h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oops, wrong button...

I cannot personally believe in something that I cannot experience in any way. It would be a betrayal of all that I value in myself. Sorry.

Ste

RE: post 280



I see it as you ascribing divine characteristics to man and saying that they are the only lawmakers or creators. Didn't my gravity example refute that? God did make man in his image, so the mistake is an easy one to make, but you are confusing your order somewhat. God made man, not vice-versa.



I wasn't saying that you believed in MY final authority. The term refers to what happens to every person making an argument; they appeal to an authority. The appeal to the final authority is not the same as the appeal to God as one's final authority. It's the term that describes what everyone does. General, not specific. By the way, if you were to appeal to a piece of paper, I would simply point out that a piece of paper has no authority. My argument is valid because it has the Creator of the universe behind it.



Then I must ask you why you choose to put your faith in something so flawed. Do you not see the wrong that man commits against man, the suffering that people inflict on other people? To appeal to humanity is to appeal to something with major problems.



Good question! You must choose to believe, i.e. have faith, which is given freely by God. You only have to ask.

I don't intend to scare you, nor to condemn you. There is hope; you are not doomed to Hell or anything. I do wish to convict you, which is to make you understand that you are wrong and in sin, sort of like what happened when you realized that the "according to you" was misplaced. If you have conviction of sin, then you're right on your way to salvation. Think it over. I really enjoy talking with you, btw. Please don't think that I'm just trying to shoot you down for thrills or something. If you diligently seek him, God will answer your questions (I am not God, is my point).

RE: post 281

But you CAN experience God. That is what it means to be reconciled with him: to have a personal relationship with him. God created men to have just such a relationship with him, to know him, speak with him, be loved by him, etc. It is sin that separates men from God. Definitely ask to experience God.

No, it didn't. The 'laws' of gravity are an approximation made by humans of observed events to better understand the universe. They are not perfect. A 'law' requires an entity to craft it, and they are by definition imperfect. A fundamental process, such as gravity, is an effect that can be observed and measured. In our world view, mortals are the only law-makers or creators because the process of creation implies a mind. The universe is a mechanistic and deterministic toy that required no creator or law-maker.
To us, creation is a human characteristic. Ascribing it to god is anthropomorphism. For you, creation is a divine characteristic, ascribing it to man is deifying him.
At least we see humans creating every day.

It boils down to: "Who made the sky blue?"
The religious viewpoint assumes that ultimately there has to be a mind behind it, because only minds can create reasons. This follows from the belief that there is a god who created everything.
The non-religious viewpoint realises that reasons do not have to have a controlling mind behind them. The answer is 'no-one' and that is sufficient.



The only final authority that is at all coherent is the phenomenal universe. You cannot appeal to an authority that has no definite influence on the matter you are considering. The universe is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that there is no god, and I mean entirely consistent. It is also entirely consistent with the hypothesis that there is a god but he does not interfere with it. On the basis of evidence, it is not possible to distinguish between the two. It is a matter of personal belief which it is, and personal belief alone. To say that there is a 'higher authority' beyond that implies that creation is not following god's will, which means that god is no longer the final authority because his work is flawed.

God is not all around us. The universe is all around us, and you will only see god in it if you believe in him. The beauty of a flower or the complexity of the eye is not argument in favour of the existence of god. It is only an argument in favour of the existence of the universe.



At least we recognise the flaws in our chosen authority. Anyone who puts their faith in the literal word of the Bible is asking for ridicule because it is such a deeply, deeply, flawed and self-contradictory work. I find it incredible that you believe you have personal communications from god, even in small matters. Even if I were religious, I suspect I would find that kind of thinking arrogant. Is there any evidence you could be confronted with that would shake you convictions?



Good. Thanks for that. It's a breath of fresh air in this sort of debate. I don't even mind someone trying to convert me, as long as they produce evidence rather than tautological canards.

I have deep distrust of any monotheistic religion that advocates worship above action. If there was a god, I would hope that if I lived well and did what I could for my fellow man that the gates of heaven would be open to me. If not, then god would value worship above action. Any god who would value massaging his ego above good deeds is not worthy of worship, in my opinion.

Although it is asking for trouble to ascribe human characteristics to a deity, the only reason I can find for god to create man is so man can exceed him. That is, after all, what we wish for our children.
A god who created man simply as a toy, forever children, is no better than the selfish parent who does the same. Again, not worthy of praise.

The 'Final Authority' argument is actually quite an interesting one. Every argument must come down, in the end, to some kind of final authority. For example, a logical argument has certain assumptions and reaches certain conclusions. But the assumptions are not the final authority: the validity of logic itself is.

My final authority is pragmatism, incidentally. From that I can build up most stuff. Self-existence, universe-existence, logic, reason, non-perverse universe - these are all subsidiary authorities of mine. In practice we tend to judge things against our subsidiary authorities, and only appeal to higher authorities when talking to someone who doesn't share those authorities.

One of the joys of final authorities is that you can use them to judge each other. For example, pragmatism leads to assuming logical consistency: that it is not possible for a logical statement to be both true and false. On the other hand pragmatism doesn't require that logical statements MUST be either true or false, so from my final authority, boolean logic is over-strict, compared to three-valued or fuzzy logic.

Another example: this entry judges the final authority of Biblical Christianity against the author's own final authority of reason. To condemn the author for having reason as a final authority is missing the point - like condemning an entry about the rule of law in the UK for not talking about babel fish. The entry is aimed at those who have reason as a final authority, but have YHWH as a subsidiary authority. It's also aimed as those who have YHWH as a final authority, and have Biblical Christianity as a subsidiary authority. The former may be convinced that God does not exist. The latter may be convinced that while God does exist, he does not have the form ascribed to him in the Bible.

Final authorities are typically circular. So, it is pragmatic to assume the validity of Pragmatism, it is logical to assume the validity of Logic, it is reasonable to assume the validity of Reason, it is biblical truth that the Bible is True, and so on. They don't have to be, but people tend to believe more strongly in circular final authorities.

While you can judge other people's final authorities against your own final authority, what *isn't* valid (according to my final authority) is to judge your final authority against your own final authority. Not because it's circular (that's a logical argument, and we're not assuming that), but because in such a case you have nothing to say. Someone who takes the existance of God as their absolutely fundamental starting point genuinely has nothing useful to say about whether god exists. On the other hand, they have *everything* to say about the properties of that God.

contra thEntity - you can appeal to a piece of paper as your final authority if you like to. However, such arguments will only convince people who also have that piece of paper as their final authority. The final authorities of most will condemn the piece of paper as a poor choice of final authority - it's not reasonable, or logical, or pragmatic, it sets a piece of paper above God, and so forth. But there's no absolute ground on which the piece of paper can be criticised.

Arguments with competing final authorities - as in this thread between God and Reason - are fraught with difficulties. At the end of the day, the only way to proceed is to bypass the mind, and 'preach' to the genes. In the case of God that means arguments from fear - in the case of Reason that means arguments from power. Alternatively, aim lower, and try and get the believer in Reason to accept God as a subsidiary authority to Reason, or try ang get the believer in God to accept Reason as a subsidiary authority to God.

Actually, thEntity already accepts reason as a subsidiary authority, if his mention of specific logical fallacies is anything to go by. So all that is left is to try and swap those priorities: to convert a believer in an unconstrained God to a believer in a God constrained by Reason.

To be honest, pragmattically I'm not convinced that the Final Authority meme is a helpful one - I think it oversimplifies minds that often are beholden to multiple self-contradictory beliefs and authorities. But pragmatically, it's useful meme to discuss for a little while.

-Martin

Queex and Martin made some excellent points in their posts, so I won't repeat what they said. Pragmatism is an excellent final authority Martin, thanks. I had not considered the question before and given more time to think I might have come up with a similar answer .

"God made man, not vice-versa."

I assume that you do not think Allah made man, nor the Hindu god, nor YHWY etc. Can you not see how the *people* of these religions have *created* their god out of ancient myth? If you can see this then this is the same way that I view your god. Why should your religion be exempt from this pattern? "Because it is the truth" you may say, and that is all you can say, which convinces no-one but yourself.

"I wasn't saying that you believed in MY final authority."

But that is what you are assuming to be the truth whilst simultaneously trying to convince me of the same truth using this truth as evidence! It ain't going to work .

"By the way, if you were to appeal to a piece of paper, I would simply point out that a piece of paper has no authority. My argument is valid because it has the Creator of the universe behind it."

In the same precise way that you say my piece of paper has no authority, I would "simply point out" that your bible has no authority. My argument is valid because it is a flawed, grossly mistranslated, misunderstood and ancient text which is assumed to be the work of a diety when the evidence points to that fact that it is not.

"Then I must ask you why you choose to put your faith in something so flawed."

So god is perfect I assume? Then why did he make his pinnacle of creation to be flawed (but that is a whole new debate)? I put my faith in humanity despite the fact that we are flawed. We need to concentrate on this life and the practical realities of human beings living together on this planet then maybe we can improve the lives of mankind. It is not worship, it is pragmatism ( Martin). I have hope and faith in people's intrinsic value and ability to do good in the world.

"To appeal to humanity is to appeal to something with major problems."

Yes, with the aim to fix those problems.

When I said "how can I be willing to believe" I was referring to the fact that I cannot betray myself like that. That it would be a betrayal of a lot that I hold dear. Of course this is a personal thing just as much as your faith is a personal thing to you. Aside from a motorcycle accident and resulting brain damage I cannot *ever* imagine having faith in a Christian god. The idea to me is as ludicrous as having absolute faith in a all-powerful supernatural purple elephant that created man and talks to you in your head! So, I cannot experience god. I only believe he exists in the minds of people who choose to take the easy way out and have religion do a large part of thinking for them. I have no need for a god, I have no *reason* for a god.

ThEntity, I am also enjoying talking to you. We've had a few obnoxious Christian fundamentalist nuts around here recently, it's nice to have someone with some patience and intelligence to engage with. So if people get a bit agressive with you (including myself) that will be why.

Ste

RE: post 284



Our understanding of the laws of gravity is an approximation; the laws themselves are perfect, though we do not understand them.



God's laws are perfect because he is perfect. Man's laws are imperfect because he is imperfect. When I say that God made the laws, I mean that he invented them out of nothing, not by observing what already was and describing it. He determined the way he wanted things to be, and that became the law. Furthermore, he gives the law its power by making it effective. Man can "make" all the laws he wants, but can he enforce them perfectly (which also requires that the law be perfect)?



The universe APPEARS mechanistic and deterministic because it obeys the laws of God. If there were no God to sustain the world and empower the laws that govern it, the world would not appear mechanistic and deterministic; it would be chaos. Toy is a strange choice of word: whose toy?



I have never seen a person make something from nothing, have you?



"Realizes," eh? I realize that there would be no reasons if there were not a controlling mind behind them. In fact, you are using your mind which creates reasons to argue against there being mind behind reasons!



Unless you are familiar with the entire universe, you cannot know this. I am not consistent with the hypothesis that there is no God, and neither are you.



Deism, you mean. This is the weakest possible worldview. Firstly, it is deterministic in ways that no one believes in practice. If you were truly a deist, you would not believe in the ability of man to change his environment, since the universe is a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system. Even humans themselves cannot become anything different or more. And consider the epistemology of deism: Either 1. All knowledge comes from experience and we, not being infinite, cannot know the whole thing, and therefore cannot know whether it is a clockwork system or not, or 2. Some knowledge comes from another source--but that makes deism self-contradictory, since there is no other source to interfere. Also, what would be the ethics of deism? If the universe is preordered, than so is what you do. Therefore whatever you do must be the right thing, since that is what you were meant to do. If you kill someone, that is the right thing, since you were made to do it. So deism has no room for choice, free will, which we have.



Probably not, because my convictions are based not only on what I know, but also what I have faith in, and what I have experienced.



Good! You are right that we are called to to good works. However, I believe that "without faith, it is impossible to please God (don't recall the reference)." It is God that frees us from our sin to be able to do good works. Without the cleansing of Christ over us, our best efforts are as filthy rags because they are tainted by sin. You must first be ENABLED to do good before you can do it, and the only power that can enable us is the power of God, through the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ. As to the last sentence, Paul admonishes Christians to "offer [their] bodies as living sacrifices; this is [their] spiritual act of worship." Doing the good deeds IS an act of worship if you know God.



How about: so man can glorify him? This does not mean that we get a raw deal, but just the opposite. John Piper rephrases the Westminster Catechism to say, "The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever." We can only be fulfilled in glorifying God, and that is our highest purpose.

RE: post 285



Actually, YHWH and the Bible have equal authority, since "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "All Scripture is God-breathed." And you said "may be convinced." I'm not; I believe BOTH that God exists AND that he has the form ascribed to him in the Bible.



How could they be FINAL authorities if they weren't?



This is absolutely true, and I know it. I CAN'T prove that God exists. I do, however, know that HE has to the power to convince you, and that is the only way that you will believe. What I am trying to do is share with you what you must know in order to believe, for God makes his appeal through people. I am making God's appeal to you to believe in the salvation that comes through Christ, who died for your sins and can bring you into the kingdom of God if you will believe in him. Do not mistake me; although God causes you to believe, it is because you choose to believe out of your own free will.



Quite right, I do believe in Reason as a subsidiary authority to God, because I believe that he is the God of reason and rationality, and it is from that center of reason that our reason depends. However, you can try as you like to make me believe that God is constrained by Reason, but that wouldn't make it so, and besides, he isn't.

I like your little bit about the pragmatism of a Final Authority at the end there. My objection to pragmatism is ethical--it leads to the justification of wrongdoing in the name of practicality.

But so far you have offered us no reason to believe that he has convinced you, rather than that you have succeeded in convincing yourself. No evidence outside your own beliefs has been given for those beliefs, which therefore appeal to themselves as their own Final Authority.
You said (Post 272 - sorry that's so far back, but some of us have to earn a living) that God is constrained only by his own Will (if I read that right); so what, if anything, constrains God's Will? If He cannot break those constraints then we are back to a pre-existing set of rules that God is subject to, or there are no such rules, and there is nothing for our reason to get to grips with, and belief in God must therefore be unreasonable. It wasn't me that committed the logical fallacy of bifurcation, but you, in positing God and God's will as separate entities.
No, I've never seen someone create something from nothing (post 287), but then I've never seen God do it either. I've just got the solemn assurance of someone else who didn't see him do it either that that's what happened.

RE: post 286



Not Allah or the Hindu god certainly, although Islam is a unique issue, but YHWH is God. Actually, I don't think Allah was created out of ancient myth, but out of Hagar's encounter with YHWH, when she named him "the God who sees me." I think that behind many of the other major religions of the world is or was a demonic influence, harkening back to the times when spiritual beings walked the earth, as there is reference to in the book of Genesis.



Quite right, I freely acknowledge that. It is God who changes the hearts (and minds) of men, not me.



Well, yes, I do believe that all men have the knowledge that there is a God, but they suppress it. Your arguments, too, rest on the fact that there is a God, although you don't see it that way. The analogy to the fact that you are using reason to try and attack the Reasoner is like a child sitting on her grandfather's lap in order to slap him in the face.



But it does. What is "the evidence?"



Yes.



Do you mean to start this debate? God's creation was originally good; sin (the flaws you speak of) entered the world through the fall of Adam.



See my response to Martin.



I should have said "problems that cannot be solved by what you appeal to (mankind)."



I see it differently. Out of love, not a condemning spirit, I see that you have a need for God. I'm glad you were willing to share that your motorcycle accident is a hinderance to a belief in God. I wish to tell you that he desires your good, and if you have any bitterness about the accident, he can take that away too, and put it on Jesus. You don't have to live with that on your spirit. Also, one of the promises of God is that we will receive new bodies in Heaven, and he can even heal you here on earth. I know a guy healed of scoliosis, where before the eyes of those praying for him, his back changed its shape, and other things, like healing of cancer. One of the ways that God addressed himself to the people of Israel is "I am the God who heals you." Is that an acceptable reason to know God?



Understood, and thanks! If I get obnoxious, let me know.

(, I didn't actually have an accident: "Aside from a motorcycle accident and resulting brain damage I cannot *ever* imagine having faith in a Christian god." Note "Aside from". All I was saying is that some trauma would have to happen to my brain for me to believe in a god. I was exagerrating to make a point. Sorry for the confusion)

So you consider the Jewish god to be one and the same as the Christian god, is this typical? And also, are you acknowledging that there is more than one god? It seems like you are...

"Well, yes, I do believe that all men have the knowledge that there is a God, but they suppress it. Your arguments, too, rest on the fact that there is a God, although you don't see it that way. The analogy to the fact that you are using reason to try and attack the Reasoner is like a child sitting on her grandfather's lap in order to slap him in the face."

I have trouble with this paragraph. Are you now trying to say that my final authority is god even though I have plainly stated the opposite (my "arguments rest upon")? How are my arguments resting upon god (as in a diety, assuming you are not trying to convince me reason is my god again ), I'd be interested to know? The analogy is an interesting one. I would contend that not using reason to question ("attack") the existence of god would effectively turn one from the inquistive child to an unthinking docile pet.

"What is "the evidence?""

The fact that people take the bible in its current state to be the absolute truth as from god even though it is acknowledged to be mistranslated etc. is enough evidence. How can one take a text as being from a god when you know that the original meaning has been lost in a millenia-long demonstration of 'chinese whispers'? You mention Adam later on in your post, in the translation from hebrew the word "Adamah", meaning mankind (or "Earth people"), was mistakenly taken for a single man named Adam. Where once people read genesis and saw the history of mankind laid out in allegorical form, now people literally think a person named Adam was responsible for all sin because he didn't do as he was told! This is just a single example. If your god ever did write the bible the message has been garbled up through the centuries.

Still motorcycle-accident and brain-damage free (though sometimes it's hard to tell I know),

Ste

Hmm. OK...

"If I get obnoxious, let me know."

Then...

"Well, yes, I do believe that all men have the knowledge that there is a God, but they suppress it."

This same thing has been stated (in a far more patronising and condescending manner) by another Christian on this very thread, I think. It characterises atheists as self-deluding liars, people who DO believe in a god, but kid themselves and others that they do not.

"Your arguments, too, rest on the fact that there is a God, although you don't see it that way."

Possibly you're missing the point of these arguments, because they're all predicated on the NON-existence of gods except as human constructs.

"The analogy to the fact that you are using reason to try and attack the Reasoner is like a child sitting on her grandfather's lap in order to slap him in the face."

Er... no. It's a bit more like trying to slap your uncle in the face - when your mother and father have no siblings.

"<[the Bible] is a flawed, grossly mistranslated, misunderstood and ancient text which is assumed to be the work of a diety when the evidence points to that fact that it is not.>

But it does. What is "the evidence?""

Evidence that the Bible is not the work of a deity? Where to start... assuming one takes a deity to be a perfect being - which you do - how about:

- inconsistency: one would expect the work of a deity to be consistent within itself. The Bible is well known to be riddled with gaping inconsistencies, Chapter and verse on request if you doubt it.
- savagery: the deity alledgedly responsible for the Bible is a savage, jealous, inconsistent, petulant boor. Hardly perfect.
- inaccuracy of prophecy: the Bible makes many prophecies, some of them with quite specific stated time-frames. These prophecies fail to come true.
- inaccuracies of simple observable scientific and engineering fact: examples include the ark, which, leaving aside the improbably nature of its cargo, was half as long again as the biggest wooden ships ever built, ships which only floated because they were constantly pumped clear of water. This incredible engineering marvel was built by a single man and his family who had no prior shipbuilding experience at all. Other more idiotic inaccuracies in this work of a perfect deity include the observation that insects have four feet, hares chew the cud, bats are birds, pi is equal to three, the sun moves round the earth, cockatrices exist, the moon produces its own light, the earth is flat and has four corners - chapter and verse again on request.

"

Yes."

So why is his divinely inspired book so full of nonsense?

"

Do you mean to start this debate? God's creation was originally good; sin (the flaws you speak of) entered the world through the fall of Adam."

You make it sound like Adam was created by someone else. In fact, you make it sound like it was Adam that sinned first. Didn't EVE sin first? Isn't, like, the whole reason we die and stuff all the WOMAN'S fault? Oh, no, hang on. It wasn't her, either. It was the SERPENT who tempted her. But who created the evil (talking) serpent? And who subsequently cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly (rather than get about how it did before, by grabbing its tail in its mouth and rolling about the place...) and eat dust? (mmm... dust. Nutritious.)

"

I see it differently. Out of love, not a condemning spirit, I see that you have a need for God. I'm glad you were willing to share that your motorcycle accident is a hinderance to a belief in God."

I *think* you've misunderstood here. I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) that the perfectly healthy, rational and not-even-slightly-brain-damaged Ste is saying that only way he can IMAGINE himself starting to believe in a god is if, in the FUTURE, he suffers some serious head injury, like, say, a motorcycle accident.

I'm in the same position. I honestly think that deep religious faith (including direct "experience" of gods) is a neurological... difference. I was going to say "disorder", but so many people have it to one extent or another, there's an argument for defining it as the norm. However, not everyone has it, and you shouldn't kid yourself that they do. Not everyone's brain works that way - FACT. We don't all hear those voices in our heads. We don't all "feel" gods. Pity us if you like. We need to add chemicals to our brains to get what you get for free.

"I think that behind many of the other major religions of the world is or was a demonic influence, harkening back to the times when spiritual beings walked the earth, as there is reference to in the book of Genesis."

Erm, is anyone else thinking "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" here?

Are you serious? DEMONIC influence? And what makes you think that so many millions upon millions of other people are just poor deluded demonically influenced schmucks, and YOU, uniquely, know the right way? How do you know YOU are not the one under demonic influence? I know, I know, you just *know*. But so do all those other people, too.

And here's the interesting thing: you CAN'T all be right. But you CAN all be WRONG. Which is more likely?

H.

RE: post 289



Well, I don't think that's a fair statement, but I'll be glad to tell you that he has convinced me. I don't think that people can believe unless God convinces them; it is he that gives faith. Besides, even if I couldn't give you the reason that you ask for, that would not change the ability of God to convince YOU.



That's a nonsense question. How can there be restraints on a will?



Two things: 1. I think you're understanding the fallacy wrongly. 2. I actually said just the opposite, that God and his Will are the same, or I sure hope I did...



How do you know what I have and have not seen? See my reply to Ste.

RE: post 291

Ha ha, oh my, I feel foolish. No problem, the confusion was on my part.

RE: post 292



Yes, Christians believe in the God of the Jews. However, we know a lot more about him than they do. And no, I am not acknowledging more than one God. Sorry for the confusion...



No, I am saying that your ability to make an argument rests upon the fact that God established reason and gave you the ability to reason (e.g. there is no reason without God).



But you do not appear to be the inquisitive child, because an inquisitive child does not have answers already. You are saying that you have the answer, there is no God. By saying that, you are like the child, since it is God who allows you to even go on living to say it.



That's not evidence, that's opinion, or misinformation. Evidence would be examples of misinterpretation, backed up by manuscripts. The Bible is confirmed by more corresponding manuscripts than any other ancient document. Do you believe that the Iliad of Homer is reliable? How about Shakespeare? The Bible is far better confirmed than either of those. Surely you have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

What are 'chinese whispers?'



Actually, adamah is hebrew for 'ground,' and adam is hebrew for 'man.' The two words may be related, but are not necessarily so simply because they sound alike. It would make sense if they were, because God created Adam (man) from the dust of the ground. The verses that use the name Adam can be translated 'the man,' but cannot be translated 'mankind.' And contextually, it only makes sense if it is referring to one person, not a bunch of people. Allegorical reading of the Bible is nonsense, since it allows for eisegesis, or giving the text whatever meaning you want it to have, not the real meaning. And what does it matter what people once did? Just because some people did it doesn't make it right, in the same way that some people have murdered. Anyway, if you want a bad joke, just remember that Adam is 'the man'...

He he, you know, I was going to tell you that you're awfully lucid for having brain damage...

"And no, I am not acknowledging more than one God."

I'm sure you know what I was trying to get at here: To try and illustrate that in the same way that you do not think other religions' god is the true god I do not think that your god is the true god. I just go one further and say that there is no god.

"God established reason and gave you the ability to reason..."

No, our mental faculties evolved (do you know that a single mutation in a single gene in mice gives them a large, wrinkled cerebrum that resembles the human brain? I.e., it doesn't seem to take much for intellect to happen). We can go back and forth ad infinitum on this one I think.

"But you do not appear to be the inquisitive child, because an inquisitive child does not have answers already. You are saying that you have the answer, there is no God. By saying that, you are like the child, since it is God who allows you to even go on living to say it."

So, I am not like the child because I have the answer, but by saying that I am like the child, because god is tolerating me like some parent figure? I think it is vital to question, if we don't we are no better than animals. I grew up with the presumption that there was a god, that's what I was told. I figured the reality out for myself and discovered at a later time that are other people like me, who felt the same way that there was just something *wrong* with the idea of a god. It just doesn't sit easily, it's just too ridiculous an idea to blindly accept as reality, especially when the only thing people can say to assuade you is effectively "no, it's true, honest!"

"That's not evidence, that's opinion, or misinformation."

As is that. See Hoovooloo's post.

Chinese whispers is a children's game. You sit round in a circle (about 20 kids). The first person whispers a word or sentence into the ear of the child to the right, making sure noone else hears. The child who just listened then tells the next child in the ring and so on until it comes back around to the first child. Everytime the word or sentence is dramatically different due to the individual errors accumulating during the passage of the message. If that can happen between 20 people, imagine what 20 centuries can do to an entire text?

My Adamah example was poorly-remembered from a conversation with my father-in-law, a biblical scholar and priest. He wrote this entry on creationism: A699573, entitled "Creation - A Mainstream Christian Viewpoint" (a part of the larger Evolution vs Creationism university project), it goes into the uses of language and myth in genesis, especially allegorical meaning of the text. Anyway, read it, I think you'd find it interesting. If you comment about it I can prod him into replying too .

"Allegorical reading of the Bible is nonsense, since it allows for eisegesis, or giving the text whatever meaning you want it to have, not the real meaning."

That is opinion also. Isn't it just a little bit arrogant to think that you have the real meaning?

"He he, you know, I was going to tell you that you're awfully lucid for having brain damage..."

Such kind words

Ste

RE: post 293



I'm not saying that you believe in God in the same way that you are understanding the word believe. You are not consciously self-delusional or something. But all men are born with the knowledge of God. If that were not so, then the Bible probably would make an irrefutable proof for his existence. But what is says is that all men know there is a God, and SUPPRESS that knowledge, which could be the same a forgetting it, but willfully. I don't think its something you can forget, however.



Yes, they're all PREDICATED on the non-existence of God, but they can only BE MADE because there is God.



Uh, that makes you out to be an idiot- trying to do the impossible. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are trying to convince me that there is no God. I think rather that you are trying to convince yourself...



I doubt it. Give me chapter and verse. 1. inconsistency- everything you say here is opinion. 2. savagery- once again, opinion. You are applying your standards to God. 3. inaccuracy of prophecy- I defy you to provide evidence of that! 4. inaccuracies of... fact- The Ark: God never tells someone to do something that he does not give them the power to do. How do you know that Noah wasn't able to build a wooden boat of that size? He may have known something that we today do not know. Also, it took him a long time to build. As for the rest, it was written within a historical context. The Israelites may not have considered the hind feet of insects used for jumping to be feet. Rabbits appear to chew the cud, and were popularly considered to do so. We almost certainly classify birds differently than they used to be. I talked about the pi thing somewhere else... Even we approximate pi--we have to! The sun appears to move around the earth, and the earth appears to be flat. Those things were all appropriate for the culture that they were given to. Why would God have the writer say something like the earth orbits the sun when the people of that time had no way of discerning such a thing? If it would amuse you, go ahead and give chapter and verse. Perhaps I know of a better translation or something. Anyway, none of these things is meant to be taken out of context and none of them are crucial to the message of the Bible. They are not wrong in the way that you mean wrong.

etc.

In case you didn't notice, Adam, Eve, and the serpent all were cursed. But it was Adam that was most responsible, because it was to him that God gave the command to not eat of the tree and because he was the man, the one created first.



So you're a naturalist. I can address naturalism in more detail, but how do you explain miracles?



I'm not saying that those who believe in a religion are under a direct demonic influence. I do think that many of the people of ancient times worshipped a real power, and the traditions of those people were passed down to become the religions of today. It is also possible that some modern religions are due to the influence of a demon, such a Mormonism.



That I am right. Christianity is unique in not allowing for there to be multiple paths to God. Other religions will say that we can all be right. I am the only one that can be wrong, then. But I'm not. It's only benefit and gain for you to believe it too.

RE: post 297



My answer to that is that the appearance of a brain is not the same as having intelligence. I could carve a stone to look like a brain. Could it think? No. But you're right, we could go back and forth on this one until we die and you see I'm right, unless God reveals himself to you earlier.

I know Chinese Whispers as Telephone. Anyway, the text was copied meticulously, not passed on word-of-mouth. The Israelites took seriously God's words to hang these words on the doorpost of your house.

I'll try to look at your father-in-law's entry.

It would be arrogant to think I have the real meaning if my faith and my experience of God did not confirm it, which I think is true of many professing Christ.

See my reply to Hoovooloo's post.

It's nice to have a running joke, or should we say crashing joke?...

(me)