Darrell writes:

1

[One basic belief held by all rational people is the belief in eternal existence. The two variation are that “some are eternal” or “all is eternal” (to claim that “none is eternal” is to make the illogical claim that existence came out of non-existence)."]

You assume that all rational people believe in an "eternal existence". This is not true. I do not believe in eternal existance, and quite actually find the concept both counterintuitive, not necessary to mathematical logic. If one accepts the concept of "infinity", which is a requirement of "eternity", how can any argue that such an infinity could be other than zero? An infinity could only be defined as "nothing" or "absence of existence". Certainly within the bounds of an "infinity" a finite existence could by probability alone arise. (in a binary sense, infinite being "0" and finite or "not infinite"being "not-zero" or "1").

posted on 01.04.2004 10:50 AM

J.P. Carter writes:

2

Actually, one doesn’t have to accept the equation of “eternity“ with “infinity” unless we are talking about matter (and in that case I agree that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense).

Your claim, however, that “within the bounds of an "infinity" a finite existence could by probability alone arise. (in a binary sense, infinite being "0" and finite or "not infinite"being "not-zero" or "1")” simply makes no logical or ontological sense.

I believe you are playing a “bait and switch” game with the definition of “zero.“ Either infinity is zero (an empty set) or it contains some member of a set and, therefore, can longer be considered empty.

You have to keep in mind that if matter is the only thing that exist, as I assume you do, then there has to be a one-to-one correspondence between each unit of matter and a real number. It would therefore have to be “countably infinite.”

You’ll also need to explain the process by which being emerges from nonbeing.

posted on 01.04.2004 11:01 AM

Steve writes:

3

Unfortunately there is such a thing as fideism, which, contrary to denials, seems to be essential to van Til's epistemology (but not Schaeffer's)

posted on 01.04.2004 11:24 AM

J.P. Carter writes:

4

I agree with you, Steve. Van Til's brand of "presuppositionalism" is based on coherentism rather than foundationalism. His apologetic appears to confuse a belief in God's existence (which is a properly basic belief) with a belief that God exist (which must be supported by reason).

posted on 01.04.2004 11:31 AM

Mac Swift writes:

5

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That about sums it up for me.

Paul also plainly states:

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God's own creation demonstrate his existence. Anyone who refuses to accept that or believe God even exists is simply foolish:

Psalms 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

The Bible is expressly clear, there is absolutely no excuse for denying the existence of God, and no man will be able to excuse his unbelief at the throne of judgment by saying, "Well Lord, if you had just showed me some PROOF, I would have believed in you." I don't think so.

See, it's not so complicated after all. :-D

posted on 01.04.2004 5:17 PM

George S writes:

6

Is Belief in Evolution Rational? :
Philosophy that fills the gasps in the faulty non science of Evolution or the historical and basically flawed proofs of evolution to be believe by the smartest people on the Planet?
Recently, I see post all the time of atheist who choose to not believe in God. The author, T. Girsch, is an avowed atheist and admits that he holds Christian beliefs in low regard, but he has been Isaiah’ed: meaning that he is not among the chosen. This means nothing to the Isaiah’ed Isaiah 6:9-10 because they are not called, chosen and what that other word……?
I find the "blind faith" arguments of atheists are remarkable for what they need to disbelieve, and ignore that is if they ever took the time to read the bible. Surely if they were God chosen the Holy Spirit would smack them in to shape. Their time may still not have come. I have no doubt if this misbegotten were called he would find his way to Christ. They or we all do. Any responsible atheist would not speak as he does. Christians believe and use good science every day. Science that works is good science. It would not work if God had not created it to work. Evolution does not work because that is bad science or no science at all. There is not evidence for evolution. Might I add Phillip Johnson a tenured professor from Berkeley Law school. Has his Christian people ever lost a debate against the ATHIEST Universities of the North East- Harvard, Princeton Yale etc. concerning the no science of Evolution? Not yet! Atheism has a lot of big brainers but and they are simply instruments of God. They are here to provide the abundance God has promised His “this Christian nation.” The smart and the rich or those who accrue wealth are here at and as the direction and disposal of God. They have a choice to be instruments or God’s creation.

While the “blind faith” assertion could be dismissed as a straw man, I think there is an underlying assumption that is important and should be addressed. It is too bad Girsch does not seem to know the “absence of evidence” for evolution. Atheists have found no great source than 24000 written pieces of evidence for Jesus Christ. Any other piece of literature or belief on earth is paltry in comparison. Any well educated Atheist would know this. Those are the points that deserve closer scrutiny by Atheist.

posted on 01.04.2004 8:09 PM

tgirsch writes:

7

First and foremost, thanks for the link. I would like to point out that when I say that belief in God is irrational (something I still submit is true), I don't mean that with the disparaging connotations that some might read into the statement. We all hold irrational beliefs; any "gut feeling" you have about just about anything is essentially irrational. My beef isn't just with the belief being irrational, it's with the unwillingness to admit that the belief is irrational.

While the “blind faith” assertion could be dismissed as a straw man

Please explain why this is a straw man. Certainly not all Christians rely on blind faith, but many do. It's considered a central tenet of much of Christianity -- it is your faith, and your faith alone, that gets you salvation.

While 2+2 = 4 would be a basic belief, 22 x 22 = 484 is considered a nonbasic belief

Actually, those are not "beliefs" at all. Those are definitions. We have defined "2" and "+" and "times" to mean very specific things, and we have set up a discrete set of rules concerning how to deal with them. Operating within that system, there are no "beliefs;" you're just following the rules of that system. By the way, 22 x 22 is not always 484. In Octal, it's 22 x 22 = 503.

Girsch, as a reasonable and rational atheist, would agree that matter has, in one form or another, always existed.

While I do believe this, I don't have sufficient evidence to support that belief. It therefore qualifies as an irrational belief. It is simply "what makes sense to me." Because it's irrational, I wouldn't ask anyone to accept this belief on somebody's say-so (mine or otherwise).

Theists believe that a Being labeled “God” possesses eternal existence.

Be careful: you're painting with too broad a brush here. You're stuck in monotheistic thinking. It's not a simple question of whether "God" exists or does not exist. There could be no god, many gods, or a god that is substantially different from the one you envision.

What this does show, however, is that the claim “God exists” requires neither evidence nor outside justification in order to be considered rational.

I disagree. You have not shown that belief in God follows from rightly held rational basic belief, which you would need to do to show that it is rational. Absent evidence of the existence of something, the default state is to assume that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, we could all be worshipping the big winged purple toaster God in the sky.

I am an atheist because I haven't seen compelling evidence to convince me that a sentient, involved higher power exists. The descriptions we are given of such powers (in the Bible and elsewhere) aren't consistent with what we see in the every day world, and often aren't even internally consistent. So without a concrete definition of what "God" even means, and how one might detect God's presence, I remain unconvinced.

For the record, I was raised Catholic, and was very devout well into my high school years. Ironically, it was my thirst to learn more about the Bible and religion that raised the doubts that ultimately led to my loss of "faith."

Darrell:

If one accepts the concept of "infinity", which is a requirement of "eternity", how can any argue that such an infinity could be other than zero?

Infinity is not zero, mathematically speaking. It is the opposite of zero. Well, technically, it's undefined. But zero is concretely defined, and we know exactly what it means. Infinity has a generally recognized meaning of something huge/vast/unending, whereas zero is the lack of anything, mathematically speaking.

Mac:

God's own creation demonstrate his existence.

That's a circular definition. The only way to believe that is to believe it. This is not self-evident. And you fall into the same monotheistic-thinking trap I described earlier.

The Bible is expressly clear, there is absolutely no excuse for denying the existence of God

The Bible also tells us that pi = 3, and that rabbits chew their cud, etc., etc. Just because it is written, doesn't mean it's true. The texts we now know as "the Bible" have been hopelessly corrupted by man over the centuries.

George S.:

It is too bad Girsch does not seem to know the “absence of evidence” for evolution.

This statement belies your underlying ignorance. There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Reams of it, in fact. The science isn't perfect, and no science ever is. But right now, it's by far the best explanation of the things we see in the fossil record, and in living creatures of today. If somebody comes up with a competing theory that better explains those facts, some debate will ensue, and ultimately the better theory will "win" acceptance.

This is the difference between "blind faith" and science. Science lays its cards on the table for others to pick at and test for themselves. Only the theories that survive that process are allowed to survive and thrive. Criticism of science is called "peer review," and it's an integral part of the process. Criticism of religion, on the other hand, gets you killed in a lot of places.

posted on 01.05.2004 3:41 PM

Joe Carter writes:

8

We all hold irrational beliefs; any "gut feeling" you have about just about anything is essentially irrational. My beef isn't just with the belief being irrational, it's with the unwillingness to admit that the belief is irrational.

An irrational belief, as I understand it, is one that is contrary to reason. While a “gut instinct” may have no epistemic justification, that does not make is irrational. I think you are using the term in a personal, non-technical way that is not consistent with the majority view of epistemology.

Certainly not all Christians rely on blind faith, but many do. It's considered a central tenet of much of Christianity -- it is your faith, and your faith alone, that gets you salvation.

You seem to be assuming that any evidence that you would reject is not evidence at all. A Christian who bases his faith on evidence that he accepts does not possess “blind” faith.

Actually, those are not "beliefs" at all. Those are definitions. We have defined "2" and "+" and "times" to mean very specific things, and we have set up a discrete set of rules concerning how to deal with them. Operating within that system, there are no "beliefs;" you're just following the rules of that system.

Actually, they are beliefs. If we see two objects and we see two more object laying near them we “believe” we are seeing four objects.

While I do believe this, I don't have sufficient evidence to support that belief. It therefore qualifies as an irrational belief. It is simply "what makes sense to me." Because it's irrational, I wouldn't ask anyone to accept this belief on somebody's say-so (mine or otherwise).

Not all beliefs require “evidence” in order to be “rational.” A belief can be false and still be rational.

I disagree. You have not shown that belief in God follows from rightly held rational basic belief, which you would need to do to show that it is rational. Absent evidence of the existence of something, the default state is to assume that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, we could all be worshipping the big winged purple toaster God in the sky.

You’ll have to explain where you get your concept of “rational.” Obviously, we are using the term in two different ways.

I am an atheist because I haven't seen compelling evidence to convince me that a sentient, involved higher power exists.

What evidence would you accept?

It is too bad Girsch does not seem to know the “absence of evidence” for evolution. This statement belies your underlying ignorance. There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Reams of it, in fact.

If by evolution you mean “change within a species” you are correct. There is plenty of evidence for this sort of change. If you mean by evolution “information enhancing change” (i.e., DNA) you are wrong. There is zero evidence of this.

This is the difference between "blind faith" and science. Science lays its cards on the table for others to pick at and test for themselves.

So are you claiming that commonly held theories of evolution have been tested?

Only the theories that survive that process are allowed to survive and thrive.

I’m not sure where you get this idea but it is contrary to the history of science. The theory of natural selection has been modified repeatedly. Every time the data doesn’t match the theory the data is “reinterpreted” to fit the theory rather than the facts.

Criticism of science is called "peer review," and it's an integral part of the process.

And it is the primary reason that science is stagnant. Scientists are fearful of introducing theories that fall outside of the norm for fear of not getting “published.”

posted on 01.05.2004 4:14 PM

tgirsch writes:

9

Joe:

You are probably right insofar as me using a different sense of "irrational" than you are. Perhaps "unfounded" would be a better word. *shrug* I never claimed to be an epistemological expert.

Actually, they are beliefs. If we see two objects and we see two more object laying near them we “believe” we are seeing four objects.

Clearly, you are using a different meaning of "belief" than I am. "Two" is what it is because we have an agreement as to precisely what "two" means. 2+2=4 because of previously agreed-upon rules. Within the decimal mathematical system, there is no "belief" involved. Two is two, and two plus two equals four. If you're operating inside the decimal mathematical system, there can be no debate about this. If you're operating outside that system, then we're not talking from a common frame of reference, and the debate becomes meaningless.

Where this appears to be headed is to the ultimate end of calling all knowledge into question, thereby blurring the line between "belief" and "fact" to the point where no distinction exists. Pardon me if that's NOT where you're going, but that's where this line of reasoning usually goes. That line is too simplistic for two reasons:

1. It ignores the fact that not all "facts" or "beliefs" are equal in their merits
2. It makes all argumentation meaningless, because everything is "just a belief" anyway

Not all beliefs require “evidence” in order to be “rational.” A belief can be false and still be rational.

I'm not sure those two sentences are related. Perhaps if you provided some specific examples. A rational-but-false belief is easy for me to imagine, i.e. "the world is flat." Given a limited set of evidence, it's fairly easy to rationally come to that conclusion. Add more evidence, and it becomes apparent that that conclusion was wrong. I have a hard time, however, imagining a rational belief that requires no evidence.

What evidence would you accept?

For starters, an internally-consistent description of what "God" is, whose descriptions of events actually match the historical and physical record, and which makes precise, detailed predictions about future events (not vague Nostrodamus-like baloney, but specifics -- dates, places, people, etc.). That would be an excellent start.

If you mean by evolution “information enhancing change” (i.e., DNA) you are wrong. There is zero evidence of this.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that this has happened. We simply haven't witnessed it firsthand or been able to replicate it yet. But by that standard of proof, there's also no evidence for creation. We didn't witness it, and we can't replicate it, therefore zero evidence.

So are you claiming that commonly held theories of evolution have been tested?

I am claiming that the physical evidence we have largely fits the theory. Unfortunately, being a process that takes millions of years, it's not something that's readily "tested" in the present-tense sense you might seek.

The theory of natural selection has been modified repeatedly. Every time the data doesn’t match the theory the data is “reinterpreted” to fit the theory rather than the facts.

See, now you're just being silly. By your own admission, it is the theory that has been adjusted to account for newly-found evidence. Nobody is fudging with the facts. You've just made my point -- that's precisely how science is supposed to work. If the theory doesn't fit, revise or discard the theory. And you don't chuck the theory unless you've got another one that does a better job of explaining the facts.

And it is the primary reason that science is stagnant. Scientists are fearful of introducing theories that fall outside of the norm for fear of not getting “published.”

Now you're being exceptionally silly. If you think science has been "stagnant" over the past fifty or twenty or even ten years, you haven't been paying attention. Yes, there is always some resistance to radical new ideas, but if those pan out, then that's where the glory is. That's not something to be avoided by ambitious scientists. Quite the contrary, it's the Holy Grail.

posted on 01.05.2004 4:39 PM

kevin writes:

10

I too, appreciate the link, but I will have to take exception to some points here.

First:
If by evolution you mean “change within a species” you are correct. There is plenty of evidence for this sort of change. If you mean by evolution “information enhancing change” (i.e., DNA) you are wrong. There is zero evidence of this.

No, I am sorry, but there is plenty of evidence for this. You really need to study the scientific material before making a statement like that. To say that, you must also say that there is no evidence cigarettes cause cancer because no one has ever run a double blind experiment "proving" it.

"And it is the primary reason that science is stagnant. Scientists are fearful of introducing theories that fall outside of the norm for fear of not getting “published.” "

Umm, no. No that’s not even close to the case. The great strength of Western thought is that we are the first society to revere people who prove what came before was crap. The SUREST way to become a science superstar is to prove something wasn't what we thought it was and to make that assertions stick People who complain about new ideas not getting published are not paying attention, or they are complaining that their bad science isn't getting published. Peer review prevents people from violating scientific procedures and testing rules and still getting treated as if they had done some real science.

"Every time the data doesn’t match the theory the data is “reinterpreted” to fit the theory rather than the facts. "

Again, you need to back that up, because I can remember not too long ago the huge row between defenders of the out of Africa theory and defenders of the multiple species theory. it was in DISCOVER for crying out loud. Science journals are full of these kinds of debates. Ask a physicist about the changing opinions on the nature of dark matter, or how the definitions of galaxy creation have changed over the last ten years. I don't mean to be rude, but it appears that you haven't actually paid much attention to real scientists, and instead have gotten your opinion about science only from creationists and others with a vested interest in discrediting the scientific method.

"Actually, they are beliefs. If we see two objects and we see two more object lying near them we “believe” we are seeing four objects. "

No, again, I am sorry, but this is a serious logically flaw. We do not BELEIVE that 2 + 2 equals four. Their are no beliefs, only naming conventions. There is a quantity that we have chosen to call 2 and a quantity that we have chosen to call 4. The rules of mathematics have proven that every time you combined two sets of the quantity known as 2 you get the quantity known as 4. It doesn't matter if we call them Zed and Neal, the rules are the same - and so is the outcome. There is no belief, just a labeling system to make talking about the underlying physical reality comprehensible to everyone.

posted on 01.05.2004 4:39 PM

George S writes:

11

My beef isn't just with the belief being irrational, it's with the unwillingness to admit that the belief is irrational.
While the “blind faith” assertion could be dismissed as a straw man
Please explain why this is a straw man. Certainly not all Christians rely on blind faith, but many do. It's considered a central tenet of much of Christianity -- it is your faith, and your faith alone, that gets you salvation. Specifically, the Pharisees and the leaders of religious law saw Christ perform miracles. Over and over again He did perform miracles, but they could not see them. They then were the equivalent of atheist. They could never see him do anything because they were not chosen. You see their faith was not blind. Unlike you they knew exactly who he was and they wanted his place on earth. You see they ruled already had the Kingdom of God on earth. They did not want to give it up.

There is nothing irrational about the Word of God. The Word itself is God. The Word is the bible. I know you tripped over the 24000 documents about Jesus and the bible with in a hundred years of his death. Dead Sea scrolls prove beyond a shadow of a doubt about the lack of corruption of the bible. I am surprised that you don’t know that? You are well informed and I am impressed with your truly great balanced and insight.

Be careful: you're painting with too broad a brush here. You're stuck in monotheistic thinking. It's not a simple question of whether "God" exists or does not exist. There could be no god, many gods, or a god that is substantially different from the one you envision. One God enough. Thank you! I too was a Catholic and an atheist and thank God for Isaac Asimov who saved me and brought me to God.
What this does show, however, is that the claim “God exists” requires neither evidence nor outside justification in order to are considered rational.

The above is good. However, there is tons of evidence. You are not looking for LOVE in all the right places.
I disagree. You have not shown that belief in God follows from rightly held rational basic belief, which you would need to do to show that it is rational. Absent evidence of the existence of something, There is Ample evidence. the default state is to assume that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, we could all be worshipping the big winged purple toaster God in the sky. Well look what you worship. Look what you are a slave. For whom are you a slave?
I am an atheist because I haven't seen compelling evidence to convince me that a sentient, involved higher power exists. The Lord has not called you and until he does you will just be a very good money maker to spread it and to endow his people (Christians) on this earth. You and I may be made for the same clay. He though he fills me with his blessings and well you may be the receptacle where he disposes of his to do list. The descriptions we are given of such powers (in the Bible and elsewhere) aren't consistent with what we see in the every day world, and often aren't even internally consistent. Come on you have been saying that so many times without challenge it looses it meaning. Do you meaning he warned his people for 600 hundred years that he was going to destroy them and eventually he did just that? True. So without a concrete definition of what "God" even means, and how one might detect God's presence, I remain unconvinced. It is still not too late for a fool like you. Do you remember Paul. OOOPs! You were raised a Catholic which means you don’t know anything about God or the bible. Paul was a killer of Christians. He was a Jew, Pharisee and God chose him. Jesus Christ knocked him off his horse, blinded him and put a hitch in his giddy up for the rest of his life. He became a salve to God. God does this all the time. I was like you, but I am not near as smart as you.
You truly impress me.
For the record, I was raised Catholic, and was very devout well into my high school years. Ironically, it was my thirst to learn more about the Bible and religion that raised the doubts that ultimately led to my loss of "faith." You still did not read the bible. The bible is the realm of the Holy Spirit and that is where he guides and directs and gives wisdom. You still have time.

Mac:
God's own creation demonstrates his existence.
That's a circular definition when you are not chosen by God. The only way to believe that is to believe it, of course it is revealed by the Holy Spirit. Each time one reads the bible The Holy Spirit provides the way to a closer walk with thee (Christ). It is as if one chooses to believe in evolution. As Darwin said the if the fossil evidence exist the links will be found This is not self-evident. Where are the links? Wheres the beef? And you fall into the same monotheistic-thinking trap I described earlier. Well you have found a religion based on evolution or some smarty pants Age of Reason nonsense. Even Spinoza concocted foolish religious ideas but his small but dynamic tracts on sensations ways to communication were very exciting. The fall out, If you tell the same lie often enough it may be treated as a truth.
Evolutionists have clung to Darwin as if he was a radical atheist but he was a Christian or sorts.
The Bible is expressly clear, there is absolutely no excuse for denying the existence of God
The Bible also tells us that pi = 3, and that rabbits chew their cud, etc., Really the bible says that? Is your Roman Catholic non bible reading culture catching up with you? You doth protest too much or your Atheist sources are faulty? Just because it is written, doesn't mean it's true. The texts we now know as "the Bible" have been hopelessly corrupted by man over the centuries. Did you get this information from your rabbit experts? It is not true
George S.:
It is too bad Girsch does not seem to know the “absence of evidence” for evolution. Philip Johnson? You ought to get acquainted ARN.com. Why does his Berkeley law school team win all the debates with the Atheists Intellectuals of the great North East about evolution? He could use you whence you come around. You only need to be brilliant to be an atheist not a man of God. John Calvin and William Craig Lane would love you for your formative mind. John is dead and in Heaven but William is theological on line at leader U.
This statement belies your underlying ignorance. There's plenty of evidence for evolution. You have been taken in. You have chosen the wrong team. Reams of it, in fact not so! The science isn't perfect, True, what they do not know they turn it over to the philosophers to make it sound true. Trust science ever is works all the time. But right now, The best explanations are not the truth. Perceptions are by far the best explanation of the things we see in the fossil record, and in living creatures of today. Still no links! If somebody comes up with a competing theory that better explains those facts, some debate will ensue, and ultimately the better theory will "win" acceptance. Competing theories are not facts. We don’t vote to make the best theory the right or true theory.
This is the difference between "blind faith" and science. People who believe in Evolution are those who indulge in blind faith. You are too smart an atheist and I am disappointed in you. Science lays its cards on the table for others to pick at and test for themselves. Where has there ever been a critical advocate for science. You must know in colleges and Universities all over the whole system is made up to get research and grant money. Only the theories that survive that process are allowed to survive and thrive. Research and grant money is the power of the continued monotheistic religion system of science in any institution that relies on money from the Government to thrive. Criticism of science is called "peer review," and it's an integral part of the process. Food and drug and food oil companies control the purse strings for research in food. There is an unlimited supply because the government has the deep pockets. How many years will pass before you discover the real danger of trans fats. There is no money for tans fats research. You may be in the fully ignorant population who is totally unaware. You may be you enough to see it all transpire. other hand, gets you killed in a lot of places. Yes because of your vaunted peer review the population increasing comes down with increased diabetes, heart disease and cancer every year.

posted on 01.06.2004 12:21 AM

George S writes:

12

Posted by: tgirsch at January 5, 2004 03: A wonderful atheist looking for LOVE in all the wrong places.

My beef isn't just with the belief being irrational, it's with the unwillingness to admit that the belief is irrational.
While the “blind faith” assertion could be dismissed as a straw man
Please explain why this is a straw man. Certainly not all Christians rely on blind faith, but many do. It's considered a central tenet of much of Christianity -- it is your faith, and your faith alone, that gets you salvation.

Specifically, the Pharisees and the leaders of religious law saw Christ perform miracles. Over and over again He did perform miracles, but they could not see them. They then were the equivalent of atheist. They could never see him do anything because they were not chosen. You see their faith was not blind. Unlike you they knew exactly who he was and they wanted his place on earth. You see they ruled already had the Kingdom of God on earth. They did not want to give it up.

There is nothing irrational about the Word of God. The Word itself is God. The Word is the bible. I know you tripped over the 24000 documents about Jesus and the bible with in a hundred years of his death. Dead Sea scrolls prove beyond a shadow of a doubt about the lack of corruption of the bible. I am surprised that you don’t know that? You are well informed and I am impressed with your truly great balanced and insight.

Be careful: you're painting with too broad a brush here. You're stuck in monotheistic thinking. It's not a simple question of whether "God" exists or does not exist. There could be no god, many gods, or a god that is substantially different from the one you envision.
One God enough. Thank you! I too was a Catholic and an atheist and thank God for Isaac Asimov who saved me and brought me to God.

What this does show, however, is that the claim “God exists” requires neither evidence nor outside justification in order to are considered rational.

The above is good. However, there is tons of evidence. You are not looking for LOVE in all the right places.

I disagree. You have not shown that belief in God follows from rightly held rational basic belief, which you would need to do to show that it is rational. Absent evidence of the existence of something,
There is Ample evidence. You have chosen to ignore it. Proof you have not been called. I am concerned for you!

the default state is to assume that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, we could all be worshipping the big winged purple toaster God in the sky.

Well look what you worship. Look what you are a slave. AND for whom are you a slave?

I am an atheist because I haven't seen compelling evidence to convince me that a sentient, involved higher power exists.

The Lord has not called you and until he does you will just be a very good money maker to spread it and to endow his people (Christians) on this earth. You and I may be made for the same clay. He though he fills me with his blessings and well you may be the receptacle where he disposes of his to do list.

The descriptions we are given of such powers (in the Bible and elsewhere) aren't consistent with what we see in the every day world, and often aren't even internally consistent.

Come on you have been saying that so many times without challenge it looses it meaning. Do you meaning he warned his people for 600 hundred years that he was going to destroy them and eventually he did just that? True.

So without a concrete definition of what "God" even means, and how one might detect God's presence, I remain unconvinced.

All ways to God is making the right choice, obeying, faith and LOVE it is the goo that will get you there. If reason was the goo you would not believe in evolution or that Bioethiest Peter Singer of Princeton is worth $760 000 a year who wants to bred a special groups of animals as sex partners for humans.

It is still not too late for a fool like you. Do you remember Paul. OOOPs! You were raised a Catholic which means you don’t know anything about God or the bible. Paul was a killer of Christians. He was a Jew, Pharisee and God chose him. Jesus Christ knocked him off his horse, blinded him and put a hitch in his giddy up for the rest of his life. He became a salve to God. God does this all the time. I was like you, but I am not near as smart as you.
You truly impress me.
For the record, I was raised Catholic, and was very devout well into my high school years. Ironically, it was my thirst to learn more about the Bible and religion that raised the doubts that ultimately led to my loss of "faith."

You still did not read the bible. The bible is the realm of the Holy Spirit and that is where he guides and directs and gives wisdom. You still have time.

Mac:
God's own creation demonstrates his existence.
That's a circular definition

when you are not chosen by God.

The only way to believe that is to believe it,

of course, it is revealed by the Holy Spirit. Each time one reads the bible The Holy Spirit provides the way to a closer walk with thee (Christ). It is as if one chooses to believe in evolution. As Darwin said the if the fossil evidence exist the links will be found

This is not self-evident.

Where are the links? Where’s the beef?

And you fall into the same monotheistic-thinking trap I described earlier.

Well you have found a religion based on evolution or some smarty pants Age of Reason nonsense. Even Spinoza concocted foolish religious ideas but his small but dynamic tracts on sensations ways to communication were very exciting. The fall out, If you tell the same lie often enough it may be treated as a truth.
Evolutionists have clung to Darwin as if he was a radical atheist but he was a Christian or sorts. HE said the logical thing. It ain’t happened except in the mind of the liars.
The Bible is expressly clear, there is absolutely no excuse for denying the existence of God
The Bible also tells us that pi = 3, and that rabbits chew their cud, etc.,

Really the bible says that? Is your Roman Catholic non bible reading culture catching up with you? You doth protest too much or your Atheist sources are faulty?

Just because it is written, doesn't mean it's true. The texts we now know as "the Bible" have been hopelessly corrupted by man over the centuries.

Did you get this information from your rabbit experts? It is not true
George S.:
It is too bad Girsch does not seem to know the “absence of evidence” for evolution. for your formative mind. John is dead and in Heaven but William is theological on line at leader U. Philip Johnson? You ought to get acquainted ARN.com. Why does his Berkeley law school team win all the debates with the Atheists Intellectuals of the great North East about evolution? He could use you whence you come around. You only need to be brilliant to be an atheist not a man of God. John Calvin and William Craig Lane would love you
This statement belies your underlying ignorance. There's plenty of evidence for evolution.
You have been taken in. You have chosen the wrong team.

Reams of it, in fact,
is not truth in fact.

The science isn't perfect,

True, what they do not know they turn it over to the philosophers to make it sound true.

science ever is works all the time. But right now,

The best explanations are not the truth. Perceptions are by

far the best explanation of the things we see in the fossil record, and in living creatures of today. And they are created.

Still no links! So it must stink.

If somebody comes up with a competing theory that better explains those facts, some debate will ensue, and ultimately the better theory will "win" acceptance.

Competing theories are not facts. We don’t vote to make the best theory the right or true theory.

This is the difference between "blind faith" and science.

People who believe in Evolution are those who indulge in blind faith. You are too smart an atheist and I am disappointed in you.

Science lays its cards on the table for others to pick at and test for themselves.

Where has there ever been a critical advocate for science. You must know in colleges and Universities all over the whole system is made up to get research and grant money.
Only the theories that survive that process are allowed to survive and thrive.

Research and grant money is the power of the continued monotheistic religion system of science in any institution that relies on money from the Government to thrive.

Criticism of science is called "peer review," and it's an integral part of the process.

Food and drug and food oil companies control the purse strings for research in food. There is an unlimited supply because the government has the deep pockets. How many years will pass before you discover the real danger of trans fats. There is no money for tans fats research. You may be in the fully ignorant population who is totally unaware. You may be you enough to see it all transpire.

other hand, gets you killed in a lot of places.

Yes, because of your vaunted peer review the population increasing comes down with increased diabetes, heart disease and cancer every year.

posted on 01.06.2004 9:03 AM

tgirsch writes:

13

George S:

They then were the equivalent of atheist. They could never see him do anything because they were not chosen. You see their faith was not blind. Unlike you they knew exactly who he was and they wanted his place on earth. You see they ruled already had the Kingdom of God on earth. They did not want to give it up.

If you don't see that circular reasoning such as this is precisely what I'm talking about when I talk about irrational beliefs, then we have no common frame of reference for debate. Vague notions like "you were not chosen," or "you won't believe unless you believe" are hardly useful in intelligent debate. Frankly, to the dispassionate, neutral observer, they look like cop-outs and excuses.

And if you make statements like this:

Dead Sea scrolls prove beyond a shadow of a doubt about the lack of corruption of the bible.

...then you'd better be ready to back them up. The Dead Sea Scrolls are so fragmented as to not prove or disprove anything, and there's zero consensus in the theological community as to whether or not they ought to be considered canonical.

Well you have found a religion based on evolution or some smarty pants Age of Reason nonsense.

See, now I'm forced to assume that you're just an idiot. Discounting solid science as "smarty pants Age of Reason nonsense" belies an overly credulous worldview, and one that cannot be reasoned with.

That's fine. Go ahead and live in your happy little world where Truthtm is spoon-fed to you, and where you have zero control over what you believe, and where it is impossible for humans to learn anything other than what The Creator deigns to explicitly tell us. As long as you don't try to make me alter my lifestyle based on your irrational beliefs, I don't really care how you live your life.

Thank you for giving me a perfect example of exactly the kinds of Christian beliefs I don't respect.

posted on 01.06.2004 12:31 PM

tgirsch writes:

14

George S.:

I forgot to mention, yes, I have read much of the Bible, and failure to do so is far from being a Catholic-only thing, regardless of your desire to insert cheap Catholic bashing. But since you're obviously uneducated on the subject, Allow me to fill you in.

Witness 1 Kings 7:23:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

This leads us to one of four conclusions:

1. pi=3 (diameter = 10, circumference = 30, pi = circumference / diameter)
2. The Bible incorrectly reports the diameter
3. The Bible incorrectly reports the circumference
4. The Bible incorrectly identifies the object as being circular when it is not

Some have tried to explain it away, but I have personally consulted a rabbi fluent in Hebrew on this particular issue, and he says such explanations are hogwash. (The Rabbi's answer? There is spiritual truth in the pentateuch, but because it was written by man and handed down by man, there are resultant imperfections in the text. This, to him, in no way diminishes the important truths, and I have no quarrel with his world view on that.)

My answer is that these aren't exact figures, but approximations. But Biblical literalists can't tolerate such ideas, because if these numbers are subject to interpretation and imprecise, then that opens the possibility that other stuff in the Bible is open to interpretation and imprecise -- something they're not willing to concede.

The rabbits chew their cud thing is easily found in Leviticus 11:6. God Himself tells us that we must not eat the Hare because he chews his cud and does not divide the hoof.

One also wonders how most modern Christians justify violating most of the Mosaic food laws, considering that Jesus himself explicitly instructed us to obey all the laws of the prophets in Matt 5:17-20:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

You're not seriously contradicting the words of Christ, are you? I suppose it's understandable that you would have missed these instructions from the Savior, given that he uttered them during some obscure "sermon on the mount" thing that nobody ever heard of. [/sarcasm]

I've heard the "Old Covenant versus New Covenant" thing, and that doesn't answer what Jesus was talking about here: Was he just kidding?

All of this begs the question: who hasn't been keeping up with their scriptures? I don't claim to be an expert, but I am at least reasonably well-versed (although admittedly more knowledgeable about the Old Testament than I am about the New).

posted on 01.06.2004 2:30 PM

George S writes:

15

Mr. T
I forgot to mention, yes, I have read much of the Bible, and failure to do so is far from being a Catholic-only thing, regardless of your desire to insert cheap Catholic bashing. But since you're obviously uneducated on the subject, Allow me to fill you in.
Witness 1 Kings 7:23:

The front porch furniture
21 And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. 22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished. 23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.

I am so glad you caught this blunder! It is truly essential. Please do us a favor and tackle the Book of Daniel. It more to your temper and vast store of knowledge.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
This leads us to one of four conclusions:
1. pi=3 (diameter = 10, circumference = 30, pi = circumference / diameter)
2. The Bible incorrectly reports the diameter
3. The Bible incorrectly reports the circumference
4. The Bible incorrectly identifies the object as being circular when it is not
5.
You May not understand bible talk. You may not know what seven means, or ten and through out the bible they often are used symbolically.
(It will be explained to me in good time.) by George
Here again you have out done yourself. This is truly essential information for anyone trying so hard to get to heaven. Your reward will come latter.

Some have tried to, but I have personally consulted a rabbi fluent in Hebrew on this particular issue, and he says such explanations are hogwash. (The Rabbi's answer? There is spiritual truth in the Pentateuch, but because it was written by man and handed down by man, there are resultant imperfections in the text. This, to him, in no way diminishes the important truths,

and I have no quarrel with his world view on that.)

That is too bad considering all the stuff you have accepted as an evolutionist. God will forgive once he makes you a Christian of good standing.

There are other little glitches in the bible. I am not sure you can handle them.

My answer is that these aren't exact figures, but approximations. But Biblical literalists can't tolerate such ideas, because if these numbers are subject to interpretation and imprecise, then that opens the possibility that other stuff in the Bible is open to interpretation and imprecise -- something they're not willing to concede.

One of the problems with literalist of the bible is that they screw it up worse than any one even you.

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
(It will be explained to me in good time.)

The rabbits chew their cud thing is easily found in Leviticus 11:6. God Himself tells us that we must not eat the Hare because he chews his cud and does not divide the hoof.

One also wonders how most modern Christians justify violating most of the Mosaic food laws, considering that Jesus himself explicitly instructed us to obey all the laws of the prophets in Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.:
You doth protest too much!
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Mosaic food law was amended!

New Testament Act 10: 9 The next day as Cornelius's messengers were nearing the city, Peter went up to the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, 10 and he was hungry. But while lunch was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. 12 In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. 13 Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat them." 14 "Never, Lord," Peter declared. "I have never in all my life eaten anything forbidden by our Jewish laws. F48 " 15 The voice spoke again, "If God says something is acceptable, don't say it isn't."

15 The voice spoke again, "If God says something is acceptable, don't say it isn't.

You're not seriously contradicting the words of Christ, are you?

Why should I? I am not playing God. You are? You are placing your laws above his and that make the Almighty very angry.

I suppose it's understandable that you would have missed these instructions from the Savior, given that he uttered them during some obscure "sermon on the mount" thing that nobody ever heard of. [/sarcasm]

You are too smart to be confused. There are things you say right now that make sense to you, but latter tonight you may wish them back. God does not have this problem. He still loves you.

I've heard the "Old Covenant versus New Covenant" thing, and that doesn't answer what Jesus was talking about here: Was he just kidding?

All of this begs the question: who hasn't been keeping up with their scriptures? I don't claim to be an expert, but I am at least reasonably well-versed (although admittedly more knowledgeable about the Old Testament than I am about the New).

What you know about the Old Testament these terribly important things you have found in the Atheist hand book.
My faith is stronger that ever. God Bless you

posted on 01.06.2004 6:33 PM

tgirsch writes:

16

George:

There are other little glitches in the bible. I am not sure you can handle them.

If you're willing to admit that, then we have no debate here. The Bible is NOT perfect, it HAS been corrupted in translation and by the agendas of man, and so its contents ARE subject to question.

The Mosaic food law was amended!

I admit, you got me on that one. I did not know the acts scripture. However, the idea that God changed his mind about this is rather hard to square with Rusty's "eternal, singular mind" argument from the other thread. ;)

What you know about the Old Testament these terribly important things you have found in the Atheist hand book.

Be careful what you assume. The majority of what I know about the Old Testament, I learned from a practicing Presbyterian minister. He taught these things not to encourage atheism. Quite the contrary: he taught them to discourage Biblical literalism, which he felt was a weak position that ultimately undermined faith.

At the same time, I need to be careful what I assume. I was under the impression that you were a Biblical literalist, and that's why I brought up those points.

One of the other interesting things that the minister taught concerned the prophets of the Old Testament. They were not talking about the distant future (Revelation, of course, excluded). They were directly addressing the people of their own time, because that's how god's prophets work. So without further study, I'd fall back on that knowledge when addressing the book of Daniel or any other Biblical prophecy.

My faith is stronger that ever.

Good. And I mean that seriously. I honestly don't want to change your beliefs -- your beliefs are your concern and yours alone, so long as you don't impose them upon others. I merely want to point out why your arguments are unconvincing to me. You already know the answer to that: I haven't been chosen.

posted on 01.06.2004 8:15 PM

Mark writes:

17

Belief in God depends on faith, which by its very nature is irrational because it believes in something that cannot be proven or disproven, and that no-one can see. So, it seems that belief in God depends on that "leap of faith".

How can we be sure God exists, though? Well, Jesus said that God exists in the Bible. He said, "The LORD your God, the LORD is one" and "Worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve", and ultimately, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You [God the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent". So, Jesus not only commands worship of God alone, but also assumes His existence and calls God the Father the only true God. God Himself spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush and said His Name was "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" - so God Himself says He exists.

Whether one believes in God as a trinity or not is irrelevant. The relevant point is whether one believes in God at all. Although it appears irrational to the senses, the Bible testifies a strong belief in God and it is the Bible's testimony - as humanity's record throughout the ages - that must be believed.

After all, it is said, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen".

M

posted on 03.31.2004 1:10 PM