, and I need help (such as evidence) to help filter it down. This weakness does cause me to be close minded to many many ideas, I own that.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Anthony,
Hmm, I’m confused, ample historical, archeological and scientific evidence has been provided on this site, in Frank’s book “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist”, on my website www.NoBlindFaith.com and in various books, like The Case for Christ, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, and so on.
Maybe that’s your point of confusion. This particular blog happens to relate to a conceptual challenge to atheists (which I note you have not answered yet). Other blogs are discussion of rationality. Some are discussions of historical events. I think you mistake the discussion of rational and logical concepts and philosophy with discussions about archaeological findings or scientific experiments. Be assured they exist.
Would you like me to present some Historical Events that you can debate about? I’d be happy to start a new thread on that at some point. Actually my preference is to do some Scientific evidence next. Like the need for a non mechanistic free willed extra dimensional first cause based on some of the simple experiments I did my freshman year of Physics.
Or you can read “Who was Agent X” on my webpage.
Have you read Frank’s book. Lots and lots of good historical and scientific facts to try to refute.
I’m sure we can find something to argue about.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Neil, what are you talking about?!? Seriously. You are telling me to do XYZ so I can see your magical beings. There are thousands of magical beings imagined by people, and you are telling me to go buy your books so I can see them too? “Do this, and this, and you’ll find out my magical beings are real!” Is there anything else I need to do besides read some books? Like any incantations that increase the chances?
Do you understand that most atheists cannot see a difference between Jesus, Hercules, and unicorns? I know you think I’m not being sophisticated enough, that I am not reading all your books and paying attention to all your details. So does anyone else in your position. I’ve debated 9/11 conspiracy theorists and they say the same thing.
The purpose of your site is an internal matter that I’ve leave up to you. You asked atheists a question. I am trying to tell you that the majority of atheists can’t tell if you are imagining all of this or not. So they won’t get into detailed debates with you because they’re not even sure if you are making it all up. You ask atheists for their opinions, and I honestly believe that my concern about your imagination is a very common concern amongst atheists. Only a select few will respond to blog questions like this, and many of them still won’t engage you after that.
I suppose you can show off your ancient magic stories, passed down by conquering societies, a couple of historian reports of hearsay, and archaeological evidence that ancient people knew how to write stories. Chances are slim that some guy named Neil has the secret evidence that will cause the majority of humanity to change their minds. Of course, you do have a special magical connection to the creator of everything, so it might be possible.
My response to your blog question was on May 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm (see above).
May 10th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Neil, you remind me of the mormon missionaries who asked me, “Have you even read the book of mormon?!” Or the quantum mystic who was shocked that I hadn’t read Deepak Chopra. Does a person need to research the details of every possible imaginative claim ever made?
May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Yes Anthony but the difference is that I’m not on a Mormon site asking those questions.
If I was on a Mormon site saying: “What? You expect me to do some research on Mormonism? I don’t have time to do that.” They’d all laugh at me.
If you are going to engage on a Christian site and ask some intelligent questions, you will need to do your homework. It’s OK to have not read something when you first ask the question, but after someone points you to it, it becomes your responsibility to understand the background. Not to very loudly and boisterously complain that you refuse to do any research.
As it is you remind me of what I call a blind faith atheist. You don’t know what you don’t believe but you strongly don’t believe it. This is similar to someone who is refusing to look into Galileo’s telescope after coming to his office. “What? You expect me to look into every single tube that any crackpot has made? I’d be here all day.
Why there are people out in the streets who say that there are turtles holding up the world. All I know Mr. Galileo is that I don’t believe you. I don’t have time to do any research on WHY I don’t believe you.”
If you are going to come to a debate (or comment on a debate site), don’t be surprised when people think you are naive because you have not prepared for the debate. Or as the saying goes: Don’t come to a wild hog roast with a cocktail fork.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Anthony, if you are interested in a reasoned, structured, head to head debate with someone who understands Physics (not saying Neil doesn’t, by any means!) I teach Physics. In the “Who Made God” thread I began constructing a logical argument for the existence of God. If you would like to participate, jump on in. My last taker seems to have disappeared into the aether.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Ernie if you teach physics perhaps you can explain how light form stars millions of light years away got to earth in only 6000 years.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I can offer a model that explains it satisfactorily.
Gravitational time dilation (t-prime = t[(1-2Gm)/(c^2(r))]^(1/2) and the White Hole model of the universe explain how the earth is only a few thousand years old while the light from distant stars is red-shifted and appears to be millions of years old.
Add to this the fact that the Hubble “constant” has been shown to be off because the Cepheid variable measurements of stars has been shown to be wrong thanks to the more modern and more accurate maser measuring method. The maser method shows the universe to be much younger than previously thought. [An example of this is that galaxy NGC4258 originally believed to be 8.1 mega parsecs away is actually only 7.2 mega parsecs.]
So, Ken, are you really interested in a “proof of God” argument such as I have begun to post in the “Who Made God” thread? If not, please let me know so I don’t waste any more of your time.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
But wait. The Bible clearly says that the earth was created first before any stars. The White Hole model contradicts that.
And no I am not interested in any “proof of God”. Even reasonable theists agree that that is impossible. If proof of God were possible there would be no need for faith.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Also Ernie your gravitational time dilation formula is a result of Einstein’s relativity theory. But if your young earth theory is correct makes Einstein’s incorrect.
Sorry I misspoke. Your “young earth theory” isn’t a theory at all. It is no more than mere speculation.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
If you are not interested in proof of the existence of God, even when offered so frankly, then it must be that you are just here to argue for the sake of arguing. Best to leave you be then as I have a different purpose.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I’m more interested in how you can justify believing things that are clearly in conflict with reality.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
First of all I need to be clear. The White Hole model I offered up was just one of several plausible that explains the light of stars. It is not a model I have studied thoroughly, but sounds solid to me so far. I would not go so far as to say that it is the model that IS the Truth of the matter.
Having said that I want to answer some of the challenges presented to this model so that there is no temptation for others to think that I can’t or won’t defend my beliefs on certain topics, even if that topic is one where the belief is tentative at best.
Does the white hole model of the universe contradict Genesis 1?
No.
1. According to the white hole cosmology the, “deep” was a sphere of water about 2 ly (light years) in diameter, containing all the mass in the universe. The Earth was a formless undefined region of water at the center. “The Earth was without form and void.” — Day 1
2. I do disagree with the concept of the “firmament” in the white hole model because birds flew in the firmament (Genesis 1:20).
3. Water is separated into parts by gasses, with some water above, some below. I believe some of the water above eventually forms the ice (or vapor) canopy of the earth spoken of by Josephus in Antiquities Book 1, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1. The rest expands out into the rest of the matter of the universe. So we not only have the earth already separated and distinct by the firmament, it is existing before stars are stars and so on. — Day 2
4. Land forms below the water’s above the firmament, below the firmament itself, and within and between the waters below. This is the other matter besides the simple hydrogen and oxygen of water that begins to form according to the model. — Day 3
5. God forms the lights in space, the sun, moon, and stars. They are said to be in the firmament here because from the perspective of man, they are. The Bible was written to men to communicate to them in a way man could understand. With the formation of these things we have the “stretching of the heavens” as given in Isaiah 40:22 and thus the time dilation effect that explains why light from things billions of light years away can be seen on Earth even though the planet is relatively only 4 days old at this point. — Days 4-5
6. Man is created and sees all the wonders of space including the light from stars billions of light years away. — Day 6
The white hole model is still being shaped (much like super string theory) so yes, some of the details need tweaking. But, like the model of flat and curved space time explains the data of relativity, the white hole model explains the light from stars in a young earth/Biblical Creation paradigm. And it is unlike the Big Bang, the origin of the universe from nothing, and unlike the hypotheses of abiogenesis and common descent and other such doctrines of the Macro-Evolution paradigm, of the atheist faith, which have no basis in reality nor one shred of evidence that they actually did or can take place.
No doubt many will disagree, but I believe I have given enough information to show how this infant model could be consistent with scripture.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
May 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Wow. Just Wow. You’ve really got some “out there” beliefs Ernie. I don’t have time to formulate a full response to this now but do expect one to be forthcoming. But the first thing that comes to mind now. If a star billions of light years away goes supernova, it should still take billions of years for that light to reach earth. So when we saw a star three billion or so light years away go supernova recently, what were we really seeing?
Also you need to come up with your own formula for time dilation because for this model to be true, that would mean that Einstein’s relativity theory is totally wrong. So you can’t use Einstein’s formula.
Also if the stars moved away from the earth at a rate of billions of light years in less than 10,000 years then the light would be red-shifted so far as to be invisible with wavelengths of thousands of light-years and frequencies on the order of 1E-100 Hz (That’s a decimal point followed by 99 zeros then a 1).
May 16th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Ken,
Just a quick heads up that may save you a lot of work. You have already stated that you aren’t interested in proof of God so I see no reason to bother you further. I will not respond to future posts made by you concerning things about intelligent design or related concepts. So post away, but keep in mind that I see no positive reason to respond to whatever it is you might post.
Since the website is primarily about examining atheistic models and showing that it takes more blind faith to be an atheist than a Christian, I will be shifting all of my posts back towards that (UNLESS someone wishes to actually have a logical debate on the existence of God as begun in the “Who Made God” thread.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
August 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I’m just a teenager and can’t keep up with ALL of this intelligent discussion (no matter how interesting it may be), but having been an agnostic atheist for several years, I’d still like to try and answer the post.
If I really knew that the God of the Bible was true, and I knew that I knew, then I’d like to believe that I’d be openminded enough to then become a Christian and thus, begin to live according to a Christian faith (I guess after becoming a Christian, I’d then have to decide which Christian faith I believed in, seeing as how there are several interpretations of the Bible). I believe it would be completely arrogant and ridiculous of me to still believe I knew better than “God” if I knew that he was all-knowing. Perhaps I still wouldn’t understand his ways because they would supposedly be higher than my own (Isaiah 53:8-9) but, if I truly knew that that God existed, I would hope that I wouldn’t be so closeminded that I would deny what I already knew in this hypothetical situation just out of anger towards a supernatural being who’s ways I did not understand.
I don’t know if that answers the post really well or not, but I tried, and I tried to make it as honest and openminded of an answer as possible.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I find the discussion here to be very interesting . I can’t help but notice the certainty of the athestic intellectuals who love to discuss things in the abstract. Supposing life and it vagaries are divorced from its consequences is a silly assumption.
God deals with the actual. One of my favorite biblical passages is a verse from Exodus (paraphrasing here) where God wearies of the constant problems (he and) Mose must contend with and he says that if he were to remain with the Israelites he would surely smite them for they are a stiff necked people. After all that God had done for his chosen people he admits that, if not for his merciful nature, he would destroy them .
Modern Hebrews seem to exhibit that same nature and now Gentiles are getting the hang of it too.