After the debate a vote was taken about who better argued his case, and Craig was voted the winner.
Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio
After the debate a vote was taken about who better argued his case, and Craig was voted the winner.
Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: 5 Obviously False References in the Bible
As the ages march on, it is a delight to find fewer attending churches and more making time to sit around doing other, more enjoyable things come Sunday. But even while classes full of growing students are satiated in going to their professors for answers instead of their priests, the age-old debate on the existence of God / validity of [insert religion here] somehow still rages on. The question should by now be settled, but those states where the collective IQ hasn’t exceeded 57 still have people who are clinging tightly to mom and dad’s hard-shell faith to define us.
Get the feeling that Holman thinks that people who believe the Bible are stupid?
However, it is a breath of fresh air to know that the seeds of doubt are first planted, not by scholarship or by secular parenting, but by common sense questions and healthy brains at work. Below are 5 biblical mentions that are in that camp known as “It don’t take no gosh-darn edjamucations to see this ain’t right.” Some things in God’s holy book are wrong simply because they defy any real level of sense. We begin the countdown with...
I'd argue that rejecting the Bible is a failure of common sense. Let the fail begin.
#5) The Global Flood of Noah: Quite a number of kids in Sunday school ask their teachers how Mt. Everest was once covered by water according to Genesis. One of the first apostates from the Church of Christ I tried to rescue as a preaching student asked the same question. After never getting a good answer (and not settling for bad answers), this individual drifted away, but like me at the time, most students just accept that it’s true because of those rapid-fire biblical assurances that go: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4) See? It sounds so reassuring!
It's a shame when people who have questions about God and His word can't get good answers because they do exist. It seems stupid to think that it's only been now that some people have been asking and answering such questions recently.
As any geology student can tell you, we know how much water is in the earth, on the earth, and frozen on the earth. It is not enough to cover Everest. Atmospheric pressure would be 1,000 times higher if it was. But if you still believe in the global flood, I have a nice song for you to listen to and sing your kids to sleep with. It’s educational!
Today, there is no enough water on earth to cover Mount Everest. How do we know that this was true when Noah was around? With continental drift being a reality, how do we know all the continents were not significantly closer than when Noah was around? The Bible does not give us enough information to date the flood or Creation. We do not know. Therefore, Holman has failed to show that Noah's flood is obviously false.
And as with all absurd biblical notions, the ideas don’t drop their absurdity with themselves; they spill over into other things, like, well, perhaps atheist Charles Lee Smith put it best in his 1929 debate with CoC’er W.L. Oliphant…
“How many of you here believe that the Chinaman, the negro and white man are descended from two Jews of six thousand years ago? Such differences would require one hundred thousand years to develop.” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, p. 119)Not many of us today, Mr. Smith, because thanks in part to your efforts, we now have accepted that such a position would be as absurd as the flood itself.
Mr. Smith was incorrect. Adam and Eve were not Jewish and again we don't know if it was 6 thousand years or more according to the Bible. Yes, indeed much to be embarrased about.
#4) 22,000 Oxen and 120,000 Sheep are Sacrificed in One Week: One of the things that makes reading to understand the Bible such a challenging task is that it is a book of excesses and/or exaggerations that, frankly, defy rational thought. In 2 Chron. 7:1-10, we find one of many such passages that should induce a chuckle or two...
“4Then the king and all the people offered sacrifices before the LORD. 5And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep: so the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.” (vs 4-5)This was the celebratory feast following the completion of Solomon’s temple (5:1-2). The feast lasted one week. Doesn’t give a lot of time to carry out 142,000 stomach-turning animal sacrifices that would a) deplete their sacrifice stock for a long, long time to come, b) would be a shameful waste anyway, and c) would be impossible to carry out. This problem seems to almost have been recognized by the author...
“7Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD: for there he offered burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the brasen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offerings, and the meat offerings, and the fat.” (7:7)This has Solomon somehow making arrangements to keep up with the workload of 5 oxen and 24 sheep being sacrificed every minute around the clock for a week straight! Rather conservatively estimated, you’d need 4 feet high and over 22 acres to put the chopped up carcasses down on (which I’m sure would smell just delightful in noonday heat!)
Why would one needs to assume that they were just being laying down in an area. They were burnt offerings which means that they were never all laying in the same area at the same time. Fail number 3. Are we really to assume that Solomon was personally offering the sacrifices with his own two hands? The was a whole tribe of priest handling that. Many men. They would have been able to sacrifice 5 oxen and 24 sheep and more every minute.
But “answer men” blowhards like JP Holding come to the rescue and say that this didn’t happen in a day, but throughout the year, despite the fact that the last 2 chapters focus exclusively on events of the dedication, on Solomon’s prayers, songs, and sacrifices at the feast. He says: “Thus, if we object to the numbers, or even to the ‘economic impact’ this would have had on Israel, this matter is resolved: If they were not all killed at once, and kept reproducing, this amounts to an economic boon for the average Israeli as Solomon redistributes his own wealth.”
The problem is that it does seem that the sacrifices being discussed were during that week long feast. But there is nothing in the text to take issue with.
Ah, count on the theologians to keep the magic of theism happening even when the gods and their scriptures can’t do it anymore! It just doesn’t make much sense to say that the altar couldn’t handle all the sacrifices and offerings if this was a standard year-long event now, does it? Read chapters and 5 through 7 and THEN come and tell me you get the impression this was over the course of a year.
So what? Several hundred priests could sacrifice and offer that many offerings over the course of week. More failure.
And even if we stretch out prep time for sacrifices to, say, over a month earlier, it doesn’t really help too much. Any rational person reading these verses will conclude the same.
Rationality does not explain why Holman has come to his conclusions.
#3) Egypt Endured 40 Years as an Uninhabited Country: It is one of the less talked about passages for sure, and just as obviously untrue. But the Bible says it, and in so affirming, it even mentions animals not being there…
“8Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. 9And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. 10Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. 11No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. 12And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. 13Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered: 14And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom. 15It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. 16And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 29:8-16)Some believers have the nerve to say that the current events in Egypt are the beginning fulfillment of this prophecy since it certainly has never happened at any other time...but it’s a little late, I’d say. If there was ever a time to pull out the “that ship has sailed” line, it’s here. At no point did Egypt go uninhabited for 40 years.
My my. How novel. A book of prophecy that contains prophecies that has not occurred. Just because Egypt has not ever been uninhabited for 40 years does not mean that this won't ever happen. This is a really bad example. It means that Holman believes that this will never and could never happen.
#2) The Waters of Bethesda: An angel came down to stir the waters of a pool in Jerusalem to miraculously heal whoever got in first. It left an aged man helpless since he was never fast enough to get in due to his immobility...
“2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?” (John 5:2-6)One wonders how the administering angel justified such a tactic of handing out God’s blessings in such an unfair system, but why isn’t this pool still around today? At what point did the angel close up shop and cease from stirring the waters? Why can’t we examine it? Was it when the veil of the temple was rent in twain? We’ll never know, but what we do know is that it never happened.
Another Fail. The pool John discusses has been found. It existed. This means that you can't categorically discount the story. The pool itself is a ruin, but that does not mean the story did not happen.
#1) Jesus’ Death Made Zombies Walk Around in Jerusalem: Think I’m just being colorful in my description? Nope, I’m not. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we find a passage with such brazen boldness in its fabrication...
“50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:50-53)Tell me this isn’t describing a first century zombie event and I will tell you I'm Cinderella! Although, the zombies are sort of uncooly just witnessing for Christ instead of eating the flesh of the living and causing a holocaust worth falling asleep watching on the Sci-Fi Channel.
This did not happen. Nuff said. But what good would it have done anyway? If the ultimate resurrection had not occurred and would not occur for a long time, why this “get up and walk into the holy city” maneuver? Or were the Old Testament saints released from the Hadean realm and went on into heaven after walking around the city like my grandfather believed, clearing out the “lobby” of the saved for the Christian righteous to come? Or did the writer of Matthew (like some other believers of the time) believe that this was the resurrection (see 2 Timothy 2:18)? That’s the thing about Bible belief. We can only wonder…and wonder and wonder.
Holman has a much wider definition of "zombie" than I do. Given the fact that the people were recognized by people that must mean that like Lazarus, a few days before, they had just recently died. Also recall that they could not have been dead long given the Jews is practice of digging up loved ones and putting them in ossuaries. Funny how atheists like to make things overly complicated.
So while the scholars will keep us stimulated with tit for tat in raging debates between believer and non, we can in the meantime look at the silliness of these examples and wonder how and why so many are ready to base their entire careers around preaching fairytales.
(JH)
The only thing silly in these examples is Holman's inability to explain why they are obviously wrong.
---------------------
When he’s not reviewing movies, Joe can be found wasting away at his website.
Given his poor exegesis of the Bible, Holman will stick to reviewing movies.
Debunking Christianity: 5 Obviously False References in the Bible
Friday, February 1, 2013
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith
But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands.
Of course there is an obviously bad reason to reject Christianity. It's so plain and it shows that Loftus does not really even consider it a possibility. What if it's true? If it is true, and I believe it is true, then that would be an extremely bad reason to reject Christianity. Loftus says he has come to the conclusion that the Bible is not true due to over 40 years or studying it. It's sad that after all that time he does not understand what Christianity is. Loftus does repeat in this article what he believes the Christian faith is.
Obviously, Loftus has an Arminian perspective on salvation and seems to want to think that Calvinism should be ignored. Neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 nor any place in the Bible tells us that God has chosen each and every individual human being for salvation. Considering that he does not know God and never knew God it is no wonder he doesn't understand what the difference is between what some people say they believe and what the Bible says. Loftus thinks that the God of the Bible is obligated to save everyone and because not everyone believes that is proof that God does not exist. He is frustrated because that is not the God the Bible reveals to us.
Keep in mind that my target is evangelical, conservative, Bible thumping Christianity, the kind that would accept this Doctrinal Statement (or DS):
There is an omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him. This same God desires everyone should be saved and that no one should be lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).Evangelicals believe more than this DS, but at a minimum they believe it. Calvinists need not apply.
Loftus keeps giving us reasons to pray for him not good reasons to reject the God who bought us - those who believe and are being saved. Loftus illustrates the following:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. - 2 Peter 2:1
Debunking Christianity: There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Debunking Christianity: Can We be Good Without God? August Berkshire vs James Kunz
Kurte made some points that should be deeply considered:
1. Damage to the physical brain does not show that there is no soul.
2. Free Will is part of this discussion
3. God gives unbelievers the ability to do moral action and recognize morality just like God does to unbelievers
4. God gave us life so God has every right to determine when and how those lives end.
Debunking Christianity: Can We be Good Without God? August Berkshire vs James Kunz
Answering Muslims: Refuting Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Jesus
Answering Muslims: Refuting Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Jesus
Life by the Numbers | It's Okay to be Smart | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube
Life by the Numbers | It's Okay to be Smart | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto - YouTube
Video Description: Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto has created a beautiful, undeniably scary time-lapse map of the 2053 nuclear explosions which have taken place between 1945 and 1998, beginning with the Manhattan Project's "Trinity" test near Los Alamos and concluding with Pakistan's nuclear tests in May of 1998. This leaves out North Korea's two alleged nuclear tests in this past decade (the legitimacy of both of which is not 100% clear).
Each nation gets a blip and a flashing dot on the map whenever they detonate a nuclear weapon, with a running tally kept on the top and bottom bars of the screen. Hashimoto, who began the project in 2003, says that he created it with the goal of showing"the fear and folly of nuclear weapons." It starts really slow — if you want to see real action, skip ahead to 1962 or so — but the buildup becomes overwhelming.
http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto - YouTube
The Duggars, Abortions, Holocaust, Jim Bob Duggar, Pro-Life, Quiverful
There’s nothing I hate more than people who have the audacity to compare the Holocaust to anything that’s not the Holocaust. It’s not a synonym for “something I don’t like” and it’s not a word to toss around for political reasons. It’s an event in recent history that resulted in the systematic murder of six million people. SIX MILLION LIVING AND BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS. People who had jobs and lives and families and histories before being enslaved, tortured and murdered.
To compare their lives to the lives of developing fetuses disgusts me. You want to be anti-choice, fine be anti-choice. But don’t make inane comparisons that attempt to say that what happens during abortion is anywhere near what happened during The Holocaust. It isn’t. At all.
I agree that "holocaust" should not be used lightly or casually. But when you look at what abortion is, I'm not sure one cannot make such a comparisons. Just look at what was written and ask how does this not apply to abortion?
It’s a repeated event in recent history that results in the systematic murder of Fifty-six million people. FIFTY-SIX MILLION LIVING AND BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS. People who could have had jobs and lives and families and histories but instead were tortured and murdered.
Maier attempts to avoid the weight of this by claiming that the lives of "developing fetuses" are not worthy of being compared with the value of the six million who were killed by the Nazis. Why? I believe that a person is a person from the moment of conception and worth just as much as any human being at any stage in life. Why? Even prior to birth, a human baby is capable of feeling pain and responds to his/her environment. Some methods of abortion actually does cause pain and I see no reason to think that it's not torture. As a human being I am not qualified to determine the value and worth on one person over another. Many people passionate about protecting abortion rights say that it because they care about women, but I never hear them explain how do they propose to help women who have been traumatized emotionally and physically due to abortions. Both the woman and child suffer.
The Duggars, Abortions, Holocaust, Jim Bob Duggar, Pro-Life, Quiverful
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Mindlessly Quote-Mining the Bible is Not Thinking
Quote-Mining:
Quoting out of context or "quote mining" is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Source:Engel, Morris S., With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (1994), pp. 106-107ISBN 0-312-15758-4
Therefore we see that quote-mining is invariably associated with twisting the quoted material out of context. Obviously the Bible can be quoted in context and it is the only way you can really find out if it is true or not. That is of course if you care about if its true or not. Of course, given that Loftus engages in quote-mining on occasion maybe he doesn't care about if the Bible is true or not. For example check his recent post here. I show how he quotes the scripture out of context here.
Debunking Christianity: Mindlessly Quote-Mining the Bible is Not Thinking
Monday, January 28, 2013
Debunking Christianity: Did God Want Us to Fall Into Sin?
1. Had Adam and Eve had obeyed God, humanity would overpopulate the earth in endless orgies.
It was never intended by God for men and women to have different than heterosexual and monogamous marriage relationships.
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a]5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” - Matthew 19:4-6
2. Human anatomy and the created order is the same as it is now.
Sin changed everything. I see no reason to assume that if Adam and Eve were not limited by sickness, pains or mortality as we that they had any of the unpleasantness that comes with life now - like having excrement that stinks.
3. Our experience of free will and reasoning is the same as what Adam and Eve had before the fall.
When people claim to have free will it always amazes me. If we had free will we should be able to choose to not sin. We cannot. We sin on purpose and not on purpose. Consciously and unconsciously. Everyone who had come into the world as a descendant of Adam is a born a sinner - enslaved and some never become aware of that and many deny their chains. Bottom line is none of us know what it's like to not have to sin no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in. Adam and Eve knew because they were perfect. You and I are no near close.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-14
4. Childbirth was always intended to be painful.
We do not know what child birth would have been like had Adam and Eve had obeyed God. None. The Bible does not tell us. The pain and suffering that comes with it only came into being after the curse of sin and death came over us.
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16
Thanks, Adam and Eve.
5. The serpent tried to talk Adam and Eve out of disobeying God.
The serpent did not try to help Eve. He tricked Eve into questioning God's single command and convinced her to distrust God. This the exact tactic the devil employs against us today and this exactly the lie that the maker of the video has fallen for. The things is that all who reject God has fallen for this lie.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. - Genesis 3:1-7
Additionally, something I have a huge problem with is the idea that God does not have a good reason for allowing Adam and Eve to be tested in their obedience and know that they would fall would not have a good reason for it. Think carefully. We know every single human being is so unique that one cannot have any other mother or father than the biological pair you have. We also know that you could not have conceived at any other time than the time you were conceived. Hold this thought as you consider the following passage:
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.' - Acts 17: 24-28
The Bible very clearly teaches that your existence and everything about it is due to God's intervention in His creation. You exist because of the plan God has in mind and He put you at the time and place where you can best find him. And it's not just about you. Think of all the people you interact with and who you affect and they affect you. God's taking all of that into account also. This includes not just the good things we do but even the bad. For example, would you still exist as the person you are now had there been no American Civil War? World War I? Vietnam? Could you even be able to know all the causes and effects? Not away. You'd have a better chance to understand and explain gravity...and no one has been able to do that either. Personally, just the little bit I know about my family histories and world history, I wouldn't be here without a lot of people's pain and suffering. That's a humbling and sobering thought. That makes us all responsible and accountable. God allowed evil because He has sovereign reasons to allow it and one of them is because He loves the "you" that you are. If things had not gone exactly the way they have, that "you" would not exist, and neither would all those you are connected to. Instead of trying to figure out why God allows evil, one should remember if God were to obliterate evil God would have to start with us. On top of that praise God because that Evil is on the leash. Evil is under God's control and God's purposes are good in all that God does.
Remember this example. Joseph experienced much evil and suffering that wasn't his fault in any way. It started with his brother betraying him and selling him into slavery. How did Joseph respond?
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me,but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:19-21
This is true even about Jesus crucifixion. When Adam sinned, God wasn't thinking "Oh, crap! What am I going to do now?!" Jesus was not plan B. Or like a bubblegum or duct tape holding something together that was broken.
Debunking Christianity: Did God Want Us to Fall Into Sin
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is - Part 1 - YouTube
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Isn't This A Problem?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?
I haven't found another blog like DC where intelligent Christians and atheists meet to debate the issues. I like it. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of comments like the one from a Keith R.:
Hi, John, I’m a long time reader and sometime commenter on DC. Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say.I've heard this from others several times before. There aren't too many people out there who understand the mind of the believer and who blog on a daily basis like the writers here at DC (including Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, Jonathan Pearce, Phil Torres, and the articulate articulett). Just the same, Keith R. disagreed with my recent post, Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural. He wants us to think of science as a metal detector, and as such, it cannot detect anything that isn't metal. Hence, there are things that science cannot detect, supernatural things. *POOF* Therefore a trinitarian incarnational atoning resurrecting ascending and soon to be returning God exists. Get this? Neither do I.
While I would not throw Keith R out of the church for taking his position, mine is a little different. I would not say that science is incapable of telling us anything about God I would say that science is incapable of giving us the kind of detection and evidence that Loftus thinks that he needs.
Keith (may I just use your first name?) argues that "science should be viewed as a metal detector. It does a great job of detecting metal objects just as, by analogy, science is great at studying the natural world." But it cannot detect anything else except metal, soooo, "science’s inability to detect the spiritual world because it is designed to study the physical world doesn’t mean that the spiritual world doesn’t exist or that science is to blame for not detecting it." Link.
*cough*
According to the Bible, the natural world points to God. Studying it shows us that God does exist. It is true that that you can't get the Gospel out of it, God's triunity, or the purppose for creation. That is why we have history, archaeology, many other pieces of evidence, the Bible, and personal relationship.
I've heard a lot of analogies like these from believers. None of them show anything significant at all. What this particular analogy conjures up in our heads is the prior knowledge we have that most things in the universe are not made of metal. There is water, sand, dirt, all sorts of animals, plants, rocks, and gases. We know this. So the analogy plays with our heads precisely because we have prior knowledge that most objects in the universe are not metal. This is clearly stacking the mental deck in favor of that which Keith wants us to consider. His analogy would therefore more accurately be stated like this: If all we had was a metal detector then how can we know if non-metallic objects exist in a world where all we ever experienced are metal objects?
I'd argue that it is possible to know that the supernatural does indeed exist and those who don't experience cannot conclude that there is no God because they don't detect God.
So let's go back in time. The ancients agreed upon four elements in the cosmos: earth, water, air, and fire (some included Aether, the mysterious element). These elements referred to the phases of matter: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas, and fire is equivalent to plasma. No metal is specified here. As science has progressed it has discovered 117 elements to date.
Um...excuse me. The Bronze Age is ancient times. Metal was known. And many such paradigms would consider metal to be one kind of "earth". Hasn't Loftus ever watched Avatar the Last Airbender which is based off such conceptions.
So if Keith wants a proper analogy to science it would be an Element Detector, not just a metal detector. And what detects the elements? Our five senses, along with the many instruments scientists have produced to enhance them, beginning with the telescope and the microscope. So to put this into perspective Keith is asking if there is an element that we cannot detect with our Element Detector. Think about this, please! The only way we have for detecting elements is with our present Element Detector. If there is any other reliable way I'd like to know what it is. Faith in a private subjective experience has a proven track record of repeated failures. All we have to do is look at the difference between our reliable Element Detector compared with faith as an "element" detector seen in these two world maps.
The "Element Detector" is not just our five senses and other technological instruments. It's our perceptions and reasoning powers - hardly reliable. The funny thing is I keep reading Loftus as saying that our minds and perceptions are flawed and easily biased yet he loves to pretend they are good enough to conclude that there is no God.
What more can I say at this point? If there is a supernatural "element" who wants to be detected by us there is no other way but to provide our senses with objective reliable data. We cannot detect that which is undetectable. It is impossible for us to do anything different if this supernatural "element" expects us to be reasonable people.
By what standard doe Loftus know that he is "reasonable"? The thing Christianity posits is that without God calling us Himself, we cannot know Him. We can only know of Him.
Private subjective experiences by contrast, do not count for anything at all. Even if someone had one, he or she should doubt it as an unreliable brain fart.
It's interesting how Loftus jumps to the conclusion that something is wrong with a person if he/she experiences God but does not consider the possibility that it his faculties that have failed.
Such experiences happen during a trance-like moment of mediation, or prayer, or singing songs of worship to any and all supernatural "elements" from the beginnings of human civilization.
That's not how the Bible describes a single encounter with God. It's doesn't describe any of my experiences or anyone I know. If this is what Loftus experienced, this might explain why he was never born again.
Just think of the trance-like state that believers would attain during the cadence-like rhythmic beating of the ancient Aztec drums as a high priest gutted a virgin on the altar, in sacrifice to Xipe Totec, so the sun would rise the next day, or the rain would come. They knew with certainty that their god existed and that he wanted them to sacrifice that virgin based on the same private subjective experiences Christians have today. Yep, the same exact ones. If this isn't what's going on in the heads of believers of all shapes and stripes, then what is?
Not the same at all. I don't have to go my own subjective experiece. God would not tell me something that would conflict with any of the messages He gave us through His Word. If my thoughts or conclusions conflict with the Bible (and that has happened), the red flag is waving. I know that I need to re-align myself with what the Word is. An Apostate is one who refuses to do that.
So it isn't the case, as Keith opines later, that his God doesn't want us to have absolute knowledge of his existence lest he force us into believing.
Many Christians take this viewpoint because they believe that God willed for humanity to choose God of our own free will without intrusive influence. While this position is not one that salvation hinges on, I don't agree. Without God we cannot choose Him. (John 6:44;Romans 8) .
The case is far far less than this. His God has not given us ANY evidence of his existence at all except for private subjective experiences and the 2nd- 3rd- 4th-handed written testimonies from ancient Christian believers who had private subjective experiences.
That is not true. We have creation. We have moral laws engraved in our minds. We have Jesus' Resurrection. We have the Bible which is extremely more reliable than Loftus likes to pretend.
Keith simply does not think of his God as a reasonable one, for a reasonable God who wants, no demands, reasonable belief should give reasonable people what reasonable people need to believe. I am not demanding anything of God. I am a reasonable person who needs what Keith's God is not providing. I am not alone. His God doesn't even abide by the parable of the Lost Sheep. He's losing many of his sheep every day and is doing nothing objectively to keep them in the fold.
Loftus is incorrect. No one is reasonable - at least on God's level. I want to know what makes Loftus think he is reasonable? And why does he think God owes him to provide the evidence he thinks he wants? I'd argue that if God did, it would not make a single difference in Loftus' decisions. God does abide by the Lost Sheep Parable. To argue that God doesn't care about a single one of his sheep is to assume that there are sheep going to hell. That's not possible. God's not loosing a single sheep. John Loftus and other unbelievers should consider the possibility that maybe because they don't hear his voice is because they are not His sheep. The failure is not in God but in us. Jesus said the following:
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” - John 10:14-18
And Jesus also Said.
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” - John 10:25-30
Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?
High Five of the Day - He Lives: Just a thought, and I've said it before
I don't actually know what faith is. It is not simple intellectual assent--i.e., belief. The bible speaks of some who believe but are lost. Nor is it "blind." Hebrews 11 has the faith hall of fame, and lists people who did not need blind faith for they saw and spoke to god. Abraham's faith was hardly blind, with the exception that he had faith that God's promise of redemption would be fulfilled in his future. If blind faith was the ultimate virtue, Gideon (who demanded physical proof) would stand condemned--instead he shows up in Hebrews 11 as a faith hero. Faith (πίστις), I think, is closer to trust than to believe. As Grudem puts it, which works for me, it's coming to God and saying: "I got nothing."
No, i don't think any one of us truly knows what "Faith" is. We learn and grow into it as we mature in God. This explains why Atheists constantly get this wrong.
He Lives: Just a thought, and I've said it before
Friday, January 25, 2013
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural
A Christian commented on a recent post having to do with how science could know the supernatural:
Let's posit for a moment that the supernatural does exist. It then follows that science, which by definition focuses on the natural, would have absolutely no means to measure it or detect it. It could thus never serve as a method and no scientific protocol could ever be established to rule it out, regardless of how real the supernatural would be.Oh my gosh, believers have just pawned us god-hating atheists now, haven't they? *Throws in the towel in defeat.* Wait, on second thought, this is utter hogwash and it should be easily seen. So here goes.
Nope. Atheism has been pawned by God through over 40 authors and a period of 1500 years.
Let's grant that science by its very nature cannot detect the supernatural, or better, a supernatural being, since that's surely what he believes. Why would it bother anyone if this is the case? I see nothing problematic about this conclusion at all. If science cannot detect a supernatural being then science cannot detect a supernatural being. It's only a problem for a particular kind supernatural being, one that wants to be detected, and/or one whom we need to detect in order to live a good life both here and later in the afterlife. Without these additional characteristics a mere supernatural being is an unnecessary hypothesis, one we can safely live without.
So Loftus admits that if a supernatural beings is necessary to live a good life here and in an afterlife we cannot safely live without him. I can hear the objection that Loftus is talking about being able to detect such a being. The problem however is that the God of Judaism and Christianity can be detected. More than that He says that we have no defense for concluding that He does not exist.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
I'm aware that people trying to side-step this by claiming that this scripture is wrong because we don't know if God exists. I invite people to read Paul's letter more carefully. He's not claiming that people instinctively know about Jesus and the need to believe and confess by default. Far from it. The letter builds from the idea of just knowing that there is a God to how you can learn more about that God in detail. In the above passage, the argument is that we know God exists because we can know somethings about God from what has been made. Let me make it simple: we can know more about God from just looking a what God has created - through um science. This means you do not have luxury of unbelief.
So we need to additionally suppose that a supernatural being wants to be detected and/or that we need to detect her in order to live a good life both here and later in the afterlife. Well then, whose fault is it if we cannot detect her through science?
According to Romans 1, science can help us to know about God. Who is right? Loftus or God? Due to my own studies in science and engineering, I'd have have to believe that God is the one who is right.
It wouldn't be the fault of science. It can only detect the detectable based on the standard rules of evidence-gathering. So if science cannot detect the supernatural and she wants detected then the fault for this state of affairs is laid clearly on her back. No one else is to blame.
No, the problem is how you have interpreted the evidence, not the evidence, nor science. The fault is in you.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
If you are a committed atheist or have no relationship with God, Paul was talking about you.
In fact, it must be what she wants, even though believers have been reduced to making stupid arguments in defense of religious experience as evidence for their three-in-one incarnating atoning resurrecting God. They have been reduced to looking like fools, since William Lane Craig still has not answered my challenge regarding the so-called testimony of the inner witness of the Spirit. I don't suspect he can. I don't think any believer who accepts the inner witness of the Spirit as reliable testimony can answer my challenge. Give it a go, someone, will you?
Does anyone not get this?
Let's go deeper. Let's think outside the present realities for a moment, something required when comparing any given hypotheses. The whole idea that science cannot detect the supernatural is a hindsight Christian rationalization for justifying the Christian faith due to the onslaught of modern science.
Science has never disproved the Bible. Atheists like Loftus like to keep asserting this lie but when pressed they can't really offer up a single example. There isn't a single example. Sometimes people like to bring up macroevolution but there isn't unanimous assent to macroevolution being a fact. In fact it's still under heated debate. Sometimes people point to the order the Bible says things came into being in Genesis 1 and 2 as being in conflict with science. However not everyone agrees. Dr Hugh Ross, an Astronomer, does an excellent job in showing how this conclusion is not necessary.
Prescientific superstitious people would never have said this, primarily because modern science had not yet arisen. Anything that could not be explained by the science of their day was considered an act of God. Their God was constantly intervening in their world, even causing the sun to rise every morning. "You want scientific evidence that God exists?," they would ask. "You can see it every single morning when the sun rises," they would answer. This was considered "scientific" evidence in the minds of believers because, as always with believers, scientific evidence is considered by them to be the lack of scientific evidence. Get it? I don't either. This is the basis for a great deal of pseudoscience, something I've written on before right here, which has gotten the 3rd highest hits at DC in seven years of Blogging.
I don't get why God is still not responsible for things that we actually understand and can predict. The more we learn through science, the more questions arise. We also know that something is holding reality together. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that everything is breaking down - tending to disorder. Yet things are still being refreshed and living things are still being born. How why? The more we look into the atom, the more smaller and smaller particles there are and the more we don't know what is holding it all together. Science is important and necessary, but it's doesn't lead us away from God.
Not only this, but if we believe the Bible then anyone who wanted scientific evidence for God would just have to sail in Noah's boat, or cross the Red Sea with Moses, or live for forty years in the wilderness on manna and be led by a pillar of smoke by day and fire by night. They could go to the circus where for an extra shekel Balaam's ass would talk, or in the booth next to it they could see Elisha's actual axe head float in a tub of water. They could follow Jesus around, or Paul, or Peter, and see blind men who were healed, and dead men who lived to tell stories about their After Death Experience (ADE vs NDE).
Yes, miracles served as empirical evidence for God. However God is still doing miracles today. Didn't Loftus ever experience a move of God intervening in his life or someone else? I thought he said he was a Christian. If he had never experienced such why would he waste that much time as "Christian"? I'm not buying that. If I had never seen God move or intervene I would have been giving up being a Christian the first year after I was saved.
So when Christians admit science cannot detect a supernatural being what they're doing is conceding the whole argument. They're conceding science has correctly concluded that a supernatural being cannot be detected. Let. This. Point. Sink. In.
Science can't conclude that there is no God to detect because it shows evidence that there is a creator. I concede no such thing given my own education in Physics and Chemistry and that God doesn't expect me to believe Him despite the realities of science. As a methodology for finding out about the universe science cannot be wrong, but scientists can be wrong (and have been) in the conclusions they draw.
Breathe slowly and deeply if you feel like fainting. Get some smelling salts on hand. Sit down if you must. For if science could detect a supernatural being then Christians would be crowing about it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Don't try to Billy Goat me to death with your endless "buts." I know them. I've used them myself in defense of an indefensible faith. There are no ifs ands or buts about this.
Funny it doesn't seem to stop atheists from crowing about lack of evidence while they shut their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears.
To drive this point deeper, if there is a supernatural being who wants us to detect her then she could have either, 1) kept modern science from arising in the first place,
He's been using modern science.
or 2) kept on providing scientific evidence in verifiable miracles in the same ways we read in the Bible.
Interesting that Loftus ignores the verifiable miracles we have today. Too bad. He should read more of Dr Gary Habermas' work.
Such a supernatural God could easily have kept modern science from arising merely by keeping any thought of scientific progress away from the minds of people who were close to attaining such a thought. See, that was easy. *Snap* You're now stupid.
Why would God do that? Instead God has put scientific progress in us. And he's been merciful enough to gift it to even to unbeliever too blind to appreciate God or acknowledge God. Scientists like Isaac Newton credited God for their successes.
Or, much more interestingly, such a God could have created an earth as a flat disk in a much smaller universe just as we find described in the Bible, with the sun moon and stars created on the fourth day to revolve around the earth, with no amphibians so evolutionary science could not have arisen. If God had created the universe in six literal days then *BAM* along with other things modern science could never have arisen at all.
I don't know what's more pathetic - that Loftus thinks that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat that that the solar system is geocentric or the possibility that Loftus may have thought that this when he thought that he was a Christian.
Christians, could your God have done this or not? Yes or no? Now then, please tell us all why the rise of modern science is a much greater value to your God then the loss of so many billions of people to hell. You do realize that modern science is one of the major factors reasonable people all over the world think your faith is bunk, don't you?
Yeah, that is why they are wrong.
Of course, that's why you reject the other religious faiths as well. Ahhhh, the good 'ole double standard days which will end soon, but we'll have to wait for my soon to be released book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.
I'm really hoping that Loftus does a better job actually describing what Christians believe in this book, because so far he has not gotten it right in his blog posts. He'd have a point if he could demonstrate that the Bible is actually wrong about something.
Isn't it funny that the more science has explained the fewer and fewer miracles believers claim to have experienced, exactly in the same way that science has disconfirmed the existence of UFO's from Mars?
Explaining day and night or the seasons or how birds fly is not the same as explaining how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead or walked on water. Don't get confused about what a "miracle" is and isn't Science also cannot tells us the why, but it does a good job of helping us understand how. Nothing about purpose. It's all meaningless without a designer or a creator. Science is a long way from explaining a lot of things. And what we can understand and demonstrate as true beyond a shadow of doubt points to God.
Debunking Christianity: Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)