Call for Comments: An Indictment of the Church

[JonAdams]

I was under the impression that all matter = energy.

So in a technical sense, I don't think I'm incorrect, though I admit the possibility.

It's in the technical sense that you are incorrect. Matter would be better described as a form of energy. That form can be changed into another form (hence nuclear weapons!) It's a bit like saying that sound cannot be created or destroyed.

So god's desire is "motion" ?
I was not aware that emotions = motion.

God has a desire to act. He has the energy to do that action. That energy is some form of motion.

Which begs the question:

Since nothing in this world is supported by supernatural forces, what precident do you pose in support of this intagible being that defies all laws of physics?

How do you know that? Physicists do not know what the universe is ultimately made out of. There is a lot more for us to discover. You cannot reasonably make a blanket comment that rules out the supernatural entirely (at least, not without stepping into the realm of blind faith).

Some further comments based on your conversation with Darth (this is the problem with living in a different time zone, everyone moves on without you!):

You appear to have a wrong view of what the laws of physics represent. They are our current best attempt at describing the behaviour of the universe as we have so far observed it. There may be circumstances in which they can be bent or even broken (for a long time Newton's laws of motion were considered the last word on motion, then situations in which they failed were discovered and Einstein's relativity took over. Now physicists are looking for an extension of that theory because it too fails under certain circumstances - specifically event's at the quantum level).This fact raises a question; you spoke of an "intagible [sic] being that defies all laws of physics". How can you claim that when the known laws of physics are in no sense the last word on the matter? Does God defy the laws of physics? As we know them maybe. But so what. God is a situation we have no understand of and no experience of. How can we even begin to talk about how the laws of physics will interact with such a being?
Also, I'd like to point out that the big bang theory does not break the laws of physics, rather the current mathematical formulations break down (give nonsense answers like infinity) when trying to deal with that situation, hence the efforts of cosmologists to develop new theories (such as string theory) that can handle that situation. I am inclined to thing God could be described as being in a similar situation, but in his case we will never be able to develop any such theory that could explain him! He's simply to far beyond our experience.

Finally:

It's easy to argue over who would win if Superman and Batman got into a fight

Superman, obviously, by virtue of the fact that he's an indestructible, well, superman!

Jonathan.

[Darth Executor]

Hey Goth_S,

I've been following most of your interactions with people in this thread, and while some of your judgments on the church are correct, you seem to make some decisions too prematurely. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and comments. I did want to comment on the scientific issues you've had with the idea of God, particularly the first law of thermodynamics.

You believe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, this is true. This would also fit well with your belief in an eternal universe. The problem, however, is that the amount of energy available for work in this universe is running down, something known as entropy - the second law of thermodynamics at work. Perhaps a good analogy is that of a top, which has been started and is running out of spin until it topples. Our universe is the same.

Because the universe is running out of avaiable energy, it shows that at one time it was "wound up", and because of this it is impossible for it to be eternal, because it would have already lost all the available energy and reached equilibrium (I realize how incosistent it is to speak of "already" in an eternal universe, but this gets into the problem of traversing an infinite number).

Thanks again for your comments and enjoy T-Web.

I think she was referring to something like the oscillating-universe theory.

[Darth Executor]

This will likely be my last post in this thread, as I will ask the leadership to ban me from this site for a while so it stops distracting me and I can work on some writing I have to do.

Oh, the common arguments I hear so often. "Where did the big bang come from?" etc. etc.

Personally, I beleive in an eternal universe.

Gotcha.

Most likely. However, once humanity figures them out, I'm willing to bet that the answer will be perfectly reasonable and free of supernatural influence.
Perhaps you dissagree?

Define "Experienced" please

Dictionary definition is good:

The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind

We do it all the time. Three kids are playing in a room. You hear a crash. You automatically assume that it had to be one of the three kids, but they all posit a fourth child as the culprit. Makes sense? I think not.

How is that even remotely like the scientific method? It's quite the opposite. You instantly make a decision based on a preconceived notion and don't bother to look into the alternative as your mind is already made up.

God is that 4th kid. So it makes sense to apply the scientific method as often as possible to determine the truth.

How do you apply the scientific method to figure out if somebody loves you?

In practical application, we have to dumb down the procedure, I admit this fully. But those who are looking for the answer, ought to use it, don't you think?

We don't just dumb it down, we don't use it at all. When was the last time you went out to do research and see if a news report about somebody's dog was accurate? I use the scientific method when it is useful and when the subject is of enough importance to be worth the time.

What makes you say this?

The fact that an omnipotent god doesn't have a time requirement for creating anything and can do so at his leisure? I see a similar reaction from some YECs who state that my god is weak because it took him 6 billion years to make us. I ask why it took god 6 days and not a second.

True, but I wasn't neccessarily reffering to you specifically. Merely a part in the bible. The way I see it, if the bible is flawed, there's even less reason to posit a christian god, than there was to begin with, which wasn't much.

I am unsure as to what you mean by "flawed". Some people, oddly enough, think that utterly irrelevant subjects like errors in the number of goats Abraham are grounds to dismiss the entire bible. Plus, I didn't say Genesis was flawed.

Well, god is a fairly broad topic, so asking for clarification is a decent request I would think. What makes you think that there is a god?
The so called "complexity" argument? The idea that humans are "complicated" organisms, and their existance is not possible without some external creator?

Nope. Nothing biological.

Or perhaps the question of existance itself? The old argument that the entire world, indeed the universe, was created by intent?

I am unsure as to what argument you are referring to, but if it's old I probably don't like it. Fine tuning would be something I consider evidence of some sort of intelligent design behind the universe.

What makes you beleive the things you do? An honest question, with no hidden agenda.

A great deal of things. Some I've forgotten (that might seem odd but I don't give the subject much thought anymore as short of some spontaneouos divine revelation from an atheist, the matter is closed for me). I even had a particularly interesting philosophical argument that you'd have liked, but I can't quite remember how it goes. Anyway, I'll try to list what I can remember. I realise that some of these are not about God, but they are still somehow related as they help destroy the absurd skepticism (I'd say agains the supernatural, but I hate the word supernatural) I see in many westerners.

Bizarre events. You'll find that the further away you move from civilisation, the more frequent they become. One particular event that I remember and that I still can't figure out was when I was young (about 12). I was at my grandparents house doing something in the bedroom (might have been reading, I can't remember). The door to my room had one big piece of grained glass (or something like it) in the middle. One side was smooth but running your fingers on the other side produces a scratching noise. Anyway, I was sitting in my room when I hear the scratching noise. I look up and see a hand scratch the window twice. The glass horribly obscurs anything on the other side, so all I saw was a very dark hand. I sit there for a couple of seconds then rush to the door and open it. Nobody there. I look all over the house to see who is home. My grandmother was knitting and watching TV in the living room. I asked her if she had been in the hallway a few seconds ago and she says no. There was nobody else in the house. I checked the hallway to see if anything fell and might have somehow fooled me but there was nothing there. The front door was locked so even if by some odd chance someone decided to run into the house, scratch the door and run out without me hearing the front door, they couldn't because they weren't able to get in. I've racked my brain for years trying to figure out what the heck happened and I can't think of anything. The only thing that makes sense is that whatever it was can either become invisible or disappear completely.

History. From a historical point of view, I find that Christianity has far more support than other secular events which are never questioned because they're not controversial. Some people claim the evidence isn't "extraordinary" enough, but as you can probably tell, I think the line people draw between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" is horribly misplaced. They need to send you city kids out in the world.
Another objection is "why do you believe in God but not Zeus?" Who says I don't? I also believe my God beat up everybody else's god.

Philosophy. When I think about it, a creator makes more sense than no creator.

Nature of existance (or universe, in the broader sense of the word):
is it chaotic (there are no rules to what happens) or ordered (there are rules to what can and can't happen)? If the former, God exists, as does everything else that you can think of (including Holding's world ) Such an universe would be filled with paradoxes. Perhaps it could even have God existing and not existing. I usually do not go with it as the universe seems to have laws and I can't exactly debate for or against an universe that by definition has nothing you can debate about. If it is the latter, there are rules and some of them have been observed.

Does time have a beginning? This is directly linked to the above. If the answer is no, the universe is chaotic by default as time with no beginning is an absurdity.

Can events occur in no time? If the universe is chaotic, yes and no. If the universe is ordered, yes. There is no time in a singularity, and if events could not occur, the singularity would be unable to expand as it would be stuck in the same state forever. If events do occur, they would all occur simultaneously as there is no time. The action would come at "the same time" as the reaction. All actions within no time would occur at the same time, including the creation of time.

Can energy be created? Current laws of physics say no. If yes, no rules can exist as it is nonsensical.

Is abiogenesis true? I love this one. If it is not, then life must be created (either directly by the first being, or through a link of events: IE: Alien 1 makes Alien 2 who makes Man). If we take the "energy cannot be created or destroyed" law of physics as true, then there must be at least one eternal lifeform. Is abiogenesis true? If yes, then any events that can happen in no time will happen in no time as they have no time restrictions (and we know that the more time a probable event has, the more likely it is to happen; if the event has no time restrictions, it will happen), which includes the "formation" of life within a singularity. Say, God. This might not resonate well with most Christians but you did ask about God.
Of course, there is always the possibility that it is impossible for life to appear in no space but that is one of the things we'll likely never find out.

My apologies for my poor spelling. It happens from time to time.
I meant hypothesis of course.

Why shouldn't god be treated with interest by science? What else do you have to validate the claims that god exists?

History. Philosophy (they both make some use of science, of course) Trying to use science to validate the claim is futile as our tools cannot see beyond the universe.

Well, I think that there is a considerable difference between God and a black hole. For instance, I can't look at god through a telescope. ;)

You can't look at a black hole through a telescope either. You can see its effects on nearby matter though. Of course, I'd argue that you can see God's effects as well, and don't even need a telescope. Look out the window.

[Goth_S]

Rather than make a bazillion seperate replies, I just condensed everything into this post. I hope I replied to everyone!

ok g_s, lets talk about spiders, and different kinds of spiders, in a way a little bit like saul kripke might talk about them

the word "spider" as you use it refers to a number of arthropods you have come across
if you used "spider" to refer to an arthropod you had not come across before, how would you know that you had intended to use "spider" to refer to that arthropod, and not "crab"?

you havn't come across this new athropod before, so how could you have known that "spider" referred to this arthropod?

how do you know that the word means "spider" and not "crab" when you only have a finite number of examples to tell you what a spider is?

say you have never seen a spider 20cm long before. how would you know that the word still applies?

perhaps "spider" only ever referred to a class of arthropods not in excess of 199mm in length?

so perhaps the sight of a spider above 199mm in lenght threw you a little bit, and you mistakenly applied "spider" to a class of arthropod to which it had not previously been intended to apply, such as "hairy black crab"?

how, on coming on an opportunity for a new usage of a word relating to arthropods, do you choose between "spider" and "hairy black crab"?
what, exaxctly, about your past usage compels your present usage?

nothing

Untrue!

Humans are naturaly adept at detecting patterns, and like with like. Certaintly not every spider is the same, but they all share determining characteristics. We have many spider species, and each with their own name, based on their distinguishing characteristics. We call the entire class "spider" due to the similarities across all sub-types.

but lets say that you had in your mind a rule stating that "spider" means "an eight-legged arthropod with two torsal sections and no claws"

then you have to say, though, how you would know that "two torsal sections" means "two torsal sections totaling less than 133mm in length" as opposed to "two torsal sections of any lenghth" or weather any object can be above 80mm and still be a torsal section.

simply, you have defined "spider" with "torsal section", so you have to define "torsal section", and then the terms used to define torsal sections, and so on.

it is possible in all cases to provide two definitions of a class of stuff wich say give the same name to the first 299 members of that class that you come across, and then give a different answer for the 300th
the same applies weather the definition is word or picture based
you dont have any logical way of predicting what you're going to name new cases in a class

saying that you have a tendency to give a particular form of spider-like answer when presented with particular forms of arthropod-related questions faces most of the same problems, even assuming that you and everyone else who uses the word never makes a mistake while using it, as the mistake would be an indication of how you tend to use the word, and the definition is sourced from the tendency

so meanings of words are not logically predictable across cases, or at least new cases, because meanings have no described logical course

They do indeed have a logical course. Except of course, when we're making a name up. At which point, any criteria is acceptable.

And I'm still afraid I do not understand what this has to do with god. (?)

no
you spent about 2 hours on it that is all

Oh, I'm at work when I write most of these, so when I have to deal with a client, I just leave it at the control panel. It's where I reply to threads that I've subscribed to. Makes life quicker for me, rather than searching the forums for relavant topics.

Hey Goth_S,

I've been following most of your interactions with people in this thread, and while some of your judgments on the church are correct, you seem to make some decisions too prematurely. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and comments. I did want to comment on the scientific issues you've had with the idea of God, particularly the first law of thermodynamics.

You believe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, this is true. This would also fit well with your belief in an eternal universe. The problem, however, is that the amount of energy available for work in this universe is running down, something known as entropy - the second law of thermodynamics at work. Perhaps a good analogy is that of a top, which has been started and is running out of spin until it topples. Our universe is the same.

Because the universe is running out of avaiable energy, it shows that at one time it was "wound up", and because of this it is impossible for it to be eternal, because it would have already lost all the available energy and reached equilibrium (I realize how incosistent it is to speak of "already" in an eternal universe, but this gets into the problem of traversing an infinite number).

Thanks again for your comments and enjoy T-Web.

This is actually not true. The universe goes through periods of speeding up, and slowing down.

:)

It's in the technical sense that you are incorrect. Matter would be better described as a form of energy. That form can be changed into another form (hence nuclear weapons!) It's a bit like saying that sound cannot be created or destroyed.

Matter is by itself, a form of energy. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. But it can be changed.
So I still contend that I was correct, merely that I should have worded it differently.

Do you still dissagree? If so, please explain. :)

God has a desire to act. He has the energy to do that action. That energy is some form of motion.
How do you know that? Physicists do not know what the universe is ultimately made out of. There is a lot more for us to discover. You cannot reasonably make a blanket comment that rules out the supernatural entirely (at least, not without stepping into the realm of blind faith).

Err.....


God = energy? What form? What type? What do you have to support this assertion?

Some further comments based on your conversation with Darth (this is the problem with living in a different time zone, everyone moves on without you!):

You appear to have a wrong view of what the laws of physics represent. They are our current best attempt at describing the behaviour of the universe as we have so far observed it. There may be circumstances in which they can be bent or even broken (for a long time Newton's laws of motion were considered the last word on motion, then situations in which they failed were discovered and Einstein's relativity took over. Now physicists are looking for an extension of that theory because it too fails under certain circumstances - specifically event's at the quantum level).This fact raises a question; you spoke of an "intagible [sic] being that defies all laws of physics". How can you claim that when the known laws of physics are in no sense the last word on the matter? Does God defy the laws of physics? As we know them maybe. But so what. God is a situation we have no understand of and no experience of. How can we even begin to talk about how the laws of physics will interact with such a being?

By no means do I propose that we know everything there is to know about physics. I simply said that god violates phsyics *as we know it.* However, my problem, is what you say things like, "We have no understanding of, and no experience of" this is somewhat self defeatest. How do you propose anything about god? What do you know of god?
Can it be put to the test?

If I stated that God was made out of bannana jelly, and therefore could not have created anything what would you offer in counter?

Basically, what in the universe gives you pause, to consider a third party entity was responsible for it? And what do you use to seperate this entity from natural laws?

Also, I'd like to point out that the big bang theory does not break the laws of physics, rather the current mathematical formulations break down (give nonsense answers like infinity) when trying to deal with that situation, hence the efforts of cosmologists to develop new theories (such as string theory) that can handle that situation. I am inclined to thing God could be described as being in a similar situation, but in his case we will never be able to develop any such theory that could explain him! He's simply to far beyond our experience.

Bah.
I don't accept that for a moment. String theory stands due to factors we can acknowlege and observe. Granted, it remains a theory, because it cannot be *proven* 100%, but it has enough reasonable grounds to stand on it's own two feet.

I'm afraid the universe is silent on the concept of god.

Finally:Superman, obviously, by virtue of the fact that he's an indestructible, well, superman!

Jonathan.

No way! Batman's got a hundred compartments to store kryptonite!

I think she was referring to something like the oscillating-universe theory.

That's a good possibility.

This will likely be my last post in this thread, as I will ask the leadership to ban me from this site for a while so it stops distracting me and I can work on some writing I have to do.

*chuckle*

Dictionary definition is good:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind

Well, then my previous understanding was at least partially correct.
However, this is still hardly valid evidence for god.
What you call god, I call natural occurance. So it's a hard case to make, to be sure.

could you elaborate on how the experience of God is perceived, and how we can seperate it from natural occurance so that we an be sure it's the work of a diety?

How is that even remotely like the scientific method? It's quite the opposite. You instantly make a decision based on a preconceived notion and don't bother to look into the alternative as your mind is already made up.

I meant in quick response. 3 kids....a 4th is posited. Perhaps I should have stated that said 4th kid is miles away for the example to be valid. I usually do. Ah well...my bad.

In any event, the most rational response is still to assume something in close proximity to have done it. After examination, whatever answer remains, no matter how bizarre it might seem, will probably be your answer.

In contrast however, we as a society have posited a 4th child, that is highly illogical, instead of checking the room for immediate culprits.

How do you apply the scientific method to figure out if somebody loves you?

I put them under a polygraph machine, or an MRI scanner. ;)

Both can detect chemical responses. One to let me know if a lie is spoken, and the MRI let's me know what part of the brain is being stimulated. If it's love, or lust...I'd know.

We don't just dumb it down, we don't use it at all. When was the last time you went out to do research and see if a news report about somebody's dog was accurate? I use the scientific method when it is useful and when the subject is of enough importance to be worth the time.

Sure we do. Do you beleive the so called "news" in the tabloids? I hope not...
But how do you take a glance at them and know they are fake? Personally, I run through a quick list (unconsciously of course) and compare the covers with previous knowlege. Based on past results, I can conclude rather quickly that the information presented has a high probability of being false.

It's completely acceptable to make extrapolations based on past knowlege, in determining probabilities.


[quote]The fact that an omnipotent god doesn't have a time requirement for creating anything and can do so at his leisure? I see a similar reaction from some YECs who state that my god is weak because it took him 6 billion years to make us. I ask why it took god 6 days and not a second.[quote]

But can either assertion be backed up with supporting evidence?
Are you to propose that your god can beat up their god?

...and in less time? ;)

I am unsure as to what you mean by "flawed". Some people, oddly enough, think that utterly irrelevant subjects like errors in the number of goats Abraham are grounds to dismiss the entire bible. Plus, I didn't say Genesis was flawed.

If the bible is the infallable word of god, and it's flawed, then it's not infallable, now is it?
6day creationism is pretty central to the genesis story. And nothing supports YEC beleifs.

Nope. Nothing biological.

Nothing biological...what?

The question was are humans complicated organisms, that could not have been created without a creator?

I am unsure as to what argument you are referring to, but if it's old I probably don't like it. Fine tuning would be something I consider evidence of some sort of intelligent design behind the universe.

*chuckle*

I was reffering to religion. ( I don't like it either. )

A great deal of things. Some I've forgotten (that might seem odd but I don't give the subject much thought anymore as short of some spontaneouos divine revelation from an atheist, the matter is closed for me). I even had a particularly interesting philosophical argument that you'd have liked, but I can't quite remember how it goes. Anyway, I'll try to list what I can remember. I realise that some of these are not about God, but they are still somehow related as they help destroy the absurd skepticism (I'd say agains the supernatural, but I hate the word supernatural) I see in many westerners.

Supernatural seems a fair aproximation to me. God is most definately not "natural."

Bizarre events. You'll find that the further away you move from civilisation, the more frequent they become. One particular event that I remember and that I still can't figure out was when I was young (about 12). I was at my grandparents house doing something in the bedroom (might have been reading, I can't remember). The door to my room had one big piece of grained glass (or something like it) in the middle. One side was smooth but running your fingers on the other side produces a scratching noise. Anyway, I was sitting in my room when I hear the scratching noise. I look up and see a hand scratch the window twice. The glass horribly obscurs anything on the other side, so all I saw was a very dark hand. I sit there for a couple of seconds then rush to the door and open it. Nobody there. I look all over the house to see who is home. My grandmother was knitting and watching TV in the living room. I asked her if she had been in the hallway a few seconds ago and she says no. There was nobody else in the house. I checked the hallway to see if anything fell and might have somehow fooled me but there was nothing there. The front door was locked so even if by some odd chance someone decided to run into the house, scratch the door and run out without me hearing the front door, they couldn't because they weren't able to get in. I've racked my brain for years trying to figure out what the heck happened and I can't think of anything. The only thing that makes sense is that whatever it was can either become invisible or disappear completely.

Now that you're older, do you still place faith in the senses of that 12 year old?

History. From a historical point of view, I find that Christianity has far more support than other secular events which are never questioned because they're not controversial. Some people claim the evidence isn't "extraordinary" enough, but as you can probably tell, I think the line people draw between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" is horribly misplaced. They need to send you city kids out in the world.
Another objection is "why do you believe in God but not Zeus?" Who says I don't? I also believe my God beat up everybody else's god.

I'm afraid I don't understand.

Philosophy. When I think about it, a creator makes more sense than no creator.

Then why does the creator not require a creator?

Nature of existance (or universe, in the broader sense of the word):
is it chaotic (there are no rules to what happens) or ordered (there are rules to what can and can't happen)? If the former, God exists, as does everything else that you can think of (including Holding's world ) Such an universe would be filled with paradoxes. Perhaps it could even have God existing and not existing. I usually do not go with it as the universe seems to have laws and I can't exactly debate for or against an universe that by definition has nothing you can debate about. If it is the latter, there are rules and some of them have been observed.

But this isn't true! Natural events dictate what can and cannot happen, and have a direct relationship with how it happens.

Does time have a beginning? This is directly linked to the above. If the answer is no, the universe is chaotic by default as time with no beginning is an absurdity.

Time = motion.

Without motion, there is no time.
In an infinite universe, there has always been time.

How is this absurd?
This is under the assumption that everything requires a "beginning."

Can events occur in no time? If the universe is chaotic, yes and no. If the universe is ordered, yes. There is no time in a singularity, and if events could not occur, the singularity would be unable to expand as it would be stuck in the same state forever. If events do occur, they would all occur simultaneously as there is no time. The action would come at "the same time" as the reaction. All actions within no time would occur at the same time, including the creation of time.

Can energy be created? Current laws of physics say no. If yes, no rules can exist as it is nonsensical.

Energy always existed.

Is abiogenesis true? I love this one. If it is not, then life must be created (either directly by the first being, or through a link of events: IE: Alien 1 makes Alien 2 who makes Man). If we take the "energy cannot be created or destroyed" law of physics as true, then there must be at least one eternal lifeform. Is abiogenesis true? If yes, then any events that can happen in no time will happen in no time as they have no time restrictions (and we know that the more time a probable event has, the more likely it is to happen; if the event has no time restrictions, it will happen), which includes the "formation" of life within a singularity. Say, God. This might not resonate well with most Christians but you did ask about God.
Of course, there is always the possibility that it is impossible for life to appear in no space but that is one of the things we'll likely never find out.

But this also isn't neccessarily true. Lightning has been shown to create Amino acids, the basic building blocks of life!
No creator required.

Well, no creator with a conscience. ;)

History. Philosophy (they both make some use of science, of course) Trying to use science to validate the claim is futile as our tools cannot see beyond the universe.

It's a far better set of tools to use, than pure speculation and religion, no?

You can't look at a black hole through a telescope either. You can see its effects on nearby matter though. Of course, I'd argue that you can see God's effects as well, and don't even need a telescope. Look out the window.

A cute counter, but I'm sure you acknowlege the inherrant fallacy in such a statement.




-------------------------------------------------------






I look forward to everyone's replies, respectively. :)

[Darth Executor]

Got about 10-15 minutes to go. Before I do the rest of the stuff I have to before I'm banned, I'd like to address one thing.

Now that you're older, do you still place faith in the senses of that 12 year old?

Not "that 12 year old", me. I'm not sure what age has to do with it. I was under the impression that 12 year olds have eyes and ears, and are capable of sensing the same events that an adult can.

[Goth_S]

Got about 10-15 minutes to go. Before I do the rest of the stuff I have to before I'm banned, I'd like to address one thing.



Not "that 12 year old", me. I'm not sure what age has to do with it. I was under the impression that 12 year olds have eyes and ears, and are capable of sensing the same events that an adult can.

Yes, but their understanding, as well as perceptions are clouded. They are not capable of applying advanced thought to common problems.


Chances are, a bird or something was on your window. I highly doubt that jesus came to tap on your window.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, but their understanding, as well as perceptions are clouded.

No it isn't.

They are not capable of applying advanced thought to common problems.

I brought it up precisely because I applied advanced thought to the problem. Nothing could have been there according to the laws of the skeptic but something was.

Chances are, a bird or something was on your window.

It wasn't a window, it was a glass panel on a door in the middle of the house. The fact that a bird could not have immitated the motion twice aside, a bird had no possibility to get in as mosquido nets and bars are set on all the windows.

I highly doubt that jesus came to tap on your window.

Not tap, scratch. And I doubt it too. I never said it was Jesus. In fact, I don't know or claim to know what it was.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I dissagree with your example, for the reason that none of these atrocities were rooted in logical thought. The jews did not pose a threat to germany as hitler stated, nor did blacks as we did in the 50's.

Actually if you look at the claims of Hitler, white supremisits, and other similar groups, the problem usually isnt with their logic(which is actually internaly consistant) but with their basic assumptions. They assumed beforehand that these people were inferior, and their actions followed that assumption.

I'v found the same problem when dealing with more intelligent skeptics(such as you Goth_S), their internal logic is consistant enough, but they assume beforehand that God doesn't exist and/or miriacles dont happen.

When dealing with people like this you have to attack their basic assumptions, thats how segragation was ended, that how segragation ended, because people begain to realize that blacks were not inferior.

[Goth_S]

No it isn't.

Oh? I take it as a child you were never scared of the boogy man, or convinced that Santa Clause was real?

I brought it up precisely because I applied advanced thought to the problem. Nothing could have been there according to the laws of the skeptic but something was.

Nothing? It couldn't have been the house settling, or a bird, or something falling on it? It's not possible a trick of acoustics didn't make you *percieve* the sound was there, when it originated from somewhere else?

It wasn't a window, it was a glass panel on a door in the middle of the house. The fact that a bird could not have immitated the motion twice aside, a bird had no possibility to get in as mosquido nets and bars are set on all the windows.

And we can assume that absolutely nothing natural caused it?
I've got ghost stories of my own, but I'm still convinced that there is a logical reason for such things, even if it doesn't appear as such myself.

Many poltergeist phenominon have been attributed to underground water movements after all....

Not tap, scratch. And I doubt it too. I never said it was Jesus. In fact, I don't know or claim to know what it was.

Then I dare say that positing it as anything supernatural is a far cry from logical.

Actually if you look at the claims of Hitler, white supremisits, and other similar groups, the problem usually isnt with their logic(which is actually internaly consistant) but with their basic assumptions. They assumed beforehand that these people were inferior, and their actions followed that assumption.

I'v found the same problem when dealing with more intelligent skeptics(such as you Goth_S), their internal logic is consistant enough, but they assume beforehand that God doesn't exist and/or miriacles dont happen.

When dealing with people like this you have to attack their basic assumptions, thats how segragation was ended, that how segragation ended, because people begain to realize that blacks were not inferior.

The problem is their logic is not logical. The philos of racism is entirely based upon assumptions that are NOT supported by any logic, and therefore, by it's very definition the conclusions reached are not logical by any means.


It's illogical to start with a god by default, simply because we do not have the answers to some of life's bigger questions. Especially when nothing in this world provides solid evidence for such assertions.

[Darth Executor]

Oh? I take it as a child you were never scared of the boogy man, or convinced that Santa Clause was real?

The former never and I no longer believed in Santa Clause by that time. Even if both conditions were met I fail to see what this has to do with my experience. Being scared of the boogy man and seeing and hearing him are two different things.

Nothing? It couldn't have been the house settling,

Not unless a piece of the ceiling fell down, scratched the window, flied back up, fell down to scratch it again and teleported through the floor so that I wouldn't find it.

or a bird, or something falling on it?

You said bird before. I told you why it was impossible. If a mosquito couldn't get in, I don't see how a bird could. As for something falling, see above.

It's not possible a trick of acoustics didn't make you *percieve* the sound was there, when it originated from somewhere else?

What trick ouf acoustics could do that? I had confirmation from my sight AND hearing.

And we can assume that absolutely nothing natural caused it?

I certainly can't think of anything, and I've been racking my brain several times every year since it happened.

I've got ghost stories of my own, but I'm still convinced that there is a logical reason for such things, even if it doesn't appear as such myself.

Why does a ghost have to be illogical? I think you're purposefully erecting a mental barrier against things you perceive as "supernatural" that prevents you from believing it regardless of the evidence.

Many poltergeist phenominon have been attributed to underground water movements after all....

I'd love to see the water phenomenon that can scratch my door twice and leave no trace.

Then I dare say that positing it as anything supernatural is a far cry from logical.

Why? Whatever it was, it had one of the following abilities:

Turn invisible at will
Teleport
Walk through walls
Shapeshifting (not any kind, the kind that allows something to become small enough to get in through small cracks like a key hole)

I'm sure I can think of more possibilities but you'll find all of them "supernatural". I'm not gullible and I'm not stupid. I've thought of any possibility you'll come up with in five minutes and dozens of others you haven't.

[Darth Executor]

Well, it's time I left. Next time Faramir gets on I'm gonna be banned and I have some stuff to do. See you guys in about a week.

[Goth_S]

The former never and I no longer believed in Santa Clause by that time. Even if both conditions were met I fail to see what this has to do with my experience. Being scared of the boogy man and seeing and hearing him are two different things.

How do you think the stories originated?

Not unless a piece of the ceiling fell down, scratched the window, flied back up, fell down to scratch it again and teleported through the floor so that I wouldn't find it.

Aye, I responded before I read your statement that it was indoors.

You said bird before. I told you why it was impossible. If a mosquito couldn't get in, I don't see how a bird could. As for something falling, see above.

Same as above.

What trick ouf acoustics could do that? I had confirmation from my sight AND hearing.

A shadow. Do you deal with sound? I love music. I spend a considerable amount of my time constructing it, and studying sound and it's use.
You'd be amazed at what you can do. Ventrilloquism (throwing your voice) happens alot in nature, due to how sound bounces around, and how the ears perceive it.

I certainly can't think of anything, and I've been racking my brain several times every year since it happened.

I'm sure you have, but I dare say that it's more logical to presume natural occurances, than supernatural ones.

Why does a ghost have to be illogical? I think you're purposefully erecting a mental barrier against things you perceive as "supernatural" that prevents you from believing it regardless of the evidence.

Because the evidence is circumstantial. And no ghost story ever told, has ever been substantiated.

I'd love to see the water phenomenon that can scratch my door twice and leave no trace.

Perhaps nothing scratched your window, you merely perceived it as such.

Why? Whatever it was, it had one of the following abilities:

Turn invisible at will
Teleport
Walk through walls
Shapeshifting (not any kind, the kind that allows something to become small enough to get in through small cracks like a key hole)

How many things in factual existance, posses these properties?

I'm sure I can think of more possibilities but you'll find all of them "supernatural". I'm not gullible and I'm not stupid. I've thought of any possibility you'll come up with in five minutes and dozens of others you haven't.

I've never stated you were gullible, nor stupid. If your interested, I'd be happy to tell you some of my ghost stories. I'm sure they'll knock yer socks off. And though I cannot explain them, I'm positive they have a rational explanation, free of supernatural causes.

[jpholding]

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that it's in error so much as that it is unsupported.

I have the data a) in my background b) in public knowledge as support. If you want it, go out and spend some time doing what I do. I'm not writing it all out multiple times for people who pretend the problem doesn't exist or have been so sheltered that they do not know it exists.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; I was assuming this article was supposed to be something of a stand-alone piece

Nothing on my site is a stand-alone piece. As for not scouring my site, one should certainly do that for full advantage of the resources, and scour scholarship as a whole so that they can live in an informed way, if they wish to go as far as they can. Jesus didn't bless the couch potatoes.

I just love it when I get emails from angry atheists who read my piece on the secular references to Jesus and then complain that I didn't touch the comparisons to Mithra.

Arguing by condescension is beneath you and wastes both of our time.

It's hardly condescending to point out a lack of hard experience.

I'm not sure we agree on what a pastor's job is supposed to entail, then.

A pastor is a shepherd. A shepherd drives off wolves, among other things.

Today's pastors as a whole are so busy counseling neurotic sheep that they don't even know there are wolves, and would be eaten by wolves themselves. Many of the angry apostates I oppose are former pastors. Hmmm? How'd that happen, I wonder, if there isn't a problem? I guess that new gym didn't help any after all.

First, I was under the impression that you were actually interested to hear comments on your article

Not from people who don't think there is a problem.

My "so what" was specifically talking to someone who goes through their whole life without hearing about Mithra, either from believers OR skeptics.

Blimey good for them. What happens when Junior goes to college and hears about it? What happens when he logs on the Net and finds this intellectual porn all over the place? I guess they're too busy reading their Bible (which they can't even interpret properly) to be concerned about anyone but themselves and their own "spiritual growth".

Would such a person's life be less fully lived for the lack of awareness that some skeptics think Christianity is really borrowed from Mithraism?

By a minute degree, certainly. Awareness is always a plus, never a disability. But of course, we have people who don't even grasp the doctrine of the atonement, or the Trinity, etc. We have people who think God really has a human body, based on Gen, 1:26, and they're Baptists, not Mormons. We have people who think the four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luther and John, and that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered on horseback. We have tens of thousands of gifted women being denied the ability to teach because of a walleyed, "it was written yesterday" reading of passages like 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We have pastors preaching sermons that assume that figures like Samuel thought and acted like modern Americans, and creating nonsense like Purpose Driven Life from the ashes, thereby dishonoring God by forcing His Word to say what it doesn't and turning it into an Rx for our own unique psychological disorders. "So what" that for me, eh?

No one should fall away from the faith because of challenges from skeptics, and I've said this repeatedly and emphatically.

Then you'd best stand behind proactivity as opposed to reactivity.

Wow, and I thought the atheists I debate with hit below the belt! Is this how you welcome all new posters in this group?

Only those who deny the problem. Because they eventually become part of it.

No, doing things like praying, worshipping, serving, volunteering, reading the Bible, etc.

It would take a great deal of searching to find people doing this alone to the exclusion of trivia. Of course, "reading the Bible" for example doesn't do a lot of good if you have no idea what it means. "Worshipping" is useless if you worship an Arian Jesus (or maybe we should apologize to Arius, eh?). By the way, the Mormons do all the things you list above, as do the JWs, and so did the Jim Jonesies and the Branch Davidians. So which one do you want to sign up for?

Then why not say that in your piece, instead of simply indicting churches that build gyms as if this were bad-in-itself?

Anyone who reads that out of what I said is looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm going to make this simple.

I challenge you to a formal debate here on TWeb in which I will play the role of an atheist.

I will attack your faith, and you will not be permitted to use any apologetics resources to defend yourself. After all, there's no need to be prepared for that until you've already been shot down. You can only do the following in reply:

* pray
* read your Bible
* volunteer
* worship

How's that?

[Goth_S]

Nothing on my site is a stand-alone piece. As for not scouring my site, one should certainly do that for full advantage of the resources, and scour scholarship as a whole so that they can live in an informed way, if they wish to go as far as they can. Jesus didn't bless the couch potatoes.

I just love it when I get emails from angry atheists who read my piece on the secular references to Jesus and then complain that I didn't touch the comparisons to Mithra.

Yes, yes YES!!!

If your going to attack something, it's got to be taken into context with everything else that is connected to it.
One cannot make the assumptions based on a singular statement if one does not know the context.

The basic tennants of exegesis.

All too often, things are attacked, with little understanding of their foundation. This is a common problem amongst athiests, as well as the average christian, and is probably responsible for a number of the abuses of the bible.

A pastor is a shepherd. A shepherd drives off wolves, among other things.

Today's pastors as a whole are so busy counseling neurotic sheep that they don't even know there are wolves, and would be eaten by wolves themselves. Many of the angry apostates I oppose are former pastors. Hmmm? How'd that happen, I wonder, if there isn't a problem? I guess that new gym didn't help any after all.

*applause*

[jwarrend]

I have the data a) in my background b) in public knowledge as support. If you want it, go out and spend some time doing what I do. I'm not writing it all out multiple times for people who pretend the problem doesn't exist or have been so sheltered that they do not know it exists.

I didn't say the problem doesn't exist, I said that your piece has as its motivation an unsubstantiated assertion. It doesn't matter that you in your mind believe it to be true, or that you have access to materials that support it. All I'm asking is that you provide some support for the basis of your assertion IN THE PIECE ITSELF.

Blimey good for them. What happens when Junior goes to college and hears about it? What happens when he logs on the Net and finds this intellectual porn all over the place? I guess they're too busy reading their Bible (which they can't even interpret properly) to be concerned about anyone but themselves and their own "spiritual growth".

You are not at all understanding what I am saying, and I don't think it's for lack of adequate communication on my part. Yes, apologetics is important. Yes, there should be more intellectual content from the pulpit. No, you cannot use the pulpit to innoculate people against every single possible challenge to their faith that they might encounter. Yes, if someone hears about Mithra that person's church should have a mechanism in place for them to get the answer. Don't you agree that there's a difference between "more intellectual rigor would be a good thing" and "we should have full-on apologetics eminating from the pulpit"? Are you advocating the latter? No. But in the spectrum between "no intellectual substance from the pulpit" and "full-on apologetics from the pulpit", I think we both are closer to the latter but your are further towards that end then I am. Is there something wrong with not agreeing with you about the degree to which apologetics should be the subject of preaching from the pulpit?

By a minute degree, certainly. Awareness is always a plus, never a disability.

I agree with that to a certain extent, BUT it's impractical to investigate every single possible challenge to the faith that has ever been raised and still have time in the day to do the other things we need to do. That's why I'd favor an approach whereby the principles of exegesis and apologetics are established, and where there is a mechanism by which other challenges can be addressed.

But of course, we have people who don't even grasp the doctrine of the atonement, or the Trinity, etc. We have people who think God really has a human body, based on Gen, 1:26, and they're Baptists, not Mormons. We have people who think the four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luther and John, and that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered on horseback.

That's a very good point. I agree that there's no excuse for a mature Christian not to be conversant with these and many other basics.

"So what" that for me, eh?

Again, you're welcome to disagree with my remarks, but I'd ask that you keep them in their context. I've already explained what I meant when I said "so what", so your throwing it out as a barb is intellectually dishonest.

Then you'd best stand behind proactivity as opposed to reactivity.

I doubt you can find an in-context quote where I say otherwise. I certainly do agree that proactivity is the right approach, and that's why I agree with your site and agree with the thrust of your message. I am quibbling over the presentation of your piece. I am suggesting that it would be more effective if stated as an exhortation or encouragement to your fellow believers, rather than as a chastisement to people who don't happen to have the same love of apologetics that we have. I guess it's ultimately a "more flies with honey than with vinegar" complaint. And I don't think the piece establishes (or even attempts to establish) the basis for the vinegar in the first place.

I suppose I've made my point and should just drop it.

Only those who deny the problem. Because they eventually become part of it.

I suppose an apology (or at least, a reduction in further snarkiness) was too much to hope for. Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"? Why is "I agree with the aim of your piece but not the degree" the same as "I don't care about this problem and am likely to, directly or indirectly, exacerbate it"?

It would take a great deal of searching to find people doing this alone to the exclusion of trivia. Of course, "reading the Bible" for example doesn't do a lot of good if you have no idea what it means. "Worshipping" is useless if you worship an Arian Jesus (or maybe we should apologize to Arius, eh?). By the way, the Mormons do all the things you list above, as do the JWs, and so did the Jim Jonesies and the Branch Davidians. So which one do you want to sign up for?

Why do you feel it is acceptable to argue in this way? And do NOT say "it's ok for me to be rude, on the grounds that Jesus was rude to the Pharisees". There is a big difference in context. The Pharisees were not interested in a legitimate intellectual discussion with Jesus; they were just trying to make him look bad by asking loaded questions. Which of us is relying on that technique more in this conversation? (In fairness, yes, that is a loaded question!)

I challenge you to a formal debate here on TWeb in which I will play the role of an atheist.

I will attack your faith, and you will not be permitted to use any apologetics resources to defend yourself. After all, there's no need to be prepared for that until you've already been shot down. You can only do the following in reply:

* pray
* read your Bible
* volunteer
* worship

Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse"). He argued in favor of the Earl Doherty formulation of the Christ myth, which I hadn't at that time been exposed to. I suggested we debate with no outside help, but he didn't agree to that (I think in part because he was too familiar with Doherty to really be able to separate his arguments from Doherty's). But I debated my side with pretty much an RSV and a Strong's concordance (I'm not even sure I used BlueLetterBible.org), and I did ok (at least to demonstrate to my own satisfation that his position was untenable, which is I suppose the most that can have been hoped for). As I've read more on the subject, I've certainly learned more.

But that's neither here nor there, because you're erecting a straw man. I never said that those activities (prayer, worship, etc) should be engaged in and apologetics should be avoided. (As an aside, you do agree that they are an important part of the Christian experience, yes?) I said merely that systematic inocculation of all possible challenges *from the pulpit* was not a productive strategy.

Could you please (if you have time) find a couple of quotes by me, taken in context, where I've advanced the position that you're representing me to be favoring?

-Jeff