(This post was written by thewordofme of thewordofme.wordpress.com)
I don’t see any signs that there is a God operating in our world…our universe. Never was.
Someone prove to me that God really exists.
Prove that Jesus really was God…or the son of God…or existed.
Prove that the early Hebrews were God’s special people.
Prove that God…if he exists…has any power in this world.
Prove to me that anything you ever have done or ever will do in life has ever meant a single thing.
Prove to me gravity actually exists.
Prove to me that everything that you’ve ever seen before actually existed.
The point is that you only “know” that things exist by what your senses perceive.
So can I absolutely prove that God exists, no. God’s existence is a matter of faith.
You can’t? Really?
When you see a fine watch on someone’s wrist, do you not marvel at the piece and the skill of the creator? There is no doubt that someone built that watch. It did not just happen of its own accord. One need not travel to Switzerland to meet the watchmaker himself to verify that there was a builder. The very construct and motion of the object proves its creation. You can prove this for yourself by carefully destructing the watch. Place its innards in a paper sack and shake. Dump out the sack, now, and what do you see? Pieces.
How many times would one have to shake that sack of pieces for an assembled watch to turn out? You have been truthful if you said “Never could happen.” A watch is not a product of random chance. And a timepiece is quite simple compared to a universe or planet or person.
But let’s set aside reason and pretend that eventually a complete watch emerged from the sack… Who would be there to wind it?
Honestly, you who choose to not believe in a creator have much more faith than those of us who do. You are most certainly to be commended for that.
Now if you want to talk about religion . . . that’s another matter altogether. I don’t see that our creator has very much to do with religion. Most religion is just atheism wearing a mask, if you ask me.
Just my thoughts . . .
Blessings
Poor you, don’t strain yourself trying to prove the nonexistant. : )
What kind of evidence would suffice? (I ask this seriously)
Chillin,
Don’t know whats going on with reply panel…may want to delete comment #4 until I can figure out whats up.
thewordofme.
Hi mdekoker, thanks for reply.
“Prove to me that anything you ever have done or ever will do in life has ever meant a single thing.”
Well, I raised 5 wonderful children and it’s too early to tell if one of them will change the world like Einstein or Roosevelt, etc.
“Prove to me gravity actually exists.”
You aren’t floating off into space are you? Mass =Gravity/attraction
“Prove to me that everything that you’ve ever seen before actually existed.”
I could reach out and touch most of them, or I had trusted photographic proof, or I had written, provable, repeatable science, and others to witness. We know that the Hebrew writers were building myths for their people. Way to many discrepancies in the ‘book’
“The point is that you only “know” that things exist by what your senses perceive.”
All of our experiences are, ipso facto, known only by our senses. And my senses and research tells me that a lot of the religious experience is pure myth.
“So can I absolutely prove that God exists, no. God’s existence is a matter of faith.”
Of course it’s a matter of ‘faith’ as there are no proofs whatsoever.
Hi Kevin S, thank you for your reply.
We can physically prove that the watch was built by humans.
There is no physical proof that God made the world, to the contrary, we can prove that the earth has changed and evolved over billions of years. certain Christians just refuse to seriously look or believe in the proofs. Those Christians are separating themselves from reality and picking and choosing what sciences they will accept.
Science changes as new facts are uncovered…religion should be right from the very beginning…it isn’t.
That is a serious problem. The ‘book isn’t right on things it should be. Some Christians have to do back flips to try and explain the unexplainable.
One should only believe in something that can be proven.
Hi poppies, thank you for your reply.
Verifiable by independent sources , repeatable, touchable, all the qualities of scientific proofs.
@ twom:
Okay, I think I have difficulty with your evidence threshold:
a. How do you define “independent source”? That’s a rather nebulous term.
b. By your definition of scientific proofs, there can be no scientific study of the big bang, since it’s not repeatable.
c. To prove that 2+2=4 in any “touchable” sense (by which I’m taking you to mean empirical) is impossible. One can take two apples and two apples and then say “see, four apples!”, but that’s just manipulating symbols of an abstract logical truth. The truth of which the symbols are merely representative must simply be accepted a priori. We accept this truth because it allows us to make helpful deductions in the real, non-formal world.
In short, you’re requiring a type of evidence which isn’t very applicable to the subject at hand. It’s like trying to ascertain the luminosity of a computer screen using a yardstick. There certainly is “scientific” proof of God’s existence, but if you’re arbitrarily limiting yourself to only very narrow empirical criteria within the wider umbrella of science, you’ll definitely not be convinced.
Hi again poppies, thanks for writing.
Well, let’s see…Jesus goes around raising dead people, curing leprosy and other diseases, feeding a crowd of people with a few fish and loafs of bread…wasn’t written about by any contemporary historian…wasn’t written about for 30 or 40 years after his death. No Independent, in the time of, backup for the story. Paul writes of him, but he has agenda, and changes some teachings, and never meet or studied with him. I believe he ’saw Jesus in a beam of light.’
Big bang is still early hypothesis/theory, not clearly proven, as is evolution.
Christians try to prove that 1+1+1=1 Can’t do it.
If you CAN prove the existence of God scientifically then the rules of scientific proofs apply
word: Josephus also writes of Him with no agenda. You also have to keep in mind that Jesus’ ministry took place over quite a short period of time (1-3 years) and He ministered to a relatively small group of people, most of whom were not very well educated or wealthy/influential, thus history contemorary sources were hard to come by.
1+1+1=1 argument=weak. It’s not math, it’s an ontological/theological debate
@twom:
Chris Dills touches on these as well, but:
- Since free markets weren’t wide spread during the time of Jesus, most people lived barely above subsistence level; accordingly, there weren’t many people with the freedom to be professional historians. Most of those who were around would be focusing on Rome, not a backwater possession of the empire.
Also, since literacy wasn’t widespread, it’s only natural that written versions of the events of Jesus’ life would be delayed. Nonetheless, such writings were available within the lifetime of those who were eyewitnesses to the events and could disprove any fabrications. Can you imagine someone having sustained success convincing a great group of people that Clarence Lightner wasn’t mayor of Raleigh, NC in 1973? In an oral culture, such social accountability is even more fierce than in ours, since people’s powers of recollection are generally greater and their motivation to maintain accuracy in communication is more pressing.
Your criteria for a witness to be considered independent and with no agenda is murky, and suspiciously excludes all the primary sources.
- The big bang and evolution are both considered highly explanatory and form the basis of almost all contemporary inquiries in their respective fields. Your definition of “proof” limits science arbitrarily.
- Christians most certainly do *not* try to prove 1+1+1=1; instead, they describe how a+a+a=b. In other words, they make no formal logical error, in that they don’t claim that persons are a person, or that Gods are a God, but that persons are a God.
All of this is somewhat secondary, though, because the primary issue is what I touched on before: you demand only inductive reasoning for evidence, but since God places a premium on not disrespecting human free will, proving God is best served through deductive and especially abductive reasoning.
If these are the best logical tools for the job, will you accept their use? If not, how do you justify your denial?
I appreciate all your responses to such abstract discussions.
I vary from word in that I ask of Christians only contemporary historians, followers or otherwise.
Your delay theory doesn’t seem to make much sense – what was delaying these people half a century? Their poverty?
Most witnesses woldn’t have lived that long in those days and ages, and anything written at the end of the century would have been no more than hearsay and rumors.
Chillin,
What was delaying these witnesses? The lives of the witnesses to Christ, especially the apostles, were quite busy for the first couple decades after Christ’s death. They spent their time organizing and maintaining the church, preaching and making disciples and fleeing persecution from Jewish and eventually Roman factions.
Since ALL of the books were written before 70 A.D., not the end of the century, and some around 40 A.D. (less than 10 years after Christ’s death), there is no reason to assume a lack of credibility in their content, especially since they were written by eyewitnesses and careful historians (Luke being a contemporary of Christ and a historian). As to secular sources, I pointed out Josephus, etc.
Chris nails it. (golf clap)
I’ll just add that it’s key to understand that the ancient near east was an oral culture; this is critical. All these issues regarding written testimony reveal an anachronistic understanding of the culture into which Jesus came humanly.
In our time, written testimony is considered more trustworthy than oral communication. In the mostly illiterate ancient near east, the exact opposite was true. This was especially so in the Jewish world; these individuals placed incredible emphasis on rote memorization, and had much better powers of accurate recollection than we today could even imagine. Add to this that eyewitnesses *did* record their experiences (e.g. John, the beloved student, Luke, the hobbyist historian, etc.), and there’s just no ground on which to stand critically.
Hi Chris Dills, thanks
That particular writing of Josephus (Testimonium) is very hotly contested. Last I heard it was thought a scribe may have entered it.
Didn’t he have a crowd of five thousand when he performed the miracle with the fish and bread?
How long would it take to spread the word that this man could raise corpses from the grave.
I’m aware that the trinity is a theological conundrum not math. Still will never make sense.
Hi poppies, thanks for writing.
Society in that area, and in those times, was highly bureaucratized and there was constant communication throughout the empires. The Hebrews became literate about 700 to 600 BCE…about the time they started writing the OT.
If I were a disciple of Jesus I would be writing down every thing the man said—from day one, as was the custom of the early churches. If I just happened to be a neighbor when he was raising the dead and curing leprosy, I would be writing and disseminating the story of this man to all who would listen, much as the early proselytizers did at that time. But what do we have? Silence. How perplexing.
Much going on in theoretical physics at this time…would not bet the farm on Big Bang at this time. Not meeting some of its predicted behaviors. But, yes it’s the best we have at this time.
Christians who believe the Trinity most certainly do try to prove God+Jesus+Holy Spirit equal God. The math expression of that is 1+1+1=1. All this in spite of Jesus praying to His ‘Father’
You mentioned scientific proof earlier. Can I see it or are we playing word games
Regards
Hi again poppies,
The time of the early church and Jesus was a time of literacy. People of the faith were constantly writing epistles, theological doodles as it were, and sending the letters to other congregations and discussing them openly, but they were writing.
Church services oft consisted of reading and discussing letters from another church, or respected elder. Eusebius had a heck of a time compiling the thousands of written documents to form the NT.
Regards
Actually it was 5,000 not including women and children. Events like this, however were the exception and not the rule. In fact, Jesus usually withdrew to privacy soon after major events like this. He intentionally kept a low profile. And you’re right to say that many Hebrew people were extremely literate during this time. However, most of the people in Jesus’ inner circle were probably not and probably even used scribes to transcribe their accounts. Also, I would think that these fishermen, zealots, tax collectors etc. were probably more focused on listening to Jesus and taking care of day to day responsibilities as they travelled in partial homelessness than writing. Jesus also gave very strict instructions to those he healed and ministered to that they should tell no one.
As to Jesus praying, Paul tells us that He emptied Himself in order to experience life in the fullness of humanity. Jesus prayed both out of example for future followers and necessity from His self imposed human limitations.
twom,
You know, these issues are rarely touched upon, so thanks for giving them an airing. I hope you don’t mind if I go point by point:
- It’s too broad to say “society” was literate. Literacy isn’t homogenous, and is usually related to wealth and station. The great majority of Jesus’ followers were not knowledge workers (as one would expect given the demographics of the area), and would not have had need or means for literacy. In fact, a group of those Jews who could write were specifically known as *scribes*, and are historically characterized as a minority.
What Jesus’ followers did have, however, was a strong oral communication tradition. They *did* utilize these means to spread word as best they could, which is no small part of why Jesus was executed, and also why detailed written accounts could be put together later in time when a critical mass of literate followers had been reached.
If you have specific sources to which a plurality of ancient near east scholars assign accuracy, and which contradicts this description, by all means, please give me references. I don’t want to go around spreading historically inaccurate information; I would hope you don’t want to, either.
- God is not three in the same sense that he is one. If we said there are three Gods yet also one God, that could be expressed as 1+1+1=1. If we said there are three persons and yet one person, that could also be expressed as 1+1+1=1. As it is however, there are three persons and one God, i.e. a+a+a=b. Not intuitive perhaps, but not contradictory.
- Your claim that Eusebius “compiled” the NT is shocking, to say the least, since canonization reached a fairly extensive and fixed level 100 years before he was born.
- I’m quite ready to present scientific proof of God’s existence, but your criteria for acceptable evidence is so narrow and inapplicable to the issue at hand that I don’t see how it would be anything but a waste of your time for me to do so. Maybe you can explain to me how it is that you accept that 2+2=4 (which I assume you do), and that can give me an idea of how best to present evidence which may be worthwhile for you to consider.
Hi poppies, thanks for writing.
Eusebius was in on the early church and was there when the trinity was established at Nicene council–also on command of Constantine was responsible for gathering and establishing an early ‘canon.’ Ultimately 50 were published, First to incorporate both OT and NT together in one book, of which the Codex sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are thought to be survivors
“Of its prior history, little is known. It is speculated to have been written in Egypt in the fourth century, and is sometimes associated with the fifty copies of the scriptures commissioned from Eusebius by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity (De vita Constantini, IV, 37)” From Wikipedia 5.24.08
No word games, just scientific proof…that basically means something that can be observed, tested, repeated, proven with empirical evidence. Hit me with your best shot.
poppies,
Additionally:
“In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[18] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine” From Wikipedia 5.24.08
My sources are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.
twom,
First of all, let me say, you’re a real joy with which to communicate. It’s rare that conversations like this actually stay coherent and productive (which I subjectively feel this comment chain has), so props to you.
Regarding Eusebius and Athanasius, they established “official” canons which basically just crystallized recognition of the free market canon which existed before them. There’s strong evidence for nearly universal acceptance of 75% of the NT books many years before the Nicene council. See Princeton professor Bruce Manning Metzger’s “The Canon of the New Testament” (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544).
I think you’re missing what I’m asking regarding scientific proof; these aren’t word games, they’re attempts to parse your evidence thresholds so I can effectively present evidence to you. I imagine you would agree that 2+2=4 is “scientifically” true, but it’s not possible to prove that empirically. One can’t smell, touch, or taste numbers.
If you think science and empiricism are equivalent, then a supernatural God is scientifically unprovable by definition. His effects on the natural world could perhaps be empirically evaluated, but the results of such inquiry would be so equivocal as to be rather less than convincing.
Thanks for the reply- but my point wasn’t who the creator of the watch was. Just simply that the watch was created. Its complexity proves that point. The mere fact of nearness in time from its creation to your discovery makes it easy for you to say “we know it was created by humans”. (Well one doesn’t really know unless they were there to witness it, but I digress).
How about something older, like a pyramid? Now the actual evidence for such a thing looks a lot like scripture, doesn’t it? How does one go about proving the creator of a pyramid? Modern science can’t even say for sure how those heavy stones got piled up like that, much less prove the designer.
Your point about the earth being billions of years old is silly. Earth’s age is decided through a circle-jerk reasoning. Paleontologists say “It has to be X years old for thus and such to have had enough time to evolve.” The geologists accept the facts the paleontologists give as truth and make their proclamations. The astrophysicists must then modify their age theories to match up with the earth scientists’, and so on…
I don’t know your age, but I observe that the age of the earth has doubled since I was in grade school 35 years ago. Evolutionary discoveries have proven it to be so. That does not sound like there is much Proving going on in scientific circles. What is sounds like, is that actual discoveries are disproving Darwinian type faith-statements, and that evolutionary processes need more and more billions of years to produce life. With such vast stretches of time, entropy should also figure into the equation: but that is not convenient to your A Priori line of reasoning, as entropy is far more destructive that any evolutionary process is productive.
Seriously, the “science” you just blindly accept as fact is so riddled with faith statements as to make if look “Bible-like”. Not that I ridicule true scientific inquiry.
As to your prerequisite for for physical proof being needed to make a thing believe-in-able: this is dangerously close to the psychology of a two year old. I don’t say that as an insult, but as an observation of the thought processes of children. Their minds are still forming, and they believe the world revolves about themselves. Close eyes: world gone. Open eyes: world recreated.
Certainly you don’t believe that everything must be proven to be accepted as real. How about your last thought? Prove it, or it doesn’t exist. How about the home run you hit in little league? You can’t really prove that either, can you? First kiss? Identity of your grandmother’s grandmother’s grandmother? Number of cells in your right eye? The day you chose to not believe in a creator?
None of these things are provable in the way you require a Creator to be provable. Are you comfortable with the double-standard?
Why do you allow for the double-standard of science being able to change and religion not? Aren’t you really saying that the new paradigm proves the old wrong? Where is there consistency in that belief system? I think The Who said it well: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss . . . and their beards have all grown longer overnight.”
“Religion should be right from the beginning.” Here is where you get close to truth in a funny way. I observe more than several religions in our world, many which teach quite differently. I will say again: religion is a mask atheism hides behind. In general, “religion” points men away from Creator, not toward him. Don’t misunderstand, I have faith in my creator, but none in religion. I often read scripture, or just observe human nature and question. I have settled in my mind the question of who He is, but the other questions (like those of an atheist) still rattle around in my mind sometimes. Religion is not a good place to go if you are looking for God. You will find a lot of atheists there getting their consciences assuaged by doing good works but never meeting God.
Thanks for listening
Hi Kevin, thanks for writing.
The neat thing about science is that it is allowed, nay required, to change as new evidence is acquired. In science when you are training for your specialty, you are taught what those who practiced in the field- before you-have already learned. If you go for higher degrees you are required to investigate new lines of thought and write a paper that hopefully adds something new to the knowledge of your field, or disproves something old. Science is never still…there is always learning and adding to knowledge.
You may have learned in kindergarten that the earth was 6000 years old…yea, so.
Because of the Bible and early religious beliefs learning the truth was slowed down for close to two thousand years. The early church, as I just wrote in a post, sponsored science-until-it started to uncover that facts that didn’t jibe with scripture. Now, science is not controlled by religious dogma, it can go find what there is to find…not what some scripture wants you to find. The Bible is mostly myth, written by old Jewish men wandering in the desert. 
No one in real science is disproving Darwin. That’s a fact that is ONLY being disputed by religious zealots. For 150 years Darwin has only gotten stronger. Religious people have tried to discredit it but their arguments do not stand up to real science. If they want to disprove Darwin they need to do the real science. The whole lot of Darwin bashers that write the popular books that evangelicals and fundamentalists think they can use to disprove modern science…are proven wrong every time. They just don’t have the research and facts on their side. And they keep using the same old arguments that have been disproven 100’s of times.
One of the first things that Darwin was worried about was the then commonly accepted age of the earth (6000 years) was not long enough for the processes he envisioned at work…to work.
The thing about being on the side I am on, is one needs facts, something that Christianity and all the other religions out there do NOT have. Facts by their very nature have to be checkable and provable to others in some kind of real way. Your own personal interpretation of dreams does not count as proof. I’m sorry you think this is the sign of childishness, but this is non-negotiable in modern science.
There is no need for everyday experiences to be proven to ourselves or those around us…unless maybe you are charged with some crime, and need to prove you didn’t do it.
The general knowledge of our human race and earth needs to be proven (at least to me) to be accepted as true…you probably don’t want to base your whole life on myths or misunderstood information.
The home run I hit in a little league game was witnessed by my parents and friends…that makes it real enough. There is no need to ‘prove’ it beyond all reasonable doubt, because for one thing I am not trying to build a religion on it that will affect the lives of countless billions of humans.
There is no double standard in requiring a God to be proven true. I want to know something is true before I expend my time and resources on it.
Religion, because it is supposed to be the revealed truth of God, should be right at the very first. After all it revealed to us by the one who created everything…Right? No double standard there at all. The fact that more and more parts of the revealed word of God…the Bible are being proven wrong…and you can’t change the Bible (tell that to the early ‘Mother Church’) can you?
So basically I don’t believe in a God because He or She or It cannot be proven now, and was never proven in the past. And as science gets better and better, parts of the basic beliefs and Bible are being proven wrong. I am atheistic and hide behind nothing…least of all a false god.
Regards
Hi poppies, thanks for your reply
First off, thanks for the compliment. I too enjoy the repartee.
Regarding Eusebius: “…through a complex process the canon was fixed for both the Eastern and Western churches in the 4th century. The canon contained four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Acts, 21 letters, and one book of a strictly revelatory character, Revelation. These were not necessarily the oldest writings, not all equally revelatory, and not all directed to the church at large.” biblical literature. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
But you are probably right about most of it being unofficially accepted. I’ll have to research further.
Math is provable although the proofs are mathematical.:-)
I don’t believe a spirit in the heavens, who never shows him/her self could ever be proven. The only residue is a book that is riddled with inconsistencies, factual errors, a vision of a very harsh god, and about two billion souls who believe in magic.:-)
Thank you,
twom
twom,
If you believe God can never be proven, then of course, I’d be wasting your time to try and do so. You’ve unscientifically decided that no evidence is possible!
However, the fact that you believe math is provable gives me hope that perhaps your mind could possibly be changed. If you ever decide to check out the actual evidence and not base your opinion on the strawman of “grumpy codger in the sky” cultural Christianity, I’m totally ready and excited to discuss.
Actually, very simple math is provable in nature. We can prove the principles of addition and subtraction and natural numbers very easily so long as we keep the values used under 10. Although the leaves on the tree of math stretch up to the abstract, the roots of math are very deeply entrenched in the earthy soil of the natural world.
Interesting.
I’ve always held that the cost of identifying onesself as an independant free-thinker is that you must be prepared, at all times, to change your mind and accept that you might be wrong.
I’m open to the possibility that God could be proven by evidence. I don’t yet know what that evidence would look like – I’ve seen some of the common examples of ‘evidence’ and have found them to be spectacularly underwhelming – but I am open to the fact that convincing evidence might exist without my knowing about it. After all, the world is a big and interesting place and a lot goes on in it that I don’t know about.
If convincing evidence presented itself then I would have to accept the idea of God. But it hasn’t, so I don’t.
So quit with the teasing, and show us some of this evidence that you mention so tanalizingly.
Earth 6000 years old?
Religion is the revealed truth of God?
You will only believe something if it is right the first time?
Checkable facts?
The Bible doesn’t say the earth is 6000 years old. I don’t see any age given. What are you trying to say here? Besides, the age of the earth is not a foundation of my faith. It is of yours, though. I would encourage you to think through the ramifications of this statement before you say that earth’s age doesn’t matter to a Darwinist.
Equating religion with God is a mental cop-out. Religion is a man made construct designed to keep God at arm’s length. Religion does not prove or disprove God. I suppose, if one just considers the number and variety of religions, then religion tends to disprove god, IMHO. People embrace religion so that God doesn’t interrupt their daily lives. As a member of an organized religion and a regular church-goer, I say with great embarrassment that these places (institutions, whatever) are not so much about finding and/or understanding God as they are about maintaining tradition. If one is interested in a fair discussion about God, religion should be left mostly out of it.
Thank you for supporting my point about the scientific age of the earth doubling when you say that Religion should be right the first time. Evolution is a belief system; a religion by any reasonable definition. (By saying evolution I am referring to the notion that life has grown in complexity and diversity from lifeless particles to the level of organization we observe today. Also the idea that one lifeform might morph into another in a brief moment of time. Not the well proven theory of adaptation to environment.) If evolutionary theorists were confident enough in their hypotheses in the ’60’s to declare 2 .5 billion years enough time for evolution to have run its course, then what happened between then and now to double the time of our evolution? Scientific discovery proved the evolution guys were wrong in their assumptions back then. Better data; longer cook time.
Shouldn’t they have been right the first time?
I am curious about checkable facts and disproving God or the Bible. Do you have some primary sources to cite? Please don’t give me tertiary tripe like Hitchens.
You are right when you say that many aspects of God are unexplainable. That doesn’t bother me, really. I mean unexplainability is the real joy of any serious inquiry, whether it be about God, human nature, or seabed microbes. That is part of the fun of discussions like this (for me at least). God and people who trust in Him are an enigma to you, just as atheists are an enigma to me. I read your stuff and occasionally write out of curiousity. I also like to be challenged; which is why responded to your post. I am curious to see the depth, sincerity and courage of your convictions about your disbelief in a creator. I am not so much concerned what name you give to the creator as I am curious how you can observe the great complexity and organization of our physical, social and spiritual universe and believe it all self-organized. That was the point about the watch in a sack. Not that it said Rolex or Timex, but that its organization and especially its animation causes the observer to assume there is a creator. Yet we look at the machinery of the universe, or a single cell, and say “Bah, Random processes.”
).
And that some choose to put faith in those random processes, without the foundation of the Scientific method, is curious to me. These same people say “Prove god”, yet cannot supply a reasonable substitute argument. Evolution is not a theory. It is barely a hypothesis. Show me your observable, empirical, measurable, REPEATABLE evidence and I will consider your side. Until then, I say your faith is greater than mine. I am not picking a fight, just saying that faith is required on both sides of the discussion.
I have appreciated your graciousness in most all of your discussions with us God-people. Your even-handed tone is admirable. And I am benefiting personally from reading your perspective (that is when you are clear about it
While I don’t see much merit in bantering about things like earth age or “Can god create a rock too large to be lifted?”, I will gladly engage questions about Who man is or who I am or who God is. These are questions I don’t have pat answers for, and are truly important things to inquire about. Perhaps these and similar types of questions are not fully answerable, but don’t you agree that the process of answering these type questions is pretty important?
Thanks for listening and responding.
Ubiquitous Che, please provide empirical evidence that 2+2=4. No using tokens, mind you…
BTW, I don’t mean to be a theistic coquette, I just see little value in discussing evidence before solid ground rules of what is acceptable are agreed upon.
Hi Kevin, Thanks for your reply.
All early thoughts or guesses on the age of the earth were just that…thoughts and guesses and attempts to do what was, at the time, doomed to failure. We did not have proper or accurate instruments and the supporting sciences were not well developed enough.
I believe I mentioned that one of the good things about science is that it is willing to change as new facts emerge…to me, that’s what makes it believable.
The Bible on the other hand is supposed to be an expression of God. Here we are talking about the ‘creator’ of all things, an all knowing, omniscient, omnipotent creature that made everything including US. We expect God to be right all the time; at least that is my definition. If the Bible is the true work of God, no mistakes or excuses allowed.
There is no double standard there. Science expects to change, as new facts are uncovered…after all we are human and we have to work harder at it. The Bible and its religion are from ‘God’. He knows it all because he made it all…there should not be mistakes.
Ever since Ussher/Lightfoot calculated the time of creation to October 27th, 4004BC, in the early sixteen hundreds, many religious people in our modern times have thought the earth and humans were roughly 6000 years old. I believe they were using the lists of generations that were found in the Bible. Early naturalists (scientists-of the time) believed in the Bibles story of creation for a time…and then they started to uncover evidence that was contrary to what was expected.
I am not the one that first equated religion and God, and I never have met a Hindu, or Buddhist so I don’t know who they relate too. I maybe don’t understand what you are saying there.
So if you are embarrassed by what goes on at your church; why do you go there? If you think you or God doesn’t need the church, just separate yourself from them.
If you believe that information is a God…then I guess you could call science a religion. However, I have yet to know a scientist who ‘prayed to information’ for help.
I suspect you get the idea that Darwin’s theory of evolution is barely a hypothesis from religious fundamentalist literature. I am wondering where you actually stand on religion. You seem to badmouth organized religion and accept the ‘Christian’ God, but use the literature of organized religion to express your beliefs. You may want to read some real scientific literature to find out where Darwin’s theory actually stands in the real world.
On the proofs for God, I’m not sure what you would call my stand, but I don’t see anything in my world or the historical world that can objectively prove that God exists. If you, or someone, can point me to any such evidence, I’ll gladly look at it.
I totally agree that the inquiry into a possible God is important, that is why I do so much research and correspond with so many people about the matter. So far all I have gotten is religious exegesis and babbletalk
that explains nothing, let alone proves anything.
I will not banter with you about the age of rocks, because as far as I’m concerned the question is answered.
Regarding the old argument of God creating too large of a rock to lift; I consider such ‘arguments’ mental gymnastics that have no relationship to reality at all.
May I ask?
How long do you think modern humans have been on earth?
How old do you believe the earth is?
Do you think that scientists can fairly accurately date objects?
Hope you have a good holiday
Regards, twom
poppies:
No using tokens? That depends on what you mean by tokens… Do you mean the metaphysical philosopher’s token? Or something like a pebble?
If not a pebble, then why not?
I could sit down in front of you with a big pile of pebbles. If I put down two pepples on one side, and two pebbles on the other side, then push them together, mathematics predicts that there will be four all together, every time. This can be easily validated for all the small, natural numbers. It can also be validated for larger numbers, it just takes longer.
It is in this way that mathematics could be disproved. If we performed this experiment and wound up with a number of pebbles that was not four, then arithmetic would have been disproven.
It’s very straightforward. Mathematics makes a prediction, and it is borne out by experiment. So like I said – basic addition and subtraction can be proven so long as the values are kept small enough that they can be held in the mind in a meaningful way. This is what I meant when I said that the roots of mathematics are firmly entrenched in the soil of the natural, physical world.
Sorry, Che, no dice. The pebbles demonstrate math, they don’t prove it; they’re symbols/tokens of abstract truth, which doesn’t lend itself to inductive experimentation.
No mathematician shows an equation dozens and dozens of times in order to show its validity; only one demonstration is needed, because math truths come to us through pure reason, not induction.
This is a common point of confusion in our modern culture, which sees empiricism as the only method of gaining true knowledge. However, axiomatic foundations of logic, causality, reproducibility, etc. are necessary before empiricism can even begin its work.
Seems a bit bogus to me.
Math makes a prediction. That prediction is testable. It is always validated, and never invalidated. I don’t know what your definition of sound, evidence-based reasoning is – but that pretty much covers it.
Just out of interest, are you intending to make a postmodernist argument on this, or am I just reading you wrong? I wanted to check, because my response to this will pretty much hinge on you answer to that question.
I haven’t a dog in this fight, but just for the record, you can prove that 1+1 = 2, and from that I assume you can move on to proving 2+2 = 4.
“The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its “successor” x’ is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x’ = 1.
P4. If x isn’t 1, then there is a y in N such that y’ = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x’ in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a’
(using P1 and P2). If b isn’t 1, then let c’ = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)’.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1′
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1′ = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn’t 0, then let c’ = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)’.
You also have to define 1 = 0′, and 2 = 1′. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)’
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)’ = 1′ = 2 Q.E.D.”
That’s from http://www.mathforum.org
For a longer proof, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead did it in Principia Mathematica, but it runs to hundreds of pages of dense symbols. But it’s in here somewhere:
Volume 1: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=AAT3201.0001.001
Volume 2: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=AAT3201.0002.001
Volume 3: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=AAT3201.0003.001
Now, how does Godel’s incompleteness theorem, developed as a response to Principia Mathematica (as I understand it), enter into the argument over a metaphysical proof of God’s existence?
My head hurts…
Such debates about who wrote what about Jesus, what would proof look like, etc. We’re talking about God here right? The same God who created the entire universe? If he’s so bent on getting his message of love and forgiveness out why wouldn’t he arrange to have a few learned scribes to wander by while his kid is doing party tricks? If He really wanted to get the message out he could just spell out a message with the stars, or even just draw some pictures in the clouds like a big cross (or maybe a Muhamed cartoon).
Even better, to keep costs down he could just broadcast his message himself on his own celestial AM radio station.
Wait, he can’t do any of that because that would mess up the whole “faith” game wouldn’t it. That’s pretty convenient for all the God apologists isn’t it? Sure God loves you and wants you to know the good news. In fact He loves you so much that He sent his only son to do some tricks and then get killed in an age of illiteracy and no printing presses. But now that there are better ways to communicate he’s not allowed to actually use them or tell you through other magic tricks because then you wouldn’t be able to have faith.
What a massive cop out.
You can go back to talking about doing math with pebbles and how 2+2=x where x=”Let’s try to change the topic so we don’t have to defend our ridiculous myths”.
Evangelically yours (in a completely heterosexual way)
Super J.
http://theSuperJesus.wordpress.com
Such debates about who wrote what about Jesus, what would proof look like, etc. We’re talking about God here right? The same God who created the entire universe? If he’s so bent on getting his message of love and forgiveness out why wouldn’t he arrange to have a few learned scribes to wander by while his kid is doing party tricks? If He really wanted to get the message out he could just spell out a message with the stars, or even just draw some pictures in the clouds like a big cross (or maybe a Muhamed cartoon).
Even better, to keep costs down he could just broadcast his message himself on his own celestial AM radio station.
Wait, he can’t do any of that because that would mess up the whole “faith” game wouldn’t it. That’s pretty convenient for all the God apologists isn’t it? Sure God loves you and wants you to know the good news. In fact He loves you so much that He sent his only son to do some tricks and then get killed in an age of illiteracy and no printing presses. But now that there are better ways to communicate he’s not allowed to actually use them or tell you through other magic tricks because then you wouldn’t be able to have faith.
What a massive cop out.
You can go back to talking about doing math with pebbles and how 2+2=x where x=”Let’s try to change the topic so we don’t have to defend our ridiculous myths”.
Evangelically yours (in a completely heterosexual way)
Super J.
http://theSuperJesus.wordpress.com
“Evolution is not a theory. It is barely a hypothesis. Show me your observable, empirical, measurable, REPEATABLE evidence and I will consider your side. Until then, I say your faith is greater than mine. I am not picking a fight, just saying that faith is required on both sides of the discussion.”
The above statement could only have been made from someone who lacks an understanding of the basic tenets of biophysical chemistry.
Do you have any siblings, Kevin?
To Will and Superjesus, Thanks for writing.
All, well most, of the evangelical, fundamentalists on the web are ‘probably’ smart enough to realize that science is rapidly taking over their superstitious clap-trap…they just like to argue
There is NO MAGIC in this world; never has been.
Thank all of you for taking part in this experiment.
Oh, my. No, evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory is about how it happened. Those who sneeringly dismiss something should at least be able to understand the terms prior to dismissing them.
Most atheists become so by studying; not just science but religion as well. And we’re not “Darwinists,” or “evolutionists,” we’re atheists. We believe there is no god. Darwin and evolution do not require that we believe in them. Both have physical evidence of existence.
I’ve blatantly stolen this from Atheism by Faith? over at Ask an Atheist.
Part 2: The “Faith Game”
Just for fun, consider an aspect of faith from the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. The author of Hebrews (let’s just call him “Paul” for now) says in Heb 11:1
According to Paul, faith is the evidence. Fundamentalists who accept Intelligent Design claim that we have to take evolution on faith since we have never seen animals evolve (never mind that we actually have seen animals and plants speciate, and we have ample evidence to consider evolution a fact). Therefore, they claim that evolution is “not seen” but that proponents of evolution (biologists) simply take it on faith. Then according to Paul (and fundamentalists by definition, take Paul’s words as absolutely true), the “faith” of the biologists is itself the evidence of evolution; the biologists’ faith is “the evidence of things not seen”. By their own reasoning, fundamentalists must admit that there is evidence for evolution.
Che, this comment thread is quickly becoming a free-for-all, so I’ll be bowing out now, but for the record, from that bastion of accuracy Wikipedia:
“Mathematical concepts and theorems need not correspond to anything in the physical world. Insofar as a correspondence does exist, while mathematicians and physicists may select axioms and postulates that seem reasonable and intuitive, it is not necessary for the basic assumptions within an axiomatic system to be true in an empirical or physical sense. Thus, while many axiom systems are derived from our perceptions and experiments, they are not dependent on them.
For example, we could say that the physical concept of two apples may be accurately modeled by the natural number 2. On the other hand, we could also say that the natural numbers are not an accurate model because there is no standard “unit” apple and no two apples are exactly alike. The modeling idea is further complicated by the possibility of fractional or partial apples. So while it may be instructive to visualize the axiomatic definition of the natural numbers as collections of apples, the definition itself is not dependent upon nor derived from any actual physical entities.”
Poppies: I don’t dispute any of that. I don’t have to.
My only claim was that basic addition and subtraction of the natural numbers can be proven in the natural world for natural numbers that are small enough to be easily comprehended by the human mind, and that this is the basic root of all mathematical theory.
What that wikipedia article says is that mathematics would work fine even if it doesn’t tie into the physical world, which is fine. I was just pointing out that in the cases where it can tie into the physical world, it is provable – especially at the basic level – through evidence-based reasoning.
You gave a very good response – but it was not a response that in any way addressed my original point. It’s like I said “1+1=2″ and you said “That’s wrong, because cats are not a kind of dog”.
Your answer doesn’t match up to my point.
Thanks for asking about my holiday- It was great. I took my 7 year old fishing in a canoe on a small lake nearby. Didn’t catch anything, but enjoyed being together and out in nature.
As to your questions, I am happy to answer, but fear that my answers are a bit boring and hardly the gist of deep thought.
I have no idea how long humans have been on earth. I don’t see where the Bible makes any attempt to answer this question, either. The geneologies are much too vague and give preference to some families and seem to skip over many others. And, honestly, it doesn’t make much difference to me. I know the argument of ” It doesn’t affect my life so why should I care?” is really lame, but in this case I fall back to the lame argument because I can’t derive any relevance to issues that matter to me.
Earth’s age? 5 days older than that of man. Whatever a Genesis “day” was. I don’t know if those creation days were truly 24 days or epochs. The really interesting question that a study of Biblical creation reveals is that of how God interacts with humans in time. I mean, wouldn’t it seem to be within the ability of an omnipotent God to just “poof” everything into existence all at once? Yet he created in sequence and in relation to time as humans comprehend it. I haven’t yet figured out the importance of this. Ideas?
Yes, I am sure that many objects can be dated accurately. I am certainly no authority on Carbon Isotope decay dating, but my general impression of the method is that it can be accurate with certain materials and within a limited time frame. Seems like about 5000 years back is its limit of statistical reliability. Maybe there are other methods that are newer and more reliable?
The challenge in dating archeological or geological evidence comes in when one discipline relies on another for reference. For instance, consider an archeologist doing work in an Anasazi ruin. One day he discovers an intact clay pot containing the fossilized remains of a squirrel. It would be a fair assumption that the squirrel was intended to be someone’s supper. What the scientist could not know was that the squirrel fossil was found by an Anasazi boy who was carrying it home to show his mom. It was not contemporary to the site, but was instead millions of years old. The connection to reality would be nearly impossible, yet the dating of the site would be dependent upon who found the relic first: geologist or archelogist.
I know you could pick apart specifics of my example, and it is made up anyway. But I think it well illustrates the very real challenges we face when trying to date old things. Shoot, even the experts on Antiques Road Show are wrong once in a while.
On a totally different note about proving God’s existence- I think perhaps your parameters are so narrow as to not allow much truth to get through. Sheesh, you won’t even allow that 2+2=4. Seriously, using your strict criteria, you would be hard pressed to prove your preceeding breath ever even occurred.
And I won’t presume to know the mind of God here, but I think he intentionally designed things so that he is not impirically provable. What fun would that be if logic forced everyone to love him? How interesting would it be if you were a really perfect kind of person and people just had to love you because it was just a fact that they had to: like a law or something? As I am typing this, I am reminded of the old “Twilight Zone” episode where a scoundrel type of guy dies and, he thinks, goes to heaven. He thinks he is in heaven because everything works out well for him- he gets a hot girlfriend, can’t lose at the craps table, wins at pool every time, etc. But pretty quickly he gets bored of winning at everything. He misses the challenge of uncertainty and randomness. He longs to be told “no”.
I know that the Twilight Zone thought is kinda far out, and theologically flawed. But I think that it illustrates my point about proving God (weakly, I admit. But I am tired.).
Anyway, my knowledge of God is mostly experiential. There isn’t too much mathematical precision to it. Knowing Him is probably much more similar to learning about my spouse than memorizing proofs or formulas. As in marriage, just when you think you have the other person figured out, they reveal something new about themselves.
And by the way, how was your holiday?
Hi Kevin S, thanks for your reply.
Good holiday, thanks. Just a short temporary answer to part of what we are talking about. Late here.
Methods of dating now used in addition to stratigraphy and dendrocronology, probably more I’ve yet too see.
* argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
* fission track dating
* helium (He-He)
* iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
* lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
* lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
* lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
* neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
* optically stimulated luminescence dating
* potassium-argon (K-Ar)
* radiocarbon dating (C-14)
* rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
* rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
* samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
* uranium-lead (U-Pb)
* uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
* uranium-thorium (U-Th)
* uranium-uranium (U-U)
I am not a scientist myself so I can only report on what I read in the journals. From what I understand, dating is pretty accurate for long dates now…within 1%.
Someday if you are curious you can go to this website for very good explanation of currant dating methods.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html
WOW that is a pretty long list. Must admit that I would never have the time to even begin to digest 1/4 of that information. I would say, though, that the one critical item to watch out for is how dates are benchmarked. In other words: what are the reference points. Reference points being solid, fixed, known dates that we can use to triangulate off of. Sorta like GPS, I guess. GPS is only accurate because the satellites are in known positions. This is the inherent weakness of really ancient dating; most reference points are inferred, especially through “soft” disciplines. Not to say that trying to date things is useless; just that we need to be open-minded about the inherent margin of error which gets quite large as ages increase.
BTW, I like your questions. From my point of view as a christian, I much more highly respect the opinions and questions of an honest atheist than those of a lukewarm church-goer.
Thanks for giving some of your time to me.
Kevin
“I would never have the time to even begin to digest 1/4 of that information.”
Oh, sure, continue to wallow in, and even be proud of, your ignorance. Awesome.
You didn’t answer my question about siblings, so I’ll answer it myself and tell you why I asked. Because I’m sure you know of someone with siblings. Say, a guy with a brother? Do they look exactly alike? Take a brother and a sister: the sister is not just the brother with longer hair, is she?
Siblings are genetics and evolution in action. Not that you and your siblings are different species, mind you, but that organisms within a species are often markedly dissimilar and, in time, can grow completely apart in terms of speciation. Your son probably won’t spout gills, but he will combine the genetic traits of you and your wife, and over enough time, greater differences emerge. This is why human beings are several inches taller, per average, than before. And etc.
Mr. Kevin S., Sorry I have been busy and have not replied properly to you. Will do so as soon as I can.
Oh, two more methods of dating I missed earlier: Electron Spin resonance, and Thermoluminescence. Hope I spelled that last one right.
Thank you for writing
Thanks. Bill/twom.
@Will E. -
Guess I missed your question about my siblings. The answer is I have a brother and a sister. I don’t expect them or any of their progeny to quickly morph into, say, a gorilla. In fact there is no evidence that any of their offspring, no matter how far in the future one might project, will ever be anything other than human. Sure, their great-great grandchildren could bear few or none of their physical characteristics like blond hair: And that proves evolution?
Some human beings are taller due primarily to nutritional improvements and greater stability of the food supply in certain areas of the world. Should you visit somewhere like tribal India, doubtless you would feel like a giant.
Genetic variation is just that. Variation. I don’t see any connection between diversity and evolution.
As for wallowing in my ignorance: Whatever. I simply was trying to be honest about my limitations. Not everyone can be an expert at everything. My time is limited.
As for having the the audaciousness to call someone whom you have never met ignorant: I suppose that could be a way of engaging thoughtful discussion.
BTW: are you a biophysical chemist? I might have a question for you if you are.
@twom-
No stress about being busy. There are certainly more pressing life matters going on for all of us.
I have had a chance to briefly look at the link you gave . Very informative, but I have only scratched the surface.
Kevin: their progeny might not be, but over, say, one hundred thousand years, you would probably no longer recognize your descendants. Which is the whole point.
I don’t know if I’d call myself a biophysical chemist, but I have substantive background in biology, physics, and chemistry. So ask away, but no guarantee on an answer.
For a person whose time is limited, you sure seem to be spending a lot of time in this thread. I’m merely noting your ignorance based on your responses here, and I never actually called you ignorant, I don’t think (you can search to point one out, if you choose); I merely noted your ignorance of the issue at hand. Given said ignorance, you might find your time more fruitfully applied to further study, rather than further comment.
@Will-
I took care to note my own ignorance of the subject, you merely seconded it.
You are calling me ignorant when you suppose that prolly our progeny will be unrecognizable in 100000 years? That seems like an awfully short time, considering the fossil records.
But again, we are talking about genetics and not evolution.
C’mon, Will, If you are going to make an assertation like that you might want to cite something.
So here is my question- Can you explain how evolution squares itself with the structure of the eye?
What I am asking is how could an eye stand up to the rigors and extreme time needed for proper evolution?
I can see how evolution genetics might look awful like evolution in the case of, say humans who live at high altitudes like Sherpas. Their lungs have the supercapacity to sustain life where mere mortals would perish.
But how would gradual change and outside stimulus work for the complex structures of the eye? How would cells know that if they could just organize into a structure that could perceive and organize light that this organization would give competitive advantage? What stresses would motivate that sort of construct?
I mean, consider any one aspect of an eye or its function and think it through. Why would tear ducts even start their evolutionary process of formation if it weren’t necessary to lubricate a moving eyeball? But why would the eyeball even feel the need to move if it weren’t in response to visual stimulus? Why would an eyeball pressurize to form a slippery globe before it needed the lubrication of tears?
The eye is a paradox for evolutionists, as I see it. (Yes, humor).
And suppose one organism just happened to get it all right- ability to focus, clear cornea, rods and cones, tear ducts, eyelid, muscles for motion, ability to dialate, nerves to the brain, reduced bloodflow, constant fluid pressure,etc… Wouldn’t ALL of those factors have to be right at exactly the same time? The odds of this seem insurmountable.
But let’s say one creature beat the odds: what are the chances that another creature of the same species and opposite sex got their eye structure together at the same time?
OK, I will allow that 2 creatures got functioning eyes at precisely the same second in history and they happened to be neighbors and reproduce. Wouldn’t this give them devestating competitive advantage? If those newly seeing creatures happened to be carnivores, how long would it take for them and their progeny to eat everything else? Less than 100000 years probably.
Let me know what you think.
@twom- Your civility becomes you.
Oy, Kev, you’re asking about the eye? The “boondoggle”? The “paradox for evolutionists”? Oh, fercrissakes. You know that, technically, bumblebees can’t fly? I ask because it’s the other example used by creationists who don’t know what they’re talking about.
I think you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and should leave the conversation to the adults.
My friend Will, I have given you a perfect entre to throw all of your amassed wisdom and insight at me and all you can do is insult me and invite me to leave? You on the other hand have only thrown out your dogmatic generalizations you learned in jr. high school.
Better up your game. You appear to be in the defensive position.
Awaiting your reasoned response, if you have one.
I didn’t insult you, Kevin, so far as I can see (though, perhaps, we have different definitions of ‘insult’). The eye, as an organ, began with photosensitivity, which would, in fact, be a good survival characteristic to possess (photosensitive means able to detect light). I studied biology, physics, general and organic chemistry, genetics, and vertebrate functional anatomy in college; to really explain the process to you would require a long, detailed explanation from all those disciplines to tell a very nuanced story. Being a freelance writer, I charge by the word, so if you’d really like such a piece, let me know, tell me how many words you’d like, and I’ll tell you the fee.
On the other hand, if you want to do the research on your own, well, that would be a good start to moving beyond your already-admitted ignorance.
I have a feeling, however, that writing such a detailed piece and delivering it to you would be rather akin to reading the encyclopedia to a third or fourth grader; they might understand the words themselves, and you could probably test them for recollection and response, but in terms of understanding, I worry it would be a study in futility.
Even worse, you’re stubborn about it, so it’d be like reading said encyclopedia to said third grader while he had his fingers in his ear and was going “la la la la.”
Now children, play nice.
I’m not a child, and I was.
Hi Kevin S, thanks
You write:
“…I have no idea how long humans have been on earth. I don’t see where the Bible makes any attempt to answer this question, either…”
Of course this wouldn’t be important to someone who just goes with the flow, and really doesn’t question much. It matters to me because it goes to proofs and truths. The Bible asserts that such and such happened in certain times and religious leaders use these things to try to establish the ‘truthiness’
to their flock.
You do the research and many of these assertions do not stand up. So you find one mistake…well, that’s just a typo or copy error. You find two; you think maybe the same thing. You find another and you really start looking then, and you find more and more…why would something that everyone asserts is the “Word of God” be so flawed?
Some people can just overlook the flaws, and somehow rationalize that it doesn’t matter. But, it really does matter that something that is presented as perfect…is very flawed…at least to me.
Peace. twom
TWOM:
How goes it my friend? I’m still curious to where you consider these major flaws to be. If I remember correctly, we only arrived at possible descrepancies in the genealogies.
@twom-
Not trying to overlook the flaws . . . I just can’t get too dogmatic about something that isn’t spelled out. Sure you can guestimate at life expectancies, but in the end the margin of error is too great. I know that some preachers try to say this or that about the age of men and the earth. Preachers can be lazy just like the rest of us and fail to do their homework. They can be guilty of parroting, too.
One is never going to prove God through proofs. (Presuming here) While I believe that he created all that we know, including mechanical laws, etc He does not intend that those things be a proof as to his existence. Then trust in God would be akin to believing in gravity or entropy: a given. Now how fair and just would that be? Forcing His creation to accept Him because they had to.
I do think it is important to have clear reasons for our important belief systems, like christianity or atheism. As I said earlier, we are both men of faith. My faith is relational based and yours is factual based. Not that there isn’t a whole lot of concrete facts in the Bible; they are just not the entire basis of my faith. And yes, if the Bible were error-riddled then it would undermine my faith.
What do you do with the flaws in your faith-system? Is it adequate to you when the dogma of the last decade is replaced by the new and improved dogma of this decade? Not being negative, just asking. I am curious about how the new knowledge supercedes the old knowledge. And what about those who choose to cling to the old knowledge and call the new stuff heresy?
I know the modernization of knowledge is inherent in the scientific inquiry process. If this is the foundation of your belief system, does it sometimes feel like you are standing on shifting sand? (Serious question).
And I am curious about the flaws you have found in the Bible. Is there something I should know about? (another serious question).
@ will-
Thanks for the good word about photosensitivity. Wow. (For your information: photosensitivity is not the right answer. But I am much too young to know that.)
Forgive me for asking to broad a question. Might you just try to write a paragraph or two about the competetive advantage question then?
BTW: check
Hi Chris Dills, thanks for writing.
Are you a believer in Bible literalism?
Or is the Bible inerrant to you?
“One is never going to prove God through proofs.”
That’s because your proofs suck. Because, in fact, I can. Scientifically. Just because you fail at basic biology and genetics doesn’t mean the rest of us fail at theology.
Which, I believe, makes check and mate.
And I’m done with you. But seriously, though, go back to school. Might do you some good.
Though I look forward to Chillin’s next post.
Hi Will Entrekin,
Is this what’s considered an ‘ad hominem’ attack?
Thanks for keeping to such a high standard.
And what do you think I should study?
Actually, word of me, that was neither ad hominem nor directed at you; it was directed at Kevin. Read over the ‘conversation’ between him and me in these comments and you’ll see why.
Hi Will Entrekin,
Veeeery Sooorry about that, was pretty tired last night.
Word:
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I hold to Biblical inerrancy.
But, the Bible is riddled with error. Not that it matters.
Right, that’s what I want you to explain. I’m not sure where you see error.
“Right, that’s what I want you to explain. I’m not sure where you see error.”
There’s textual errors, like at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none3.htm
and there’s also how it’s made up and full of immoral bullshit.
Also, just for the hell of it, here’s the logic behind the “made up” part:
1. I have never known of anything that was true because its claims were completely unproven.
2. Archaeology and dating of religious texts have uncovered no evidence for the Bible’s central stories, like Moses or Jesus.
3. The Bible makes many improbable and silly metaphysical and historical claims, which especially require evidence.
4. Improbable and silly metaphysical claims are made up.
5. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is made up.
Chris Dills, thanks.
Lets start with just one thing.
There was NEVER a world-wide flood.
Well, maybe two.
The Pentateuch WAS edited and changed up to 400BCE. The ‘documentary hypothesis’ is true.
Well, maybe three.
Paul and Eusebius were the creators of Christianity as we know it today.
TWOM: Thanks for responding, but these arguments have no support. While I enjoy our discussion, I’m afraid words in all caps and finishing phrases with the phrase “is true” is not a very convincing argument.
Chillin: I’ll check out the site.
@will-
Sorry to take so long to respond to your quite erudite defense of your theology- I have been dealing with the end of life and funeral of a close friend.
As to school- I currently attend university.
I sincerely hope you are more convinced of the evidence for your faith than you have laid out for me in your correspondence. Basically, you cannot answer the most simple of questions or conundrums about evolution. At least you have not been willing to spell them out for me…
Best of luck to you, will.
Hey Chillin-
I checked out the link you gave to Chris Dills. Those guys seem quite lame in their “evidence” for errancy. Although I do give them credit for their honesty in saying that the evidence they state are just indicators.
One example of where they are off-base: The creation account. The Hebrew word for “moon” includes the term “reflector” which is in contrast to “sun” indicating a power source. An understanding of celestial mechanics would be needed to make that linguistic distinction.
Just one example off the top of my head.
Nowhere (to my knowledge) in the Bible is there any reference to a flat earth.
The flat earth comes from the bible saying that earth has pillars and ends.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Grimace!!
Also, Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain and shows him ALL the kingdoms of the world. Only possible on a flat planet.
Also, the bible says that God sits above the circle of the Earth. A circle is flat…2 dimensional.
And theres talk of the 4 corners of the earth.
sonicdeluxe:
Thanks for that – I overlooked those.
wordofme:
That’s what I meant by ends of the earth
This is taking metaphorical language and applying literal principles to it. Sort of butchering the text.
Do you mean like a man being swallowed by a giant fish and living in its belly for three days before it retches him up. Or how about the descriptions of God creating the world? Or maybe the entire world being flooded while one man keeps representatives of the entire animal kingdom (except fish) on a boat that he made?
The entire world was never flooded in humankinds time on it.
I do think that the Genesis accounts you mentioned possibly have allegorical meaning that define literal events. And even if it were a regional mesopotamian flood only, it could have very well destroyed mankind based on how early this is in human history and migration patterns, etc.
I take Jonah literally straight up, since it is written as narrative and gives no evidence for any other interpretation.
Hi Chris Dills, thanks for your comment.
There is sooo much evidence that humankind was spread all over the earth at the supposed time of the flood.
The US Census bureau even lists the earth population c.10,000BC at 5 million.
Egypt lived right through the flood time with no evidence of interruption to their society. No evidence of monster flood. Pyramids were being built around 3,000BC.
Englanders were building Stonehenge around 2,500BC…no evidence of disruption.
Native Americans were living on this continent for over 12,000 years…no evidence of disruption.
All DNA traces of humankind go back to Africa…not Middle East…lines go back 200,000 years, not 2,300 years.
The geological evidence is simply…not there…anywhere…for world-wide flooding at anytime when man was living on earth.
The flood story is probably the most researched and disproved Biblical story out there. Naturalists were noticing as early as the 1700’s that the earth’s evidence didn’t match the Bible story.
Well, you can believe any fish story you want. If god were real, I suppose he could do that…sounds fishy to me though.
“The US Census bureau even lists the earth population c.10,000BC at 5 million.”
Odd, considering the US, as such, didn’t exist until, like, a couple hundred years ago, no?
I’ve heard some evidence that the story of the flood and the story of Atlantis share a common ancestor. Which I find rather interesting.
I’d wager any flood recorded by Hebrew scripture was regional. But sometimes, regional can feel like the whole world.
Hi Chris Dills,
***TWOM: Thanks for responding, but these arguments have no support. While I enjoy our discussion, I’m afraid words in all caps and finishing phrases with the phrase “is true” is not a very convincing argument.***
The arguments mentioned have tremendous support. You just refuse to accept them because they basically disprove many things about the Hebrew myths you believe in.
Hi Will Entrikin, Thanks for your reply.
For what reason they came out with these statistics I don’t know, but they have them nonetheless.
It’s my understanding that the figures come from a averaging of different science studies on world pops.
Go to this site for charts–notice that it is Federal Government site. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
Not that being on a gov. site makes it any better than others.
I’m quite sure a flood that covered the Mesopotamian basin would feel like it covered the whole world…big place, that plains of Shinar.
The pop statistics, of course, do not indicated a drastic dropping of population…you know…like down to 8 people.
This is just one of hundreds of things that speak to the myth being just that…a myth.
So what do you think of the currant theory of Atlantis being the Island of Santorini and the peoples called Minoans?
I hardly think the argument that “Paul and Eusibius were the creators of Christianity as we know it today” with no supporting evidence qualifies as a strong claim. I refuse to acknowledge it because you provide points with no proof and the lack of proof cannot disprove anything. I hardly think that you would allow me to pull the faith card, so I don’t think I’m good with a because you said so argument.
And I appreciate the Census stats, but most of the dates are fairly early to even be considered in opposition to the flood story, with exception of DNA traces in Africa (do you have a source there?).
Hi Chris,
National Geographic Genome project. On the NATGEO website. Here Over 200,000 subject samples now…indicate that everyone alive on earth today can trace their roots back to Africa. Still going on last I heard.
There is another study that concluded within this year that came up with same results…darned if I can remember who did it…but, was a college in Eastern US. Will search for it again.
Can’t give you a single source for the Paul and Eusebius thing…just a feeling I get from researching 100’s of sites about early Christianity. Can’t seem to find historical evidence for Jesus either. Can however find evidence of Caesar, Nero, Origen, Plato, Ptolemy, etc., people that lived around the time of Jesus.
Early Christianity is commonly defined as the Christianity of the three centuries between the Crucifixion of Jesus and the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE). Sometime after Council of Nicaea, Constantine commissioned Eusebius to put together 50 Bibles…, which did not exist at the time. Here
“Paul’s biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, were probably written around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul’s writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus’ life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay”. Here
“…Eusebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea Maritima. He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not certain, but Eusebius must have become bishop soon after 313. Nothing is known about the early years of his tenure. When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius was prominent in its transactions. He was not naturally a spiritual leader or theologian, but as a very learned man and a famous author who enjoyed the special favor of the emperor, he came to the fore among the members of the council (traditionally given as 318 attendees). The confession that he proposed became the basis of the Nicene Creed.” Here
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Mark was actually written first) were written long after the death of Jesus…we don’t really know who wrote them, and we know that early church literature was heavily censored, altered, or changed
TWOM: Thanks for the response!
I know Mark was written before the other Gospels and was most probably used as a source for the other synoptics (Matthew and Luke). It is also probable that he (Mark) recorded Peter’s account of the Gospel like a scribe. You are quite wrong, however, about the dating and the authorship of the books. All of the Gospels can be dated before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (less than 40 years after Jesus’ death) and there is little reason to doubt the authorship (especially of the synoptics).
As to Eusebius, you are incorrect in your analysis of his role in the church. He was a spiritual leader and theologian who served as the Bishop of the church in Caesarea.
Paul does encounter Jesus on earth on the road to Damascus (although I’m sure you are looking for a pre-ressurrection occurance). Paul also does speak of Jesus’ earthly role in Philippians 2:5-11. Not to mention, the doctrines and theological perspectives that Paul presents fall in line with the teachings of Christ as well as those found in the epistles and writings of the other apostles (John, Peter, James, etc.).
What do you constitute as historical evidence for existence? And just f.y.i., Origen did not live until around 150 years after the death of Jesus.