June 24, 2024, 10:28:55 AMLatest Member: dudom492
BoutCheetah » Forum » Other » Off Topic » God is quite good.

God is quite good.

Started by Xrow, January 14, 2011, 09:53:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xrow

January 14, 2011, 09:53:03 PM Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 09:58:38 PM by Xrow
http://vimeo.com/6148456

Watch if you like, I've seen the first half 2 and a half times now.
Frank Turek destroys Christopher Hitchens, and because Christopher is a more knowledgeable Atheist than you, Turek thus destroys you as well.

Turek explains, very aptly, why God must exist.




Opti, God is good.
Tell me why you think He is not.




By the way, I have lost all faith I had in your ability to hold up your end of a debate.
The more I learn, the less you know.

Optimism

January 14, 2011, 11:13:28 PM #1 Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 11:17:52 PM by Optimism
umad Turek? lulz.

Watched the video in its entirety. He unknowingly fell apart exactly the same way you do in these debates. I'm sorry, but his claims/assertions were laughable.

Hitchens owned Turek (notice the audience's response). If a survey was done, Hitchens would have been granted victory by a landslide.
- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

grant746



Allie


Optimism

- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Allie


Optimism

- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Allie


Optimism

January 14, 2011, 11:57:13 PM #8 Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 12:00:06 AM by Optimism
1:44:50

LOL. FAIL!

Is this Hitchens vs. Hitchens? Whose that other guy that has barely said a word? rofl.
- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Xrow

January 15, 2011, 01:07:08 AM #9 Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 01:27:52 AM by Xrow
Regarding your comments on the video
In Hitchen's one and only opening statement, there were more "uhs" and "ums" than actual points. It was quite the eyeroller.
Turek, on the other hand, said "uh/um" maybe once. He spoke clearer, backed his points up with science and reason, and won the crowd.

Hitchens made a fool of both himself and you, Opti. He knows all you know and more, and he still lost! SILLY ATHEISTS, INTELLECT IS FOR CHRISTIANS!




Regarding your evidenceless, proofless and logicless statement "God is not good"

Suppose that a man has just captured the rapist who is responsible for molesting and murdering his five-year-old daughter! Would that father be justified in killing the man who took his daughter from him? Most people would understand his actions if he were to do so. How justified would he be if he went further in his punishment of the evil man, torturing him for three or four days before killing him? Still, his actions may seem justified to some, though most people would feel that he had now gone too far. But, what if rather than killing the child molester, he intentionally kept him alive for the length of a normal life span in order to torture him endlessly? Very few people would condone such actions, yet worship a god who would do the same.
Child molestation is one of the most heinous of all acts. Even so, it is inconceivable to imagine punishing a child molester with endless torture; however, most Christian churches teach that God will torture endlessly all those who do not believe in Him, child molesters and sweet little grandmothers alike. The traditional view of Christianity is that all non-Christians will go to hell where they will be burned with everlasting fire for all eternity. Christian theology also teaches that God is love; therefore, that traditional view of hell is illogical and contradictory. It is very easy to understand why there are so many skeptics of Christianity, who by reason determine that a loving God could never carry out such a punishment. They then deny that He exists. Hell has made them unbelievers. The belief that Hell is a place of literal, conscious, eternal torment is a misconception based on Platonic error, improper translation from Greek and Hebrew to English biblical text and intentional deception.
Throughout the past two thousand years Christians have done great damage to the originally pure and divine doctrine which had once lead followers of Christ to give up their lives as they stood unswervingly for His truth. Over time those who believed in Christ allowed the doctrines and influences of pagans to taint their Christian faith. Under the leadership of Constantine the fourth century Christians modeled their churches after the Roman Pantheon, a temple to all gods. According to Wikipedia, Easter, which is named for the goddess of fertility, Eostre, became a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Christ. Christ and his apostles began to be depicted with haloes over their heads, haloes which resembled the rays of sunlight which protruded from the head of Apollo, the Roman Sun god.
One doctrine which has had a terrible and lasting effect on Christianity is the doctrine of the innate immortality of the soul. In the fourth century B.C., Plato, a Greek philosopher, began to teach that the human soul was innately immortal, living on apart from the body after death. He taught that the soul could not die and that the body and soul became separate upon death.
The Jews of the Old Testament along with the early Christian leaders believed not in immortality of the soul but rather in the resurrection of the body and the soul. Many of the men who led the church during the first three centuries, such as Justin Martyr and Tatian openly opposed the idea of the immortality of the soul, believing that it was a challenge to the doctrine of the resurrection. In his book, The Fire that Consumes, Edward Fudge states that John Darby, the man who popularized the Christian doctrine of the rapture, was convicted that "the idea of the immortal soul was not in general a gospel topic; that it comes on the contrary from the Platonists; and that it was just when the coming of Christ was denied in the Church, or at least began to be lost sight of that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of
the resurrection".
The error of the immortal soul has caused believers to rationalize that all people will live on after death, whether good or bad, and if the godly will receive eternal life in Heaven, then those who are ungodly will suffer for all eternity. If a person believes that the soul cannot die, then Heaven does not make sense without hell. But, the Bible does not teach that the soul is indestructible; in fact it teaches that our soul can become immortal but only as God chooses. The Bible teaches conditional immortality. The human soul can live forever but only if God has chosen to impute immortality into that soul. The condition for receiving immortality is faith in Christ. But, what will happen to those who do not meet that condition?
Within Christianity there has been much confusion about the state of dead. A large portion of that confusion is the result of mistranslation of Biblical text. In modern translations of the Bible, the Germanic word Hell is likely to be seen anytime the text confronts the afterlife. According to Strong's Greek and Hebrew Lexicon there are four different words which have been taken under the umbrella of that one word, which has led to the common misconception that all four words are synonymous. If all four words did indeed mean the same thing then any passage containing the word hell would apply to all four eschatological words. But, since all but two of the words have different meanings, the word hell has tainted the true meaning of Biblical apocalyptic scriptures.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon there is one word used in the original Hebrew manuscripts which describes the state of the dead. It is a place called, Sheol. Sheol has three meanings; "the grave", "the pit" or "the hidden place." In its original form no other meaning can be found.
The New Testament was written in Greek. According to Strong's Greek Lexicon, the original Greek manuscripts contain three words which are used to explain the condition and location of the dead. The Greek counterpart for the Hebrew word, Sheol is Hades. Hades conveys the same meaning as Sheol. It can mean either "the grave", "the pit" or the "hidden place". Hades in no way implies fire or Punishment.
Tartarus is a place only spoken of twice in the Bible. Jude 7 in the New Testament speaks of a group of angels who left their assigned positions in the heavenly realm, descending to this realm in order to have intercourse with human women. Those angels are kept in Tartarus, bound in unbreakable chains, awaiting the Final Judgement.
Gehenna is a place which coincides with the Hebrew, Valley of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom was a massive garbage heap outside of Jerusalem where all of the impure things were burned in order to keep the holy city pure. Gehenna is a the eschatological equivalent of the Valley of Hinnom, where the impure things are burned in order to keep the holy city, the new Jerusalem, pure.
The four words paint three separate pictures of three distinctly different places. The word hell however is an umbrella, causing the four words to their individual identities. Along with the masking of the originals meanings of the judgment words, there is a problem with the words, forever and eternity. There is no Greek word for eternity. The word which is used in the original manuscripts is Aion, which actually means an age or ages. If a person reads Aion as forever and Hades as Gehenna, it is easy to imagine a place of eternal, conscious torment. However, that image would be wrought out of mistranslation of Greek manuscripts. The question becomes, why do the modern English translations of the Bible contain these errors in translation? Has there been intentional deception when it comes to the Final Judgement of mankind?
According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, in the original Hebrew Old Testament text, the Word Sheol is used sixty-five times. Three times the word Sheol is translated to say the pit; thirty-one times, "the grave"; and thirty-one times, "Hell". How did those who translated the Old Testament text decide when to translate Sheol as the grave and when to translate it as Hell? They only translated Sheol as Hell when the person being spoken of was an evil or Godless person. It would have done unimaginable damage to the Catholic doctrine of the immortality of the soul, if the translators had properly translated that the Righteous and the Unrighteous had gone to the same place, the grave.
Another occurrence of intentional mistranslation occurs in Luke 23:43. This is the passage in which Jesus supposedly declares to the thief on the cross, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise." According to the conditionalist website Truth or Tradition, The problem with that translation is that there was no punctuation in Greek. Therefore, the translators could in no way be certain where to place that comma. The actual intended translation could have just of easily been "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise." In which case the meaning is completely different. If the comma came before today, then Jesus was telling the thief that in that very day he would be with Him in Paradise, an interesting notion since second Peter tells us that Jesus descended into Hades for three days, so as not to go directly to paradise that very day. If the comma had been placed after today, then what Jesus told the thief would have fallen in line with His normal form of speech, whereby Jesus Proclaimed His deity by giving credence to his own message prior to giving it. Over and over again in the gospels Jesus uses phrases like, "truly, truly I tell you" and "today I tell you the truth." The second scenario is far more likely considering that it fits His usual lingo.
Also, another phrase which occurs in the New Testament when "Hell" is addressed is, "Forever and ever," but once again there is no Greek word for forever, let alone any justification for exaggerating that which has falsely been called eternal, adding more time to it by complementing it with "and ever." The word which actually is used is aion, which can mean either age or ages. Presuming that it means forever when teamed with the concept of punishment is not only in error, it is also convenient when someone wants to believe that "Hell" is eternal. But why would anyone want to believe in an eternal place of torment?
On Sundays at lunch, restaurants fill up with churchgoers, having dressed themselves up for that morning's service. I remember that as I grew up, if for some reason I missed church I felt subordinate to those who dined in suit and tie. Churches today have become temples of status, as gold and pearls adorn the necks of elders' wives.
Attire is not the only solace they seek as they hope to attain superiority through the piety of their own spiritual works, delighting in the sins of others. They don't see an eternity spent with the One they profess as being reward enough for following Him. Instead, they must also see that those who did not choose "their" path are "properly" punished. Hell is a great divider of persons. It serves as a way of creating an eternal separation between the pious and the unrighteous.
As evangelists pour into the streets, tracts are circulated and fire and brimstone are preached. The Great I Am is spoken of as the Executioner who, wearing His black mask, gladly tortures the seed of Adam. Fear and not love is the great motivator for seeking His face. How sad He must feel to be blasphemed and slandered in such a way. Yahweh, the Loving Father, has become known as a sadist. The hearts of His children have been hardened by the deceptive grip of Hell. His own words have been twisted and turned against him, changing his whole character.
Due to platonic error, improper biblical translation and intentional deception, God has been portrayed as a monster who endlessly tortures unfaithful subjects. If this description of our Loving Father is correct, then He violates even the finite ideals of our consciences, possessing no greater virtue than the father who keeps alive for torture his daughter's perverted murderer. Is God really the type of creator who fills His basement with prisoners to torture? Does He breathe the breath of life into the unrighteous, buying from them an eternity by which to char their undying flesh? Or, is He what He claims to be, Abba, translated "Daddy?"




Regarding the fossil record
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHMojlY6Eg




Regarding DNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFLk9JS9oZ8&feature=related




Once again, Dawkins admits to an intelligent creator(s)
but of course this intelligent creator absolutely cannot be God. /eyeroll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w




Regarding the existence of evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRMWKz4hbw




Regarding logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvg6xrxRiU




Regarding fairness in relation to God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDV6Z5u29-Q




The Anthropic Principal
The Anthropic Principal is the concept that the universe is fine-tuned to support intelligent life.
Example:
The earth is placed at precisely the right distance from the sun to allow life. If the gravitational pull between these two bodies were offset even one inch compared to the width of the universe, the earth would move too far or too close to the sun to allow life.




Regarding the Cambrian Explosion
Fossil records have discovered a mass explosion of extremely complicated life at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. This explosion occurred about 540 million years ago, and many archaeologists and scientists have found the explosion to have occurred, in its entirety, within a very short period of time.
How can slow-developing evolution explain this?





Regarding Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible Complexity is the truth that many beings could not exist without each and every one of the components that makes them up.
Example:
The bacterial flagellum is an example of an irreducibly complex system. Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle, a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore could not have arisen by a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process.




Regarding the Cosmological Constant
The Cosmological Constant is a theory created by Einstein that states that the bodies of the universe must be stationary for life to exist. If any two bodies were to be any closer or farther apart, life would be scientifically impossible. The universe is so exact, that it is in fact tuned to one part in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.




Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that, in essence, the universe is losing energy. If the universe is infinite, as many atheists believe, it would have run out quite a while ago.




Regarding Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
Space, matter and time came into existence simultaneously out of nothing.




Quotes
"Ironically, the picture of the universe given to us by the most advanced science is close in spirit to the vision presented in the book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copernicus."
Former Atheist Patrick Glynn

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will take you closer to God."
Nanoscientist James Tour of Rice University

"The most beautiful system, the universe, could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Isaac Newton

"If one could demonstrate that and complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow

"To believe that the universe was created by natural law is like believing that an explosion in a printing press created the library of congress."
Frank Turek

"If the expansion rate of the universe changes by one part in one-hundred thousand million million one second after the big bang, we wouldn't be here."
Steven Hawking




***If you disagree with any or all of these arguments, state why in a short, sweet, and to-the-point manner***

Optimism

January 15, 2011, 01:25:23 AM #10 Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 01:29:21 AM by Optimism
An Almighty Screwup
Why I reject the fundamentalist Christian god



As an atheist, I reject all gods and all religions alike. But this does not mean I spend an equal amount of time and effort arguing against each one I do not believe in. Since it is invariably the fundamentalists and conservatives of a given religion who feel the need to proselytize and preach to others, who attempt to gain secular power, and who - in some instances - use force and coercion to impose their views on those who believe differently, Ebon Musings mainly targets them and their arguments, as opposed to the moderates and liberals who do not try to impose their beliefs on others.

More specifically, since the power-seeking fundamentalists and invasive proselytizers in the nation I live in are mainly right-wing evangelical Protestant Christians, it is their views I spend the most time educating myself in and learning to refute. This essay is derived from my understanding of the Bible and conservative Christian theology and explains one of the principal reasons (other than the lack of evidence) why I reject the Christian fundamentalists' god.

Simply put, the Christian fundamentalist god is a colossal screwup. Anyone who reads the Bible can see for themselves that he just can't do anything right. He designs an originally beautiful and immaculate creation which almost immediately becomes polluted with sin, suffering and death. Both times he tries his hand at creating free will, his created beings immediately turn around and reject him. He chooses a people and continually attempts to redeem them from their fallen state, attempts which continually prove to be complete failures. He dispenses punishments for the evildoers and the wicked that utterly fail to stem the spread of evil and wickedness. He deals with crimes and transgressions by lashing out in childish rage, killing not just the evildoer but, often, all the innocent people around him. His final, crowning attempt to save the world from its sin was almost unanimously rejected by his chosen people. And his repeated promises to return to the Earth to set everything right have now been thoroughly broken. I find it impossible to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, if there was such a being, could so consistently and thoroughly screw up; the contradiction between what this god is claimed to be able to do and what I am told he did do is so stark that it defies all reason that such a being could actually exist. But even if he did, such a sorry excuse for a deity would be deserving of no one's worship - which makes the audacity of his followers all the more incredible, to insist in the face of his long string of failures that he is a wise and loving ruler worthy of our adoration!

Let us consider in more detail some of Yahweh's more notable blunders.

In the beginning, according to the Bible, there was nothing but God and the void. After a timeless eternity, God decided that this was an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and in six days created the heavens, the Earth and all the life upon it. Adam and Eve, the first couple, lived in a bounteous, peaceful paradise where all was bliss and there was no unhappiness, no pain and no death. So far, so good. Unfortunately, this was to be the first thing Yahweh would get right for a long time.

As it turned out, at some point during those first six days God had also created the angels, to serve him and praise him for all eternity. However, one angel didn't care for this arrangement. Satan - who according to some sources was the highest and wisest of all the angels - denounced God, declared war on his maker, and convinced a full third of the heavenly host to join his rebellion against the throne. How he was able to accomplish this is not clear. Did God create one-third of his angels defective?

At this point, God could have used his omnipotent power to zap Satan and the rest of the rebel angels out of existence entirely. Or he could have changed them with a snap of his all-powerful fingers, fixing the flaws in their personalities and returning them to a state of goodness and obedience. But he did neither. Instead, for unclear reasons, he actually engaged the rebels in battle, and of course defeated them easily. He then cast them out of Heaven and created a fiery pit called Hell in which he would imprison and torture them forever as punishment for their treason.

This solution was much crueler than the other options described, since it produced an enormous amount of unnecessary pain and suffering, whereas the other options would have produced none. Still, it would have sufficed to end the threat that Satan and his followers represented - except for one thing. Somehow, God failed to specify that the rebel angels would actually have to stay in the fiery prison he created for them. Instead, he allowed them to leave whenever they wanted, to roam the Earth tempting and inflicting suffering on humans.

And of course, this is exactly what happened. Almost immediately after creation was complete, according to the fundamentalists, Satan took the form of a snake and traveled to Eden to entice Adam and Eve to sin. He easily succeeded in doing so, apparently because Adam and Eve were also defective; God's complete failure to warn or protect them doubtlessly also played a part. (God's failures in regard to the whole Eden affair are too numerous to list here; for a full catalogue of them, see "Sins of the Father" and "That Fateful Apple".)

So, again, God failed. For the second time, his experiment in free will backfired, and his created beings disobeyed and rejected him. Adam and Eve joined Satan's rebellion and were tainted by sin.

At this point, God could have forgiven the humans, who after all had sinned only out of ignorance, and used his almighty powers to cleanse and redeem them. But he did not. Instead, he threw a temper tantrum, tossed them out of his Garden, and condemned them with a curse to live mortal lives of suffering, toil and death. But apparently God's aim was off, because it wasn't just the two of them who were affected. The curse fell upon the entirety of creation, affecting not just Adam and Eve, but every other living thing, all of Adam and Eve's descendants, and all the descendants of every other living thing for all of time, even though all these other beings were completely innocent of the apple incident, even though most of them did not even exist at the time. The original perfection was shattered and twisted, the curse of sin infected all living creatures, and the entire Earth became a place of suffering and death.

By now Yahweh's original creation was a failure, in ruins. One-third of his angelic servants had rebelled and abandoned him, his perfect world was ruined and spoiled, his human children were lost in sin and darkness, and Hell was empty as the demons roamed the world and tempted humanity still deeper into evil.

Apparently unable to deal with this, God inexplicably turned away from the universe for a while - perhaps to sulk. For many centuries he was absent from the world, doing essentially nothing while it slid deeper into sin. Unsurprisingly, when he finally chose to come back, things were a mess. Humanity had become a race of hopeless, irredeemably evil sinners who had forgotten about him. ("And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" --Genesis 6:5).

At this point, a solution was needed - this evil had to be stopped. God could have used his powers to make all the sinful people and only the sinful people vanish, blinked out of existence instantly. But he did not. Instead, he spoke to the last righteous man on earth, Noah, and told him to build an ark and take aboard his family and two of every kind of animal. He did so, and God sent a massive, catastrophic flood which decimated the planet and wiped out the sinners, as well as killing millions of innocent animals, plants, and human infants and children in the bargain.

Finally the floodwaters receded. Noah disembarked and released the animals to somehow survive on their own in the now lifeless and barren earth, with no food and no supportive ecosystems, and he and his family repopulated the globe. But once again, God had failed. Though the worldwide flood had been sent to wipe out evil, it utterly failed to do so. Noah's descendants spread throughout the world and, within a matter of years, forgot God entirely and became just as sinful and evil as the pre-flood people. In fact, Noah's very first act after the flood, after sacrificing some animals to God, was to plant some grapes so he could make wine, following which he promptly got drunk, passed out, and slept naked inside his tent. Noah's son Ham accidentally looked into the tent and saw his naked father; for this terrible crime Noah, apparently with God's approval, cursed Ham's son Canaan - his own grandson - and all of Canaan's descendants to a lifetime of slavery.

But, in any case, Yahweh was undaunted. Flush with pride at his "victory" over sin, he again took some time off to pat himself on the back. And when he returned, he noticed that the people of Earth had banded together and were building a mud-brick tower high enough to reach Heaven.

At this point, God could have moved his Heaven higher up - perhaps higher than the few hundred feet it must have been at the time - and enjoyed a hearty laugh at the silly antics of his creations. Instead, he panicked, expressed real fear that they would actually reach him and become as powerful as he was, and frantically responded by scattering the people of Earth, confusing and separating them by afflicting them with many different languages. (It should be noted in passing that God eventually forgot about this whole affair and allowed later humans to build much taller skyscrapers with no ill effects.)

Perhaps realizing by now that his large-scale plans kept failing, God decided to think small in his next attempt. He selected a man named Abraham, appeared to him, and vowed that his descendants would be the Almighty's chosen people, would enjoy divine favor ("And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" --Genesis 12:3) and would inherit a great nation. Suitably impressed, Abraham left his home at God's urging and set out to the promised land.

God's promise passed from Abraham to his son, Isaac, who in turn had two sons, Esau and Jacob. As Isaac's firstborn, Esau was supposed to inherit the divine promise through a blessing, but Jacob deceived his dying father into giving the blessing to him instead. God, despite his omniscience, apparently was also fooled and honored the blessing, allowing Jacob to unfairly steal his brother's rightful place and become the sire of the chosen people. Jacob and his twelve sons became the Israelites, and the divine promise passed to them; Esau and his descendants, meanwhile, were condemned to live in the harsh desert and serve Jacob's descendants, setting the stage for millennia of ethnic hatred, strife and war.

However, Yahweh apparently forgot about his vow to protect and bless his chosen people, and they were almost immediately enslaved by the Egyptians. For several centuries, God's chosen people labored in bitter captivity, continually beaten by their overseers and forced into backbreaking work building monuments and hauling massive blocks of stone. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were rewarded for their faith by living and dying as slaves, trusting in a deliverance that never came for them. And what was the reason for God's allowing all this? The Bible gives none. It does not say that the Egyptian captivity was punishment for any misdeed, nor does it say it was intended to teach the Israelites any lesson. As far as we know, it happened simply because God inexplicably failed to deliver on his promise.

However, after about four hundred years (a time period far longer than the United States has been in existence), God finally noticed what was going on and decided to do something about it. He manifested himself to an Israelite named Moses and promised to use him as the vehicle through which he, God, would free his people.

At this point, God could have used his omniscience to determine exactly what punishment he had to mete out to Pharaoh to cause this. Instead, he began to punish the entire nation with progressively worse punishments, thereby inflicting much pain and suffering on innocent people who had no hand in the decision anyway. However, each of these failed to persuade Pharaoh to release the Israelites, and since God must have known ahead of time that they would fail, the inescapable conclusion is that he caused vast amounts of innocent suffering for nothing. Pharaoh was not persuaded to free the Israelites until God killed every completely innocent firstborn child in Egypt. Why didn't he just punish the one person responsible with something that would have been adequate from the start? Who knows?

But after all this innocent death and suffering, the people of Israel were free, and God led them out of Egypt. Then, through Moses, he burdened them with a long and arbitrary set of rules covering every aspect of daily life - what kinds of animals they were not allowed to eat, what activities they were not allowed to engage in on certain days of the week, how they had to mutilate their genitals to show their faith in him, and so on - and specified the horrible punishments for breaking any of them, most of which involved death in various cruel ways. The Israelites hated these rules so much that they rejected God's deliverance, preferring their slavery in Egypt. (No surprise there. According to fundamentalist Christians, the Mosaic law is impossible to faithfully follow. It is little wonder the people preferred their Egyptian taskmasters - at least they could please them some of the time!) As punishment, God forced them to wander in the desert until most of them had died. This included his great prophet Moses, who had given his entire life to leading the Israelites out of Egypt and was rewarded for his service by never even getting to set foot on the earth of the promised land.

Finally, God allowed his people to enter Palestine. Unfortunately, it was already occupied by other people who had taken up residence there during Israel's Egyptian captivity and by now had been living there for generations. At this point, God could have invited the native Palestinians into his covenant, given them the same laws he had given the Israelites, and established an egalitarian society where people of all races could live together in harmony. Instead, he ordered his people to invade and slaughter the natives, killing them to the last man, woman and child, specifically instructing them to show no mercy to anyone under any circumstances. What followed were a series of terrible, bloody battles in which tens of thousands of people died violently. Finally, God pronounced his campaign of genocide a success (Joshua 11:15) - but this was not true. Somehow, he had failed to notice that many of the people he had ordered his chosen to exterminate were still alive (as is shown by repeated biblical references to them after that point; see, for example, Judges 3:5). There was even one instance in which some of these people had survived despite God's efforts to kill them, apparently because their iron chariots defeated his omnipotence (Judges 1:19).

However, after all this death and bloodshed, the Israelites were at last in the promised land. At this point, God formed them into a loose confederacy of tribes and appointed the judges to govern them. This failed. The people continually fell into sin, routinely suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and were repeatedly enslaved. Each time this happened, they cried out to God and he raised up a judge to save them, after which they promptly fell back into sin.

After several iterations of this, God became fed up and decided that there was only one way to break this cycle of sin and retribution: establish a monarchy in Israel. His first choice for king was Saul, who turned out to be a complete failure. Saul fell into sin, suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and finally committed suicide rather than be captured or killed in battle.

God's next choice for king was David, and just once - for the first time since creation - it looked as if he might have made the right decision. David and his son Solomon succeeded in rallying the Israelites behind them, and ruled over a glorious and powerful united monarchy, God's ideal state and the culmination of his promises to his chosen people (although God did break his promise, in Genesis 15:18, to give Abraham's descendants all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates: Israel was never this large even at the height of its power). However, Solomon's son Rehoboam proved to be an inept ruler, and in a move God failed to do anything to prevent, his united monarchy, after existing for only two kings, shattered into two separate, warring kingdoms. The vast majority of the tribes seceded, joining the new state of Israel in the north, while only a tiny rump state named Judah was left for David's throne.

In subsequent years, things got even worse. The kings of both nations continually fell into sin, taking all the people with them, routinely suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and were repeatedly enslaved. The crimes of Israel finally grew so intolerable that God threw a fit and sent the legendarily cruel Assyrian empire to destroy them, carrying ten of the original twelve Israelite tribes off into slavery where they vanished forever from history.
- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Optimism


The kingdom of Judah still existed, however, and God tried one last time to save it. He raised up a devout king named Josiah, who was faithful to a degree undreamed-of by any of his predecessors ("And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him" --2 Kings 23:25). Josiah instituted religious reforms, burning the groves and smashing the idols of pagan religions, and made a great covenant with the people to follow the law of God. It seemed as if Judah might finally be saved from disaster - and then Josiah went out to battle with an invading Egyptian army, God failed to protect him, and he was promptly killed by an Egyptian arrow.

The last few kings of Judah were disastrous sinners, undoing all of Josiah's reforms. Realizing that once again he had failed, Yahweh threw another of his temper tantrums and allowed the Babylonian empire to destroy his nation entirely, razing his holy temple to the ground and carrying the last of his chosen people off to slavery in a distant land.

A lesser deity might have concluded by now that the experiment begun with Abraham was a failure, but God was determined to see things through. Grudgingly, he let some of his people return to Israel and rebuild the Temple, and he appointed prophets to keep them on the right track this time. This failed. The chosen people continued to sin, becoming prideful, legalistic hypocrites, and refused to turn from their ways despite numerous punishing defeats and eventual enslavement by the Romans.

At this point, God realized he had one last chance to redeem his people, and he came up with a daring, drastic plan to do it. He descended to Earth and took mortal form, incarnating himself in a human body. Upon reaching adulthood, he sought out his people and told them he had come to give them a completely new message, abandoning his old promises that the Messiah would be a king and military leader. He revoked all the old, cruel laws he had once given them, letting them know that he had changed his mind, that they were no longer necessary. In their place he substituted new, simple principles, teaching them about forgiveness, about their shared humanity, and most importantly, about the deep and abiding love he had for every one of his precious children.

For once obeying the law they had been given so long ago, the Jews promptly seized this incarnated god, charged him with blasphemy, and killed him.

Christians, of course, claim that this was what God had in mind all along, that only through the shedding of his blood could we be forgiven for our sins. However, I am not so sure. Throughout all the millennia God knew the Jews, he failed to ever tell them that this was the method of redemption he had in mind. There is not a single prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that clearly predicts the sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection of an incarnated god. Besides, God is supposed to be all-powerful. If he wanted to forgive us, why couldn't he just forgive us? Why was the agonizing and bloody death of an innocent person necessary for human salvation? Perhaps it was not, and God's propagandists only attributed this significance to it afterward to avoid this debacle being labeled as another complete failure.

In any case, God returned to Heaven and appointed apostles to spread his new faith to the Jews. This failed, as the evangelists were viciously persecuted and soundly rejected in town after town, winning relatively few converts. Flustered by his chosen people's rejection of him, God had no choice but to abandon them entirely and pass his promise of salvation on to the Gentiles, creating a new religion called Christianity. A church formed and almost immediately fragmented into numerous squabbling sects, all deeply divided as to the nature and intent of God.

At this point, God could have simply stepped in and set the record straight by letting all concerned know what he really meant. He failed to do so, and the church continued to splinter, breaking off into many smaller sects and denominations, consumed by infighting. God could also have sent more signs and wonders, as he routinely did in Old Testament times, to let the world know that the new religion really was of him; but he failed to do this as well, and for several centuries Christianity remained a small fringe group on the verge of extinction, heavily persecuted, its followers routinely tortured and slaughtered by the authorities.

It was only by luck that the new church caught the eye of a Roman emperor and survived. (Of course, God may have had a hand in this, but his inexplicably waiting so long to do it can be considered a failure. Certainly it was no comfort to the thousands who had already been tortured to death or mauled by wild animals in great stadiums for the edification of the masses.) But finally Christianity caught on, and became the dominant religion of Europe.

At this point, God could have used his dominance over the civilized world to bring forth a new golden age of enlightenment and peace. Instead, he suddenly decided to completely stop sending new revelations and miracles, and his church stultified and dragged humanity down into the Dark Ages. Knowledge declined and superstition and ignorance ruled; innocent people were imprisoned, tortured and killed in vicious inquisitions, scientists whose findings contradicted holy scripture were silenced and forced to recant, and plague after plague decimated humanity because, incidentally, God had failed to tell people that washing one's hands, and not whipping oneself or singing hymns, would keep illness away. New denominations arose that almost immediately became embroiled in savage religious wars, including a series of military expeditions called the Crusades that sent millions of people to their deaths, and conquistadors in foreign lands enslaved and slaughtered millions more in God's name. (Somehow, throughout all the thousands of years he had been speaking to humanity, God failed to ever provide a single clear-cut condemnation of slavery.) Kings and popes claimed divine right, stifling democracy and free speech. And all this time, the lot of the common man remained full of misery and suffering.

At any point during this time, God could have stepped in to stop these atrocities and correct people's ignorance. He failed to do so, and it was not until the Enlightenment, when people rediscovered the principles of science and democracy and began to investigate and think for themselves, that things began to improve - no thanks to humanity's cosmic absentee landlord.

And this brings us to today. God has been silent for thousands of years, perhaps realizing that the problems of this world have grown beyond his ability to contain. Humanity now has the power to completely destroy itself, and nearly has done so on several occasions. We are multiplying beyond our planet's ability to sustain life even as we destroy our environment, recklessly expending our natural resources, driving species to extinction, polluting our water and air. Terrorism and armed conflict threaten our safety. Weapons of mass destruction continue to proliferate. The Christian church has fractured into hundreds of sects, some of which are tainted by allegations of institutionalized sex abuse, others of which are convulsed and splintering further over the issue of ordaining gays, and false religions abound. People continue to kill and die over religion, and nowhere on Earth do they do so more fervently or more often than in what was once God's promised land. And, to hear certain Christians tell it, by far the worst sins of society out of all of these - gay marriage and safe and legal abortion - continue to gain ground and societal acceptance.

Soon, according to the fundamentalists' millennialist theology, God will become sick of it all and throw his ultimate temper tantrum, consigning this entire failed experiment called creation to the flame. Soon, Judgment Day will come, humanity will be wiped out, and Satan will have won. Only a select few, a small fraction of all the people who have ever lived, will have made it to Heaven, while billions upon billions of souls will be in Hell, condemned to endless, eternal agony in the flame. The screams of the damned will completely drown out the joyous songs of the saved. And this is supposed to be a positive outcome? This is what God's grand plan will amount to in the end?

Things didn't have to be this way. At so many points throughout history, God could have acted differently, even in small ways, to alter the destiny of his creation. Yet at each critical juncture, at every single step along the way, he failed to do so. Again and again, he failed.

He could have wiped Satan out of existence, changed him to be good again, or at least actually imprisoned him in Hell and not allowed him to roam the world doing evil. Or, instead of leaving the first humans ignorant, unprotected and vulnerable, he could easily have made them so powerful and wise they would have recognized Satan for what he was and rejected him on sight. Even if he had not done this, he could have forgiven the first humans for their transgressions, or at least only punished the two of them and not cast the curse of original sin on the entire planet. It cannot be overemphasized that taking any of these steps would have made all that followed unnecessary. All of God's subsequent plans were merely an attempt to clean up the mess he made by allowing all this to happen in the first place!

Even if all these things had happened, God could have made many different decisions afterward to produce a better overall outcome. For example, he could have stayed with the world after the fall, not allowing it to slide into sin; or, if things came to that, he could have used a miracle to selectively eliminate the evildoers, rather than sending a flood that killed millions of innocent living creatures while simultaneously failing utterly to eliminate sin as it was intended to do. He could have ignored the attempts of humans to build the Tower of Babel (which would itself have taught them a good lesson about humility), rather than punishing them for it with the confusion of languages which would only lead to more misunderstanding and division among people in the long run. He could have ignored Jacob's attempts at deception and bestowed his blessing upon the son it was supposed to go to, preventing millennia of ethnic hatred, resentment and strife. He could have kept his vow to Abraham and prevented the Israelites from ever being enslaved, or at least sent only one sufficient punishment to Pharaoh to obtain their release rather than building up to it and making innocent people suffer pointlessly.

He could have given the Israelites laws that were actually possible to follow, rather than impossible and restrictive ones that would inspire them to hate and resent him. He could have invited the native people of Palestine into his covenant rather than setting the horrible precedent of sanctioning warfare and genocide in the name of God. He could have instituted democracy among his people rather than absolutist monarchy since, after all, there is no guarantee that the son of a good king will be a good king himself. In this way, bad rulers would have been promptly removed from office rather than dragging the entire nation down with them. He could have actually protected the good kings from harm by enemies. He could have given his people messianic prophecies that clearly applied to Jesus, so they would not have rejected him. He could also have chosen to forgive sinners merely through his omnipotent will to do so, rather than through the torturous death of an innocent which itself inspired his followers to commit countless acts of retributive bloodshed throughout the centuries. At any of numerous points throughout history, he could have stepped in with just a little clear guidance, letting confused humans know what he really wanted or meant. He could have exerted just the smallest amount of his omnipotent power to steer people away from sin until they were wise enough to avoid it on their own. He could simply make his presence more obvious to prevent any one of the numerous problems and arguments humanity finds itself afflicted with. The list goes on and on. Suffice it to say - at any time in history when it was possible to make a good decision, Yahweh made a bad one.

And these are just the improvements possible in the plan he actually did use. If God had wanted to make radical changes to this plan, there are many that would have resulted in a tremendously better outcome.

To name one, he could have created, instead of defective humans and angels, free-willed beings who would all freely choose to obey him and do only what is good. Despite what Christian apologists say, this is clearly possible. Although Christians believe God never sins, he is still believed to have free will. Therefore, whatever quality God possesses that enables him to avoid sin, he could have given this quality to his created beings as well. Perhaps it is his holy nature that causes him to detest and avoid sinful behavior, or perhaps it is the intelligence and rationality necessary to fully understand that sin is a futile and self-destructive course. (Surely Christians would agree that this is in fact true?) Doing this would have eliminated the need for a Hell entirely.

Or, rather than waste time setting up a religion called Judaism he only intended to supersede eventually anyway, God could have taken human form and performed his sacrificial death and resurrection immediately after the Fall. In this way he could have eliminated millennia of sin and strife as people futilely attempted to obey impossible laws. With the transforming power of Christ in their hearts and that many fewer arbitrary and bureaucratic restrictions to follow, the Israelites would have been far less tempted by idolatry. With the option of salvation open to everyone, God could have prevented at least one cause of the racial and religious exclusivism which provoked so much hatred and caused so much suffering and so many deaths - both in the pre-Christian period as the Israelites warred with their neighbors, and later on as Christians persecuted and killed Jews for being "Christ-killers".

Most radically of all, God could have dispensed with the whole idea of creating a world of imperfect material beings. Why did he need to mold us out of fallible clay? Why not make us of pure spirit, free of fleshly temptations, free to roam infinite space at will? God could have made us all gods, free to create our own worlds, our own paradises. He could have given us infinite freedom, and instead he imprisoned us in these cages of muscle and bone, imprisoned our souls in vulnerable brains that often obscure our true natures from shining through. He made us able to suffer and feel hurt, made us able to become sick and injured, made us able to die. Why did he do this? Why did God create beings as limited as us, when he could have created so much more?

Of course, the atheist's answer to this question is the simplest. I do not, of course, believe that all the events described above actually happened, or that God was behind the ones that did happen. I am merely pointing out that, even if taken on its own terms, the Christian story implies a deity who is massively incompetent, and this creates a fundamental contradiction with the tenets of Christian belief that there is a god who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good. Since the facts of this world's history are not open to change, and since we are justified in believing things would be much better if there was such a being, the most likely conclusion is that no such being exists. Though some Christian apologists claim the choices God made must have been the best ones possible, based purely on their belief that those are the choices he made, this argument is circular. To genuinely refute the arguments presented above, they would have to show why the choices I describe would have led to a worse world than the one we live in, and this is a challenge I do not think they can meet. What could possibly be a worse overall outcome than the large majority of humanity ending up in Hell forever?

If there really is a god - as unlikely as I consider that possibility to be - the Christian story is a slander on him. It depicts him as so poor at understanding the psychology of others that he simply cannot make free-willed beings who all desire of their own accord to be in fellowship with him. It depicts him as so inept that his will can be thwarted and his plans ruined by the acts of beings who are infinitely beneath him. It depicts him as so short-tempered and malicious that he would think nothing of punishing evil with acts that also inflict massive harm and suffering on those who were completely innocent of the deed. It depicts his power and his imagination as so limited that he cannot think of any way to stop evil other than with destruction, mass death and bloodshed; and it depicts him as so bereft of ideas that, whenever he does destroy evildoers in this fashion, he starts over again with a small group of people who turn out to be just as evil and rebellious as those he destroyed. It depicts him as setting out to make a perfect creation and then blundering so completely and so finally that he will ultimately have no choice but to consign the vast majority of his creations to the fire of torment.

Can a rational person really accept this? Does it make sense to believe that this scenario is the crowning work of infinite goodness and wisdom?

For my part, I cannot believe this. I reject the Christian fundamentalists' story. I reject the theology of a perfect god who set out to bring forth good and brought forth evil. I reject the gospel of universal sin, I reject the gospel of total depravity, and I reject the gospel of eternal pain. I cannot in good conscience or sound mind accept such a bafflingly and frustratingly illogical system. This world is what it is, indifferent to us and sometimes cruel to us, and we cannot change that - but we can stop deepening the insult by telling ourselves that it is presided over by a benevolent deity who approves of the way things are. Instead, we should set aside these unproductive myths and use our intelligence to improve conditions in this life, both by using science to bring the natural world under our control and by improving morality to put an end to the ceaseless and pointless hatred so many people have for each other. Ironically, the belief that there is a good god has often proved to be a powerful impediment to progress, as believers reason that to try to improve our lives is a blasphemous rejection of God's ideal order. However, we are now mature enough to look beyond that superstitious fear. Whether a god got us to this point or not, it is now up to us to do better. We have the tools, and we can and should use them. That is a worthy goal in life, and that is what atheism teaches us.
- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Optimism

In other words, I simply don't have time to keep repeating myself in variant forms for you to continue to disregard and forget my previous points/statements.

I'm walking away from this. Sorry ;/.
- Opti -
- Sanctuary Founder | PvP King -
- Retired -

Xrow

I've been arguing that theistic belief does not (in general) need argument either for deontological justification, or for positive epistemic status, (or for Foley rationality or Alstonian justification)); belief in God is properly basic. But doesn't follow, of course that there aren't any good arguments. Are there some? At least a couple of dozen or so.

Swinburne: good argument one that has premises that everyone knows. Maybe aren't any such arguments: and if there are some, maybe none of them would be good arguments for anyone. (Note again the possibility that a person might, when confronted with an arg he sees to be valid for a conclusion he deeply disbelieves from premises he know to be true, give up (some of) those premises: in this way you can reduce someone from knowledge to ignorance by giving him an argument he sees to be valid from premises he knows to be true.)

These arguments are not coercive in the sense that every person is obliged to accept their premises on pain of irrationality. Maybe just that some or many sensible people do accept their premises (oneself)

What are these arguments like, and what role do they play? They are probabilistic, either with respect to the premises, or with respect to the connection between the premises and conclusion, or both. They can serve to bolster and confirm ('helps' a la John Calvin); perhaps to convince.

Distinguish two considerations here: (1) you or someone else might just find yourself with these beliefs; so using them as premises get an effective theistic arg for the person in question. (2) The other question has to do with warrant, with conditional probability in epistemic sense: perhaps in at least some of these cases if our faculties are functioning properly and we consider the premises we are inclined to accept them; and (under those conditions) the conclusion has considerable epistemic probability (in the explained sense) on the premises.

add Aquinas' fifth way: this is really an argument from proper function, I think

I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments

(A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness)

Consider propositions: the things that are true or false, that are capable of being believed, and that stand in logical relations to one another. They also have another property: aboutness or intentionality. (not intensionality, and not thinking of contexts in which coreferential terms are not substitutable salva veritate) Represent reality or some part of it as being thus and so. This crucially connected with their being true or false. Diff from, e.g., sets, (which is the real reason a proposition would not be a set of possible worlds, or of any other objects.)

Many have thought it incredible that propositions should exist apart from the activity of minds. How could they just be there, if never thought of? (Sellars, Rescher, Husserl, many others; probably no real Platonists besides Plato before Frege, if indeed Plato and Frege were Platonists.) (and Frege, that alleged arch-Platonist, referred to propositions as gedanken.) Connected with intentionality. Representing things as being thus and so, being about something or other--this seems to be a property or activity of minds or perhaps thoughts . So extremely tempting to think of propositions as ontologically dependent upon mental or intellectual activity in such a way that either they just are thoughts, or else at any rate couldn't exist if not thought of. (According to the idealistic tradition beginning with Kant, propositions are essentially judgments.) But if we are thinking of human thinkers, then there are far to many propositions: at least, for example, one for every real number that is distinct from the Taj Mahal. On the other hand, if they were divine thoughts, no problem here. So perhaps we should think of propositions as divine thoughts. Then in our thinking we would literally be thinking God's thoughts after him.

(Aquinas, De Veritate "Even if there were no human intellects, there could be truths because of their relation to the divine intellect. But if, per impossibile, there were no intellects at all, but things continued to exist, then there would be no such reality as truth.")

This argument will appeal to those who think that intentionality is a characteristic of propositions, that there are a lot of propositions, and that intentionality or aboutness is dependent upon mind in such a way that there couldn't be something p about something where p had never been thought of.

(B) The argument from collections.

Many think of sets as displaying the following characteristics (among others): (1) no set is a member of itself; (2) sets (unlike properties) have their extensions essentially; hence sets are contingent beings and no set could have existed if one of its members had not; (3) sets form an iterated structure: at the first level, sets whose members are nonsets, at the second, sets whose members are nonsets or first level sets, etc. Many (Cantor) also inclined to think of sets as collections--i.e., things whose existence depends upon a certain sort of intellectual activity--a collecting or "thinking together" (Cantor). If sets were collections, that would explain their having the first three features. But of course there are far to many sets for them to be a product of human thinking together; there are many sets such that no human being has ever thought their members together, many that are such that their members have not been thought together by any human being. That requires an infinite mind--one like God's.

A variant: perhaps a way to think together all the members of a set is to attend to a certain property and then consider all the things that have that property: e.g., all the natural numbers. Then many infinite sets are sets that could have been collected by human beings; but not nearly all--not, e.g., arbitrary collections of real numbers. (axiom of choice)

This argument will appeal to those who think there are lots of sets and either that sets have the above three properties or that sets are collections.

Charles Parsons, "What is the Iterative Conception of Set?" in Mathematics in Philosophy pp 268 ff.

Hao Wang From Mathematics to Philosophy chap. 6: iterative and constructivist (i.e., the basic idea is that sets are somehow constructed and are constructs) conception of set.

Note that on the iterative conception, the elements of a set are in an important sense prior to the set; that is why on this conception no set is a member of itself, and this disarms the Russell paradoxes in the set theoretical form, although of course it does nothing with respect to the property formulation of the paradoxes. (Does Chris Menzel's way of thinking bout propositions as somehow constructed by God bear here?)

Cantor's definition of set (1895):

By a "set" we understand any collection M into a whole of definite well-distinguished objects of our intuition or our thought (which will be called the "elements" of M) Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen, ed. Ernst Zermelo, Berlin: Springer, 1932 p. 282.

Shoenfield (Mathematical Logic) l967 writes:

A closer examination of the (Russell) paradox shows that it does not really contradict the intuitive notion of a set. According to this notion, a set A is formed by gathering together certain objects to form a single object, which is the set A. Thus before the set A is formed, we must have available all of the objects which are to be members of A. (238)

Wang: "The set is a single object formed by collecting the members together." (238)

Wang: (182)

It is a basic feature of reality that there are many things. When a multitude of given objects can be collected together, we arrive at a set. For example, there are two tables in this room. We are ready to view them as given both separately and as a unity, and justify this by pointing to them or looking at them or thinking about them either one after the other or simultaneously. Somehow the viewing of certain objects together suggests a loose link which ties the objects together in our intuition.

(C) The argument From (Natural) numbers

(I once heard Tony Kenny attribute a particularly elegant version of this argument to Bob Adams.) It also seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity; indeed, students always seem to think of them as "ideas" or "concepts", as dependent, somehow, upon our intellectual activity. So if there were no minds, there would be no numbers. (According to Kroneker, God made the natural numbers and man made the rest--not quite right if the argument from sets is correct.) But again, there are too many of them for them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. Consider, for example, the following series of functions: 2 lambda n is two to the second to the second .... to the second n times. The second member is ##2 (n); the third 3#2(n), etc. (See The Mathematical Gardener, the essay by Knuth.) 6**2(15), for example would be a number many times larger than any human being could grasp. , for example, is to the We should therefore think of them as among God's ideas. Perhaps, as Christopher Menzel suggests (special issue of Faith and Philosophy) they are properties of equinumerous sets, where properties are God's concepts.

There is also a similar argument re properties . Properties seem very similar to concepts. (Is there really a difference between thinking of the things that fall under the concept horse and considering the things that have the property of being a horse?) In fact many have found it natural to think of properties as reified concepts. But again, there are properties, one wants to say, that have never been entertained by any human being; and it also seems wrong to think that properties do not exist before human beings conceive them. But then (with respect to these considerations) it seems likely that properties are the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine mind.

(D) The Argument From Counterfactuals

Consider such a counterfactual as

(1) If Neal had gone into law he would have been in jail by now.

It is plausible to suppose that such a counterfactual is true if and only if its consequent is true in the nearby (i.e., sufficiently similar) possible worlds in which its antecedent is true (Stalnaker, Lewis, Pollock, Nute). But of course for any pair of distinct possible worlds W and W*, there will be infinitely many respects in which they resemble each other, and infinitely many in which they differ. Given agreement on these respects and on the degree of difference within the respects, there can still be disagreement about the resultant total similarity of the two situations. What you think here--which possible worlds you take to be similar to which others uberhaupt will depend upon how you weight the various respects.

Illustrative interlude: Chicago Tribune, June 15, l986:

"When it comes to the relationship between man, gorilla and chimpanzee, Morris Goodman doesn't monkey around.

"No matter where you look on the genetic chain the three of us are 98.3% identical" said Goodman, a Wayne State University professor in anatomy and cell biology.

"Other than walking on two feet and not being so hairy, the main different between us and a chimp is our big brain" said the professor. . . . . the genetic difference between humans and chimps is about 1.7 %.

"How can we be so close genetically if we look so different? There's only a .2 % difference between a dachshund and a Great Dane, yet both look quite different (sic)," Goodman said.

"He explained that if you look at the anatomies of humans and chimps, chimps get along better in trees than people, but humans get along better on the ground. (Or in subways, libraries and submarines.)

How similar uberhaupt you think chimps and humans are will depend upon how you rate the various respects in which they differ: composition of genetic material, hairiness, brain size, walking on two legs, appreciation of Mozart, grasp of moral distinctions, ability to play chess, ability to do philosophy, awareness of God, etc. End of Illustrative interlude

Some philosophers as a result argue that counterfactuals contain an irreducibly subjective element. E.g., consider this from van Fraassen:

Consider again statement (3) about the plant sprayed with defoliant. It is true in a given situation exactly if the 'all else' that is kept 'fixed' is such as to rule out the death of the plant for other reason. But who keeps what fixed? The speaker, in his mind. .... Is there an objective right or wrong about keeping one thing rather than another firmly in mind when uttering the antecedent? (The Scientific Image p. 116)

(This weighting of similarities) and therefore don't belong in serious, sober, objective science. The basic idea is that considerations as to which respects (of difference) are more important than which is not something that is given in rerum natura, but depends upon our interests and aims and plans. In nature apart from mind, there are no such differences in importance among respects of difference.

Now suppose you agree that such differences among respects of difference do in fact depend upon mind, but also think (as in fact most of us certainly do) that counterfactuals are objectively true or false: you can hold both of these if you think there is an unlimited mind such that the weightings it makes are then the objectively correct ones (its assignments of weights determine the correct weights). No human mind, clearly, could occupy this station. God's mind, however, could; what God sees as similar is similar.

Joseph Mondola, "The Indeterminacy of Options", APQ April l987 argues for the indeterminacy of many counterfactuals on the grounds that I cite here, substantially.

(E) The Argument from physical constants

(Look at Barrow and Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)

Carr and Rees ("The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World" (Nature, l979)):

"The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. . . . several aspects of our Universe--some which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life--depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants" ( p. 605).

If the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs. (Brandon Carter, "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology", in M. S. Longair, ed, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data l979 p. 72 According to Carter, under these conditions there would probably be no life. So probably if the strength of gravity were even slightly different, habitable planets would not exist.

The existence of life also depends delicately upon the rate at which the universe is expanding. S. W. Hawking "The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times" in Longair p., 285:

"...reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 1012 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 1010 K would have resulted in the Universe's starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K"--much too warm for comfort. He concludes that life is only possible because the Universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse".

If the strong nuclear forces were different by about 5% life would not have been able to evolve.

The same goes for the weak interaction force.

So if the weakness of the gravitational force relative to the electromagnetic force, or the strength of either the strong or weak forces were altered even slightly one way or the other, the universe would have been largely different, so different in fact that life could not exist. Pat Wilson, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" unpublished.

Similarly for the number of neutrinos, and for the mass of the neutrino

Before doing much of anything with this (and for Oxford, maybe only mention it and work harder with others) look again at: "The SAP also Rises: . . . " American Philosophical Quarterly, Oct. l987

Davies, P. C. W., The Accidental Universe, l982:

All this prompts the question of why, from the infinite range of possible values that nature could have selected for the fundamental constants, and from the infinite variety of initial conditions that could have characterized the primeval universe, the actual values and conditions conspire to produce the particular range of very special features that we observe. For clearly the universe is a very special place: exceedingly uniform on a large scale, yet not so precisely uniform that galaxies could not form; ...an expansion rate tuned to the energy content to unbelievable accuracy; values for the strengths of its forces that permit nuclei to exist, yet do not burn up all the cosmic hydrogen, and many more apparent accidents of fortune. p. 111

And what is impressive about all these coincidences is that they are apparently required for the existence of life as we know it (as they say).

Some thinkers claim that none of this ought to be thought surprising or as requiring explanation: no matter how things had been, it would have been exceedingly improbable. (No matter what distribution of cards is dealt, the distribution dealt will be improbable.) This is perhaps right, but how does it work? and how is it relevant? We are playing poker; each time I deal I get all the aces; you get suspicious: I try to allay your suspicions by pointing out that my getting all the aces each time I deal is no more improbable than any other equally specific distribution over the relevant number of deals. Would that explanation play in Dodge City (or Tombstone)?

Others invoke the Anthropic Principle, which is exceedingly hard to understand but seems to point out that a necessary condition of these values of the physical constants being observed at all (by us or other living beings) is that they have very nearly the values they do have; we are here to observe these constants only because they have the values they do have. Again, this seems right, but how is it relevant? What does it explain? It still seems puzzling that these constants should have just the values they do. Why weren't they something quite different? This is not explained by pointing out that we are here. (a counterexample to Hempelian claims about explanation) Like "explaining" the fact that God has decided to create me (instead of passing me over in favor of someone else) by pointing out that I am in fact here, and that if God had not thus decided, I wouldn't have been here to raise the question.

Another approach:

Abstract:

We examine the question of whether the present isotropic state of the universe could have resulted from initial conditions which were "chaotic" in the sense of being arbitrary, any anisotropy dying away as the universe expanded. We show that the set of spatially homogeneous cosmological models which approach isotropy at infinite times is of measure zero in the space of all spatially homogenous models. This indicates that the isotropy of the Robertson-Walker models is unstable to homogeneous and anisotropic perturbations. It therefore seems that there is only a small set of initial conditions that would give rise to universal models which would be isotropic to within the observed limits at the present time. One possible way out of this difficulty is to suppose that there is an infinite number of universes with all possible different initial conditions. Only those universes which are expanding just fast enough to avoid recollapsing would contain galaxies, and hence intelligent life. However, it seems that this subclass of universes which have just the escape velocity would in general approach isotropy. On this view, the fact that we observe the universe to be isotropic would simply be a reflection of our own existence.

We shall now put forward an idea which offers a possible way out of this difficulty. This idea is based on the discovery that homogeneous cosmological models do in general tend toward isotropy if they have exactly the same escape velocity. Of course, such "parabolic" homogeneous models form a set of measure zero among all homogeneous models. However, we can justify their consideration by adopting a philosophy which has been suggested by ****e (1961) and Carter (1968). In this approach one postulates that there is not one universe, but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions. From the existence of the unstable anisotropic model it follows that nearly all of the universes become highly anisotropic. However, these universes would not be expected to contain galaxies, since condensations can grow only in universes in which the rate of expansion is just sufficient to avoid recollapse. The existence of galaxies would seem to be a necessary precondition for the development of any form of intelligent life. Thus there will be life only in those universes which tend toward isotropy at large times. The fact that we have observed the universe to be isotropic therefore only a consequence of our own existence. 319

Spatially homogeneous models can be divided into three classes: those which have less than the escape velocity (.e., those whose rate of expansion is insufficient to prevent them from recollapsing), those which have just the escape velocity, and those which have more than the escape velocity. Models of the first class exist only for a finite time, and therefore do not approach arbitrarily near to isotropy. We have shown that models of the third class do in general tend to isotropy at arbitrarily large times. Those models of the second class which are sufficiently near to the Robertson-Walker models do in general tend to isotropy, but this class is of measure zero in the space of all homogeneous models. It therefore seems that one cannot explain the isotropy of the universe without postulating special initial conditions.. . . .

The most attractive answer would seems to come from the ****ie-Carter idea that there is a very large number of universes, with all possible combinations of initial data and values of the fundamental constants. In those universes with less than the escape velocity small density perturbations will not have time to develop into galaxies and stars before the universe recollapses. In those universes with more than the escape velocity, small density perturbations would still have more than the escape velocity, and so would not form bound systems. It is only in those universes which have very nearly the escape velocity that one could expect galaxies to develop, and we have found that such universes will in general approach isotropy. Since it would seem that the existence of galaxies is a necessary condition for the development of intelligent life, the answer to the question "why is the universe isotropic?" is "because we are here". 334

C. B. Colling and S.W. Hawking, "Why is the Universe Isotropic?" The Astrophysical Journal, March 1, l973

Here you had better look up Alan Guth , "Inflationary Universes: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Physical Review D, 23, 1981 347-356, and some other pieces mentioned by John Earman, "The SAP also Rises: . . . " American Philosophical Quarterly, Oct. l987

From a theistic point of view, however, no mystery at all and an easy explanation.

Xrow

Atheist: Science suggests that DNA occurred in the first cells of life when several simple DNA structures consisting of a few nucleotides developed accidentally in the initial single-cellular organisms. The combining of such organisms (as when virus "cells" inject their DNA into a human cell) could have expanded and complicated the DNA structures. Mutations then could have gradually increased the complexity of DNA. Nature accidentally discovered that the accidentally created "recipes" in DNA were useful for constructing proteins and other things.

Believer: All life is based on DNA (or its derivative, RNA). DNA utilizes a language. In all human experience, the existence of a language implies that intelligence created it. However, atheistic evolutionists argue that a natural process invented the DNA language by accident, and then accidentally used that language to create recipes that it stored in genes. Other cell components use these recipes to manufacture proteins (and for other uses). Evolutionists believe that before a cell divides into two cells, natural processes "accidentally learned" how to copy the thousands of gene recipes, how to proofread them to check that the copying was done correctly, and also "accidentally learned" how to repair minor mistakes. Finally, if the mistakes are major, then this blind, mindless, accidental, natural process learned how to order the cell to commit suicide, a complex process that also was "accidentally developed."  To atheists, everything they cannot explain is labeled a natural accident, which explains precisely nothing.  

And atheists further claim that each small step of improvement in the process of development and use of DNA, in itself caused an overall improvement in the ability to survive and reproduce of the individual members of a species. But specifically how such steps occurred is never proven; only vague, overall generalities are offered as possibilities.

10. EVOLUTION IS TRUE; GOD IS FALSE

Atheist: Evolution explains how new species and complex life developed from simpler species.

A. Evolution teaches that once life somehow did appear, new life forms (species) were developed because of "natural selection" operating on "biological variation." What that means is that members of a species have one or more different characteristics from each other (biological variation). Some of those characteristics (e.g. strength, size, intelligence, aggressiveness, health, eyesight, attractiveness to mates, etc.) favor the survival and reproduction (natural selection) of the members that have these favorable characteristics. This causes the favorable characteristics to gradually dominate in the species or in a separated portion of the species, and additional, favorable changes, if continued long enough, will eventually result in a new species more suited to its environment than the old species. Generally the more-fit, new species will be more complex than earlier species, and in this way, evolution produced more and more complex species. The final result has been the human species.

B. The fossil record proves increasing complexity in life forms through time.

C. Geological and cosmological evidence indicates that large amounts of time existed during which evolution could operate.

D. The evidence in nature of great waste and inefficiency suggests that a natural process was responsible for the development of life rather than an outside intelligence.

E. Human characteristics (e.g. five digits on hands) that are extremely similar to those of other animals suggest evolution, not design. And the existence of vestigial organs and structures in humans such as wisdom teeth, the coccyx (tail bone), ear-moving muscles, body hair, the appendix, etc. apparently have lost most if not all of their original purposes, presumably as humans or pre-humans evolved.

F. Embryology indicates that animal embryos develop through stages that resemble older forms of life.

G. Geographic separation shows that isolated groups develop differences from other members of the species. Galapagos and Australian animals illustrate this. Such differences imply the operation of evolution.

Believer: Evolution is a false theory.

A. In evolution theory, a missing link is one organism that is developing a new characteristic that is different from those of other members of its species (e.g. a worm that is developing legs or an ordinarily wingless insect that is developing wings). Evolution claims that missing links are the means by which new species are created and that many missing links existed in the past.

Not one definite missing link has been found in the fossil record. Claimed missing links are really members of distinct species where the species has characteristics that appear to be intermediate between two other true species. Science has discovered more fake missing link fossils than real ones. And why are there no missing links in the modern world? Has evolution suddenly disappeared?

B. No satisfactory evolutionary explanation exists for the sudden Cambrian "explosion" that created many species 540,000,000 years ago, when species as complex as any alive today appeared in a brief geological period, with little or no evidence in the fossil record of any ancestor species.

C. Why is evolution so variable? Some species haven't changed in a hundred million years or more, while other species spring suddenly into being without evidence of ancestors. Why and how did evolution create aging and natural death in multicellular life? Isn't death the complete opposite of enhancing the survivability of an organism?

D. Evolutionists point to differences and changes totally within a species (micro-evolution) and then speculate that if such changes were to continue, eventually a new species might be created (Darwinian evolution or macro-evolution). But there is no evidence that Darwinian evolution has ever occurred. There is not one observation or experiment that shows the creation of a new species, not even in fast-mutating, fast-growing bacteria that have been studied intensely for over a century.

E. Organisms contain special-purpose biological systems constructed from vital, uniquely connected components.  How evolution constructed such things by chance can be imagined, but no one can demonstrate that such things actually happened.

No evidentiary explanation exists for complex molecular and cellular systems such as the snake's poison injection system, DNA, the development of mammals from an egg (one cell) through fetuses to birth, for intricate developmental processes such as the caterpillar-to-moth progression, and for the development of convoluted life cycles such as those of the liver fluke parasite, brain worm parasite and Microstomum-Hydra defense system.

F. Mutations are the primary means cited for the changes that evolution requires. But mutations overwhelmingly cause harmful changes that make the organism less likely to survive and breed. Favorable mutations are rare. What mother hopes her child will be a mutant?

G. Intelligent design is a scientific method commonly used by insurance investigators, police forces, forensic pathologists and archeologists to determine whether some event or object (e.g. fire, death, old tools, stone knives) was caused or created by intelligence or by accident. Intelligent design has uncovered many cases of complex constructions at the molecular and higher levels of life (bacterial flagellum, eyes, blood clotting, immune system, etc.) that clearly demonstrate the operation of intelligence (commonly thought to be God).

H. Recent science has discovered that vestigial organs and structures in humans, such as tonsils and the appendix, do have valuable uses. Atheists criticize God's "poor design" of things such as the human eye and birth canal, arguing that they could have done better. Yet atheists cannot even design and create one single cell of life – a task atheists claim that blind, mindless nature did simply by accident.

Atheist: Evolution teaches that the human mind and consciousness, thought and ideas, hopes, dreams, preferences, charitable and greedy behavior, free will, poetry, technology, science, etc. are due simply to the accidental connection of nerve cells and similarly accidental chemical reactions in the brain. Whatever we do or think is the result of accidental neuron development and molecule behaviors. We are all evolutionary robots. There is no soul, no "life force," just matter and energy, accidentally and luckily arranged. Humans are made of the same basic material as rocks and nothing else, simply because there is nothing in the universe other than matter and energy. Given enough time, rocks can develop into humans. It has already happened.

Believer: Believers don't agree that consciousness and the human mind are simply the result of a fantastic series of fortuitous accidents of unknown cause, and life has no meaning other than the selfish satisfaction of accidentally developed animal instincts. Believers say there is a God who created the universe, life, and humans, and who has endowed humans with the free will to choose to be good or evil.

11. SHROUD AND SUDARIUM ARE FAKES

Believer: The Shroud appeared suddenly in a small town in France in the mid-14th century. There are hints of its previous existence. The Shroud is a 14-foot-long, four-foot wide linen cloth reputed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. When Jesus' dead, naked body was placed in the tomb, one-half the length of the Shroud was placed under Jesus' body with the feet at one end of the linen, and the head near the center of the linen. The remaining half of the cloth was pulled over the head and stretched down to the feet to cover the front of the body.

When Jesus' body disintegrated into small particles (alpha particles, electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc.) tiny bursts of heat from such disintegrations created miniscule scorches on the linen. These pixel-like scorches created two full-size, full-length, front and back, photographic, negative images of the scourged, thorn-crowned, bearded, side-lanced, crucified body of a totally naked man.

Atheist: In 1988, carbon-14 dating of the Shroud gave a creation date of 1325 AD plus or minus 65 years (i.e. 1260 - 1390 AD) for the linen. The carbon-14 dating was done by three of the finest laboratories in the world, and all three essentially agreed; the Shroud is a fake. Dr. McCrone personally examined the Shroud and strongly argued that it is a faint painting.

Believer: The Shroud is an existing miracle that proves the Resurrection occurred. The definition of a miracle is an event that could not have been caused by humans or natural processes. That definition fits the Shroud. Atheists claim the Shroud is a forgery. But they cannot demonstrate how a fake Shroud could have been made in the 14th century. No object in history has been subjected to a more thorough scientific examination than the Shroud. The resulting medical, artistic, forensic, botanical and other evidence strongly confirms the Shroud as the true burial cloth of Jesus.

The Shroud contains evidence only discernable by modern scientific techniques. Why would a Middle-Ages forger place on a false Shroud detailed evidence that couldn't be discovered for centuries, such as: microscopic Palestinian dirt, faint images of coins that cover the eyes, pollen from Palestine, Turkey and Europe, authentic markings from the metal or bone whip tips used to scourge Jesus, extremely accurate blood flows, and other evidence?

Carbon-14 dating of the Shroud suggests the Shroud is a fraud. But the tested linen samples may have been contaminated. They may have been taken from a part of the Shroud where many human hands held the Shroud for display at religious events, and furthermore, some experts insist the samples contain newer linen that was rewoven into the original Shroud linen cloth to replace samples gifted by the Shroud's early owners.

Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium's history is well documented. It was carefully maintained from the time of the Crucifixion to the present. It is the cloth placed over Jesus' face and head after death, in accordance with the Jewish custom of hiding the face of a person who died a horrible death and preserving his blood. The Sudarium contains blood and body fluid stains plus evidence of hands that held the cloth to Jesus' face. The Sudarium does not contain images as the Shroud does. The Sudarium confirms the truth of the Shroud because scientific analysis shows both cloths covered the same head and face. No one has ever explained how both cloths could have been independently created fakes yet match each other perfectly.




Why are atheists angry at God?  Joe Carter, web editor of First Things, cites studies recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that those who don't believe in God tend to be the people most angry with Him.  (Click here for the entire article.)

Of course, we cannot take aggregate data and apply it to specific individuals.  It may be true that atheists on average are more angry with God than believers, that that doesn't mean atheist X is.  However, I've found the anger from many of the atheists with whom I've interacted to be quite palpable, beyond what you would expect if one were engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth.  In fact, some individual atheists admit as much.

Atheist Thomas Nagel, Professor at NYU, admits that he has a cosmic authority problem with God.  He thinks the same is true of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  When you read their books or hear their debates, it's hard to disagree with Nagel.  Hitchens in particular calls himself an "anti-theist" and God a cosmic dictator in a "celestial North Korea." That's why I said in our two debates that Christopher's attitude seems to be, "There is no God and I hate Him." (Maybe I'm misreading Hitchens, but I don't think so. In addition to the evidence from Christopher's own statements, his brother Peter, who wrote "The Rage Against God," comes to the same basic conclusion writing of Christopher's "passion against God.").

One has to ask, why all the anger?  To say that atheists are just angry with believers wouldn't explain it because the study found anger with God, not his followers.  If God doesn't exist, why be angry with Him?  The apostle Paul had an answer that he recorded in Romans 1:18-32.  But I wonder what you think.




Those of you who read Part 1 hopefully understand my concern is that in his book "The God Delusion" Dr. Richard Dawkins has set out to divert people from any religious views they and move them into the world of atheism in what i contend is an inappropriate and inaccurate manner, especially in light of the "world-class scientific" credentials he possesses. Furthermore, I believe people making decisions based on reading this book have the absolute right to have the material presented in a fair, accurate, and honest manner.

In Part 1 I demonstrated how Dr. Dawkins manipulated the available information to skew the perceptions on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. For Part two, I'm going to jump forward to Chapter 3, Pages 118-120 in the paperback version and focus on the section entitled: "The Argument from the Scripture".

I'm not saying that I don't take issue with many of the things Dr. Dawkins says in the in the first two chapters (in addition to the prayer example) but I'll save commentary on that section of the book until a future post. There are two reasons for this. First, many of the issues I have with this material revolve around the rather subtle wording and style Dr. Dawkins uses, and I think that once I point out some of the more obvious issues farther on in the book it will be easier to go back and pick those items up later.

Second. A large portion of the first two chapters of "The God Delusion" deals with the contention that there are many religious persons (including professed Christians) who have done terrible things. On that point, I agree with Dr. Dawkins, there are. However, the fact that some Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Atheists for that matter do so has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or nonexistence of God. It is, in my opinion, discussed simply to shape the readers perspective leading into subsequent portions of the book.

With that being said, let's look at what Dr. Dawkins' has presented in pages 118-120.

We'll start with his comment in the middle of the page 118 which states:

"A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, followed by Herod's massacre of the innocents. When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem"

He goes on to say:

"In the light of this prophecy, John's gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: 'Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?' "

To state that John is in any way inferring that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem is totally untrue. You can easily check this for yourself. The Scripture quoted above is John 7:41. However, if you go back just a few lines and check John 7:1, you see that "After That, Jesus went around Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life." The Scriptures state that Jesus traveled regularly and just because he was most recently in Galilee doesn't mean he wasn't born somewhere else.

In my mind that's equivalent to someone trying to dispute my having graduated from Ohio State simply because I moved to Virginia from my previous residence in Maryland after having lived in Ohio, Florida, Texas, and California. (But some said, Shall the Chief Engineer come out of Maryland? Hath not the resume said, that he cometh of the Ohio State Engineering Department and out of the town of Columbus in Ohio, where Woody was?)

Continuing on to pages 118 and 119.

"Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents Luke, by contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go 'to his own city'. Joseph was 'of the house and lineage of David' and therefore he had to go to 'the city of David, which is called Bethlehem'."

Let's check the sources. Matthew 1:20 details an angel's words to Joseph: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife..." Mathew 1:24 further states "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary home as his wife." (NIV)

So where were Joseph and Mary? While Matthew doesn't specifically say, a good case can be made that it is somewhere other than "home" since that is where they are told to go. And, where is Joseph's home...Bethlehem.

Now let's look at Luke. Luke tells us both Mary (Luke 1:26) and Joseph (Luke 2:4) are in Nazareth. Luke 2:1-3 states: "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So, Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David because he belonged to the house and line of David."(NIV)

Again, let's ask where were Joseph and Mary? Somewhere other than "home", but this time we have an answer, Nazareth. And where did they go? To Joseph's home...in Bethlehem.

From this we can see that what the Scriptures say concerning the location of Jesus' birth, is nothing remotely like what Dr. Dawkins says in his book. Lets' keep going.

Still on Page 119, Dr. Dawkins states:

"Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod's death."

There are a couple of items that should be discussed relative to this. For baseline purposes we will use the generally accepted date of 4 BC for Jesus' birth.

The first item is a matter of translation. The term "governor of" may also be translated as "governing in" and Luke presents his description of Quirinius in the same manner he uses to describe Pontius Pilate's role as a regional Procurator (i.e. not a "Governor"). (Luke 3:1) Thus it is valid to extend the time period during which Quirinius was serving in some official capacity which has been documented back to as early as 12 BC and leads to a translation describing a census that took place under the direction of Quirinius, before he formally became "Governor".

Additionally, the Luke uses the Greek word "protos" which in addition to being translated as "first" may also be translated as "prior to" when followed by the genitive case. Thus the implication here is that Luke could also be referring to a census (commonly thought to be the "Oath Census" in the 2-4 BC time-frame) that took place prior to the 6 AD property/taxation census.

While I will agree this is somewhat of a gray area as far as clarity is concerned, Dr. Dawkins again fails to mentions any valid discussion that happens to contradict his absolute vision, thus again leading the reader away from a fair and accurate portrayal of the facts.

The final example I want to point out in this section can be found in the middle of page 120. Dr. Dawkins states:

"Shouldn't a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph's descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-one generations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus' behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David."

I'm sure in researching this topic that Dr. Dawkins came across (but failed to note) the widely accepted position that Matthew traces back the lineage of Joseph while Luke traces back Mary's lineage. No wonder there is little overlap between the two. Also note that Matthew didn't say there were 28 generations in total from David to Jesus, but rather 14 from David to the exile to Babylon and 14 after the Babylonian exile ended to Jesus.

As for the Messiah being descended from David, that blood relationship is provided through Mary's ancestry. Joseph, while not the biological father of Jesus, is considered the legal father, and according to the Jewish law, passes on the royal and legal family ancestral link to David and Solomon.

In Part 1 of this post, I showed you how Dr. Dawkins had selectively manipulated the "prayer experiment" to fit the needs of his agenda. In this part, I hope you have seen how he continues to manipulate the facts in a manner the leads people to his agenda.

As with Part 1, I ask only that you take the time to look over this from a neutral point, think for yourself, and ask yourself the following questions relative to The God Delusion:

1.      Am I being told the truth or am I being given a rhetoric which is unfairly skewed to lead me (and others) into potentially life-changing decisions?

2.      Does Dr. Dawkins (a world-class scientist) present you with a fair, accurate, and ethical document on which to base my life decisions or is he unfairly misleading me into making the decision he wants?

Copyright © ZylonGaming 2009 - 2024
-Terms of Use-