tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8408257474008047033..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Should We Challenge the Beliefs of Our Students?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41773329298506354292012-03-31T12:24:57.105-04:002012-03-31T12:24:57.105-04:00Arek W. – It looks to me like you are trying to u...Arek W. – It looks to me like you are trying to use some sort of rational that implies <br />some moral value about who kills who and why, and whether it’s morally wrong or not – outside of an ultimate absolute moral standard. Why? If there is a God, with the most and best of what that word implies, then his rational is certainly different and higher than yours and mine. To most people, it’s not rational to sacrifice one’s own perfect son for the sake of people who are often willingly reprehensible. If there is no God (materialistically-speaking), then we are left with natural selection, in a doomed universe. <br /><br />Using barefoot hiker’s definition of free will (“Free will is an emergent property of sufficiently complex minds. All it is the ability to assess the likelihood or subjective value of a situational set relative to others, and opt for the more preferable one.”) the implication is that we’re simply material robots functioning within the confines of natural selection. No value or moral standards there. Just survival of the fittest to no good end. Why then does it matter to you why God instructed the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, or why he allowed two bears to kill 42 young men? All you do is end-up pointing out what you perceive to be the Bible’s contradictions. You make no case that materialism/naturalism provides you with a better set of values or basis for logical beneficial rational. It looks to me like religion, and Christianity specifically, provides an essential scapegoat for materialists. Without it, I see no positive non-fatalistic (pseudo Calvinistic) defense for a dismal worldview.<br /><br />It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. Either accept that there is little more than temporary worth to anything that exists in the universe, or the Bible’s proposition of ultimate worth in the Creator and his creation.<br /><br />Referencing all my quotes by your eminent peers, Russell, Stenger, Dawkins, Krauss, and Tyson (“One way universe will wind down into oblivion”), all the arguments I see by Sandwalk fans for naturalism/materialism are arguments against religion, specifically Christianity. I have never seen a better stand-alone argument supporting naturalism/materialism than to reject theistic religion and simply muddle through this temporary existence.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73564622830256822512012-03-30T15:29:33.825-04:002012-03-30T15:29:33.825-04:00@Denny
Two things. First, ...
What's that ha...@Denny<br /><br /><i>Two things. First, ... </i><br />What's that have to do with eyewitnessing?<br /><br /><i>...devoted to preserving the message of the Bible.</i><br />Not really.<br /><br /><i>...I can give account that such things took place.</i><br />Again - what's that have to do with eyewitnessing?<br /><br />Remember that this is kind of evidence you insisted on.<br /><br />Oh. And one more thing - you said that you have evidence not based on quotes from Bible, but you are still giving us quotes from Bible. Is "evidence" from the book you recommended not so good?<br /><br /><i>Maybe you should be ‘skeptical’ of the reviewer.</i><br />I am not sure, but I think I know why you think that I shouldn't trust the reviewer (besides that he <i>"resides at The Secular Web,..."</i>).<br /><br />In a (futile) attempt to show you mistake in your reasonign I oversimplified that example of "evidence". My mistake. But I think he describes it (and other kinds of evidence) in his review accurately (bear in mind that I am not talking about Lowder's opinion about book - only about description of the content of the book).<br /><br />If you like you could look at it.<br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html<br />And FYI he doesn't disagree with everything Strobel says (but that doesn't change much).<br /><br />Anyway, I am tired of this discussion.<br />Some of the things you said were interesting (that doesn't mean I agree with them), but for most of the time it was nonsense.<br />I don't think I could convince you that not everything you say makes sense so I'll stop trying.Arek W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80486458772458222612012-03-30T14:12:29.947-04:002012-03-30T14:12:29.947-04:00@Denny
You must be kidding!
This is simply ridicu...@Denny<br />You <b>must</b> be kidding!<br /><br />This is simply ridiculous!<br /><br />First you claim, that God who kills and makes people kill each other is loving and caring.<br /><br />Then you are trying to make an excuse by saying that it is sometimes better to kill humans for greater good (like cells) while accusing materialism of leading people to view their lives as having no worth.<br /><br />Then you say that it was OK to kill those children because it was different culture which sounds like moral relativism, i.e. - something atheists are accused of. (BTW - God is supposed to be omnipotent. They were threating him (they weren't)? Why he didn't just stop them? Why he had to kill them in a brutal way?)<br /><br />You are not serious, right? Because otherwise...Arek W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29594925614921032482012-03-29T23:02:29.702-04:002012-03-29T23:02:29.702-04:00barefoot hiker said, “But what it doesn't demo...barefoot hiker said, “But what it doesn't demonstrate is the existence of something outside of EVERYTHING that set that up. It doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't rule it in, either.” - Well, yes. It doesn’t rule it out. But, here’s what may rule it in. The quantum fluctuation or singularity, whatever you want to call it, it scientifically postulated to have occurred from nothing. But, we already know that the “nothing” that appears to separate the universe’s celestial bodies isn’t really nothing. Its dark matter – Something. So, if the quantum fluctuation or singularity emerged from another “nothing” (as we view it from the narrow limits of four dimensional time and space), then there may be a reason for what you term “the existence of "something" outside of EVERYTHING.” <br /><br />barefoot hiker said, "All you've done is stick the modifier "temporary" in front of it. But modification is not negation; worth, even temporary, is still WORTH.” - Modifier, Yes. But for humans and all of human history, that “worth” modifier seems to mean more than it appears to mean to cockroaches. Even a skeptic must see that every human activity, love, art, work, literature, scientific discovery, etc. has plumbed the “temporary” aspect of worth and hoped it isn’t – temporary. Science seems to have given skeptics some comfort and justification for their skepticism, but, according Bertrand Russell, is didn’t work. <br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “It's what you do with it while you have it that matters.” Very good illustration, hiker. Mine would be that I can have it (worth) eternally (outside the limit of time) by simply acknowledging the worth-giver. I don’t have to worry about the axe-murderer, if you get my meaning.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36598544157167770412012-03-29T22:07:22.407-04:002012-03-29T22:07:22.407-04:00Arek W. said, “From dictionary, ‘Eyewitness: a per...Arek W. said, “From dictionary, ‘Eyewitness: a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it.’” – Yes, that is exactly what I meant. The same kind of eyewitness testimony that would be considered evidence, if admitted in a court of law. Two things. First, most of the Bible can be verified, as anthropologists would research and document from a prior civilization. Second, even if all the physical fragments of the copies of the old and new testaments that survive today were lost, there is enough independent identical secular corroborating information available to duplicate the Bible’s contents. Remember, countless scholars and scribes (with motives as honest and skills as honed as any Sandwalk scientist) over four millennia have been devoted to preserving the message of the Bible.<br /><br />Arek W. said, “And what about those christians who lived circa 100 AD?<br />They were told (like you) that gospel is true and they eyewitnessed that it is true.” – I think you should do a little fact checking, somebody’s reasoning IS flawed. To begin with, the disciples were eyewitnesses, and many lived long after Christ’s crucifixion. Long enough to have friends and others preserve facts. My grandfather (tragically), while in the service in 1914, saw a back man hanged in a public square. It’s now nearly 100 years later and I can give account that such things took place.<br /><br />Arek W. said, “I took that example of "evidence" from review of the book you recommended.” – You know what, Arek, my grandmother always told me that it was important in life to know the difference between truth and falsehood. Maybe you should be ‘skeptical’ of the reviewer. Did you notice that the reviewer, Jeffery J. Lowder, resides at The Secular Web, which “is owned and operated by Internet Infidels, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet?” I doubt that you will ever get an unbiased or scholarly view of the Bible from him.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78940474794207709942012-03-29T18:32:11.290-04:002012-03-29T18:32:11.290-04:00Arek W. - Here’s some context on 2 Kings 2:23-24 f...Arek W. - Here’s some context on 2 Kings 2:23-24 from a non-theologian - Denny.<br /><br />The mockery of 42 young men; especially when the culture of the time insisted on showing respect to their elders, and toward Elisha’s hair, which was a very important means of cultural identity, amounted to Elisha being accosted and held in contempt (Lepers had to shave their heads), not simply made fun of. The statement “go up you baldhead!” has cultural significance, probably meaning “go up” to Elisha’s predecessor, Elijah, ascending to heaven. In other words, ‘we want you dead.’ The lads’s comments could easily have been a deliberate and malicious insult, something dangerous in a mob that can quickly get out of hand. Given the challenge of the youths, their intimidating number, which could constitute a mob, their veiled threat, the contemptuous attitude, and the fact that Elisha was the prophet of God, the Lord allowed the youths to be destroyed. <br /><br />Arek, there’s a situation going on in Florida right now where one young man was killed for allegedly threatening a man. Have you ever heard of a situation like this? Or does 2 Kings 2:23-24 sound unbelievably outlandish to you.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45025138219700462602012-03-29T12:26:09.715-04:002012-03-29T12:26:09.715-04:00@Denny
This is not the gospel of Denny. It is not...@Denny<br /><br /><i>This is not the gospel of Denny. It is not my personal judgment...</i><br />Yes it is.<br /><i>It is the undeniable gospel of naturalistic and materialistic thought.</i><br />No it isn't. We told you how we perceive our lives. BTW I am not beliver, I don't need a gospel. I can think for myself.<br /><i>If you wish to claim worth from a flicker of existence...</i> Yes I do.<br /><br /><i>I place a higher claim on desirability, usefulness, and value as being assigned by a personal <b>caring</b> God.</i><br />Maybe this is the reason why I misunderstood you? I told you what I think about God described in the Bible.<br /><br /><i>It is a <b>love</b> letter, often full of nuances that depend on context. </i><br />Yeah. A context. Very important thing. Tell me the context of this love letter:<br /><i>Fourty-two children made fun of Elisha on the roadside because he was bald. Elisha cursed them in the name of Lord. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled them to death.</i><br />Oh sorry, they were probably those cells which had to be destroyed.<br />And you accuse me of being cynical?<br />And you claim that materialism leads to view life as worthless?<br /><br /><i>I think “eyewitness” meant the same 2,000+ years ago as it does now.</i><br />Me too. So what does that mean? From dictionary (you like definitions):<br /><i>Eyewitness: a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it.</i><br /><br />And what about those christians who lived circa 100 AD?<br />They were told (like you) that gospel is true and they eyewitnessed that it is true.<br />Don't you see a flaw in this reasoning?<br /><br /><i>What have you got to lose?</i><br />Some money, time, maybe nerves?<br />I took that example of "evidence" from review of the book you recommended.<br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html<br />I assume that reviewer haven't distorted its meaning. Maybe he didn't say everything, but if this is kind of evidence I have to read about, then no - thanks.Arek W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60804103089230750412012-03-28T21:32:50.032-04:002012-03-28T21:32:50.032-04:00Arek W. said, "You also said, that there is v...Arek W. said, "You also said, that there is verifiable evidence about the coming of the Messiah. I'll repeat after barefoot hiker: Like?” - If I don’t take you to be as cynical as barefoot hiker, I’ll offer the same suggestion I did him. Read Lee Strobel's (former skeptic) “The Case for Christ” or Tim Keller's "The Reason for God." Arek, your question does not lend itself to a 300-word answer. <br /><br />Arek W. said, "It appears that - for example - eyewitness evidence is from early Christians, who lived more than a century after Jesus.” – I think “eyewitness” meant the same 2,000+ years ago as it does now. Read Strobel and Keller. What have you got to lose?<br /><br />Arek W. said, "You are not really interested in reality, are you?” – I live in the same physical reality you do. The question is; What reality follows the physical world?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12511678190598982102012-03-28T20:43:21.681-04:002012-03-28T20:43:21.681-04:00Arek, You keep making negative cynical testing sta...Arek, You keep making negative cynical testing statements vs. curious questioning statements. Blog space is limited, and you force me to make unreasonably brief replies. That’s what follows.<br /><br />Arek W. said, "This is nonsense.” - When all naturalists said the universe was in a steady state, the Bible said it had a beginning, and had said so for nearly 4,000 years. And, would have an end for nearly 2,000 years.<br /><br />Arek W. said, "This is nonsense.” - Jeremiah 33:25 (several hundred years BC) “This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,’” I’m not sure when ancient astronomers began to discover that the sky revealed some of the laws of physics. But, no other holy book, besides the Bible, even remotely refers to ‘fixed laws.” Quite the contrary, most non-Christian religions present capricious gods.<br /><br />Arek W. said, "Bible contains many vague fragments” – The Bible is not a dime store novel, read once and discarded. It is a love letter, often full of nuances that depend on context. <br /><br />Arek W. said, "But of course this doesn't convince you, because Bible says that Bible is true, right?” – I accept science as truth - not naturalistic interpretations. I don’t reject science based on things I don’t know or understand, or naturalistic interpretations. I also accept the Bible as truth, despite some things I don’t know or understand.<br /><br />Arek W. said, "Why the universe couldn't be "self-existent?” – Nothing from science or the Bible indicates the universe is self-existent. Your question is purely speculative.<br /><br />Arek W. said, “AFAIK science doesn't say that (Naturalistic scientists have determined that the universe has not always existed). It only says that our local visible cosmos started to expand 13.7 billion years ago.” – Scientists know of nothing beyond 13.7 billion years, and our cosmos. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe, including time and space. Carrying the known expansion of the universe backwards, cosmologists and physicists describe the point prior to the Big Bang as “nothing.”Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4291677736391730162012-03-28T19:54:26.791-04:002012-03-28T19:54:26.791-04:00Arek W. said, " You said that God loved those...Arek W. said, " You said that God loved those people who he killed,” – This analogy may seem inadequate, but here goes. I was diagnosed with cancer. Under the microscope, I saw the symmetrical orderly-looking healthy cells and the chaotic dismembered cells destroyed by cancer. The Dr. told me that some healthy cells would have to be destroyed along with the cancerous ones. Since I had authority over my body, I decided to have the neighboring healthy cells destroyed along with the unhealthy ones, in order to preserve my life. Another possibly inadequate analogy is that the dropping of the atom bomb was indescribably vicious and seemingly merciless toward defenseless civilians. But, who was to know what other action would stop the spread of fascism, which had already been brutally perpetrated on all Japan’s neighbors. If you amputate a leg to save your body, is it an indication that you do not love your leg?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17952704770972506532012-03-28T19:41:00.736-04:002012-03-28T19:41:00.736-04:00Arek W. said, "materialists of all sorts ... ...Arek W. said, "materialists of all sorts ... think, that our lives are meaningful." (and do not lack worth) - Worth = “The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable.” I expect that all scientific minded materialists and naturalists know the material realities of the universe. For something to be desirable, useful, or valuable, it must exist. All human biological molecules or artifacts or evidence of thought will vanish with the cooling of the universe. Here it a quote by eminent naturalist, Bertrand Russell. <br /><br />“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; . . . that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”<br /><br />My earlier quotes of Lawrence Krause and Richard Dawkins, and adding Neil Tyson, “One way universe will wind down into oblivion” are all in sync and point to a conclusion about the ‘ultimate’ reality of the material universe, of which we and all our experiences are part, all echo Russell’s dismal conclusions. <br /><br />Arek W. said, “You may of course correct me if you think that I distorted your words. (And) “But you still insist that materialism makes us to view our lives as having no worth.” – You have not distorted. You have misunderstood, and I don’t know why. This is not the gospel of Denny. It is not my personal judgment of you or any other Sandwalk fan. It is the undeniable gospel of naturalistic and materialistic thought. If you wish to claim worth from a flicker of existence that ranks as not much higher than a cockroach, you’re free to do so. I place a higher claim on desirability, usefulness, and value as being assigned by a personal caring God.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74918108019150838602012-03-28T19:40:13.774-04:002012-03-28T19:40:13.774-04:00"AFAIK science doesn't say that. It only ..."AFAIK science doesn't say that. It only says that our local, visible cosmos started to expand 13.7 bilion years ago."<br /><br />That's what I understand as well. The big bang necessarily marks the beginning of the EXPANSION of the universe and its taking on volume, facilitating the expression of some of its contents as matter (which has as one of its attributes volume). Nothing about the universe necessarily coming into existence at the same time, any more than the suggestion that a balloon can't exist before its expansion begins. Of course it can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84808034069672244932012-03-28T19:25:40.511-04:002012-03-28T19:25:40.511-04:00"But we are here"
Yes, we are, but all ..."But we are here"<br /><br />Yes, we are, but all that establishes is that we happen to inhabit a universe amenable to life in this form. For all we know, there may be innumerable arrangements capable of supporting self-replication and self-aware systems like us; this is, of course, the only instance we have to examine. But what it doesn't demonstrate is the existence of something outside of EVERYTHING that set that up. It doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't rule it in, either.<br /><br /><br />"Temporary worth is no worth."<br /><br />Well, by definition, Denny, worth is worth. All you've done is stick the modifier "temporary" in front of it. But modification is not negation; worth, even temporary, is still WORTH.<br /><br />Put another way... there's a crazed axe-murderer bearing down on you about to cleave you in twain. There's one bullet in your gun. But... its worth is only temporary. After all, the moment you pull the trigger, it's valueless. Now according to you, temporary worth is no worth, so... you might as well take it out of your gun, throw it away, and take what's coming to you with a shrug and a prayer. But me, poor miserable materialist that I am, I can see the value in even "temporary" worth and making good use of it... so unlike you, I'll be telling the tale to reporters and cops and guys buying me drinks at the bar for years to come. Worth is worth. It's what you do with it while you have it that matters.<br /><br /><br />"Your notion of God is juvenile."<br /><br />I heartily agree. As is every one that's ever been related to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44440449967821964212012-03-28T19:25:21.314-04:002012-03-28T19:25:21.314-04:00"a universe that has been scientifically dete..."a universe that has been scientifically determined to be certainly self-destructing"<br /><br />Well, that's just it, Denny, we DON'T know that yet. There's a whole lot about the nature of the contents of the universe we don't understand or even know yet. Just at the moment what we know tends to point to eventual heat death, but as you'd be oh-so-quick to point out in other circumstances, that's at odds with what science purported to "know" just a few decades ago. Given that I expect we're still thousands of years away from understanding the universe to the level of certitude you're happy to suggest exists now (and, by the way, why are you so eager to pretend to accept the word of science in THIS case, but not on the matters of abiogenesis or evolution?), I don't see the need to assume that as ironclad even with what do know at the moment. That said,...<br /><br />Natural selection works like this. When a mutation arises in a population, it can have one of three effects. It can be prejudicial to the survival of the individuals that have it in its environment; it can be beneficial to the individuals who have it in its environment; or it can be neutral in its expression in a given environment. In the latter two cases, it will tend to be passed on, but in the second case, generally more and more successfully, until it becomes the norm. In the former case, it tends not to be passed on and will usually be weeded out by environmental pressures. Take for instance the example of light skin. When we left Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, it's very likely we had dark skins. That's important in an environment of strong, direct sunlight. But in Europe, where there's less sunlight and it comes at an increased angle, it's less of an advantage because it tends to eliminate the UV light the skin uses to produce vitamin D, and the result is rickets. Now, if a child is born with a lighter skin, he will be slightly less likely to develop rickets, and thus slightly less likely to die relative to someone more prone to it. Over many generations, that advantage will accumulate, until eventually the norm is a lighter skin. That's an example. And I think you already know that, Denny. I think that's already clear to you. You just need to pretend it's not because feigning ignorance of something people have known and talked about for a hundred years before you were born is kind of a defence mechanism for people like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49540670035833632682012-03-28T19:15:02.451-04:002012-03-28T19:15:02.451-04:00"we’re material robots. Right?"
Define ..."we’re material robots. Right?"<br /><br />Define "robot" in this instance.<br /><br /><br />"He’s self- existent."<br /><br />Fine; that's my position on the universe; it doesn't require your invisible friend to exist. The difference is I can at least show you the universe is real. So let's call that one done and move on, shall we?<br /><br /><br />"Naturalistic scientists have determined that the universe has not always existed"<br /><br />Where?<br /><br /><br />"your reading material must be very parochial"<br /><br />Well, if that's not the Bronze Age pot calling the Space Age kettle black... No, Denny, it really doesn't prove design. Every year, the evidence for abiogensis gets tighter and more convincing. Every year, more fossil finds fill in important gaps that confirm the transitional forms evolution predicts (for instance, tiktaalik and ambulocetus). Every year, more mapped genomes of other life forms demonstrate the common threads of a common fabric of life and point to a common origin for it. And every year, people like you stick their fingers deeper in their ears and hum centuries-old Christian hymns as loud as you can, ignoring the evidence and telling people like me, who know it exists, and it doesn't. You must be mad.<br /><br /><br />"“so you can tell yourself you're not really going to die.” – Only my body will die. I will not."<br /><br />See? Now, what evidence is there for that, other than your dad pointing to a book his dad pointed to, that his dad pointed to, that his dad pointed to... ever meet anyone who died? Ever sat down in a restaurant across a table from Jesus and actually hashed it all out? Or did you just take everyone's word for it because that way you don't have to face the scary reality of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44395268234771062912012-03-28T16:12:00.664-04:002012-03-28T16:12:00.664-04:00Denny,
let me loosely summarize what you've al...Denny,<br />let me loosely summarize what you've already said. You may of course correct me if you think that I distorted your words.<br /><br /><i>... it seems to me at that’s what materialism leads to. (to view our lives as worthless)</i><br />You've been told many times that we (materialists of all sorts) think, that our lives <b>are</b> meaningful.<br />But you still insist that materialism makes us to view our lives as having no worth.<br />You accused me of being disingenuous. What should I call you?<br /><br />You've been told, that eternal life could also be perceived as meaningless.<br /><br />"Temporary worth is no worth."<br />Then you could send me your money? They are worthless, right?<br /><br />You said that God loved those people who he killed, or who had been killed by his orders.<br />Total nonsense for anyone with healthy notion of what love is. Someone who is killing his childred and makes other childred kill each other is not loving and caring father. He is psychopath. But that doesn't convince you, because God is good, therefore everything he does is - by definition - good.<br /><br />You said, that the Bible predicted Big Bang and laws of physics.<br />This is nonsense for anyone who actually read the Bible and know something about science (and can think for himself). Bible contains many vague fragments which can be "interpreted" to mean anything you want. But of course this doesn't convince you, because Bible says that Bible is true, right?<br /><br /><i>He’s self- existent.</i><br />Why the universe couldn't be "self-existent"? Why it need to be created by someone who doesn't need to be created?<br />Only because <b>you</b> think, that without him <b>your</b> life is worthless?<br /><br /><i>Naturalistic scientists have determined that the universe has not always existed</i><br />AFAIK science doesn't say that. It only says that our local, visible cosmos started to expand 13.7 bilion years ago.<br />But I am not an expert, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.<br /><br />You also said, that there is verifiable evidence about the coming of the Messiah. Outside the Bible of course.<br />Eyewitness evidence, Medical evidence, etc...<br />I'll repeat after barefoot hiker: Like?<br /><br />It appears that - for example - eyewitness evidence is from early christians, who lived more than a century after Jesus.<br />Indeed very convincig.<br /><br />You are not really interested in reality, are you? All you need is to know the Absolute Truth.<br />Real truth can be sometimes fuzzy and hard to figure out, but personally I think it's worthy even if it leads to uncertainty.Arek W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67422489992138443822012-03-28T10:32:13.316-04:002012-03-28T10:32:13.316-04:00"to provoke you to worship Him. But this very..."to provoke you to worship Him. But this very action would negate our ability to choose and make it some category of “forced belief.”"<br /><br />He didn't have any problem doing it in the Bible. Off the top of my head I know that he (reputedly) appeared to Adam, Moses, and Jacob; he spoke directly to Ezekiel, Job, and Paul; he sent angels to speak directly to Lot and Mary; he interfered DIRECTLY with Pharaoh's free will; and, best of all, he showed up IN PERSON and wandered around performing miracles in public for three decades. Apparently he didn't oblige THOSE people to "just trust me". But suddenly he can't life the roof off my house and say "Hi, know you've been struggling with this; here I am; see you later"? Why not? Sorry, that's entirely contradictory. But that's what it takes to believe this stuff... world-class doublethink.<br /><br /><br />”If naturalism is true, Russell's point seems to be irrefutable."<br /><br />Yeah, and? So I can accept that the things we know, and we ourselves as beings, are ephemeral, and live my life anyway; and you can't, and cling to a fable about an unsubstantiated escape hatch, with all kinds of baggage that you want the rest of humanity to bow to and be obliged by. But no, sorry, not till he lifts the roof and says hi. Not till Bigfoot shows up after hitching a ride into Kamloops. Not till a unicorn wins the Kentucky Derby. Not till the aliens show up at Devil's Tower and offer us a spin around Jupiter. I won't live my life as though any of these things were real when I haven't been convinced that they are. Neither should you.<br /><br /><br />"You're esssentially, radically and basically (in an ultimate sense) nothing"<br /><br />I'm here, now. I exist. I'm doing these things. I find things I enjoy and do them; I have principles I stand up for; I try to improve the lives of the people around me. That's meaning enough for me. If it's not carved in stone for someone to read about 50 trillion years for now, so what? I will have long ago ceased to be or to care. But right now I do exist and there are things I care about; there are people today and in the next hundred years or two whose lives I can affect for better or worse by my choices; and that's where anyone's honest and legitimate focus should be.<br /><br /><br />"it’s hard to see what so good about skepticism."<br /><br />It keeps you from being a sucker who has to accept anything anyone proposes to you by default. You're skeptical about most things (you haven't sent your bank account information to anyone in Nigeria lately... have you?). Just not consistently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52689449122500295152012-03-27T22:45:18.055-04:002012-03-27T22:45:18.055-04:00Barefoot hiker said, “Give us the Reader's Dig...Barefoot hiker said, “Give us the Reader's Digest version.” - This is not a fair response to something that shows up in all human activity for as long as there have been humans. But, here’s my Reader's Digest version, quoting my friend, David.<br /><br />“Any attempts to ‘prove’ God or a Creator must labor under God’s desire that the just shall live by faith not scientific fact. All God would have to do is gently remove the roof from the building you are now sitting within and say, “Boo” … to provoke you to worship Him. But this very action would negate our ability to choose and make it some category of “forced belief.” What God does is leave His “fingerprint” on science and His convicting power within our hearts … and says, “Won’t you trust Me?” <br /><br />Conversely, Bertrand Russell said: “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; . . . that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built” - End quote.<br /><br />”If naturalism is true, Russell's point seems to be irrefutable.<br /><br />”Whatever you do in this life is, objectively and ultimately, without any trascendence or meaning. You're esssentially, radically and basically (in an ultimate sense) nothing (or more precisely, you come from nothing, and your ultimate end will be literally nothing... being your current existence a mere insignificant cosmic accident, without any ultimate trascendence, meaning or purpose at all).” <br /><br />Read the link I have provided and you will see it’s not Denny talking about worthlessness, it’s a renowned naturalist and atheist. Add this to my quotes by Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins in “Should we challenge the beliefs of our students” (Sandwalk, Friday, March 09, 2012), and it’s hard to see what so good about skepticism.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72530717611859011282012-03-27T22:07:58.358-04:002012-03-27T22:07:58.358-04:00barefoot hiker said, “there's nothing mysterio...barefoot hiker said, “there's nothing mysterious about induced complexity………..” - So, barefoot hiker, we’re material robots. Right?<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “Fine, where did your god come from?” – He’s self- existent. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be an uncreated God. Rather, he’d be like us – created.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “why not save a step and just conclude the universe always existed” – Naturalistic scientists have determined that the universe has not always existed, and I’m sure that you know the scientifically accepted facts for that non-religious determination. <br /><br />barefoot hiker, - your reading material must be very parochial, if you do not know that materialistic scientists’ own discoveries make the case for design stronger each day vs. a case for random chance.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “It's so you can tell other people to live their lives as suits you,” – I have no desire to tell anyone how to live their life. On the chance that there is an (metaphysical) existence after death, with a timeless life, I also have no desire that you or anyone should miss the opportunity (life on earth) to join in a life not constrained by time and space and all that is imperfect about this ‘material’ life.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “so you can tell yourself you're not really going to die.” – Only my body will die. I will not.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “You've got it backward. The order of the universe doesn't arise from evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection arise from the order of the universe.” - OK then. How does a proposed natural unguided system (evolution) that improves everything over time, end up in a universe that has been scientifically determined to be certainly self-destructing?<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “If the universe didn't happen to have properties consistent with them, then we simply wouldn't be here to care about the matter in the first place.” - But we are here. And I propose that with God, there is a reason why. Without him, this discussion and our physical existence has no reasoned worth. My guess is that few people you know view their lives as having no worth. In this thread, it seems to me at that’s what materialism leads to. Temporary worth is no worth.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, “Again, I don't see the need for an invisible bearded man outside the universe who frets about what humans do when they're naked to explain order in the universe.” – Your notion of God is juvenile.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23533524829029223302012-03-27T12:30:33.757-04:002012-03-27T12:30:33.757-04:00"If God had given that information 2,000 to 4..."If God had given that information 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, who would have understood it?"<br /><br />Oh, I see, but if he tells us 2000 years ago that Israel will be recreated, well that's a MIRACLE and it proves he's real. And yet, no one seemed to really understand that one till it came to pass. Didn't seem to bother him that people wouldn't understand THAT one till the time was right; why make an exception for the more solid proofs that I proposed? I'll tell you why. Because the people who made up the Bible could conceive of a country being conquered and rising again... Israel had already done it once (the Babylonian Captivity). But they had no idea light even HAD a speed, let alone what it was, so they didn't write a lot about that kind of thing.<br /><br />It doesn't always work, though. Ezekiel told the people of Tyre their city would, upon conquest, be flattened, turned into fields, a place where fishing nets would be cast, and it would never be rebuilt. Except... Tyre still exists today. It was never destroyed; it's been continually occupied since the time of Ezekiel and over 100,000 people live there.<br /><br />That kind of boo-boo might also explain why people doubt the claims of divinely-inspired prophecy in the Bible.<br /><br /><br />"Eyewitness evidence"<br /><br />Who? Anyone OUTSIDE the Bible?<br /><br /><br />"Documentary evidence"<br /><br />Like? We've ruled out the Bible and Josephus, remember.<br /><br /><br />"Corroborating evidence"<br /><br />Like?<br /><br /><br />"Scientific evidence"<br /><br />Such as? (This will undoubtedly surprise a lot of scientists.)<br /><br /><br />"Rebuttal evidence"<br /><br />I think ALL of what you're talking about is supposed to be a "rebuttal", isn't it?<br /><br /><br />"Medical evidence"<br /><br />Like?<br /><br /><br />Sorry, I'm not interested in reading Strobel's book just to do YOUR homework for you. If you have, then you know what your points are. Give us the Reader's Digest version.<br /><br /><br />"This isn't skepticism. It's cynicism."<br /><br />I don't care what arbitrary, subjective label you want to calumny it with; it is what it is. And it's reality. A lot of nominal Christians do not believe the core tenets of Christianity, and many don't even believe in God. But they have reasons for keeping that to themselves. I'd like them to be free.<br /><br /><br />"What about the things that can't be demonstrated but are known to be real, like love or hate, hope or despair, regret or satisfaction?"<br /><br />Why do you think those things can't be demonstrated? How would we recognize them in anyone other than ourselves if they couldn't be demonstrated to us in the first place?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45889138990335636272012-03-27T09:53:24.297-04:002012-03-27T09:53:24.297-04:00"barefoot hiker said, - On what logical basis..."barefoot hiker said, - On what logical basis or by what materialistic reasoning would a materialist offer me their "sympathies.”"<br /><br />I didn't say that. I expect that's you. But I can answer it anyway. Because I'm a human being and there's an empathic element to my nature that motivates me to first identify with another being suffering, to some extent to mirror and thus share that being's distress, and to seek ways to ameliorate it in us both. Some animals do this and some don't. We happen to be one of the ones that does. "Logic", by the way, doesn't have to be a component of it. It's rooted in instinct and for creatures like us it's had a survival value. It can be hijacked by other considerations. Risking your life saving your dog wouldn't promote the passing along of many genes similar to yours; there's not much logic in it. But the need to respond to, or prevent, suffering in others is a powerful urge in human beings and many higher animals.<br /><br /><br />"Respectfully, read Strobel's book or Tim Keller's "The Reason for God.""<br /><br />Have you read God Is Not Great or The God Delusion yet?<br /><br />I took Christian instruction as an adult, in my 30s. I'm entirely informed as to core Christian beliefs. I find majesty and beauty in the liturgy, in service, and the language of the King James Version. But none of that made it real. None of that makes the claims of the religion credible to me. I know what they are. They simply are not believable.<br /><br />Consider the claims of Islam. Can you make yourself believe them? Well, there. That's what I'm talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43923165235269139602012-03-27T09:52:44.864-04:002012-03-27T09:52:44.864-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7790976748709629622012-03-27T09:25:29.150-04:002012-03-27T09:25:29.150-04:00"How do you get more complex (DNA information..."How do you get more complex (DNA information) from earliest most simple organisms (without outside intelligence)?"<br /><br />What does that have to do with the material basis of human consciousness?<br /><br />Never mind. Denny, there's nothing mysterious about induced complexity. It happens all the time. Draw a breath. There. You've just converted billions of O2 molecules into C02, which is--tah dah!--more complex. That wasn't so hard, was it? Or do you actually suppose that required your god to come down and frantically push all those molecules together? No wonder he doesn't answer prayers, then.<br /><br />The point is that atoms and molecules have propensities resulting from the number of electrons they have to form greater and greater molecules, and carbon is particularly prone to it, so, what a surprise, we wind up with a myriad of very complex carbon-based molecules we class as "organic". There's nothing magical about it. It's based on how positive and negative ionic charges interact.<br /><br />And I still don't see what it has to do with the suggestion that consciousness necessitates a supernatural element, or why you continue to insist on it while ignoring all the questions I asked that tend to disestablish the idea.<br /><br /><br />"How can the more complex effect result from a less complex cause?"<br /><br />Fine, where did your god come from? He's supposedly complex; if complexity alone necessitates a creator, who created him? And then who created that guy? And who created THAT guy? Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />But if you can just insist your god always existed, why not save a step and just conclude the universe always existed in some form and didn't need a creator either? There's nothing I know of that rules it out. So what need for your "creator" (or his creator, or his creator's creator...)? I'll tell you what the need is. It's so you can tell other people to live their lives as suits you, and so you can tell yourself you're not really going to die. That's about it.<br /><br /><br />"How do you get order (our universe) from randomness (evolution and natural selection)?"<br /><br />You've got it backward. The order of the universe doesn't arise from evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection arise from the order of the universe. If the universe didn't happen to have properties consistent with them, then we simply wouldn't be here to care about the matter in the first place. Again, I don't see the need for an invisible bearded man outside the universe who frets about what humans do when they're naked to explain order in the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27906939829661260372012-03-26T19:56:36.589-04:002012-03-26T19:56:36.589-04:00barefoot hiker said, "If he'd given the v...barefoot hiker said, "If he'd given the value of the gravitational constant, the precise speed of light, said something definitive about the nature of the atom - If God had given that information 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, who would have understood it? <br /><br />barefoot hiker said, Like? And please, not Bible quotes. Something else. - OK, hiker. If you are honest in your question, citing only one source ("The Case for Christ," by 'former skeptic,' Lee Strobel) here are a few areas of evidence.<br />- Eyewitness evidence<br />- Documentary evidence<br />- Corroborating evidence<br />- Scientific evidence<br />- Rebuttal evidence<br />- Medical evidence<br />(Good Reading!)<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, "You and I both know there are millions and millions of nominal Christians (et al.) who show up in the pews because it's good for the kids, or the spouse expects it, or they live in communities where their business would suffer if they didn't, or they've always gone and can't admit the whole thing stopped making sense to them years ago..." - This isn't skepticism. It's cynicism.<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, "First of all: materialism isn't a "belief" system. It's an acceptance of what can be demonstrated to be real." - What about the things that can't be demonstrated but are known to be real, like love or hate, hope or despair, regret or satisfaction?<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, - On what logical basis or by what materialistic reasoning would a materialist offer me their "sympathies.”<br /><br />barefoot hiker said, "I don't believe because the stories and claims are not persuasive to me. - Respectfully, read Strobel's book or Tim Keller's "The Reason for God." If you remain a skeptic, it's because of your free-will choice, not lack of evidence.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79312081466403971772012-03-26T15:00:12.817-04:002012-03-26T15:00:12.817-04:00barefoot hiker said, "There's all kinds o...barefoot hiker said, "There's all kinds of it." (evidence that consciousness follows anything like physical law." – Since you speak as a materialist, what are materialism’s logical answers for:<br />- How do you get more complex (DNA information) from earliest most simple organisms (without outside intelligence)? <br />- How can the more complex effect result from a less complex cause?<br />- How do you get order (our universe) from randomness (evolution and natural selection)?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.com