Thursday, 22 March 2012

C.S.Lewis, You Cannot Be Serious! 1

C.S.Lewis' renowned 'Argument From Desire' is one Christian apologetic's more popular arguments for the existence of the Christian god.

It is also one of his more laughable arguments, of which there were several.

Briefly, his argument was, "Every desire is necessarily a desire for something, and every natural desire must have some object that will satisfy it. Since humans desire the joy and experience of God, therefore there must be a God that will satisfy our desires."

He stated it reasonably concisely:

A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will. A man may love a woman and not win her; but it would be very odd if the phenomenon called "falling in love" occurred in a sexless world.


What is amazing in this argument is that an otherwise intelligent man could have thought it convincing let alone how anyone reading it can.

Sorrowing Old Man ('At Eternity's Gate'); Vincent van Gogh, 1890
Creating God by Desire?
Let's take it clause by clause:

"Every desire is necessarily a desire for something,"

True enough as it stands. I desire a large, heated swimming pool in my back garden. I could also desire spending a term at Hogwarts in the company of Albus Dumbledore. No doubt at all that they are 'something'. There is a lot of doubt about whether they are real or imaginary though, but let's not rush too far ahead.

"..and every natural desire must have some object that will satisfy it."

Hmm... Some problem here, I think. I'm not sure why Lewis includes the word 'natural'. Can there be any other sort of desire? He couldn't be trying to surreptitiously associate the object of any desire with being natural, could he? Perish the thought, for Lewis was an honourable man...

But why does it follow that every desire must have some object that will satisfy it? This is never more than an assertion. Certainly a large, heated swimming pool in my back garden would satisfy my desire. Hold on, I'll just go and check to see if there is one....

Not there, I'm afraid (how did you guess?)

Of course it would satisfy my desire if it were real but, sadly, that doesn't make it real. Maybe the lack of evidence for one just isn't sufficient evidence of its absence. Maybe it's a faith thing. Perhaps if I erected a diving board and dived in....

And as for the term at Hogwarts with Albus Dumbledore? Well, they are written about in books so maybe they are real, otherwise how would the author of those books have known about them? So I should be able to satisfy that perfectly natural desire. All I need to do is pop along to King's Cross Station, London and find Platform 934 ...

"Since humans desire the joy and experience of God, therefore there must be a God that will satisfy our desires."

Same as Albus Dumbledore, Hogwarts, large heated swimming pools and Platform 934 at King's Cross Station, obviously. To be fair to Lewis, he only claims to think this argument is "... a pretty good indication that such a thing exists...".

Of course, C.S.Lewis's 'brilliant' apologetic for the existence of the Christian god is nothing more than our old friend the God of Personal Necessity fallacy - my god must exists because I believe it does, or even the even more arrogant assumption - a god must exist because I want one to.

The only thing amazing about this argument is not so much Lewis' arrogance and intellectual dishonesty in thinking his desire for a god could somehow oblige it to exist, but the credulous gullibility of those who find it convincing.

What's that you say, Mr Lewis? "Unless you teach your moods 'where they get off', you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."

Ah! So you can't trust your desires, eh? Oops!





submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

167 comments :

  1. I've read this argument before, and it didn't work for me then, either.

    Essentially, he is considering the kind of hole in the bottom of the stomach that the existentialists spoke of and using THAT as proof of God?

    It's an old "God of the Gaps" argument: We can't explain that weird sense of longing human beings often have, so it must mean God fits in there."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I find Interesting here is that Lewis' argument is very similar to that of Plato argument, yet Plato is revered as one of the greatest thinkers in history. Amazing how an agenda can change peoples' perception. If you really where as scientific in your approach as you believe you are, one would think your thoughts would be more objective. I post this to all those who seem certain of their possession of truth, but as plato said "I am wise because I know how foolish I really am, they are foolish because of how wise they think they are!"

      Delete
    2. I don't recall mentioning Plato. Perhaps you would be kind enough to remind me where I did so, so that if I've inadvertently said that this argument is good because Plato used it I can correct the error.

      Do you think the validity of an argument changes depending on the fame of the person making it and that an appeal to authority can change logic?

      I understand this is a common fallacy in popular culture where it translates to, for example, one clothes designer is better than another because a popular singer wore a dress made by him/her to an award ceremony.

      Delete
    3. "I've read this argument before, and it didn't work for me then, either" Why? Because you can't understand perfectly?

      Delete
    4. Victor Polk

      What did you not understand in Katy's explanation of why the argument didn't work for her?

      Delete
  2. Having just started reading the God Delusion, I recognize this as the Ontological Argument. Surely if we can conceive of a perfect being, and existence is a prerequisite for perfection, then a perfect being must exist simply because we can conceive of it. (I tried applying this to postulate a perfect chocolate bar, which must necessarily be in my hand to be perfect, but was sadly disappointed.)

    Dawkins quoted a brilliant counter-argument: Surely the creation of the world was the most formidable act conceivable. An act becomes more formidable the greater the handicap of the actor. The greatest handicap conceivable is non-existence. Quod erat demonstrandum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose it is the ontological argument in disguise. Nothing more than the argument that my particular god must exist because I believe it does.

      Delete
  3. But, ...

    In the American Christian lexicon of Lewis's time there was such idioms as "unnatural desires" and "unnatural acts" which are associated with sin, sinful desires, and sinful acts. Could Lewis be trying to distinguish between natural (sinless) and those unnatural desires? Does he hold that objects of sinful desires aren't necessarily filling some gap, ok, some need? That would make this argument even more biased, even more evidentiarily vacuous, as natural drives don't care about sins. The results of hunger in the wild, in nature, are more than adequate confirmation of this concept.

    Also, CS Lewis really demonstrates his own personal ignorance by conflating hunger with a desire. Hunger is a biological drive of every biotic cell of, well, conceivably, the entire universe; no intelligence is required for this drive. Any desire would obviously take imagination. Does this not also show the ignorance of those who "accept" this ontological argument from personal necessity, or is it personal desire?

    I agree that CS Lewis is attempting to claim that because some humans (why don't I have this desire for a sky fairy? I get hungry?) have this desire (that he thinks is a drive), the object of that desire necessarily fills the gap. Merely an argument from personal necessity. Another problem arises because everyone desires, imagines, a different deity, one that agrees with their every bias, and is understanding enough to allow them into paradise. This is why most Christians don't read the Bible, as it would clearly discount their version of a deity. I'm thinking sometime before Genesis 6:1-4 most will be thinking this is not my God.

    I also think CS Lewis was a mediocre author, whose plots, while suited, intellectually, for children, assume his audience has adult experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maslow's work on the 'Hierarchy of Needs' was published in 1943. Whilst not perfect, in my humble opinion, it is quite a useful crude model for motivational psychology. Maslow included the top-most need, 'self-actualization', to cater for what he saw as uniquely human spirituality. I wonder if Lewis was aware of this work.

      Delete
  4. Reminds me of when this friend of mine called from the pub and asked me to join him. He then went on to describe this girls he had invited, one of which woke my depeest desire to meet her asap. So I arrived at the pub only to find he had made them up just to lure me and join him. In fact he had tailored his description of the women especially for my taste. So yes, you can desire something that doesn't exist, maybe all you need is to believe it is real. I suppose in the end all humans desire is happiness, so you're not desiring for any particular thing, just plain happiness which we know to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh "R", UR are what the cool kids here in Nor Cal call a..."killer." So awesome buddy,

    Kriss

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clearly as unfounded a disagreement as there ever was. Lewis uses hunger because it is a reaction to a base need. It is as much a foundation to survival and gratification of the body as God is a basis for the survival and joy of the soul. The analogy stops there, created and creator and all that... but you seem to have taken off more than Lewis intended to chew.

    Moving on, your desire for a heated pool is neither basic or meaningful. Lewis is describing the desire as so basic that it fills the means for existence, not for gratification alone. If he was, he would have said 'turkey dinner,' not bread. Furthermore, the pool does in fact exist, you're presumably too poor to move into the house with the garden that has one, but someone out there will live your dream for you. Still it would be nice. And your need to meet Dumbledore is arguably a desire to meet someone superior to you, that offers escape from reality with a new realm of laws and magic, etc. I could say your need for a god is being manifested by your love for the world of Harry Potter, and we could argue till the sun sets on how practical that is... the point is the former pool is inapplicable, and the latter wizard is your secret need for a supernatural force to commune with, which runs the risk of making his point. Proof is in the pudding and all that.

    I think you did him a service by acknowledging his own caveat. But your quote is off in your last jab. Desire and Mood are hardly similar, not even considered synonyms in many a thesaurus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course, like C.S.Lewis, you have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence to support the existence of the god you fit in that carefully manufactured gap, hence, your argument is nothing more than another example of the shameful and intellectually bankrupt attempt to get away with a false dichotomy fallacy, as was Lewis'.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but not sorry... John W. is right about your second point. (The paragraph under this quote: "..and every natural desire must have some object that will satisfy it.") Your "proof" here is very poor quality indeed. The heated pool is a desire that can be fulfilled (whether it is natural or not is then inconsequential), and the second one is an unnatural desire. Lewis is only talking about natural desires.

      To answer your question in the post "Why does Lewis include the word "natural" before desires?" It is precisely to stop people from trying to twist the argument as you did. Because he put "natural" there, the examples you gave cannot work as "premises" in the argument. When he talks about natural desires, he is not talking about just any desire we can possibly imagine (e.g. heated pools, perfect ladies at the bar) or one that we can derive from the world around us (e.g. wizards and magical train platforms). He is talking about desires that come from within us innately.

      Lewis is also not arguing that having a desire proves that you will later be able to satisfy it. He only argues that such a thing must exist that is able to satisfy that desire. "I do not believe that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists..." Voila.

      "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"--Professor Kirke

      Delete
    3. " ... and the second one is an unnatural desire ... "

      And what makes you think the desire for god is a natural one?

      " ... He only argues that such a thing must exist that is able to satisfy that desire ... "

      Why must such a thing exist, just because someone desires it?

      Delete
    4. >He is talking about desires that come from within us innately.

      What was unnatural about my desire for an imaginary swimming pool, please?

      How does one distinguish between imaginary swimming pools and imaginary gods and in what way doe my desire for a large heated swimming pool not come from within?

      I'm sure readers would welcome your elaboration on these points, especially since you seem to be implying that it somehow invalidates my desires yet somehow validates Lewis's desire for a god. I'm sure you wouldn't wish to leave people with the impression that somehow a god must exist because one desires one to, or that only C.S.Lewis (and maybe other Christians) have this power of god creation whilst I have no such powers over swimming pools.

      Delete
    5. A pool is not something you desire until you have heard of it elsewhere. Same with wizards and wizard schools. You see these things elsewhere and then the desire occurs. Lewis is saying that the desire for God comes from within us, not from outside stimuli. As humans we are born with certain desires (e.g. hunger, thirst, a desire for community) and Lewis would include in that list the desire of "the joy and experience of God." I'm not exactly sure what he means by this. You seem to imply that he means the "Christian God," but I'm not so sure what you mean by that either, and I don't think that is what Lewis was arguing. So what do you think he meant by the phrase "the joy and experience of God"?

      Delete
    6. >A pool is not something you desire until you have heard of it elsewhere. <

      And your evidence that a god is may be seen where, please?

      Delete
    7. If we may borrow your Amazonian model from another comment thread (the idea that someone discovers a never before seen Amazonian tribe and what they would be like) I would propose that this tribe has a concept of God or of gods or of a religion. I do not think we would find a non-spiritual tribe.

      Atheism itself has not always been a popular theory. Even great thinkers like Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, etc., etc. were Christians. You seem to assume that atheism is the "logical" option when I've never seen it as logical, and many other people don't see it that way either. These great men, and many more, have also felt this innate desire for God. It is something that I feel as well. Obviously, popularity is not a determinant of truth, but it should cause one to wonder why one theory has generally been more accepted than another, especially when some of the greatest minds of history have accepted it as fact. Just saying it's worth thinking about.

      This may not be valid evidence to you, but this is my personal experience as well as something that has been and is being experienced by millions of other people, some of them far, far more intelligent than I am such as the ones I included above.

      And I'm guessing that you're saying that Christianity came about because some people long ago tried to understand their world and their lives and their universe, so they created a religion and a God that fit what they saw to be true. But to me, that's how I think of atheists. To me, Christianity makes perfect sense, and atheism is the belief system that I find hard to wrap my mind around. Something to think about.

      Delete
    8. Given that I DO NOT have this supposed 'basic desire' I would argue that neither is it basic.

      And given cases like the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon, it is far more likely a delusion forged in the cruicible of cultural inculcation, a product of tens of thousands of years of misattribution of agency (and other known cognitive failures) growing from earlier 'animal' spirits into powerful god-beings and finally into the ultimate one-god concept in a far too typical "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" pissing contest between ancient, ignorant, superstitious tribes.

      If Christianity were introduced today you would read the Bible and think, "This is even dumber than Scientology".

      >>> To me, Christianity makes perfect sense, and atheism is the belief system that I find hard to wrap my mind around

      I know (as a former Bible-thumping Christian who led Bible study classes) that from your persepective this seems trite but how you feel about Zeus, or Apollo, or Krishna, or Xenu, or Sai Baba, is LITERALLY how I feel about your God claims.

      Delete
  7. Father, they know not what they do...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice line in smugly self-satisfied condescension. Easy to see what you use piety to excuse.

      Co-incidentally, I've just blogged about something similar: Atheism - The Informed Choice.

      Delete
  8. All of your examples are of things that do actually exist in one form or another- so in my opinion- you have not made an argument for desire vs existence. Every one of your examples proves desire for something that may be out of your reach- but it does exist. The great thing about believing in something not seen- is I don't have to spend time trying to prove it to others. Why is it important for you to expound on your unbelief? I just can't imagine a scenario where faith in someone unseen is harmful or counter to self-actualization as one poster suggest. Spending your life trying to prove something doesn't exist isn't even logical. I have a strong belief in God and that he is our creator- you don't believe and that's your choice. I don't feel the slightest need to convince you otherwise- why is it important for you to find support for you belief's? Logic is knowing there is opposition in all things. Looking for proof of nonexistence is not the opposite of faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >All of your examples are of things that do actually exist in one form or another<

      Indeed. C.S.Lewis's example was, by contrast, something which doesn't exist.

      Well spotted.

      Delete
    2. You know well and good he meant "See-able" or specifically observable. You pride yourself on logic yet you ignore complete arguments leaving them unnanswered and you dismiss the person based on their wording of certain things. I don't see you as a credible person when you don't even answer the direct argument that counters your own. Why argue for your non-belief in the first place if you are unwilling to adress counter arguments? I'm not talking just about this thread but several of them. Portraying the person as laughingstock does nothing to disprove their argument.

      Delete
    3. Ryan.

      >You know well and good he meant "See-able" or specifically observable.<

      That must be why he didn't use those terms but referred to 'things that do actually exist in one form or another' then.

      Delete
  9. I routinely desire the ability to cause physical events to happen by mere thought, rather than physical exertion. I wish to to simply will into existence whatever whim occurs to me. It is obvious I possess no such capacity, because no such capacity seems to exist. I have also desired the ability to share actual consciousness with other humans and animals, to simultaneously experience existence as something other than myself while remaining myself. This , as best we can tell, does not happen.

    And what of the existence of those who have no desire for God. Is there some number of them that would cancel out the evidentiary value of Lewis' desires, or is Lewis simply solipsistic enough to claim the desires of himself and those like him trump everything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't counting on just his own desires. He had observed a general desire across all people. And he didn't even claim this argument was fool-proof. It was just a general observation. Desires that truly come internally generally have something to fulfill them. That's all he was saying in my opinion. So he asks why not God since it seems many people have an unexplained desire for Him. Can I also ask this question? Why God? If He doesn't exist, why would someone make Him up? And why would so many smart people hold to that made up fact....

      Delete
    2. So if I get a lot of people to desire a swimming pool in my back garden, do you think that will work?

      Delete
  10. Why are you trying to attack Christian arguments for whether or not God exists? Why not man up and attack the Bible? Quit being a coward and dancing around the subject, grab a bible, read it, then tell me why it is not true. Please, if you are so brave and above all belief and you look down on all who are stupid enough to believe in God, then why don't you open our eyes, not as to why "a god" doesn't exist, but as to why the God of the bible doesn't exist. Why not argue with God on why he doesn't exist, since He (or the idea of Him) seems to be your real enemy, why don't you quit attacking his followers, and just attack him. It would make more sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er... if you have the courage, take a look at my other blogs, especially those linked to on the pages entitled 'Biblical Absurdities' and 'The Ten Commandments'.

      It may surprise you to find the real world is different to your fantasy one.

      Delete
    2. Err if you have the courage, you should maybe read the bible, and a bit of theology because I have read those and to an atheist who doesn't know anything about the bible you might sound wise but to someone who knows the scriptures their meanings and mysteries, you sound like a fool, who only looks at a small picture, and ignores looking at it as a whole. But only do this if you have the bravery, which I doubt you do.

      Delete
    3. So your attack now is not that I haven't read the Bible and don't attack it but that I don't agree with you about it.

      I expect you find this style of 'debate' easier than dealing with a complete absence of any evidence for your superstition. Coping with cognitive dissonance requires all sorts of mental gymnastics such as that obvious attempt at diversion even at the expense of intellectual integrity.

      Delete
    4. I believe in my previous comment I said "you should maybe read the bible" I was simply stating that you only read the passages that you have pulled out to judge and know nothing of the actual meaning of it. And I like it how your style of 'debate' is to completely ignore or address what I said and pick out one point of what I said therefore not fully understanding the comment... It's kind of like how you 'read' the bible. Is it not?

      Delete
    5. I read the Bible like I read any other book.

      You, however, seem to be incapable of questioning any of it, or of considering who wrote it and why. It's as though you would accept Harry Potter as infallible if your mummy and daddy had told you it was.

      The fact that you appear to think the Bible somehow validates itself means your opinion of it can be dismissed as biased and so without merit.

      To establish that your god wrote, or inspired, or had anything to do with the writing of the Bible you first have to prove your god.

      Why can you not do that, and how do you rationalise that obvious attempt to bypass normal logic?

      Delete
    6. >>> Why not argue with God on why he doesn't exist, since He (or the idea of Him) seems to be your real enemy, why don't you quit attacking his followers, and just attack him. It would make more sense.

      If no God exists then I would be talking to myself, as you do when you pray. I imagine it would go something like...

      Dear God, whom I do not believe exists but I'm humoring another one of your intellectual giants, if you DO exist then have Joshua Morgan PROVE it in a demonstration as per 1 Kings 18 and in front of JREF for the $1 Million Dollar challenge, which I'm sure he/she will donate to your Church.

      What's the matter Joshua Morgan? Is your God asleep? Perhaps you should shout louder and awaken him?

      The good news for you, Joshua Morgan, is that MY secular morality is superior to your imagined Gods so I will NOT be taking you out to be slaughtered when you pathetically fail to light bull meat on fire with prayer.

      Of course, I know that you will not even attempt it because somewhere, deep down, you KNOW it is all bullshit and that it would utterly fail.


      And no, you are also absolutely wrong about who and what the 'enemy' is. It is willful ignorance combined with prejudicial superstitions that utterly corrupt and destroy any meaningful conversations that might otherwise be had on any great number of topics -- abortion, stem cell research, geocentricity, gay Rights, women's Rights, birth control, sex education and disease prevention, science education, ignorant prohibitions that do vastly more harm than any even potential good, much less actual good...

      Delete
  11. "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1

    Belief is a matter of the heart not the mind, smart people on both sides of the argument.

    C.S. made a choice to believe, but it took a leap of faith which is very much a heart matter, he was then "surprised by the joy" he felt which gave him intellectual confidence in the matter.. That always come later though, just the way God set it up.

    You have to humble yourself to believe, always have always will, you won't see any evidence that will ever take that part of Christianity away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good<

      I'm sorry you were unable to come up with a cogent argument and had to resort to this mindless slogan in lieu of an intelligent rebuttal.

      Had you read your Bible, and if you believe it, you would have discovered that, according to Matthew 5:22, you have now condemned yourself to hellfire.

      I love the way the author of Matthew inadvertently included that little trap for sanctimonious Christian hypocrites. It always makes me smile when I see one of them fall into it as so many of them regularly do.

      Delete
    2. If you want me to play the game of intellectual rebuttal I'll take a stab at it although I'm not trained to pick your statements apart there are some common sense points to be made.

      First I think it's pretty weak to compare the idea of what God does for people compared to the idea of harry potters fantasy world, but it's close, you dream of what a pure intellectual utopia of power and the fight between good and evil would be like and maybe such a place really exists. That's kind I my point there, if you reduce a desire (as fake as it might be) down to what you are really looking for, I think more often than not in this world you will find that it does exist.

      When it comes to God and living in a utopia someday you can argue those things. But there are plenty of fantasies that can be reduced to their true nature that can indeed be fulfilled. Freedom, love, wisdom, power.

      Second C.S. does not make the point that just because you desire it you will get it! You err by making that assumption. You want a heated swimming pool and the satisfaction you desire does exist. Whether you go to a spa or whatever you can satisfy your desire for "relaxation" but he doesn't say you will indeed get what you want, but the element that provides satisfaction for the longing does exist.

      3rd its pretty easy to see you are warping his quote below... In context he's saying moods or whining of sorts can get in the way of our higher capacities, and keep us from continuing down a straight path. Desires of flesh, lust, worry. If w wanted to say desires he would have instead of moods that make an individual oscillate.

      Yes I read my bible, the author of Mathew happens to be Mathew, and Jesus is speaking in the context of brotherly relationships, you are not my brother.

      I did not say you are a fool, but to play that game as well God did through the psalmist.

      Delete
    3. >First I think it's pretty weak to compare the idea of what God does for people compared to the idea of harry potters fantasy world,<

      How do you know one is fantasy and the other isn't when you were the one quoting a book at me?

      It strikes me that you're like someone trying to play a tennis game who demands the net be lowered when he's playing the ball but want's it raised when he's receiving it.

      Was it your intention to show how you need intellectual dishonesty and double standard to promote Christianity or is this just an example of the special pleading and lowered standards you think your god needs in order to be able to compete with normal, honest logic?

      Delete
    4. I was just explaining what I thought of your arguments.. Nothing more.. I don't think you could be convinced God existed if you met him face to face, but hopefully I'm wrong.

      There were a lot of people who met Christ who was God manifest in the flesh who didn't believe he was who he said he was. So evidence or no evidence I think you want to believe what you want.

      I hope the best for yah, I know I'm not going to convince you that God loves you and that you in fact need him let alone convince you he exists.

      It's up to you, but i respect your ability to choose just not your choice.

      Delete
    5. >There were a lot of people who met Christ who was God manifest in the flesh who didn't believe he was who he said he was. <

      Funny you should say that. Read this and answer it honestly, if only to yourself: If A Stranger Told You He Was Jesus.

      Then read this and tell me what you would do: Help! What Should I Do?.

      Now, you are in the position of someone telling you that they knew someone who claimed they knew someone who claimed they met someone who claimed he was the son of a god. The fact that it is written down in an old book is neither here not there.

      Why would you not believe someone who told you they were Jesus today, without asking for evidence, and why would you not believe in someone who someone else told you they had heard about who claimed to be Jesus?

      In other word, why and when did that simple logic change some time in the last 2000 years, just because some other people made an illogical decision?

      Or maybe you'll believe anyone who claims to be Jesus, or someone who claims to have heard of someone who claims to be Jesus, 'on faith'.

      If so, please don't expect a sane, rational person to do likewise.

      Delete
    6. From what I read, scholars across the board would admit that the books of the new testament were unparalleled for the time in the short gap between the actual events and the written accounts..

      So from a historical account its hard to argue that at the least those who wrote them did actually believe what they wrote and it wasn't some story from ear to ear that got corrupted over time. if you could say that of the bible than no book of old holds any water whatsoever.

      That being said when the author of Acts (Luke who was a medical Doctor) says in the beginning chapter 1 that Christ showed himself alive after his passion (death) BY MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS, and spoke of things pertaining to the kingdom of God,- I believe it.

      I don't see anyone today claiming to be Christ then dying and coming back to life 3 days later... I believe the account of his death and resurrection because it was recorded in unparalleled fashion... A LOT OF SANE PEOPLE WERE CONVINCED.. hence the divide in our Calendar.

      Delete
    7. >From what I read, scholars across the board would admit that the books of the new testament were unparalleled for the time in the short gap between the actual events and the written accounts..

      Do you seriously believe that non-Christian scholars believe that?

      But, apart from the obvious appeal to authority here, what verified evidence do these alleged scholars provide and where may it be seen? Or are you seeing what's seen so often in these sorts of claims, Christian 'scholars' citing other Christian 'scholars' so that opinion passes for evidence, and the whole edifice is hanging from a sky hook?

      In the absence of evidence for that claim (and not just another appeal to authority), I'm afraid a sky hook is all you have there.

      (BTW, quoting the Bible as proof of the Bible is like me quoting Harry Potter as proof of Harry Potter).

      You might like to read my blogs 'Hey Christians! Is Matthew For Real?', 'Are You For Real? Pull The Other One Matthew!' and 'Christians - Try Not To Think About Matthew'. I also deal with other clear indications that the New Testament is based on second-hand (at best) accounts of one or more an urban myths with 'Jesus Is Risen - And Pigs Can Fly!', 'Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up', 'The Ancestor's Likely Tale' and 'Twinkle, Twinkle'.

      Delete
  12. "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handy work" psalm 19:1

    The physical universe is all the evidence I need for the existence of God.

    Argue that it's not evidence? Or even argue that its not possibly evidence. Existence itself. The first atom, the first particle. Big bang or no, where did the first anthing come from? Curious what you would have to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't suppose it's even worth asking you how you proved there was a god in the first place before you decided how well it fitted the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.

      Fortunately, there are people who don't just tell themselves a god must have done it and it must be the one my mummy and daddy told me about, and give up trying to understand how the world really works. This is why we are able to communicate in this medium and why we have things like medicine, television, cars and air transport, and are not still pre-wheel bronze-age goat-herders like those who thought up your easy answer because they didn't know any better.

      Delete
    2. Or, As Richard Dawkins said, the problem with religion is it teaches us to be satisfied with not knowing.

      Delete
    3. Your first point is valid,, there are a lot of people who just absorb the God that they are handed.

      Most people don't set out to prove whether their God holds water. I know C.S. put a lot of thought into It before he took a leap of faith, like I mentioned before though, true Chrisianity will always demand that leap no matter how much intellectual proof someone has.

      There are many gods out there and they all need to be tried, I happen to believe as narrow minded as it might sound that the God of the bible is the one true God and that satan does exist and that he's been pretty active at deceiving folks and keeping them from living up to their full potential in Christ.

      My experience was simple, I heard the bible being preached, and it rang true within me. I didnt need proof he existed, as I mentioned creation was enough for me. I took the leap of faith believing God loved me enough to provide his words to me, and that if they were indeed his words I've got a pretty large responsibility to share them with others. So that's my conviction.

      On your second assertion, it's a pretty low blow to pretend that the greatest percentage of people who have helped advance our world haven't in fact believed in some God or another.

      Delete
    4. > true Chrisianity will always demand that leap no matter how much intellectual proof someone has.<

      Of course.

      This is what you have to do if you want someone to believe something for which there is not a shred of evidence. You even have to fool them into believing that accepting something on faith without any reason is a virtue and not the intellectual indolence and 'sin' it is in reality.

      Why do you think the Christian Church uses these tricks on vulnerable, ignorant and superstitious people?

      Delete
    5. Rosa, I found it interesting that you left Keith's original question completely unanswered and unmentioned. If you want to debate rationally, you have to be fair. Don't force him to fight on your ground when he has a legitamate question. As I read through your blogs, I see a whole lot of writing the person off without actually considering their argument. What makes you think you have things figured out better than anyone else?

      Delete
    6. It's too bad you aren't secure enough in your beliefs to consider the possibility that they could be false, then we could have an intelligent discussion. Instead you just ignore the main argument, single out the one sentence you can best take out of context and then act like you've disproved the whole thing.

      Delete
    7. Ryan.

      I find it interesting that there were no unanswered questions asked by Keith.

      Did you read his contributions or are you hoping others won't?

      Delete
    8. kyle smeltzer

      It's too bad that you can't deal with the points raised but needed to resort to ad hominem and a ludicrously implausible claim to know my mind.

      Readers can see from that that you no more believe in a god of truth and honesty than I do, otherwise you would not have disregarded it's instruction to not bear false witness.

      So, why are you pushing something you obviously know to be false? If truth sets people free, what does deception do?

      Delete
    9. Haha, twisting my words, very impressive. I wasn't "bearing false witness," I was just making an observation.

      I do believe in the one true God (which is capitalized, by the way) of the Bible. I also think that you believe there is a chance He exists, but if He did you would have to face His judgement and the thought of being responsible for your sins scares you so you choose instead to deny His existence.

      Delete
    10. You've kind of driven a good point that needs to recognized that Christianity teaches..

      It is in fact possible to believe that Christ was God in the Flesh without receiving what he came here to offer..

      James 2:19 says You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

      So to bear light on my "leap of faith" that was my conversion so to speak.. that was me accepting God's love and grace for me.. the atonement for my sins in my helplessness..

      My point stands that to Accept HIM you must blindly trust him.. which takes humility.. and yes you may have questions that go unanswered but you can in fact believe God exists and believe that Christ came to bridge the gap between us and Him without ever taking that "leap of faith" i speak of.. that's more of a decision to receive his grace and follow him..

      You may have infallabe proof like Luke suggests in Acts that he died and rose again but that "leap of faith" more of a matter of a relationship with him.. which is where the bonus of believing everything you seem to hate so much comes in at.. the truth is we believers are experiencing what we feel is a real relationship with the Creator, its vital, its active, its synchronous, it goes beyond the physical realm.. i think you're missing out on a lot..

      you do not have to commit intellectual suicide to believe in God.. you do have to be brave enough to trust something you can't see though.. at least not yet..

      why we can't see him? well its his prerogative.. i think he's trying us.. he did come 2,000 years ago and he will be back.. but for now he wants the people that are going to be brave enough to trust him without necessarily seeing him.. although he gives sufficient evidence through his word for those who seek him..

      Delete
    11. kyle smeltzer

      >Haha, twisting my words, very impressive. I wasn't "bearing false witness," I was just making an observation.<

      Your exact words were "It's too bad you aren't secure enough in your beliefs to consider the possibility that they could be false,...", as people can read for themselves.

      There is a very clear implicit claim there that you know my mind.

      Would you like to deal with the issue of how you knew you needed to bear false witness and make a ludicrously untrue claim to defend your superstition, or shall we leave that for when you've explained why you thought the only other weapon you could use was a judgmental ad hominem, again in direct contravention of the 'faith' you are defending?

      I'm sure my readers would like to know how you knew that reason, logic and honesty were not going to work for you and that you needed to resort to the tactics of deception and abuse.

      What have you got to say to them?

      Delete
    12. Keith Meredith.

      >So to bear light on my "leap of faith" that was my conversion so to speak.. that was me accepting God's love and grace for me.. the atonement for my sins in my helplessness..<

      In other words, you have decided, in the complete absence of any evidence, to deem the god your mummy and daddy told you about to be real, and that is good enough for you.

      What do you think would have happened if your parents had been Hindu or Muslim? Would those gods exist because you had deemed them to?

      More to the point, why do you assume that your arbitrary decision should in any way be a moral imperative for others to follow and that it somehow conveys a right on you to demand the laws other people live by should conform to your requirements and be in accord with, what is after all, nothing more than a declaration of fact by fiat.

      Does this never strike you as as in any way arrogant?

      Delete
    13. No I don’t know your mind. I went too far saying that you aren't secure in your beliefs and for that I apologize.

      I would be happy to continue this discussion using only “reason, logic and honesty” as long as you agree to actually consider my arguments and evidence… and maybe stop calling my faith a superstition, but it’s not a deal breaker ;)

      Delete
    14. Rosa, I did read it, and I hope others do as well. I just hope they are smart enough to see where you are avoiding arguments and attacking the person and the "God" as it may be, instead of the argument. You never answered his question as to where the first substance came from. Please don't call me a fool when I had a legitamate observation. And also please answer the question now.

      Delete
    15. >I would be happy to continue this discussion using only “reason, logic and honesty” as long as you agree to actually consider my arguments and evidence… and maybe stop calling my faith a superstition,<

      In other words, your honesty doesn't extend to using the correct term for a superstition, so we have to pretend it's something it's not.

      This doesn't presage well, but feel free to try reason, logic and honesty whenever you feel ready.

      I will, of course, continue to use correct terminology.

      Delete
    16. Ryan

      >Rosa, I did read it,<

      Then there must be another reason for your misrepresentation. Thank you for clarifying that.

      Delete
    17. You are still ignoring the question.

      Delete
    18. You have still to identify an unanswered question.

      Have you nothing better by way of argument than innuendo and false assertion?

      Delete
    19. I'm sorry, but did you actually read my post? I said "You never answered his question as to where the first substance came from."

      Delete
    20. Ah, you managed to find one, eh?

      The origin of matter is well known. You can read about it in any decent physics book or find the answer in a few minutes searching on Google. This has been know about for 107 years so I'm surprised anyone interested in the answer would be unaware of it.

      Hint: E=MC^2

      Let me know if there is anything you can't follow, should you ever pluck up the courage to read about it.

      Delete
    21. He's asking you what you believe, not what google says. So because I don't know your mind would you please explain to us exactly where you believe matter originated.

      Delete
    22. Seriously.. Google can say anything I want it to so why would I listen to it? What if I say the origin of matter has actually been well known for somewhere around 6-10 thousand years since it seems that is when God created it and humans have known ever since then? My claim was no more unfounded than the one you just made. Now please, answer my question straight since you seem to have all the answers.

      Delete
    23. No. If you haven't bothered to check the very many reference books and on line sources which answer that question, your question is clearly disingenuous and you would not take any notice of any answer I gave you either. I have no intention whatsoever of typing out a long explanation of how energy and mater are inter-convertible, or how energy came into existence in the Big Bang for you to ignore.

      You have almost certainly tried this sophistry elsewhere so I refer you to the answers your were given, and ignored, there.

      Delete
    24. Ryan.

      In other words, you're not going to look for the answers which you've decided to dismiss anyway, but you'll keep pretending to want them.

      Do you think you are fooling anyone with this infantile dishonesty? It's the equivalent of asking a question then putting your hands over your ears and jumping up and down going 'la la la... can't hear you!' when you're given the answer.

      Now, as I requested, can you please stick to the subject of the blog, no matter how embarrassed you are at not being able to refute it, and stop trying to divert the conversation. You are simply drawing attention to your inability to deal with the topic at hand.

      Delete
    25. You didn’t direct the first comment to anyone but since the second was to Ryan I’m going to assume it was for me. Also I can assure you I have not asked this question elsewhere as you falsely concluded, I came across your blog two days ago when I first commented.

      Now to the main point, I truly do want to hear what you believe, perhaps you would be willing to link to somewhere that would explain exactly what you believe if you are not willing to tell us for yourself. I will not ignore it but, although I may not agree with it, I promise to look at it with an open mind.

      Also, quick question: How is this sophistry? I haven’t even argued anything. I only asked you to explain your beliefs. How is that considered “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation?” I thought you said you would use correct terminology?

      Delete
    26. Ok, I could take this further but you clearly don't care to answer my "stupid questions" so I won't even bother. Like Kyle said, Goggle doesn't tell me what YOU believe. Bottom line, if you want me to return to the exact topic of this blog, you are out of line to attack Lewis. He himself said he didn't claim it was an all binding argument. Plus he's dead. Awfully brave of you to attack someone who can't defend himself.

      Delete
    27. Ryan

      I'm sorry you lack the courage to test your 'faith' with learning. It must be difficult for you knowing that your 'faith' is so weak, and your god so insubstantial, that both will be fatally damaged by facts.

      Delete
    28. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    29. Rosa, please just provide us with a link somewhere that explains how you believe matter first originated. As your readers can all see for themselves, you have failed to answer the question EIGHT TIMES!! Perhaps you’re the one who lacks confidence in your beliefs, so much so that they could be fatally damaged by facts. Ryan is simply just tired of your evasive tactics.

      Delete
    30. Are you incapable of using Google yourself or are you afraid of what you'll find if you do?

      One thing readers can be sure of is that, if you are too lazy ot afraid to search for this information yourself, you are most certainly going to ignore any link I give you.

      Are you hoping to impress people with this display of intellectual dishonesty? Perhaps it's something to be admired in your circle...

      By the way, scientific knowledge is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of accepting what the evidence shows to be true. Maybe that's where you are going wrong, or perhaps you won't look because you know the truth will not be what you want so you're hoping it'll go away if you ignore it.

      Most children grow out of that belief by the age of about 12.

      Delete
    31. Now, for the last time, will you please have the courtesy to stick to the point of the blog and stop desperately trying to divert the conversation away from something you can't cope with. I realise you're a Christian and so believe yourself to be exempt from the normal standards of civilised behaviour but please try to behave like a normal, civilised person in this blog, even though it won't support your superstition or give you a nice warm glow of smug self-satisfaction.

      Delete
    32. "I'm sorry you lack the courage to test your 'faith' with learning. It must be difficult for you knowing that your 'faith' is so weak, and your god so insubstantial, that both will be fatally damaged by facts." and evading questions doesn't seem to ring of "normal," "civilized" behavior to me. And in case you didn't realize, I did return to topic and you responded with no substantial material. I don't count pure attacks as substatial material. Litterally. Every word you said was an attack against me and God, not an actual intelligent comment.

      Delete
    33. Another quick question. If I was so afraid to "test my faith," why would I bother with your blog? I have no obligation to spend one second of my time reading your posts or trying to have a sensible conversation with you. Do you really believe your arguments don't even challenge the Christian faith? Simply a question.

      Delete
    34. Rosa, this is ridiculous. You’re just embarrassing yourself in front of your readers. For the third time, I genuinely want to know what you believe (or “accept” if that makes you feel better). I am not afraid of what I will find on Google. I am not going to ignore any link you post. I am here to impress no one. I am, however, here to have a debate/discussion with you but I can’t do that unless you tell me where you stand. The only reason I’m not going to trust what I find on Google is because science does not hold a single point of view; different scientists have different theories. You surely cannot claim to agree with them all so please, as I asked you before, tell us which theory you “accept.”

      Delete
    35. Ryan.

      To help yourself cope with cognitive dissonance. See 'How Fundamentalists Cope With Unwanted Facts' if you have the moral courage and personal integrity to read something you're afraid might be true, unlike with other questions you keep asking.

      Delete
    36. kyle smeltzer

      >For the third time, I genuinely want to know what you believe (or “accept” if that makes you feel better). <

      What ever the evidence, reason and logic tells me is true. That's why I'm not too afraid to look up the answers to things I don't understand. And because I don't need to pretend to myself that there are lots of lovely gaps in which I can sit my special invisible imaginary friend so it will like me and won't hurt me, of course, or because I can't bring myself to accept that something my mummy and daddy told me about was untrue.

      Delete
    37. Ryan.

      By the way, I'm sorry you don't feel constrained by the normal standards of civilised debate, and I understand that this is one of the things you use religion to excuse, but this is the last time I will ask you to please stick to the subject of the blog and desist from trying to divert the conversation away from something you manifestly can't deal with.

      If you are unable to cope with cognitive dissonance any other way, then can I suggest you start your own blog where you can pretend to have coped to your heart's content.

      Delete
    38. Rosa, if you read the conversation carefully, I did return to the topic of the blog. You had no comment about that but only continued to attack me, forcing me to point out where you had no grounds to accuse me on. Am I not allowed to defend myself from your attacks? That is considered taking things off topic? That is the assertion you have made, which means there is a huge double standard on this blog and you refuse to accept any argument that disagrees with your own preconceived biases.

      Rosa, I also asked a legitamate question you again left unnanswered. You made the personal attack on me that I "lack the courage to test your 'faith' with learning." Seriously please tell me why I would even be trying to converse with you! Why wouldn't I just stay in my own circles and talk only to people I agreed with? (This is not off topic as I said above because you personally accused me of it)

      Delete
    39. Perhaps you could dispel that impression by showing the world you have been willing to learn. What did you find out about the origins of matter after I told you to use Google to search for information on the subject? Did you actually visit any science sites and read any articles on the subject? What physics reference books did you read to find the answers you were, apparently only pretending, to want?

      My guess is that you were too cowardly to have looked for answers in case you found them for fear of being unable to cope with the inevitable cognitive dissonance of needing to believe your questions are unanswered and unanswerable whilst seeing that they can be and have been.

      Delete
    40. You never told me what to read. How am I to know what you think is credible? If I just do a search for "origins of the universe," I will get any random theory anyone has come up with. Could you just give me a link to something you find credible? That's all Kyle and I ever asked for. Also, how is talking to you here "showing the world" I am willing to learn? Fist, how many people do you think actually read my responses? More importantly, no one has any idea who I really am, all I give is a first name which may or may not be real for all you know. Your theory makes no sense. It seems like your desperate to pile on accusations that will appear to reduce my credibility, but honestly it seems kind of foolish for you to claim to know my mind and motives when all you know about me is a few blog responses.

      Delete
    41. I think you just destroyed any lingering shred of credibility you might have had left. Pretending to be too stupid to understand what I said or incapable of working out what to read for yourself, really was the last desperate act of someone who knows he's tried all the excuses he has and who knows none of them were convincing enough.

      I think we're done now.

      Thank you for your contribution and your help with discrediting creationism in particular and religion in general.

      I expect another creationist simpleton will be along soon to proudly display his/her assiduously maintained ignorance and carefully developed intellectual dishonesty and so show us their scientific, theological and moral bankruptcy.

      At least Francis Collins was right about that.

      Delete
    42. This is rediculous Rosa. All I asked on this feed from the beginning was that you tell me (and Kyle, and Keith since it was he who asked in the first place)what you believed about the origin of matter. All that was necessary was a simple link to a source that you believe is a credible explanation. Simply to tell me to "google it" simply deflects the question and doesn't tell me what you accept or think is credible. If you didn't want to answer, you should have just said so. It is your blog, you have every right to say that. But what right you don't have is to say that I am making excuses and have "dicredited creationism and religion in general." I made no real assertions at all on this feed! All I asked was that you answer the question. How can I be dishonest when I'm asking questions? I don't understand your justification for tearing me down as a person when I have simply asked you to explain yourself. If you don't want to respond, that is your choice, but don't call me a coward for "not challenging my beliefs" when you refuse to answer the question and give me anything to challenge them with. For the record, this is the first result on google for "Where did matter originate?" http://io9.com/5818706/where-did-matter-come-from Is this what you accept about the origin of matter? If you do, I would have more questions, but you don't seem to be willing to anwer them. Would you be willing to, or will you not accept any challenge to your beliefs as you claim I have done?

      Delete
    43. Ryan, et al.

      Nobody knows where matter came from -- there are numerous hypotheses about the nature of such an event but they are not scientific Theories at this time (and they are only marginally hypotheses as they cannot currently be falsified).

      More importantly, YOU do not know where 'matter originated' from either. And what you are trying to do here is commit the fallacy of Argument From Ignorance.

      I don't HAVE to know where matter came from to reject YOUR god claims as unsubstantiated. And yes, MATTER is evidence of SOMETHING -- what it is NOT evidence of is a God, especially not the absurd Christian God.

      And neither did a bunch of misogynistic, ignorant, superstitious (demons cause disease) goat-herders from 2-3 millennia ago know where matter came from, as we can plains SEE by reading Genesis. Hint: the Earth is NOT immobile, and the stars are NOT on a firmament that divides the waters above and below.

      They hadn't yet even sussed out that slavery was an atrociously bad idea, they had no concept of 'age of consent' (news flash Mr 77 year old Jacob, wanting to 'know' a 14 year old Rachel is not an enduring love story, it is disgusting display of pedophilia -- WHICH HARMS CHILDREN), they treated their daughters as PROPERTY (When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are), and their superstitious nonsense is too easily beat into new ploughshares as we saw it put into direct service defending American slavery and anti-miscegenation | http://books.google.com/books?id=ioYDJ4GK3tYC&hl=en

      And the difference is, when I don't know something I say "I don't know" -- I don't pretend that appealing to an utterly fatuous special-pleading God actually explains anything. Here is what that argument boils down to:

      God exists magically because I say so and your Cosmos cannot just happen to exist in the same way I'm appealing that God exists because I say so

      Theists often laugh at atheists because they say we believe everything came from nothing but fail to remove the plank of God's creation from their own beliefs.

      Atheist's (and really this has nothing to do with atheism -- it is a scientific question) don't claim everything came from nothing, we claim we don't know. We used to think the vacuum of space was 'Nothing', now that seem an untenable position. We do not know of ANY way or form in which a true Nothing can exist. Perhaps our universe came from the EXACT SAME KIND OF NOTHING that quantum virtual particles fluctuate from? Perhaps it is simply impossible for NOTHING to exist? None of these things demand us to break parsimony and imagine an anti-masturbatory tyrant who throws hissy fits and almost drowns everyone (and that's one thing we SHOULD see evidence of and we do not, yet another Biblical failure of epic proportions).

      Delete
    44. Dark Star,

      I’m glad to see that you are confident enough in your beliefs to admit when you’re unsure of something, that’s a refreshing change. Also capitalizing ‘God’ shows a certain amount of respect that has otherwise been lacking in this discussion :)

      I can’t find anything in my Bible that says the Earth is immobile, could you provide a reference? Also Genesis 1:6-8 says that the SKY was a firmament that divided the waters above from the waters below. However, you are correct in saying that the people back in Biblical times did not know as much about science as we do, which is why I think that you will be surprised to find that the book you claim was written by ignorant goat-herders is filled with scientifically accurate statements.

      Isaiah stated, approximately 2800 years ago, that the Earth is round:

      "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

      This verse also states that the universe is expanding. Both of these statements we now know to be correct, but the people during the time this was written could not have.

      In addition, Genesis 3:15 refers to the “seed of the woman.” Until a few hundred years ago it was thought that the woman was only an incubator for the baby, and it was the man’s seed that grew into the child. Science has now shown that the woman plays just as large a role in conception as the man, and has her own "seed" as was stated thousands of years ago in the Bible.

      Finally, the book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) tells the story of a righteous man named Job. I’m not going to go too much into detail but basically Job’s great life is destroyed and he cries out to God asking why. God responds with a series of questions asking Job if he knows all these many intricacies of how the Earth and Universe function. Basically He’s showing Job how little he knows and how therefore it is not Job’s place to question His plan. In these questions, God reveals many facts that the people in Job’s time couldn’t possibly have understood, but with the advances we have made in science we now can. For example, in Job 38:31 God asks, “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt?”

      Astrophysicists have discovered that the constellation Pleiades is gravitationally bound and moves in unison while the stars in Orion are not bound so they can move freely.

      I would argue that this shows that the Bible was not just written by a bunch of goat herders but instead was inspired by God, the Creator of the Universe.

      Delete
    45. kyle smeltzer

      >Also capitalizing ‘God’ shows a certain amount of respect<

      I think that comment is probably the must puerile I've seen on this site. The irony of it being used by someone who doesn't capitalize his own name is delicious.

      By the way, respect is something you earn not something you can demand. No doubt sanctimonious condescension and quoting random Bible passages in lieu of rational argument and evidence-based reasoning, earns you enormous respect from your co-superstitionists but I'm afraid it may well have the opposite effect here. You certainly can't take it for granted.

      Delete
    46. kyle smeltzer

      >I can’t find anything in my Bible that says the Earth is immobile, could you provide a reference?<

      1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

      Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

      Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

      Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

      Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

      I'me surprised you had difficulty in finding those. I found them in about 30 seconds by typing 'earth is fixed' into the Google search engine.

      These were the biblical references which were used by the Christian Church against Galileo to try to refute heliocentrism.

      Delete
    47. Rosa, those passages you cited use the word “immovable” and not “immobile.” You seem to think they mean the same thing, but actually immobile means motionless or not moving, while immovable means impossible to move. To illustrate this difference, imagine a train driving past you. You can push and shove at it all you want, but you will not be able to move it from its tracks. It is immovable, but not immobile. Likewise the Earth is fixed in its orbit, but is still in motion around the Sun. As you can see, there is nothing incorrect about these passages. Now, if the Earth were to somehow become movable, it would then be able to drift outside of our solar system’s habitable zone and would not be able to sustain life. I think you would agree that it is a good thing that the Earth is immovable.


      I fully expect you to continue ignoring my points (disregarding them as “random Bible passages”), but I am looking forward to what Dark Star has to say, as that was who my comment was addressed to.

      Delete
    48. kyle smeltzer

      >Rosa, those passages you cited use the word “immovable” and not “immobile.”<

      I think I'll just leave this here as a testament to your intellectual dishonesty.

      Delete
    49. Fortunately I think everyone else actually read the rest of my comment where I explained the difference between the two.

      Do you still deny that you “ignore the main argument, single out the one sentence you can best take out of context and then act like you've disproved the whole thing?” Because I have seen nothing but repeated evidence for that observation and your last comment is a perfect example.

      Delete
    50. I'd have thought your astounding dishonesty displayed above would have been enough, but you seem determined to bring it into even shaper focus. Is it something you are especially proud of or are your normal victims too stupid to see that words like immobile and immovable are synonyms? If so, this definitions from the OED should help them (my helpful emphasis):

      immobile, adj.
      Incapable of moving or of being moved, immovable (lit. and fig.); fixed, stable. Also less strictly: That does not move; motionless, stationary.

      Have you received an education in basic English at all? LOL!

      Delete
    51. Now, having been exposed as dishonest, will you be explaining soon why the 'inerrant' Bible, allegedly written or inspired by an omniscient god, says Earth is fixed and immovable/immobile when it very clearly isn't? Or will you continue to put up desperate smoke-screens unintelligently designed to cover your embarrassment but which serve merely to draw attention to it?

      Delete
    52. I guess I’ll go with the second option, but I disagree with the premise.

      Synonym is defined as: a word or phrase that means exactly OR NEARLY THE SAME as another word or phrase in the same language.

      I agree with you that something that is immobile is “incapable of moving or of being moved”, however something that is immovable is only incapable of being moved. You can clearly see that they do not mean EXACTLY the same thing, however they are very similar which is why they are considered synonyms.

      Something that is immobile also is immovable, just like a square fits all the requirements of a rectangle. That does not mean that something that is immovable is also immobile, just like a rectangle is not a square.

      I think my education in basic English is just fine.

      Delete
    53. If you still disagree with my last comment, that’s fine, I don’t really care. What I do care about is what the scripture was originally intended to mean.

      Let’s take the first one, 1 Chronicles 16:30. The whole verse, mind you, not just the part that helps your case.

      “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (KJV)

      The word stable (or immovable in your translation) in the original Hebrew (transliterated) is Kuwn. It means to be firm, stable or established. The word moved is transliterated from the original Hebrew as Mowt, meaning to be greatly shaken or dislodged.

      What this verse is really saying is to fear (Chuwl, meaning to tremble in awe of, not to be afraid or scared of) the Lord for He is so powerful that he has made the earth firm and stable, so as not to be shaken or dislodged (from its orbit).

      Unsurprisingly, all the other verses you quoted use the same two Hebrew words.

      You can find all of this information in Strong’s Concordance.

      Delete
    54. >If you still disagree with my last comment, that’s fine, I don’t really care. What I do care about is what the scripture was originally intended to mean. <

      Will you be apologising to the readers of this blog for trying to fool them into believing the Bible doesn't claim Earth is fixed and unmovable by lying about the meaning of every-day words and lying about the Bible, or don't you have the honesty and moral integrity?

      By the way, I didn't notice your answer to my question. It was "will you be explaining soon why the 'inerrant' Bible, allegedly written or inspired by an omniscient god, says Earth is fixed and immovable/immobile when it very clearly isn't? Or will you continue to put up desperate smoke-screens unintelligently designed to cover your embarrassment but which serve merely to draw attention to it?"

      Or should we take it that you're going for the continued smoke-screen option hoping against the evidence that it'll cover your embarrassment rather than drawing more attention to it?

      Delete
    55. “By the way, I didn't notice your answer to my question”

      Rosa, you either didn’t read the first comment, or you cared so little about what I had to say that you missed the first sentence where I did answer your question.

      I said: “I guess I’ll go with the second option, but I disagree with the premise”

      In case you did read it, but misunderstood what I meant, I was saying that I will be continuing this argument, but I disagree that I am the one being dishonest, or the one putting up desperate smoke-screens unintelligently designed to cover my embarrassment.

      Delete
    56. kyle smeltzer

      Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the words which explain why the Bible said Earth is fixed and immovable when it plainly isn't, and why this contradicts the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of an infallible god whilst not contradicting it, please. Or are you hoping that normal people will be able to hold two mutually contradictory view simultaneously like religious people need to?

      Then maybe you will have found the moral courage and integrity to explain why you lied about the Bible and tried to fool people by lying about the meaning of an every-day word.

      Delete
    57. I don’t understand the problem here Rosa. I just showed you that the Bible DOES NOT say that the Earth is immobile, as well as three other verses that all contain scientific truths that were written thousands of years before science even discovered them. I think this is abundant proof that the Bible is the inerrant word of the Creator. Will you be continuing to ignore all of this or attempting to refute it?

      Delete
    58. >I don’t understand the problem here Rosa. I just showed you that the Bible DOES NOT say that the Earth is immobile,<

      The problem is that you are lying. I have shown you the verses from the Bible which prove you wrong.

      Anyone with a modicum of integrity and would apologise for trying to mislead people. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would give up a strategy which has clearly failed and anyone other than a moron would stop using the same failed tactic and expecting the outcome to be different.

      You seem to have forgotten that people who come here to read this blog can actually read and can see for themselves what the Bible says.

      Delete
    59. “The problem is that you are lying. I have shown you the verses from the Bible which prove you wrong.”

      And I have shown you the original Hebrew text that proves YOU wrong, yet you seem fit to ignore that information and keep insisting that I’m somehow lying. Do you think the translation is more accurate than the original? That doesn’t sound like you’re using the “reason, logic and honesty” that you claimed to hold in such high regard. Now can we please be mature here and not resort to name calling?

      Delete
    60. So the Bible is inerrant and infallible, it's just that someone put wrong words in it by mistake, eh?

      By the way, you still haven't explained why you initially tried the ploy of lying about the meaning of the words in the Bible until I gave you a dictionary definition.

      I think we can all see why you are now trying another, even less plausible ploy.

      Delete
    61. Rosa, if you want to waste time with an argument over the difference between immobile and immovable, that’s fine with me, just know that that it is irrelevant to the main discussion because, as I said before and am growing tired of repeating, the original Hebrew does not claim that the Earth is immobile.

      Delete
    62. >Rosa, if you want to waste time with an argument over the difference between immobile and immovable, that’s fine with me, <

      Er... as readers can see, it was you who tried to quibble over the (non)difference between those words when you were trying to defend the absurd notion of an inerrant Bible written by an omniscient god. Have you now abandoned that effort or will you soon be finding the moral courage to explain how an inerrant book can have demonstrably wrong statements of fact in it, or how the Bible is still inerrant even though someone made a mistake and put the wrong words in it?

      Or were you merely demonstrating that to be religious you need to hold two or more diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive and irreconcilable opinions simultaneously - what normal people refer to as 'delusion'?

      Delete
    63. Okay, here we go again…

      Please pay close attention as I don’t want to repeat myself again. I am going to make this very straightforward and easy to follow. Please tell me at what point you disagree with me.

      Immobile means not moving, motionless and unable to be moved.

      Immovable means unable to be moved.

      An immobile object (because it is both unable to be moved and motionless) is also considered immovable (unable to be moved).

      A strictly immovable object (unable to be moved) is not immobile (unable to be moved AND motionless) because it is not motionless.

      Delete
    64. kyle smeltzer.

      Oops! You have appeared to have hit the reset button.

      Unfortunately, you seem to have over-looked the fact that the record of the conversation from the point at which you tried the above ply is still available.

      In particular, by looking at this comment, readers will see the following, posted on 13 August 2012 at 18:52:
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I'd have thought your astounding dishonesty displayed above would have been enough, but you seem determined to bring it into even shaper focus. Is it something you are especially proud of or are your normal victims too stupid to see that words like immobile and immovable are synonyms? If so, this definitions from the OED should help them (my helpful emphasis):

      immobile, adj.
      Incapable of moving or of being moved, immovable (lit. and fig.); fixed, stable. Also less strictly: That does not move; motionless, stationary.

      Have you received an education in basic English at all? LOL!

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      So, from now on, shall we cut to the chase and just concentrate in why you think you need to try to mislead people about the Bible by misrepresenting its contents?

      Delete
    65. I don’t really want to repost the same argument, but I see no better way to explain this to you. Here is the argument I made after the one you posted, it shows how your definition does not contradict or refute my argument in any way:


      “Synonym is defined as: a word or phrase that means exactly OR NEARLY THE SAME as another word or phrase in the same language.

      I agree with you that something that is immobile is ‘incapable of moving or of being moved’, however something that is immovable is only incapable of being moved. You can clearly see that they do not mean EXACTLY the same thing, however they are very similar which is why they are considered synonyms.

      Something that is immobile also is immovable, just like a square fits all the requirements of a rectangle. That does not mean that something that is immovable is also immobile, just like a rectangle is not a square.

      I think my education in basic English is just fine.”


      I can see that my simple argument was lost on you; perhaps a more scientific explanation will help.

      An immobile object has a velocity of zero.

      An immovable object has a constant velocity, and cannot be moved from its current trajectory.

      An immobile object’s velocity is also constant, because it is always zero.

      An immovable object is not immobile because it can have a velocity greater than zero.

      If you disagree with any of these points, please tell me this time.

      Delete
    66. Just in case you think you may have gotten away with it by diverting the thread and trying to hide your failure under a heap of verbiage, I'll simply point out yet again that you still haven't explained why you lied about the Bible, lied about the meanings of some words in it, and then tried to explain that the Bible is still inerrant, it's just that someone wrote some wrong words in it by mistake.

      Are you ever going to find the moral courage and personal integrity to explain why you tried those dishonest tactics?

      Or should we just put an end to your misery and conclude that it is because you know as well as I do that your 'faith' is a lie and can't be defended with truth, reason, honesty and evidence, so you have fallen back on the only thing available to you short of admitting you know you're a charlatan - something which should be abundantly clear to readers by now?

      Delete
    67. I sincerely hope that your readers are as smart as you say they are and can see that I didn’t lie about anything. You claim I “lied about the Bible,” even though I showed you that the original Hebrew does not say that the earth is immobile, you had no rebuttal for this whatsoever. You claim I “lied about the meanings of some words in [the Bible],” even though, as I showed above, immovable and immobile are not the same, no rebuttal to this either. You claim I “tried to explain that the Bible is still inerrant, it's just that someone wrote some wrong words in it by mistake.” The original text IS inerrant. I do not claim that the translation is entirely inerrant, but in this case, it is.

      You’re going to have to put together a more intelligent response than just calling me a liar to win this argument.

      Delete
    68. kyle smeltzer

      >I sincerely hope that your readers are as smart as you say they are and can see that I didn’t lie about anything.<

      Apart from lying about what the Bible said here and then lying about the dictionary definition of the words 'immobile' and 'imoveable' here until I corrected you here, then repeating your lie again here and now lying about the conversation (which is still displayed above) again today, obviously.

      Delete
    69. ”and now lying about the conversation (which is still displayed above) again today, obviously.”

      Rosa, why would you lie? I didn’t comment yesterday, I commented two days ago. Don’t you have any integrity at all? Or do you not understand how a 24 hour clock works? LOL! Or perhaps you forgot that the record of this conversation is still available. You should find the moral courage to apologize right now for trying to mislead your readers!

      That all sounds a little absurd, doesn’t it? In all seriousness, I’m willing to believe that you are just incorrect, not jump to the conclusion that this is some dastardly scheme to deceive us all by giving us false information thinking we would never know the difference. You might think I’m wrong about the whole immobile/immovable argument, but you have no right to call me a liar as you don’t “know my mind” any more than I know yours.

      As I said before, if you want to be right you will have to present some sort of intellectual argument.

      Delete
    70. kyle smeltzer

      >Rosa, why would you lie? I didn’t comment yesterday, I commented two days ago. Don’t you have any integrity at all? Or do you not understand how a 24 hour clock works? LOL! Or perhaps you forgot that the record of this conversation is still available. You should find the moral courage to apologize right now for trying to mislead your readers!<

      Indeed. I apologise unreservedly for getting the exact date of your lie wrong by some 24 hours.

      Will you soon find the moral courage to explain why you tried to mislead the readers with lies about the Bible then lies about the dictionary definition of words then lies about what you actually said. Then will you find the integrity to explain how you knew you needed to tell lies to defend a superstition and why you are trying to deceive people into believing something you know to be false?

      Or should readers just conclude that you have no personal integrity and are merely using a pretence of piety as an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behaviour like so many other sanctimonious Christian bigots do?



      Delete
    71. Okay, I’m going to take this one accusation at a time...

      I didn’t lie about the Bible. In the verses you cited, the original Hebrew does not say the Earth is immobile, it says that the Earth is firm and stable (in its orbit) so as not to be greatly dislodged, as I previously explained.

      If you still claim this is a lie then please, tell us the truth.

      Delete
    72. kyle smeltzer

      >I didn’t lie about the Bible.

      Except you did, of course, as readers can see, and as I gave links to here.

      Maybe you just lack the humility to accept that your assertions don't change reality and to keep denying your comments here won't make them go away.

      It might help you avoid these tangles in future if you tried making your points using honesty and personal integrity. I realise that would be a severe handicap when trying to fool people into falling for Bronze Age myths and ignorant superstitions but that's a rod you've made for your own back when you decided to try to push something you obviously know to be untrue, I'm afraid.

      Delete
    73. I’ll ask you again, since you ignored it the first time: if you still claim this is a lie then please, tell us the truth.

      You’re going to have to actually prove me wrong if you want to make those accusations.

      Delete
    74. Here is the comment you're hoping people wont have noticed, posted 13 August 2012 18:52.

      You need to wait much longer than 34 days before you can deny seeing comments you've replied to.

      Can I once again recommend you try being honest? I appreciate you've probably tried that in the past and found it doesn't work for you, but your current dishonest tactic isn't working either. Try to understand that you're not addressing a Bible group or shouting at strangers from the corner of a street here. It's just making you come across as either deranged and deluded or a fraud.

      Delete
    75. Unfortunately for your argument, both immovable and immobile are words from the English language, and the Hebrew Bible (as I thought I made clear) was written in Hebrew. This will be the last time I repeat myself: the Hebrew doesn’t say the Earth is immobile, it says that the Earth is firm and stable in its orbit so as to not be greatly dislodged. If you still claim this is a lie then please, tell us the truth.

      Delete
    76. kyle smeltzer

      Indeed, you made it clear you believe you can only trick people into following your infantile superstition by lying to them both about what the Bible says, and the meaning of every-day English words.

      The only interesting think you now have to say to me is to explain why you are so desperate to trick others into believing something you obviously know to be false. Is it for power, an ego thing, an attempt at control? Or is there something else going on in your psychology? Do you maybe believe that if you can trick enough people into believing something you desperately want to be true, the universe will eventually be forced to take note and change reality for you?

      Delete
    77. Rosa, if you want us to believe that you listen to “evidence, reason and logic,” you will actually have to listen to evidence, reason and logic.

      I have stated again and again that the Bible does not say that the Earth is immobile, but instead offers a scientifically accurate statement. I even provided a reference for you.

      You on the other hand, instead of making an intelligent counter-argument, have chosen to call me a liar (among other things) in hopes that no one will notice your lack of content.

      It seems as though the evidence points toward me being correct, and anyone who uses reason and logic should be able to see it.

      You’re going to have to make an argument, present some evidence, maybe even throw in a little reason and logic if you think it will help.

      Or, you could just admit that you’re wrong.

      Delete
    78. kyle smeltzer

      I realise you have abandoned any pretence of honesty but it's still far too early to lie about your earlier comments. They are still visible.

      By the way, the Bible references you are having to lie about still are:

      1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

      Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

      Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

      Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

      Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

      I know you have seen these before because you replied to my comment of 12 August 1012 12:32 where I gave you that list when you tried lying about the Bible earlier.

      Delete
  13. Rosa, theists use misinterpretations of evidence for evidence!
    Lamberth's ontological argument is true: the most perfect being is the Cosmos itself as it is all there is, and [Hans] Reichenbach's argument from Existence notes that as Existence is all, no transcendental God can possibly exist and nothing whence it came outside itself-just those quantum fields and no other world with which to compare it for the sake of probability.
    Rosa, Edward Feser let the theological cat out of the woo bag: he rightly notes that Leibniz stress the something,not the nothing, in querying why is there something rather than nothing,but his is the standard argument from personal incredulity with the standard one of the argument from ignorance- God, both underlying most of their other arguments. Feser here is highlighting unwittingly that theists prefer a tendentious obscurantism, that Supreme Mystery,surrounded by still more mysteries ostensibly as the Ultimate Explanation, Primary,Efficient Cause and Sufficient Reason, yet is just a bombastic obscurantism for real explanations, Yes, Lord Russell tells the truth to Fr. Copleston's obscurantism! Why add a uselessly redundant explanation to the brute fact that we do see? That brute fact- eternal Existence due to the eternal quantum fields, as described by the law of conservation. And our conservation- background - of knowledge cannot cohere with woo!
    "Logic is the bane of theists." Fr. Griggs

    http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
    http://rabbigriggsy.wordpress.com
    http://lordgriggsblog.wordpress.com
    http://griggsthenaturalist.wordpress.com
    http://rationalistgriggsy.wordpress.com
    http://skepticgriggsy.wordpress.com
    http://ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. If there is no God, then there is no purpose. If you truly believe in no God, then think of this scenario: Your young daughter (pretend you have one) asks if she is special. You want to say that of course she is.However, if God does not exist, then no, she's not special. If you want to be honest, you would have to tell her, "Well, no honey, you're not special. You see, your existence is by chance and you are merely a product coincidence and billions of years of random, pointless tiny changes. You are simply an intelligent animal, just like billions of other people on this planet which also came into existence by chance. The same is true of everything that exists." If God exists, then she is special because she was created by Love, for Love- to love and be loved. She has a specific purpose for her life, which her Creator had in mind for her since the beginning. And you would tell her that truthfully.
    If God does not exist, what do you tell your friend who does not see the point of existing? He/she would ask what there is to live for. You would tell her about having a family and friends and he/she would ask what the point of that would be. If there is no God, then there is no point to anything. If there is a God, then it all makes sense and there is purpose to everything! You are created by Love, for Love and you are meant to spread the love of the Father, and after you die your soul lives on happily. But if God does not exist, then what keeps you from just killing yourself when something goes awry?
    You are not a body with a soul. You are a soul with a body. Never forget that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gods either exists or they don't.

      This is not affected by what you like or dislike or what you would like to tell your daughter.

      Sorry about that but reality doesn't seek your personal permission, no matter how much you wish it did nor how important you think you must be.

      By the way, if you wish to attack science, you might do better if you understand it, then you wouldn't need to attack an infantile parody of it just to give yourself a nice warm, smug glow of self-satisfaction. I know it must be disturbing to learn, especially if you like to believe the universe was made just for you, but that's the way it goes. You see, normal people who do understand science are not convinced by this tactic and merely see the ravings of an arrogant ignoramus who has managed to remain ignorant through fear of learning an inconvenient truth.

      Your best line would have been to have told us where we can see the validated, definitive evidence for your particular god and to have explained why it is evidence only for your favourite god, and for no other.

      Why did you decide not to use that simple and conclusive line of argument, please?

      Delete
    2. Rosa, maybe you don't realize it but your response to "Unknown" had no contradiction to his post. Aside from the last line, no statements of belief were made, you can't even assert with complete certainty that Unknown believes in God. All that he or she did was say what you reaffirmed in the first sentence of your reply. The rest of the post was just playing out each scenario.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous

      Were there any words in the first three sentences with which you are unfamiliar or which are causing you difficulty with basic comprehension?

      Delete
    4. Did you want to say anything of substance? Because what I said made sense and what you said did not....I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

      Delete
  15. You seem to hold reason and logic in the highest regard, so let me ask: How do you account for your use of such on atheistic Naturalism? Would you offer a defense of reason by reason, or logic by logic? It seems like your worldview is short an adequate basis for any argument whatsoever. You're not alone in your circular reasoning, Christians do it too. In fact any argument for ultimate commitment is ultimately circular. The difference is that Christianity can make sense of our use of reason and logic. You presuppose the same fundamental principals but have to borrow from Christianity to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL!

      I love it when creationists start off down the road of arguing that there is no such thing as reality to try to justify their belief in a magic creator of it.

      It reveals the profound difficulty with joined-up thinking which probably explains their superstition in the first place.

      Delete
    2. I don't argue for non-reality, but a reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity. And I'm not aware of any "profound difficulty" in holding a belief in God. I was hoping you could shed some light on how atheism reconciles the use of logic and reason in a universe that is only matter in motion. I think that's where the profound difficulty lies.

      Delete
    3. I don't argue for non-reality, but a reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity. And I'm not aware of any "profound difficulty" in holding a belief in God. I was hoping you could shed some light on how atheism reconciles the use of logic and reason in a universe that is only matter in motion. I think that's where the profound difficulty lies.

      Delete
    4. >I don't argue for non-reality, but a reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity.<

      Imagining you can and do create your own reality is normally referred to as 'psychosis'.

      Science is under no obligation to explain to you how your fantasy world works or why the one you've carefully constructed in your imagination is illogical. It's enough to dismiss your claimed ability to construct reality as arrogance and/or insanity and to point out that your fantasy world is merely an infantile parody of the real one and which you've probably created because you found the real one too hard to deal with.

      Delete
    5. Just so I’m clear: Given that the majority of the world holds to some kind of theistic belief, your best explanation of this phenomenon is some sort of global pshycosis? Merely calling Christians or other religious people crazy is not a reasonable argument nor is it any way to rescue your own worldview from self-defeat. I’ll ask again. How do you account for your use of reason on atheism WITHOUT borrowing from the Biblical principal that a God who uses and values reason created us in His image to use it?

      Delete
    6. Nice try at misrepresenting what I said. I wonder how many readers can work out why you needed to try that ploy.

      As I clearly said, 'psychosis' is imagining that you can create your own reality. The clue was in the words "Imagining you can and do create your own reality is normally referred to as 'psychosis'".

      Apparently, the majority of the world once believe the world was flat. That didn't make it flat. I hope that doesn't shock you too much.

      Delete
    7. I haven’t created or imagined my own reality; that isn’t even relevant to my question. I asked how YOU account for YOUR ability to reason about YOUR OWN reality, the same world we both experience. Do you in fact know?

      Delete
    8. godneighbor

      Are you withdrawing your implicit claim that there is 'a reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity' or just hoping no one else has noticed you use it?

      Delete
    9. Nope. As I've made clear, the "reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity" is THIS reality—the same universe, the same assumed laws of logic and reason, the same moral considerations you and I and everyone else experience. The Bible provides a way to rationalize all of this. Your worldview does not, and so you live in self-contradiction, having no other recourse but reasoning as you have. Your evasiveness and self-deception affirms the truth of Romans 1:18-25, a description of those who have suppressed the knowledge of the God they once knew, trading the truth for a lie and worshiping the created thing instead of the Creator. My continuing in this discussion would be a fool's errand. May you re-discover what you've apparently lost.

      Delete
    10. godneighbour.

      So not >a reality that only makes sense on Biblical Christianity< but the one you were complaining about me using when you asked "How do you account for your use of such on atheistic Naturalism?"

      I'm glad we've cleared that one up.

      Now, since you claim your god makes sense in real reality, perhaps you could either explain the complete lack of evidence for it (in real reality, not a fantasy one), or show the evidence you have which refutes that claim (again, real evidence not imaginary evidence - the sort that exist in the real reality that normal people live in).

      Or will we now be treated to the tradition excuses, prevarication and condescension which normally follows fundamentalists being asked to evidence their claims?

      Delete
    11. Rosa,
      Can we stop beating around the bush and answer his question? How do you explain thought without a Creator? That is a that was asked. Please just answer his question.

      Delete
    12. Physics has several plausible explanations which you can read about in books. I have several blogs about the subject which you could read if you wanted to. There are also very many freely-available articles on line which you can read with a few minutes search using Google.

      Perhaps you could tell me what books, blogs and articles you have read to find this out for yourself and what you didn't understand, then readers will know you are genuinely interested in the answer and are not just being disingenuous and desperately trying to avoid learning anything which will cause you uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

      Now, because I have looked but not yet found anyone willing to even offer a plausible explanation, how do you explain the creation of your assumed creator exactly please? In particular:

      1. What was it made from with nothing from which to make it?
      2. Who made it with no one to make it?
      3. How did it evolve the complexity to have the information with which to create the universe, which would need to be greater than the universe it created?
      4. What did it make everything with nothing out of, with nothing out of which to make it?
      5. How does it have perfect knowledge of the universe without having and infinity of conceptual models of the universe, each of which would need to be indistinguishable from the real universe, and each of which would need to contain an infinity of other conceptual models of the universe as described here - More Infinitely Impossible Gods?

      Having done that, please then explain how you detected this creator, how you measured any of its qualities and how you decided it was the same entity as that guessed at by the Bronze Age goat-herders who invented the Abrahamic creation myth, and how you managed to eliminate any possible natural explanations.

      Fame and fortune await you, so what are you waiting for?

      Or have you merely fitted an imaginary god in the gap in your knowledge and understanding as an easier and intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupted option than learning?

      Delete
  16. Perhaps what C.S. Lewis was trying to say was not that if one desired a pool in their backyard that it would simply appear, but rather that material things of the world (such as your "heated swimming pool") exist and therefore your desire to attain one stems from its existence. As for your argument about J.K. Rowling's hit series, I'm not quite sure how it supports your point. Regardless of what I think, however, there exists a loving and powerful God. You may not believe in Him, but he believes in you. And what is even more astounding is despite all of your accusations to the contrary He loves you no matter how many times you defile Him and sell Him for less than He is. I earnestly pray that you will come to know Him.

    It is my belief that one's argument is lessened if they do not completely understand what it is they are arguing against, so if you're really interested in understanding Christianity, I would suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. This book breaks it down to the basics and played a huge role in bringing me to the Christian faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Perhaps what C.S. Lewis was trying to say was not that if one desired a pool in their backyard that it would simply appear<

      Which of course completely negates his assertion that something must exist because you desire it, or do you think he was trying to claim special privileges for his God of Low Standards again and exempt if from the normal rules of logic?

      Your smugly bigoted condescension is noted, by the way. Unfortunately for you it merely serves to show the world what you are using a pretence of piety as a cover for. It may have made you feel better about yourself by imagining you had managed to elevate yourself above me with it in the eyes of the world, but hopefully you will one day realise it has the opposite effect in the eyes of decent, honest people and has served to illustrate what religion is now used for.

      Delete
    2. I apologize if I came off as arrogant. By no means was I trying to be condescending. God clearly states in the bible that no man is greater than another, therefore in no way do I find you beneath me. My intentions were not to belittle you, but to give you a reason to look at Christianity from a different perspective. Obviously I fell short on that account for which I am sorry.

      May I ask a question out of honest curiosity? Out of all of the religions in the world to fight with, why Christianity? Please be blunt, I will not take offense.

      Again, "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis does a great job of explaining what Christianity is all about. If you're interested, I highly recommend you read it. If not, however, then I will cease to recommend it.

      Delete
    3. >God clearly states in the bible<

      Actually, the person who wrote that in the Bible said it. Did you notice that it was an evidence-free assertion?

      That sort of mistake is probably what's mislead you.

      >May I ask a question out of honest curiosity? Out of all of the religions in the world to fight with, why Christianity? <

      Have you read the blog at all? Had you done so, you would see it deals with C.S.Lewis, not Christianity. I'm sorry you see truth, reason and logic as an attack on Christianity. Maybe you need to ask why it so often appears that way.

      Delete
    4. You are right, God did not write the bible. However "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching" (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, although it was not written by God the people who wrote the bible were being influenced by God through the Holy Spirit while writing it.

      Yes I did read your blog and many of your other blogs. You also post in "Biblical Absurdities" and "The Ten Commandments," correct? C.S. Lewis is only the means through which you funnel your attack on Christianity. So yes, you are trying to pick a fight with a bunch of Christians, which is fine. Debates like this are what shed light on what is truth and what is heresay. But please do not hide behind an innocent facade.

      >I'm sorry you see truth, reason and logic as an attack on Christianity.<

      I'm sorry but I must disagree. Your blogs have nothing to do with truth, reason or logic. It is mere human opinion for which you provide no substantial evidence. If you could truly prove to me right now that Christianity is a joke, then I will call myself an atheist. Heck, maybe I am wrong, but all of the evidence I have seen thus far points to God.

      You have a pretty roundabout way of dodging just about every question that has been asked. If you feel uncomfortable, then simply say so. If not, however, please answer the following:

      What do you believe? ("I 'believe' where the evidence leads" is too vague of an answer, What is this infamous "evidence"?)
      Why of all the religions is it Christianity that you find most distasteful?

      If it is evidence you want for God, then please watch this video: http://faithbridge.org/sermons/ben-stuart-july-2010/is-the-bible-corrupted

      Or you could do all of the research yourself which, yes, would take longer; but I think you would find it more convincing.

      Delete
  17. Oh dear,
    My name is teddy. I am as you would say a Christian and a poor one I might add. But I think when cs Lewis said "natural desires" he meant desires which are already present in human nature, desires that don't have to be manufactured or brought about by experience aka reading a Harry potter book and wanting to meet dumbeldore or wanting a swimming pool because one has experienced the refreshing qualities of swimming. A natural desire, I believe, is a desire that simply exists like a person wants to be loved simply because they want it, whereas you cannot simply want to meet dumbeldore until you read Harry potter or want a swimming pool until you have swum in water. Therefore the natural human desire to be loved exists because we are in a state of "hunger" a separation from the true expression of love, more importantly life, which is god or in human form Jesus Christ. By the way I'm not being quite as thorough as I would like so I would Reccomend searching out some better explanations of faith than what I have provided. But Rosa I would like to ask you a question. Do you want god to be real? Because I am confident that you desire for either real or not real will affect the way that you "reason" for him being real or not real. I know many athiests like to claim it doesn't matter what they want, because there exists no evidence for god. But I hope that you examine yourself for I believe you will find that what you want to happen is what you look for. Also I would like to ask you whether you truly believe you can have hope as a Athiest/humanist? Because i don't believe that you can from my own experience. For do you not look out and rest your entire hope that what you do will help humanity succeed, prosper and come to a point where there will be no evil? What about your existence are you not less than a dust speck in the vast expanse of time? How many humans will actually be loved or even known? Precious few in the hundreds of thousands of years that we have existed. And what about humanity? All your hope lies on the slim chance that somehow humanity will be able to live outside of planet earth. And once our sun dies out then what? This all of course only possible if humanity doesn't kill itself off first which actually looks fairly likely considering all the wars we constantly have going on. So athiests tell me where is your hope?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teddy,

      Oh dear! You think desiring a swimming pool is unnatural.

      I don't think anything more need be said, need it?

      Delete
    2. Well not quite. In the context that I referred to as "natural desires" in the way that I thought Lewis meant was desires that did not have to be brought about by experience. So yes I will stand by the fact that If you have never experienced swimming in a pool or swimming in general you would not desire a swimming pool because you have not experienced that pleasant sensation which now causes you to desire a swimming pool. Your desire for that swimming pool is brought about through experience not an innate desire established within in you. Therefore your argument is invalid for two reasons. 1. Your idea of natural is wrong. Natural desire is a desire established within and does not need to be brought about by outside influence. 2. Man's desire to be loved is not something you can fake or explain away by comparing it to hogwarts or whatever foolish fancy you like. It's real. In fact I'm positive that every human being desires to be loved. This universal desire to be loved completely points to the existence of a god that does love us perfectly ( I am not referring to the so called personal god that I know yet and neither is Lewis yet I believe. He is merely using evidence to point to an existence of such a desire that exists.) this is not "because I believe in my god he must exist". But "there is evidence for a being, a god that loves me in me therefore my god exists and I should believe he does"
      By the way I would appreciate if you could anwser both of my questions, honestly that I addressed to you in my previous response. I know it can be trying arguing with all these people, and I am sorry if I hurt your feelings earlier or came off as snobbish I didn't mean to. Simply I would like you to anwser me honestly I
      Don't care how mean you are just that you anwser me "straight up" without any deciet.
      Yours truly,
      Teddy

      Delete
    3. That must be why most people have the religious label their parents pinned on them, then. It must also explain why so many children of atheist and secularist parents have no desire for a god what-so-ever.

      Now all you need to do is suggest a plausible mechanism by which a desire for a god actually creates one.

      Delete
  18. Well actually you are wrong on both accounts and I would tell you why but seeing as you refuse to respect my questions I must insist that I do the same until I feel that we can actually have a conversation instead of a one-way dictation of conversation. The first two can be answered fairly quickly the third should take a little longer.
    Firstly, Do you want God to be real?
    Do you believe that you can actually have hope in the long-term as an atheist/humanist?
    Where do you place this hope and/or what makes you think it is secure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Well actually you are wrong on both accounts and I would tell you why <

      If only you could think of a reason, eh?

      >Do you want God to be real? <

      I'm afraid my 'wants' no more affect reality that yours do. I long ago grew out of that fantasy.

      >Do you believe that you can actually have hope in the long-term as an atheist/humanist?
      Where do you place this hope and/or what makes you think it is secure? <

      I 'believe' where the evidence leads. What evidence do you have to support your notion of a magic invisible friend and that it's the one your mummy and daddy told you about?

      It seems to me someone has fooled you into believing the fallacy of the God of Personal Necessity. Do you remember who it was or were you too young to remember?

      Delete
  19. There is no solid reasoning in your argument. You rely on lies and half-truths to say what you want and present it as truth. In fact in your so called "biography" c.s. Lewis you used words such as "seems to have concluded", "highly unlikely", by the way these are assumptions in of themselves and you used them to conclude that his argument is invalid. Well that seems rather odd for a person who claims to ground themselves in reason, who would only use the most solid evidence to reach their conclusions to rely on a pair of assumptions themselves to declare someone else's argument, evidence, and faith is completely invalid! Rosa, you FAIL by your own standards! Can I make this any clearer?YOU are a hypocrite! The point of this for you is not to explore, not to hear what others have to say, but to WIN! You don't care really in any sense what I have to say as long as you get the last shot in! As long as you throw in that cruel, barbed question, intended to hurt, intended to spite, to condemn with pride, as if you long to say to me in every imaginable way that you can that you are superior to me. I asked you to answer me honestly and you couldn't even do that! I'm not saying that I am better than you in any way. BUT take a good freaking look at yourself! FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE.
    Here are your answers: The desire for god arouses out of the desire to be love. The God of the Christian faith is the perfect and only love that can satisfy that desire. Of course no one, including me, can point and say that they desire god because they desire to be loved. All that they know is that they desire to be loved.
    Evidence, you ask for evidence. I can point you to sources that support the historical validity of Jesus Christ. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The Reason for God by Tim Keller. These men actually base their case for god in the flesh, jesus with actual research unlike you Rosa. Although you claim to have evidence I have not seen you use a single shred in anything that you have written thus far. You cannot test in a laboratory to see if God is real. I hope you know that. You cannot carry out a science experiment to investigate whether an infinite being exists because the type of tools that we use are too crude to even convey what that begins to mean. Here is my advice to you stop treating god as if he is something that you can bottle up and look at and test. That is impossible. A God the size of infinity cannot be confined or even accurately thought of in human terms. WE cannot grasp him.
    Well I am done. Not because I am afraid to speak my faith but I have finally come to the realization that nothing I do or so truly matters to you Rosa. You actually view me beneath you. So I will conclude.
    Let me ask you this: did you actually read my whole post or did you just skim over? And were you EVER concerned with the actual validity of what I was saying?
    For the posts that you have shown me tell me that you don't seriously consider importance of the argument for God when you compare the desire for a perfect love to the desire for a swimming pool or to meet albus dumbeldore. And this shows me you don't think of the consequences for believing or not believing. In essence what it means not to have God.
    Truly, Truly, I tell you if you look for truth do not look for it here anymore. If you look to challenge your ideas of the world. If you want to find actual evidence look at the life of Jesus Christ. He is the center of belief. You will NOT understand anything truthfully about the Christian faith, about God, about Christians until you understand Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. teddy

      You say: "There is no solid reasoning in your argument. You rely on lies and half-truths to say what you want and present it as truth. In fact in your so called "biography" c.s. Lewis you used words such as "seems to have concluded", "highly unlikely", by the way these are assumptions in of themselves and you used them to conclude that his argument is invalid."

      I have never written a biography of C.S.Lewis, so-called or otherwise. To be charitable, I'll assume you must have been hallucinating.

      Sorry I caused you to lose self-control and descend into personal abuse. Cognitive dissonance can be such a problem for theophobic and superstitious people, even inducing panic, so I'm told.

      Delete
  20. I think I understand what C. S. Lewis was trying to say. The desire for a God is natural. The desire for going to Howgwarts isn't a natural desire, it was brought about by a book. If you look at history, all different civilizations have gods. He's saying that something must've forced that desire to have god(s). Just as the Harry Potter books are the source of the desire to go to Hogwarts, God must exist to be the source of the natural desire for a god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathan Pagel

      >The desire for a God is natural. The desire for going to Howgwarts isn't a natural desire, it was brought about by a book.<

      And of course, Christianity never uses a book, right?

      >God must exist to be the source of the natural desire for a god.<

      How could I desire to go to Hogwarts if Hogwarts doesn't exist, please? For that matter, How could Joannah Rowling have even written about it?

      Delete
  21. As a believer, I do see Lewis's argument to be convincing that God does exist clearly because of the lens I am reading it through. And many natural (not man-made or artificial) desires of humans point to the existence of God. For example, a woman's desire to be pursued and loved and a man's desire to be the stronghold and provider. But, after reading many comments I would like to share my thoughts. I'm no philosopher, and probably not as intellectual as most of the people commenting. But in my opinion (hoping to maybe get you to shift your perspective), believing in God will ALWAYS be a choice. Someone who believes in God can share their testimony, preach until they're blue in the face, or give facts of "natural" desires, to try to convince another that God exists. But, a non-believer who is not willing open up to it will still be able to throw out reasons to why they think those things are coincidence, naive, ignorant, or base it off of their logic, because they CHOOSE not to believe it. Just like I choose to believe it everyday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >As a believer, I do see Lewis's argument to be convincing that God does exist clearly because of the lens I am reading it through. <

      As an honest person who isn't afraid to let the evidence lead me, where ever it may go, I try not to judge the value of evidence based on what I a priori want to believe. You see, I don't think I am the arbiter of reality. I am too humble for that.

      >because they CHOOSE not to believe it.<

      Choose? Do you really think belief is a choice? What about evidence? How on earth can belief be a choice unless you believe your choices create reality? Or aren't you talking about real reality but fantasy here? (Atheism - The Informed Choice)


      Delete
  22. Yes it is a choice. I am convinced that God is real so I choose to live by it. You as an atheist are choosing not to open up to what you call a "fantasy". Tell me have you ever opened up your mind to the possibility? If one makes the choice to believe in God, then they are recognizing that everything in the bible is true. They are choosing to believe all that comes with it even if it means making some changes in their life. 1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Also, you should consider your argument style. You seem to think you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong. You'd be surprised at the common ground you may share. You may have heard about the rogerian argument but if not, http://writingcommons.org/genres/academic-writing/rogerian-argument

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but I lack the arrogance to assume I can create reality by choice so I go with the evidence. I understand that some people try to ignore evidence in case it involves dispensing with the belief that they live in a compliant and obedient universe which conforms to their requirements.

      Delete
  23. Priests have the desire to rape little boys, so it must be okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. according to the Superstitious Delusionist Fantasies [SDF] of CS Lewis BS.

      Delete
  24. Since some humans desire to kill other humans there must be humans that must be killed? That's nuts and it seems CS Lewis suffers from superstitious delusionist fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You used Harry Potter references as an excuses to mock an attack the bible as en excused? Ever forgotten that the writer Harry Potter books and spin offs where made by a Christian?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will you be dealing with the points made in the blog at all?

      Delete

Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers or by known sock-puppet accounts.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

ShareThis

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics