1. What was in the beginning? [Atheists have a dilemma when they say that there was nothing in the beginning. This is because nothing cannot create something. If they say that there were gases (or something) in the beginning, then it’s not the "beginning," because the gases or the “something” already existed. Who or what made them? This is why reasonable atheists admit that they just don’t know, humbling though it may be].
2. Do human beings have more intrinsic value than animals? [If your pet dog and your neighbor are drowning, and you can only save one of them, who would you save? If it’s your neighbor, why? To an atheist, both the dog and the human being are both a mere species of animal, so their value is completely subjective. Most, if pressed, would say that they would save the human being, but they have no real explanation as to why he has more worth, other than to say that there is moral pressure from the social order to value a person more than a dog].
3. What happens after death? [The only way any of us can speak with any authority about the subject of death, is to have reliable information from someone who has been there. God has been there. He transcends death. He is both on this side and on "the other side." When we remove God from the equation, we are left with mere conjecture].
4. What is the purpose of life? [Without reference to a Creator who made us with the purpose of eternal fellowship, life has no real rhyme or reason. We are just tiny specs on a big ball of dirt, flying through space, striving to be happy, but with no purpose for existence].
5. Why there is order in all of creation? [If we believe that creation came into being through a big bang, it is important to understand that all explosions cause chaos. Order can only come through an in intelligent designer. Why then is there order from the tiny atom through to the massive universe? Why do summer, fall, winter and spring come around each year, at different times of the year, in different parts of the world--always in the same order? Why can we predict the sun’s rising to the second a 100 years into the future? Why is there order in the makeup of the eye, the ear, the brain, the blood, the heart, liver, kidneys, hands and feet? Every part of creation screams (to a thinking mind) that there is a Creator].
6. Why is there a sense of morality in every civilization? [How do we instinctively know that it’s wrong to kill, to lie, to steal, etc. Where did this universal morality come from? The only reasonable explanation is the one given by the Bible--that "the work of the Law is written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15), and that God Himself has given light to every man (see Romans 1:18-20)].
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator? [While an atheist may be quick to point out that some religions within certain cultures (such as Buddhism) are atheistic, mankind has never found any civilization (no matter how primitive) that didn’t worship some sort of Creator, whether it be the sun, or an idol].
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society? [If we didn’t accept that the conscience is inherent within every human being, we could never rightly administer civil justice. Morality is shaped by, but does not originate from society].
9. Which came first--the chicken or the egg? [Without "the book of beginnings" (the Book of Genesis) to tell us that God made the chicken first (see Genesis 1:20), we are merely guessing as to its genesis. If an atheist believes it was a chicken, where did it come from, and how was it given life when there was no egg from which to hatch? If it evolved without an egg, why did evolution change its mind and introduce eggs, if it was doing okay without them. Also, why and when did a rooster become necessary to fertilize the egg so that a chicken would form within it, and which came first, that rooster or its egg? If the atheist maintains that the egg came first, who then made it, (and again) who fertilized it, and who sat on it so that it would hatch? And that’s just the beginning of the beginnings dilemma. Which came first--the eagle or its egg? How about the duck? The owl, the kiwi, the tiny humming bird, and the big old albatross? There is no end to it, if you reject “In the Beginning God created..."].
10. How did nothing create everything? [It is primary science to understand that it is impossible for nothing to create anything, let alone everything. Material creation cannot be made by nothing. Something had to create it, and the Creator of all things was and is the non-material Spirit of the eternal God, who dwells outside the dimension of time (see Titus 1:2), and is infinitely beyond the comprehension of human understanding].
From, The Atheist Bible due Jan. 2009
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Answers to Questions Atheists Can’t (definitively) Answer
Posted by
Ray Comfort
on
11/05/2008 11:20:00 AM

86 comments:
Here's a question the Fundies won't want to answer:
How did Obama manage to get elected President, with all you Godbotherers petitioning God to intervene on McCain's behalf?
What happened?
"Answers to Questions Atheists Can’t (definitively) Answer"
Ray, we answered your idiotic questions already. Your addition of the qualifier "definitively" is just your mealy-mouthed attempt to dismiss our responses and pretend they didn't happen.
Yet more dishonesty from you, Ray. Can't you ever argue your point of view without resorting to lies?
===
The only way any of us can speak with any authority about the subject of death, is to have reliable information from someone who has been there. God has been there.
===
God has "been" there?
1. Since when is your God subject to time (using the past tense "been")?
2. Since when has your God become something that can "be" somewhere? Is God physical?
3. Since when is God "someone"? Are you anthropomorphizing a supernatural being?
4. Since when are there only two "sides" to this equation: "here" and "there"? Why can't there be more than 2? The physical world, Heaven, Hell, purgatory, New Jersey... or do you mean "here" and "there" with respect to TIME and not SPACE?
Man o man, Ray, you are really full of it today.
Ray,
Great stuff, as always.
I particularly like #2 because it gets into the realm of presuppositional apologetics, a field of study that is sadly often neglected by Christians.
If you've ever been acquainted with the ministry of the late Greg Bahnsen or Cornelious van Till, then you'll be familiar with Presuppositional Apologetics. Paul used it in Romans. Basically the apologist shows the Atheist that he lives as though he has a Theistic worldview, even though with his words he says otherwise. It's like a man who stands on a desk expounding why no desks exist. The actions of the speaker betray what the speaker claims.
Definitely look into Greg Bahnsen, and particularly the famous debate he had with Atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was no lightweight, and Bahnsen chewed him up and showed that he had no rational reason to support his Atheist assertions. Good stuff.
It's worth it for Atheists to listen to. Very heavy lifting, but worth thinking through.
God bless you!
in Christ and for His glory,
Mark
First, let me quote a great seer and prophet:
Palin rocks. We are not going to have an Obama-nation.
posted by Ray Comfort at 7:40 PM on Sep 3, 2008
Now let me quote from the only book that matters to said prophet:
Romans 13:1-2; 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
As for your current post, Ray, I'll just address point number 7 for now; you've obviously never heard of the Piraha of Brazil. But that's no surprise; we know how much you like doing actual research. The Piraha have no concept of a god or creator. There's a book coming out this month titled "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes; Life in Amazonian Jungle" by Daniel Everett, but I doubt if you'll read it.And now for some Spurgeon Gold on the subject of dumb, evil cigars:
"When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God and have blessed His name." -Charles Spurgeon
All summed up in three words:
"Creation, duh, Creator."
Thank you, Ray. :)
Tripmaster Monkey,
Yes, we Christians pray for godly leaders, but in the end, we know God uses everything according to His plan.
Just as Israel asked for a King instead of seeing God as their King, and got one, America has asked for an ungodly leader and gotten one.
So, whereas we pray and vote, our citizenship is not here, but in Heaven, and our King is not an earthly President, but our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. What happens after death? [The only way any of us can speak with any authority about the subject of death, is to have reliable information from someone who has been there. God has been there.
I believe that you have neglected to substantiate your assertions with evidence.
tripmaster monkey said...
"Here's a question the Fundies won't want to answer:
How did Obama manage to get elected President, with all you Godbotherers petitioning God to intervene on McCain's behalf?
What happened?"
*****
That's an easy one.
1 Corinthians 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
He's God; He's sovereign; He's not our genie. He simply relates to us this way and requires our prayers. Your child asks you for things. Sometimes you agree; sometimes you don't, right, because you understand something they don't? (Presuming you have children; if not, certainly you were a child at some point.)
Thanks for the softball. I didn't even have to look that one up. ;)
"Atheists have a dilemma when they say that there was nothing in the beginning. This is because nothing cannot create something."
Ray, show me where an atheist said there was nothing in the beginning.
I double dog dare you.
@ dawntreader:
Tripmaster Monkey,
Yes, we Christians pray for godly leaders, but in the end, we know God uses everything according to His plan.
Just as Israel asked for a King instead of seeing God as their King, and got one, America has asked for an ungodly leader and gotten one.
So, whereas we pray and vote, our citizenship is not here, but in Heaven, and our King is not an earthly President, but our Lord Jesus Christ.
You have a good point in there; America wanted Obama and God wasn't going to stop them.
However, I think it's an error to equate Israel and America. America's politics can't be equated to Israel's because the USA lacks one defining aspect of the Biblical Israel's political scene.
We don't have a covenant with God.
In every other Nation, Biblicaly, that hasn't really been shown to be an aspect in God's picking or setting up leaders. He set up a heathen nations on more than one occasion to punish Israel for breaking the covenant. It may not be that God didn't want Obama in office, but that Obama is actually some part of God's plan for the nations like Nebuchadnezzar was. Not that I think that we're called now to conquer Israel, I'm just saying that it's possible that God didn't just allow Obama into office, but even set him up for office to fulfill a specific role in his plan.
Who can know for sure? I have a sense of God's will for my life as an individual, and I have a sense of God's will for his people (that is, Israel), but I don't have a foggy clue as to what he's leading America into.
If your objective in posting excerpts of your upcoming book is to solicit constructive criticism, I would say that, while it will no doubt strengthen the faith of those who already share your beliefs, it will be unpersuasive to thoughtful atheists: you make many assertions, but provide little satisfying evidence or reasoning, and often resort to logical fallacies (question begging, arguments from ignorance or incredulity, etc). Also, with all due respect, your knowledge of science often appears, at best, unimpressive.
So if your intention with the book is to "preach to the choir", as it were, I'm sure it will be quite successful. But as a tool to win new converts, probably less so. If you're interested in constructing a more compelling argument, I would suggest you start by responding to the strongest arguments of atheists, rather than ignoring them in favor of the weakest arguments (or non-arguments), as in your recent posts on the heart, or simply attacking straw men. Also, it may be worth your while to be more respectful, rather than demonizing the atheists you are ostensibly attempting to persuade.
dawntreader: "Just as Israel asked for a King instead of seeing God as their King, and got one, America has asked for an ungodly leader and gotten one."
Really? I heard a prominent mention of God in Obama's acceptance speech. What makes you think he is "ungodly"? Or have I misunderstood what you mean by the term?
dawntreader said :
Just as Israel asked for a King instead of seeing God as their King, and got one, America has asked for an ungodly leader and gotten one.
endquote
You are right because we are not a theocracy. I suggest if you want a God governed country you go and found one in the south seas and take all your fundamentalist friends with you so you can live lives of Godliness and worship. Let me know how it works for you.
missyjreed said...
"He's God; He's sovereign; He's not our genie. He simply relates to us this way and requires our prayers. Your child asks you for things. Sometimes you agree; sometimes you don't, right, because you understand something they don't?"
So God is the abusiver father who smacks or treats without reason or explanation and Christians are whiny little brats who constantly demand things in case "dad" is in a good mood today and gives it to them. What kind of upbringing did you have for this to seem normal to you? I do have children and, when they ask for something, the one thing that they are guaranteed to get is a reason. Yes, the reasons may not always seem fair and may not make sense to them, but they still get one. Does God explain why he sets fire to your country, never heals amputees and cures cancer in one case in a million?
1. What was in the beginning
The beginning of what? Time?
I've never heard a single scientist say that they knew what came before a planck time, whether there was more matter, or whether it came from nothing, or whether it was created was pure speculation because there is currently no evidence to support any of those positions.
2. Do human beings have more intrinsic value than animals?
We are animals, but i get the point that you're asking.
The answer is: not necessarily but generally.
The closer the relation, the more intrinsic value. As such, my immediate family has more intrinsic value than my cousin, and my cousin has more intrinsic value than my distantly related relatives, who have more value than my neighbor, who has more value than someone who'm i've never met but still lives in my neighborhood, who has more value than someone outside of my knowledge. However, if it is my dog, then they have more value than someone i've never seen or met.
3. What happens after death?
We rot in the ground, or are cremated. Some people have elected to be compressed into a diamond and shot into space.
4. What is the purpose of life?
Why does life need a purpose?
5. Why there is order in all of creation?
There is not order in all of creation. Ever study quantum mechanics? Check out the quantum foam sometime and try to tell me that it is ordered.
6. Why is there a sense of morality in every civilization?
Morals are relative to the society that they developed. What some would consider murder, others would consider justice, etc.
Also, the morals of a parent society are inherited by subsequent societies. such as the fact that western societies share the same basic moralities which were present in sumerian civilization.
7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
Because people invent stories to explain things that they don't understand.
8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
How many sane people with consciences have you seen that grew up outside of society? In fact, how many people have you seen that have had no parental instruction, and grew up on their own in the wild?
9. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Chickens and chicken eggs developed simultaneously. There was no specific point where one could say "you are a chicken, but your parent's weren't" any more than there is a specific point that you can say to a dog "you are a dog, but your parent's weren't"
10. How did nothing create everything?
No one says that nothing created everything, but there is no evidence to say what was before a planck time. Whether it was something or nothing, we don't know.
MissyJReed sez:
He's God; He's sovereign; He's not our genie.
You might want to tell your fellow theists that. They seem to be under the impression that they can induce their God to intervene on their behalf.
Dawntreader sez:
So, whereas we pray and vote, our citizenship is not here, but in Heaven, and our King is not an earthly President, but our Lord Jesus Christ.
Really? Perhaps you should scroll up and read Rufus' comment regarding Romans 13:1-2.
MissyJReed sez:
1 Corinthians 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Thanks for the softball. I didn't even have to look that one up. ;)
Really?
1 Corinthians 13:1
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
The passage you're referring to is Romans 13:1. Perhaps in the future, you should look up "softballs" like that.
@tripmaster monkey:
God does what He pleases. I'm confident for two reasons 1)Obama is in office for God's use; 2) Obama has a chance to repent and be saved just like any other man. Who knows. Maybe we'll go down in history like Nineveh, whose wicked king heeded the call of God through Jonah to repent and escape God's wrath.
DawnTreader said...
"Creation, duh, Creator."
Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh, Creation, duh, Creator, duh,
x infinity.
Nice circle of logic. :)
yawn, another list of slippery slope arguments. All of these questions have been answered Ad nauseam, you either ignore the answers or are just lying.
1. The universe is the ultimate free lunch, read Alan Guth
2. No, they have different ones
3. Dead things rot away, that's the only evidence.
4. There is no intrinsic meaning to life, life is what you want it to be.
5. There isn't order in nature, it's incredibly chaotic.
6. There isn't, or at least there is no consensus.
7. They don't
8. They don't
9. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg.
10. Same answer as question one.
I don't know why I bother, you don't listen, and you rarely even post my comments. What are you afraid of Ray?
That's sophomoric drivel. Ray, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Ray Comfort:
Where, exactly, is Heaven located?
Where, exactly, is Hell located?
Please, show me a demon.
You have had very good answers to all these questions before Ray. Your ignoring them makes me thing that perhaps, just perhaps, you might be dishonest ... Are you?
Ray what happened to my post ? I made up all kinds of answers to your questions and yet you did not let it through. I do not recall be blasphemous or not capitalizing.
I have a seriously problem:
1) Atheists, we're not putting a gun to your head. We're not threatening to kill you. And you respond to us as if we were breaking the law or something. You're all so offended like we're violating you or something. I'm sorry, but you're the ones who keep coming back. Personally, I think you're semi-convinced of the truth, but are afraid of what your atheist friends will say if you are converted. How wussy.
2) Yes, we're telling you that you will die some day - as everyone will - and that you will face God. The difference between us and "nominal" Christians is that we've not just been convinced by mere facts, as if it's just nothing but a mental assent to MERE knowledge. It's more than that. God has touched our hearts. God has spoken by his prophets and apostles - yes, but he didn't stop there. He moved us internally to "get it."
3) We're reaching out in love to show you the truth and you cut Christians down like we don't sin or something. Dude, Christianity can be described as this: beggars showing other beggars where the bread is.
4) We don't want money or fame or anything. Our chief goal is to point you in the direction of Life. Christ died so that sinners like you and me would be forgiven our sins and not face God's just and righteous anger.
Death isn't it. You guys can call Ray dishonest, but he's not calling you names. He just posted a blog and you're attacking him for helping you from walking off of the cliff of life into an eternal hell that you and I both deserve. Please reconsider.
Webster Hunt (Parts Man) said... "God does what He pleases."
--Then why pray?--
missyjreed said... "He's God; He's sovereign; He's not our genie. He simply relates to us this way and requires our prayers. Your child asks you for things. Sometimes you agree; sometimes you don't, right, because you understand something they don't? (Presuming you have children; if not, certainly you were a child at some point.)"
--Pray to a milk jug and I promise you will get the same result: A) You may get what you pray for right then. B) You may never get what you prayed for. C) You get what you prayed for later on.
If A, you say,"See... God answered my prayers."
If B, you say, "God knows better than me and this is what He wants."
If C, you say, "God gives me what He wants in His time. He knows better than me."
It's a win-win situation. That is, praying to God or the milk jug.--
tripmaster monkey said...
Here's a question the Fundies won't want to answer:
How did Obama manage to get elected President, with all you Godbotherers petitioning God to intervene on McCain's behalf?
What happened?
Sometimes God answers prayers by giving us what we deserve, not what we want.
America bless God!
Ludie
tripmaster monkey - Yes, Romans. Thanks for the correction. *blush*
paul brown said...
So God is the abusiver father who smacks or treats without reason or explanation and Christians are whiny little brats who constantly demand things in case "dad" is in a good mood today and gives it to them. What kind of upbringing did you have for this to seem normal to you? I do have children and, when they ask for something, the one thing that they are guaranteed to get is a reason. Yes, the reasons may not always seem fair and may not make sense to them, but they still get one. Does God explain why he sets fire to your country, never heals amputees and cures cancer in one case in a million?
****
Paul,
God is not the father of those who reject Him. And I was going to pick on "abusiver" but since I typed 1 Corinthians when I meant Romans, well, that wouldn't be wise.
Chebs said...
I have a seriously problem:
Seriously?
1) Atheists, we're not putting a gun to your head. We're not threatening to kill you. And you respond to us as if we were breaking the law or something. You're all so offended like we're violating you or something. I'm sorry, but you're the ones who keep coming back. Personally, I think you're semi-convinced of the truth, but are afraid of what your atheist friends will say if you are converted. How wussy.
The reason I keep coming back is to refute the arguments that have no grasp on scientific concepts, and for laughs. I'm always entertained by whatever hair-brained schemes ray comes up with to press non-fundamentalist buttons. I also try to chime in when someone misrepresents a scientific idea if i happen to have a working knowledge of it, and correct their errors.
2) Yes, we're telling you that you will die some day - as everyone will -
No one is disagreeing with you and in fact, the fundamentalists are the ones suggesting that they will live forever.
and that you will face God. The difference between us and "nominal" Christians is that we've not just been convinced by mere facts,
You said it, not me. You are not convinced by facts. This is the difference between knowledge and faith.
as if it's just nothing but a mental assent to MERE knowledge. It's more than that. God has touched our hearts. God has spoken by his prophets and apostles - yes, but he didn't stop there. He moved us internally to "get it."
Thats all fine and dandy for you if you want to believe that, but there are those of us that aren't going to believe a fantastic story from a book without evidence.
3) We're reaching out in love to show you the truth and you cut Christians down like we don't sin or something. Dude, Christianity can be described as this: beggars showing other beggars where the bread is.
I can feel the love when someone tries to tell me what I believe, and that the only reason I don't share their beliefs is because i love to be a bad person. While you show other beggars where the bread is, we'll be showing beggars that are willing to listen how to grow grain and how to make their own bread.
4) We don't want money or fame or anything. Our chief goal is to point you in the direction of Life. Christ died so that sinners like you and me would be forgiven our sins and not face God's just and righteous anger.
Since we don't believe in any deities, and we haven't seen any evidence to support any deities, why would we fear the wrath of something that we don't believe exists?
Death isn't it. You guys can call Ray dishonest, but he's not calling you names. He just posted a blog and you're attacking him for helping you from walking off of the cliff of life into an eternal hell that you and I both deserve. Please reconsider.
Uhm, Ray is dishonest, and makes broad generalizations about atheists which amounts to nothing less than bigotry. Again, your notion of an eternal hell is not supported with evidence. Believe in it if you want, i don't care. But the reason I am here is because i've been waiting for Ray's alleged "scientific proof of the existence of God" for a long time, and have received nothing but philosophical conjecture and scripture.
Ray, you have a book that you claim has all the answers to these questions (oddly, other people with equal faith in the inerrancy of the same book have somewhat different, but equally definitive, answers to some of these questions). But it seems to me that you are (as you do so often) conflating certainty with accuracy. One can "definitively" answer any question, as long as one is not asked to justify the answer one offers so confidently.
A side note on question five: order is logically prior to intelligent designers; laws are logically prior to lawgivers. To explain why the designer remains himself -- keeps any consistency of identity, to say nothing of purpose and memory -- from moment to moment, we must infer some sort of law of his own nature that has to exist before he can do anything at all. Something, or Someone, Who has no regularities of His own nature, no laws "governing" his own behavior, is as likely to spontaneously turn into a penguin as to design and create a world. From this, it seems to me, it follows that if God exists, then some sort of laws of nature (to wit, God's own divine nature) must have existed from all eternity. It seems at least as parsimonious to assume that "laws of nature" as we normally understand the phrase could equally have existed, uncreated, from all eternity.
A side note on question 7: from what I have read (and I do not assume that my sources are inerrant and comprehensive) there are a number of cultures that neither assume a unique Creator (there may be multiple creator gods responsible for different aspects of reality), nor show a particular interest in any creator: their religions primarily concern ancestral or local tutelary spirits. Again, I may be wrong here, but then, since you've been wrong on matters of scientific fact before, it seems to me that you may be asking atheists to explain a "fact" that is not really a fact.
And of course a couple of side notes on question 9: evolutionary theory is much more than a "guess;" it is an inference from enormous amounts of data from many different independent lines of research. And it necessarily implies that the egg came first. On the other hand, the creation account (indeed, so far as I remember, the entire Old Testament) does not even mention chickens, or go into any detail on how the birds of the air were created. Perhaps God created the eggs first, and miraculously arranged for them to be incubated somehow (analogous for the way He arranged for the Earth to orbit ... something ... for three days before He got around to creating the sun). You can't show from scripture alone that this is not the case.
Ah, the first cause argument.
For all we know Ray, we are a universe inside of an even larger universe, or just one of many universes also inside of a universe.
Or the universe could be infinite. We just don't know.
We could also be part of a computer simulation. No way to know for sure.
And who created God? If time is a property by which things in our universe is governed, who's to say that whatever is outside our universe hasn't always existed?
Froggie said...
"Atheists have a dilemma when they say that there was nothing in the beginning. This is because nothing cannot create something."
Ray, show me where an atheist said there was nothing in the beginning.
I double dog dare you.
Froggie, exactly, atheists tend to avoid explaining how everything in the natural realm started.
Can I ask you then, what what was there in the beginning. Was it something that was always there?
Did it have to be created or did it just exist. What was it?
Logic and science agree you can not create something from nothing. So are you saying that something has always existed which did not need to be created? Please explain how that developed into human life capable of exchanging views on the internet.
May God bless you as you consider this subject. Neil.
I'm wondering why no Believers have quoted 1 Corinthians 1:25:
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
From John McArthur's Bible Commentary on this verse:
"To all the "called," the message of the cross, which seems so pointless and irrelevant to man's proud, natural mind, actually exhibits God's greatest power and greatest wisdom." [bold emphasis added]
TripMaster Monkey said...
Here's a question the Fundies won't want to answer:
How did Obama manage to get elected President, with all you Godbotherers petitioning God to intervene on McCain's behalf?
What happened?
God allowed it. ♥
Neil,
1- "Froggie, exactly, atheists tend to avoid explaining how everything in the natural realm started."
2- "Can I ask you then, what was there in the beginning. Was it something that was always there?"
OK. I have a new policy that I am not going to interface with fundamentalists on this site any longer; except to respond to some of Ray's inanities.
One of the reasons why is because I have answered this question at least two hundred times in the last 4 months and have never once recieved a thank you or even an intelligable response.
Another reason is that I am a reality based person. We use logic and reason in every part of our life except when someone is defending their faith based views and I have become weary of arguing with people that have no idea what evidence or proof are, let alone common logic. It has made me more cynical that when I started.
But, since you are new I will make this one exception.
1- "Froggie, exactly, atheists tend to avoid explaining how everything in the natural realm started."
That is absurd and I'll tell you why in #2.
2- "Can I ask you then, what was there in the beginning. Was it something that was always there?"
We do not know what was there in the beginning. Physics tells us that our present universe was created from a singularity. That ininitely dense and small point existed in a state in which present physics did not exist.
I don't know what came before that and neither do you.
If you choose to say God was there, that is fine by me. But you have no evidence for that.
There is a phrase known as the "ethics of Unknowns."
It is perfectly fine to say that there is something we do not understand or do not know.
When people start assigning supernatural events to explain these unknows, there are acting in an irrational fashion.
We can now explain thousands of different natural events that were at one time attributed to God, and we explain more all the time.
A person who can not admit that he doesn't know something is a person that cannot be trusted to use sound logic and reason and I have much personal experience with that.
I could never understand how or why fundamentalist Christians think they have the absolute truth about every subject known to mankind and it can all be found in one old dusty book of myths.
That is the real mystery to me.
Rufus said...
Ray Comfort:
Where, exactly, is Heaven located?
Where, exactly, is Hell located?
Please, show me a demon.
_________________
Nice try Rufus. You ask to see things for which you do not believe in, therefore because you are blind spiritually, you will not see heaven unless you repent of your sin and place your faith in God. You will however see hell upon death if you do not do the above mentioned two things to see heaven. As for seeing demons. They are a spiritual being to which you may not physically see. However, you do daily see the effects of demons. Just turn on the evening news and all the evil you see reported comes about by demonic activity.
But then again, Satan doesn't want you to see him or other demons because that would show you that what Ray and other Christians are talking about here is true.
Then again, you don't need Satan to show himself, you can just read the Bible and you will see the truth if you read it with an open mind.
I challange you. Read the Holy Bible without your biased opinions as see what you come up with and believe? I mean actually read the Bible from Genesis 1:1 through Rev 22:21. Don't try to try to quote mine like many atheists like to do with the Word, but lay aside your ideas about the Bible and even pray, "God if you are real reveal yourself to me as I read your Word."
no kevin,
it's the invisible flying monkey armies that cause all that.
If only you could see the spiritual truth.
Have an open mind.
This was the best post on this list and I'm not just saying that. What excellent points, Ray!!!
These points are proof, not conjectures, and clearly show the undeniable evidence of God in nature so that man is without excuse.
I sincerely enjoyed reading this!
Vera
tm
I can only speak for Doug and me. We voted for McCain but never liked him. The ONLY reason we voted for him was because of the abortion issue. However, there was no real guarantee that McCain was going to change . The Republicans have become liberal in their thinking of late. It was fairly obvious that certain folk that sway these things didn't even try to get this man elected. I would listen to talk radio and they rarely said anything positive because they don't like the moderate Republican. Now that the election is over, they are extremely vocal about it. Palin was wonderful. And let us not forget that the race was neck and neck.
I was amazed listening to the victory speech at how many people just wanted a black president. It's almost as though they don't care what the man stands for as long as he's black. However, this man has some serious issues and some of you folks may not be too happy with him after 4 long years of making decisions. Hopefully, he won't be able to make too many.
For me, I am just tickled pink that the laws of marriage in both my state of Florida and California are now officially a man and a woman. Glory to God!!! That was a huge victory. You can have your president.
Vera
verandoug said...
This was the best post on this list and I'm not just saying that. What excellent points, Ray!!!
These points are proof, not conjectures, and clearly show the undeniable evidence of God in nature so that man is without excuse.
You would not kow a truth if it kicked you in the butt.
Your truth is what you want to be truth, and it has nothing to do with real truth. You are being very carless and your integrity is sinking further with each of your ignorant comments.
froggie dale
You would not kow a truth if it kicked you in the butt.
Your truth is what you want to be truth, and it has nothing to do with real truth. You are being very carless and your integrity is sinking further with each of your ignorant comments.
Sir, you are the one that wouldn't know truth if it were staring you in the face, which it does each and every day you get up and walk out of your house and see the sun shining, the birds singing, the crickets chirping, the white billowing clouds in the blue sky and the fresh clean air you breath because the whole world declares the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day they speak to every person on this globe and show knowledge, which is why you are without excuse. You never listen to anything. You won't listen to brilliant scientists. You won't listen to famous folks like Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort who make themselves available daily on this list. You won't listen to a nobody housewife like me.
You can't see God because God chooses for it to be that way. You have to become as a child to know God and you refuse. You think by demanding that God come to you on His terms that this somehow justifies your actions. It doesn't. You continue to harden your heart and then one day, there is the point of no return. God will harden it for you in that day.
My truth is what I know to be truth and it has stood the test of time. I stepped out in faith and found a Rock. I compare what I believe to the Bible. If my understanding doesn't match that Book, then I know I need to readjust my understanding and have done so on more occasions than I care to count. It has never failed for me. I know God is real. Be assured that one day you will absolutely know too.
Atheism isn't new. Plenty of countries have tried to rule by atheism and all it leads to is harsh control and oppression where religion is outlawed except for the state run anything-but-Christian church. Any attempt to lead a home Bible study is met with cruelty. That, my friend, is why our founding fathers made it a point to write into our Constitution ways to ensure that didn't happen. These admonitions are what the atheists used to push their agenda into public education and turn the youth of this nation into anarchy, foolishness and idiocy. They have no moral compass. That is what you and your ilk stand for as "truth."
I stand for all that is good and decent and righteous. I stand for a nation where one woman and one man marry for life and raise a God-fearing family. I stand for a nation where all people, including the unborn, those of varying creeds and colors and beliefs and all citizens are protected and treated with dignity and respect. I stand for a nation where Christianity can be shared in a persuasive manner with our basic rights of freedom of speech or for that manner, anyone can stand up and speak what they believe without fear of government intervention or repercussion. I stand for a nation where young people are taught decency and moral values that have stood the test of time. I stand for a nation where brave men and women have died defending those freedoms even in the face of ungrateful whining complaining atheists who would not have a platform to speak freely were it not for their sacrifice.
I stand for one nation - under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
That is the truth and the world which I work daily to promote and encourage!
Vera
Froggie said:
We do not know what was there in the beginning. Physics tells us that our present universe was created from a singularity. That ininitely dense and small point existed in a state in which present physics did not exist.
I don't know what came before that and neither do you.
If you choose to say God was there, that is fine by me. But you have no evidence for that.
I am interested in what you believe Froggie. I am not wishing to force any belief system on to you.
Do you have evidence there is no God? Or, is it just your personal belief God is unlikely?
I am just interested in the truth of what life is all about. Therefore I wish to consider all of the evidence.
God Bless you Froggie.
Ray, I love your blog, I really do!!
Do you have a book that i may share with unbelievers i know?
Ray,
Concerning this post, I think your premise is very flawed.
You state this is an except from your Atheist Bible but this has nothing to do with any bible-like book.
It is merely you stating questions and then applying your irrational belief system to answer them.
Your premise id rediculous.
Hi Ray:
I would be interested in writing a foreword. I am not an atheist, but I am an English Professor in Canada that heartily supports your work. If you would like to email me with info about length of foreword, etc, please give me an email.
Look forward to it!
Jason Bermiller
Hi Ray:
I would be interested in writing the foreword for your new book.
Let me know how to send it to you. Do you have a manuscript or some sample of the book that you want me to see before I write up a foreword?
I am an English professor in Canada, listen to womtr daily and have read several of your books. It would be an honor for me to write the foreword of the next Ray Comfort book.
Look forward to hearing back from you.
Blessings,
Jason Bermiller
Neil,
Your question has been answered here hundreds of times in the last several months.
"Do you have evidence there is no God? Or, is it just your personal belief God is unlikely?"
That is totally absurd and shows that you do not posess the wherewithall to understan sound logic. You are best following your bible because that is probably the only way a person like you can endure life.
Get this:
There is no evidence for the existence of a God.
If there were, I would look at it.
You cannot have evidence for a negative.
If I say there is anvisible pink rabbit in my closet there is no way that you can come up with evidence that I do not.
Your question is hilarious beyond belief and I am sure you will see how ignorant the question is if you just think about it for a minute.
Get real, man.
froggie dale
I now realize how much you use logical fallacies trying to make points that are far from the original point. I had been looking for the list of debate definitions. I didn't know they were termed logical fallacies. Thanks to Chris, I now have a list of them.
Neil,
Your question has been answered here hundreds of times in the last several months.
"Do you have evidence there is no God? Or, is it just your personal belief God is unlikely?"
The part you typically leave out is the Holy Bible inspired by God and the record of nature. The Bible may not fit your homogenized view of what God should be, but it nevertheless is who He is and has stood the test of time. It further matches the record of nature, history and contains prophesy that has come to pass and has enough scientific facts contained in its pages to point toward the true Creator. Creation is plenty enough proof. The natural world is proof.
That is totally absurd and shows that you do not posess the wherewithall to understan sound logic. You are best following your bible because that is probably the only way a person like you can endure life.
Ad hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Get this:
There is no evidence for the existence of a God.
If there were, I would look at it.
There is evidence everywhere in the things that are made. Each path in even the smallest living organism requires several components working together in harmony. IOW, one can't survive without the other. The Krebs cycle or the blood cell, which came first?
You cannot have evidence for a negative.
Beg your pardon? What about dark matter?
If I say there is anvisible pink rabbit in my closet there is no way that you can come up with evidence that I do not.
straw man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Your question is hilarious beyond belief and I am sure you will see how ignorant the question is if you just think about it for a minute.
This is an appeal to ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
The invisible rabbit is a straw man.
Most of the post is ad hominem.
When you have something that supports your position, it would be a great day. So far the majority of your posts lack logic and thanks to Chris, I now have the list of definitions to expose your lack of logic.
Vera
Vera,
You said,
" ou never listen to anything. You won't listen to brilliant scientists"
What you mean is that I don't listen to creationist scientists whoe's presupposition is that the bible is the inerrent word of God.
Please get that straight.
"You won't listen to famous folks like Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort who make themselves available daily on this list."
You must be kidding! Ju8st because someone is "famous" sure doesn't make them right.
"You won't listen to a nobody housewife like me."
You are correct. You aren't you. You are a parrot of RTB and Hugh Ross who never does any research but tries to fit research done by valid scientists into his irrational model, same as Ken Ham does.
Oh, Vera, just looking out my door and seeing a tree is not evidence of any supernatural being.
The fossil record clearly shows how plant species went from very basic to very complex over the last three billion years.
If you want to hold a belif that God came around every million years or so and poofed a new species into existence, go ahead!
Ray said...
"8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?"
This is just silly Ray. Reread what you wrote there – “Why does every *sane* person have a *conscience*?” It’s equivalent to asking “Why does every beach have sand” or “Why does every caravan park have caravans”. The first part (sane) necessitates the second part (conscience). *Please* try to use your brain, it’s really not that difficult.
Ray said...
"10. How did nothing create everything? [It is primary science to understand that it is impossible for nothing to create anything, let alone everything. Material creation cannot be made by nothing. Something had to create it, and the Creator of all things was and is the non-material Spirit of the eternal God, who dwells outside the dimension of time (see Titus 1:2), and is infinitely beyond the comprehension of human understanding]."
I admit, Ray’s the expert on nothing.
Mark Sohmer said...
"It's like a man who stands on a desk expounding why no desks exist. The actions of the speaker betray what the speaker claims."
No, it’s not like that. It’s like both an atheist and a theist (ie everyone) standing on a platform they can’t see. The atheist is trying to figure out what the platform is made of, how big it is, how thick it is, what colour it is, why it is holding them both up, and why it's there in the first place.
The theist throws his hands in the air and proclaims that the platform rides on the back of 4 enormous pink elephants, themselves supported by two giraffes, standing on the head of a pin, all of which are *also* invisible, based on what his friend told him his dead aunts ex-boyfriends grandmother had been told as a little girl.
*That* is the difference between atheism and theism with your ridiculous analogy modified to be more reflective of reality.
Dimenio said…
"I believe that you have neglected to substantiate your assertions with evidence."
Evidence?? LMFAO. This coming from a Christian who has the burden of proof. Suddenly *you're* asking for evidence, that's a classic!
Chebs said...
"Blah blah blah...God loves you…blah blah blah… you’re going to hell….blah blah blah"
Ok I paraphrased a bit there, but that was the gist of it :p
Why don’t you just address the ‘content’ instead of trying to psychoanalyse those who are providing mountains of logical refutations?
verandoug said...
"For me, I am just tickled pink that the laws of marriage in both my state of Florida and California are now officially a man and a woman. Glory to God!!! That was a huge victory. You can have your president."
Lucky for you. Maybe next they’ll bring back slavery and you’ll just be *creaming* yourself in ecstacy.
dale
You are correct. You aren't you. You are a parrot of RTB and Hugh Ross who never does any research but tries to fit research done by valid scientists into his irrational model, same as Ken Ham does.
What research have you done? I am actually trying. I am reading the books from RTB but I am also trying to listen to secular sources. I watched that whole series from PBS called Jurassic Fight Club and I noticed the same thing that Hugh Ross and his team notices and that is that the evidence fits the biblical model and I have shown that in another post. At this point, I don't want to read biased sources for the other side even though I did listen to Evolution 101 by Dr. Zach. They just can't help themselves but try to tear down and falsify creationism and usually from a YEC perspective. And the second thing that the guy couldn't help himself to do was to promote homosexuality. I mean the whole thing screams of bias. Jurassic Fight Club did nothing but present the facts.
You should at least investigate the RTB model. It is sound. I make no bones about the fact that we have a natural tangible hold-in-your-hands-see-with-your-eyes piece of evidence and that is the Bible. They make no apology for using the Bible as a source. The Bible isn't a science book but God gives us enough information to form a testable model. So far; so good. And when I say "we," I include everyone including you. I do not mean that I am in a group with RTB as one of their prestigious scientists. How absurd is that? Why do you take things out of context like that?
I do use their materials because they are pertinent and they include scientific bibliographies with peer review. They committed 300 pages of their latest book to bibliography. That is how committed they are to going over and above board with their research. You have never given me that kind of evidence .... ever. All you do, typically, is throw a lot of ad hominem, poisoning the well comments in my direction with absolutely nothing to back it up but your opinion. Even Steven writes me long arduous letters that speak of the dinosaurs as though he is an expert paleontologist without anything that I can turn around and read. I am forced to look at wikipedia for what little information is there. If I give you an RTB article, it is going to include a huge list of secular scientific articles that can be read and checked out. I don't see how it can get any more upright than that. Also, RTB's materials are specifically designed for folks like me to use to share the gospel. That is the heart of their ministry. We care about you, dale and so I sit here day after day trying to show you the light.
The fossil record clearly shows how plant species went from very basic to very complex over the last three billion years.
If you want to hold a belif that God came around every million years or so and poofed a new species into existence, go ahead!
As Steven tells me when it suits his fancy, the fossil record is incomplete. This aspect of the fossil record fits the biblical model. We would expect things to progress from simple to complex. Personally, I think it is ludicrous to use such an example as a means of proving naturalistic evolution. Unless you have mtDNA that you can look to for proof, you really have no leg to stand on.
So then you have to look to other sources and when you do, it all points to a Creator God. He might not fit the American homogenized made up god that they have been portraying but He does fit the God of the Bible.
Vera
Vera,
That comment is hilarious.
"I am reading the books from RTB but I am also trying to listen to secular sources. I watched that whole series from PBS called Jurassic Fight Club and I noticed the same thing that Hugh Ross and his team notices and that is that the evidence fits the biblical model and I have shown that in another post.
Jurrasic Fight club is not science. It is only an extrapolation of the way it might have been. The producers acknowledge that.
You issed the entire premise of the effort.
You ARE reading Hugh Ross, but you TRY to read secular.
You end up watching Jurasic Fight Club!
You are showing your ignorance once again.
Hugh Ross is the laughing stock of the scientific community. He has never published one thing of which could change or alter the scientific data.
His claims have been evaluated and discredited time and again.
What was in the beginning?
I should hope every reasonable person has a dilemma with that question. The beginning of what?
It's like me asking "what colour is right?" or "What is the biggest?"
No one should seriously even bother attempting an answer any of them since there can be no right answer to such open-ended questions.
Sure, mot people assume the subject to be Earth or universe but seriously, how can either of those be determined to be "THE begininning", especially those who believe God existed long, long, long before either of those things.
Surely the beginning was an eternity ago and I don't see theists having any better grip on that "beginning" than anyone else does. Talk about a dilemma! Who here can seriously explain the beginning of an infinite past?
dale
That comment is hilarious.
"I am reading the books from RTB but I am also trying to listen to secular sources. I watched that whole series from PBS called Jurassic Fight Club and I noticed the same thing that Hugh Ross and his team notices and that is that the evidence fits the biblical model and I have shown that in another post.
Jurrasic Fight club is not science. It is only an extrapolation of the way it might have been. The producers acknowledge that.
You issed the entire premise of the effort.
Where the paleontologists speak of this as fact, it is fact. They are scientists. I don't know why you would discount their work. The simulations are not exact.
You ARE reading Hugh Ross, but you TRY to read secular.
You end up watching Jurasic Fight Club!
You are showing your ignorance once again.
Ad hominem and poisoning the well and appeal to ridicule are once again logical fallacies. Apparently, unless it is your own prescribed scientists, all other science is void.
Hugh Ross is the laughing stock of the scientific community. He has never published one thing of which could change or alter the scientific data. His claims have been evaluated and discredited time and again.
Ad hominem and appeal to ridicule, more logical fallacies, with no proof. The only thing you have presented so far is someone trying to tear down the Hebrew interpretations that Hugh Ross presented and I already proved the man was dead wrong. Not to mention that the man did not give any valid argument to tear down the model. Most of what he said was irrelevant information. ah-dam vs. adam. Big deal.
For the millionth time, RTB doesn't pretend to be doing the research. They are taking the science research as it comes in and showing how it fits a biblical model that forms predications and expectations just a model should. And if you would just check it out, you would see that the naturalistic model fails where the creation model fits. Why do you think the atheists are suddenly taking notice? It's because they don't have a leg to stand on.
Here is just four comparisons in the naturalistic model vs. RTB's model. I have to type these out by hand. That is why I'm only giving you four in the area of evolution. There are 80 involving many areas.
RTB model
As scientists learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find increasing evidence against any natural law that spontaneoulsly and instantly self-organizes nonorganic matter into viable organisms.
Naturalism would predict
As scientst learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find increasing evidence for a natural law that spontaneously and instantly self organizes nonorganic matter into viable organsms.
RTB model
Astrochemical reserach increasingly will establish the inadequacy of any possible natural source of prebiotics to provide all the chemical building blocks in the necessary concentrations and stabilities for a naturalistic origin of life.
Naturalism predicts
Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence for a vast nearby interstellar reservoir of concentrated complex stable prebiotics replete with all the prebiotic molecules (sugars, amino acids, nucleotides, lipids, etc.) that life demands.
RTB model
Astrochemists increasingly will establish that there are no natural reservoirs of concentrated, perfectly homochiral (all oriented with the same handedness) amino acids and sugars.
Naturalistic model
Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence for vast nearby interstellar reservoirs of concentrated, perfectly homochiral amino acids and sugars.
RTB model
Scientists will increasingly will establish that the origin of life took place within a very narrow window of time billions of years ago.
Naturalistic model
Scientists soon will find abundant evidence that the time window in which life's origin occurred is orders of magnitude longer than what current data show.
Vera
@ Andy:
Surely the beginning was an eternity ago and I don't see theists having any better grip on that "beginning" than anyone else does. Talk about a dilemma! Who here can seriously explain the beginning of an infinite past?
The past is not infinite, according to Christian belief.
I hold some pretty non-traditional beliefs about Genesis chapters 1 and 2, but I definitely believe that they show us a clear beginning point for time, before which there was nothing except for God, and God, and God. Not even the universe existed then, according t these beliefs, because the universe must exist within the confines of time, even if time does weird things in certain situations and scenarios.
When Christians say "The Beginning" like that, they refer to before the point in which time was set into motion, before the universe and everything in it existed, and the only thing that existed was God.
verandoug said...
"As scientists learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find…"
"As scientst learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find…"
"Astrochemical reserach increasingly will establish…"
"Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence…"
"Astrochemists increasingly will establish…"
"Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence…"
"Scientists will increasingly will establish…"
"Scientists soon will find abundant evidence…"
Do I really need to clarify my point by saying anything?
The past is not infinite, according to Christian belief.
So God isn't eternal? He didn't "always" exist?
I hold some pretty non-traditional beliefs about Genesis chapters 1 and 2,
So you'd be what Ray calls a "false convert" I assume? And that you'll be joining the atheists in Ray's version of Hell?
but I definitely believe that they show us a clear beginning point for time, before which there was nothing except for God, and God, and God.
So there was no such thing as time yet God had existed for all of it?
Not even the universe existed then, according t these beliefs, because the universe must exist within the confines of time, even if time does weird things in certain situations and scenarios.
When Christians say "The Beginning" like that, they refer to before the point in which time was set into motion, before the universe and everything in it existed, and the only thing that existed was God.
This sounds exactly like everything came from nothing since that is all God had to create it from. I'm not seeing this as being any less of a dilemma than Ray's version of the Big Bang.
(He he, my captcha security text for this post was "cionse" which is like a retarded version of "science". Irony?)
@ Andy:
So God isn't eternal? He didn't "always" exist?
Not what I said. I simply said that the past isn't infinite.
The past can only be in place where there is time. The past is the point in time before right now. Before there was time, according to Christianity, there was God.
So you'd be what Ray calls a "false convert" I assume? And that you'll be joining the atheists in Ray's version of Hell?
Yes, that would be one of the labels that he uses for me. I was even an active contributing member of the Raytractors for a while.
I had a small crisis of conscience, though. I couldn't actively tear down Ray's ministry and call myself faithful to God. I'll disagree with Ray on several points, but I'm trying to find a constructive, positive way to do it.
So there was no such thing as time yet God had existed for all of it?
That's how I've always interpreted things, yes.
This sounds exactly like everything came from nothing since that is all God had to create it from. I'm not seeing this as being any less of a dilemma than Ray's version of the Big Bang.
(He he, my captcha security text for this post was "cionse" which is like a retarded version of "science". Irony?)
That's basically how I believe. However, I also believe that it's not entirely possible for God to have created matter, and said "BANG! GO GO GO!" and that infinitely small speck of matter exploded (with a big bang) into the universe.
All of this discussion about how the universe was created is only constructive or meaningful to a point, I believe. Genesis 1 is written in the style of an ancient Hebrew poem, and chapter two has all the earmarks of an ancient Hebrew "once-upon-a-time" sort of story. At some point, we have to ask ourselves if God meant for a poem and a legend to be a dissertation on the beginning of the universe.
I say "no," but I believe that these stories do teach Christians something.
God created the universe, without killing some celestial beast or having sex with some goddess. He made man special, and had special plans for man. Man screwed up, and broke the universe (oops). and the entire rest of the Bible is about God trying to fix the relationship with mankind. There's more to it than that, but that's the super boiled down basics of Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
People ask me if I'm a creationist or an evolutionist. The best, shortest response I can give is "I don't care. There's more important questions out there for me to search out."
And just exactly where does your 'God' come from, Ray? Your imagination I would guess. Please present any evidence you have for gods, goddesses or anything supernatural to James Randi and collect your $1 million dollar reward.....
You said:
"Material creation cannot be made by nothing. Something had to create it, and the Creator of all things was and is the non-material Spirit of the eternal God, who dwells outside the dimension of time (see Titus 1:2), and is infinitely beyond the comprehension of human understanding]."
Titus 1:2: "...a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life....."
Keep hoping Ray, because that's all you've got going for you. It is your error to think that the universe was 'nothing' and then a 'creator god' created it. The universe is eternal, infinite and uncaused.
akg41470 said:
"3. Since when is God "someone"? Are you anthropomorphizing a supernatural being?"
In fact, it is not only anthropomorphism, but it is reification, i.e. assuming 'isness' or 'thingness' to an abstract concept, such as 'God':
Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy (in literature known as personification) is a specific subset of reification, where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but human-like and intelligent.
The pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy is the description of inanimate natural objects in a manner that endows them with human feelings, thoughts and sensations. It is when the author expresses the character's feelings through his/her surroundings. The pathetic fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of reification. The word "pathetic" in this use is related to empathy (capability of feeling), and is not pejorative.
The pathetic fallacy is also related to the concept of personification. Personification is direct and explicit in the ascription of life and sentience to the thing in question, whereas the pathetic fallacy is much broader and more allusive.
Ray, put aside your superstitions and myths for a moment and re-read the above and really think about it.
thanks, charley
Vera,
Your November 13, 2008 6:30 AM comment is absurd to the extreme.
Where in the world did you c/p that one from?
Of course science makes predictions. The ToE made predictions that are still being found to be true.
Hugh Ross takes the finding of science and trwists and bends them and then twiasts and bends scriopture to try to make it fit, but he has never convinced anyone that understands science.
Jason
Do I really need to clarify my point by saying anything?
I am different than many of the Christians here. I follow a group called Reasons to Believe that believes that what we learn in Science harmonizes with the Bible. What you see here are parts of the model that they have built. RTB upholds and embraces science and scientists that are sincerely seeking the truth. RTB says that we should go wherever the truth leads us. Sounds like a plan. :-) Ye shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free.
Blessings!
Vera
Charley
Keep hoping Ray, because that's all you've got going for you. It is your error to think that the universe was 'nothing' and then a 'creator god' created it. The universe is eternal, infinite and uncaused.
Sorry to the be the one to break the news but general relativity pretty much debunks your steady state universe. It had a beginning 14 billion years ago.
Vera
Vera said:
"Sorry to the be the one to break the news but general relativity pretty much debunks your steady state universe. It had a beginning 14 billion years ago."
Sure about that? How about multiple universes, with baby universes arising out of collapsing black holes?
Tell me then just what the universe was created out of, if you think it had a beginning.
Verandoug replied to Dale:
Here is just four comparisons in the naturalistic model vs. RTB's model. I have to type these out by hand. That is why I'm only giving you four in the area of evolution. There are 80 involving many areas.
RTB model
As scientists learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find increasing evidence against any natural law that spontaneoulsly and instantly self-organizes nonorganic matter into viable organisms.
How does one find evidence against a natural law that hasn't been proposed yet? One might find evidence against current models of abiogenesis. It would be much harder to find evidence against all possible naturalistic paths to abiogenesis, if only because one would need to know all the laws of nature and all the ways they can interact even to know all the possible paths to abiogenesis that might be proposed.
There's an interesting confession implicit in this "prediction." Contrary to frequent creationist complaints, the evidence for evolution does not consist primarily of arguments against creationism. Rather, it consists of a list of facts that are explained by, and often predicted by, evolutionary theory, and not by contrary theories or accounts. Attacks on creationism are simply taking creationist "explanations" seriously enough to show why they don't explain the data as well as evolution does.
Ross proposes to defend his "testable creation model" purely by finding evidence against evolution (or "naturalism"); he doesn't have a model that makes testable predictions of its own. He has some ad hoc force-fitting of geology and Genesis, but offers nothing so spectacular as, e.g. predicting that an organism like Tiktaalik should be found in rocks of a particular age, or that if humans and rhesus monkeys share an identically-disabled GULO pseudogene, so should chimps, gorillas, and orangutans ... but probably not guinea pigs.
Naturalism would predict
As scientst learn more about the origin of the simplest possible independent life and the laws of physics, they will find increasing evidence for a natural law that spontaneously and instantly self organizes nonorganic matter into viable organsms.
This seems to contradict your point four, in which RTB asserts that "naturalism" expects to find evidence that the origin of life was a protracted process, and filled a time far longer than current evidence predicts is available. You pick four points out of eighty, and you can't find two that don't contradict one another?
I'm not sure, by the way, that this is actually a prediction of "naturalism." Eminent entomologist Edward O. Wilson, in his book Consilience, suggests that there is no reason to suspect that human intelligence is adequate to solve every problem that the universe might pose; some questions might be forever unresolvable by merely human science. To borrow an analogy from C.S. Lewis (for a purpose he would not necessarily approve), just because a calculus problem is too difficult for a third-grader, that does not mean that it is inherently more supernatural or less mathematical than the addition problems at which he is proficient; by the same token, a problem might be too hard for any human intellect, and yet its solution might involve only regularities of nature like those of the scientific problems we can solve.
RTB model
Astrochemical reserach increasingly will establish the inadequacy of any possible natural source of prebiotics to provide all the chemical building blocks in the necessary concentrations and stabilities for a naturalistic origin of life.
Naturalism predicts
Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence for a vast nearby interstellar reservoir of concentrated complex stable prebiotics replete with all the prebiotic molecules (sugars, amino acids, nucleotides, lipids, etc.) that life demands.
Well, in the sense that "Earth" is located in interstellar space (at least, there is space and stars all around us), I suppose that is correct. Again, my previous point applies: Ross is not offering any explanation (i.e. any actual theory) for the complexity and diversity of life; he is simply hoping that no actual theories pan out and his interpretation of Genesis is accepted in their place. This is, of course, a false dichotomy: if no theories pan out, "we don't know" is an alternative to "it must be magic."
RTB model
Astrochemists increasingly will establish that there are no natural reservoirs of concentrated, perfectly homochiral (all oriented with the same handedness) amino acids and sugars.
Naturalistic model
Astrochemists soon will find abundant evidence for vast nearby interstellar reservoirs of concentrated, perfectly homochiral amino acids and sugars.
First, I grasp that typing these out is hard for you (does he have these points on some website from which you can copy and paste), but does Ross have any aspects of his "testable model" that don't deal with abiogenesis? Technically, since abiogenesis is a separate field of research from evolution, evolutionary theory could be correct in every particular even if abiogenesis were a miraculous event.
Second, as I understand it, the "naturalistic model" is that natural, nonbiological mechanisms exist and will be discovered (or rather, since some weak mechanisms are already known, perhaps some mechanisms will be further refined) for separating enantiomers of different chirality from one another and using only those of matching chirality. This is a very different thing from assuming that reservoirs of monochiral amino acids and nucleotides await somewhere in space, just waiting to be assembled into DNA and proteins.
RTB model
Scientists will increasingly will establish that the origin of life took place within a very narrow window of time billions of years ago.
Naturalistic model
Scientists soon will find abundant evidence that the time window in which life's origin occurred is orders of magnitude longer than what current data show.
This would require either finding that in fact, life has not been on Earth for at least 3.5 billion years (which, given that prior to four billion years or so ago, the Earth's surface was very inhospitable for life, doesn't leave life with much more than a few tens of millions of years to originate)), or else finding that abiogenesis occurred in space (which would give abiogenesis several billion extra years to work with). So far as I know, while panspermia has been speculated about, there are no actual models of abiogenesis that depend on or would work better in interplanetary or interstellar space.
On the other hand, it would seem to me that if Ross hopes to support creation by ruling out all naturalistic possibilities for abiogenesis, he ought to consider just how many mysteries the galaxy could be hiding and how many possibilities might exist somewhere (even if not on Earth) that would have to be ruled out.
Does Ross have some timescale in mind for testing these predictions? In one respect, he seems to have put himself at a disadvantage: a well-supported theory of abiogenesis would refute his position on all four of these points, but the absence of such a theory would not prove that no such theory was possible, just that it had not been worked out yet.
Verandoug replied to Dale:
As Steven tells me when it suits his fancy, the fossil record is incomplete. This aspect of the fossil record fits the biblical model. We would expect things to progress from simple to complex. Personally, I think it is ludicrous to use such an example as a means of proving naturalistic evolution. Unless you have mtDNA that you can look to for proof, you really have no leg to stand on.
Vera, when I say that the fossil record is incomplete, I mean that, e.g. something like half of all known dinosaur species are known from a single specimen (although it would seem rather unlikely that a single specimen was all there was). Enormous numbers of extinct mammals are known only from teeth and jaw fragments (although, presumably, like modern mammals they had braincases and postcranial skeletal elements). Erosion, today, destroys fossils lying in exposed sediments, and presumably has been doing so for as long as fossils have existed: there were presumably Jurassic fossils that existed in the Cretaceous that no longer exist to be found today. New fossil species are discovered every year, so obviously we hadn't uncovered all the fossil species that existed last year, and presumably we haven't uncovered them all this year either.
It is absurd to assume that every gap, or indeed any gap, in the fossil record represents an actual gap in biology.
Note that faunal progression is more than just "simple to complex." To be sure, throughout most of church history, Genesis was read as saying that fruit trees existed before fish or birds, and that birds existed before land reptiles; Ross needs to reinterpret more than just the words for "days," "mornings," and "evenings" to make the text fit the geological record. But put that aside. The point of faunal succession is that even among complex animals, the further back one goes in time, the less life resembles life today. Modern species are rarely found in sediments more than a few million years old, extinct species belonging to modern genera go back many more millions of years, and extinct genera belonging to modern families go back further yet. Extinct families belonging to modern orders go back, in some cases, far into the Paleozoic, where they are found alongside orders and classes that have no living representatives.
dale
Vera,
Your November 13, 2008 6:30 AM comment is absurd to the extreme.
What part of logical fallacy isn't sinking in for you?
Where in the world did you c/p that one from?
Creation as Science
Of course science makes predictions. The ToE made predictions that are still being found to be true.
Your "nature of the gaps" theory has a testable model. Well so does God based on the Bible. The RTB team built one. I gave you four points comparing yours to theirs in the one area of the origin of life. In all four points the one that fits the Bible stands against nature. There is absolutely no explanation in nature for the origin of life.
Hugh Ross takes the finding of science and trwists and bends them and then twiasts and bends scriopture to try to make it fit, but he has never convinced anyone that understands science.
Prove it.
You are wrong here too. I have read the testimonies. That is the whole point of this ministry. He doesn't have to twist reality or Scripture because the whole thing fits.
Vera
corynski
Sure about that? How about multiple universes, with baby universes arising out of collapsing black holes?
Tell me then just what the universe was created out of, if you think it had a beginning.
I have been listening to the men on RTB talk about this. I understand some of it, but it is not something that I see is necessarily provable.
Vera
Steven
Modern species are rarely found in sediments more than a few million years old, extinct species belonging to modern genera go back many more millions of years, and extinct genera belonging to modern families go back further yet. Extinct families belonging to modern orders go back, in some cases, far into the Paleozoic, where they are found alongside orders and classes that have no living representatives.
I sent dale an article on this topic to the post entitled "Mistakes in the Book of Genesis" on November 15. It explains everything you've mentioned here.
One of my favorite paragraphs states this.
Admittedly, much of the scientific view of the appearance of sea and land animals is influenced by Darwinian evolution. However, that is not reason to reject mainstream science. Looking at the data objectively, the scientific view of the timing of the sea and land creatures does not contradict the Bible. As has been shown, a close examination of the facts of science and Hebrew word meanings of the narratives of the fifth and six "days" can resolve supposed conflicts.
If you take the naturalistic conclusions out of the data and their speculations, you are left with the facts and the facts fit the Bible from an old earth perspective.
One thing I just read in his book called The Genesis Question that I thought was a good point was that the Bible had to be written for all ages of science. Let's say that God included a breakdown of microscopic organisms. This would be unverified for many thousands of years and rather useless information to confuse. What the Bible does is hit the highlights so that many generations could see that He is the Living God.
Vera
verandoug said...
"I have been listening to the men on RTB talk about this. I understand some of it, but it is not something that I see is necessarily provable."
Hahahaha. Again yet an ironic statement - Vera you find the talk about multiple universes as 'not necessarily provable'? What, you mean like your God?
Vera said:
"I understand some of it, but it is not something that I see is necessarily provable."
But the BB Theory isn't provable, nor is it sufficient evidence of the 'creation' of our universe, or any other universes, yet. It is still a collection of hypotheses and theories. Concepts such as inflation, dark matter and dark energy must be defined and understood before being considered evidence. The BBT is the current 'establishment' theory, but we all know that science and reality, unlike belief, is under constant evolution and revision. Perhaps a collapsing star might compress matter and energy to a point, infinitesimally close to a 'singularity', where it would create a fusion explosion to start another universe.
It appears you have accepted a reified 'God' concept, and the hope of a 'created' universe, to support your belief system, while neither has sufficient evidence to be considered fact, or reality.
Jason
Hahahaha. Again yet an ironic statement - Vera you find the talk about multiple universes as 'not necessarily provable'? What, you mean like your God?
It is a deep topic. If I understand this correctly, these multiverses do not necessarily need to be like ours and so those in them may not be governed by the laws of physics as we are. How can we study them without using the laws of physics? The idea of where does this universe come from, I am sure, prompted this theory. Clearly, there is another realm. If there were many more universes, it would only make God that much bigger in my eyes.
That was a good analogy, btw, even though you were mocking the point.
Have you been listening to Creation Update?
Vera
corynksi
But the BB Theory isn't provable, nor is it sufficient evidence of the 'creation' of our universe, or any other universes, yet. It is still a collection of hypotheses and theories. Concepts such as inflation, dark matter and dark energy must be defined and understood before being considered evidence. The BBT is the current 'establishment' theory, but we all know that science and reality, unlike belief, is under constant evolution and revision. Perhaps a collapsing star might compress matter and energy to a point, infinitesimally close to a 'singularity', where it would create a fusion explosion to start another universe.
It appears you have accepted a reified 'God' concept, and the hope of a 'created' universe, to support your belief system, while neither has sufficient evidence to be considered fact, or reality
I think I understand what you are saying. You want to know how it was done and God did it isn't going to suffice. I am ok with that. As one created in the image of God, I would predict that not only would you want to know that but you would try to discover more about it. I am not afraid of discovering how this universe began. But one thing is for sure, nothing was here before there was something. Is there an end to infinity?
Vera
Hello Verandoug, you said:
"But one thing is for sure, nothing was here before there was something."
Hmm.... And how would you know that? Does 'nothing' really exist? Perhaps 'nothing' is simply the absence of 'something', just as darkness is the absence of light. And how much 'nothing' would it take to create 'something'.
I've never understood why 'nothing' is assumed to 'exist', and then somehow, it becomes 'something'. Isn't it more logical is assume 'something' has always existed? Could it be because Christianity and other superstitions absolutely require a 'creation'? Without a creation, why the need for a creator? Hawking puts it like this:
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41."
You also said: "As one created in the image of God,"
How would you know that? And is that the same God that created my cancerous prostate gland in 'His likeness'? Hmmmm.......I really don't see any 'creation' in the universe, only transformation of matter and energy.
corynski
But one thing is for sure, nothing was here before there was something."
Hmm.... And how would you know that? Does 'nothing' really exist? Perhaps 'nothing' is simply the absence of 'something', just as darkness is the absence of light. And how much 'nothing' would it take to create 'something'.
I've never understood why 'nothing' is assumed to 'exist', and then somehow, it becomes 'something'. Isn't it more logical is assume 'something' has always existed? Could it be because Christianity and other superstitions absolutely require a 'creation'? Without a creation, why the need for a creator? Hawking puts it like this:
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41."
There is something before there was nothing but it didn't from this universe. It began here but didn't originate here. As I understand it, they can actually see back to the moment of creation within a millisecond.
Most of this is speculation because the universe obviously had to originate outside this universe.
Vera
Vera said:
"There is something before there was nothing but it didn't from this universe. It began here but didn't originate here. As I understand it, they can actually see back to the moment of creation within a millisecond."
"Something before there was nothing?" What does this mean? Are you saying that 'nothing' actually exists? This is all supposition, required to support a 'created' universe. And what do you mean by '...they actually see back to the moment of creation...'?
I don't understand why the universe would 'obviously' have to originate outside this universe? Are you equating 'originate' with 'create'? It seems you are suggesting that a deity or creative force existed before 'nothing' or 'something' could have existed. All your arguments appear to assume, or presuppose, something existed prior to existence, and that something and nothing must have been 'created'.
corynski
I don't understand why the universe would 'obviously' have to originate outside this universe? Are you equating 'originate' with 'create'? It seems you are suggesting that a deity or creative force existed before 'nothing' or 'something' could have existed. All your arguments appear to assume, or presuppose, something existed prior to existence, and that something and nothing must have been 'created'.
I have done a little more research into the multiverse. If I understand this correctly, the idea is that there is another universe perhaps hundreds or more other universes outside of this universe and the way they know this is because there is a pull seen on these areas of space and the only explanation is that something bigger is pulling them. I will admit that physics is an area of science where I am least versed but I can grasp it if I get a visual understanding. I understand that the pencil is split in the glass of water because light travels slower through the water but I don't really fully comprehend it all. Does that makes sense? I can visualize parts of the universe being gravitaionally pulled in a direction.
To me, that just makes God a whole lot bigger. And it makes sense. Why should we think that ours is an eternal Being's first universe? An infinite God could have countless things going on. That makes more sense than our universe being the only one especially when you consider angels who seem to be varied in many different ways.
Of course, our own mathematics apparently may not work to detect these and the physics within the Hubble volume may be different. But the point is that there is something more that cannot be detected by our own observations.
Now as to how a beginning points to God. By itself, it doesn't. But the Bible claims this world came into being in that way. That is two pieces of the puzzle connecting. There are many others. Combined, they create a very realistic argument that the God of the Bible is real and man is without excuse.
Vera
Vera said:
"Combined, they create a very realistic argument that the God of the Bible is real and man is without excuse."
Hmmm..... I see no realism here. The Bible and an assumption of a creation and a creator is not sufficient evidence to make a person believe in the reality of anything supernatural, to my mind.
As for man 'is without excuse', I'm not sure what that means. Realism suggests to me that superstition and religion are con games, schemes to control others. And it works.....
Vera
Here's an interesting comment from a review of Hawking's book, indicating he keeps an open mind, as should we:
"A Brief History of Time
By Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1990, Reviewed by David Bunch
July 21, 2003
Weighing in at just 198 pages, A Brief History of Time is non-intimidating. And, the reader soon finds that the concepts are described in a understandable, almost conversational prose. Hawking covers everything from the beginning of the universe to black holes to the possible end of it all, juxtaposing humor and good-natured fun along the way. What is particularly striking is Hawking's honesty. Not only does he not purport to have all of the answers, he clearly documents where ongoing discoveries have proven his early assumptions wrong. For example, Hawking describes how he and a colleague developed a new mathematical technique that proved that “there must have been a big bang singularity” at the beginning of the universe. He then goes on to state that “it is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe...!”2 This type of candid self-incrimination makes for an enlightening and entertaining read."
corynski
I may not be an astrophysicist but I believe that they have been able to see back to the creation event through radio waves. Isn't that true? I don't pretend to understand all this but at least this particular Hubble volume had a beginning even if there are others. I don't understand why he has claimed that it wasn't a singularity. In a nutshell, what does he now say the beginning to this universe was? I have read and heard some of this through Hugh Ross but I am interested if this is more current.
Vera
Vera
I've been watching the Cosmology special on the History channel and it appears they've come up with something for all of us. They talk about multi-verses and strings and worm holes and such until I really can't understand enough of it to know what I believe. I do notice they haven't found an intelligent designer out there yet.
I'm sticking with 'nothing comes from nothing', and all the universes are infinite, eternal and uncreated.
corynski
Look at RTB's Today at Reasons to Believe. They are doing a series on this and it is very good. There is a beginning here. That was never in question. The eternal state of things is not in question either. We believe that too. This is one piece of the puzzle. There are lots more where that came from.
Vera
corynski
Vera said:
"Combined, they create a very realistic argument that the God of the Bible is real and man is without excuse."
Hmmm..... I see no realism here. The Bible and an assumption of a creation and a creator is not sufficient evidence to make a person believe in the reality of anything supernatural, to my mind.
Unless what the record of nature reveals matches the text.
As for man 'is without excuse', I'm not sure what that means.
In Romans, Paul says there are two things that make man without excuse before God. One is that God is manifest in you through your conscience knowing morally good from evil and the other is that God clearly seen in the things that are made.
Realism suggests to me that superstition and religion are con games, schemes to control others. And it works.....
Some religion is very controlling. Christianity in its true form is never controlling. We are liberated from the Law to walk in righteousness by grace. We don't have to sin because we don't want to sin. It is nice to have a clear conscience and I am no longer under either bondage or fear. I am at peace with God. My past sins are covered and I have His Spirit.
Vera
Post a Comment