1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. What happens after death?
4. What is the purpose of existence?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
9. How did nothing create everything?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Questions Atheists Can’t Answer
108 comments:
Questions that Ray Comfort believes he can answer by reading an ancient book of myths.
1. What was in the beginning?
2. How will life on earth end?
3. What happens after death?
4. What is the purpose of existence?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
9. How did nothing create everything?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Ray, if you are serious when you say these are questions that atheists can't answer then you are being disingenuous. Questions 2 and 3 are obvious. When the sun becomes a red giant Earth will no longer exist. When we die we rot.
There are answers to some of the other questions as well. However, no one can prove that their answers are correct and so the search for answers continues. You are in the same boat in terms of not being able to prove your answers are correct. However, you have decided to stop looking.
There is no problem with stopping to look for answers but you can no more prove your answers are correct than I can prove that my answers are correct.
There are questions Christians can't answer so I hope Christians don't hold the view that since there are questions that atheists can't answer then atheism is discredited. That same reasoning would apply to Christianity and thus Christianity would be discredited.
1. What was in the beginning?
There are lots of theories, but when looking at the quantum world, you can literally get something from nothing (Look up the Casimir Effect for a testable example). So it’s possible that the Big Bang occurred literally out of nothing. Another line of thought is that our particular universe was a branch of off an existing area of space-time (which really just delays the above ‘something from nothing’ event.
2. How will life on earth end?
Life on Earth, unless we intervene, will end in about 5 billion years. The sun will have exhausted its supply of hydrogen and begin fusing helium. As a result it will grow greatly in size and become a Red Giant. The Earth will end in fire, burned to a crisp by the expanding Sun.
3. What happens after death?
Nothing. This question is analogous so asking what happened before you were born. It will most likely be a similar state. You just won’t be.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
Technically, the purpose of life is to reproduce. Philosophically, we can all attach meaning at various levels with various ideas. For me, the purpose of life is to live, try to make the world a little better for my next generation.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
There isn’t a really short answer to this. First and foremost there was the breaking of symmetry of matter – antimatter. From there, the laws of physics more or less dictate how/why things progressed. The particulars are subjects to lots of different fields of study.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
There are certain moral traits that were selected for in our evolution. For example, in our original tribal societies, the people you met were most likely related to us in some way. Those who helped people they saw out had more successful tribes and thus passed on their genes. This is the same reason we are innately distrustful of outsiders. Back in the day, chances are outsiders were untreated to you and were competition. Thankfully, today we can overcome these old and outdated drives and act properly in society. (Well most of us can).
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Our race is a curious one that seeks explanation. We are a tool-building race. We build tools for a purpose. Therefore we have a tendency to see that everything was created with a specific purpose, just as we create spears for hunting. Back when our knowledge was limited, we worked with the knowledge we had to build theories.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
See above in number 6. There is an evolutionary advantage to this. Note, this does not ‘cheapen’ in any way our innate goodness, just as explaining how a rainbow forms does not make it any less beautiful.
9. How did nothing create everything?
See above in number 1. You CAN get something from nothing. Quantum mechanics is very very weird and allows all sorts of spooky things.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first.
And here we go with the questions whose answers are supposed to provide certainty in the world.
It just seems folks like Ray cannot accept that there are some questions that cannot be answered or have personal answers.
awesome post! Love it!
Ray- do you still go to the beach every saturday? My husband and I would like to drive out and see you "in action" and learn from you how you peach open air.
I like a challenge.
1. What was in the beginning?
- The beginning of what? The Universe? Elementary particles, energy, and space.
2. How will life on earth end?
- The sun will eventually die out, engulfing Earth in its death throws.
3. What happens after death?
- Brain function cease. You no longer exist. Someone buries your body.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
- Purpose is subjective. I can only answer for myself.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
- Define "order." The universe conforms to basic laws of mathematics. This is why the Earth is roughly a sphere, etc...
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
- There would not be civilization without morality.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
- Not every civilization believes in a creator. Many do because it is human nature to look for patterns, order, and intelligence.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
- Because morality and caring for the group / others is a positive trait easily selected for via natural selection. This is why Bonobos also have a sense of morality and conscience in society as well.
The real question is why do some psychopaths not have a conscience if the conscience is not a biological function?
9. How did nothing create everything?
- Nothing did not create everything. I don't know where you got this idea.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
- The egg.
Actually, these questions were a little easy. :)
"Anish said... 1. What was in the beginning?
There are lots of theories, but when looking at the quantum world, you can literally get something from nothing (Look up the Casimir Effect for a testable example). So it’s possible that the Big Bang occurred literally out of nothing. Another line of thought is that our particular universe was a branch of off an existing area of space-time (which really just delays the above ‘something from nothing’ event.
2. How will life on earth end?
Life on Earth, unless we intervene, will end in about 5 billion years. The sun will have exhausted its supply of hydrogen and begin fusing helium. As a result it will grow greatly in size and become a Red Giant. The Earth will end in fire, burned to a crisp by the expanding Sun.
3. What happens after death?
Nothing. This question is analogous so asking what happened before you were born. It will most likely be a similar state. You just won’t be.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
Technically, the purpose of life is to reproduce. Philosophically, we can all attach meaning at various levels with various ideas. For me, the purpose of life is to live, try to make the world a little better for my next generation.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
There isn’t a really short answer to this. First and foremost there was the breaking of symmetry of matter – antimatter. From there, the laws of physics more or less dictate how/why things progressed. The particulars are subjects to lots of different fields of study.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
There are certain moral traits that were selected for in our evolution. For example, in our original tribal societies, the people you met were most likely related to us in some way. Those who helped people they saw out had more successful tribes and thus passed on their genes. This is the same reason we are innately distrustful of outsiders. Back in the day, chances are outsiders were untreated to you and were competition. Thankfully, today we can overcome these old and outdated drives and act properly in society. (Well most of us can).
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Our race is a curious one that seeks explanation. We are a tool-building race. We build tools for a purpose. Therefore we have a tendency to see that everything was created with a specific purpose, just as we create spears for hunting. Back when our knowledge was limited, we worked with the knowledge we had to build theories.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
See above in number 6. There is an evolutionary advantage to this. Note, this does not ‘cheapen’ in any way our innate goodness, just as explaining how a rainbow forms does not make it any less beautiful.
9. How did nothing create everything?
See above in number 1. You CAN get something from nothing. Quantum mechanics is very very weird and allows all sorts of spooky things.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first."
Anish...you have a wild imagination, great faith, and a good sense of humor. Purpose of life?--Sex (surprise), "Chicken-egg," "spooky things." Funny stuff.
Anish...you have a wild imagination, great faith, and a good sense of humor. Purpose of life?--Sex (surprise), "Chicken-egg," "spooky things." Funny stuff.
You act as if sex is the most evil thing in the world which only the most sinful do.
Without reproduction there is no life, Ray. (surprise)
Genesis 1:28 even agrees with that one, or are you just in denial? Was your child conceived through artificial insemination or something? Or did you have sex? Or did you clone yourself?
Keep your double-standards to yourself thanks.
1. The beginning of what? space-time? the earth? before space-time?
The beginning of space time was a rapidly expanding singularity that contained all the mater in our universe. I would assume that is what he means.
2. More than likely with the earth be enveloped by the sun as it goes red giant. There is a possibility that the milky way galaxy and thus the earth will be destroyed when it collides with another galaxy.
3. you rot and your matter gets broken down to be reused as fertilizer for living plants.
4. To pass on your genetic material, other than that what you make of it.
5. Well what do you call order? If you mean the scientific laws, well they are just explanations of naturally occurring phenomena. I really don't know what he means by order.
6. Evolution and natural selection. Morality helps the group and was thus selected for because we are social animals.
7. To explain what they couldn't explain. If they couldn't figure it out it must have been some all powerful being.
8. This is same question as the morality one. It was selected for because we only survive as social creatures, we are not solitary hunters, we need other humans to survive, so it helps being nice to others.
9. It didn't. Current ideas have everything in a single singularity before space time. The only group claiming everything came from nothing are Creationists.
10. the egg, since fish lay eggs and dinosaurs laid eggs, well before chickens came about.
@Ray
"Anish...you have a wild imagination, great faith, and a good sense of humor. Purpose of life?--Sex (surprise), "Chicken-egg," "spooky things." Funny stuff."
LOL!
Don't forget, "Casimir Effect!"
Lots of pretty silly answers from the resident atheists, but this one takes the cake:
"A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first."
So when Ray asks things like, "Show me a dog giving birth to a cat," he's actually being 100% accurate according to evolutionary thinking. "Chicken-like" creatures can "give birth" to chickens, so "cat-like" creatures (dogs have the same general shape as cats) can give birth to cats.
Ray said :
Anish...you have a wild imagination, great faith, and a good sense of humor. Purpose of life?--Sex (surprise), "Chicken-egg," "spooky things." Funny stuff.
endquote
Certainly funnier then some sky-god that wipes out everything in a fit of pique because the things he created with free will decide to be bad. Or one that advocated the stoning of a disobedient child.
And lest we forget one that is so insecure that if you dare to offend him he will send you to be punished for eternity.
Yes Ray considering those options I can see why one such as yourself would find, physics and science funny.
Oh and Ray you had asked on another thread about which Commandment you did not keep...
Here ya go: Exodus 20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
endquote.
Now I am pretty sure that turning on your computer to post a blog entry can be considered work. As are numerous other things. So I would suggest you look up what is considered work and what is not so you can follow this Commandment. Or once again is this more of a guidleine and not a rule type Commandments ?
The ability to answer a question says nothing about the accuracy of the answers provided. An answer can be mistaken, dishonest, or otherwise incorrect. Honest, humble ignorance is none of these things.
As usual, Ray's questions are pretty poorly construed, and are based on a bunch of smugly held assertions about Ray knowing all the correct answers (which he doesn't, really. He merely proclaims to know them, but when pressed to provide proof that he's correct, he can't). Ray doesn't expect there to be any answers to these questions, or at least he expects us to complain about them. Sorry to disappoint you Ray. If you want, I can provide plenty of scientific support for my answers, something which you would never allow here, or be able to do yourself.
1. What was in the beginning?
Insufficient data. Christians do not have an answer for this, either. They have a myth about it, but their answer is nothing more than an unsupported, unqualified assertion. All the best physicisits posit the Big Bang theory, but beyond the singularity of the Big Bang, we do not have enough data to pass further into the past. The religious answer to this question is no supported by science at all.
2. How will life on earth end?
How do you know that life on earth will end? Yeah, I know you simply believe it will, because you believe in a mythology that proclaims it, but that is not the same as knowing that it will happen. I have never seen any actual scientific evidence that life on earth will have a final end. If you look into science, there have been many mass extinctions in the past, but life persisted though the last several of them.
3. What happens after death?
The body rots and decays, or becomes fossilized or petrified, depending on the conditions where the body is. This is an observed, documented, and universally accepted fact (that after death, bodies decay). What makes you think that an atheist would deny it? I know you probably meant to ask "what happens to your consciousness when you die?" Unfortunately, the answer to that is that it ceases to exist once the brain stops functioning, because consciousness is the creation of a brain that functions.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
Anything you want it to be. People create their own "purpose" of existence, or they latch onto ancient mythologies and borrow a purpose from someone else. Nobody has a definitive, absolutely "correct" answer to this question, and we never will, either. It's a classic imponderable question which philosophers have been discussing, without definitive answers, since the ancient Greeks. Christianity's purpose for existence is no more of less valid than anyone else's.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
Because the particles that make up atoms, which in turn make up all matter, and life on earth, have specific properties, which make certain interactions and arrangements of atoms behave in specific, predictable ways. These properties are inseparable parts of the subatomic world.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Because human beings have been making rules to govern society/civilization since pre-history. Most of the morality or "rules" of a given society are based largely on the inherent behaviors of the creatures that make it up. Every animal society, from apes, to ants, which live in groups, live by a set of "unwritten laws" that are just like morality. They tend not to kill withing their own group, and certain actions by the group tend to enforce the group's "morality". For example, when monkeys and apes, who have a social pecking order, attempt to break one fo the rules, the other members of the group often punish them or enforce the social order in a way that prevents them from breaking the unwritten laws. Humans are no different -- except that we have many moralities based on imaginary concepts, as opposed to being hard-wired into our basic behaviors.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Not every civilization believes in a creator. Buddhists, for example, do not have a concept that equates to a God/creator. For the rest of human cultures, I would say that fear and reverence of THE UNKNOWN and irrational behaviors helped to foster the idea of a creator.
I think a far more relevent question should be "why are there so many different religions, with different Gods, if it's so plain and simple to see that there is allegedly only one true one?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
What makes you think that insane people can't have a conscience? Many of them clearly do, and they act upon it, albeit, in an irrational manner. I believe that many extremely religious people fit this description.
I believe that a conscience **IS** influenced by society. If society had no taboos about sacrificing human babies to Baal, then nobody would feel guilty about doing it. What is really troubling, however, is why the people who preach morality the most, often seem have less of a conscience.
9. How did nothing create everything?
Who said that nothing created everything? How do we know that nothing created evertything? Does the Bible claim that God created everything out of nothing? If so, that implies that God came from nothing. So how did nothing create God?
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
The egg came first, because fish, amphibians, and reptiles predate the first known chickens, and they were being hatched from eggs long before the first chickens existed.
I'd post legitimate answers as well as a commentary on how pointless the questions are since the terms are so astoundingly vague (Beginning, Purpose and Morality to name but a few) but since, as he has already shown, Ray is not so much interested in seeing how we would answer such questions, but in mocking our responses, all the better to pretend we plug our ears screaming "LALALALALA" when asked them.
Hm... you know it occurs to me that God should not be expected to respond positivley to mockery, and yet we, when mocked, are expected, nay, obligated to. Well fine, mock and demean all you may. Persecute us to your hardened heart's content, Christians, it only proves how right we are.
Well no, of course it doesnt, see I'm making fun of you lot for saying the same... sort of... yeah nevermind.
Anyway, the answers I do have are posted at the Tractor, anyone who cares can find them, and others that are better, there.
Already answered these questions over at our clubhouse, Ray.
Jinx "argues"...
So when Ray asks things like, "Show me a dog giving birth to a cat," he's actually being 100% accurate according to evolutionary thinking. "Chicken-like" creatures can "give birth" to chickens, so "cat-like" creatures (dogs have the same general shape as cats) can give birth to cats.
I won't be the only one to say so in this moderation period, I know, but you couldnt be more wrong. Felines are not Canine-like unless you argue simply shape, as in Torso, 4 limbs, and a head. Evolutionists actually define the term sensibly so that it actually means something, not just vague nonsense as you would prefer to think it. Yeah, I know, scientists actually putting thought into the things they say, how elitist of them, right?
Heres a more elaborate explanation, not that you can be bothered to care. Chicken-Like means that, in all the ways we can define "Chicken," this creature is only different in an extremely marginal way, and only so much so that they aren't what we would label as "Chicken." Say its beak is too long to be able to eat properly, or its wings too small to enable flight or something. These creatures, proto-chickens, give birth to a generation, and among this generation, some have a unique mutation that, as it happens, makes their wings more flight-worthy, or their beaks easier to eat with, or some other trait that aids their survival. Since these creatures are more likely to survive than the proto-chickens, their species goes on to replace their progenitor species.
When You and Ray misrepresent this, coming as you do from excessively willful ignorance, by saying its like a Dog birthing a Cat, you may as well be saying it's like a Toaster giving birth to a Star since, given that they both produce heat, theyre of similar types. Its such a gross exaggeration of a misunderstanding of the theory that its frustrating to even have to deal with.
Dear Ray!
Saying that all atheists believe in creation from nothing is wrong. Please consider a rebuttal for what many atheists really believe in:
What was in the beginning?:
Chaos
What will be in the end?:
Chaos
It's really amazing how advanced the school of though was in Ancient Greece.
The Greek believed in a creation from Chaos. (We have the word "Chaos" from them)
In Greek mythology this Chaos gave birth to the first gods who then created the Cosmos (the order, in the Greek understanding the Cosmos stood against the Chaos.
The Ancient Greek had no understanding of advanced physics and therefor had to make the mistake with the Gods. If the Greek would have known the stunning simplicity of the universe shortly after its formation I guess they would have become formidable atheists.
In a time-bound universe you need to have a beginning (and an end). The Indians (South Asia) thought up the idea that time is an everyspinning wheel. (Which actually begs the question who made it spin)
If you don't have a universe in a time-loop you have the problem of what was before.
You have 3 principle options how this could happen.
a) Creation from nothing: Nothing causes nothing. If nothing would cause something it wouldn't have been nothing.
b) Creation from a static entity (God). Before the universe there was no time. Without time there is no movement or change. An entity that does not move can't create. It would be 'frozen' in a timeless existence.
And if there was a non-moving entity (God) why did it create the universe about 6000 years ago? Why not 5 minutes earlier?
If this entity (God) was everlasting, why did it wait to create the universe?
What caused it to create the universe after an infinity of waiting? -Keep in mind that it was the only thing existing and a cause would need to be an external influence on the system.
what lasts is option 3:
Creation from Chaos
A perfect Chaos can't have a cause since a cause would be an impossition on this Chaos that would spoil it. A Chaos is defined as a system that is without rules applying to it or a system upon an infinte number of orders apply.
A little experiment of though:
Imagine your desk: You bring your order to this desk. Then comes another person and adds his order to your desk, and then a this person who adds her order to the desk too... and so on. Just imagine your desk after lets say 100 persons adding their orders to it.... it will already look pretty untidy.
The great thing about a Chaos - that's existing - is that everything can happen. If not everything could happen it wouldn't be perfectly chaotic. The more complex the things are that happen the less likely they become. If you throw dice the chance that you throw a one is 1 to 6. The chance that you throw 10 ones in a row is 1 to 60,466,176. And a perfect chaos would keep on throwing dice forever...
At one point in this process of throwing dice it had to end up with the singularity and the physical laws who gave birth to our universe.
- And since the Greek did understand logic but not physics as we do today they had to end up with simple Gods who then created the further order that we see today
Our universe still ressembles it's creator - the Chaos -: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. On the grand scheme entropy always increases. (Which does not mean that entropy can't decrease in local systems upon the entropic cost of its environment - see your fridge). Entropy is a messurement of thermic disorder. The higher the entropy the higher the disorder. And with every moment the entropy of the universe increases.
The universe was given birth by Chaos and it will end in Chaos.
"So when Ray asks things like, "Show me a dog giving birth to a cat," he's actually being 100% accurate according to evolutionary thinking. "Chicken-like" creatures can "give birth" to chickens, so "cat-like" creatures (dogs have the same general shape as cats) can give birth to cats."
Err... no. Only chickens give birth to chickens. The direct ancestor to the modern chicken was a not-so-modern chicken.
It would have been nearly impossible to say "this is a chicken egg, but the mother or father were not chickens." Evolution is a fluid process of change.
Anish said...
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first.
LOL!
A chicken-like creature. You know, like a chicken.
We can't answer them? Really? Over at Raytractors, lots of us have managed to answer them extremely well and point out the inherant flaws and failures of the questions.
So Anish & mudley,
If the purpose of life is to procreate, does that make you pro-life? If not, you're clearly contradicting you're own definition of the purpose of life.
Rex,
You claim the dog-cat evolution idea to be absurd. However, evolution claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor. So really, saying a dog can produce a cat, is no more absurd than saying a rattlesnake can produce a feathered, flying bird...which evolution claims. Or perhaps, one creature can produce both a rattlesnake and a bird.
For those of you playing along, here's Ray's answer key:
1. What was in the beginning?
God.
2. How will life on earth end?
God.
3. What happens after death?
God.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
God.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
Goddidit.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Goddidit.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Goddidit.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
Goddidit.
9. How did nothing create everything?
Goddidit.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Chicken. (God would also have been acceptable).
ethan said...
Anish said...
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
A chicken-like creature laid the egg of a chicken. The chicken egg came first.
LOL!
A chicken-like creature. You know, like a chicken.
Something like a grey or red junglefowl? Not quite a chicken, but like a chicken.
1. We don't know yet.
2. Probably very violently. Whether it's caused by our sun dying or we get hit by some massive extrasolar object.
3. We don't know for sure, but very likely you simply cease being conscious.
4. It doesn't have one.
5. Your question presupposes there is creation, which there isn't.
6. Because ethics are evolutionarily advantageous.
7. Because people believe wierd things that have no factual basis, especially when they are ignorant.
8. See #6.
9. It didn't.
10. The egg.
What was in the beginning?
A hat, a bunny rabbit, and some cheese.
My answer may be absurd and unproven, but I DO have an answer. And that's what's important, right Ray??
Ha! Ray called the tune and they did dance. Now that's some fancy tap dancing ye atheists!
Or would that be gymnastics?
Your score-
Degree of difficulty- 10
Execution- 0
Very funny anyway!
Once again, non-believers give rational, well thought-out answers, and fundies reply with mockery and ignorance. No wonder that Ray and his ilk have been the ones to finally convince me that Christian belief is nonsense and vile, willful idiocy.
A few questions for you Ray,
1. Who stole my bike ??
2. Seriously, who stole my bike ?? I want it back.
3. Who keeps calling me and breathing heavily in the middle of the night ??
4. Who painted the swastika on the wall by my local nursery school ??
5. Who was the first person to ever speak French ??
6. Seriously now, who stole my bike ???
7. Who was the first person ever to wear a bad moustache ??
You see, my answer to all of these is 'Ray Comfort'. Clearly if you cannot give convincing answers to all of these questions my answers become right by default and you owe me a new bike. You thief.
I'm a Christian, and I still have my doubts about #10.
I would think the chicken, but who really knows? I go back and forth.
Chicken or egg... Chicken or egg...?
1. The best physics out there suggest that it was a singularity. Imagine everything in the universe existing at a single point, all energy, matter, gravity, even space and time.
2. I can not see the future. But there are numerous ways life could end. Life on earth must end the sun exhaust its supply of hydrogen and helium. As the sun uses up these two sources of fuel, the diameter of the sun increases. Eventually, the surface of the sun gets close enough to burn and blow away the atmosphere. Then again, a human cause such as pollution could get the job done sooner.
3. Decomposition.
4. There is no purpose, save what we give it.
5. There is only the appearance of order. Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would tell you that.
6. Morality is subjective. According to the bible, slavery and the stoning of women were acceptable behavior, while they would be considered immoral today. Other civilizations, human sacrifices were accepted. Basically, if a group of people are in close proximity to each other, rules are established, so that they can live together with out killing each other. But the specifics of the rules are variable. It is the same with all social animals.
7. Not all societies believe in a singular "Creator". There is a desire innate within people to explain their surroundings. Creation myths arose from that desire, and the lack of knowledge of natural processes.
But this question, begs a different question. That is if there is one true Creator, then why do different civilizations attribute creation to different Creators?
8. Biology and development. Conscientious is a by product of the organization of our brains. As for determination of right and wrong, that is solely, or at least predominately, based on society and the environment. Again look at treatment of woman through out time and the world.
9. Nothing did not create everything. The big bang states that everything (the universe) came from something very different (a singularity). Where that singularity came from, or if that singularity even needed to come from somewhere, is unknown. Remember that space and time don't exist before the big bang. There wasn't anything before the big bang, because there was no before. Our understanding of physics is not complete, but that does not mean that we are reliant on a Creator for an explanation.
10. The egg. It beats the chicken by a couple of hundred million years. Reptiles were laying eggs before birds came about, and fish before reptiles, and so forth and so on. But more to the point, every chicken came from an egg. And the first chicken came from an egg laid by a red jungle fowl. It was a slight change from being a chicken-like red jungle fowl, to a red jungle fowl-like chicken.
Ten for ten, and since atheist can't answer these questions, I guess I believe in God now. Shoot. That was mighty tricky of you, Ray.
Mudley said...
"You act as if sex is the most evil thing in the world which only the most sinful do.
Without reproduction there is no life, Ray. (surprise)"
He never insinuated sex in and of itself was bad. Sex inside of marriage is a good thing.
However, to say our PURPOSE is sex, even for the cause of having kids, is a bit ridiculous.
IF that were true, why all the abortions?
So many people, missing out on their "life's purpose" by killing their children. You would think more would be anti-abortion, if you actually believed this.
Ray,
I'd like to think I do have a wild imagination and a good sense of humor. In regards to the faith, really most of what I 'believe' is based on the current theories as verified by repeatable tests. The Caismir Effect is direct proof that you can get something from nothing. Read the Wiki article. I used 'spooky' as a means of providing some levity. In fact, the world of quantum mechanics is very strange relative to our day-to-day experiences. In this world a particle takes everyone possible route between points A and B at the same time, two particles can be on opposite sides of the known universe and act as if they are next to each other. Now Ray, if you do not accept my answers, please provide me real evidence that they are incorrect (you should win a Nobel Prize or two if you can). You cannot simply reject the truth of the way the universe works 'just because' you think it's silly. Open your mind and dare to think.
1. What was in the beginning?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster. For He is Eternal, so says our book (and website)
2. How will life on earth end?
When The Noodly Appendages get cooked for too long
3. What happens after death?
Our children grieve, then get on with dressing up as pirates.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
To worship Our Lord the FSM, to allow His Noodlyness into our ventricles.
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
The FSM, in all His Wisdom, Created it as so. Even the non-ordered quantum world, the unordered plasma and embryonic galaxies and solar systems, and the disorganised superstrings in our pasta.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Cos the FSM made it so. And, some folks are just nice. And some, not so nice. But the FSM wipes his hands of these.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Do they? I thought only the enlightened ones believe in the FSM! The rest have false Gods or no Gods. Bless them, the fools.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
Erm, why do the chimpanzees have consciences? Must be the FSM, again!
9. How did nothing create everything?
Hey! The FSM was there first! Dunno what was before his Eternal corporeal being, however. Look, don't ask such silly questions.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Erm - dinosaurs laid eggs, didn't they? And they were around before chickens, so I guess the egg? Anyway, to make carbonara, the chicken goes before the egg so perhaps the FSM is telling us that our logic is wrong? Ok chicken! I can go to pasta heaven now, right?
For some reason, you assume that having an answer is somehow superior to not having an answer.
On some level, it sure would be nice to have answers for all of the questions I have. On another, if there were no questions, I wouldn't be nearly as curious as I am about human nature, reality, physics, music, cooking, etc ad nauseum.
What you and I are really discussing here is the difference between having an answer we believe is right, and being right. I would rather say "I don't know" when asked a question, than provide an answer which is wrong.
Oooh! Look! No pride, no hubris - lots of humility!
Faith doesn't need to be blind. Questions don't need to be answered at any cost.
1. I (we) don't know
2. I (we) don't know
3. I (we) don't know
4. I'm not sure. Until I find something better, I choose it to be the following: "Understand as much as possible about everything. Be a source of support, love and inspiration for the people around you. Leave the planet a better place than it was when you started."
5. There's no answer to this question as "order" isn't precise.
6. Depends on what you mean by morality. I believe it's because humans recognize the need for a stable healthy society, and thus we value ideas which provide this.
7. This is not true.
8. Parents? Friends? Understanding the relationship between action and consequence? All of these things make us aware of the fact that we aren't alone, and our actions impact the lives of other people.
9. No one asserts this; it's a straw man. As for the underlying question ("how did the universe come into existence?"), I don't know
10. the chicken
Anish wrote: "1. What was in the beginning?
There are lots of theories, but when looking at the quantum world, you can literally get something from nothing (Look up the Casimir Effect for a testable example)."
Unquote
This does not apply. Since the experiment requires 2 metal plates, and an observer/scientist/designer to exist before the effect is observed. Disqualified.
1. What was in the beginning?
An infinitely massive point (according to one theory).
2. How will life on earth end?
As the sun gets older it acculmulates helium in its core. Helium is denser than hydrogen so the core of the sun gets hotter. The hotter it gets the more hydrogen the sun can fuse into helium. The sun will become an F class star long before it becomes a red giant. As an F class star, it'll be too hot to support life on earth. Earth will fry long before the sun goes red giant. However, the moons of Jupiter might look good.
3. What happens after death?
The rest of the world goes on. I'll die, but the earth will keep turning as they say.
4. What is the purpose of existence?
Maybe there isn't an ultimate purpose. Why does there have to be one?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
Because of natural laws. Also, humans are known to see order in random patterns where none exists.
6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Because it is hard wired into us by evolution. Altruism is a survival skill.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
I didn't know that every civilization did. If you're talking about ancient civilizations, then yes they all did believe in their pagan creator gods. Are you comparing your creation story to those pagan myths?
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
See number 6.
9. How did nothing create everything?
I don't know! You tell me since you're the one that said that. I never have said that nothing created everything. How about the infinitely massive point mentioned in #1? Maybe that was the something that created everything.
10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Several ways to answer that.
#1. The egg is the chicken. The chicken is the egg. A chicken egg and an adult chicken belong to the same species (Gallus gallus).
#2. If you go back through all the chickens ancestors, you'll eventually get to the common ancestor of all life on earth. In this sense, the question is a false dichotomy. There are more than two choices. In this case, the answer is a prokaryote.
#3. The egg. If I consider "The Chicken" as a certain individual chicken (such as the one in my freezer) then the answer can only be "The Egg." Since the chicken had to hatch from an egg, before he ended up in my freezer. (Think about it.)
#4. The Chicken. If I'm thinking of "The Egg" as a particular egg (like the one I just got out of the fridge), then I have to consider that the egg in my hand was layed by a hen. So, the Chicken came first. Something had to lay the egg that I am now holding.
Anish, Shunted, Kaitlyn, beamstalk, and others.
Life on earth will end in about 2 billion years, not 5 billion. The sun will get hotter and more luminous as it ages. It'll become an F class dwarf long before it becomes a red giant. As an F class dwarf, the sun (currently a G class dwarf), will be too hot to support life on Earth. Wikipedia has a great article on Stellar Evolution (not the same as biological evolution, but YECs still hate it because it says that God didn't speak the sun into existence.)
A great problem for atheists-
Which came first, chicken or egg?
Neither.
It had to be either a Rooster AND Hen, or 2 fertilized eggs since they reproduced to today's chickens. Neither of which could "just happen" from chanceXtime.
The problem of the sexes is one of the great challenges to Darwinian evolution. All they come up with are fantastic Ad hocs that require more faith than a belief in a Creator/God.
Robert wrote: "Life on earth will end in about 2 billion years, not 5 billion. The sun will get hotter and more luminous as it ages. It'll become an F class dwarf long before it becomes a red .......?
The prophet hath spoken! lol!
Do you know the prophet AltheGore?
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Dani' El,
You misunderstand. The experiment is direct evidence that virtual particles exist. These are particles that literally pop into existance out of nothing for a short time. The experiment is a means of observing this by observing the effect that these virtual particles have. This occurs in nature with or without any observer, experiment, designer, et cetera.
Robert: Thank you for the correction.
Iago said:
"Now I am pretty sure that turning on your computer to post a blog entry can be considered work. As are numerous other things. So I would suggest you look up what is considered work and what is not so you can follow this Commandment. Or once again is this more of a guidleine and not a rule type Commandments ?"
endquote.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:12, "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
However, this doesn't really matter to Ray because he believes that once one becomes a Christian the 10 Commandments become 9 because the 4th no longer applies.
Personally, I differ to Ray on the topic... I believe that Christians should "Remember the sabbath day, to KEEP it holy ...the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God" (Exodus 20:8&10) To me the Sabbath is a delight! (but what do I know?)
The prophet hath spoken! lol!
Do you know the prophet AltheGore?
You really don't realize the power your own statements have to make you look like an idiot...
The problem of the sexes is one of the great challenges to Darwinian evolution. All they come up with are fantastic Ad hocs that require more faith than a belief in a Creator/God.
You've got such a vivid imagination...
Whateverman wrote- "You really don't realize the power your own statements have to make you look like an idiot...
October 22, 2008 7:48 PM
That's Argumentum Ad Hominem, so I can declare with a zeal.......CHECKMATE! lol!
Anish wrote: "You misunderstand. The experiment is direct evidence that virtual particles exist. These are particles that literally pop into existance out of nothing for a short time. The experiment is a means of observing this by observing the effect that these virtual particles have. This occurs in nature with or without any observer, experiment, designer, et cetera." endquote
But you are wrong. In the experiment, a designer/scientist/observer places two metal plates in a CREATED vacuum and observes the reaction. Hardly something "popping into existence" out of nothing.
There is a kind of mocking proverb being used by creationists like myself as follows in reaction to a supposed "creation" of a life form by evolutionists.
"After decades of effort, and millions of dollars and man hours, we have been able to create in a sanitary, stable laboratory environment, "life" by pure chance as it happened in nature" lol! (paraphrased, others have said it better)
camport said...
"So Anish & mudley,
If the purpose of life is to procreate, does that make you pro-life? If not, you're clearly contradicting you're own definition of the purpose of life."
Nice logic there, genius. The purpose of a light bulb is to create light, but that doesn't mean that light bulbs oppose people who turn switches off. They were simply pointing out that, from a purely biological point of view, our "purpose" is to replace ourselves and propogate the species. That does not infer any opinion on anyone's part as to whether they consider that to actually be their purpose or if they think that blind, continuous reproduction is a good idea.
"Rex,
You claim the dog-cat evolution idea to be absurd. However, evolution claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor. So really, saying a dog can produce a cat, is no more absurd than saying a rattlesnake can produce a feathered, flying bird...which evolution claims."
No, no-one smarter than Ray claims this or anything like it. Try to understand the concept of a common ancestor - your grandfather is also your cousin's grandfather, but your father is not your cousin's father. You are very distinct people who do not share a parent at all, but you have a common ancestor. Now try to imagine that concept applied to thousands of generations. Your parents are not chimpanzees and a chimps parents are not human, but your great, great, great (and so on for about another 100,000 greats) grandfather was the same animal. It wasn't a chimp and it wasn't a human, any more than your grandfather is you, but it is your common ancestor.
"Or perhaps, one creature can produce both a rattlesnake and a bird."
Both contemperary animals; they have a common ancestor way, way back, but one isn't going to change into the other for the same reason that your children won't be your cousins.
Apologies to Mark W Laine who probably found the above very confusing since his cousin, his auntie, his sister and his wife are all the same person. Doesn't apply to you - just go back to sleep.
Charles said...
Once again, non-believers give rational, well thought-out answers, and fundies reply with mockery and ignorance.
October 22, 2008 12:19 PM
Spoke a little too soon, Charles.
[silentsanta, NZ]
1. What was in the beginning?
Paper hat.
2. How will life on earth end?
Paper hat.
3. What happens after death?
Paper hat.
4. What is purpose of existence?
Paper hat.
5. Why is there order in all of creation?
Paper hat.
6. Why is there morality in every civilization?
Paper hat.
7. Why does every civilization
believe in a Creator?
Paper hat.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
Paper hat.
9. How did nothing create everything?
Paper hat.
10. Which came first-- the chicken or the egg?
Paper hat.
As you can see, if we follow Ray's fine example and decide not to care about whether our answers are correct, we can have an answer to everything! (Bonus: It can even be the same answer!)
What you have done, Ray, is miss the point again. The point is emphatically not how many answers you can give, but whether or not you have engaged in a suitible rational investigative process in order to arrive at the answers you do have. Ray, why are your answers to these questions you raised any better than 'paper hat'?
Questions no one can answer
1: What is the purpose of a dragon's bifurcated tail?
2: What is the average height of an adult male leprechaun?
3: Why do unicorns have only one horn?
4: How can a deity make everything from nothing?
5: How can the paradox of free will and an omniscient creator be answered?
6: If every civilisation is right in their belief in a creator, then is their a committee of creators?
7: What is that stuff on the bottom of my shoe?
8: If there is morality, why are some malevolent creators not guided by it?
9: On what exact date will "the end times" occur?
10: If there is order, why did 200,000 people die in a Tsunami? Why do mosquitoes kill? Why doesn't everyone win Lotto? Why is there a financial crisis? Why are there serial killers? Why do some babies self-abort? Why are others born severely disfigured? Why are there so many different religions - and why do the followers go to war against each other?
So many questions. No answers.
@ Anish-
I'll try to explain as a lay-physicist and utter fool concerning mathematics.
(I barely passed high school physics by the grace of my good teacher, Mr Whatshisname, class of '78 Katella High)
Virtual particles only exist in theory, and the experiments you mention are "designed" to prove these equations.
From Wikipedia (I pray that Ray allows this to pass)
Quote-
"As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are detectable only as forces but not particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations,(see? Dan) but are not detected as single particles. Thus, in mathematical terms, they never appear as indices to the scattering matrix, which is to say, they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled.
In this sense, virtual particles are an artefact of perturbation theory, and do not appear in a nonperturbative treatment.
As such, their objective existence as "particles" is questionable; (boiinggg! Dan- lol)
[citation needed] however, the term is useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman's terms.[citation needed]
unquote-
Wem wrote- 1. I (we) don't know
2. I (we) don't know
3. I (we) don't know
CONFESS! You are an agnostic Whateverman.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! lol!
camport, with his peerless study of biology, said...
Rex,
You claim the dog-cat evolution idea to be absurd. However, evolution claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor. So really, saying a dog can produce a cat, is no more absurd than saying a rattlesnake can produce a feathered, flying bird...which evolution claims. Or perhaps, one creature can produce both a rattlesnake and a bird.
Find the evolutionist that claims a snake birthed a bird. That a dog birthed a cat. Find the evolutionary biologist that actually says the things you say they say about a fish turning into a unicorn or a Nissan Stanza turning into Papa Smurf and all that nonsense. Its not what they think, and is nothing like what they think.
Now, you did mention common ancestry, though unsurprisingly you manage to destroy its meaning. The idea is not that there was one creature that gave birth to two other creatures, both different from themselves and each other, and again, no evolutionist will say such a thing. The idea is that there is an ancestor to both, who within a generation of that type, saw two different beneficial traits emerge from random mutations, but they werent compatable with each other perhaps, and so split the population, both groups being essentially similar to each other at the time, into divergent paths which, over time, myriad generations and other beneficient mutations being naturally selected for them, became these two distinctly different kinds of creature. This, in a nutshell (and dont take my word that I'm echoing any specific explanation of things other than my own vague interpretation of the idea) is what common ancestry means. For you to say that it means "one creature can produce both a rattlesnake and a bird" as though the theory hinges on there having once been a chimera that produced spawn of both types, is a gross misrepresentation.
he idea is that there is an ancestor to both, who within a generation of that type, saw two different beneficial traits emerge from random mutations, but they werent compatable with each other perhaps, and so split the population, both groups being essentially similar to each other at the time, into divergent paths which, over time, myriad generations and other beneficient mutations being naturally selected for them, became these two distinctly different kinds of creature.
This may be true of the tea cup poodle and the Great Dane and they may now not be able to mate. However, Fuz Rana made a good point concerning this. If you place all known dog breeds, including these two, in the wild again, one dog would probably reemerge over time. Apparently, the closer you are to the original, the greater your chance for survival too. The tea cup poodle would get picked off rather quickly.
There has never been a mechanism for punctuated equilibrium, which is another point he makes. We do not see a progression in the evidence. We see bursts of creation followed by status quo.
Also, this planet only had a small window of time to contain mankind at his height. As you've pointed out, eventually the sun will die out. But long before that, there is a place within the Milky Way that, if I understand this correctly, contains a great many meteors and comets. Our solar system passes through that place once in 30-35 million years.
This is from Jeff Zweerink from an article entitled Galactic Habitable Zone-
This galactic habitable zone is an annulus (ring) around the galactic center that brackets the corotation radius. At this radius, stars orbit the galaxy at the same speed as the spiral arms, thus minimizing passages through the spiral arms. According to Lineweaver&’s calculations, his galactic habitable zone contains less than 10 percent of all the stars ever formed in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Another talk, by Kansas University astronomer Adrian Melott, described a 62-million-year periodicity (cycle of increase and decrease) in the level of biodiversity seen in the fossil record. His research argues that the passage of the sun through the galactic plane—which increases the comet and asteroid bombardment in the solar system—as the cause of the periodicity. If correct, the habitability of a star&’s planets depends not only on its location but also on its path through the galaxy. Since the sun oscillates through the galactic plane every 30 - 35 million years, the solar system would now be starting a passage through the galactic plane, thus beginning a period of increased bombardment (and possible extinction).
The Bible is the only Holy Book that speaks of this world coming into existence ex nihilo.
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3
To understand what comes after death one must understand the fact that they are created in the image of God. The things this group chooses to deny such as the conscience of man evident from the beginning are the very things that would show each person here individually that God is real and there is an afterlife.
The morality of past civilizations has been enormous. The Mayans, Greeks and Romans were highly civilized societies before the took an eventual moral nosedive. They became evil over time but at first this wasn't the case. I have proof of technology far exceeding what these folks were supposed to be capable of if that is your measuring stick. And the morality of this present civilization is coming to the point of absurdity. I have film footage of people doing the most perverse things in public in front of little children at these heinous wicked sexual events. If that is a demonstration of "evolution," it is a pathetic one. The morals of people in the 50's far exceeds the morals of the people of today. We are devolving. No past civilization has ever survived the level of sexual perversions that this present society displays.
The chicken/egg scenario can also be purposed in the very beginning with the first life forms as single celled animals. In order to reproduce and to create new proteins, the cell's mechanisms of organelles must be in place. The cell needs messenger RNA to follow through on the commands of the DNA to tell the ribosome which protein to construct. Which came first? Was it the DNA with nobody to talk to? Was it RNA? What is the ribosome? The Cell's Design explains this much better than I can and it is on iTunes.
The atheist has no hope. It is really sad to read these commentaries. What kind of life is it to just live, procreate and die?
Vera
Dani'el wrote: CONFESS! You are an agnostic Whateverman.
No, I'm a deist
Dani'el wrote: That's Argumentum Ad Hominem, so I can declare with a zeal.......CHECKMATE! lol!
I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out that you're making yourself appear to be stupid.
Ray,
How's the atheist book coming? Almost done?
It is abosultely absured to think that the earth and humans just formed over a period time. And honestly, no one knows what happens when you die and where you go. I just know that if I spend my life believing in God and having faith that he is real and I die and find out there is no heaven and I will rot in the ground, then I have lost nothing. What is so wrong with having morals and values to live by. Why do people have to be so self absorbed that they have to see to believe? It is called faith and having morals is called having a conscience. I just know that I would rather take a chance at rotting in the ground then burning in hell.
Dani' El said...
Wem wrote- 1. I (we) don't know
2. I (we) don't know
3. I (we) don't know
CONFESS! You are an agnostic Whateverman.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! lol!
If you would just LURK MOAR you would know whateverman's position already.
Unless i'm confusing him with someone else (my apologies if this is the case), he is neither an atheist nor an agnostic, but a deist.
Dani' El said...
There is a kind of mocking proverb being used by creationists like myself as follows in reaction to a supposed "creation" of a life form by evolutionists.
"After decades of effort, and millions of dollars and man hours, we have been able to create in a sanitary, stable laboratory environment, "life" by pure chance as it happened in nature" lol! (paraphrased, others have said it better)
Are you a random word generator? I could swear you are some kind of real life turing test.
Thanks to the genius evolutionist atheists that cleared all my misunderstandings up for me!
It's all so clear now.
A common ancestor can't produce both a bird and a reptile...but it can. It can't...but it can!
In all seriousness, I totally grasp the concept that a fish can NOT evolve into Papa Smurf. Absolutely, never never ever will a fish become a cartoon character. Then again, if we allow for millions of years to tweak that little swimmer, just maybe!
Thanks Rex. You are one smart lady.
:)
From Genesis Chapter 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Sorry Verandoug, nope prize for you. Unless of course God created the deep and the earth on Day -1 or something.
Quote
The Bible is the only Holy Book that speaks of this world coming into existence ex nihilo.
Enquote
Wrong again, big suprise there. The Indian creation myths have the world formed by one god. The Greek has a formless void inhabited by Nyx, a giant bird.
Also Apache,Cherokee,Chelan,Mayan etc. etc...But then of course you consider their books not holy because they are not the Bible and so do not count.
mudley- "If you would just LURK MOAR you would know whateverman's position already.
Unless i'm confusing him with someone else (my apologies if this is the case), he is neither an atheist nor an agnostic, but a deist." unquote
D-I'm new here. Forgive me WEM for calling you an aggie.
All the "I dont knows" threw me off.
What sort of Deist? BTW I call deists what they are, Idolators.
Doh!
Wem doth speak thus- "I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out that you're making yourself appear to be stupid."
That's exactly what an Argumentum Ad Hominem is.
It serves to change the subject when defeated in an argument.
I learned long ago, in the schoolyard, that it signals a defeated foe when the mockery and name calling starts.
Atheists~ If you are wrong in not believing in the Bible then what do YOU have to lose? If I am wrong for believing in the Bible what do I have to lose?
[silentsanta, NZ]
7Brandy said...
Atheists~ If you are wrong in not believing in the Bible then what do YOU have to lose? If I am wrong for believing in the Bible what do I have to lose?
bquill73 said... [something similar too]
That argument is rather less profound than you think it is. You are invited to look at the wikipedia article on 'Pascal's wager' for a response.
Blogger 7Brandy said...
Atheists~ If you are wrong in not believing in the Bible then what do YOU have to lose? If I am wrong for believing in the Bible what do I have to lose?
No, the question is, if YOU are wrong about Islam, what do YOU have to lose?
When you can answer that sensibly, you'll understand the atheist position much better.
Look up "Pascal's Wager" for more information.
Dani'el wrote That's exactly what an Argumentum Ad Hominem is.
It serves to change the subject when defeated in an argument.
I wasn't changing the subject. I was commenting on your post.
If we'd been in the middle of a discussion on one topic or another, and I'd insulted you in lieu of an actual response, then your accusation would be accurate.
That, however, is not what happened. You said something stupid, and I pointed it out.
No logical fallacy to be found
Dani'el did babble What sort of Deist? BTW I call deists what they are, Idolators.
Considering that I have no idols, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a rational conclusion.
In response to the Pascals Wager, I did read that. I also see the point that andy made about, if I am wrong about Islam what do I have to lose. I have chosen to believe in God. Plain and simple. To me I just cannot except that the earth and everything on it formed over billions of years from nothing. Believing in God is the chance that I am willing to take. Again, it is about having faith. There are lots of things I don't understand as to why God lets certain things happen. I can't argue that I know everything about religion or God either. I just know that I beleive. It is a choice that we are given, to either except God or not.
bquill73 wrote It is a choice that we are given, to either except God or not.
Choosing one religion over another presents just as much of a chance of making the wrong choice as choosing between believing in God or not.
By the way, I liked your response (the one I'm responding to). I personally find it worthy of respect when someone simply admits "I don't know where the truth lies, but I'm simply trying to do my best to find it". It's humble and honest.
Cheers
>1. What was in the beginning?
A nearly infinitely compressed speck of spacetime that contained all of the matter and energy in the universe.
>2. How will life on earth end?
The sun will expand to its red giant stage in about 6 billion years and will engulf the Earth, eventually vaporizing it.
>3. What happens after death?
The exact same thing that happened before birth - nonexistence.
>4. What is the purpose of existence?
Human beings create purpose. Our purpose is whatever we decide it to be.
>5. Why there is order in all of creation?
Because as far as we know, the laws of physics are in effect everywhere, and all things must follow those same rules.
>6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
Because humans, like many other animals, evolved to be social animals. Part of that evolution bred a sense of community into us, and we innately follow those rules.
>7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
As a social animal, we have a social hierarchy, and as abstract thinkers, we can imagine things that don't actually exist. The 'Creator' is the imagined top of all social constructs.
>8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
You underestimate society's affect on a person's inner workings.
>9. How did nothing create everything?
How did something create everything? Since time itself began when the universe did, nothing could have happened 'before'.
>10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
The egg, from something that was very similar to a chicken.
bquill73 said...
To me I just cannot except that the earth and everything on it formed over billions of years from nothing.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. I recommend that you give a good study of some of the historical theories about the origins of the universe, and the changes that have been made to the theories in light of new information.
So far, string theory has a pretty interesting idea behind the origin of the big bang, but it has to do with the abstract concept of multi-dimentional membrane collisions, and without context it is difficult to grasp.
Cosmology doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing, but we can not reliably predict what happened before 5x10^-44 seconds (the planck epoch) after the big bang because the equations break down and approach infinity.
This doesn't mean that nothing was there, it's just that we don't have the mathematics and equations to describe it, which is what physicists are working on all the time.
Wem wrote- Dani'el did babble What sort of Deist? BTW I call deists what they are, Idolators.
Considering that I have no idols, I can't see how this could possibly be considered a rational conclusion."
D- As a deist you believe in a god, just not the Living God of the Bible, I assume?
Even if you don't make a wood or stone idol to represent this god you believe in, you have fashioned an idol, a false god in your imagination. That's idolatry.
Your deist god doesn't exist.
wem speaketh thus- "Dani'el wrote That's exactly what an Argumentum Ad Hominem is.
It serves to change the subject when defeated in an argument.
I wasn't changing the subject. I was commenting on your post.
If we'd been in the middle of a discussion on one topic or another, and I'd insulted you in lieu of an actual response, then your accusation would be accurate.
That, however, is not what happened. You said something stupid, and I pointed it out.
No logical fallacy to be found"
D-I was making an argument (yes with some sarcasm and humor)and you injected your opinion, a personal attack or "argument against the man" mocking my intellegence or whatever.
Implying that my argument was not valid, not by arguing against my argument, but with a personal attack that was outside of the argument. That's an Ad Hom.
Saying not, here is were your argument is wrong, but your argument should be ignored as you are an "idiot". Ad hom.
And as you can see in this case, it serves to change the subject, the usual aim of an Ad Hom argument.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
There was nearly 10 billion years of creation going on between these two points, which fits perfectly with what science has uncovered. When God said, "Let there be light." from the point of the Spirit hovering over the face of the water, all these points of creation are seen as someone who is on the face of the earth. It is highly likely that the event that caused the light to appear was when this Mars sized rock hit the primordial earth causing the gaseous atmosphere to clear so that light could penetrate to the earth's surface. That event happened fairly quickly after the earth was formed. Having an earth sized planet with a moon as large as ours is apparently a rarity but this is what causes us to be able to support life here amongst many other phenomenon.
Wrong again, big suprise there. The Indian creation myths have the world formed by one god. The Greek has a formless void inhabited by Nyx, a giant bird. Also Apache,Cherokee,Chelan,Mayan etc. etc...But then of course you consider their books not holy because they are not the Bible and so do not count.
I meant the universe coming into being from nothing not the earth.
Vera
bquill73
I hope what I share is an encouragement to you.
In response to the Pascals Wager, I did read that. I also see the point that andy made about, if I am wrong about Islam what do I have to lose.
Pascal's wager is not real Christianity because Pascal didn't repent and be reconciled to God. He just warmed a pew somewhere to do his duty to God "just in case." Bad idea. But the premise that it is better to stick with God than not and to wait until your questions are answered is, I agree, better than chucking the obvious Creator of this universe to begin a life of atheism. I have had many questions over the years that I have had to wait long times before I got answers to.
I have chosen to believe in God. Plain and simple.
Amen! That is the bottom line.
To me I just cannot except that the earth and everything on it formed over billions of years from nothing.
Actually, this is exactly what the Bible claims in that this universe was created from nothing. Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
I personally believe that the reality of billions of years fits the Bible like a glove. I have redirected some people to Reasons dot org to see many proofs of this. Also, they have podcasts that you can listen to. That ministry has blessed me more than I can say.
Believing in God is the chance that I am willing to take.
Yes because science has very little to do with our every day lives in terms of how we will choose. Until I began witnessing, I didn't give science a second thought.
Again, it is about having faith.
Amen again!
There are lots of things I don't understand as to why God lets certain things happen.
Me too but I think suffering is not such a bad thing sometimes. We would not have the character qualities we possess if we didn't suffer.
I can't argue that I know everything about religion or God either. I just know that I beleive. It is a choice that we are given, to either except God or not.
Absolutely and unless we become as little children, we will not enter the kingdom.
You are on the right track!!
Vera
Dani'el babbled: Even if you don't make a wood or stone idol to represent this god you believe in, you have fashioned an idol, a false god in your imagination. That's idolatry.
No, it's not. Consult the dictionary.
Your deist god doesn't exist.
Prove it.
Hint: faith isn't proof.
Wem wrote-
Dani'el babbled: Even if you don't make a wood or stone idol to represent this god you believe in, you have fashioned an idol, a false god in your imagination. That's idolatry.
Wem- No, it's not. Consult the dictionary.
Dan- Hookay.
Idolatry
I*dol"a*try\, n.; pl. Idolatries. [F. idol[^a]trie, LL. idolatria, L. idololatria, Fr. Gr. ?; ? idol + ? service.]
1. The worship of idols, images, or "anything which is not God"
(including your deist god, Dan)
; the worship of false gods. (again- D)
His eye surveyed the dark idolatries Of alienated Judah. --Milton.
2. Excessive attachment or veneration for "anything"
; respect or love which borders on adoration. --Shak.
In the New Testament the term idolatry is used to designate covetousness (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13; Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5).
Dan-One might find a definition of adultery that doesnt include the adultery of the heart that Christ preached, but as a believer, I take that magnification of the law to idolatry of the heart as well.
It seems the dictionary does as well. note- most definitions I found included this broader def.
Whateverman
Your deist god doesn't exist.
Prove it.
The order and magnitude of the natural world and the way that the parameters were accomplished at the just right timing in the just right ways and how nature shows and displays the character of God. How the Bible characterizes those events unlike any other holy book.
And the other is your conscience. The very fact that you have judged once again proves that you are not an animal but one created in the image of God. That aspect of yours has nothing to do with your social graces. You acquired your social graces by judging right from wrong. The social evolution of this day is on a slippery slope and not improving.
Vera
Dani' El
Dan-One might find a definition of adultery that doesnt include the adultery of the heart that Christ preached, but as a believer, I take that magnification of the law to idolatry of the heart as well.
I agree. Anything that exalts the flesh is idolatry.
Vera
Dani'El and Vera,
(first, vera, WEM believes there is a God, so your answer was opposite to what you think he believes)
Just one question: How do you know the God you have constructed in your minds is not just another idol? I am serious. If you can so easily tell everybody else that what they have as "God" is an idol, what makes you immune to the same "disease"?
G.E.
GE-
The knowledge came to me supernaturally and by study of the Bible, a supernatural book.
Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
God literally speaks to me throught it.
I see the fulfillment of prophecy as one of the greatest proofs that the God of the Bible is the one true God.
I'm starting to give some of the testimonies of what I have witnessed concerning the spiritual world on my blog. I invite you there.
Dani'el wrote It seems the dictionary does as well. note- most definitions I found included this broader def.
Except that I do not (and have never posted anything which suggests otherwise) worship God.
Deists by definition do not worship a deity, the latter only being well-defined by specific religions.
And of course, if I was going to hold you to the definitions you claim bolster your accusation (of me being an idolater), I'd point out that you can't show with any authority that your God isn't false either.
Your faith says otherwise, of course - but people worship "false Gods" very faithfully. You would appear to be just as much of an idolater to a Muslim.
Daniel wrote "Your deist god doesn't exist"
Whateverman wrote "Prove it"
Vera followed up with The order and magnitude of the natural world and the way that the parameters were accomplished at the just right timing in the just right ways and how nature shows and displays the character of God.
Believe it or not, I find this a rational justification for belief in God. I'm not claiming you're right/correct for doing so, but only that the reasoning for it is compelling.
But then you write How the Bible characterizes those events unlike any other holy book.
This is where I believe your rationale falls apart. It's one thing to claim there's evidence for a creator deity - it's quite another to dismiss the vast majority of religious history by asserting that your current faith represents the only source of truth (in regards to this topic).
In any case, the Bible does absolutely nothing to disprove the notion of a Deistic deity. The only way it could is if all people accept the stories from fringe Christian traditions which assert the Bible to the be literal 100% word of God.
I lack faith in that. And as such, I do not find the Bible particularly credible when it comes to anything more than vague methaphorical morality.
G.E. wrote If you can so easily tell everybody else that what they have as "God" is an idol, what makes you immune to the same "disease"?
Thanks for summing up the question nicely, GE. I tend to be overly verbose about stuff like this :p
You still did not answer my question before...
I believe in God for many plausible reasons... the bible has predicted many events which have already come to pass and are fulfilling themselves as we type. (the Nation of Israel being restored to it's land, wars rumors of wars, famines, plagues, the temple being torn down and not a stone was left standing, the evil in our society today, I could go on and on) that tells me that the Bible was divinely inspired.
I don't understand how you people will accept history as it is written in a textbook but, will not accept the 500 witnesses that saw Jesus after his resurrection and also gave THEIR VERY LIVES for his name! How much more evidence do you need?
You all will stand before God one day and you can count on it. The bible says every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess him as Lord. I am truly burdened for your souls. Are you willing to take that much of a gamble on your eternal soul?
As for Islam it is of the devil...think about someone who hates Jews and Christian so much. Islam doesn't offer love or peace. It offers bondage, hate, and animosity. Their prophet is dead and in the grave still. Jesus Christ is risen and is sitting at the right hand of the father.
If I were you I would seriously seek out the Lord with all of your heart. He offers love and mercy. Get yourself a Bible and devote some time. God WILL speak to you. He says he is standing at your hearts door knocking just waiting on you to open the door. Some will choose not believe in him but you will not have an excuse on Judgement Day. You have heard the Gospel. I just pray that this will reach lost souls and that God will work in their hearts.
GE
(first, vera, WEM believes there is a God, so your answer was opposite to what you think he believes)
I didn't know that. So thank you. Perhaps we should all type in what we believe lest we assume the wrong thing. :-)
Just one question: How do you know the God you have constructed in your minds is not just another idol? I am serious. If you can so easily tell everybody else that what they have as "God" is an idol, what makes you immune to the same "disease"?
At times, I wonder the answer to that question myself. I don't consider myself better than others. We are all on a personal journey. In my own journey, I came face to face with my sin and the way it was blocking my relationship to God. At that moment, I thought I had repented by simply asking Him to forgive me of all my sins. But I wasn't. It took many years for me to understand that when we offend God, it is specific and He wants us to confess the specifics.
It was actually the fact that I was so bitter toward people that had hurt me that caused me to finally get alone with God and ask Him how I had offended Him expecting Him to reveal to me times when I was bitter and unforgiving toward people. That is because I felt like I was constantly walking around with a cloud over my shoulder.
Interesting things came to mind. In faith, I asked Him to forgive me and to cover my sin of bitterness toward this person with the blood of Jesus. I forgave them. I asked Him to take back all legal rights I had surrendered to satan. I also asked Him to create in me a clean heart and renew a right Spirit within me. I felt that tormentor leave. It was that powerful. I thought that was neat. So I asked Him if there was anything else and more things came to mind and not just bitterness but times I had sinned sexually and in greed and selfishness lying, cheating, etc and in other ways. From that point forward, I was reconciled to God.
I have been under teaching that didn't always fit what God was doing in my life. But I simply stayed the course waiting on God to reveal the truth to me and He did.
Faith is an interesting thing. Once you step out in faith, God is right there to meet you. It's like jumping into something unknown and then God catches you. Draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto you.
There are certain major doctrines of the church that most people agree on. It is the other minor issues where we might disagree. YEC vs. OEC etc. The Bible talks about that type of thing and how some teaching is like wood, hay and stubble and other teaching is like gold, silver and precious stones. The flimsy teaching will burn up in the end. The good will not.
The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the deity of Jesus nor in the power of His Spirit in the life of the believer. Not all, but some Catholics fall prey to idolatry calling Mary a co-redemptrix. These things do not coincide with the Word. No idolator will inherit the kingdom.
I think one of the main issues of Christianity is the fact that we are supposed to be holy as He is holy without the Law. It is apparently difficult for people to understand how this plays out in the life of a believer because it begins with faith.
Once upon a time, I was wicked and evil but God set me free. That is how I know. My knowing God does not cause me to know everything. At some times in my life, my understanding has changed. I always want to be open to those things while at the same time careful that I don't jump into something without thinking it through, seeking God and the counsel of others.
You know the disciples asked Jesus what would be the sign of His coming. Can you imagine what that might have been? He said, "Be careful that you be not deceived." You know what that tells me. Good Christians can be deceived and no where is that more prevalent than this day and time. It is my firm belief that this is what has caused this sect of atheism to arise.
Vera
Vera wrote I didn't know that. So thank you. Perhaps we should all type in what we believe lest we assume the wrong thing. :-)
I know this is going to come off as a criticism, but I would suggest that you never ever assume anything about anybody - either in a blog or in real life.
If preaching the word of God is important to you (and it may not be - I don't know for sure), the less you assume about what people think & believe will actually get them to take you more seriously.
It's a lesson that Ray himself could use some instruction in.
Dani'El,
The knowledge came to me supernaturally and by study of the Bible, a supernatural book.
Sorry but that will not cut it. Why? because this is the very same answer some of your "idolizers" give. Many of them read the very same Bibles, and their few differences in beliefs makes them idolizers to the eyes of those holding slightly different beliefs. I think you actually have no idea how different your mental image of your God can be from that held in your closest "congregation mates." In the end, if such is true, you might be an idolizer too. At least in the eyes of other flavors of fundamentalism (if we could imagine you and your friends agreeing on the God you believe in).
Vera,
Thanks for a much more honest answer (starting with "At times, I wonder the answer to that question myself"). Actually, my apologies because you were not telling WEM that his God was an idol.
G.E.
Whateverman,
Not a problem summarizing the question.
I knew what Dani'El would answer, though. Did you?
G.E.
Dani'El,
The knowledge came to me supernaturally and by study of the Bible, a supernatural book.
Get ed resp-Sorry but that will not cut it. Why? because this is the very same answer some of your "idolizers" give.
D- Fallacious argument. This doesnt mean my testimony is false if someone elses is false.
You asked how I know and I told you the truth, rejecting it doesnt make it not true.
The greatest reason I could give to someone like yourself that can be proven is that my God fulfills prophecy foretold in the Bible.
I invite you to my blog for some prophecies that are being discussed. One of which I am declaring will be fulfilled soon. The destruction of SF and LA, and another the destruction of Damascus.
I'm also sharing some testimonies of the things I witnessed in the last few years that you may find interesting.
Shalom, Dani'El
Dani'el wrote D- Fallacious argument. This doesnt mean my testimony is false if someone elses is false.
You asked how I know and I told you the truth, rejecting it doesnt make it not true.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
You can't reject someone else's personal knowledge as false but then insist that yours should be accepted as truth.
You either get to accept both or reject both. That's it
Hi Ray,
I will attempt to answer your questions here, and I'd like to see what you'd have to share about the replies.
//1. What was in the beginning?//
General Relativity and cosmology state that either a singularity existed at t=0. However, there is some question regarding the breakdown of Relativity as we move backwards under any timescale toward the Singularity; it could also be the case that such extrapolation (which would necessarily entail following a metaphysical cause/effect chain in reality, since any unit of time is epistemological and relative, as Einstein proved) could get "indefinitely close" to t=0, but never there.
//2. How will life on Earth end?//
Either by the destruction of all conditions possible for life by the burning out of our sun, or by any destructive force (comet, meteor, etc.) that wipes out such conditions before the sun would.
//3. What happens after death?//
Since consciousness is coexistent with the mind, it dies with the mind. Thus nothing happens after death in the sense of a detached existence. We don't "experience nothing," but rather we simply don't experience, as consciousness is the tool which experiences reality and dies with the brain.
//4. What is the purpose of existence?//
Purpose to whom? The question seems to imply that without God, there is no purpose. But purpose needs the existence of a consciousness to evaluate purpose; therefore, the statement that "without God, there is no purpose to life" is an invalid statement due to the definition of "purpose."
The answer to what the purpose of existence is can be found by analyzing man's nature. He is man; he is alive; man needs values to remain alive in a tolerable state. That man "is" this way implies the "ought": that man's purpose ought to be to act morally toward himself (achieving his values autonomously) and accordingly to act morally toward the other like men who exist around him (see question 6).
//5. Why there is order in all of creation?//
This seems to have the implicit point that all order must have a conscious designer. This confuses the (natural) metaphysically given with what is made by men, such as the incorrect "watchmaker" example. A watch is made by men; that is its definition. To assign such order to a natural state is a category error unless the existence of a divine Designer has previously been proven.
You may ask about why some things are much more orderly than others - like a highly complex lifeform as opposed to a chaotic shuffle of its atomic constituents (the Boeing 747 example). But given proper conditions, extreme order can be made from extreme disorder - quite quickly in some cases. An excellent example would be supercellular thunderstorms, which are made of condensed water (and other molecules). These parts are initially quite scattered but quickly organized into incredibly complex structures with individually complex parts that can't survive on their own, like a tornadic supercell.
//6. Why is there morality in every civilization?//
Continued from 4), man must necessarily recognize and respect their autonomous existence with one another, and that implies the necessity of withholding the use of force, whether explicitly through physical action (killing, rape, etc.) or implicitly through deception (lying, stealing, etc.). History testifies to the consequently logical conclusion: the more a society (and the people within it) realizes these moral concepts, the greater its citizens will prosper and live.
These are excellent questions, Ray, and I will attempt to answer #7-#10 as well, but I have to go teach my evening Calc class right now. Until tonight!
Sorry Dani'El, but my answer is not fallacious. You have to see it from an outsider's perspective. For all I know, all of you could be worshiping idols. (Also see WEM's nswer.)
I did not say you lied, by the way. Just that your perception could be as wrong, and lead to idolatry, as anybody else's. For instance, what do you think it looks like when you guys talk about the "inerrant Bible"? Well, maybe you will never understand it, but it looks plainly like the Bible has been made into an Idol. Where do you draw the line? Where do you start to distinguish?
I can easily respect WEM's beliefs because he does not claim any exclusivity, and because he is HUMBLE enough to admit that he just has faith and that he might not have all the answers. You, on the other hand, cling to the Bible (an idolized Bible) as the inerrant word of God, and cling to those twisted prophecy interpretations (to justify your idolizing of the Bible), in order to believe (that is exactly what this looks like).
So, again, are you sure that you are not worshiping a few idols yourself?
Please think about it a lot before answering. It at all. I actually do not need an answer. There is no way you will convince me (I have read your posts, and visited your web site). This is just an invitation to better thinking.
G.E.
DARRIN said,
//4. What is the purpose of existence?//
Purpose to whom? The question seems to imply that without God, there is no purpose. But purpose needs the existence of a consciousness to evaluate purpose; therefore, the statement that "without God, there is no purpose to life" is an invalid statement due to the definition of "purpose."
*******RESPONSE********
Question: Does the maker/inventor of a thing give purpose to the thing? Yes and always yes. Therefore the true intention of the invention is the Creator's intention. Why did the Creator create this thing is really what this question is asking. The Creator has rights over it's invention. The Creator has the right to give purpose to it's invention.
Basically, first we can conlude from studying nature that there exists a master Designer to all things.
First agree that there is a Master Designer/Creator/Maker of all thing and we can move on.
If the atheist is reasonable he will be willing to consider/ask questions and reason together and be open to find the truth. But if the atheist is a scorner/unreasonable it is better to not waste your time with him.
I am totally convinced that all reasonable atheists and seekers of truth will inevitably reach the conclusion that God exists and eventually with only God's help sumbit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as God.
get ed-So, again, are you sure that you are not worshiping a few idols yourself?
Please think about it a lot before answering. It at all. I actually do not need an answer. There is no way you will convince me (I have read your posts, and visited your web site). This is just an invitation to better thinking.
D- As to God's revealed Word in the Bible as an idol.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And I actually have developed a lot of respect for Wem, after a bad start we are getting along as friends. Wem is a lot more sensible than many here.
I've returned from work, and I'll continue with the final four questions here:
//7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?//
Although each civilization has their different belief systems, not all members of those civilizations held them - take, for example, the ancient Greeks, the Chinese Confucians, and also members of several divisions of religions: Buddhist, Shinto, and even Hindi have atheistic branches.
Some religions hold to the Sun to be God. Some hold that there are billions of Gods; some believe in one (such as the Native American Great Spirit). There are as many different religions as there are separated tribes of Aborigonals. So the accounts are so widely ranged according to geographical location that it's difficult to gather anything beyond supernaturality.
One might ask why they believe in God(s) more often than atheism. This is because many principles about philosophy require many generations of groundbreaking thought, and religion provides an easier, packaged-up response to all of these questions about life. This doesn't mean that theism or atheism are false or true, but it does explain why atheism exists less often than theism.
//8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?//
Because even the slowest of men can easily discern the very basics of how one "ought" to behave from the "is" of our human nature.
//9. How did nothing create everything?//
This is a common error with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, especially now that the universe has been proven to have a definite birthday under any timescale. To state "there was nothing before the Universe" commits two errors:
a) It assumes there was time before time.
b) It assumes "nothing" is a tangible existent.
The problem with (a) is that it mistakes the very meaning of time. Time and the Universe coexist - this has been proven necessarily. To ask "what was before the singularity," then, is invalid.
The problem with (b) is that "nothing" by its very definition can't exist - it's the one thing we can count on never existing. There wasn't some big, black "Neverending Story" kind of "nothing" before the Big Bang; there is no "nothing," and there is no "before."
//10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?//
The egg brought forth the first chicken.
Although we would not be able to tell a whit of difference between that chicken and that egg via only basic observation, intricate biology would show for our egg a genetic variance which would produce a chicken now compatible with at least one of today's living chickens, whereas the parent would be a hair off (or a "feather" off) of all of today's living chickens. That parent might not have been a "feather off" of all the chickens alive yesterday, however.
It may be the case that even if the change between the chicken-parent and the egg is so miniscule only biology could observe it, neither of these creatures may look exactly like our chickens today, even though the child is compatible biologically to at least one chicken currently alive. It may even be the case that this "golden egg" of ours didn't even give birth to compatible offspring, but rather he was first in line of a flock who may have later continued to change via drift and selection to the chickens we know and love (to eat).
I'd like to ask you a question in turn. Regarding evolution, what is it about that science which poses a threat to Christianity? William Lane Craig, although not adhering to evolution himself for other reasons (at least, not evolution without a constantly guided Hand), asks the atheist to consider whether even an unguided evolution from "goo to you" couldn't be ultimately a mechanism set up to produce Man in the only logically possible way. Perhaps God showed Moses the Big Bang and evolution, and Moses was not revealed the source of this science because the start of His book should obviously focus on the Lord's sovereign power, not a science lesson to distract it. Perhaps God could not literally have Created all things as-is, just as He can't make a square circle, and the notion of God's creation of Adam and Eve could be metaphor for God finally giving the breath of reason to the first two homo saps.
The book of Revelation is written with a vision of a future that John can't quite comprehend and put into anything but metaphor given his limited knowledge, so perhaps Genesis was the same way for Moses.
It's an interesting theory - I don't accept it personally - but it did pose a HUGE challenge for me, given all I've heard from Christians have been beliefs in at most direct Theistic evolution. The result of thinking about that challenge from Dr. Craig is that I've stopped using it as a proof against Christianity.
The only challenge I think it has the teeth to address is YEC, and they have very difficult theological issues which take precedence, since they're usually Calvinist inerrantists.
It's been a pleasure addressing these. Let me know what you think. Unlike some of the others here, I was happy to accept this challenge, and it made me think things through!
Generously awaiting your response -
-Darrin
>>zacharia
First of all, I appreciate the civil tone, and I think we can hold common ground with the fact that incivility from my camp (and in some Fred Phelps cases, yours as well) is to simply be ignored.
I will address your response here:
//Why did the Creator create this thing is really what this question is asking. The Creator has rights over it's invention. The Creator has the right to give purpose to it's invention.//
While I would agree that this is a correct Biblical sentiment, I am arguing from a purely metaphysical analysis of the nature of man as given - i.e. based only on observation.
The point I was addressing was that, if there is no God, then the Nietzschean and Existential notion of "meaninglessness" is invalid. "Meaninglessness" is valid only to a consciousness (or Consciousness) that can independently evaluate this notion and conclude this property for the ultimate fate of mankind. As men qua men, we are conscious only of our context, all through which we are necessarily alive; therefore, *even if there is a God,* we are the ones who ultimately choose our purpose based on both reality apart from us and our personality inside of us, unless there is a God and He's the Reformed (or the Sunni Muslim) One.
//Basically, first we can conlude from studying nature that there exists a master Designer to all things.First agree that there is a Master Designer/Creator/Maker of all thing and we can move on. //
I agree that many studies of nature have presented good arguments for God (as well as not-so-good ones). However, Ray did not bring this up in his list of questions, so I would have to ask which arguments you hold. Perhaps I could make my first blog entry on this very subject, if you'd like. :)
//I am totally convinced that all reasonable atheists and seekers of truth will inevitably reach the conclusion that God exists and eventually with only God's help sumbit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as God.//
Here I'd have to agree with you completely. Despite at-times strong Arminian arguments for the Bible, I've only been able to read in the Calvinist God, and the high-Calvinist one at that. I deconverted literally overnight twelve years ago from realizing this from Romans 8-9. There are big problems with this theology, but if I would nonetheless be convinced of the Christian God completely outside of these theological issues, I would need none other than God Himself inside the Spirit to save me. Otherwise, I would simply become a Theistic Satanist, or at least a reprobate crossing his fingers for the eventual arrival of the Spirit.
darrin wrote- //10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?//
The egg brought forth the first chicken.
Unquote
Dan- Who or what fertilized that first egg?
And if that egg bore a chicken/hen, where came the first rooster to fertilize the next egg?
In the beginning it had to be
A- 2 fertilized eggs that bore a hen and rooster (not hen/hen or rooster/rooster); or
B- a hen and rooster.
Both of which multiply the odds that evilution makes no sense.
Whateverman,
Believe it or not, I find this a rational justification for belief in God. I'm not claiming you're right/correct for doing so, but only that the reasoning for it is compelling.
In Hugh Ross's own quest for truth, he decided that the test should come from the holy books that each religion espouses as the one true holy book. And he used history, science and prophecy as his parameters. He shares how he came to conclude that the Bible was God inspired.
He came at the Bible from a totally secular scientific perspective not even knowing that there were controversies over YEC and OEC. When he picked up Genesis for the first time, he was impressed at the accuracy of Genesis 1 just looking at it from a purely scientific perspective and taking those days as days in God's economy.
Since then, he has been able to point to passages in Scripture elsewhere that speak of the creation event and other cosmic truths that he felt only a Creator could know. One other thing that he felt was remarkable was that the Bible had page after page of things that could be put to the test where the other holy books did not.
One thing he has helped me to recognize is this aspect of cosmology and creation that contains events that occur at the just right time, in the just right place to bring about the just right set of circumstances.
I'm the kind of person that likes to do my own investigating. I may not be able to read a Nature article and understand it but I can listen to secular science shows and see if these things are not true. So, I listened to this show, as I told some others, called Jurassic Fight Club and the episode called Armageddon which was about the KT extinction event. I have become keenly aware of terms like "just right" or "design." The KT extinction is the end of Day #5 in Genesis and the beginning of Day #6. What I find so interesting is that, for example, one of the paleontologists remarked that this asteroid hit the earth in a spot that contained elements that created even more devastation than it would have had it hit elsewhere creating a sulfuric acid rain. He indicated it was the "perfect spot." Even the huge sea dwelling creatures died at this point. One of the paleontologists believes little survived if any. How anyone can surmise that a dinosaur survived this to evolve into birds is beyond me because it seems to me that you could count the survivors on one hand. I mean the devastation was global and monstrous.
Psalm 104 is another creation account like Genesis but different that speaks of creation and then talks about the present and then goes back to creation. According to the Bible and the most basic of all teachings, God stopped creating after mankind was created. That is why this passage is so remarkable. Because it describes the death of animals and then God creating again just as we see in the fossil record.
There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
Interestingly, we have had other extinction events but no more creating since man was created.
The Bible isn't a science book. It is a book about people and their relationship to God. But there are enough scientific facts in it to point to the one true Creator.
Many blessings as you search for Truth!
Vera
Whateverman,
Vera wrote I didn't know that. So thank you. Perhaps we should all type in what we believe lest we assume the wrong thing. :-)
I know this is going to come off as a criticism, but I would suggest that you never ever assume anything about anybody - either in a blog or in real life.
If preaching the word of God is important to you (and it may not be - I don't know for sure), the less you assume about what people think & believe will actually get them to take you more seriously.
You're right. I will try to be more careful in the future by asking.
Thanks for sharing in that other post what you believe. It really does help me personally to know where people are at.
Vera
Dani'el wrote Wem is a lot more sensible than many here.
Now that is a statement of pure faith, not fact :)
Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure you and I will disagree again in the future, but I do sincerely try to be civil and respectful about it all.
Cheers to everyone who strives for the same...
Dani'El,
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
OK my friend, where does it say "and this Word we are talking about is the Bible"?
I went through the whole of John 1. And no, it does not even insinuates such thing.
Also remember that "The Word" was made into man, Jesus Christ, and that this is what they use to justify the "three persons" stuff.
In any event, if "The Word" is the Bible, does it mean that each Bible is another God? Sure this is not a symptom of Idolatry? Truly sure?
I will find problems each time Dani'El. As I said, I do not pretend to prove you wrong. I do not care. All I am doing is trying to show you how you can be perceived as much as an idolater as anybody else.
As of the chicken and the egg, of course the egg. Eggs appeared much earlier in evolution than chickens. Now, who fertilized the egg that hatched a chicken for the first time? Protochickens! :-)
G.E.
get ed wrote-
As of the chicken (singular)and the egg, of course the egg (singular). Eggs (plural)appeared (appeared? out of a hat?) much earlier in evolution than chickens (plural). Now, who fertilized the egg that hatched a chicken (singular) for the first time? Protochickens!(plural) :-)
;)
Not just protochickens, but proto-hens and proto-roosters. And and and.
The point I'm making (with sarcasm, forgive)is the sexes complicate (there's that complexity thing again) the issue.
(my parenthesis button is stuck!)
At some point either from the very beginning (how did that happen?) or at some point along the way. Single cell life had to spit into the sexes.
The first life form had to not only live, but reproduce which is a miracle so unlikely, well it takes faith to believe it happened by matterxchancextime. Life itself is a miracle, but reproducing life is well a complex miracle.
Evolutionist have to keep making ad hoc additions to the time required for it to be mathematically possible.
And even then, to go further into the extreme complexity we observe today, would mean the earth would need to be far, far older than even the evilutionists claim.
For a single cell creature, who was previously reproducing by one means, to by chance mutation start to reproduce by 2 sexes is to ask for a faith beyond what Creationism demands.
As to the bible. I dont worship the bible or the book itself, it is God's revealed word that is inseparable from Him.
Not the paper or ink itself, but the information it contains that is holy.
God Himself wrote these words.
Exo 34:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Dani'El,
I truly cannot see the point in your plurals and singulars. The sentences are well bound together and clear. It seems more like a trick you are doing to ignore literate constructs in favor of trying to ridicule. Is that the point?
Anyway, the evolution of sex is well studied and documented, and there are all forms of life that show transitions between sexual forms and clearly separate sexes. Many unicellular life forms also have differences and can be sexual. I do not have the space here to talk about it, but no Dani'El, sex is not a problem for evolutionists (now come here and misunderstand this).
Time scales? Dani'El, if you did a bit of research outside the boundaries of fundamentalists telling you what evolution is about, and where the problems are, you would not come with the "sex" problem, which, by the way, is not what the chicken-egg was about. You would also know that the time scale is more than enough for evolution to occur, and that nobody in the evolutionary field is worried about having "just the tiny amount of 4.5 billion years" for evolution to occur. No such thing. Fundamentalist twisters of knowledge rarely update their misguided knowledge of evolution, unless they can somehow twist a recent discovery to claim that a it proves their point. Thus, they ignore the power and breathtaking acceleration that genetic recombination can give to evolutionary events (as a single simple example).
Now:
Exo 34:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
If God wrote this, why does he refers to himself in the third person? (I know, I know, written through divine inspiration by some person, thus third person, just showing you that I can also miss the point on purpose).
Even then, I insist that those words do not, in any way, take away the possibility that you are truly engaging in Idolizing the Bible. Which also shows because you just ignored your previous mistake.
G.E.
I am amazed at how some of the people here can show their ignorance so boldly (saying a dog birthing a cat is conceptually similar to anything evolution discusses is ridiculous), but also be so proud of having done it. Please stop considering arguments mere exchanges of words, and perchance then you will realize you cannot win by out speaking your opponent. Arguments are exchanges of ideas. The atheist side has used words to express ideas, and the theist side has used words to try and beat words. Only one side here is arguing, until the theists put aside double talk and laughter in favor of fact and intellect.
Further more, this article has made one thing rather apparent. While I, like many atheists, have read both the old and the new testament cover to cover and with no conscious bias, anyone who reads the above comments can tell not a single theist here has read either Origin of Species, or Decent of Man. Please educate yourself on both sides of the issue before arguing. Though mosts theists who read Darwin then realize every 'stock' religious rebuttal is fairly well covered in the original texts.
"Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov
P.S.- Jinx McHue, you just called someone's answer "silly', yet if they answered with that in a high school biology class they'd get a point, and the class would laugh at your ignorance. Do we all now see the difference between being in an academic institution, compared to on a religious blog?
Post a Comment