I cannot tell you how many times I've heard this, and it gets ... tedious. "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, so I don't believe in God." Oddly, it seems to baffle theists. "Oh, my! Where are we going to find scientific evidence for God?" Such nonsense!
Look, science is the study of the physical or material world through observation and experimentation. Good stuff. I'm all for it. So, let's see ... what would science tell us about something like, say, love? Well, they'll do some studies on the brain to see what chemicals are involved or some such, but does that actually tell us about love? Or freedom? Or how about "free will"? We know these things exist, but they are not physical or material, so science is going to have problems with them.
I work in electronics. I know how to use a voltmeter. You put these two wires on two sides of a circuit and the meter is (usually) quite good at telling you the voltage. Fancier ones might tell you the current. So, I have this circuit and it's making noise, okay? Do I hook up the voltmeter to see how loud my circuit is? Can my voltmeter tell me where the arcing is? No, not really. You see, voltmeters are designed to measure voltage not sound or light. Trying to measure sound or light with a device not designed to measure sound or light is foolishness, and if I conclude "There is no sound" because my meter failed to measure it, it is my mistake, not a problem with reality.
So we come to the concept of God. By first definition, "God" is supernatural. Whatever else you want to say about God, that's the first thing that has to be said. He is not physical or material. He is not part of nature. So tell me, please, how you would go about measuring the existence of God with a voltmeter? How can science, the study of the physical, natural world be expected to measure a supernatural being?
Now, I know how these arguments go. "Well, you should be able to find some evidence for His existence!" they will say (ignoring completely the point just made). Fine. There is such evidence. That's the job of apologetics, and there are large quantities of evidence. When the inquirer decides to reject evidence, then it is not a case of "There is no evidence", is it? No, that would be a case of "I don't accept the evidence." And that's perfectly within their rights, I'm sure. But don't go on spouting, "There is no evidence for the existence of God!" It's not reasonable. And "reasonable" is a good thing, right?
34 comments:
I suppose it would be better said: "there is no evidence that satisfies me", emphasis largely on ME becuase if there is no God then that is the starting point for every non-physical thing such as morality.
Ah! "... that satisfies me ..." That works.
I've argued for a long time that there is no proof of the existence of God because "proof" is defined as "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true" and if no evidence or argument compels people to believe something, there is no proof. That is not to say that there is no evidence or argument for God. It simply says, "I'm stubborn."
“Can you imagine being an entrepreneur without the leadership of the Lord?” asked Dr. Gary Lawrence on his half-hour Christian radio program this morning. "No, I cannot," answered his studio mate Dineen, who may be Dr. L's current wife.
Yet in the preceding minute of his program Dr. L said that his portfolio, intended for his retirement years, lost 60 percent "in the crash of '01," and he "faced bankruptcy" in 2004.
My portfolio dropped in value in 2001, but I am pretty sure my drop was substantially less than 60 percent. To somebody of a skeptical nature like me, the loss of such a high percentage of his portfolio is pretty good evidence that Dr. Lawrence does not in fact have any leadership from a deity. But the believer’s mind obviously does not work that way.
--Lee
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
1. Everyone who says "I'm a Christian" is indeed a Christian.
2. Dr. Gary Lawrence claims to have "leadership from a deity".
3. If there is such a deity, this deity would not allow "misfortune", at least not on the part of His followers. There is no viable reason for a deity to allow such an event.
Or, as is the standard, there appears to be two criteria at work here. First, temporal comfort (health, wealth, etc.) is the best indicator of "God". Second, any lack thereof is the best proof of "no God". I think I understood you correctly.
Oh, and in response to what could be construed as a question ("The believer's mind obviously doesn't work that way"), no, indeed, it doesn't. If the source material we have (which we believe is God-breathed) assures us that temporal comfort is not our lot and that we will certainly have hard times and, in fact, that if we don't we ought to question whether or not we even have a relationship with God, would you really expect us to think the way you are on the topic?
Okay, seriously, these guys do not read my posts (let alone the comments that follow) and I have no pull with them whatsoever. So it's "coincidence" that makes them post this today.
I am about to tread on or near footprints that Stan and I have already left in the sand of Stan’s blog site, so I will be very brief this time around.
Stan writes, presumably in a sarcastic vein, “Everyone who says ‘I'm a Christian’ is indeed a Christian.”
So God keeps a ministry on the air for years—and I have heard Dr. L’s show for at least a decade, going by memory—even if God knows the host is spreading lies about God? Is that really an acceptable line of thought for you?
Stan writes, “… temporal comfort is not our lot and that we will certainly have hard times and, in fact, that if we don't we ought to question whether or not we even have a relationship with God…”
If you felt like supporting exactly the opposite of that thought with scripture, you could dig up some Bible passages to do so. With all due respect, Stan, you just quote whichever passages suit your purpose of the moment.
Something good just happened to a Christian. Hey! Evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity!
Something bad just happened to a Christian. Hey! Evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity!
--Lee
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was stating what I believed you were saying.
As has been the case since the beginning of our conversations, there can be no god because if there were, such a being would put a sudden and violent end to all who spread lies about Him.
Alright, you got me. I simply take my Bible for what it says. It says that we will have suffering and I'm not supposed to notice that. And it says that we will have blessings and peace not of this world. And I'm not supposed to notice that. You're right. Sheer nonsense. No thinking person could believe such a thing.
Really? Are you sure you want to go down that path?
But, returning to the point of the post, because you don't accept the evidence -- because the evidence that does exist doesn't line up with the scorecard you're holding -- does not negate the fact that there is evidence.
(And, if you could, please point to something I've written that says either of the two final statements you've attributed to me.)
Stan wrote, "Please point to something I've written that says either of the two final statements you've attributed to me."
Your wish is my command.
Let's deal first with this one: "Something good just happened to a Christian. Hey! Evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity!"
In October of 2010 you told of how your family had seemingly been under a protective umbrella, both while you were at home, and while you were away from home. No assaults, no burglaries, no airplane crashing into your house. It seemed pretty clear to me that you wanted your readers to take that good thing as evidence for your Bible's God.
Now let's deal with this one: "Something bad just happened to a Christian. Hey! Evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity!"
From where I stand, a father and son dying in a car collision satisfies the conditions for being "bad." When (also in October of last year) I brought up the case of a Baptist minister and his son getting killed on the road near Camp Verde, you were pleased to quote Paul: "to live is Christ and to die is gain." And furthermore, you said that agnostics like me avoiding violent death and making it into our gray-haired years is an indicator that the God of the Bible is giving us a longer life, because "at least it lengthens the time that God has to wake you up." In other words, you interpret the contrast between my long life and a Christian's shorter life (the latter qualifying as bad in my book) as evidence for God's existence.
Here is another example of a bad thing pointing toward God, according to your way of thinking: Last year when I challenged you to pray that God will speak correction to whichever of two Christian talk radio hosts is getting it wrong about alcohol consumption, your reply was that their putting out contradictory information on their respective Christian broadcasts just goes to show how wonderful God is in providing the liberty for a human to say anything he wants to, even when thousands of Christian listeners depending on the broadcast to edify them instead get false information (a bad thing).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James MacDonald of KPXQ's 'Walk in the Word' broadcast is really excited and upbeat this week in his series of sermons on the promises of God.
"The moment you take your eyes off the Lord, you're going down... I will not doubt, because God is in control," Rev. MacDonald preached. He quoted some supporting scriptures, including a passage from Proverbs 3, and he went on to say, "If you in all yours ways acknowlege Him, He will make your path smooth. In more modern language, God will pave the way for you."
As he was preaching, I imagined you sitting in his congregation. After the service, I could see you approaching him to say, "You are going down no matter what. The Bible assures us that temporal comfort is not our lot and that we will certainly have hard times. The road God gives us is not smooth like you claim, it is jagged and treacherous. If you are a faithful sheep, the Good Shepherd will see to it that you lose 60 percent of your portfolio's value in one year. Or He will see to it that your son dies in a car collision. Something along those lines is inevitable."
--Lee
Wait, wait ... so a narrative of what I was thinking -- of being grateful, for instance, that God took care of things -- is a claim of evidence for the existence of God? In truth, I cannot find the post of which you speak. Still, my standard audience is not the atheist, so my standard message is not to atheists (not a defense of Christianity to unbelievers). So ascribing such things as "evidence of God" is nonsense, since they weren't offered as such. I know some people do. I don't.
You have really got to stop offering examples of people who encountered problems. Why not just go to the top. God sent His Son for the purpose of suffering and dying for us. Why not just go to that one instead of dancing around with little people and little things? It was the worst injustice ever perpetrated on the planet, since Jesus was sinless. The pain inflicted was unwarranted and unimaginable. So devastating was the event that Jesus Himself asked to skip out on it "if it be Your will". But the Bible leaves no room for doubt. It wasn't an "oops" moment, an unforeseen event that God just had to figure out how to make work. The Bible says about this event "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). Stop messing around with sinful beings who deserve whatever bad stuff they might get and pick up a real issue. Because if this event, as unjust and yet planned as it was, has no virtue, nothing that commends it toward God, then your small potatoes become pointless and your point is made.
(Of course you can see that it's a trap, right? But what I do wonder is if you can glean anything from it.)
I have never offered "God has been good to me" or "Bad things have happened to me" as "evidence for the existence of God". Some do. I don't.
As for this whole (dreadfully tedious) "if bad things happen to God's people, God must not exist" argument, you have got to drop it. It doesn't work. It's like saying, "If a parent ever disciplines a child, the parent doesn't exist." Piffle! "If a teacher ever gives a student a bad grade, the teacher doesn't exist." Ridiculous! The oh-so-narrow idea that bad things have no place in a world where God exists is just mindless. And you don't want to be mindless, right?
Stan, you called Lee atheist but he refers to himself as agnostic. I may tend to agree with Lee that he is agnostic. The reason is that he sure seems to listen to Christian radio and read Christian blogs, so he must be searching. Lee...stop trying to be persuaded by people in these media forums and do your business directly with God. Read the claims in the Bible and pray about it. You have enough information...now do your business.
I know Lee calls himself "agnostic", but he does not argue with atheists who claim "no god" as with Christians who claim "god" and he appears to listen to Christian radio for the purpose of finding ammunition to use against theists. He does claim to have read the Bible (although his information on it is sketchy) and has appeared to move away from a theistic upbringing, so he already has the information he needs. So while he claims "agnostic", he does not appear to be "seeking" and still holds that there is no god (at least by means of ridiculing any belief in god).
Stan wrote, “I work in electronics.”
I went through an electronics phase in my late teens. Digital and analogue both fascinated me. I went so far as to breadboard some circuits in my bedroom. I still have a box of Radio Shack parts and Megahertz Electronics parts from those days. I was too cheap to buy a real dwell meter to adjust my vehicle engine’s timing, but I was able to work up a circuit on my own that did the job. I built a Heathkit dual-trace oscilloscope, but the thing never did function properly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan wrote, “There is such evidence. That's the job of apologetics, and there are large quantities of evidence.”
Out of curiosity, is the reading of apologetics that you do mainly focused on evidence for a Brand-X deity, or mainly on evidence that points specifically to the Holy Trinity as distinct from Allah and other deities?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan wrote, "You can see that it's a trap, right? But what I do wonder is if you can glean anything from it."
The trap went over my head, I’m afraid. Flesh that out for me if you have time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan wrote, “I cannot find the post of which you speak.
It was something that you wrote on Oct 3, 2010.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan wrote, "... dreadfully tedious... argument, you have got to drop it."
Okay, I get it that me bringing it up one more time is not suddenly going to make you scratch your head and say, "Darn it, you know what, that Lee actually has something important to say on the Problem of Evil.” But maybe some Christian visitor who does not find it tedious will take a moment to give clear-cut answers to the following questions.
Does God function as a guide to Christian entrepreneurs? How would you recognize that such a thing was happening?
If God guides an entrepreneur into a business deal that loses money, has God promised in His Word that He will later guide the entrepreneur into a deal that will make up for the loss in full? In other words, does Joel 2:25 apply to this situation? (And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.)
Imagine that you pray, “Lord, please make the number of chimpanzees who acquire the Ebola virus in calendar year 2011 be one less than it would have been if I had not prayed this prayer.” Further imagine that you could know of a certainty that as a result of your prayer, 29,303 chimpanzees got Ebola in 2011, but 29,304 would have gotten Ebola if you had NOT prayed that prayer. Do you accept that the world would be a fairer, nicer place if only 29,303 got Ebola?
What if God of His own volition—without needing any humans to ask him for it—made it so that zero chimpanzees got Ebola in 2011? Would that be an even better world than one where 29,303 got Ebola?
Do you believe it is essential to Christian faith that one asserts that the Christian deity runs the world in the very best way that an infinitely talented deity could conceivably run the world?
If God causes/allows a living organism to suffer based on His son Jesus having suffered to an even greater degree, is God being noble and good?
Bill looks out his window in the morning and sees somebody has toilet-papered his front yard. So Bill grabs rolls of toilet paper from his bathroom and runs over to Susan’s house and toilet-papers Susan’s yard. It is not that Bill thinks Susan was the perpetrator; it’s just that Bill thinks it is fair for Susan to suffer, since Bill has suffered. Does that strike you as acceptable behavior on Bill’s part?
When a five-year-old child suffers and dies from leukemia, Stan says it is akin to a teacher giving a student a bad grade. In Stan’s analogy, the teacher presumably corresponds to God. Does that mean that the leukemia victim corresponds to the student who gets a bad grade?
--Lee
Starflyer wrote, “Lee...stop trying to be persuaded by people in these media forums and do your business directly with God. Read the claims in the Bible and pray about it.”
Hello there Starflyer.
As I have mentioned before to Stan, one of the reasons I left Christianity was that I never heard the Christian God speak to me.
Millions of Christians believe an honest reading of the Bible is informing them that females cannot be head pastors of churches. Millions of other Christians believe an honest reading of the Bible is informing them that females CAN be head pastors of churches. That is one of the questions I asked God in my teen years to tell me the answer to, but He never did.
Starflyer, I invite you to pray that God will speak the answer to that question to me. That would be the best thing. Next best thing would be for you to pass on to me what answer God speaks to you on that question, since it sounds like you are able to “do your business directly with God.”
I am one of those dinosaurs who do not have the Net at home, so I may not see your response until a few days have gone by.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Testing, one, two, three.
Visitors at some blogs are able to make special fonts happen, but I may not know how to do that here. Pardon my little test.
[i]Is this italic?[/i]
[b]Is this bold?[/b]
[color=green]Is this green?[/color]
--Lee
Okay, so we have the rules straight.
1. "If there is a God, He has to speak to me in the fashion which I designate (preferably out loud). Failure to do so is proof of non-existence. He hasn't. No God."
2. "If bad things happen, no God. Of course, I define 'bad things'. My version of 'bad things' happen. Thus, no God."
3. "If God doesn't operate in the fashion that I deem acceptable (like leading enterpreneurs into greater riches), then no God."
4. "If there was a God, His main task would be to make this world a better place. He hasn't (by my measure). Thus, no God."
Got it. Case proved.
Now, let's see ...
On the "apologetics" that I read, do they prove the Christian God or just "God" in general? Since I don't focus on apologetics, it's hard to answer. However, some of the evidence is the Bible. If the Bible is valid evidence, then the Christian God is the God for which it is evidence. However, providing evidence to the one who claims "There can be no such thing as god at all" doesn't need to focus on the Christian God, does it? That would simply be the step after, "See? There is evidence for God."
On the trap, if it can be shown that "bad things" (you know, like killing a perfect being for something He didn't do) produce good results (like salvation for those who will receive it), then your measure of "bad things" has to change, doesn't it?
Are you aware of the command, "You shall not test the Lord your God"? Even in human terms it gets annoying. If one of my kids tried it, it would just be irritating. "Let's ask Dad for something truly inane to see if he'll be nice to us." You know, like decreasing the number of chimpanzees who get the ebola virus.
Is it your idea that Susan is innocent, that God is trying to make people suffer because His Son suffered?
Oh, and, no, none of the little HTML test worked. You might check out a site that outlines basic HTML commands. As an example the Shift-comma key produces the start of a command and the Shift-period is the close. (I would have typed them out, but the HTML won't let me.)
Lee,
I won't pray that God will give you the answer to the "female as pastors" question. That feels a little like testing God...sort of like your chimpanzee question...it seems very strange to me that these are the things you get hung up on. Anyway, I WILL pray (and already have) that God will make himself known to you (likely that will look like you coming to a realization that you are a sinner in need of a Savior). Don't expect a voice though - but DO reflect on your life and whether or not if you died tonight - would you go to Heaven or Hell. You get to choose where you go...you know..."smoking? Or Non-smoking?"
The idea that all one needs to believe in God is for Him to speak directly to them, or show some miraculous sign, is ridiculous and foolish. The Israelites had a pillar of smoke and fire leading them through the desert. They had a burning mountain and the very voice of God, and you know what they did? They made a golden calf to worship. Adam and Eve had daily interaction with God, yet they still failed to obey. Jesus came to the world in the form of a man, performed innumerable miracles, and was still executed for claiming to be God. So to ask God to just show Himself and I'll believe is foolish. God has demonstrated that that doesn't work. No amount of miracles and voices will convince us of Him.
My grandfather was an atheist. He made the same demand. I asked him, "What would it take for you to believe in God?" He told me, "He'd have to appear in front of me." I said, "He already tried that. They killed Him for it."
Stan wrote, "He appears to listen to Christian radio for the purpose of finding ammunition to use against theists."
Technically that is true. But the way I would choose to phrase it is, "He listens to Christian radio to compare one preacher's ideas to another's, and to compare a preacher's ideas to Stan's (and potentially other Christian laymen who blog) to see whether there are signs of guidance from Above." Stan made me chuckle when he once claimed that if Christians really were unified in their theology, Lee would take it as sign that they are brainwashed cultists. There may be a grain of truth to that, I will admit. I don't know for sure.
Stan wrote, "If there is a God, He has to speak to me in the fashion which I designate (preferably out loud). Failure to do so is proof of non-existence. He hasn't. No God."
And Starflyer wrote, "That feels a little like testing God."
In my mid teens I read a biography of Erik Weisz, better known as the Great Houdini. He was interested in things that "mediums" did at seances he attended, especially in their claims to channel spirits of the dead. Houdini made a pact with his wife that whichever one died first would send a certain sentence to a medium when the other was at the seance. Houdini died first. His wife never did get that sentence from a medium. Her conclusion, as well as mine: mediums are faking it.
Astronomer Carl Sagan was thrilled by the idea that there might be extraterrestrial life somewhere out there, but he did not accept the assurance of those humans who claim they are in contact with aliens. Sagan challenged such people to ask the aliens for the proof of a certain difficult mathematical conjecture. They never came through for him. Sagan's conclusion, as well as mine: alien abductees are faking it or are insane. I don't think any of you are naive enough to take it seriously if an abductee says, "Well, the green slimy fellows know the proof for that conjecture, but they don't want to pass it on because they want you to take their existence on faith."
Stan wrote, "Are you aware of the command, 'You shall not test the Lord your God'?"
I remember that. It strikes me as an effective way for any religion to protect its deity from disproof. (Isn't there something though in the Bible about God turning a piece of wood into an axe-head, or something like that, to show somebody that He is real? I can't remember the details.)
Starflyer wrote, "Don't expect a voice though."
Over the years I have jotted down some examples of Christians speaking in tongues. I had thought about presenting some of those jottings here, to see if anyone has the gift of interpreting tongues. I would expect the translation into English to be relevant to what was happening to the speaker at the time (something I also jotted down), if the gift was for real. I will do that if anybody requests me to, but I can pretty much tell that Stan and his visitors don't claim to be able to hear God speaking in an audible way, let alone translating glossolalia into English.
David points out that a pillar didn't work for the Israelites, and implies that no evidence would work for me. I know my own mind well enough to be confident that certain evidence would turn me into a servant of God for my remaining years on this earth.
Stan wrote, "Is it your idea that Susan is innocent, that God is trying to make people suffer because His Son suffered?"
My parable about Bill and Susan was intended to find out more about your mindset when you wrote, "God sent His Son for the purpose of suffering and dying for us… It was the worst injustice ever perpetrated on the planet, since Jesus was sinless. The pain inflicted was unwarranted and unimaginable... Stop messing around with sinful beings who deserve whatever bad stuff they might get."
Note too that chimpanzees did not participate in the crucifixion of Jesus.
--Lee
People have committed Cosmic Treason against God. People deserve justice for that Treason. Nothing to do with Christ suffering.
And, so far, I see no evidence of no evidence. I see only "I do not accept any of the evidence you might wish to offer."
I’ve been thinking about what Stan or Starflyer might write as a credo. This is what I came up with today. I will put it in quotes as if it were written by one or the other of you, but by all means please come back here to “redline” any parts of it that are a mischaracterization of how you really see things.
"If some other religion's holy book claimed its deity talked directly to people in ancient times, and insisted their deity is no respecter of persons, and prophesied that their deity is the same yesterday, today and forever, I would find it fishy of believers to say that their deity does not speak to them in modern times because he doesn't want to be tested. But that is how it works out in my own belief system, which is Bible-based Christianity, and I accept it. Anybody who rejects Christianity or even harbors serious doubts about it will spend eternity in Hell. So if my reading of the Bible does not clarify certain issues like whether abortion is acceptable after rape, or whether I should enlist in the military during a shooting war and kill combatants and possibly kill civilians too (by so-called ‘collateral damage,’ for instance), or whether I can vote 'yes' on a certain female being installed as new head pastor of the congregation I belong to, I need to accept it with gladness in my heart that my deity refuses to clarify the situation for me by speaking to me. Skeptics might find His refusal to be puzzling, but then they do not understand the true nature of God like I do. He must have good reasons for forcing me to lean upon my own understanding on how to behave, and so I praise Him for not speaking directly to me. Now it may just be the case that if I get these sorts of decisions wrong in my life, I will spend my own eternity in the pit of Hell elbow-to-elbow with those who were skeptical of His very existence, but I am confident that my own understanding is trustworthy, and that Christians who disagree with me about major issues like those (as opposed to more minor issues that I like to call ‘Christian liberty issues’) are not TRUE Christians. For not everybody who calls himself a Christian really is one."
--Lee
Okay, let's start with the premise. "I'm pretty sure that if Stan or starflyer were to right a credo, it would be written in such a way as to make them look like idiots. Here, let me show you ..." Nice.
Then there's the whole question of evidence. You've never touched on it ... once. All you've offered is "God never did what I demanded, so such a being doesn't exist." (You've never been a parent, have you? I ask because I have found it inherent in most parents I know that when their children make demands, the answer is "No.") But, hey, please feel free to be as arrogant toward God as you wish.
So, tell me, Lee. What are you doing here? You believe me to be an idiot. (Only an idiot would hold to the "credo" you offered, thank you very much.) Your latest entry has exceeded the bounds of "friendly", my singular rule for comments. Your "credo" demonstrates 1) that you haven't the faintest notion of what Christianity or the Bible claims despite your personal belief that you're well informed, and 2) you haven't paid any attention whatsoever to anything I've offered. Since people who believe in God fall in the category of irrational, illogical, incompetent fools, since you surely haven't the slightest hope of arguing me out of my certainty (because you've offered one argument -- "mean ol' God didn't speak to me out loud, so no such being exists"), and since you obviously haven't the least intention of actually picking up anything new, I'm going to have to ask you to cease and desist. By all means, ask questions if you wish. But ridiculing people for whom you have no regard isn't helpful, and ridiculing the owner of this blog isn't smart.
Errors:
1. "Other religion's holy book" falls in the same category as the Bible. They don't. None. Not one (with the sole exception of the Jewish Bible ... which, of course, is contained in the Christian Bible).
2. "Their deity does not speak to them in modern times." In fact, I have explained multiple times that He does.
3. "Because He doesn't want to be tested." Has anyone ever made such a claim here?
4. "Anybody who ... harbors serious doubts." Make stuff up all you want. It won't help your position. It's called "strawman", and it's classic argument error.
5. "Does not clarify certain issues ..." I'm curious. If the Bible were to meet this criterion -- "clarify every possible issue for all time" -- exactly how big would you figure it would be? War and Peace would pale in comparison. A complete set of encyclopedias would be paltry in comparison Huge! Simply incomprehensibly huge. So it makes it clear that life is valued (answering the abortion/rape question). It is absolutely clear on the question of females as pastors; the failure of some to heed it doesn't make it less clear. "The only god I could accept is one that left no questions, that made no room for choice, that required zero thought or heart or anything at all." That's what you'd get if your requirement was met here. Yeah, I bet you'd like that ... NOT!
6. "Certainty is wrong." That's what you assure me with your "if I'm wrong" stuff. The suggestion is that we CANNOT know what is true, that the Bible is unclear, that God doesn't speak (because you're not getting the voices in your head for which you would actually have yourself committed if you did), that it's all "made up". In other words, you're quite certain that I shouldn't be certain, and you're quite willing to strip me of any possible hope in life or hereafter. "Here's what I really want from you, Stan, and all who are quite sure of their faith. I want you to give it all up. Admit there is no god. Surrender any genuine 'reason for living'. Give up any reason for hoping for life beyond this one. And that whole 'morality' thing -- yeah, drop that, too. No, no, I want you to be like me!" Thanks for your deep and abiding concern.
So, in response to your offer to "redline", please feel free to redline the entire thing.
Stan (and Lee),
At first I started to be offended as I read Lee's rant...but then I realized something. This is 100% Lee, 0% me! I didn't write any of that. It's Lee! Stan, you are right though, he is totally misinformed, despite his thinking otherwise. Lee is the one who came across looking foolish/idiotic, not me. Lee, your real issue is with God, not Christians.
Stan is correct in surmising I have not been a parent.
On January 18 Stan wrote, "3. 'Because He doesn't want to be tested.' Has anyone ever made such a claim here?"
Obviously you are setting up a trap for me, because five days earlier on this same page you quoted Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not test the Lord your God." So here I am falling right into your trap. I am intrigued. I have no idea where you are going with this, but go ahead and clamp down on me.
Stan wrote, "4. 'Anybody who ... harbors serious doubts.' Make stuff up all you want. It won't help your position. It's called 'strawman'."
The only way I can see to interpret that is thusly: Stan believes people with serious doubts about the Bible can still make it into Heaven. Interesting. Not consistent with some sermons I have heard, but interesting. A preacher might base a sermon opposing what I think Stan is claiming on these passages:
Narrow is the way, which leadeth to life, and few there are that find it. – Matt. 7:14
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. – Rev. 3:16
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. – 2 Thess. 2:12
Stan wrote, “2. ‘Their deity does not speak to them in modern times.’ In fact, I have explained multiple times that He does.”
Please bear in mind that the credo I proposed was prefaced by me saying "what Stan OR STARFLYER might write" In other words, an amalgam of the two of you. It may have been ill-advised of me to write the credo as an amalgam of two different believers. At any rate, what I had in the front of my mind when I wrote “does not speak to them” was something Starflyer wrote on January 14: "Don't expect a voice." And of course I started out my January 18 comment by inviting Starflyer to make redline corrections.
Stan wrote, "I'm curious. If the Bible were to meet this criterion -- 'clarify every possible issue for all time' -- exactly how big would you figure it would be? War and Peace would pale in comparison.”
A skeptical person would point to some chapters around Leviticus 13 as being used in less than optimal manner. Obviously a believer would not.
Stan wrote, “3. ‘If God doesn't operate in the fashion that I deem acceptable (like leading enterpreneurs into greater riches), then no God."
I think you are saying that Joel 2:25 cannot be applied to Christian entrepreneurship. It would be helpful if you would tell us what aspect of Christian life Joel 2:25 can reliably be applied to.
I hope none of the above is irritating or taken as combative.
I see Stan on January 18 has linked to a large batch of Net material on evidence for God. I enjoy reading points of view contrary to my own, and I pledge to read every word of Stan's links, though not necessarily links of links. (It may take me weeks or months though to do a careful reading of all that!)
--Lee
On testing God. You highly recommend that we can simply prove the existence of God by asking Him to make a few less monkeys get ebola. That's a test. Nothing else. It serves no purpose. It is simply to satisfy your demand. But you assigned a cause to your claim: "...their deity does not speak to them in modern times because he doesn't want to be tested." That's just silly. I never said it. No trap. I said that your suggestion was a test. I did not say God doesn't speak today because He won't be tested.
On doubts. The Bible doesn't say, "Thou shalt believe with all thy heart and all thy mind and all they soul and thou shalt be saved." The Bible says we're saved by placing our confidence in the payment that Christ has made on our behalf. So, in your understanding, how much "believe" would qualify as "enough to be saved", and how much would place you in the "sorry, but no salvation for you" category. Feel free to base your answer on the Scripture of which you are so fond. (Note, by the way, that "believed not the truth" is not the same as "had some doubts".)
On the Stan or starflyer credo. Note that starflyer disagrees wholeheartedly as well.
On the "God speaks" problem. Please clear this up for me. Is it your contention that the only form of "speaks" is an audible voice that Lee can hear? So if your mom tells you to do something, you say, "No", and she crosses her arms and glares, she is not communicating anything to you? Or if someone (like me) gives an example of God speaking within my head, although it's not audible, you are disallowing that as "speaks"? Just to be clear. Because if the only allowable form of "speaks" to you is "in a voice that Lee can hear", then you and I are not conversing either, are we?
On the suitability of the Bible. Really? Now you're saying that it has "less than optimal" use? Perhaps you'd like to submit a guideline for biblical writers to meet, a specification for a religious book to meet that will satisfy all your demands? First it's insufficient. Then it's less than optimal. And you haven't even (by your own admission) scratched the surface of it!
On Joel 2:25. Let's play a game. You're little Lee and you have a friend named Eddie. Eddie's dad is taking him to the toy store, and you're invited. Once there, Eddie's dad tells Eddie, "Your birthday is coming up. I will buy you any toy you want." Well! You're just giddy with anticipation because, after all, your birthday is coming up and you have it as a promise from Eddie's dad that "I will buy you any toy you want." Imagine your sad face when you run up with your selection only to find out that Eddie's dad isn't buying a toy for you. "But you promised!" What mistake did you make?
The book of Joel is written to Israel. It warns of the coming judgment from God. It contains God's promise to restore Israel after their judgment was finished. This promise did indeed occur. In fact, in Acts 2:17-21, Peter claims that God fulfilled His promise in their day. Promise made; promise kept. But you're now going to try to claim that the promise is to all people for all time? Or at least to anyone related to God? And the promise is, as you see it, that God will give all Christians profitable entrepreneurship? Come on, Lee. That's not even remotely reasonable. Now put back that toy and let's go.
Just ran across this (in light of the "God never speaks" position):
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world (Heb 1:1-2).
I note two things. First, God rarely spoke directly to anyone. There was a select few, called "prophets" who were not "foretellers of the future" as much as proclaimers of what God said. God used them to "speak" to His people instead of direct, one-on-one communication. (Frankly, I can see lots of value in this approach.)
Second, according to the passage, God's current mode of communication is His Son. This "speaking" is not audible, verbal communication (because the book of Hebrews was written after Christ). Nevertheless, communication occurs. Some may demand audible, verbal, personal communication. God has never met such a demand. Nor does He intend to.
Stan wrote, “I said that your suggestion was a test. I did not say God doesn't speak today because He won't be tested.”
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. I see that I misunderstood you.
Stan wrote, “What mistake did you make? The book of Joel is written to Israel. .. But you're now going to try to claim that the promise is to all people for all time?”
Well, not just I. Did you ever get a chance to listen to Prophet Dr. Ron Dubrul during the 30-plus years that he was on local Christian radio? If you did, you no doubt heard him use Joel 2:25 on people who called in to his live show. The very reason I knew that verse is in the Bible is because he made use of it so often to comfort callers. (I had to do some research to find out the book/chapter/verse it was located in, that day before commenting to your blog site. But knowing the words in that verse made it a snap to use a search engine to find its location within the Bible.)
I remember that Dr. Dubrul said he has written “more than fifty books.” That puts him in quite a position to misguide Christians. So this is where I challenge Stan to pray that God will speak to Dr. Dubrul to tell him that he is…
Whoops! Never mind. I’ve been down that path before with you, and I already know you won’t carry through on the challenge.
Stan wrote, “Is it your contention that the only form of "speaks" is an audible voice…”
In the context of the moment, I will simply note that such a spoken word from God would surely do the trick in correcting Prophet Dubrul. And yet, I know that you will not bother to even… uh, you can see where I am going with this.
--Lee
Have you heard the expression, "If a little is good, a lot is better?" Does that apply to evidence for the Christian God? If God is pleased to place evidence for Himself in the world, is He even more pleased when additional evidence materializes?
I challenge you, Stan, to give anagrams for the uppermost headlines of the front sections of the January 27, 2011 editions of these newspapers:
Arizona Republic
Wall Street Journal
New York Times
Boston Herald
Example: An anagram, if I am not misusing that term, for IRAN INVADES IRAQ would be AAADEIIINNQRRSV.
Obviously Stan is going to refuse this challenge. Stan will be kind enough to give his reasons for refusing. Here are seven that he might go with:
1. Show me where I said I have the gift of prophecy. Because... you cannot.
2. The Israelites were given a pillar of smoke and they were not convinced. How can four anagrams convince anybody?
3. Divining the future is witchcraft. The Bible prohibits dabbling in witchcraft.
4. Lee, you know darn well that Deuteronomy 6:16 says not to test the Lord. That commandment trumps any thought of adding to evidence for God's existence. That commandment is forever and ever. Absolutely no exceptions. For me to try to break that commandment would be... stupid.
5. God doesn’t owe us any such a thing. We are miserable sinners. Those who fail to be convinced by the evidence already given to us deserve to spend an infinite number of years being tortured. And really, we send ourselves to Hell, when you think about it.
6. God doesn’t do parlor tricks. Lee, you stupidly see him as some sort of big magician in the sky. He is not like that.
7. Such a thing would demand audible, verbal, personal communication. God has never met such a demand. Nor does He intend to.
Likely Stan is clever enough to give seven more reasons in addition to the seven I have listed.
Presently Starflyer may come here to tell us, "Lee, your comment is inane. A complete waste of time." And I am cool with that. For I am not aiming this comment at people like Starflyer who are 100% certain that they know what the truth is.
I am aiming this comment at a visitor who might be a lad of, say, sixteen. A lad a lot like I was at sixteen. He's spent hundreds of hours listening to junior church sermons and later to adult sermons, and the teachings in Sunday school class. He's diligently done the assigned homework for his Sunday school class. He has committed to memory dozens of Bible verses. He reads his Bible most nights.
Now see, he's been told in his church that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
And that starlight from a star that astronomers say is more than 10,000 light-years from Earth was placed by the Creator most of the way to Earth at the start of creation so that it can be getting to us now.
And macroevolution is a lie from the pit of Hell.
And the theory of evolution is in fact a logical absurdity.
And a talking serpent tricked some humans.
And that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and there are trackways near the Paluxy River in Texas to prove it.
And that there were NOT five mass extinctions on Earth. There may have been one mass extinction (doubtful, else why would God have gone out of his way to make sure Noah preserved them?), but if so it was directly caused by Noah's flood.
And that there is no such thing as the K-T layer.
[Due to website limitations on length of a comment, I will have to send the continuation shortly.]
[Continuing comment from earlier.]
And God is good. God is love.
And His yoke is easy; His burden is light.
And whom the Lord loves, the Lord scourges.
And the Bible contains no errors.
And Jonah was swallowed by a fish.
And Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt.
And if we lay hands on the sick and anoint them with oil, they shall recover.
And the blind shall see.
And the deaf shall hear.
And the lame shall walk.
And we can handle snakes and scorpions. They shall not bite us if our faith is large.
And whatsoever we ask God in prayer, God will do it. Or if God doesn't do it, it is our fault because our faith in Him is not strong enough. Or it was not really His will to do it. Or something.
And blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.
And the land that I live in has God on its side.
And the number of the beast shall be 666.
And the stars that are affixed to the bowl of the firmament above us shall one day flutter down to the surface of Earth.
And the trumpet of God shall blare to announce the coming of the Lord Jesus into our atmosphere.
And there is an eternal paradise waiting for those who believe.
And there is eternal torment waiting for those who are skeptical.
He's absorbed those things well. But in the last year or two he's heard some adults who are not churchgoers talking about evidence that doesn't fit so well with what he is being told by the adults at his church. He's done a little surreptitious reading at the school library on topics that cast some doubt on what it says in the Jack Chick tracts he is given to read at his church.
So here he is at sixteen, straddling the fence on the Christianity-is-true vs. Christianity-is-bogus argument.
If such a visitor sees this, I would like him to read what I wrote above, on Sagan and Houdini. Then I would like him to compare that with what Stan is going to say in his response to this comment by me.
Maybe--just maybe--as a result of this, the lad will find that before the day is done, it has all crystallized for him. And what a relief to no longer be perched awkwardly on that fence.
--Lee
On the false teachers, the Bible promises them. Your suggestion is that I reprimand God. Paul says that factions are necessary. You recommend that I correct Paul. If there is a God, it is incumbent upon Him to eliminate the false teachers He promised would come and remove the factions that Paul said were necessary. To me, as a follower of Christ, correcting God seems like a really stupid idea.
But I do see your goal, now. It is possible that some young person was raised with some sense of hope, some notion of possibility that, despite the troubles we see in this world, there is reason to believe that there is purpose, that there are answers, that all is not pointless. If you are successful, these will be freed from these ridiculous ideas and no longer have any reason for purpose, hope, peace. Nice.
Stan wrote, “…no longer have any reason for purpose, hope, peace.”
There is a land called Agnostia. People born there live 75 years. Then they die. Their thought patterns, personality, and character cease to exist at the last oxygenated flow of blood in their brains. There's another land, Chrystia. People born there die in a physical sense at 75. But their personalities live on forever in some other realm. In fact, there are two other realms. In one of those, they lie in a hammock under a shady palm tree and drink cold eggnog. In the other, they have to lie naked on a bed of nails. Narrow is the way and few are they in Chrystia who find it, so 10 percent of their citizens go to the hammock realm, while 90 percent go to the bed-of-nails real. Would you prefer to have been born in Agnostia or in Chrystia?"
A Jewish friend of yours dies, Stan. You know that she has been exposed to the gospel message during her life, but like radio’s Dr. Laura Schlessinger, she always said, “I know some people say they feel the love of Christ when they wake up in the morning. More power to ‘em, but I’ve never felt that love, and I remain unconvinced.” At the funeral the sister of the deceased looks at you and says, “Well, at least she is in a better place now, don’t you think?”
I imagine you would be a gentleman, and would nod your head in response. But what silent thought would you be thinking?
Some years back Larry King, whose family tree is Russian Jews, asked his guest Rev. Jim Bakker what Bakker thought happened to the holocaust victims after death. Rev. Bakker thought for a few seconds, and said, “I believe they went straight to heaven.” Do you concur?
Stan wrote, “… asking Him to make a few less monkeys get ebola. That's a test. Nothing else. It serves no purpose."
I challenge you to pray, “Lord, we Christians are to believe with all our heart, mind and soul. We cannot fulfill that requirement if we get Alzheimer’s or a stroke or a brain tumor. I ask that from this day forward You prevent dementia in all true Christians.”
Stan wrote, “… you haven't the faintest notion of what Christianity or the Bible claims despite your personal belief that you're well informed…”
I freely admit my rustiness on the Bible. What expectations do you hold for ordained ministers to know the Word of God? I went to a funeral last year for a middle-aged Christian man who had liked to use his motorcycle and four-wheeler out in the desert. During the funeral, the pastor of the man’s church said, “If there are sand dunes in Heaven, I’ll bet that is where he is right now.” Later the pastor looked at the man’s wife and daughter and said, “When they get to Heaven’s gate, I think he [the deceased] will meet them and tell them, ‘Hey! There is somebody you’ve got to meet! His name is Jesus.’”
So that pastor has the idea that a soul goes straight from the deathbed to Heaven and carries on activities there for some time, and then other of his loved ones join him there when their time of death comes.
Contrast that with a note I jotted down when listening to Pastor Mark Martin on KPXQ September 24, 2008: "Our bodies will be raised, if we have died, and we will get our new bodies in the air... Won't that be fun?" He was talking about the Rapture. So as he sees it, all the deceased wait in graves until that future day arrives, and then presumably all of them who are heaven-bound get to heaven at the same time.
Would you go so far as to say that one or the other of those preachers “hasn’t the faintest notion of what the Bible claims”?
--Lee
I remember in Star Trek: Wrath of Khan when Spock pointed out to the Captain, "His tactics indicate two-dimensional thinking" which allowed the Captain to move in 3-dimensional tactics and defeat him. Your thinking is one dimensional when it comes to God. The singular dimension is "God has to do right by me." It makes no sense. It isn't reasonable. It isn't biblical. But it's yours. So you demand no dementia for Christians because God has to do right by you, not by Himself.
No, when my grandfather who was an atheist died, I didn't suggest, "He's in a better place now." I was sad for the worse place he was in. But since I believe in a good God, I also believe that from God's perspective (which is the only valid, logical, correct, good perspective), it is for a good purpose. But people generally won't admit it and prefer to think of heaven as an extension of this life only better. Makes no sense. (Remember, the biblical description, for instance, has streets of gold. For us, it's valuable. In heaven it's paving material.)
Oh, and for Pastor Martin, it's not recommended that you try to pick apart a message not meant for you. The Bible says what he said. When Christ returns, our bodies will be raised. Your one-dimensional thinking suggests, then, that this requires that we lay in the grave until that day because we can't be out of our bodies. Standard Christian thinking throughout the ages has been that we will be in heaven in spirit and that our bodies (the physical entities) will be raised in the end. But none of that matters to you, does it, because you're looking forward to ... oblivion when you die.
So, seriously, I'm just looking around the other day without actually looking for anything and I come across this blog entry that's titled "Why Does God Allow False Teachers?". Someone else agrees with me and disagrees with Lee. ;)
The past couple of days I was mulling over some additional comments to make on this page, but I think I’ll go ahead and just end it with my usual, “Stan went above and beyond the call of duty in interacting with me on this topic. I don’t know how he finds the time to do that plus his daily blog and whatever else is part of his schedule.”
:-}
--Lee
Post a Comment