Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #6

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:


6.   If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn't our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?


Just because we don't see life we recognize in every nook and cranny of the observable universe, doesn't mean that life isn't fine-tuned. Why hasn't it occurred to those who ask questions like this that God's purpose is for life to be exactly and only where it is now found? Also how do we know that if we can exist if all the uninhabitable locations in the universe are not necessary for our own survival on earth? That itself could be an example of fine-tuning and we just don't know enough to be able to tell it yet.

This is definitely how Paul looked at it.


24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. - Acts 17:24-28

If God would determine the places and times for everyone and everything on earth, how much for the rest of the universe? Of course He's free to make the universe anyway He sees fit  and we don't know all about the design criteria God aimed for. 


The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

56 comments:

  1. Of course He's free to make the universe anyway He sees fit...

    So he (again, why the male pronoun?) creates it in a way that makes it appear as if he had nothing to do with it's creation. OK...

    ReplyDelete
  2. We've been over the "he" point. We don't have a better pronoun. English sucks. God has no Gender. Keep up. And just because you can't see God's fingerprints all over his creation, is not God's fault. Stop actively suppressing the obvious. You'll be better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We don't have a better pronoun.

    I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...

    And just because you can't see God's fingerprints all over his creation...

    Its not that I can't see them, anyone can if they desire to do so. Now before you go "ah ha!!!", a persons desire has nothing to do with reality. Why is god not required for any scientific model?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...

    God is neither male nor female. The reason why "Father" is used is because the role of "Father" closely illustrates the role God has in our lives - like the role a father should have in a human family. IT's not about maleness or femaleness. You're really out of your depth on this one.

    Its not that I can't see them, anyone can if they desire to do so. Now before you go "ah ha!!!", a persons desire has nothing to do with reality. Why is god not required for any scientific model?

    Yes, a person's desire has nothing to do with reality. Your desire is to not see it. God is required for every scientific model because a scientific model assumes that a phenomena that the model is modeling is intelligible and can be explained. In other words, we assume what a mind created can be understood by other minds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. IT's not about maleness or femaleness. You're really out of your depth on this one.

    But why no "God the Mother"? I think you know, it's all politics...

    God is required...

    Tautology...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yup, there are lot of politics in the church, but that does not explain what really is in the Bible. The problems you are referring to have everything with some people in the church not living up to what is in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problems you are referring to have everything with some people in the church not living up to what is in the Bible.

    Please explain what the above would have to do with your god not being described with feminine traits in your bible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Male and female are equal but not equivalent nor interchangeable. There are places in the Bible where God is described using feminine terms. Your silly charge of "politics" being involved in God only being described in masculine terms is not just ignorant but false. The charge is true of the Church after the 4th century but it doesn't fly in the Bible itself.

    To show you wrong, all I have to do is to point out one metaphor of a female metaphor being used for God in the Bible. Jesus is God so this one works, but there are others.

    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)

    ReplyDelete
  10. You realize a metaphore doesn't count. I'm looking for something pre-Hellenic that actively describes god as female.


    Weak, but nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not try. Success. You even more fail. Metaphor does count. Because "He" or "Father" are just terms that we use but don't speak to God's gender. Nothing in the Bible does. But here are two more examples.

    Isaiah 49:15 and Numbers 11:11-14 Oh and look, they are even from the Old Testament! Stop embarrassing yourself. It is sad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Um, Numbers is Moses is talking about himself, in a way demonstrating my point about metaphor (being he's male and all).

    I think you know what I'm actually asking for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are right about Moses. It was not a good example. But Isaiah 49:15 is a much better one. No metaphor is enough to really show all there is. And there are other examples of God being describe using feminine imagery. The Bible does not tell us that God is male or female. That is the bottom line. You objection makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The bottom line is that god is descibe numerous time as Male, not described with "male imagery", but actually as male. God is never described as female.

    ReplyDelete
  15. God is never described as female.

    Deuteronomy 32:18:

    “You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
    you forgot the God who gave you birth.”

    Swing...and a miss.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, NIV really misses on that translation. Birth, in any sort of feminine sense, chuwl is not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sure would like you to explain how giving "Birth" can be masculine. Good luck with that. Again no where does the Bible claim God is male or female but use both kinds of terms to help us understand who God is.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Because it doesn't mean "birth", it means "to dance", "to writhe", "to bring forth" or "to form".

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've witnessed two live births (not remembering my own) and what I saw was a lot of "writhing" and "a bringing forth" and "a forming". Should we listen to the "layman" or go with professional Hebrew translators? Given the context of the verse, the NIV is not wrong and agrees with other English translations.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:18&version=NIV;KJV;NASB;GNT

    Strike two

    The Bible does not try to give God any gender but instead help us understand who God is.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've witnessed two live births (not remembering my own) and what I saw was a lot of "writhing" and "a bringing forth" and "a forming".

    Great, everyone should. Of course that has nothing to do with Ancient Hebrew...

    Look up other times the word is used in the OT. "stayed", "anguished", "formed", "tarried", "danced", "wounded", "feared", "grieved", "made", "travailth", "look", "trust", "calve" (close!!!), "greivous", "shaketh", "waited patiently", "shapen", "pained", "was afraid", "trembled", "brought forth", "drive away", "be in pain", "sorrow"...

    You get the idea.

    The ancient hebrew word for "to give birth" is yalad.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not that it matters because you are not an expert, scholar, or even remotely qualified to translate Biblical Hebrew into English, but how would you have translated Deuteronomy 32:18? (This will be funny)

    The Septuagint renders the same word as "feeds thee".

    Can you find a single English translation that agrees with you? I linked to three that agree with the NIV rendering. C'mon prove the NIV wrong if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I've read the much of the Tanakh in Hebrew, but that's neither here nor there I suppose. I will admit I have not kept my Hebrew current in the least in the last twenty years and cannot operate without a concordance and lexicon at this point. Not that I have much occasion or desire to anyway.

    Can you find a single English translation that agrees with you?

    Sure. KJV. But also the CEV, Darby, Douay-Rheims, GNT, New International Readers Version, NKJV, Wycliffe and Young's literal.

    Now, in the NIV, and most of the others, the translation is "Gave you birth". It's interesting that it's not "Gave birth to you". I think you'd agree the former wouldn't necessarily be limited to the female, biological birthing process, and the later would.

    I'd want to look into what's behind the NIV translation before commenting further, but honestly I don't care enough and you are simply flat out wrong, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You have a strange definition of what it means to agree with you? In what way do they agree with you? In your "humble" opinion how woulx you translate the verse. Notice what you are asserting: a layman novice like you is claimng the NIV is incorrectly translated. You have yet ro prove that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In what way do they agree with you?

    In that they do not use phrasing that in any way indicates biological, mammalian birth, or more simply, femininity.

    They do not describe god as female, and neither does the NIV really.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So you have no idea what the verse is saying but you think you can correct the NIV? Do you know what "hubris" is? You are illustrating it well. Giving birth is giving life and the conatruction of the verse is using masculine and feminine imagery to show us something about God and you missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Giving birth is giving life and the conatruction of the verse is using masculine and feminine imagery to show us something about God and you missed it.

    The construction of the verse in the NIV in English is using masculine and feminine imagery. This is not the case in the Hebrew.

    Got any others?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not too fast. I don't think your Hebrew is correct and I think you are making assertions you have no hope in substantiating. You know so much? How should Deuteronomy 32:18 be translated into English?

    ReplyDelete
  28. You know so much? How should Deuteronomy 32:18 be translated into English?

    "Formed" or "made" is good. Now your turn, substantiate your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, it isn't good enough. The whole verse. In its original context. If you can.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No. Now your turn, substantiate your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not until you translate the entire verse.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Weak... See my comment from 6/30/12 @ 6:19pm, what's your excuse? Bok bok bok!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I saw it. That's not what I asked for. You either give the translation for the whole verse, give an English translation that fits what you think it says, or shut up. Take your pick.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Chicken. It's like you are twelve years old...

    ReplyDelete
  35. You're the one claiming to know Hebrew better than the translators of the NIV, and can't back it up contextually. So I guess you are choosing to shut up?

    ReplyDelete
  36. You're the one claiming to know Hebrew better than the translators of the NIV

    No, I'm simply pointing you to the information in the concordance and lexicon, and towards the myrid of translations that do not use "birth".

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cut the crap and the dishonesty. Be real.
    1 There are many English Translations that use "birth" in Deuteronomy 32:18 - not just the NIV
    2. The translation depends on the context and grammar of the word - your lexicons should tell you if "to dance" would really be viable in the text.
    3. Either you are saying you think the NIV is correctly expressing your thoughts being conveyed in the verse or not. Which is it?
    4. If you are saying that the NIV is wrong - you have provided zilch evidence for why it is wrong.
    5. You have provided nothing as to how the other translations contradict the NIV rendering at all as to the meaning of the verse or how they exclude female imagery.
    6. You are wrong when you wrote that God is never referred to using female imagery in the Bible.
    7. You ought to repent and beg God for forgiveness.
    8. If you are truly not rejecting the NIV and doubting the translation of the experts who worked on the NIV then you have explain why you disagree - offer a better translation - or just admit that you have no idea what you are saying and just wasting time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Marcus; it’s not about the NIV being “wrong”, it’s about YOU being wrong.  The NIV is not wrong because the English word “birth” has feminine imagery associated with it and the Hebrew word doesn’t.  The NIV is a translation, and translation is more art than science, something is almost always lost and gained in any translation.   Using the word “birth” instead of “formed” or “made” doesn’t make it wrong, it makes it a translation, but any feminine imagery that’s there belongs to the translation and not to the original.
     
    But this is all moot since we’re talking about imagery.  I’d asked for examples of god being described as a female entity, in the same way it’s explicitly described as a male entity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You are wrong. The context of the verse use male and female imagery for God and the Bible does not tell us that God is male or female. You are simply too dishonest and wasting time. So the NIV is not wrong but not using female imagery as if males give birth or writhe when life if being given. Right. Anyone discuss the birds and the bees with you? A translation is more that just translating a word, but also trying to put the thoughts being expressed from one language to another. The female imagery is in some of the translations because it is in the Hebrew and you are simply so bent on being right when you are truly wrong. Your issue is that if you can keep thinking that the Bible is a complete product of sexist imagination then you feel justified in rejecting it. You are truly sad and I hope God saves you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. So the NIV is not wrong but not using female imagery as if males give birth or writhe when life if being given. Right. Anyone discuss the birds and the bees with you?

    Slow down Sparky and reread my comment. The NIV is not "wrong" and does use feminine imagery.

    But one could make a case that all translation is "wrong" using the strict end of your incredibly inconsistent standard.

    Interestingly, just consulted my version of the Tanakh, and the translate it as "delivered"

    Like I said, the feminine imagery is not originally in the Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Actually, the imagery is still related to birth, but its animal husbandry and not your contention that god is the one giving birth (Rashi).

    With that said, I think the NIV is "correct", but you are reading "birth" incorrectly. Imagine Hattie McDaniel from Gone with the Wind... "I don't know nothing about birthin' no babies!"

    This seems to bear out my comment from 6/30 at 6:19pm.

    ReplyDelete
  42. No it doesn't. So now we have the NIV and various English translations and the Tanakh are using feminine imagery which you miss because you can't understand the whole verse. It's not talking about animals. God is fathering (begetting) and giving birth to Israel. You are refuted and rebutted and too blind to see it. God could fix you. You need it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Again, the TNK does contain "birth" imagery but not feminine imagery, look it up. The feminine imagery and the contrast between male/female appears to be a poetic addition to some of the English translations. The original is just saying "I fathered you, and I pulled you from the womb (like a father would do, you know!)".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Like fun. That makes absolutely no sense. I can't find a single rendering that says what you say it says. What orifice did you pull that out of? You keep contradicting yourself. First you say that the NIV does a poor job translating Deut 32:18. Then you say that it is not wrong and that it does have female imagery. And then you say "the contrast between male/female appears to be a poetic addition to some of the English translations. "
    Waffle waffle. Where did that rendering even come from? It would explain why I can't find anyone who agrees with you if you had caved and given your own rendering. Stick to what you know.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You keep contradicting yourself.

    Good point, in retrospect, the contrast between male/female doesn't appear to be a poetic addition to some of the English translations, because it's not those translations, the English seem to follow the Hebrew, but more ambiguous, leading to your confusion. I was stuck on your misinterpretation of the NIV.

    Where did that rendering even come from?

    I told you above. It's consistent with Strong's. Your obstinate is simply amazing. No more examples?

    ReplyDelete
  46. LOL...you are the stubborn one. "Womb" is not in the Strong's concordance for that word. Birth involves a womb, but you need to do better than that. Give the bibliography for concordance you are butchering.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Give the bibliography for concordance you are butchering.

    Strongs is Strongs, I told you above which version of the TNK I was using.

    Birth involves a womb...

    You're really not following....

    ReplyDelete
  48. Strongs is Strongs, I told you above which version of the TNK I was using.

    I can't find a single version of Strongs that uses "womb" for that word you seem too stubborn to just admit that there is a contrast between male and female imagery. I don't see at all how you could get such a translation. "Womb" doesn't appear in anything you said you got from your TNK. Any you admitted that the female imagery was in your copy of the TNK. Is inconsistency your middle name?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sigh... find a TNK with commentary. I told you above which one I used.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm looking for consistency and find you wanting. You said you got that translation of Deut 32:18 from a Strongs Concordance and then when pressed as to how you got that from Strongs, you now claim that I should look at the TNK your earlier referenced. Very shady.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You completely misunderstood me then.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If I have misunderstood you it's because you have been unclear and inconsistent. Clean it up if you can.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The comment from July 2nd @ 3:58pm, read in isolation is pretty clear. In short, a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 32:18 would be "You forget the one who fathered you and the one who delivered you from the womb." not "You forget the one who fathered you and the one whose womb you were delivered out of".

    Strongs and Jewish commentary seem to confirm this.

    Birth imagery, but god is not portrayed in the feminine.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I don't see how Strongs confirm anything of the kind. and in the context of the verse, it is not talking about who was birthed but who brought about the birth and father and mother imagery is being used.

    ReplyDelete
  55. it is not talking about who was birthed but who brought about the birth and father and mother imagery is being used.

    I think you can read the verse two ways...

    First is the KJV which is fairly literal, "Of the Rock that begat you you are unmindful, and have forgotten God that formed you."

    Second, paraphrased (for your benefit), is how I feel it's best translated based on Strongs and Jewish commentaries, "You forgot the [Mighty] Rock Who bore you; you forgot the God Who delivered you (or brought you out of the womb)"

    You've got a long row to hoe if you want to substantiate that the second part of the verse is describing god as a mother giving birth.

    ReplyDelete
  56. it is not talking about who was birthed

    No duh, it's talking about the OB/GYN.

    ReplyDelete