October 29, 2008

Radical Skepticism


A good article I just read was from a magazine I received called Christian Research Journal. The article was called "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism" by Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD.

Breggen gave, quite convincingly, counters for many of the different type of skepticisms. I was hoping it was online, but it isn't, so here is the Reader's Digest version.

Funky/Pop skepticism, a good example is the Matrix movies that claims nothing we see, hear, taste, or touch is real.

The Doctor's five counters included imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting. To think otherwise is to conflate two distinct cognitive categories. Another is mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

Sensory skepticism, our scenes deceive us, thus we cannot know the external world. When strolling on along railroad tracts, I see that the metal rails look straight and parallel, but on the horizon they appear to meet or a mirage in the desert of water.

A rational reply would be first always does not follow logically from sometimes. Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, as long as we are careful.

Immanuel Kantian skepticism, the external world in rose colored, subjective glasses.

A rational reply would be if Kantian skepticism is true then science's search for causal connections/laws ultimately is a search for connections/laws that are not really in the world but in our heads. Second, as Jim Leffel astutely observes, "The success of scientific technology is a strong argument that our perceptions of the world are relatively accurate. Countless achievements attest to the reliability of human knowledge [including our knowledge of the causal principle]. We can engineer enormously sophisticated rockets to propel men to the moon, and provide health care that has more than doubled human life expectancy. We couldn't do these things without an essentially reliable correspondence between our ideas of reality and reality itself."

Linguistic skepticism Kind of a postmodern philosophizing, we cannot know truth about the world in an objective way because of the distorting effect of language.

There is no objective truth; each community has it's own mere 'story' or 'narrative'
There is no objective rationality; we reason in language, which is culture-dependent.
There are no objective ethics; values are relative to culture, too.
Therefore power rules; the dominating culture group ultimately controls the language (wittingly or unwittingly), so it determines "truth," rationality, and ethics.

A rational reply would be it is simply not the case that language is completely defined by other language. There is such a thing as ostensive definition. Objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply. Moral relativism can be seriously challenged. Poking pins into baby's eyes for fun surely is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and always. (hey, that sounds familiar) The fact that language and power are often intertwined is ground for caution not radical skepticism. Language is not wholly a power play; we are capable of communicating knowledge.

The article concluded with this brilliant nugget:

It turns out that because we can know at least some of the external world (in a limited way), we can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God. Scientifically based evidence and good reasoning lead us to believe that the universe had a beginning; that it was caused; that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time; that the arrangement of the universe was fine-tuned for life; and that life itself-the cell's molecular machines and DNA's code/language- is exquisitely fine tuned. All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause. Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview, the gospel, and a reasonable faith in Jesus Christ.

I found Hendrik van der Breggen's blog and will be checking in often.

70 comments:

  1. Dan,
    I cannot quit laughing.

    You paraphrase:

    "The Doctor's five counters included imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting. To think otherwise is to conflate two distinct cognitive categories. Another is mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions."

    Tell me, in your own words, what this means to you.

    This is the biggest bunch of phoney I have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,\You are a Phonie to, because you tried to pass that off as your words but they are not. Nothing in all you have ever written come close to that type of rhetoric or prose.

    BUSTED

    I consider you dishonest beyond description.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,
    I know that you believe in demons.
    You believe in posession by demons.

    Do you believe in mental illness?

    You are the mentaly ill demon that you fear.

    Please seek help. From the bottom of my heart, I implore you to seek rational help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. -The article concluded with this brilliant nugget: hardly brilliant

    -We can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God?
    we can also find reasonable evidence for the non-existence of god.
    -Scientifically based evidence and good reasoning lead us to believe that the universe had a beginning;
    Scientifically based evidence tells us that more than ten billion years passed from the Big Bang to the origin of sentient organic systems on the planet earth. (Doesn't that silly OT say otherwise? But yet here it's okay to have science and reasoning?) Why did your designer allow the process to take so long? As an omnipotent and omniscient being, why didn't he simply create the sort of systems in which he had an interest right from the start?
    -that it was caused; that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time;
    Yes it was caused, but how do you leap from a cause to some divine designer?
    that the arrangement of the universe was fine-tuned for life;
    and that life itself-the cell's molecular machines and DNA's code/language- is exquisitely fine tuned. All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause:
    What? exquisitely fine tuned? Why, then, wasn't it set up in a way which would cause less suffering to the organisms involved in it? why wasn't it arranged so that the initial conditions on earth were more stable and more conducive to the well-being of the sentient organic systems. In fact if the universe was so damned fine tuned for life, why is there no other known life in the universe?

    Historical investigation of the external world gives us further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
    What historical investigation of the external world? He must also mean the new testament's witness of a witness of a supposed witness. Practically all the events of Jesus’ supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all having been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man walked around.
    -In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview, the gospel, and a reasonable faith in Jesus Christ.
    Actually the external world points us to reality, while religion points us to lies and deceit. You would do well to break away from the grip of this horrible cult Dan. Life is a wonderful adventure all by itself, without the need for fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Froggie, Froggie, Froggie,

    "imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting." or "logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x)"

    You want that in my own words?

    Mwhahaahaha

    These are all his words, his theory, his reasoning, and I said so in the post. Never once did I pass it off as my own. You owe and apology. (if your man enough)

    "because you tried to pass that off as your words but they are not."

    Please show proof for this statement. You did read it right? "A good article I just read was from a magazine..."

    I consider you lost that is easily described.

    nomdeplume,

    Welcome, you are asking good questions, keep seeking!

    "we can also find reasonable evidence for the non-existence of god."

    Please share, I would love to see some.

    Silly OT? Careful your presuppositions are showing. You might want to cover that up, there might be woman present.

    "Why did your designer allow the process to take so long?" An assumption that it did?

    "As an omnipotent and omniscient being, why didn't he simply create the sort of systems in which he had an interest right from the start?"

    Excellent question, if you go to the beginning of the Bible (Genesis), I believe you will read that He, in fact, did. Or am I missing your point? Elaborate, please.

    "Yes it was caused" I appreciate your honesty. Now for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up?

    So, what happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. You have to discount science and the entire laws of physics to believe in no God.

    "but how do you leap from a cause to some divine designer?" What else? I would love to hear your logic behind it.

    " Why, then, wasn't it set up in a way which would cause less suffering to the organisms involved in it? why wasn't it arranged so that the initial conditions on earth were more stable and more conducive to the well-being of the sentient organic systems."

    I answered that: Why Disease and Suffering?

    "In fact if the universe was so damned fine tuned for life, why is there no other known life in the universe?"

    Exactly! I posed that in another post. No News is Horrible News!

    "What historical investigation of the external world? He must also mean the new testament's witness of a witness of a supposed witness."

    The Bible is historical evidence The Bible is supernatural. Basic logic tells us the Bible is reliable.

    "Practically all the events of Jesus' supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all having been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man walked around."

    Let me take a guess, you are a Zeitgeist fan? Refuted many times HERE or go to youtube Zeitgeist: Refuted

    "Actually the external world points us to reality" Like Romans 1:20?

    "while religion points us to lies and deceit. "

    Well I agree with you there religions have tainted God's Word of Salvation. Christianity is a discipline not so much a religion. I had a hang up about the word "religion", how we were linked with all the false religions out there. Someone wrote to me once:

    "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

    A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    Don't let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)

    "You would do well to break away from the grip of this horrible cult Dan." You must be mistaken I am not part of Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or any other man made cult. I am a Christian. Or are you claiming Christianity itself is a cult?

    "Life is a wonderful adventure all by itself, without the need for fantasy." I couldn't agree more. Evolution is a fairytale (Poof* frog turns into the prince) and other man made post modern pseudo "realities" are just fantasies. We are here to find out the reality of evil and sin and we are to form an opinion and place ourselves on either side of the fence. We are either for evil and sin and follow Satan being against God or we follow righteousness, justice and follow Christ. You do believe in objective/absolute truths right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Correction to Froggie

    You owe an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. froggie - I don't want to derail the thread, but on the subject of demons, are you following Dani'El's blog at http://judgmentofsanfrancisco.blogspot.com/

    That boy is bat shit crazy.

    And it's getting worse

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         You appear to go with the dogma of "anyone who leaves was never really a christian.) That is definitely a cult.
         The universe (as we see it) appears to have had a beginning. The rest of that chain of thought was a complete non sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pvblivs,

    You appear to go with the dogma of "anyone who leaves was never really a christian.


    Christianity is a cult? A false religion? Unorthodox?

    Please share with us what you believe the true religion is for salvation of mankind. This should be interesting.

    Oh wait, let me guess first, is it the cult of science?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stew,

    "are you following Dani'El's blog"

    Cool, a new friend in Christ. Can't wait to say Hi to him.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan:

         I think all religions are false. But cults are coercive. I consider the "salvation of mankind" to be false as I consider the "danger" false. Now, everyone dies physically and no religion changes that. There may indeed be a spiritual realm. But the biblical god seems more like someone trying to ensnare spirits. He insists that you commit yourself to him before you can know the truth. It reminds me of high-pressure sales tactics in which the offer won't last if you wait until you can actually inspect it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pvblivs,

    OK fine, then why is it so very easy to be 'sold' by literally billions of people? (if not trillions over 2000 years)

    Is it logical to you to say that we area all duped into the spiel of a good salesman? Really?

    Do you actually believe that your intellect is so superior then trillions of people of this earth?

    Or I might add that maybe, just maybe, these people had a predestination path to follow. The infralapsarian destiny is to be fulfilled and you may, just may, be just one of the one's that wasn't chosen for Heaven. Did God see how you would act here on earth and rejected you? I pray for that not to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was going to enjoy this one from the sidelines, but I can't resist chiming in on this one:

    OK fine, then why is it so very easy to be 'sold' by literally billions of people? (if not trillions over 2000 years)

    First, your math is terrible. If there are ~6 billion people on the planet today, and the world's population has markedly increased over time. The only way "trillions" of people could have existed is if you deny your 6000-year-old universe hypothesis and accept evolutionary timescales.

    Second, your math is terrible. Even if a large number of people have accepted Christianity over the years, an even larger number -- like 9:1 -- have denied it.

    If you were appealing to popularity, you failed because you chose the least populous outcome.

    As to your question (which was appealing to popularity):

    Do you actually believe that your intellect is so superior then trillions of people of this earth?

    Well, let's see...

    1: You
    2 through 2 billion: All of the Chinese
    2 billion-and-one through 10 billion: Everyone who lived prior to 1500 CE whose name doesn't appear in any surviving document of any kind.

    How am I doing so far?

    If a trillion people jumped off a bridge, would you join them?

    In addition to your silly appeal to popularity, even though you inadvertently appealed to the minority opinion, you also falsely suggested that one person's opinion is what is at stake here (versus the "trillions"). It is not one opinion.

    There are billions of atheists (using your math... sorry, couldn't resist) -- sorry, millions of atheists -- and our numbers are growing. The vast majority of atheists are in the upper echelon with respect to educational background, and while this may appear to be an appeal to authority, it is merely a recognition that the more educated a person becomes, the less likely they are to hold religious views.

    Stop looking up scientists who claim they are Christians -- most of them support Evolution.

    What am I getting at? Just the fact that your attempted appeal to popularity is preposterous, for the fact that the vast majority of historical Christians thought one or more of the following were true:

    1. Geocentricism
    2. The earth was a flat disk
    3. The moon was made of cheese
    4. Little green men live on Mars
    5. The heart was the source of human thought
    6. Lightning was magic
    7. Earthquakes were the result of wickedness and/or curses
    8. Slavery is cool
    9. Smoking is good for you
    10. Dinosaurs hung out with humans
    11. The sun burned through combustion
    12. Digging a tunnel to China was possible
    13. A Coke bottle was a gift from the gods

    I could continue, and I'd like to, because it's fun, but I think my point has been made...

    Whatever reasons we may have for being theists and/or atheists, they have little, if anything, to do with the viewpoints of ancient primitive peoples. Some would even say that because the ancients were so stupid about natural phenomena, we should be all the more skeptical regarding their positions on supernatural phenomena. I'd say this approach is useful in forming an initial hypothesis, but it is just as irresponsible to categorically dismiss ancient beliefs because they are ancient as it is to dismiss scientific findings because they disagree with ancient beliefs.

    Trillions of people? Sorry, no. But it doesn't matter. We all know that appealing to authority and appealing to popularity are bullshit propositions.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  14. [Y]ou may, just may, be just one of the one's [sic] that wasn't chosen for Heaven.

    Since when were you a Calvinist? If you believe in limited predestination, then I don't know what we have to discuss -- any god who predestines souls to eternal torment based on a quota is unworthy of any worship whatsoever.

    Is that your position now? I surely hope not.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stan,

    "The only way "trillions" of people could have existed is if you deny your 6000-year-old universe hypothesis and accept evolutionary timescales."

    Fair enough, my math was off. Guilty for being overzealous.

    It was not a fallacy "appeal to popularity" was it? Pvblivs said "It reminds me of high-pressure sales tactics in which the offer won't last if you wait until you can actually inspect it." He is saying everyone purchased snake oil as a "appeal to populace delusion" so billions of people were duped? Really?

    "an even larger number -- like 9:1 -- have denied it...millions of atheists -- and our numbers are growing."

    You do make a good point because narrow is the path to salvation. OK my head is clear.

    "Since when were you a Calvinist?" I'm not, I am a Christian. I am reading some of Calvin's work today and some of it spilled over. Nice of you to notice it wasn't me, you seem to know me better then my wife. I think I'm ready to pick those drapes out with you.

    Predestination is very much in the Bible Acts 4:27-28, Rom. 8:29-30, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:5, Eph. 1:11. So I am studying it, contemplating it.

    "Is that your position now?" Only if it's the Bible's position.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A couple things...

    1. Regarding your zeal in asserting trillions: forgiven. I must admit I was guessing (I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation in my head) when I suggested evolutionary timescales, so I checked.

    If we assume one trillion humans have lived forty year lifespans throughout history, that none of these lives overlapped, and that the population on the earth at all times was 6 billion (current), we find that just under 7000 years are required.

    If we add elements of realism to this calculation -- primarily that the current population is the highest it has ever been, and that any realistic additions must reduce the population -- then the years pile on exponentially.

    No point here, really, I just like playing with the numbers.

    2. Regarding your appeal to popularity, that it was. It is a fallacy, and the reasons for this should be self-evident. Yes, billions of people have been duped throughout the course of human history, by any number of silly beliefs. Ever hear of astrology?

    3. If you're prepared to accept predestination, then why bother with any of this? If your fate, my fate, the fate of our kids, etc., is already written, then who cares about any of this?

    It's funny, really, that among the few philosophical points on which many atheists and theists can agree is the notion of predestination.

    You have argued -- and if not you personally, then your proxies -- that Atheism implies moral freedom for all: no consequences, no values --> moral depravity.

    Whether or not that charge is true, predestination is analogous to Atheism where this argument is concerned.

    Let me know where you get with predestination...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stan,

    "No point here, really, I just like playing with the numbers."

    OK choke on these numbers:

    Let's just say the population doubled ever 150 years. And we start at Adam and Eve and after 32 doublings at 4800 years we get around 8.6 billion people but if we take the "Flood" in account at 4500 years ago we get a number around 6.5 billion people. Assuming the conservative growth rate the current population can be reached well within a 6000 year period.

    Now evolutionists say mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Let's take that same equation and use just 50,000 years. So we extrapolate that out 50,000 doublings every 150 years (332 doublings) and we get one followed by 100 zero's. That figure is unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater then the number of atoms that are in the entire universe!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stan- loathe as I am to point out mistakes, you have made a big one. You make fun of Christians for supposedly holding silly beliefs, and on your list is this:

    12. Digging a tunnel to China was possible

    You obviously didn't think this through very carefully. If you are in the middle of China, and you dig a tunnel through a mountain, then you have dug a tunnel to China, have you not? Those Christians weren't born yesterday.

    All the other items were okay.

    Dan: pulleeeze don't pull that "Creationist Population Doubling, Plus Flood Damage, Yields Exact Current Population, Proving The Bible Is Right Again" math on us. Why not? Because it's silly. Why is it silly?

    One: no scientist maintains that the Earth's population has been doubling every 150 years since people have evolved. The evidence, and common sense, tell us that the rate of doubling was initially very slow, because life was very hard. In fact, there's genetic evidence for a bottleneck in human population roughly 100,000 years ago, where the population was reduced to a few thousand, which then recovered only very slowly at first. And no, there's no evidence it was caused by a flood. The development of agriculture around ten thousand years ago boosted the speed of population growth, and it has increased since then with the Industrial Revolution. So your figures are bogus.

    Two- suppose that your figures are correct, and that the Earth's population has doubled every 150 years since the beginning six thousand years ago. We start with a population of two six thousand years ago- fair enough. But what about five thousand years ago, around when the first pyramids were built? The entire population of the Earth, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and from Siberia to Spain to South Africa, and Australia and all the Pacific islands, and everywhere else I haven't mentioned that was demonstrably settled by then: by your calculation, this entire population would have been around three hundred. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?

    This is a good example of a phenomenon that is unfortunately widespread: a story which is refuted over and over, but refuses to die. As with the alligators that supposedly live in the sewers of New York City, mere facts and reasoning are not sufficient to kill these subterranean monsters. I've seen this creationist math, and the story that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution, and the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion to Christianity, and similar canards, repeated countless times. They are refuted, but they keep coming back.

    I beg of you, Dan- do your part to rid the world of these blatant falsehoods. Don't just uncritically believe anything that seems to support your position. Check out if it makes sense and is documented before repeating it. The world, and our opinion of Christians, will be the better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stew,
    I have been following that Dani'EL site.
    I hope he is not in danger.
    Actaually, I'm hoping it will turn out to be some kind of a cruel joke.

    Dan,
    I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about dani'EL after reading his blog.

    Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan,
    I apologize for attributing that passage to you, but the passage remains absurd.

    Much of this type of rhetoric is sophism, designed to obfuscate and create doubt.

    Fear, doubt, and demonizing others bring a lot of people to religion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan- P.S: for every species, there's an upper limit on population, based on resources available, natural enemies, and room to live. The normal population of any given species is at that upper limit: that is, a species which is successful reproduces until it runs into that limit, and then, barring natural disasters or plagues or whatnot, stays there. Human beings have continually pushed that upper limit higher, by developing culture, a means of passing on what has been learned both in time and in space. Culture gave us division of labor, weapons against our natural enemies (have you ever wondered why children are more afraid of lions, tigers, and bears than of cars? It's probably genetic), medicine, and efficient means of production of food.

    These have enabled us to push the upper limit continually higher, so that even we 6.5 billion large hungry mammals have not yet reached it. But reach it we will, and soon, unless cooler heads prevail and do something about it: the Earth is large, and human resourcefulness is powerful, but there's only so much we can squeeze out of it. Oil is already running low, and we are destroying the biosphere at an alarming rate. We need to conserve and implement birth control now, if we are to pass on a planet worth living on to our grandchildren.

    One reason I continue to argue with fundamentalists is that they often admit the problems, but instead of actually doing something about them, they just say that Jesus (or Allah) will come and fix things up, and they continue polluting and overpopulating the world as if there were no tomorrow. I actually read a woman at RaptureReady who said that she cheerfully poured weedkiller down the drain, rather than dispose of it properly (or not use it in the first place), because Jesus was coming soon anyway. This is what frightens me about fundamentalism: it is a convenient way for people to ignore urgent problems, and it has a great deal of influence in American politics. I couldn't care less, really, what people think about God or no God: what matters to me is how they behave.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It turns out that because we can know at least some of the external world (in a limited way), we can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God.

    And be reasonably sure that it is, in part, faulty.

    ---

    I don't really understand the point you're trying to make with this entry. Does it all boil down to "Be skeptical of skepticism?"

    If so, it's redundant. Good skepticism should skeptical of itself, AND accompany some effort to actually test the claim being made.

    Anyone can be skeptical, but if all you do is throw doubt and criticism without at least trying to justify such things, then it's intellectual laziness.

    I don't think you understand the nature of what you're implying. At a minimum, it means you should be skeptical of yourself - something which you've demonstrated some unwillingness to address.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nomdeplume wrote "we can also find reasonable evidence for the non-existence of god."

    Dan wrote Please share, I would love to see some

    The apparent physical non-existence of said deity. The contradictory claims about his nature amongst people who profess belief.

    There's your evidence

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have to finish with this:

    All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause.

    False. It simply points to a cause.

    If you define "supernatural" to simply mean "outside of the laws/boundaries of known science", then this is a safe assumption. If you take it to mean "ghosts, demons, gods, vampires, etc" then the assumption is faulty.



    Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Historical investigation also provides evidence that the book contains parable and content from fallible human sources. It additionally discredits great swatths of contemporary Biblical interpretation.



    In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview

    Nope. It does, however, point to an As Yet Unknown cause for existence of the universe.

    If you want to argue that cause must have been divine, you might gain some ground amongst people who are unsure about the existence of God. Logic dictates, however, that assuming this deity to be one and the same with the Biblical deity is specious; this actually has the effect of driving people away from the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zilch,

    Shh, it was for Stan's entertainment. I am fully aware of the counters and the problems for the position. It was an old article from AIG but I didn't want to say that at first because of everyone's bias. I talked at great length in the past about it when it first came out.

    So thanks a lot big mouth, with love.

    Wait, Jokes on me! I just saw that I posed it to Stan before so I agree it's time to retire that article.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Whateverman,

    "False. It simply points to a cause.

    If you define "supernatural" to simply mean "outside of the laws/boundaries of known science", then this is a safe assumption."


    Fair enough so we all agree that the effect of the universe was caused by an outside force.

    Now for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up.

    Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia. Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

    So do we all agree the universe was caused by an outside force?

    "Anyone can be skeptical, but if all you do is throw doubt and criticism without at least trying to justify such things, then it's intellectual laziness."

    True. So, if atheists just claims that God doesn't exist with extreme philosophical gymnastics and skepticism and doubt then it's just intellectual laziness. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stan,

    "Let me know where you get with predestination..."

    This is it so far:

    A group of theologians who were discussing predestination and free will. The argument grew so heated that sides were drawn, and the group broke up into two fiercely-prejudiced factions.

    But one theologian, not knowing to which camp he belonged, stood for a moment trying to decide. At last, he made up his mind to join in with the predestination crowd. When he tried to push his way in, they asked, “Who sent you here?”

    “Nobody sent me,” he replied, “I came of my own free will.”
    “Free will!” they fairly shouted at him. “You can’t come in here of your own free will. You belong with the other group.”

    So he turned, and went toward the free will group. When he tried to join them, someone asked, “When did you decide to join us?”
    “I didn’t decide, I was sent here,” he answered.
    “Sent here!” they were horrified. “You can’t join us unless you choose to by your own free will.”

    And so he was excluded from both companies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan:

         Many people have fallen for such high-pressure sales tactics. It must be remembered that snake-oil salesmen have been remarkably successful. In this case, the "pitch" looks remarkably similar. (I note that, instead of addressing that point, you came up with "do you think you're smarter?") Actually, I just think I am prepared for that kind of trap. I examined the tactic and realized that it looked suspicious. If you would like to explain why you think it doesn't look suspicious, be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan, I see that you have decided to ignore my challenge to you. Do not worry, Dan, that is the way of many of your type. I know that you are worried and confused about the truth of the world.
    I will tell you what, Dan, here is my e-mail addy: jimnsofia@bex.com If you are worried about life you can talk to me here.
    Dan, please open up with an open mind, not the mind you know, but just an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  30. nomdeplume,

    "I see that you have decided to ignore my challenge to you."

    Last I remember you claimed:

    "we can also find reasonable evidence for the non-existence of god."

    I responded with "Please share, I would love to see some."

    I thought it ended there.

    I also remember answering everything you posed HERE

    Thanks for your email though, I guess. Please feel free to stop by here anytime to discuss things if you feel like you are losing the grip on reality. Also, the reality of God does exist but don't take my word for it, ask Him.

    P.S. BEX huh, does your company make a industrial strength spray nozzles that can eradicate severe debris from the eyes of a nonbeliever? The cloud that they look through can be quite distorting and we need a viable solution to help the lost see clearly.

    You can't be all that bad, I must admit, being home based in Michigan. I grew up in Schaumburg, IL myself. Get that snow blower started and make sure it's ready for the winter. Ah, those good ol days. Now, if I want to see snow, I drive to Yosemite or the local mountains. No more shoveling, wahoo! Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan wrote I responded with "Please share, I would love to see some." {EDIT: reasonable evidence for the nonexistence of God}

    It's monday and I'm playing Blog catch-up right now. I provided said evidence, and I don't think you ever responded to it. I might have missed it, tho...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stan, Zilch, and Whateverman,



    Speaking of mathematics as evidence, choke on these numbers:

    In a book called “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, by Josh McDowell, he lists sixty-one major prophesies from the Bible that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. He quotes a scientific study by a man named Peter Stoner that shows the probability of one person actually fulfilling only eight of the major prophesies. I want to quote the book verbatim so that I don’t misrepresent what was written.

    We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophesies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (17 zeros after the 1). In order to comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that we take 100,000,000,000,000,000 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now, mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophesies and having them all come true in one man…

    Now, this accounts for one man fulfilling only eight of the prophesies. He illustrates his point even farther by stating the probability of one man fulfilling forty-eight of the prophesies. For that many, the figure dramatically jumps to 1 in ten to the 157th power!

    If this isn’t enough proof that Jesus was the one prophesied about in the Bible, then I don’t know what kind of proof people want.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I guess I should of ended that with:

    John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Daniel:

         I agree that it is incredible unlikely that anyone would fulfill all those prophecies. However, I do not consider it at all unlikely that people would create a legend and say someone fulfilled those prophecies. Essentially you calling to assume the bible is accurate so that you can use that to demonstrate its accuracy. I'm afraid that I consider the account to be fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Pvblivs,

    So you are claiming The Hebrew Tanakh was created after Jesus did those things?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pvblivs wrote I do not consider it at all unlikely that people would create a legend and say someone fulfilled those prophecies. Essentially you calling to assume the bible is accurate so that you can use that to demonstrate its accuracy.

    Quoted for emphasis.

    Sorry Dan - your astounding statistics presume the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    If I believed as you do, I would find this numbers amazing. As I lack that belief, however, I have a hard time getting excited about them.

    Why exactly do believers do this? They repeatedly bring up Biblical quotes as proof that the Bible is valid - and seem to not understand why the audience remains bemused...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Whateverman,

    So you are claiming that doubt itself is a valid form of truth? If I doubt that you exist then, in fact, you do not?

    The Bible has proven to be valid on many occasions but you refuse to accept it. Does that, in fact, render it false?

    The John 3:36 quote was icing or a little nugget. It wasn't there to validate the Bible, or at least I didn't claim it to be. The validation was made when Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies. Unless you are also claiming that the Tanakh was produced after Jesus. IS that your claim?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dan wrote Whateverman,

    So you are claiming that doubt itself is a valid form of truth


    Dan: show me the spot where I claimed this. Or implied it. Or even hinted at it.

    Please, show me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan also wrote The Bible has proven to be valid on many occasions but you refuse to accept it. Does that, in fact, render it false?

    The vast majority of these occasions, similarly, presume the validity of the Bible as well.

    Are there real-world geographical locations listed? Yup. Are there real-world people referenced? Almost assuredly. Is the Bible the literal word of God?

    The jury's still out on that one...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Whateverman,

    "Is the Bible the literal word of God?

    The jury's still out on that one..."


    Let me ask this way then, are you claiming that doubt itself is a valid form of truth?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nope.

    Doubt can be valid or self-defeating, just like logic; of itself, it should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

    To wit, the validity of doubt can only be assessed by considering the specific situation and its application

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan- what pvblivs and whateverman said. In the absence of confirmation that Jesus actually fulfilled the OT prophecies, I could just as plausibly claim that Dumbledore is a prophet of God, because many of his prophecies also came true. Do you suppose that the people who wrote the New Testament did not have access to the Old, and did not have a vested interest in seeing prophecy fulfilled?

    Unless you can come up with some independent evidence that the Bible is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help me Darwin), then your big numbers are just spinning their wheels in limbo. Math is fun, but the classical computation maxim must be heeded: garbage in, garbage out.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Zilch,

    In a court of law the Bible would be admissible.

    If you could in fact prove Dumbledore is God, as the Bible has, then more power to you.

    "Do you suppose that the people who wrote the New Testament did not have access to the Old, and did not have a vested interest in seeing prophecy fulfilled?"

    Is that using common sense or logic? It was a mass delusional hoax? Is the possibility that it could be faked the same as adequate justification for it? You do understand some 1000 people had to be in on it. Most of the people died in those beliefs you do understand. So they risked life, limb, and even their heads for some joke or hoax? Is that logical or like I said adequate justification for it?

    ReplyDelete
  44. You'll have to forgive me, I didn't read through all the comments here, But wanted to jump in myself.

    So let me start here: (it was stated)

    "…that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time...."
    "All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause."

    There is an issue of language and meaning here that perhaps you can clarify. The statement was made that "the cause was transcendent". If this is so, how can you then turn around and apply the attribute of intelligence and power to it? Such an event would have had to transcend both ideas. Yes/no?

    But then you add the caveat "supernatural", which is really just a refusal to speak rationally in an instance when you’re trying to say there is rational proof. By saying that the event was supernatural (or by subscribing to the belief that it was so) you're forfeiting logical explanation and therefore a logical conclusion that such was the case. In other words, the best you can logically conclude is that you don’t know (as supernatural essentially says that something is not subject to explanation and therefore not subject to reason). Otherwise, relative to logical discourse, you’re simply playing the game of “God of the gaps”. Where-ever there is an opening where an explanation is not revealing itself, you insert God as the cause. This, and I think we can both agree, is not a “logical” proof at all.

    It would go something like this:
    1.) We don’t know [rationally] how the universe was created.
    2.) The beginning “seems” to transcend time and matter.
    3.) Therefore God created the universe; therefore the bible is sound evidence.

    Does that sound “rational” to you? That sounds like it begs the question to me; that’s not reason at all, it’s fallacy. Am I wrong Dan?

    Finally it was stated”
    “Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.”

    I’m a bit confused over this one, Dan, perhaps you could help me out a bit. Where is the external evidence that validates the existence, life, death and resurrection of Christ? If the bible is your only evidence, could not every world religion site they’re great works of dogma as a valid rational authority of the world, life and creation?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan- if I'm not mistaken, we've had this argument before. You say:

    In a court of law the Bible would be admissible.

    In what court? Any court that would affirm that insects have four legs, and that it's good to kill children if they're Amalekites, is a kangaroo court.

    If you could in fact prove Dumbledore is God, as the Bible has, then more power to you.

    The Bible has proven that Dumbledore is God? That's a new one.

    Okay, sorry, I know what you mean. But what does the Bible prove? It claims stuff, but claims do not constitute proof. If I say "I am God" or even "I am Dumbledore", does that prove that I am?

    You do understand some 1000 people had to be in on it. Most of the people died in those beliefs you do understand. So they risked life, limb, and even their heads for some joke or hoax? Is that logical or like I said adequate justification for it?

    Yes, lots of people had to be in on it, and many people have died for believing in the Bible. But that's what religion is and does. What about all the Muslims and Hindus who have also "been in on it" and have died for their beliefs? All that shows is the power of a belief in God: it does not show that the belief is true.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan wrote "In a court of law the Bible would be admissible."

    Zilch asked In what court?

    It's not the court that matters, but the physical legal case, and the purpose from bringing the Bible into it.

    Would the Bible be allowed in if a defendant was trying to explain why he fire-bombed a family planning clinic? Yes. Understanding a defendant's state of mind is very much mart of the legal process.

    Would the Bible be allowed as proof that a global flood took place 6000 years ago? Definitely not.

    ---

    It's obvious that the book might possibly be found as part of the legal process - but only in terms of explaining a defendant's (or plaintiff's) state of mind. It certainly wouldn't be viable in terms of morality or historical accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's not the court that matters, but the physical legal case, and the purpose from bringing the Bible into it.

    ˙˙˙uɐɯɹǝʌǝʇɐɥʍ 'ʎʞɔıd 'ʎʞɔıd

    Hey, Obama won! Maybe I'll move back to the States!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Zilch,

    "If I say "I am God" or even "I am Dumbledore", does that prove that I am?"

    If that is all it said then know but we both know it goes further then that.

    Whateverman,

    "Would the Bible be allowed as proof that a global flood took place 6000 years ago? Definitely not."

    Of course it would. If science found indications that the earth was much younger and had geological evidence to back up the Bible's claim then sure it would be admissible.

    Archeology backed up the biblical accounts many times over. Just Google it. Although the Bible could stand alone for "proof", it is noteworthy to point out that most of what was found was found by non-Christians. As we know proof of anything will not save you in His court though.

    The Bible is the only ancient, well-organized and authentic framework in which to fit all the facts of history. Let's keep in mind though, the great men of the Bible prophesied accurately that highly educated men and women who scoff at God and His revealed Word would dominate our world. So both your viewpoints are perfectly understandable and bears no surprise to anyone here. At this point I am begging you to keep thinking about it, in your conscience. If true, you both are in for some big trouble and I just don't want that to happen. It's frustrating to see people you care about, defy and ignore God. It doesn't have to be like this.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry: If that is all it said then NO

    ReplyDelete
  50. Andrew Louis,

    "If this is so, how can you then turn around and apply the attribute of intelligence and power to it? Such an event would have had to transcend both ideas. Yes/no?"

    No because it follows the Laws of physics. Like I pointed out in Big Bang Busted

    "Now for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up?

    So, what happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. You have to discount science and the entire laws of physics to believe in no God."

    "But then you add the caveat "supernatural", which is really just a refusal to speak rationally in an instance when you’re trying to say there is rational proof."

    Wouldn't it be more rational to believe a Creator created the complexity of life instead of the intellectual gymnastics that you must go through to believe otherwise? In fact it is you who logically concludes that you don’t know. I do know. This isn't God of the gaps, in fact it is you who is claiming "evolution of the gaps."

    It would go something like this:

    1.) We don’t know [rationally] how the universe was created.
    2.) The beginning “seems” to transcend time and matter.
    3.) Therefore Darwinian evolution created the universe; therefore the bible is refuted.

    Please give us all a break on the double standard. Does that sound “rational” to you?

    "Am I wrong Dan?" Yes, you are.

    "could not every world religion site they’re great works of dogma as a valid rational authority of the world, life and creation?"

    It's possible. Please show me some examples so we can examine the claims.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan,
    lets me be clear on something else, I'm not an atheist (although I'm not a Christian either, simply look at my blog), I'm simply challanging your thinking; I'm interested in your responses. (I do however, have great regard and respect for Christianity, but perhpas this doesn't mean much to you, I dno't know)

    Anyway, lets look at this:
    "If this is so, how can you then turn around and apply the attribute of intelligence and power to it? Such an event would have had to transcend both ideas. Yes/no?"

    No because it follows the Laws of physics. Like I pointed out in..

    There is a problem here in that, the original statement said:
    "…that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time...."

    So you're contradicting yourself a bit here, Dan, by answering no. So, was the cause transcendent or not?

    I don't believe that creation was rational, and further more do not believe rationality has the power of revealing the nature of God or the truth of his existence. So rationally, yes, I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Andrew Louis,

    "I'm not an atheist (although I'm not a Christian either)"

    So how do you describe your worldview? Is there a term or a philosophy? Are you an existentialist?

    I may have treated you as an atheist, and if I have I apologize. I assume a great deal when I get countered so forgive me.

    "So you're contradicting yourself a bit here, Dan, by answering no."

    Well I may have but at this point I am confused. Why can't this cause not be supernatural, wouldn't that be more logical if the cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time?

    You can dumb it down for me if you feel I am not "getting it." I am perfectly comfortable with that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. “So how do you describe your worldview? Is there a term or a philosophy? Are you an existentialist?”

    I typically describe my worldview relative to Buddhist thought and language. Although at the core, Christianity is not all that different.


    ”Well I may have but at this point I am confused. Why can't this cause not be supernatural, wouldn't that be more logical if the cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time?

    You can dumb it down for me if you feel I am not "getting it." I am perfectly comfortable with that.”

    Again Dan, all you’re saying when you state that the cause was supernatural is that it defies explanation; or more technically that it defies scientific rational discourse. Again, that’s fine, however you cannot turn around and say that that is a rational response to creation because you’re contradicting yourself by saying so. You’re in affect saying that it’s rational that it isn’t rational.

    Then you turn around and apply terms to the cause as in “Powerfull” and “Intelligent”. However, if the cause defied reason, then those terms cannot apply; no terms can apply. So again, relative to a rational discourse, all you can honestly say is that you don’t know.

    The best we can say is that these words are metaphorical. For example in Hindu religion you find a whole array of God’s and Goddesses, however it’s understood in Hindu that these do not represent individual God’s, but simply represent different aspects of the same thing (they are metaphors. The Hindu’s are vary creative artistic people). Much like you see in the Bible the use of many different names for God, Ell., Yah., Elo. so on; these names represent different aspects of God’s character relative to our experience of it. However, what that character ultimately is cannot be revealed in any rational sense. So once again to say that the cause was “powerful”, is simply a metaphor and doesn’t make rational sense.

    There is a wide gap between the use of religious language and scientific language that needs to be distinguished. The real question for me is, is it valid to speak in such ways; is religious language valid? When we talk of Christianity for example, we’re agreeing to speak and understand in a certain language. For example:

    Tell a man who’s never herd of Christianity that, “The Devil has control of my life” and he won’t know what the heck you’re talking about. On the other hand say that to a fellow Christian and they will understand you quite clearly. They will take it that you don’t have control of your biological impulses (lets say) as they relate to sin. What the devil is, who knows, what’s important is that we understand each other. To me then, religions validity does not lie in rational proof (that’s impossible) it lies in it’s validity as a way of communicating and understanding each other relative to our spiritual sentiments and meaning (Christianity then, is a path, not a Dogmatic authority or ultimate truth. To see it as an authority is to mistake the finger for the moon. Him with ears to here, right?). In this way, most religions are the same; where they differ objectively and rationally are simply cultural differences.

    Trying to put God in a box, to define him, to attribute things to his nature, to rationalize, is idolatry. Words stand every bit as a false idol as a golden calf.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Andrew,

    Thanks for sharing what you believe it makes a big difference as to what I should say to you. I would say different things, for example, to an Atheist verses a Catholic.

    "Although at the core, Christianity is not all that different (then Buddhism)."

    Buddhism compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life. This means that all other systems are wrong! It means that Buddhism is not true. It means that Hinduism is not true. It means that Islam is not true. It means that only Christianity is true. There is no fellowship with darkness.

    Someone wrote to me: "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

    A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)

    Psst Andrew, Buddhism is a false religion.

    "You’re in affect saying that it’s rational that it isn’t rational." So what I am to understand is that you believe that supernatural reasoning is irrational then, right? Your presupposition is that "scientific rational discourse" is the rational process. So because scientists, not science, rejects the supernatural then you are in belief that anything other then naturalism is the only "way" to explain things? Again your belief of "Naturalism of the gaps" is the only correct way to view things. Got it. There is no way you can be wrong? Got it. That your view is the only rational view? Got it. Not logical at all but I get it. You’re in affect saying that it’s rational to believe that nothing else is rational.

    No terms can apply? Why because you said so? An intelligence, outside our understanding, is a term that we cannot use in our language? I have a great question for you: Is there objective truth?

    "There is a wide gap between the use of religious language and scientific language that needs to be distinguished."

    Fine I perfectly understand your point but let me ask you then. What makes science the only language that can own the universe? What if the only rational way to talk about the understandings of said universe is by the Christian language in order to understand it properly. Science cannot even explain the universe within itself properly.

    Take the Big Bang for example. Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger's take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang. Understand? The scientific language used today is insufficient for the current paradigm of the universe.

    Psst God is in a box, of sorts, He Created His Word to define Him so we can get to know Him. He gave us the entire language and story to understand Him. The language of God is now universal across all fields and disciplines and can be applied to any of them. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Psst God is in a box, of sorts

    Dan, do you mean the Ark of the Covenant, like in The Raiders of the Lost Ark? God was really in a box back then. Boy howdy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You put of lot of words out here, so let me just pick out one thing where you stated:

    "Buddhism compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life."

    There is nothing being compromised when you understand what you just stated there, Dan.

    What is it, Dan, that makes up "He" from the statement above? Believing in Christ is not a matter of believing in objective dogma; once again you're making an idol of God. So again, when you say "He is the way", what does that mean?

    If I say, "The yellow brick road is the way to the wizard", I'm simply talking about an actual path existing in objective reality that leads to the wizards house. Of course there are many other ways I could take to the wizard, and perhaps many other roads; the yellow one is just one of them. To say that the yellow one is “THE ONLY” path, is to mistake the path for the destination. Which again, is idolatry.

    In another way if I say, "Jesus is the way to truth"; where is "the Jesus", and what "truth" does it lead to? Now you might want to say, "well, it's in the bible". Ok, fine, but all I see in the bible are words. So in effect what you're saying is that "words" lead to truth; but more importantly a certain set of words spoken in a certain way. But that's nonsense, Dan, words are meaningless. Words are merely a path to meaning; to say that Christianity has more validity then Buddhism or Islam is to miss the point of religious language all together and to take a dogmatic (idolatrous) stance towards God; then you've just committed a sin. As with the yellow brick road, you’re mistaking the path for the destination.

    And you stated:
    "What makes science the only language that can own the universe?"

    Dan, I don't think science is the only language to explain things. I thought I had stated that.

    Consider this
    And consider this

    ReplyDelete
  57. Andrew,

    "Of course there are many other ways I could take to the wizard, and perhaps many other roads; the yellow one is just one of them."

    Nope your wrong and you are sounding more like Oprah saying that.

    You sound very post modern with your "But that's nonsense, Dan, words are meaningless." talk. There is such a thing as ostensive definition. When you wanted to be pointed salvation we point to Jesus. Also, objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply.

    "but more importantly a certain set of words spoken in a certain way."

    Now you are showing that you do not understand the Bible's message at all. I would venture to bet that you have not even read the Bible cover to cover by that comment. Even atheists know this one.

    Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

    Works count after salvation to show gratefulness, but will not get you to heaven. Speaking words in a certain way will not help you. You are missing the point of salvation completely.

    What you claim is you can do something to earn salvation through your other path. God says there is zero paths for you to get to salvation. ZERO! There is nothing you can do. You have broken His Laws and are guilty and deserve punishment. You will spend eternity in hell forever.

    The only hope you have is that God came as a man to take your punishment for you. You have to admit to God that you have sinned against Him and turn away from sinning again and trust Jesus to run your entire life as you would trust a parachute jumping from a plane. Then and only then God will grant you everlasting life with Him. Otherwise God dying on the cross was for nothing and meaningless.

    Which brings us to you point about words are meaningless.

    "Ok, fine, but all I see in the bible are words. So in effect what you're saying is that "words" lead to truth;"

    It was said best in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    "words are meaningless." So you are saying God is meaningless but you found another path to God?

    Narrow is the path to salvation and wide is the path to destruction.

    "As with the yellow brick road, you’re mistaking the path for the destination."

    Oh what a cute analogy that fits real nice. Try this one: there is a fallen tree over a very deep lava pit the forest you are walking in is on fire you have to get out. The only path to safety (salvation) is on that tree. Do you try to find another path? No anyone would run on the path provided for you. God said that He is the light (John 8:12, John 9:5) He is the only way (John 14:6-7, Philippians 2:10-11,John 14:21)

    You can discount the Bible but then you are doing a very dangerous thing to your soul.

    Words are meaningless? So if someone says give me your wallet or I will blow your head off with this shot gun, you would say to him, "words are meaningless?" and then you have no more head. Words, in fact, have meaning in context. Look at these:

    The Bible describes hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24) Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

    You may consider this meaningless also, but it would be detrimental to your health and life. Are you willing to bet your life that there are other paths then the direct one that the Bible Describes, because you are?

    So why not follow the path the Bible offers instead of making up other paths to God. What is so wrong with that very nice yellow brick road instead of going through all those thorny rose bushes on the sides. (trying to get you to relate)

    Is the Bible's path unreliable or inadequate?

    The Bible speaks of faith and here are some passages about faith and Jesus being the only way.

    Consider this
    And consider this (Buddhism may improve your flight but it will not save you)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dan,
    you have a full cup: so, I wish you the best.

    I'll comment only on this:

    "You sound very post modern...."

    This thought goes back well before the bible. And you slander me by compairing me to Oprah. I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Dan, and you're trying to cut me down. You're either affraid of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people.

    I'll tell you this, I accept you as you are. Your thoughts are honest, but gaurded, and this leads you towards a feeling of malice towards others.

    Finally:
    All you are doing is quoting more words; but you are saying nothing of meaning. I don't mean this as a rebuke; I simply mean to say that you're not even making an attempt to consider what I've said. I think you'd find that after an unknown amount of time, our beliefs are not that much different. Yes, I've read the bible cover to cover; as a matter of fact I studied it intensively for 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I appologize if I've offended your beliefs, it was not my intent. It is/was my intent to find a connection.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Andrew,

    "I appologize if I've offended your beliefs, it was not my intent."

    You haven't and I am trying to shake you up even if I do offend you. I am not trying to make you feel good I am trying to save your life here. Please read the Parachute link I provided.

    Remember in Pulp Fiction when Vincent (John Travolta) said to Wolf "A please would be nice."

    Wolf said "Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better do it and do it quick! I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen."

    Vincent: "I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me."

    The Wolf: "If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the car!"

    and scene.

    So if I am curt with you Andrew it's because time really is the factor and you could die tomorrow.

    So pretty please with sugar on top, seek Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I believe I'm aware of the movie you're speaking of, however I'm not a big fan of vulgarity and violence.

    In your own words, Dan, tell me what it means to seek Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  62. That fact that you, a proclaimed Christian, would use such a film to make a point in the name of God is reprehensible.

    Perhpas I mistook your honesty and your heart.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Holier then thou judgmental Andrew,

    You obviously saw the movie to adamantly know so much about it, or am I mistaken? Besides I did not use profane or foul language so replace the names with whatever name you want. Instead of wolf use kitty cat and instead of Vincent use 'Jimmy crack corn'or whatever. It is a work of fiction and I was making a point about being curt. Besides I was not a Christian when that movie came out. So you offended me on so many levels.

    You claim to say to me: "I appologize if I've offended..." are you kidding me you are either a liar or a manipulator either way you are being a foul person.

    The scribes of the Pharisees also scoffed at Jesus for eating with a tax collector and those nasty sinners. (Mark 2:15-17) He even made a tax collector and sinners disciples, imagine that?

    Psst, Jesus has the harshest words for the Pharisees and their scribes. Be forewarned.

    "[Perhaps] I mistook your honesty and your heart."

    Yes, make no mistake about it, you are very wrong. You see, it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So yes you are very mistaken if you think I should just smooth things over or walk on egg shells around you and not tell you of your impending doom. You are mistaken if you don't think I will do everything I can to pull you from that burning building that you are in, no matter how many times you fight back or how much it offends you. I am here to help save you from your own thoughts and tell you truth.

    You student!

    Here I will use your lie:

    "I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Andrew, and you're trying to cut me down.

    You're either [afraid] of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people."

    Andrew you are false and fake, come back when you want to be a real person instead of some false manipulator. You are no different then GW Bush was or a pedophile to a child. You are trying to manipulate without substance of humanity. Enron CEO should be your life when you are reincarnated.

    Talk about karma, give us all a break! Your fake. I rebuke you, because you are evil.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Andrew,

    I forgot to add a verse after I referenced John 1:1 I should of added:

    John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

    Word is meaningless huh? Sad

    Let's be clear Jesus is God! (John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8)

    ReplyDelete
  65.      Well, I think the bible is false and that its path is false as well. You have not convinced me that a god has said there is only one path. Perhaps a being of dubious merit claiming to be a god has said there is only one path.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dan,
    you avoided answering the key question there:

    "In your own words, Dan, tell me what it means to seek Jesus."


    Also, (You quoted this)
    "I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Andrew, and you're trying to cut me down.

    You're either [afraid] of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people."

    I don't see the issue with these Dan? I was simply pointing out what seemed consistent with your responses. The right thing to do would ahve been to correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Andrew,

    "The right thing to do would [have] been to correct me."

    Or expose you for who you are, to you. Sure in your eyes and if you were in charge of your salvation you could instruct to me how to seek Jesus, but God is in charge and you are just not ready. (Matthew 7:6)

    Without an understanding of how wicked you truly are you cannot understand how to seek Jesus.

    You think I am doing something wrong and I am leading you to Jesus just as you requested. You are an evil manipulating liar and you have indeed broken God's commandments. Until you realize this and understand how much you actually need God you will not seek Him yourself. You don't show the signs of a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17)

    Have you kept the first Commandment? Is God's Word meaningless?

    Are you actually interested in seeking God?

    Until then you need milk like a baby and until you are ready for the meat of true salvation then there is no need to feed it to you. Have you ever fed meat to a baby? They just spit it out and reject it. You would do the same. You need milk for now.

    1 Corinthians 3:2 "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

    Hebrews 5:11-13 "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."

    A proud unrepentant man, like yourself, needs the milk of hell and damnation and lake of fire talk. We will work on that for now grasshopper. Show repentance to move on to the next pebble.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dan,
    I think perhpas you've missunderstood the question, which was:

    In your own words, what does it mean to seek Jesus?

    I'm simply asking you for your personal expeience of what it means to seek Jesus. Regardless of whether or not you think I'll understand, I'd nonetheless be interested if you'd share that with me.

    Also you stated:
    "Have you kept the first Commandment? Is God's Word meaningless?"

    I'm not sure I can answer this, Dan. What do you mean by "God's word"?

    ReplyDelete
  69. And by the way, wonderfull use of the Ad Hominem there. Attacking a persons character is not license to logically conclude that they're are wrong or do not understand.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>