Even though nobody believes me when I say it…
…I change my mind from time to time.
Sometimes disagreement causes a new revelation.
I’m going to confess that my new revelation has unsettled me.
It seems that the Bible IS NOT the reason for my faith.
*dabs beads of sweat from forehead with trembling fingers*
It still makes me anxious to admit it!
I swear I didn’t know!
The shocking truth revealed itself during a conversation with an atheist.
…I just admitted I learned something from an atheist….
…if this post ends abruptly you’ll know I was struck by lightning.
Here’s the official declaration:
“I don’t believe there is a God because the Bible says so.”
I’ll wait a moment and allow the outraged fundamentalists to exit the room.
After further contemplation, I realized this isn’t really a controversial idea.
Every sacred text claims to have the true understanding of God.
But they don’t all say the same thing.
So they can’t ALL be correct.
It is an absurdly obvious display of circular reasoning to say:
“The Bible is true because the Bible is God’s word!”
Though statements like this will get you a hearty “Amen” at a tent revival…
…novice-level skeptics are justified when they sneer.
So why do I believe in God?
There are three questions that I cannot answer without the existence of God.
- Why does the Universe exist?
- Why do I ponder my own existence?
- Why do I sometimes act contrary to my instincts?
These questions have no naturally occurring answers.
The answers are supernatural.
Religion, not science, is necessarily where we go to encounter the supernatural.
The Bible is, in my opinion, the best religious text in the world.
I don’t understand everything the Bible says.
Sometimes it says contrary, illogical or controversial things.
But I’m stuck with it…
If I throw out the Bible then I gotta find another sacred text that reveals God.
If I throw out God then I got no answers to my three questions.
And ‘God’ is the perfect answer to those questions.
And the Bible is the best insight into the nature of God.
It doesn’t surprise (or bother) me that I can’t answer EVERY question posed.
I’m suspicious when anyone claims to have it all figured out.
I’d be suspicious if I understood everything about reality.
God transcends the universe.
God is not a thing in the universe that I can point to like a star or a tree.
…and God is not a book either.
76 Responses
Yeesh. JZ is cranky today!
Those cascading chemicals are mixing up ‘impatience’ in that giant processing center above his eyes…
I was going to suggest some vitamin D…and if that doesn’t work, some Prozac.
Or maybe he just needs to be rewired?
Can’t say. I think Tildeb is the final word on who needs rewiring and who is living in true reality.
Well, SOMEDAY maybe we will figure out how to shut off the religious center of the brain completely… Then ALL of us could be brilliant Atheists!
http://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/
Of course, by definition, we’d all be slightly retarded. But, worth it!
Stupidity for the advancement of Science!
“[The Old] world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy. What with mothers and lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, what with the temptations and the lonely remorses, what with all the diseases and the endless isolating pain, what with the uncertainties and the poverty—they were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly…how could they be stable?”
–The Controller, Brave New World
Oh you poor thing! Don’t you even know this is fiction?
By the way, that’s the same video he posted referencing me on Club’s blog!
If only it were possible to will oneself into ignorance. I’d stop asking all these pesky, complicated questions IMMEDIATELY.
Alas. I’ve taken the red pill. :/
Didn’t watch the video. I’m guessing it’s not conclusive, scientific evidence for his claims…?
Wow, my questions must’ve been even crappier than yours, John. They didn’t get a look in.
I’d add to my list of unanswered questions: why does humanity ask “why?” Do atheists believe humans are capable of using questions that even the universe can’t answer?
Here, I’ll answer for JZ… “It’s really not that complicated.”
There ya go.
Kind of like, “these are not the droids you’re searching for.”
Using or asking? It’s easy to ask all kinds of questions the universe can’t answer.
The Universe is a pretty mute, cold god, huh?There you go, Jasmine. The answer is YES. Humans (which are products of the Universe) can ask all sorts of questions which the Universe itself can’t answer.
• Why does the Universe exist?
• Why do I ponder my own existence?
• Why do I sometimes act contrary to my instincts?
1) This universe? No idea, but a small segment of this universe is busy trying to figure it out. What we can say about this universe is that it is better “designed” to create black holes, not life bearing planets. This fact might give us a clue. It’s now held by many cosmologists that there was no Big Bang, not in the traditional sense, rather this universe is the product of a 4-Dimensional star collapsing into a black hole creating this 3-Dimensional universe. This hypothesis explains a lot. An awful lot, including the origin of the singularity we’re pretty sure existed before Inflation (but can’t ever be certain of because all physics breaks down at Inflation, meaning we just don`t know what was going on before), as well as explaining the uniformity of the cosmos. What might this mean? Universe’`s, like life, have a homeostatic urge? Maybe… Integrated Information Theory would certain favour this possibility.
2) Because you have a huge sensory information processing plant sitting above your eyes capable of reflective/abstract/predictive thought. It’s a numbers game; the number of neurons.
3) Instincts aren’t reliable as rational cues for action. That giant sensory information processing plant sitting above your eyes capable of reflective/abstract/predictive thought proves that. Although hugely beneficial in certain instances, especially when we were counted as snack items, instinct/intuition gives rise to blunders in causal associations, and that is not only the root of all superstitions, it is the root of you perceiving agency in nature. That is hardwired into that giant sensory information processing plant sitting above your eyes. You can’t help but finding agency in nature. It’s an evolutionary tool, a trick, and it was once a very, very useful one.
I appreciate your attempt at answering the questions, John. Thank you.
1) Your answer is imaginative and brimming with faith. I respect that. Also, I noticed you humbly confessed uncertainty. A 4-Dimensional start collapsing is an option that I’d be willing to explore. It’d be interesting to discuss the possible attributes of that celestial ‘entity’…
And the fact that this universe seems ‘designed to manufacture black holes’ makes it even harder to account for consciousness.
2) Your answer here is basically, “Because I have a brain.” Believe it or not, I already knew that. My question is bigger than you’re making it out to be. I’ve not seen (or read about) any mass of tissue evolving to become sentient. I haven’t read an explanation of what happens to consciousness at death. One second a body is ‘alive’ the next second it’s ‘dead’…what happened during that split second between those two states?
I don’t mean to oversimplify but you’re saying ‘brain’ where I would say ‘Spirit’.
3) You said, “Instincts aren’t reliable as rational cues for action” and I agree. But I don’t always act rationally either. My question is why do I feel this sense that I ought to behave in a way that is counter to my primal urges?
For example: I see a sports car idling in the parking lot, keys in the ignition, giant bag of money on the passenger seat, no security cameras, nobody watching…why do I feel like it’s ‘wrong’ to just drive it away? The ‘law of the land’ doesn’t explain it. Laws do nothing to change my attitude about right and wrong. Abortion is legal but that doesn’t ease my conscience about the action.
If this is all as you say, an evolutionary trick, then atrocity is an illusion and I just don’t believe that.
3) ”why do I feel like it’s ‘wrong’ to just drive it away?”
Enlightened self-interest. You adhere to societal norms because you want others to act in the same way towards you. You don’t want people to steal from you, after all. It’s really not that complicated… although I suspect you’re not at all interested in actually learning anything here, rather you’re more interested in pretending that you’re thinking “honestly” about something that is easily explained, yet you have no intention whatsoever of engaging.
Actually, it’s much more complicated than you’re suggesting. Societal norms and enlightened self-interest are two different things.
In Islamic society, it is acceptable to behead infidels. That seems wrong to me and not just because I’m not part of that society. And I can’t imagine that any devout Muslim wants to have his head cut off but that self-interest doesn’t deter them from chopping away on others.
People steal cars every day. They don’t feel guilty. In fact, there’s a certain degree of pride in evading capture. If they don’t feel guilt, how do we tell them their actions are wrong?
The final paragraph was a pretty cheap shot. I thought we’d progressed past this stuff.
You sound like my Christian fundamentalist friends. You’ve probably encountered some of them in the past. They’ve said stuff to you like:
“You’re not interested in hearing the Gospel. Your heart is too hard. If you’d honestly open your mind to the truth, you’d realize that I’m right. You have no intention of engaging because your heart and mind are closed.”
How do you respond when you hear these accusations?
And there it is. You simply want to object, not actually engage the subject. No, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not want to behead infidels. Do the majority of Christians want to murder innocent people in a women`s health clinic like Dear did recently in the US?
Yes, some people don`t feel guilt. They are called sociopaths. They are mentally ill. Their wiring is physically wrong. Literally. I’ll link to an article, but I already know you won’t read it, and if you actually do glance at it, your dissonance will stop you from actually processing the information and assessing it in a rational, balanced manner, altering your thinking accordingly to reflect reality. You’re not interested in that, are you, John?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always
“No, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not want to behead infidels.”
…and yet some do. Against their own inclinations! Isn’t this how we got the whole conversation started?!! (Yes. It is.)
Suggesting ‘their wiring is physically wrong’ is not an answer. Do you think I’ve never thought of that before? Do you think I’ve never heard of psychology? What physical evidence shows that ‘bad wiring’ isn’t actually a ‘demon’?
The answers I’m seeking are PERSONAL. Why am I not a sociopath? Why am I convinced that it REALLY IS WRONG to murder innocent people even though it’s legal and honorable according to some societal norms? How do I ever know when to trust my conscience?
(That last question is really good. If you can answer that WITHOUT SOME KIND OF FAITH, you win!)
Insisting that I’m doing nothing but rejecting your thoroughly sufficient answers is tedious. Apparently I’ll only get points for ‘engaging’ when I realize and admit that you know absolutely everything.
A “demon” in the guise of physical neurological aberrations observable (uniformly) in all psychopaths/sociopaths?
I see.
Correct.
It’s a matter of picking whichever term is appropriate for your faith.
Oh, good grief.
I second Tildeb’s response.
… And I’m the one who won’t engage?
I will read an article about the physical rewiring procedure being used to turn sociopaths into model citizens.
What physical evidence shows that ‘bad wiring’ isn’t actually a ‘demon’?
Because you can alter the outcome by affecting the wiring. There is a one-to-one demonstrable causal connection. Trying to insert an agency of Oogity Boogity! into this causal connection makes as much sense (and should be equivalently respected) as believing a plumber who insists your blocked pipes are caused by evil spirits. It doesn’t help clear the drain.
Why would you be willing to pay such a ‘plumber’ who achieves no improved results for your drains (but pretends to know a great deal about the nature of spirits that live in plumbing pipes) any more than you be willing to pay a priest to mumble Latin words and throw water on a person who suffers from a brain impairment? It’s ludicrous superstitious nonsense, and yet look at just how credulous people are willing to be in the name of piety but nor plumbing!
Because you can alter the outcome by affecting the wiring
As predicted, John didn`t read the article, so he has no idea what you’re talking about, Tildeb.
I don’t need to read the article. I understood the concepts you’re offering when I was 6 years old.
Of course you don`t need to read the linked article. So you knew about split-brain medical cases/studies when you were 6. Impressive. Can I see your Nobel Prize one day?
You’re an idiot.
My mother used to say when you start calling names, you’ve lost the argument.
You have insisted that the answers are “simple”. I took you at your word.
Please explain simply how I know I can trust your enlightened self interest when it says something different than mine?
My mother always said, “Never argue with the willfully ignorant.”
That’s good advice too.
But I’ll keep talking to you anyway.
This is fantastic news! I admit, I didn’t know this!
Where are these rewired citizens who are no longer sociopaths?
So, is this how it’s going to go? We’re just going to ignore JBs questions and the massive problems with Atheism and start picking at easier comments instead?…
That’s generally how it goes…
Some Proofs for God – http://wp.me/p7gN8C-kW for example
“There are three questions that I cannot answer without the existence of God.
Why does the Universe exist?
Why do I ponder my own existence?
Why do I sometimes act contrary to my instincts?
——–
Huge argument from ignorance and incredulity. God of the gaps anyone? But even if you grant the general deistic God of creation, what evidence that this god is the god of Christianity? You are still left with faith in what the Bible says, just as the Muslim uses the same arguments to Leap to his God Allah to support what the Koran says.
Thanks for the comment, KIA. I haven’t written a post specifically about the ‘God of the Gaps’ yet. I need to do so.
My argument is indeed from a position of ignorance and incredulity. If there was a position of knowledge and scientific certainty, I would no longer be posing these questions. The ‘gaps’ would be closed. Unless you have something other than asserted opinion, you are arguing ‘atheism of the gaps’. Agreed?
To be clear, I never suggested the Bible is the only sacred text. I said it was the best revelation of God that I’ve thus far discovered. When you entertain the possibility that God exists, you need religion to figure out what that ‘God’ is like. Faith is absolutely, unquestionably necessary in ANY God hypothesis. That doesn’t make Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism equal. It DOES, however, mean that faith is even necessary in atheism.
How is faith of the religious kind necessary for atheism?
You believe the answers to my questions exist though you can’t prove them or (so far) articulate them. That is faith.
No, that’s not so. I have no faith of the religious kind about answering those questions; I recognize the poor quality of them if answers beyond my subjective desires are what I seek.
I happen to think those questions you ask are actually very poor ones; any answers will reflect that poor quality.
For example, you ask ‘Why does the Universe exist?’ I don’t think there is any means to gain any knowledge from reality about that; rather, I think the better question is ‘How did the universe become what it is today?’ That’s a question for which that can accumulate evidence from reality and lead us towards a better understanding of its processes and mechanisms and patterns.
‘Why do I ponder my own existence?’ is open to all kinds of equivalent answers no matter what they may be. The question is fully a subjective one. So I don’t think it’s a good question if one seriously wants to gain knowledge about our inquisitiveness as a species. Neuroscience seems rich in evidence that can lead us towards a better understanding of how our brains work in this regard and biology a subject that can produce knowledge about the role this emergent property provides.
‘Why do I sometimes act contrary to my instincts?’ is a behavioural question – again legitimately subjective with all kinds of equivalent explanations – that has all kinds of compelling evidence of how brains work and how they reveal its properties through behaviours in our expanding knowledge from neuroscience… explored and applied in various branches of psychology and psychiatry and medicine.
Note that questions that can be answered independent of our subjective beliefs are the ‘how’ questions. The ‘why’ questions do not produce such singular answers adduced from compelling evidence, which is why they tend to be the worst kind of questions if one is seeking singular rather than wholly subjective answers. In fact, most ‘answers’ to why questions are very often pseudo-answers because they are dependent on the premises being assumed to be true. That is often not the case. Such ‘why’ answers are actually just more empty claims confusing people into believing them to be equivalent answers to the how questions loaded up with compelling evidence and increased likelihood to be the case.
The process of accumulating evidence and adducing incorporated explanations that seem likely is not faith of the religious kind. It is confidence of varying degrees based on adduced evidence. This method is faith’s polar opposite. So, in the case of answers believed to be the case that presumes its question’s premises are true (say, a divine intervention or cause), we have a very typical faith-based method where belief and not adduced evidence from reality informs not the likelihood the answer is the case but an answer immune from any contrary evidence adduced from reality. That’s why these are pseudo-answers: they produce no knowledge. Ever.
This method of utilizing faith-based belief rather than evidence-adduced belief for very low confidence in religious claims is not the case for atheism. Low likelihood is entirely the burden religions have. I think any claims that try to describe reality independent of our subjective wishes (often indoctrinated beliefs) can only inform any answers if and only if they first account for what reality has to say in the matter. Any method that purports to describe reality and whatever is in it yet refuses to allow contrary evidence from reality (or account for a lack of evidence that should be available if the claim were true) to have any impact increasing or decreasing this likelihood demonstrates how the method of faith is a failed one, one incapable of producing.
And this is EXACTLY what we find when we take faith-based claims seriously and seek reality’s arbitration of them. They deserve the lowest possible confidence because of this failure. To get around this fatal problem, faith-based claims rely only on the ‘why’ questions for their faux-answers and the credulity of people to be fooled by them. Religion is not the only credulous undertaking populations face (alternative medicine, denialism, and conspiracy theories are also some of the faith-based ‘answers’ that infect significant portions of our populations). Reality simply doesn’t support the divine agency explanatory model. And because of this lack of likelihood to be the case, that explanatory model deserves very low confidence not because the person who recognizes this fact imports another set of non believing beliefs (atheism means non belief in gods or a god and not some different ‘worldview’ kind of equivalent belief) but because the beliefs adduced from low likelihood models that don’t comport with reality deserve no confidence.
This explains why the rate of non belief in scientists is drastically higher than the general population in scientifically literate societies and single digits in the very highest caliber of renowned scientists. Simply put, there is no good reason to invest belief in an explanatory model that reality doesn’t support. And a lack of invested belief means non belief which, in the case of religious claims means atheism.
So your answer to the questions is, “Those are crappy questions.”
Can you not see the subjectivity of your criticism of subjectivity?
Didn’t you notice I explained with good reasons? The are crappy questions because any answer will do. That’s no way to gain knowledge, and if your questions do not seek knowledge, then they are empty of wisdom. They are merely reformed statements of your beliefs disguised as ‘answers’ and not descriptive of reality at all.
I see.
Is your response subjective or objective?
Although my response comes from me and is therefore subjective, I have tried to use objectively informed reasons for them.
Then we are both using the same process.
I’m curious about what objective truth answers those three pesky questions.
Actually, I’m not arguing anything. I’m responding to your post
‘God’ is the perfect answer to those questions’
That’s why religions has lasted so long. It’s not the perfect answer, it’s simply an answer.
Religion is not God.
But I get what you’re saying. Since I’m on a roll lately admitting that I don’t know stuff… I can’t say what’s “perfect”.
And religion has been around so long because it gave birth to science.
Religion isn’t God, but if it wasn’t for religion, how would anyone hear about the apparent Gods of the skies? Until God shows himself it is really hard to take the word of a WordPress blogger. It just isn’t the same!
Correct. Without God revealing himself, we wouldn’t have a clue about his existence.
People have been claiming revelations about God since long before WordPress. Why do you suppose that is?
The same reason other religions have been doing so for just as long. One of the reasons is events such as the inquisition, there have been some barbaric punishments for not believing. Do you think that has contributed to its longevity?
Before we sidetrack, you want to take a shot at responding to the “Atheism of the gaps” thing?
Where is that?
The response to your “God of the gaps” objection.
(… And I’m profoundly sad that you’re not reading my comments…)
It was Kia that was talking to you regarding the God of the gaps
Sorry. All those comments look alike after awhile.
BTW, I read your Ferrari post on your blog. It was really good. Thoughtful stuff.
It’s cool, and thanks a lot, I appreciate your kind words!
Therefore God is a claim mistaken for a conclusion. That’s why it’s not an answer but a pseudo-answer.
The only people who have used the phrase “therefore God” on this blog are Atheists… Atheists who are forever trying to simplify life into a formula.
Anyway, if the only thing you will recognize as truth/knowledge/wisdom is something that can be proven objectively (via scientific testing) then I understand your frustration with philosophy and religion and even literary criticism. They’re not concrete enough for you.
But–at least be willing to admit that you don’t have any “real world” solutions for “real life” problems, like you claim. The natural sciences have their uses…but they are NOT helpful for practical use with the MOST IMPORTANT aspects of life.
Like it or not, the majority of the human experience is subjective. So you come across as completely out of touch and delusional when you suggest that people can find everything they need in a lab.
And go ahead and argue that those people are just asking stupid questions which need to be reworded into smaller, more manageable ones. The fact remains, for the topics that most people CARE ABOUT, your perspective is too tiny to be relevant.
The problem with you reworking of other’s positions and opinions is revealed time and time again: you substitute what you think the Other is saying with your own interpretation and then build on that interpretation for your own response. What we get are comments that are not tethered to the original comment; they are tethered to your beliefs about the accuracy of your interpretation.. This is faith-based thinking in a nutshell and it is fraught with error (not that you care; it’s always someone else who is to blame for your comprehension/interpretive errors).
For example, you say, “I understand your frustration with philosophy and religion and even literary criticism. They’re not concrete enough for you.”
Well, I’m not frustrated with philosophy, with religion, with literary criticism at all.
No even a little bit.
In fact, I’ve paid a lot of money to study these subjects and in some detail. I’ve certainly enjoyed a modicum of academic success and recognition doing so and my life has been immeasurably enriched by my learning extracted from a better understanding of these areas. They have helped me to form the principles I hold and exercise in the greatest of esteem.
So imagine my surprise that you think I’m frustrated with these areas. Imagine my surprise when you tell me I’m frustrated because they aren’t concrete enough. Where do I even begin breaking down your built up opinion that is utterly wrong in fact and then how do I get you to understand that you have to – not me – rebuild an entirely new structure of knowledgeable opinion… if you wish to be accurate?
Now, I don’t think you do want to be accurate. I think you want to be right. I don’t think you care one whit, titch, or tad, about whether or not your beliefs that form your opinions are reflective of reality whatsoever. I think all that really matters to you is to have your beliefs reflected back at you. I think you mistake this reflection for a window.
You keep using this term “reality.”
“You don’t care whether your beliefs reflect reality…”
I’m suggesting your scope of the term “reality” is too small.
Why does the possibility that God and science could co-exist bother you atheists so much? If we all agree that we have no bulletproof answers, why can’t the possibility of God’s existence be just as entertaining? Indeed, my question would be, what is certainty?
And how would an atheist attempt to explain spiritual things? Why furniture can fly around, defying gravity? Or the dark dreadful foreboding you can feel in unsafe places? The bright figures you can sometimes glimpse, or the unearthly longing you get for something more, or our insatiable desire to know who we are and why we’re here? How do you explain humanity’s drive to be remembered?
I guess the point I’m making is that whilst I can understand atheism and theism being on equal terms with doubtfulness, how is atheism any more sure? What certainty do you have to offer me?
“[JB] stands contrary to actual knowledge, actual explanations, actual models that successfully describe the reality we share, who in the name of faith intervene and interfere with accepted knowledge and insert your faith-based anti-scientific rhetoric in its place and, by doing so, allow real world problems to go unaddressed with real life solutions…” –Tildeb
Now THERE’S an impassioned speech!
Move over, spiritual people! Let the guys with microscopes solve your REAL problems with REAL solutions!
(Lol. You aren’t serious, are you, Tildeb? What sort of anti-scientific rhetoric have you heard here? SERIOUSLY? Did you forget–again–that this isn’t “Answers in Genesis” and JB isn’t Kent Hovindt or Kirk Cameron?)
Just look at the header picture form the last post, MMCM. John actually thinks evolution properly understood (meaning in its scientific sense) doesn’t mean unguided. That’s an error of immense proportion. And the only reason he thinks this – the ONLY reason – is an incompatible religious claim (divine intervention and creationism at some literal and historical point for which there is exactly zero – ZERO – evidence) with reality.
And yes, if you wish to find real solutions to real problems IN THE REAL WORLD (you forgot that bit) then you’d better allow reality and not some whacked-out contrary religious belief to be your guide. The difference between this type of religious apologetics found here and the AIG/Discovery Institute drivel is not one of kind but degree.
I’d love to see where it’s written that the word ‘unguided’ must be included in the definition of evolution.
“The difference between this type of religious apologetics found here and the AIG/Discovery Institute drivel is not one of kind but degree.”
Do you own a mirror?
Are you going to actually supply some of these REAL WORLD solutions? Where is the “actual knowledge, actual explanations, actual models that successfully describe the reality we share”? Are you going to pull back the curtain and expose the folly of my magical, superstitious thinking? Or are you just gonna keep whining about how pious and arrogant I am?
I know what JB is saying, Tildeb.
We’re related, remember? (Hey, Carmen. If you’re reading this, you can remind Tildeb of the connection.)
I’ve had thousands and thousands of conversations about the nature of the universe with JB–and we’ve probed the issue of whether it makes even a modicum of sense that everyhing in reality could be “unguided.”
I can agree with all of your physical observations. You could describe EVERYTHING discovered made by biologists and chemists and geologists in great detail, and I’ll only nod in agreement. But you’re still not happy. You STILL can’t see that tagging on the word “unguided” to the theory of Evolution is YOUR faith statement.
Once again, if we treat the Universe like an enormous Washing Machine, it’s like you’re climbing around in the back yelling, “Hey, this hose puts the water in! And this cord provides the electricity… so, obviously, this machine is perfectly able to keep the machine going ALL BY ITSELF.”
From our perspectives, stuck inside the Machine, you’re claiming there’s no proof of a Cosmic Washer Woman…. But that’s because Washer-women don’t live IN the washing machine! Your thinking is too small. In fact, the more complex the Universe, the MORE it needs an engineer or a code-writer. Even computer software that can repair itself isn’t “unguided.” That software was written to work independently–but it’s silly to suggest it wrote itself.
Codes and Information and the ability to “select” what’s “favorable” don’t come from chaos. Code is always intentional. The Machine of the Universe–and the Software that runs it (like laws of math, science, and logic)–were put together with a purpose.
None of these observations have anything to do with the Bible. Just as my 5-year-old didn’t quote a Bible verse to me when I asked her where sand castles come from. (I even asked, “Don’t you think maybe the water could have done it?” and she just LAUGHED.)
John, you say
These questions have no naturally occurring answers. The answers are supernatural.”
See, that’s a faith-based claim for which you have absolutely not one speck of evidence about this reality from this reality, John. That’s what’s so irritating. You confuse and conflate your faith-based belief to be equivalent to an independent exterior answer deduced from some other source than your accepted faith-based beliefs and then assume this is the case and peddle it to others. It’s not the case. It’s a pseudo-answer, a pseudo-explanation that can be fully summed up with ‘Godidit’. That’s why it’s a god of the gaps position and, by starting with this, you stand to have to retreat your faith as science advances. Because you don;t like to do this, you then become an advocate for anti-scientific beliefs. And, surprising exactly no one who has seen this happen time and time again, this is exactly what you have become… one of the 42% of Americans who stand contrary to actual knowledge, actual explanations, actual models that successfully describe the reality we share, who in the name of faith intervene and interfere with accepted knowledge and insert your faith-based anti-scientific rhetoric in its place and, by doing so, allow real world problems to go unaddressed with real life solutions in yior quest to maintain anti-scientific beliefs.
What I don’t get is why you can’t be honest and say to those three questions, “I. Don’t. Know.” rather than just make stuff up about supernatural causal agents exercising magical abilities and call it an answer… and expect these beliefs to be treated as if serious rather than infantile and irresponsible. Is admitting you don’t know these answers so very hard to do? Will your mind shatter, the sky fall, and earth shift under your feet if you admit what’s actually the case: you don;t know?
To which part of this post should I respond?
The top part where I “…confuse and conflate my faith-based belief to be equivalent to an independent exterior answer deduced from some other source than my accepted faith-based beliefs…”
OR
The bottom part where I, “…can’t be honest and say to those three questions, ‘I. Don’t. Know.’ “?
The top part implies that there are answers independent of my ‘faith-based belief’ while the bottom part implies that uncertainty is the best position.
Replace ‘answers’ with ‘likelihood’ and you’re off to a good beginning. Let the upper inform the lower. It doesn;t have to be one OR the other.
Alrighty. (But ‘answers’ was your word, not mine…)
I was pretty emphatic about not knowing things. I didn’t come close to communicating that my words are the final and absolute truth. In fact, the entire article was built around my personal quest to make sense of three questions. I don’t see how posing questions makes me guilty of being a know-it-all.
I’m not aware of any naturally occurring ‘likelihoods’ to my three questions. If you have something to offer that is not ‘faith-based’, I’m all ears.
Oh come on, John. Look how you repackage my comment to be about accusing you of simply asking questions. That’s not what I’m doing at all: I taking aim squarely at you producing ‘answers’ out of you faith and pretending they come from reality. They don’t.
Let’s revisit, shall we? I quoted your OP: “These questions have no naturally occurring answers. The answers are supernatural.”
So I commented about not creating detached ‘answers’ with the supernatural claim that ‘godidit’ but suggested you try the honest ‘I don’t know’. Now, you seem to have misplaced this thread entirely – including what you wrote – and substituted a new one where you aren’t producing ‘answers’ out of your faith (you are, which is what I take issue with) and you’re not imposing them on reality as I accuse you of doing (the answers are supernatural) but being emphatic about not knowing. That emphasis must be in your head because it’s not in that bit I quoted you producing answers that conclude with the supernatural. So I’m understandably confused about what it is you’reactually saying if it’s not what you’re actually writing..
I said, QUOTE:
“It doesn’t surprise (or bother) me that I can’t answer EVERY question posed.”
But to make extra sure there’s no doubt, I’ll offer this as well:
“I, John Branyan, do not know for absolutely certain whether or not God exists. I do not know for certain how the Universe came to be. I do not know how consciousness works. Everything I have written about the existence of supernatural reality is speculative and contains no evidence from natural science.”
And you still have the floor.
Take a shot at answering these questions ‘from reality’. We don’t need to rehash the fact that you don’t know for sure. Just tell me what you think is more likely than a transcendent, intelligent, creative entity.
Two thumbs up!
Well written…I know far too many people who worship the Bible instead of the God of the Bible.