Faith is the source of all outcomes? Again, I thought science was supposed to be based in fact.

Technicians deal in facts.

Scientists deal in what is possible.

Hello “hs”,

Thank you for the favor of a reply in post#6, page#4 at 4:43pm, May27.

I understand that you believe some things about “God”, and you do so merely because of “faith”. In other words, you have no evidence to support your beliefs, but there is some thing about them that compels you to accept them, nonetheless. Evidently, whether “God” is powerful enough to turn a staff into a snake and then back into a staff is irrelevant. I suppose your method of determining the veracity of Biblical stories, advice, suggestions, and laws is irrelevant, too… you just believe what you want to believe. That’s OK for some, and apparently OK for you, too.

But wait! I thought you were “a pretty rational person” and “liked evidence”? In fact, you once explained how you were “convinced that God DOES exist, and the evidence is all around.” I was hoping you could provide some.

As you may recall, I agree that “the evidence is all around” indicates that “God” does indeed exist, and I offer the most accurate interpretation of what it shows: “God” is imaginary. The question remains on the table if any of “the evidence all around” indicates that “God” is real. You seem to believe some does because, possibly, “a Power Greater than ["hs"]” made some things happen. Please show the evidence? But first, ask yourself, “Is my perception of the procession of events actual evidence of “God’s” real existence and intervention, or could this procession have occurred without a supernatural being?” If only possible by supernatural intervention, then I’m very interested. I’m sure others are, too.

Actually, since you admit in parg#2 of your post that I (and therefore probably other skeptics and critical thinkers) would consider coincidental, then you probably have nothing novel or valid to offer. Too bad for all… no evidence. You aren’t being rational by “choosing to attribute it to the actions of a Power Greater”, just indulging in simple-minded fantasy. I know some folks are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, so you just grabbed one that is convenient and socially acceptable, regardless its truth.

In fact, that’s part of what the Creation Museum is all about… realizing a fiction in order to make it more socially acceptable. Five years from now, half a million cherubs dunked in the koolaid can confront their history, geology, and biology teachers and say, “I know for a fact that dinosaurs and humans inhabited the earth together as recently as 6000 years ago! I saw it with my own eyes!” Too bad for human culture that such a lack of critical thinking is tolerated, much less capitalized upon.

Hello “Simian”,

Thank you for the favor of a reply in post#9, page#4 at 6:14am, May 28.

I certainly do not Believe (which is my shorthand for not believing that “God” is real, or that any depictions of supernatural activity in the Bible or elsewhere are true and accurate). I could be convinced otherwise, but I am skeptical by nature and make conclusions by examining the evidence that is available to me. Naturally, I attached greater importance to evidence that is of higher quality: that which is unequivocal, verifiable, and repeatable. Stories based upon hearsay, wishful thinking, speculation are of the lowest quality, and I often reject any conclusion based solely on this quality of evidence. You probably do too. A popular skeptic once claimed “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This should be the standard for all religious propositions.

Just as an aside, many folks (you included) confuse “assumption” and “conclusion”. In this case, you concluded that I am a non-believer because you have read some of my remarks. You would have assumed it if you had no evidence to help you decide but needed a place to start. Until now, you have possibly assumed that you were correct, but even this is doubtful, since you have probable read enough of my remarks confirming and strengthening your original conclusion. Regardless, here is your confirmation: by all common definitions, I am a non-believer, and do not care to argue the point.

Nonetheless, I possess beliefs about “God”, they just happen to be radically different than those of Believers… I believe “God” is an imaginary being, and arrive at that conclusion as a result of examining and interpreting evidence. Believers hear some stories, and perhaps experience some extraordinary experiences, then conclude that “God” is real. I have been asking Believers about it for a long time, yet not one has ever provided any evidence whatsoever that “God” is a real being. It all supports the conclusion that “God” is an imaginary, fictional, being, instead. When confronted with contradictory evidence, Believers ignore it or craft clever explanations (often different explanations for the same thing!), again, all without ever offering any evidence.

You expressed a disdain for my “arrogance” at attempting to “define what it is to be a Christian”. Pardon me if I tried and failed! I doubt that any assembly of self-ascribed Christians could arrive at a definitive description, though I am sure that some belief that “Jesus” was/is real and did/does things as described in the Bible is an essential element.

By the way, I am not sure where I actually attempted to define “what is to be a Christian”. If you found it once, then I’m sure you can find it again. Please direct my attention to it… I looked (though only a cursory search) and couldn’t find it. Perhaps this is a case of misinterpretation, or an example of my flippancy? I’d like to correct, clarify, or amplify my writing, so please help.

Finally, you wondered why I single out religion as a problem. First, I criticize religion here because (as I’m sure you noticed) this, and companion threads, are offered in the Civil Religion section. However, I mainly criticize religion because it is a fraud that is self-perpetuating because it preys upon ignorance and gullibility. Sure, it offers some valid and well-intentioned guidance, but it requires people and society to suspend their search for correct explanations of natural phenomena, and to follow it leadership without skepticism. This places themselves and all of humanity at risk. Perhaps there was a time (and maybe are times at the present) where suspension of critical thought is the better choice, but religion has largely outlived its usefulness. It’s time for a new “God”, one that admits unequivocally that it is the product of humanity and merely serves to teach examples of ideal morality.

Hello “John R.”,

Thank you for the favor of your reply in post#8, page#3 at 3:50am May 26.

As I expected, you lack the courage to admit that science actually has disproven something in the Bible, even though you supplied the proof yourself! Science has explained the mechanics of reproduction and perpetuation of traits to offspring, including the influence of random mutation much more thoroughly and accurately than Jacob’s naïve positioning of striped foliage in front of mating animals to accomplish the same effect.

While you wagged your finger at me for not reading the “whole chapter”, I wonder if you would do it yourself (as I did before posting my example in the first place). You imply there are counterexamples to my interpretation of “God’s” lesson through Jacob’s story regarding how to influence physical traits of offspring in animal husbandry. We seem to agree on the science, just disagree on the “facts” of genetic reproduction as described in Genesis 30:37-39. Please, support your contentions. Or wag your finger some more.

Science has disproven something in the Bible in direct opposition to your bold challenge in post#9, page#1 at 2:41pm May 22. Your credibility erodes.

Thanks you for the favor of a reference in post#5, page#5 at 10:29 am, May 29. It is true that I did not reply to your direct question, but I admit that I did not see it. I spotted what I interpret as rhetorical questions in post#8, page#3, because a) they are simply statements followed with interrogatory punctuation, b) you answered them yourself, and c) they serve to make my point! Maybe you have some other “direct question” in mind? Please point it out! I’m ready to respond, though maybe not on your schedule.

Oh, I just checked my cupboard, and I have a soup dish with your picture on it. Indeed, like any ordinary soup dish, it is wide and shallow, just as you described. It’s also cracked and empty. I suppose I could mend it, but it probably still won’t hold water. Care to help?

I believe people are intelligent and trusting.

I believe people have a passion to know and a relentless desire to comprehend. I believe people place great trust, power, and responsibility in their leaders.

I believe that cynicism and resignation are the inherent outcome of being human. I believe it is an inherent nature of humans to want to be right and to make others wrong.

STP: I regret that I am unable to give you the “evidence” you require. My reasons for faith have specific details, that I am not about to post in this public space.

This will be my last comment directed to you. In the future, should you choose to respond to a post of mine, I will do my very best to keep silent. You see, I consider you to be the worst kind of fool. Not only to you question those you disagree with, you also find it necessary to mock them. Perhaps mocking is inevitable. I do not, however, have to dignify it with response and debate.

As my final comment, consider this: One of us is wrong. That much is certain. If I’m wrong, I will have lost nothing of value. If I’m right, then I have gained much in this life, and stand to gain even more in the next. However, if you’re right, you may feel you have gained some in this life, I don’t know. However, if you’re wrong, not only are you wasting your life by these expositions of “wisdom”, but you’re also going to loose everything in the life to come.

I prefer my choice to yours.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of you reply in post#6, page#6 at 9:48pm May 30.

I recognize Pascal’s Wager, even if it has been debunked and shown to be a fool’s wager. Yet even if you are wrong about the nature of “God” and some unfounded promises about “life after death”, you can still gain by Believing. Many folks do. There is a certain comfort in confidence. I can assure you.

Did I “mock” you? How was that? Mostly, I ask questions (and a lot more than ever get answered!) and I offer opinions, including opinions about the opinions of others, and sometimes I do poke fun at their opinions and the folks making them. Lighten up! Poke a little fun in return!

But if you want to be serious, offer some serious evidence. Did you have a personal, private encounter with “God”? Then why not even say “I won’t give any details, but it was unequivocally God”? I’m guessing you didn’t because you thought about my suggestion and realized you couldn’t! Despite the source(s) of your assistance being in question, I am glad that you worked your way through your adversity.

You aren’t complaining about the reference to your own admission that you are “a rational person who likes evidence”, are you? Admittedly, I think it’s rather curious, funny actually, that someone would make a claim like that, then retreat to a position of “belief by faith” when the questions get past the “easy” stage. Yep, I understand how reminders of earlier statements could be interpreted as “mocking”, particularly in a fresh dialog. You have to be true to yourself all the time around here!

Personally, I don’t think “God” turned Moses staff into a snake, and I don’t believe that Moses did so to impress the Pharaoh, and I don’t think the Pharaoh’s magicians repeated the feat. Maybe some folks performed some illusions like contemporary “magicians”, or more likely, the stories in Exodus are just some exciting fiction. You never actually said what you thought about them specifically, but my guess is you don’t believe them to be true either.

After you think about it, I wonder if you could explain how you decide just what’s true and what’s just fiction in the Bible. I am genuinely curious.

STP, your mantra is a double negative.

“There is no real “God,” and you can not prove it.”

Its intent is to loop unpon itself. You have found the perfect riddle for yourself to justify being right about something.

All that you share as evidence to justify your position are considerations most believers have worked though very early on in their faith. You have as well, with a different result. I get it.

You are asking to be convinced knowing you already have been. It is disingenious. Do the work, find the proof, and then share the proof of God, otherwise your desire for proof of God is a canard and you are here to make other’s wrong.

Your argument and proof that there is no God has been made. If shared as a personal belief and commitment it is complete. If not, it has another intent. From this side of the conversation, there seems to be no new ground taken for you in it.

This may help, your strategy is similar to Ali’s “rope a dope.” Taunt the oposition into defeating/exhausting themselves. Ali is a great boxer, and that aspect of his game was never necessary.

After I swore I would not respond again to STP, I find myself pushed to do it.

God has made God’s self real to me in ways that I cannot explain in this space. I have seen what I consider to be God’s work in my life and in the lives of people I know and love. Have I had a dramatic conversion event in my life? Have I had the experience of climbing up out of a wheelchair and walking? Or similar? No, I have not. Do I believe and accept that those events ARE real? Absolutely.

I will not be baited into a blogspace conversation about Biblical Exegesis and the veracity of the miracle stories of the Bible. I said earlier in this thread that Genesis is not a science nor an historical text. I stand by that statement. The miracles are not the point. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” John 20:29b

I find myself stirred by the irony that today, May 31, is Pentecost. A day that is celebrated in Christian Churches around the world as the day that fire and wind appeared among the believers, and the world changed as a result of that fire and wind. Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them have ALWAYS been marginalized by the church of their day, frequently imprisoned or killed for their belief and actions. And yet, they are the ones who ultimately changed the world.

Hello “hs”,

Regarding your post#10, page#2 at 11:06am May 23…

You asserted “velocity and temperature are equivalent”. Common sense indicates that these phenomena are not equivalent. In fact, when I consult my thermometer alone, I am unable to tell whether I am moving or not, much less how fast. Furthermore, after consulting the literature (in this case, a website: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html), I find that temperature is a base unit of measure (normally “degrees Fahrenheit” or “degrees Kelvin”), while velocity is a derived measure expressed as a ratio of two other base units, length divided by time (such as “miles per hour”, or “meters per second”). Is there some “math” that I forgot to apply?

This should be an area of straightforward, evidence-based discussion; not one charged with personal opinion. Can you please clarify what you mean by “velocity and temperature are equivalent”? I see that understanding this “equivalence” is important in some speculative reconciliation between Genesis scales and physical time scales, but I am not asking for you to explain that. (I am sure that Gerald Schroeder makes a gallant effort in his books, already!) I am simply curious what you mean by “temperature and velocity are equivalent”, if that’s what you mean at all, because the clear and convincing scientific evidence suggests they are not.