This was posted on the Reasons To Believe website today (one of my favorite websites):
A watch requires a watchmaker. On this basis it logically follows that life requires a Creator, since biochemists have discovered that many molecules inside the cell function as molecular scale machines. In fact, some of these display an eerie resemblance to man-made machines. One of these is myosin. This protein is a linear motor replete with a lever arm and hinge mechanism. This new study offers new insight into myosin’s function. It turns out that the movement of myosin’s lever arm has quality control features that ensure its operational robustness. The elegant design and stark resemblance to man-made machinery, along with its quality control features, indicate that myosin, and all of life’s chemistry, is the work of a divine "Motor Maker."
Josh E. Baker et al., "Myosin V Processivity: Multiple Kinetic Pathways for Head-to-Head Coordination," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101 (2004), 5542-46.
(note: My argument comes from Richard Dawkins's excellent book "The Blind Watchmaker")
Living things do have a watchmaker, or at least, a certain kind of watchmaker. Natural selection is not just randomness. It chooses creatures based on how well they survive. This "watchlike" substance could easily have been made by natural selection--not by chance, but because it did its job better than anything else that might have tried to do its job.
If you want clarification, e-mail me.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 06, 2005 at 03:18 PM
A molecular gear cannot be the product of natural selection, since a cell couldn't survive at all without it. Natural selection can explain how a lion can be related to my cat, but it can't explain how life came into existence to begin with.
I recommend the excellent book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler. The arguments are made from scientific evidence and logic.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 06, 2005 at 03:57 PM
Actually, one of my friends has "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I haven't read most of it, but I read a non sequiter in the introduction. Plus, the reasons for the New Testament to be true are very erroneous (if not including embarrassing facts about Jesus would make it easier to believe, why is it easier for you to believe the NT if they DO include embarrassing facts about Jesus?).
As for the watchmaker thing, scientists have created the basis of life, amino acids, from nonliving matter. I'm not a Biology major, though, so I can't give you much better arguments. I suggest finding some work by a Biology major.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 06, 2005 at 04:12 PM
You don't think what might appear to be a non sequitur in the introduction of a book might be supported in detail if you actually read the content of the book?
The Bible contains DIFFICULT facts about Jesus and his life, not embarrassing ones. If you were going to fabricate a religion around a fictional personification of God you probably wouldn't have him hoping not to be crucified, saying perplexing things like "hate your father and mother", and having a woman discover his resurrection (in a society where a woman's testimony was worthless). No one said that there are embarrassing facts about Jesus in scripture.
Scientists have created amino acids by supposedly "re-creating" the primordial state of earth. Unfortunately, we now know that early earth was nothing like the conditions they simulated. Even if they were, hundreds of different combinations of dozens of different proteins would have to align in precisely the right place over four hundred times to make what is required at the most basic level to create the contents of a cell. But even if that happened, you still wouldn't have a cell. I could puncture a million cells and spill their contents into a beaker. Then all of the necessary parts would be present, but still, life would not spontaneously arise.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 07, 2005 at 11:05 AM
1) First of all, we have to look at this in context. The Bible as we know it was put together by priests a while ago. Who (maybe God?) knows how many books they left out. Nevertheless, it's not like the current Bible was made without knowing what the other parts were.
Anyway, it's the same thing. Since including difficult facts about Jesus makes YOU believe in the NT, that means that including difficult facts about your godlike characters would be the logical thing to do.
Besides, I doubt very many Christians have even READ the Bible.
2) Hm...you have a source for that re-creation stuff?
3) If we are truly God's chosen creation, we should've been a lot better. Why didn't God give us better eyes? Hell, certain animals' eyes are better than ours. Why did he allow there to be birth defects? I could go on and on.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 08, 2005 at 08:15 PM
If you're going to say that God doesn't exist, based soley on the fact that humans have bad eye sight, I think you're athism is lacking in proof itself. Animals are just as capable of having poor eye sight as well. Humans don't require as-keen eyesight because we are more efficent hunter/gathers than our animal friends. Eagles need good sight because they are flying high above when they hunt their prey, lions need good eye sight to track heards of grazing animals. But what about dogs and cats? They maybe able to better in low-level light conditions, but their eye sight is about on average with ours. And as far as birth defects, war, disease, famine, hunger, all the terrible things in the world, they are the result of human biology, human condition and human behavior, all of which God gave us, to live our lives and choose how to live by ourselves. God created us in his image, and he gave us the choice to choose how we live and whom we serve. Not everybody wants to serve the Lord, and when the time comes, they will have to answer for that. But I've seen the wonderful things that God can do, something that athiests such as yourself either refuse to see, or are so hardend by the world that they don't understand. I choose God, not because I'm a mindless sheep, but because I have a heart that was turned towards him and his wonderful omnipotence.
I still sin, and any Christian worth his salt will tell you the same. We're not perfect people, and we don't pretend to be. We make mistakes and screw things up just as well as anybody else. But to learn from the Bible, to place your faith, your worries, your life in his hands, takes faith and love of Jesus Of which, I have plenty.
I don't want to get on a rant here, and if you want to live your life how you want to, then please continue to do so. But to say that God doesn't exist based soley on the fact that you can't see him won't phase me a bit. That's just how I roll. :-)
Posted by: Jay | March 09, 2005 at 02:25 AM
1) Since when did I ever say that humans having bad eyesight is the only reason I don't believe in God? I can give you more, if you want them. Here's an example:
A) If God has been around forever, why did he choose NOW to create the universe?
2) I wasn't talking 'good' as in those. What I meant was, our EYES aren't perfect. Light has to travel through seven layers of cells.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm
3) You see, it's people like you that give theology a bad image. Like, "Oh, God has revealed Himself to me spiritually" (that's not what you said, but it's close to what you said). What the hell is that supposed to mean?
4) If I have to be God's cheerleader to be let into heaven, I'm not sure I want to be in heaven. Why should I be forever in the presence of a God who damns people to eternal hellfire because they believed in what they thought was the most rational explanation for the world?
5) Ah, yes, just let Jesus take care of everything.
You see, it's that kind of philosophy that annoys be the second most about Christianity (the jehova's witnesses-type philosophy is the most annoying). You're too stupid to take care of yourself. Don't worry, though--Jesus will take care of you! You don't have to think or do anything for yourself! We are weak, but He is strong...
Posted by: TealTerror | March 09, 2005 at 09:16 PM
Since I'm nice, here are some reasons I don't believe in God. There are more reasons than these, definitely, but these are all I can think of right now.
1) Theists cannot come up with a definition of God that actually means something.
2) If God has been around forever, why did he pick now to create the universe?
3) There is no empirical evidence that God exists. Yes, there is no empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, but in my opinion at least, it's more rational to believe that there is no God.
There are many more reasons why I don't believe in a religion; specifically Christianity and/or Judaism (though I know more about Christianity). This is really long, so I'll just give a few snippets:
1) If God is omniscient, he knows if we're going to go to heaven or hell. He knew this before he created us. If he loves us all, why did he create people who he'd have to damn into eternal hellfire?
2) If God is omnipotent, why didn't he just will our sin away? Why did he have to send down a son?
3) If God is so great, why did he throw a hissy fit and flood the earth, and then feel bad about it afterwards?
4) If God is omniscient, how was he out-argued by Moses TWICE?
5) Why didn't God will the Isrealies out of Egypt, instead of messing with the plagues business?
6) If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to be in heaven, why the hell hasn't he shown me solid proof that he exists?
I have more (oh, god, do I have more), but I think that's enough for now.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 09, 2005 at 09:32 PM
At the present I don't have much time to debate you since I'm here at work, but I would like to address one of your points:
"If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to be in heaven, why the hell hasn't he shown me solid proof that he exists?"
Brother, he has. You've just hardened your heart to it. I don't know where you've gotten such horrible vitrol to fuel this fire you have against Christianity, but it must have been life-changing for you. I'm going to pray for you tonight. You may not want me to to, and you may hate me for it, but I'm going to do it regardless.
I'm not weak, and I'm certaily not mindless. I think it takes incredible strength to be a Christian in the modern age. With 'rational thought' that is anything but, and doctored principles of personal beliefs, I find it difficult to see your arguments, especially when you debate so with much anger. Has someone going under a Christian guise done you wrong sometime in your life? A bad experience? There has got to be something under the surface of your displeasure.
Posted by: Jay | March 10, 2005 at 02:59 AM
"So much anger"? You haven't seen me when I'm angry. Here's what I'd post if I was angry:
If God ****ing existed, why the F*** hasn't he revealed himself to me!?!?!??
I don't have anything against Christians. Sure, I have something against Christianity, but I have something against all religions.
Maybe I do dislike Christianity a little more because it breeds hypocrites. Like the abortion clinic bombers who are supposed to love their neighbor.
Anyway...
1) You say God has shown himself to me, yet you never explain how.
My point is, if God TRULY exists, and he wants me to go to heaven, he would've shown my incontrivertible proof that he exists.
2) You can go ahead and pray for me all you like, but you'll be wasting your time. Praying doesn't do jack. It's part of that "We are weak but He is strong" philosophy. But, hey, knock yourself out.
3) So my thought is not rational, but wasting your time praying is?
4) MY beliefs are doctored? At least I don't get mine from a 2000-year-old book...
Posted by: TealTerror | March 10, 2005 at 09:21 AM
This is getting difficult to respond to, since I can't hover over my blog all day (during the day at all, actually).
So, responding to TealTerror's post from March 8, 2005 08:15 PM:
1) You make it sound like the Bible is a collection of the favorite writings collected by some religious dudes about 1800 to 1900 years ago. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" if you want a detailed explanation of the careful and precise ways that the different councils determined which books were inspired and which were not and/or fraudulent.
If God is God then he wouldn't allow any inspired books to be left out, would he? That wouldn't really make sense. God, knowing what would happen to the book, would never have bothered to inspire it in the first place.
2) In 1975 Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin said that the concept behind the Miller-Urey simulation (the experiment you're referring to that created two of the twenty some-odd amino acids necessary for life) "has been abandoned" ("Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution," Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B (1975), 231-60). Other non-Christian experts have said that he used the wrong gas mixture, and Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation."
Most of that data I got from Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". A full bibliography is provided there.
3) Without a God, how can you explain the existence of the irreducably complex system of the eye at all? Our eyes were designed with many factors considered, not just our ability to see detail. They are efficient, allow us to detect depth, and can take a lot of abuse without ceasing to function. Our eyes see just as well as God intended. Hey, I could use four arms better than two. That doesn't mean there's not a God.
Birth defects would be the result of outside stimuli (chemicals, environment, smoking, drinking, drugs, and other possibly undetectable factors). They are products of our fallen nature and the fallen nature of the world, not God's intended design.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 10, 2005 at 06:57 PM
Quote "My point is, if God TRULY exists, and he wants me to go to heaven, he would've shown my incontrivertible proof that he exists."
Just a question, if He did that then how could you have faith?
Posted by: choppi | March 10, 2005 at 07:15 PM
SuperPope:
If you want, you could always e-mail me.
1) All right, I'll take your word for it on this one. Not like it matters much anyway.
2) All right, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one also.
3) The human eye may, superficially, seem like it must have been designed; but as I said, it has some flaws. Light has to travel through seven layers of our retinas, etc.
Oh, and why did God invent different eye colors? Was he bored?
Finally, if God is all-good, wouldn't he stop there from being birth defects?
choppi:
"Just a question, if He did that then how could you have faith?"
You wouldn't. What's your point?
Posted by: TealTerror | March 10, 2005 at 08:22 PM
Response to TealTerror's post of March 9, 2005 09:16 PM:
1) "Forever" in the sense that you use it cannot be. Time is linear, so it is impossible to reach any particular point if time has existed forever in the past. To put it another way, you can't pass through an infinity of moments to get to where we are right now.
So where does that leave us? It's not a disproof of God, since you'd have to ask the same question about the universe if God didn't exist. The logical conclusion is that the Big Bang was the beginning of time (which is what basically all scientists believe), and that God exists "above" or "outside" of time. There is no "before time", only "outside of time", since saying that something came before time is to put a time stamp on a non-time event, which is inherently paradoxical.
2) So if you were God you'd design human eyes so that light travelled through only one layer of cells? Great. Then I'd have lost my eye sight through injury or atrophy a long time ago.
4) Not wanting to be in heaven is what would keep people from going, isn't it? God created the human soul with so much dignity and value that the holiness of his character won't allow him to force us to be in his presence against our will.
And I've spent a long time demonstrating to you that a belief that "time + nothing = everything" is not more rational than God as the uncaused cause of the universe. If your philosophical starting point is "Since there's no God, then..." you're not honestly seeking. You've let 150 year old flawed scientific assumptions dupe you into believing God's non-existence is a given.
5) Ah, yes, the "I can take care of everything myself and if God exists he's an idiot" philosophy.
You see, that's the most annoying thing about atheism to me. You refuse to admit that you are flawed in any way. You are strong, but He is weak...
Posted by: SuperPope | March 12, 2005 at 09:57 AM
Response to TealTerror's post of March 9, 2005 09:32 PM:
1) Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause. Since the universe could not have caused itself to exist there must be an "uncaused cause" beyond it. You can say that there are millions of universes beyond ours, but that only begs the question (what caused all of the universes to exist?). So the most basic definition that any concept of God must contain is that God is the uncaused cause of reality as we know it. How about starting there?
2) I already answered this question in another post http://superpope.blogs.com/sp/2004/04/molecular_gears.html .
3) You cannot have emperical evidence that something does not exist. It is a logical impossibility. Therefore the more logical conclusion is that there must be an uncaused cause of the universe, which would have to be a being beyond the boundaries of time and space. Couple that with the staggeringly preposterous odds against our universe, galaxy, solar system, sun, planet, atmosphere, flora and fauna to exist and the rationality of theism is looking pretty good.
On to Judeo-Christian specific questions:
1) That wouldn't very well provide us with the ability to make choices, would it? What if you chose to follow God and your parents didn't? How could you exist if your parents hadn't been born? I'm sure there were plenty of non-Christians in my family's history. Without them, none of the relatives I have now would exist.
My point is, if God knows how the game is played out through to the end, then I believe he has allowed this universe to be as it is because it will produce the most people who will choose him of all possible universes in which humans are free agents. I hope I'm making sense.
2) Suppose a teacher set a deadline for a term paper. You worked your tail off and finished it on time. When you came to class, nobody else had even started their paper and complained to the teacher. The teacher felt sorry for everybody and gave them another week.
Was the teacher just? No. Was the teacher fair? No. The teacher was nice, but essentially broke their own rule to allow a bunch of slackers to get away with their laziness.
Since God is justice incarnate AND love cannot be forced, becoming a man and dying as the only acceptible substitute for our own damnation is the most amazing and loving thing possible. He created a universe in which we could choose to freely love our creator, constantly fail in our attempts to do good, and still fulfill the demands that his holiness requires.
3) God didn't throw a "hissy fit". The world was full of sin and he started over with one family. He didn't regret it, he simply said, "I will never flood the earth again even though man's every desire is evil from birth."
4) Sources, please.
5) I explained this in another post, too. God showed his people who he was through this. The passover only exists because of the exodus. If God didn't want to save them from Egypt he wouldn't have let them be enslaved in the first place, would he? What kind of a story would it have been if he just warped them out of captivity?
6) God has made himself plain to you, just like he has to me. The heavens declare his glory. The complexity of life defies naturalistic explanation. The order of the universe defies naturalistic explanation. Like my wife said, faith has value. That's not a cop out. But there is plenty of hard evidence for God. My beliefs are not rooted in emotion.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 12, 2005 at 02:02 PM
In response to TealTerror's post of March 10, 2005 08:22 PM:
3) I already dealt with this in another post. Structural integrity is just as important as vision itself. If we were dealing with an eye that evolved (for the sake of argument, even though it's impossible) then if light travels through seven layers of cells in all human eyes that eye design would be the one that had proven itself the most structurally sound, wouldn't it? So your point would be moot. If there's a God then he'd have realized the same thing that macroevolution "stumbled" across through dumb luck.
You think diversity in eye color is superfluous? From an evolutionary standpoint, of course they are. But not from the God who is giving us constant reasons to believe in him and who created variation for the sake of variety.
As for God stopping birth defects: Did you ever read the story about Adam and Eve eating the apple? We live in defiance of our creator. We broke his law. We suffer as a result. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 12, 2005 at 03:08 PM
1) Well, we're getting into very confusing matter here, so I'll go one step at a time.
A) We, as humans, simply cannot understand the concept of "infinity." It is foreign to us. Everything that we know is finite. Speculating on the nature of infinity is really an exercise in futility.
B) You claim that time is linear. Is it?
No, really, is it? You don't know it is. Sure, to us, time seems to be linear. But a lot of things seem to be something to humans when they're actually not. I could cite many examples of this, but I think you'll agree with me on this point.
So, is time linear? Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.
C) Even if time is linear, this does not necessarily mean that time cannot be infinite. For example, we normally think of infinity in terms of numbers. There are an infinite number of numbers that add up to the number "1". However, even though 1 is infinite, we still put a finite value on it.
Yes, it's not a perfect comparison. However, as I said, it is very hard to debate the concept of infinity, since none of us truly understands what it is.
D) If God is beyond time, how can He think?
2) Well, if God had developed a better way to get rid of the waste in lungs, fewer people would have lung cancer. My point is, humans aren't perfect. Why would God's chosen creations not be perfect?
(expects an Adam and Eve type of answer)
4) We can debate about the logicalness of believing or not believing in God, but here's the fact:
If I died right now, and your beliefs are correct, I would be damned to eternal hellfire because I believed in what I thought was the most rational thing to believe.
Tell me, is this the mark of a God YOU want to spend eternity with?
5) Heh, I'm definitely flawed. We all have our faults. And according to the Bible, God has His, too.
But that's beside the point. While I'm not perfect, I can sure as hell live a life without needing some invisible friend 'helping' me.
---
1) God is the uncaused cause of reality, eh? (I'm not Canadian, by the way)
Okay, let's start there. Now please explain to me how God is uncaused. In other words, why did God not need anyone to create Him?
2) I already have a response to this earlier in this comment, of course.
3) That is true that you cannot have empirical evidence that something does not exist. However, if you have no convincing evidence that something DOES exist, then the rational belief is that that something does not exist.
-So, God exists outside of time? Tell me, how can God do ANYTHING if He is outside of time? To be outside of time means that-well, I honestly have no bloody clue. Do you?
-What "staggering odds" are you referring to?
Judeo-Christian time!
1) Okay, your answer seems to be in three parts: Free will, family ancestry, and possible universes. I'll address them each separately.
A) God doesn't have to lose free will to make people believe in Him. Why doesn't he just show me that he exists, for example?
B) But, if he made your parents believe in Him without taking that precious "free will" away (really, where does this whole "free will" idea come from?)...
C) I'm sure he could've at least made ME believe in Him...(sorry for the arbitrary capitalizations of the pronoun "him" when referring to God. I don't pay much attention to such matters, usually...)
2) ...I don't get the comparison. Let me show you the apparent timeline here:
A) God creates universe.
B) God creates man in his image. Man is the preferred creation of God.
C) Somehow, man comes to the point where it cannot be inherently unsinful. In other words, man must sin. Man cannot be in the presence of God in heaven. God does not like this, because he loves man and wants man to be with Him in heaven.
D) God apparently fools around for thousands of years, sitting on his ass for most of them.
E) God finally decides to DO something and sends down Jesus, and Jesus blah blah blah, you know the story.
Please make this timeline compatible with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
3) Why did he decide to "never flood the world again"? If it worked so well that time, since God cannot make mistakes...
4) I don't know these Bible passages by heart. I know it's in there, but it's a little late, and I don't really feel like searching. I'll get the verses for you eventually, though.
5) So exactly what purpose was letting the Isrealites getting enslaved served? Just so God could let them see his power? He could've done it easier in other ways, and the Israelites pretty much rejected Him anyway...
6) A) If God intended to make himself plain to me, he did a crappy job at it.
B) I'm listening to the heavens right now, and they're not "declaring" anything.
C) (encompasses your third and fourth sentences) Are you so sure about that? This could be debated. Especially since practically EVERY scientist worth his/her salt disagrees with you. Or do you know something the scientific community doesn't?
D) What "value" does faith have? It's believing in something without any evidence to back it up. That's what I call anti-reason (well, at least, I've started calling it that just now).
3) A) Why would SEVEN layers be the most structurally sound? Is this simply pure conjecture on your part?
Well, this eye thing is kinda pointless. With a little research, I could find plenty of things the human body does that it could do better.
B) Why did God want variety? Was he bored?
4) Um, "I" did not defy God's law. Adam and Eve did. Well, I am defying God's law by not believing in Him, that's not the point.
If God brands all humans as "sinful" because of what two humans did, then this seems as anti-good and anti-justice as you can get.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 13, 2005 at 01:10 AM
1) A) I've noticed this is your strategy quite often: Take a word or an idea that I use to support my point and then pretend that it is impossible to understand and is therefore useless. This is a fallacy. What does "finite" mean? It describes something that has boundaries. In the sense of time, "finite" means a period that has a beginning and an end. Therefore something that is infinite can have no beginning or end, otherwise it wouldn't be infinite, it would be finite. No confusion here! Therefore, if something is infinite then it had no beginning. Time by it's very nature must have a beginning in order for us to reach the point where we are now. You can't count down from infinity. Infinity - 1000 is still infinity. So anything that has existed fundamentally "forever" must have existed outside of time as we know it for our existence to be explainable at all. This is true whether you believe in God or not.
B) We are trapped within time. So time is undeniably linear from our perspective...and that is the only perspective we're dealing with here.
C) Time can be infinite in the FUTURE, but not infinite in the PAST. I've already demonstrated this mathematically/logically.
D) God wouldn't need to think. He'd know.
2) And you expect correctly. And if people didn't suck on flaming sticks that would help, too.
4) We're having this discussion (which you started), so you must at least be open to something other than what you believe. It sounds like you have personal, emotional reasons for not believing in a God. The God who created all could destroy all and who could fault him? What you've already experienced has been a gift. I know...it sounds callous. But I can't give you a detailed answer without knowing every detail of your life (like an omniscient God would).
5) Of course you don't need God to live your life. Not much of a choice if you couldn't live without him, huh?
I'm going to have to answer the second half of this post later.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 13, 2005 at 08:10 PM
Good grief, TealTerror, I'm so lost in all of your subpoints that I don't even know where to start. I don't even know what comment of mine you're responding to...
My response may or may not ever happen. You must be getting sick of me telling you that all of your questions would be answered if you would just read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". Would you like me to buy you a copy?
Posted by: SuperPope | March 13, 2005 at 11:37 PM
i keep erasing these, I get too long winded.
Here goes.
Love. Prove love. Seriously, show me unequivacable proof of love. Ya can't. But I tell ya what it's there and it's showing it's face. You just have to be open to it. You just have to be willing to see it. I you can't scientifically explain it. God created it. It's also not perfect cause guess what? It has to do with us, Man, we couldn't even stay away from that damned apple. I wonder why scientists don't take two people that are in love and draw there blood run urine tests and possibly dissect them. Look into the eyes of a child, see a sunset or a sunrise. Stand in the wind on a warm summer day and close your eyes. Look up at a night sky, it's amazing. there's so many beautiful things. I guess those are my personal reasons. If there is so much beauty, so much amazement and many wonderful things. Like the night sky for example. There's just way too much perfection here. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? I always wondered, what if god designed the Big Bang. I mean of course he did, so he could have set things in motion back then in such a perfect way that bam, here we are. We also can't explain that far back. We have an idea of what happened just milliseconds after but not before. And even so, Like was said before, God wants us to believe for our reasons, not His and not because He said so. It's quite possible he created all the science behind to keep us guessing. Again with the faith the faith thing. If not for science we also wouldn't believe the world around us. Of course matter has to have rules anyway. And I'll stop now.
Posted by: Bailey Smith | March 14, 2005 at 11:29 AM
1) A) Infinity - 1000 is infinity, but that is in terms of numbers. You can't apply numbers to time.
B) Time is linear, in our perspective. However, is our perspective the 'true' perspective?
After all, I thought you were against relative truths.
C) How can time be infinite in the future? Infinity + 1000 is still infinity. ;)
D) That sounds like a cop-out answer to me. If God impegnated Mary, he'd have to be inside time. If you're outside time, you can't do anyting. We define actions inside a timeframe. If God can somehow act outside time, we have NO idea how He does it. We have no idea what God is. If we don't know what God is, and we don't know how He does what He does, and we don't know why He does what He does, what DO we know?
2) So. Let me get this straight. God creates man, his chosen people. Man does not know what good and evil are (read your Bible to learn about this). So, man eats from the Tree of Knowledge. God gets pissed and banishes man, and makes man imperfect. Also, he makes women have pains during childbirth.
And this is a supposedly omnibenevolent God?
4) If you give me proof that God exists (or if I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, which I just got, gives me proof that God exists), then I'll believe God exists.
According to your beliefs, yes, my life is a gift. But God, right now, has me marked down for eternal hellfire because I believed in what I considered to be the most logical thing to believe.
THIS IS NOT A GOD I WANT TO SPEND ETERNITY WITH.
Emotional reasons? Yeah. I also have logical reasons to not believe in God.
-----
Sorry about that. ^_^;; Sometimes I get a bit carried away.
Like I said, I bought my own copy of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist today. I might not get much time to read it, because this is Finals week for me. However, I'll do what I can.
-----
Bailey Smith:
...That is so convoluted, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. I'll try my best, though.
1) Prove love? Well, depends on how you define "love."
2) So you believe in God because you think all that beauty can't have come by chance?
You know what? If God designed the Big Bang and then stopped interfering (ie if you believe in Deism), then they DID come by chance.
And why not? Beautiful things come by chance all the time. Why exactly couldn't they?
The night sky isn't perfect. The stars are placed randomly, and the "constellations" we draw are just seeing vague designs in groups of stars.
Nothing's perfect. According to the Bible, not even God is perfect.
3) I keep hearing this "faith" thing. Faith is believing without proof. WhenEVER has this been a good thing?
Posted by: TealTerror | March 14, 2005 at 07:13 PM
I spent a lot of time on the "Does God Exist?" part of the book. I'll respond to the New Testament part when I read it more thoroughly.
The book had four major arguments for why God existed. They are:
1) Everything that had a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, so the universe must have had a cause. This cause of the universe is God.
2) The parameters of the universe are too finely tuned to be made by chance.
3) Life is too complicated to have resulted by chance.
4) Absolute morality exists. Absolute morality must have been made by something. That something is God.
Here are my responses:
1) I have two main concerns with this argument that the book, as far as I can tell, does not address:
A) The book claims that the big bang must have been caused by a being outside space and time. However, how can something even exist beyond space and time? How can something act beyond time? How can something speak (like God does in the Bible) outside space and time?
We DEFINE existence in terms of space and time. The idea that something "exists" beyond space and time is a completely foreign concept to us. If we cannot comprehend the concept of God, we cannot comprehend why God does what He does, and we cannot comprehend how God does what He does, what CAN we comprehend about God?
B) Our scientific laws break down once we arrive at that singularity that was the speck that existed before the Big Bang. We simply do not know what there was before the Big Bang. Therefore, we must believe in what is most rational. A being that "exists" beyond space and time is not rational.
2) Once again, I have two major concerns.
A) What if our finely-tuned laws are just what is natural? In other words, what if the laws of our universe are the laws that just naturally happen? Since those laws are the only ones that can support life, this is not hard to believe.
B) Same as my 1 B queston.
3) I am not a biologist, and I suspect Geisler and Turek aren't, either. Since I do not know enough about evolution to muster a reasonable counter-argument, I shall not comment on this topic.
4) The book claims that since we all have certain principles, like human life is sacred, there is an absolute morality.
However, we believe human life is sacred because that's what is RATIONAL to believe. If we thought anyone could murder anyone they wanted to, we would not have a productive society.
Besides, everyone interprets this supposed moral law differently. Everyone has different exceptions to this law.
In fact, by DEFINITION, morality is relative. Morality is one's personal beliefs about good and evil. Everyone has different beliefs about good and evil. Therefore, morality is relative.
Also, generally, I find the book packed with logical fallacies and just plain "WTF?" statements. It makes some good points, and I was entertained a few times, but I am not convinced.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 14, 2005 at 10:45 PM
Sorry, I forgot one of the arguments the book makes for the existence of God:
1) The universe cannot be immortal, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
My answer:
1) We do not know what the singulartiy speck of the universe was like. Maybe it somehow 'restored' the lost energy. Who knows? We don't know enough to make a strong case out of one of our theories.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 15, 2005 at 10:57 AM
For information on evolution and creationism, go to this website:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_index.htm
Yes, it's biased. But hey, so is "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." As they said, just because you're biased doesn't mean you're lying.
Now, to rebut the New Testament claims:
First, while the book mentions how it judges what is historically reliable, it gives no source on where these ideas come from. Why shoud I believe the book on the criteria for historic reliability?
Rebuts to the Top Ten Reasons:
Preface: You know, I like the book's "Road Runner" tactic. I think I'll use it against the book.
1-5: All of these reasons are basically saying that, since the NT included things that the writers wouldn't have included if they wanted the story to seem true, it must be true.
If what the NT writers did make the book seem more true, then if they wanted to make the book seem more true, they would've done exactly what they did.
Besides, the NT writers probably thought that only intellectuals would actually READ the Bible. These intellectuals would be more persuaded by the presence of the embarassing details than the absence of those details.
6: The book claims that since the NT has many historically verified people in it, I must be true. If I wrote a book on how magical pink pandas created the universe, and included thirty people from this time period, would that mean my book must be true?
7: Divergent details might prove the NT, but outright contradictions disprove it.
What are those contradictions? I'm too tired right now. Maybe I'll come up with some on Friday.
8: The NT is a book. It is not addressed to anyone. When the Bible claims it wrote something to someone, that does not mean we should believe it.
Actually, this 'reason' confused me greatly. What, exactly, is it saying?
9: See 1-5.
10: There are several reasons the NT writers would take up Christianity and die for their beliefs. Here are some of them:
A) They might have truly believed Christianity was true. Maybe Jesus just fooled them all by doing magic tricks, sort of like what today's magicians do.
B) They might have dreamed about making their creation a world religion, and them dying for it would make it that much more believable. This is in the same vein as my answers for 1-5 and 9.
C) What if they didn't die for Christianity? As far as I can tell, the book has only ONE source that they did. When you're dealing with mega important facts like these, you need more than one source.
The book asks why people gave up their long-standing beliefs for Christianity. Why do people give up their long-standing beliefs for Christianity today?
My biggest beef against the "Christianity is true" segment? It doesn't even CONSIDER taking just the Torah, or the Koran. Maybe the Koran fulfills all of its criteria for truth as the Bible does. Who knows? I don't, but the book doesn't even ADDRESS this major issue.
If "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is your big gun against atheism, you need better guns.
Posted by: TealTerror | March 16, 2005 at 01:53 AM
Since your main quibble (judging from most of your questions to me in the past) is with what we can know about the nature of God and time, I recommend "God, Time, and Eternity" by William Lane Craig. It might help clear up your misconceptions about this topic.
I believed in God before I read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". You did not. So where I read it looking to improve my ability to defend what I am already convinced of, you read it in order to search for weaknesses to exploit. Both of our paradigms are to be expected. But there are a lot of books that more thoroughly cover each aspect covered in this book. At least now I hope you realize that faith in God does not have to be a blind leap into blissful ignorance.
You argue against faith in the arguments in this book on the grounds that they are not documented as completely as you'd like, yet you've used biological arguments on me quite often, all the while admitting that you're "not a biology major", much less a biologist. You have faith in evolution as a viable explanation for a godless universe, even apart from truly understanding biology. This is hypocritical.
You’re also wasting an awful lot of energy attempting to debunk Christianity when you don’t even believe in the existence of a God. One doesn’t arrive at Christianity before a deity in general. A person only becomes a Christian after they are convinced it best answers the question of who the creator of the universe is and how he coincides with the natural yearnings we have inside us for justice, self sacrifice, and a better place. C.S. Lewis took this logical path as he made the transition from atheist to Christian late in his life (and wrote about it in “Mere Christianity”).
So anyway, thanks for reading the book. Glad you didn't really find anything verifiably wrong with it, just enough reasons to tell yourself that the evidence isn't convincing enough for you. Personally I'll take this detailed and intelligently defended set of arguments over the false assertion that "rabbits don't chew their cud" or weak and indefensibly speculative "a God would have given panda bears better thumbs" type arguments.
Then again, not everyone can be convinced at all (as the Biblical parable of Lazarus and the rich man admits). Nietzsche admitted that he didn’t believe simply because he didn’t want to, and a Christian bearing evidence would make him loathe Christianity all the more. Here’s hoping you can bring yourself to make more logical decisions than he did.
Posted by: SuperPope | March 21, 2005 at 05:49 PM