The Way, the Truth, and the Light
From Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion to Bill Maher’s Religulous, the media is filled with half-truths and whole lies about what it means to be a believer in God, and more often than not, Christian. Dawkin’s argues that there is contradictory evidence to the existence of God while Maher pokes fun at the members of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, while simultaneously asking the usual theological questions. For example: Do you think that, if when you were a kid, they transposed the Bible stories with fairy tales, that you would know the difference as an adult?
Yes Mr. Maher, I would. It is a common misconception that the existence of God, and the Bible, have no backing. Often times atheists and even agnostics make the claim that science and God, or the Bible, conflict, and that they are simply choosing science over “fairy tales”. In reality it is quite the contrary: science actually necessitates and reaffirms the existence of God, and the Bible is supported by science.
We’ll start with the existence of God. The Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory as to how the universe was created. In a nutshell, it started with a phase change that resulted in cosmic inflation which caused the rapid expansion of our universe in an extremely short amount of time. Going back, we find the universe stretching to a single point, the moment of singularity. The singularity is where relativity breaks down, as it is virtually infinitely small.
When talking about “before” the Big Bang and the singularity, it is important to note a key feature: There was no “before”. Cosmological space time began at the moment of singularity, so really, there was no “before”. “Before” the Big Bang, there was nothing. We often think of nothing as an empty box; dark and filled with, well, nothing. The nothing “before” the singularity however, was absolute nothingness: No matter, no energy, no space, no time. Nothing.
Spare us the physics lecture Derek, how does this in any way support God? It is very simple: We all know nothing cannot simply turn into something without something being applied. This is the main problem with the Big Bang; there was nothing, but now we have something (aka the universe), therefore, something had to of initiated the Big Bang.
What initiated the Big Bang must exist outside of space and time. Therefore, we must conclude that something must exist outside of space and time that initiated the Big Bang. Ergo, God (or a higher power), must exist. So in reality, those who deny the existence of God are determining their beliefs blindly and they have more faith than those of us who do believe, as they believe everything created itself out of nothing.
Now that we have concluded that God exists, we must ask a new question? Who is He? and Why? This is where we enter the realm of particular religions and deities. There is little concrete evidence that can be used to convince someone to choose a particular religion over another. A few supporting details may be:
Its lack of contradictions with science.
Its lack of contradiction with itself.
Its historical accuracy.
The frequency and agreement of different writings of the same religious account.
While these may push an individual in one direction, faith in a particular deity comes down to a personal level. For this, I give my reasons for following Jesus Christ.
I will spare you of my testimony as it is long winded and too touchy feely and may set off the feng sui of my blog. First, there are no contradictions in the Bible with science. In other religions, the world is a map held up by turtles or that people can survive on air alone (Breathairianism, hilarious, I know). An individual can remove most deities using this simple step.
Next, the Bible has no contradictions with itself. With Islam, and many other religions, there are significant contradictions within the religious text.
In terms of historical accuracy, the Bible is right on. In all seriousness, the Bible is a historical account as well as a religious text. Parts of the New Testament were written as soon as 10 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The gospels also all agree on key issues and teachings, some even quoting Jesus the same word for word.
One of the strongest reasons why I believe is that those who followed Jesus, along with those who recounted the miracles, were put to death for not denying their belief. In order for the miracles to not have happened and for the resurrection of Jesus not to be true, all of them would have to have been lying. In this case, they all would have to have died for a lie. I wouldn’t die for a lie, I doubt you would, and I doubt they did either. All they would have to have done would be deny their account to save their life, but instead, they stood by their testimonies.
The surest way to understand and find God is through His word, which can only be done by reading the Bible (let me know if you don’t have one, I’ll get you one for free). Through knowing God and experiencing his love and grace, you become a better person, not because you have to, but because you want to. I have never felt love like that of God and never have I experienced more happiness than serving Jesus Christ. It may seem odd to someone who doesn’t know God, but honestly, it was like walking to the bathroom late at night just to be hit with a 2″X4″ and have all the lights turn on. From a scared and hurting child in the dark, I have seen the Way, the Truth, and the Light.
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
1 John 4:7-12
It is an amazing feeling to never be afraid, to never feel unloved, and to never be alone.
This is just another form of the argument from ignorance. Actually, the fact that we don’t know something doesn’t mean that there’s a God. It means nothing more than WE DON’T KNOW and that there has probably been a massive failure of imagination on our part.
Ancient peoples thought that a god or God was required for all kinds of mundane phenomena that we can now easily explain — without invoking or needing God for the explanation.
Even if you think our ignorance argues for some supernatural force, you’re still nowhere near making an argument for the Christian God who is so much more than an impersonal creative “force.” The Big Bang (even if you were correct) does not argue for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who became human and died on a cross for us. These are huge leaps of FAITH. And if that’s what you want to be — a person of faith — then stick to the faith thing. Don’t go making logical arguments (that don’t hold up). Just be happy believing. Because if you find reason more compelling, you’re going to think yourself right out of your faith — as it should be.
P.S.: The Bible has no contradictions? It’s historically accurate? Are you serious? Take the very first chapters of the Gospels. The two genealogies of Jesus contradict each other in both length and Jesus’ supposed bloodline. Then, there is absolutely no evidence that all the infants under two years of age were slaughtered as is claimed (that was ripped-off from the Moses story), or that a census of the kind spoken of in the Gospels ever took place (the Romans were hardly that inefficient). Nor is there evidence of the Exodus, the conquest, etc… And there’s not a legitimate Bible scholar on the planet who believes that any of the gospels were written just ten years after the resurrection. It’s nearly impossible even to find Jesus historically. The earliest writings are Paul’s and they all point to a much more Gnostic idea of “Christ” — not the historic figure Christians believe in today.
“This is just another form of the argument from ignorance. Actually, the fact that we don’t know something doesn’t mean that there’s a God.”
Actually, if you would read the post, you’d be able to tell that my argument is based on what WE DO KNOW, not what we DON’T know. Those who deny the logic presented are the ones saying “well we don’t know for sure”. Based on the accepted scientific consensus, there must be a God. Instead of writing off my argument as “wrong”, go ahead and point out specifically what is wrong with it.
“The Big Bang (even if you were correct) does not argue for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who became human and died on a cross for us.”
Never claimed it did strawman, merely noted that there would have to be some sort of higher power, not the God I worship.
“Don’t go making logical arguments (that don’t hold up)”
You keep saying it isn’t good enough, but you never tell me how. I have yet to find a hole in the logic.
“Because if you find reason more compelling, you’re going to think yourself right out of your faith — as it should be.”
The funny thing is that you assume my faith is blind. It isn’t in the least bit so. My faith in a Christian God is based purely on logic and personal experience. Belief in simply a God, aka a higher power, is in ever sense logical as science necessitates a higher power’s existence.
“The two genealogies of Jesus contradict each other in both length and Jesus’ supposed bloodline.”
The one is Matthew is through his father, Joseph, the one in Luke is through his mother, Mary.
“Then, there is absolutely no evidence that all the infants under two years of age were slaughtered as is claimed”
Bethlehem was a small town, around 700 people. Most historians estimate that the number of children under the age of two years in the town at the time would number no more than a dozen. Not to mention there would only be the historians under Herod to record the event, and should he decide that it be left out, so be it. In all reality, this isn’t inaccurate and claiming that Matthew made it up with no evidence that he did just makes you look silly.
“or that a census of the kind spoken of in the Gospels ever took place (the Romans were hardly that inefficient)”
You mean the Jews? It would have been a Jewish census, not a Roman one. There is also a possibility that Luke confused the census with the census of Quirnius. Again, you have no evidence to contradict the claim in the Bible, you just raise an eyebrow and go “really?”.
“Nor is there evidence of the Exodus”
Actually there is a bountiful amount of info about Moses and how he led the Jews out of Egypt. http://www.crivoice.org/exodusdate.html
Not to mention the battles along with other historical events are right on.
“And there’s not a legitimate Bible scholar on the planet who believes that any of the gospels were written just ten years after the resurrection.”
Many do, as anyone who places them past 70 AD neglect the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all dead by then. Jesus’ death is placed around 32 AD, making the gospels written no longer than 30some odd years after the death of Christ. In historical terms, anything under 250 to 300 years after an event as old as that of Jesus’ life is phenomenal.
http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/ntbook-dates.html
“It’s nearly impossible even to find Jesus historically.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Actually, there is a lot of evidence, even when you don’t count the Biblical references.
Again, if you have a problem with my proof of God theory, then go ahead and point out specifically where it goes awry.
//Spare us the physics lecture Derek, how does this in any way support God? It is very simple: We all know nothing cannot simply turn into something without something being applied. This is the main problem with the Big Bang; there was nothing, but now we have something (aka the universe), therefore, something had to of initiated the Big Bang.//
I’m disappointed, Derek. You failed to suspend your naive “common sense” rules of casualty when dealing with quantum mechanics. Radioactive decay is a perfect example. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event “just happened” at that moment. You cannot predict these occurrences. This uncertainty, called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle(which is more often used with momentum and position of a wave) is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality. So your since your basic assumption of “cause-and-effect” does not apply, the conclusion does not follow.
//What initiated the Big Bang must exist outside of space and time.//
For the sake of your argument, I’ll grant you this.
//Therefore, we must conclude that something must exist outside of space and time that initiated the Big Bang. Ergo, God (or a higher power), must exist.//
So your saying this higher power could be some natural process, and you’re going to assume it cares about you and worship it when it could actually just be something like gravity?
//So in reality, those who deny the existence of God are determining their beliefs blindly and they have more faith than those of us who do believe
, as they believe everything created itself out of nothing.//
So in reality, those who deny the existence of God are determining their beliefs by their refusal to make non sequiturs. What idiots.
//Now that we have concluded that God exists, we must ask a new question? Who is He? and Why? This is where we enter the realm of particular religions and deities. There is little concrete evidence that can be used to convince someone to choose a particular religion over another. A few supporting details may be:
Its lack of contradictions with science.
Its lack of contradiction with itself.
Its historical accuracy.
The frequency and agreement of different writings of the same religious account.
While these may push an individual in one direction, faith in a particular deity comes down to a personal level. //
In other words, it’s all assumption from here folks!
“So your since your basic assumption of “cause-and-effect” does not apply, the conclusion does not follow.”
Everything has cause. By everything I mean everything. If you accept that nothing cannot turn into something all on its own, then you should accept my theory as valid. If you believe nothing can turn into something all on its own, then I’d be happy to refer you to the nearest elementary school.
“So your saying this higher power could be some natural process, and you’re going to assume it cares about you and worship it when it could actually just be something like gravity?”
Gravity wouldn’t exist in nothingness. Instead of trying to unravel the topic of gravity, lets just wait til the LHC CERN fires back up, shall we?
“So in reality, those who deny the existence of God are determining their beliefs by their refusal to make non sequiturs. What idiots.”
My conclusion does follow first off. Secondly, they are illogical because they must make an argument from ignorance in order to deny my theory.
“In other words, it’s all assumption from here folks!”
Not assumption, rather, searching. Soul searching? Cheesy enough? I make no guesses. I experience God on a day to day basis.
//Everything has cause. By everything I mean everything. If you accept that nothing cannot turn into something all on its own, then you should accept my theory as valid. If you believe nothing can turn into something all on its own, then I’d be happy to refer you to the nearest elementary school.//
If your assumption that “everything has a cause” is true, then the conclusion follows. However, as I pointed out, casualty does not always apply in quantum mechanics, which I was unaware they taught in elementary school. Perhaps, instead of adhering to your fundamental, childish education, you should broaden your mind and learn a thing or two about the world of chemistry. In fact, they even have a name for spontaneous reactions; it’s called entropy. If you put a warm object next to a cool object, what causes the heat to flow from hot to cold? Nothing; they just do in an attempt to become more stable. My point is that some entities do not have a cause, thus the Uncertainty principle. If, as you and those of the scientific community postulate accurately, the universe was compressed to an extraordinarily small singularity, then the Uncertainty Principle applies and is very important on a cosmic scale. Thus, the seemingly contradictory notion that “something came from nothing” is not unscientific, nor unlawful, nor impossible. In other words, we need not invoke God
//Gravity wouldn’t exist in nothingness. Instead of trying to unravel the topic of gravity, lets just wait til the LHC CERN fires back up, shall we?//
You missed my point. Instead of “unraveling the topic of gravity”, I was merely providing an example of a natural process to demonstrate the futility of worshiping it. Gravity does not care about you, nor does anything happen if you worship it. This “higher power” which you choose to call God could be something like gravity, is my point.
//My conclusion does follow first off. Secondly, they are illogical because they must make an argument from ignorance in order to deny my theory.//
How is it in any way an argument from ignorance? They do not say “I do not know, therefore God does not exist”. I would love to know how they argue from ignorance. And please, do not call it a theory. It is quite embarrassing, as there is a) no evidence supporting it. and b) no way to test this supernatural force, and therefore falsify it. Thus, it is not a scientific theory. The only thing supporting it is your 4th grade assumption that everything has a cause; though almost everything on a macroscopic scale has some underlying cause, some subatomic effects do not have causes, or are even logical. For instance, take the idea that an electron can spin both clockwise and counter-clockwise around a nucleus, at the same exact time. Logically possible? No. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Hell yes.
//Not assumption, rather, searching. Soul searching? Cheesy enough? I make no guesses. I experience God on a day to day basis.//
Arbitrary and selective searching based on nothing more than wishful thinking and coincidental positive experiences in which you confuse correlation and causation. Honestly, Derek? Surely you would know that the argument from personal experience is perhaps the easiest to refute.
“What initiated the Big Bang must exist outside of space and time. Therefore, we must conclude that something must exist outside of space and time that initiated the Big Bang. Ergo, God (or a higher power), must exist.”
Wow! I’m so impressed that you’ve figured out the necessary conditions for the Big Bang. You should publish a scientific paper on this. You’re obviously on the cutting edge of cosmology. WRONG!!!! We don’t know (you don’t either) the conditions that “must exist” to initiate the Big Bang. It could be that our Universe has been cyclically expanding (Big Bang) and collapsing (Big Crunch) forever. Or, another universe could have given birth to our universe just as our universe might be giving birth to other universes at this very moment. Or, something really could have come from nothing. At the quantum level, everything is counter-intuitive, and nothing makes sense to our feeble minds. And this thing that initiated it could be some as yet unknown impersonal force (that you want to call “God.”) Again, because we don’t know, doesn’t mean that there is a God. It only means that we don’t know and must reserve judgment. But you don’t want to do that because you’re grasping for EVIDENCE for your FAITH. How much faith do you really have then if you need evidence? And if it’s evident, where’s your faith? And why isn’t it evident to everyone? Are we all just evil-doers hell-bent on denying God’s obvious existence?
Furthermore, if EVERYTHING must have a cause, then God too must have a cause. You can’t exempt Him via the argument from definition. If you’re going to suggest that God doesn’t need a cause, then you have to grant to possibility that matter and energy don’t need a cause either. The bottom line is that one of these things may have existed forever, uncaused. And if that’s the choice, and matter and energy is something that I KNOW exists, then it is more logical to conclude that matter and energy just “are” than to conclude that there must be a God (whose existence we don’t know of).
Now, regarding the genealogies of Jesus, you wrote: “The one is Matthew is through his father, Joseph, the one in Luke is through his mother, Mary”
Do you even read your Bible? The genealogies are both for Joseph, not Marry. From Matthew…
“and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus…” And from Luke…
“He [Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli…”
Why do you think one is for Joseph and the other for Mary? Did someone tell you that? Or, did you read it from that inerrant book of yours? ‘Cause I don’t see it there.
The two Davidic genealogies are presented in the gospels are each inconsistent with the other. And most odd is the fact that both of the genealogies traces Jesus’ blood through the paternal (Joseph’s) line to show that Jesus is of “The House of David” (Matthew 1:1) but then claim that Jesus was not sired by Joseph at all. This suggests that the authors of both Matthew and Luke are not Jews but Greeks, because of the Jews’ longstanding tradition of tracing one’s lineage through the mother (Since you can never really know who the father is. At least not before DNA tests were available). Obviously, the genealogy of Jesus as used by the author of Matthew was constructed not by him but by earlier Christians who believed Jesus to have been born of a human father. Some of the earliest Christians such as the Ebionites believed, as reported by Justin Martyr, that Jesus was “the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation.” Other versions of the gospel of Matthew (most notably, the Sinaitic Syriac version, and an ancient manuscript from the Vatican Library) also have Jesus being born of Joseph. Which leads us to the unbelievable blunder of the virgin birth story.
Like the genealogy of Jesus, the author of Matthew again attempts to establish the virgin birth as the fulfillment of scripture. He writes: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child…”. This was written to show the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14; “Behold, a virgin shall conceive…” The problem is that Isaiah 7:14 had been mistranslated by the Septuagint translators, the version of the Hebrew Bible from which the author of Matthew was quoting. (This again suggests that the authors of Matthew and Luke were Greeks rather than Jews. Why else quote from the Greek instead of the Hebrew?)
Isaiah 7:14 does not say that a virgin shall conceive, it says that a young girl (ahmah) is with child (present tense). The Septuagint translators had not only botched the translation of young girl (ahmah) but were wrong about the tense. In the original Hebrew there is no indication of future tense, only present tense. On both points the Hebrew is explicit.
Why did the authors of Matthew and Luke make this terrible blunder? The virgin birth is in no way necessary to the Christ story. If God wanted to incarnate himself he could conceivably have done so by any means. It not being a crucial element upon which the entire Christ theology rises or fall, why then did they blunder so? It is clear to me that they did so because they truly believed that Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin. They were trying to fool people into believing that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish Messianic prophesies particularly Isaiah 7:14. But since Judaism has absolutely no tradition of the Messiah being born of a virgin, the only ones fooled were the gospel writers themselves.
There is one other interesting question to be asked about this whole Isaiah debacle. Why was Isaiah 7:14 mistranslated in the first place? Why, when young girl (ahmah) is so obviously not virgin, and the tense is so obviously not future, did these rabbinical scholars err so unforgivably? I suggest that the virgin birth doctrine clearly originated out of the ubiquitous pagan belief that virgins had been divinely inseminated by the gods and had given birth to a number of mythic heroes including, but not limited to, Plato, Alexander, Perseus, Asclepius, and the Dioscuri. Religions are notorious for taking on the mythology and symbolism of the larger culture
Regarding the Census, you wrote: “You mean the Jews? It would have been a Jewish census, not a Roman one.” Again, let me quote your Bible for you as you apparently can’t read it yourself…
“a decree went out from Caesar Augustus [he wasn’t Jewish), that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” (Luke 2:1-2) There is absolutely no record of a Roman census where everyone had to return to the their place of origin. It’s just ridiculous.
Regarding evidence for the Exodus, you give me CRI? Really? C’mon. Give me a more legitimate, neutral organization than that. Can’t you? Oh, wait, you can’t. Because legitimate scholars who would love nothing more than to find evidence of the Exodus (Israelis in particular) admit there is none. Most notably Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. Both of these men regard the “Hebrew Bible” as beautiful and an inspiration. But their (against self-interest, as opposed to your CRI buddies) conclusion is final… There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering the desert (let alone for forty years), no dramatic (genocidal) conquest of the “Promised Land.” Archaeology does confirm the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine long before the Exodus. Hmmm?
But here’s my favorite part (regarding the Gospel writers)…
“Many do, as anyone who places them past 70 AD neglect the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all dead by then.” No serious scholar believes that the Gospels were written by the actual Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… (we can’t place them in history either). This is so naive as to be foolish. The gospels themselves are anonymous. The names were added later (by the Catholic Church) based on tradition. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke are basically just beefed up copies of Mark or another common document (too much word-for-word copying going on). We don’t have a single original manuscript (they’re all copies of copies), and I don’t believe we have a single manuscript from before the first century (unless your going to allow something like the tiny “Qumran Mark” fragment with the only whole word being “and” — ooh, there’s some proof). It’s amazing how people will just believe what they are told and won’t investigate. Heck, you won’t even read it for yourself when it’s right there in your Bible (like the Joseph genealogies).
You claim to be about reason and evidence, but you would never allow the same kind of reasoning you apply to your beliefs and your book to be applied regarding the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. So sad.
“. However, as I pointed out, casualty does not always apply in quantum mechanics, which I was unaware they taught in elementary school.”
Just because we do not know the exact cause does not mean that there is no cause. Ad ignorantum.
Also, for quantum mechanics to apply, you need something. Again, I must ask you this time, do you believe nothing can turn into something all on its own?
“you should broaden your mind and learn a thing or two about the world of chemistry”
I know more than enough about chemistry, thank you. Quantum mechanics is one of my favorite topics in chem.
“In fact, they even have a name for spontaneous reactions; it’s called entropy.
Um, entropy is amount of “disorder” in a system. You are trying to overlap quantum mechanics with the laws of thermochemistry now, which is a big no no. While it is called disorder, it is really in fact orderly. Not only that but “spontaneous” reactions have causes, as they are always trying to get to the level of lowest energy. Tell a chem professor that a reaction happens for no reason and he will laugh at you.
“f you put a warm object next to a cool object, what causes the heat to flow from hot to cold?”
The laws of thermochem. Entropy increases. Basically it is the same concept as effusion. High concentrations of anything that has fluidity will naturally spread itself out. This is a law of nature, and therefore it has a cause. Things don’t just randomly occur as you are trying to elude to.
“thus the Uncertainty principle.”
You are overlapping so many theories that have very little to do with one another to try and arrive at a conclusion that has nothing to do with the theories. The uncertainty principle does not say that something has no cause, but rather that the conclusion cannot be accurately known. This does not mean that there is no cause effect nature, but rather that we simply cannot know the proper cause and effect accurately. This still does not apply to my theory in any way.
“Thus, the seemingly contradictory notion that “something came from nothing” is not unscientific, nor unlawful, nor impossible. In other words, we need not invoke God”
But it is. Show me how something can come from nothing all on its own and then I will believe you.
“I was merely providing an example of a natural process to demonstrate the futility of worshiping it. ”
You are trying to make the naturalist argument that there is a natural cause to the origin of our universe, but as I have shown in my post, there can be no natural cause. It must be a higher power.
“This “higher power” which you choose to call God could be something like gravity, is my point. ”
It wouldn’t be gravity, but it is true that with my theory I cannot claim to know what God wants or doesn’t want, but again, this isn’t the point of my theory. To know God you need to first look for Him.
“How is it in any way an argument from ignorance”
Because they would have to deny science and what is already accepted as a scientific truth. Something cannot come from nothing all on its own.
“no evidence supporting it. ”
Except you know, the whole spiel I gave with examples of the scientifically accepted theory, which of course, has no evidence. Silly me.
“no way to test this supernatural force, and therefore falsify it”
The validity of my theory is based entirely upon the origins of the universe. If the universe were eternal, my theory wouldn’t hold water. So really, there is a way to falsify it.
“For instance, take the idea that an electron can spin both clockwise and counter-clockwise around a nucleus, at the same exact time. Logically possible? No.”
Logically possible? Sure when you delve into some really intense physics. An electron can be in two different places at the same exact time. Why? Because everything has wavelike nature and when you are looking at very very very small things, the wavelike nature is more noticeable.
“and coincidental positive experiences in which you confuse correlation and causation. ”
I am a firm believer in statistics and statistically speaking, there is no way that God, my God, cannot exist. It would be illogical for me to believe.
“Surely you would know that the argument from personal experience is perhaps the easiest to refute.”
I’m not trying to prove to you that my God is the one that exists, as it is impossible (as I noted in my post which you continually bastardize).
“We don’t know (you don’t either) the conditions that “must exist” to initiate the Big Bang.”
beg your pardon? So science is just fubar? I think we know that nothing cannot turn into something all on its own, and therefore, we know that something had to be added into the mix.
“It could be that our Universe has been cyclically expanding (Big Bang) and collapsing (Big Crunch) forever”
This was the theory prior to the BBT, aka circa 1920. You can try and argue this but there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. Unless you count assumptions.
“At the quantum level, everything is counter-intuitive, and nothing makes sense to our feeble minds.”
Why do you both insist that this means there is no cause to the effects? Just because we don’t know does not mean that there is no cause. Ad ignorantum. Logic. Learn it.
“Again, because we don’t know, doesn’t mean that there is a God.”
I am basing my reasoning on what we do know, you are basing it on what we don’t know. It is a scientifically accepted fact that the universe came from nothing and that the BB occurred.
“But you don’t want to do that because you’re grasping for EVIDENCE for your FAITH”
No, I have my own reasons for my faith, but I am providing evidence for the existence of a higher power, not necessarily the one that I follow and worship.
“And why isn’t it evident to everyone”
Because people don’t have my uncommon sense
“Furthermore, if EVERYTHING must have a cause, then God too must have a cause. ”
Should I be more specific and spell it out for you or would you prefer to try and read my theory again? You probably wouldn’t get it the second time either. Anything that exists within time would need a cause. God exists outside space and time, and therefore is eternal, and therefore wouldn’t need to have been created. Comprende?
“If you’re going to suggest that God doesn’t need a cause, then you have to grant to possibility that matter and energy don’t need a cause either.”
Actually, I don’t, because matter and energy exist within time and space, while God does not.
“And if that’s the choice, and matter and energy is something that I KNOW exists, then it is more logical to conclude that matter and energy just “are” than to conclude that there must be a God (whose existence we don’t know of).”
But we know matter and energy to have not existed forever, as we know the universe isn’t eternal. Because of this, we know God exists, at least in some form.
“The genealogies are both for Joseph, not Marry. From Matthew…”
I know, but the one in Luke is Mary’s line, not Joseph’s.
“ut then claim that Jesus was not sired by Joseph at all. This suggests that the authors of both Matthew and Luke are not Jews but Greeks, because of the Jews’ longstanding tradition of tracing one’s lineage through the mother”
Not if you are trying to show how Jesus is related to Abraham.
“Which leads us to the unbelievable blunder of the virgin birth story.’
I’m sorry, are those in the Bible? Also, if you have copies of them somewhere online, send them my way, I’d love to read them.
“Why else quote from the Greek instead of the Hebrew?)”
Because they were writing in Greek.
“Why did the authors of Matthew and Luke make this terrible blunder? The virgin birth is in no way necessary to the Christ story.”
Try this: http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html
I agree with them when they say that the virgin birth isn’t of focus here, rather that a woman is about to give birth and the name of the child shall be Immanuel.
“It is clear to me that they did so because they truly believed that Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin.”
Yet you ignore the other portions that say Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
“did these rabbinical scholars err so unforgivably?”
The King James version is actually right on par with what you stated, so really it depends on which version you are reading.
“There is absolutely no record of a Roman census where everyone had to return to the their place of origin. It’s just ridiculous.”
You ignored the part where I stated: “There is also a possibility that Luke confused the census with the census of Quirnius. Again, you have no evidence to contradict the claim in the Bible, you just raise an eyebrow and go “really?”.”
“Regarding evidence for the Exodus, you give me CRI? Really?”
Sure, don’t counter the information they provide, rather resort to ad hominem attacks to try and get yourself out of a bind. No one will notice. I’m not letting you off that easily. Take the information provided, regardless of where it comes from, and refute it if you so please.
“But their (against self-interest, as opposed to your CRI buddies) conclusion is final… There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering the desert (let alone for forty years), no dramatic (genocidal) conquest of the “Promised Land.” Archaeology does confirm the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine long before the Exodus.”
Two guys trying to say this, yet they too are neglecting the information at hand. Again, just because we don’t have a plentiful amount of evidence of something that occurred thousands upon thousands of years ago does not mean that it did not occur. It is no surprise that we have limited information from that period. And just because there were Jews in Israel prior to the exodus does not mean that the exodus did not occur. This statement seems arbitrary and irrelevant.
“No serious scholar believes that the Gospels were written by the actual Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… (we can’t place them in history either).”
Yes they do and yes we can. Matthew, Luke and John are all often given credit for writing their portions, but Mark is the only iffy one. Seeing as how we know they years in which they died (except John exactly), and how they died, we can place them in history.
“Furthermore, Matthew and Luke are basically just beefed up copies of Mark or another common document ”
Matthew and Luke were written prior to Mark. Are you suggesting they traveled forward in time, jacked a document, and copied it?
“We don’t have a single original manuscript (they’re all copies of copies),”
They were written on papyrus, what do you expect?
“Heck, you won’t even read it for yourself when it’s right there in your Bible (like the Joseph genealogies).”
You are suggesting I didn’t read the first chapters of the first two gospels? I don’t have the genealogies memorized, but I knew what you were talking about without having to do anything. I find it funny that you act like you know how much of the Bible I have read.
“You claim to be about reason and evidence, but you would never allow the same kind of reasoning you apply to your beliefs and your book to be applied regarding the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. So sad.”
I would, but note how they don’t take part in my testimony. I knew God before I knew the Bible.
Okay, let’s take it one at a time. Where is your evidence that things or being existing outside of space and time don’t have a cause? We don’t even know that anything exists outside of space and time. So, how you can you say what conditions apply to such things or beings in this place we don’t even know exist? Again, don’t give me your theories or “pure reasoning,” give me evidence of A) the existence of anything outside space/time. And B) the evidence of how you know the forces that govern this place and the being who resides therein.
“Where is your evidence that things or being existing outside of space and time don’t have a cause?”
If something is eternal, aka always has been, always will be (because it exists outside of time), then it doesn’t need to have a beginning. Our universe isn’t eternal, so it had to have a beginning. This beginning needed to have a cause, as “before” it, there was nothing, and nothing cannot turn into something all on its own.
“We don’t even know that anything exists outside of space and time. ”
This isn’t about studying it. The theory is that it MUST exist. Note how it has to exist for us to exist, as nothing cannot turn into something all on its own. In order for something to have initiated the Big Bang, it would have to exist outside of space (because there was none) and time (because there was none).
“So, how you can you say what conditions apply to such things or beings in this place we don’t even know exist?”
Because they are the parameters that must exist in order for us to exist. For us to exist, then the higher power must exist, and in order for it to exist, it must exist outside space and time.
“the existence of anything outside space/time.”
The evidence is in our existence. In order for us to exist, something would have to exist outside of space and time as it had to act to set forth the beginning of our universe.
“he evidence of how you know the forces that govern this place and the being who resides therein.”
I never claimed to know the forces that “govern” this “place” (a place outside space?). Seeing as how the higher power exists outside space and time, those are less restrictions, not more. Our very existence necessitates the existence of an outside actor, one that exists outside space and time. For your concrete evidence, ask yourself: “Do I exist?”
Again, I’m asking for evidence. Not argument. Not “theory” (your term). I’m asking for evidence. You are simply restating your BELIEF as though it were evidence or fact. Where is the EVIDENCE that something outside space/time must exist?
Last year, I drove back from a scientific conference with Leonard Susskind, who basically invented string theory. His fields of research include quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. We had a discussion about this very topic. He does not share your view nor would he find your THEORY self-evident.
“The Big Crunch” is not a theory from the 1920’s. They believed in a static (rather than expanding) Universe. We still do not know if our universe will continue to expand. That is one of the great cosmological/physics questions left to be answered. If the matter in the Universe is too dense, the expansion may end and the Universe may collapse back in on itself, returning to the singularity and possibly Big Banging all over again — into another Universe (perhaps with different laws). This may have been going on forever for all we know. It is hardly some wacky, discredited theory from the 1920’s. If matter is not too dense, the universe could continue expanding forever until it dies a “heat death.”
Cosmologists also posit the possibility of our universe being a “baby” or “daughter” universe of some other universe or megaverse. Neither of these possibilities require any being outside time and space to be present to start the ball rolling.
So, again, I’ll ask… where is your evidence that YOUR model (YOUR THEORY) is the correct cosmological model? I’ll be happy to send it to some of my distinguished scientific friends. Perhaps you can write a paper and get it published in a reputable scientific journal. If not, then you are doing as I’m suggesting and stated your belief as though it were brute fact.
You say, “Note how it has to exist for us to exist.” This is exactly what we are debating. You can’t state the thing being debated as evidence for the thing in question. You have to offer supporting evidence for your claim. And it can’t be a restatement of the claim. It’s like saying, “Unicorns must exist in order for us to exist.” When I say, “Why? What is your evidence for that?” You say, “because the theory is that they MUST exist in order for us to exist.”
Furthermore, in science, we say, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” Since you are claiming something supremely extraordinary (a being existing outside space/time — something which science has no evidence of), the evidence needs to be equally extraordinary. Not simply are restatement of the claim.
If you have real evidence (not conjecture, theory, or belief), I’d love to hear it. If not, we can move on to my next question. Thanks!
“I’m asking for evidence. You are simply restating your BELIEF as though it were evidence or fact. Where is the EVIDENCE that something outside space/time must exist?”
Did I not already explain it and give it to you multiple times? The evidence is in the fact that our universe is not eternal and that there was absolutely nothing “before” it. That is the evidence.
“the expansion may end and the Universe may collapse back in on itself, returning to the singularity and possibly Big Banging all over again — into another Universe (perhaps with different laws). This may have been going on forever for all we know”
It is very similar to the theory of the 1920’s, and I question why you choose to say this when there is absolutely no evidence supportion bubble theory. Just because it “could” happen does not mean that it did or will. The chances are slim to none. By a rule of probability, it is more along the lines of impossible. Note how I said my favorite bubble theory is the one where two branes collide.
“where is your evidence that YOUR model (YOUR THEORY) is the correct cosmological model? ”
Already gave it. Note how I said my theory is based on scientifically accepted truths, not random guesses made by scientists. I am basing it entirely upon what we already know and what the scientific community holds to be true. There will always be some who disagree, but my theory isn’t using the opinion of the few but rather the many.
“Perhaps you can write a paper and get it published in a reputable scientific journal”
That would be good fun but as you can see under the “about my uncommon sense” section, I am a sophmore at OSU and don’t even have my degree yet. Maybe if I ask them really nicely . . .
“I’ll be happy to send it to some of my distinguished scientific friends.”
I’ll hold you to that, if you don’t mind.
“When I say, “Why? What is your evidence for that?” You say, “because the theory is that they MUST exist in order for us to exist.”’
Well that is only half of what I said. The evidence lies within our existence, while the reasoning, the answer to the why, is that nothing cannot turn into something all on its own, therefore there must be an outside actor.
“If you have real evidence (not conjecture, theory, or belief), I’d love to hear it. If not, we can move on to my next question. Thanks”
Now that you know we exist, think about the theory in that nothing cannot turn into something all on its own. Note how while there are some questions and possibilities out there that would nullify my theory, I am basing it on the accepted scientific consensus. If you agree that the accepted train of thought is that the BB created the universe and prior to it was absolutely nothing, then you can accept my theory as valid. Note how bubble universes, brane theory, etc, all are guesses with no evidence themselves, but rather are questions asked in an attempt to further scientific progress. They are assumptions, not truths. My theory is based on what the scientific community holds to be true, not what some in the scientific community postulate.
Hope that clears up that question, but feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I love getting feedback, especially if it tries to knock me off my rock.
Science does not know anything about what came before the Big Bang. And we don’t know that the Big Bang is a one-time event. Where are you getting this? Who are the cosmologist you are speaking with? I’m involved with all kinds of science organizations and the vast majority of scientists (who know what the “scientifically accepted truths” are), don’t believe in God. If they know this stuff better than you, wouldn’t they all believe as you do if you are correct? Or, are they all lacking common sense? Or, perhaps they’re all evil?
Scientifically accepted truths are constantly changing as we acquire new evidence (not theory or conjecture). People like you in the 1920’s who believed in a static universe (as opposed to expanding) thought that was evidence of God because it more closely resembled the account in Genesis (rather than an expanding universe 13-15 billion years old). Now, religious people are claiming this is simply a scientific fact — that there must be a God based on the Big Bang? What?
If you’re claiming science as your guide, then how is your hypothesis falsifiable (the mark of any true scientific claim). What could we learn that would falsify your theory? And are you comfortable with other scientifically accepted truths like the fact of biological evolution? Or do you believe that man was created in 4004 B.C. (as Bishop Usher calculated).
Finally, give me some scientific evidence (refer me to a well-reviewed paper or something) that there was nothing before the Big Bang. How would one even collect such evidence (evidence of nothingness)? Yes, space/time in our universe began then, but how do you know there was nothing else before it — that for instance, our universe is not the child of another universe? How do you know this? I mean, I might start following you if you can tell me how you — a mere sophomore at OSU — have managed to eclipse all the great scientific minds on the planet. It’s truly impressive!
Finally, tell me one more thing. If God exists outside of space/time, then how exactly did God create time? Any act of creation, by definition, requires the precondition OF TIME. At one moment IN TIME the thing doesn’t exist. And the next moment IN TIME it does. So if there is no time in the first place in which to create anything, how then, does one create time?
P.S.: Where are you getting that thing that the Luke Genealogy is for Mary? Can you please give me the scriptural reference for that one? Thanks.
“And we don’t know that the Big Bang is a one-time event.”
Ad ignorantum? See how you are doing it? Science accepts that before the BB, there was nothing.
“Where are you getting this? Who are the cosmologist you are speaking with? I’m involved with all kinds of science organizations and the vast majority of scientists (who know what the “scientifically accepted truths” are), don’t believe in God. If they know this stuff better than you, wouldn’t they all believe as you do if you are correct?”
I get that a lot. As of 2007, Stephen Hawking jumped on the “the universe came from nothing” train. There are others but that would require delving into my archives. Tomorrow if I have time. Robert Griffiths (I just slaughtered his name) is the only other one that I can think of off the top of my head, unless I am thinking of something else. Could be wrong, but I’ll check tomorrow. I do know that many of them do believe in God, at least in concept, aka higher power. My personal theory is that they struggle with dealing with the fact that they could never test such a thing. We are within our universe and have no way of escaping it, thus cannot “test” God. That and they have humility issues, and the existence of an outside actor who is powerful enough to control their lives is too much for them to be able to humble themselves. Just my opinion on that one though.
“Scientifically accepted truths are constantly changing as we acquire new evidence”
Thermodynamics? Lol, sorry, had to throw that one in there. Many do change, at least in some form, but that does not mean that all we know today will be wrong tomorrow. Again, this would be ad ignorantum.
“Now, religious people are claiming this is simply a scientific fact — that there must be a God based on the Big Bang? What?”
I know lots of religious individuals but I have never heard one of them cite the BB as proof of God. It isn’t just the BB, it is also what was “before” it. Another reason why I believe, though I didn’t mention it, is that there are so many complex beings and systems, that are so interdependent upon each other, as well as the laws of the universe, that I refuse to believe it occurred by chance alone. It’d be like asking me if I would win the lotto if I bought one ticket. My answer would be an obvious “99.9999999% No.”
“If you’re claiming science as your guide, then how is your hypothesis falsifiable (the mark of any true scientific claim). What could we learn that would falsify your theory?”
I’ll explain this again. If science were to prove that the universe is eternal then my theory breaks down. Note how falsifiable does not mean able to prove false, but rather have the chance to prove false. You can’t prove something false that is true
“And are you comfortable with other scientifically accepted truths like the fact of biological evolution”
Yep. It is a common misunderstanding. Science and the Bible do not conflict in the least bit. I am questioning of certain parts of evolution, i.e. the flagellum, human eye, etc, but I believe things evolve yes. As for how it all was able to happen, well I believe that to be by the grace of God. Again, chance presents a problem for me here, as it is near impossible for everything to have occurred the way it did.
“r do you believe that man was created in 4004 B.C. (as Bishop Usher calculated).”
Lol know I do not. I am a geological science major, so that would basically be blasphemy in itself. There is no way to calculate the age of the Earth using the Bible.
“have managed to eclipse all the great scientific minds on the planet.”
My argument is a branch off the cosmological argument, and many other physicists/cosmologists have made similar arguments. I’ll link all you ask for tomorrow, thus finishing up my response. Feel free to respond or let me finish up first, your choice.
“If God exists outside of space/time, then how exactly did God create time? Any act of creation, by definition, requires the precondition OF TIME. At one moment IN TIME the thing doesn’t exist. And the next moment IN TIME it does. So if there is no time in the first place in which to create anything, how then, does one create time?”
You are struggling to picture a 4th dimensional universe where duration can be observed. Note how nothing is nothing, but in that nothing there could be time or space “created”, it just wouldn’t be in the same sense that we know it. It almost makes my head hurt, but I love these kinds of questions. My guess would be that it would be made eternal, though it hadn’t always been, but was created, therefore it had always been in the sense of our 3rd dimensional view of time. After reading that a few times my head actually does hurt, but I’m 99.9999999% sure it makes sense.
As for his genealogy, google “luke mary genealogy”, and something will pop up. I’d link something, but again, I am tired and I am mountain biking in the morning. If I recall correctly, wiki even mentions it.
Ok, so for your links:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
You might gripe about this one, but they provide good footnotes and references. Having read through it, it is scientifically accurate. Dig deep into the site and you’ll find a reason to gripe lol.
http://www.bluefish.org/zero.htm
Excerpt from “Zero- The biography of a dangerous idea”, written by a professor at Columbia and freelance writer for Science, SCIAM, Wired UK, etc, Charles Seife (Hope you’ve heard of him).
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,806,Stephen-Hawking-Says-Universe-Created-from-Nothing,Slashdot,page1
Stephen Hawking’s lecture back in 2007 about his theory of the universe coming from nothing and ideas on the multiverse. Hawking, while denying he is an atheist, as he does not rule out the idea of a higher power, notes “more work is needed to prove this but we have time because ‘Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.’” Hawking, in my mind, is one of the few great scientists in the world. He is humble enough to argue against his own theories and noble enough to try to answer questions because they are there, not because he wants to be right.
Mary’s line in Luke:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Hope that clears up your question.
Yay for Jesus!
That last line…it grips me.
However, I can’t help feeling that the content of this entry are an oversimplification. You put everything so black and white that it leaves little explanation for why great thinkers and the laymen alike have been mulling over these issues for centuries.
There is no sure proof of God. Period. If there were, there would be no need for faith.
Your argument for the Big Bang is based upon the theory that “everything must come from something”, no? Then answer this: where did God come from?
We also cannot forget that, taken with a literal translation, the Bible is in direct opposition with modern science. A four thousand-year-old Earth simply is not consistent with carbon dating of two billion years. Again, this is if Genesis account is taken literally, which is far from my personal understanding.
I would also like to point out that there are in fact contradictions within the Biblical text itself. Granted, many of these can be explained away with knowledge of the cultural context, however this rule too can be applied to the scriptures of other major religions.
All this being said, I want to clarify that I am in fact a follower of Christ. However I did not reach this point through the polarized reasoning that this article speaks of, but rather through years of intense contemplation and searching. In future entries I think it would be beneficial to include arguments to the contrary, along with a personal rebuttal. This would give your claims more weight and credibility.
ps: be sure to change the second to last sentence of your “about” section
Not sure proof, but based on the scientific consensus there is proof.
“Then answer this: where did God come from”
God exists outside space and time, and therefore never had to be created. He is eternal, while our universe is not.
“A four thousand-year-old Earth simply is not consistent with carbon dating of two billion years.”
You cannot accurately tell the age of the Earth using the Bible. Even trying to determine how long humans have been on Earth cannot be accurately accomplished.
As for contradictions, after reading the entire Bible, I have found none.
http://noexitfromtheabyss.blogspot.com/2009/08/derek-foleys-failed-cosmological.html
Hello Derek.
I’d love to hear a response.
Thanks,
Paul