PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 198
Is God a liar? Is He the source of deceptive spirits? In this episode, Jim answers the skeptic’s objection that Yahweh lies or uses deceptive spirits to deceive people in the Bible. Jim also discusses Multiverse Theory and answers listener email related to Christian exclusivity and religious pluralism.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
Posts
45 comments:
Jim, I have a couple of questions for you.
On the article about Adam and Eve on answersforatheists you use the following image -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-bD66asMkcGs/TXE3f-67vtI/AAAAAAAADFo/gDlIWpRkdQU/s1600/VonnegutQuote1.jpg
Vonnegut was an atheist, yet your quote here seems to be positioning him as something else. Do you agree that this is misleading?
In the article about external historical evidence for Jesus' existence, here on pleaseconvinceme you make the following statement -
"If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus’ life could be verified with a non-biblical source."
Please explain to me why you believe that the lost text would support your claim. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just guessing?
First, a bit of humor. I snickered a bit when the law enforcement officer used the term "flat-footed". Sort of an irony, eh, flatfoot?
I've noticed some uninformed or unwilling (or flat-footed) Christians seem to turn to Fideism as a cop-out (heh!) to answering a question (or have an attitude from "The Prisoner", 1967, "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself"). "Yes, there are some things we cannot answer and may never know, but there is no excuse in this Internet age to avoid even trying to get the answer. Especially to answer honest questions from our children.
Although you had an excellent presentation and argument, what do you do when someone is predisposed to disbelieve any evidence you present, or has a presupposition that if God exists in the first place, he is evil and the Bible was written by demons?
By the way, Greg's April 3, 2011 podcast at STR dealt with "God lied", about 1 hr. 25 min. into it. But I bet you already knew that.
Is anyone from the site going to respond to my questions?
@Alex Have you tried emailing Jim?
I was hoping that someone from the site would respond here, publicly.
I'm hoping they still will.
Hey Alex - I am a fan of Vonnegut's work and although I don't agree with everything he wrote, he always had an honesty that I appreciated. Yes, he was an atheist and secular humanist with an incredible mind. He often derided God and Christianity, but was also very transparent about what he saw as the downsides of atheism.
Here are a couple of other quotes from Kurt Vonnegut.
"I beg you to believe the most ridiculous superstition of all: that humanity is at the center of the universe, the fulfiller or frustrateor of the grandest dreams of God Almighty.
If you can do that, and make others believe it, then there might be hope for us. Human beings might stop treating each other like garbage, might begin to treasure and protect one another instead." - Address to Graduating Class at Bennington College 1970, as printed in Wampeter, Foma, & Granfalloons.
"Any time I see a person fleeing from reason and into religion, I think to myself, There goes a person who simply cannot stand being so goddamned lonely anymore." - quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996
All of the quotes on Answers4Atheists.com are from atheists. Is it misleading? No.
I thought Jim’s podcast this week was as usual up to its very high standard. I find it interesting though that many critics really can’t see the forest for the trees. People of a different persuasion to the Christian very often point out problems such as the one Jim just spoke on. (God lying... which in reality God never does)
Relating to this, when I look at the bigger picture... that is looking at the bible as a whole, I find it authenticates itself as a book of history interwoven with the great acts of God, to illustrate let’s take the nation of the Jews; here we have a people in their homeland for the best part of 1400 years. In their history we see the Israelites receiving great blessing from God, but who have also suffered because of their sin and unbelief through God’s righteous judgement.
It really is absurd to believe that so many writers of the bible in their different times would all lie or fabricate Israel’s miraculous history and that for several reasons, but chiefly the Scriptures authenticates itself through the many fulfilled prophecies spanning the nation’s history culminating in Jesus Christ Himself as Lord of all.
Now looking back into the Old Testament the Scriptures speak of a voice in the wilderness which was fulfilled in the coming of John the Baptist who prepares the way for the Lord... the One who would suddenly come to His Temple.
This great fulfilment of the Old Testament is seen in Jesus who is the child to be born and called the Mighty God as spoken of in Isaiah 9.6, but let’s pause for a moment and think that if God were to come to earth taking on human flesh what would we expect... can we imagine anyone greater than Jesus, indeed as someone wisely said “it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus.”He truly is the great authenticator of Scripture and so much more!
Richard Dawkins criticizes those who point to the inconsistencies of his work calling them “flea bites”. I also think the Christian is well justified in saying that those who criticize portions of Scripture such as the ones of God allegedly lying are mere flea bites too. The unbeliever really does fail to see the forest for the trees... that is the great redemptive acts of God so clearly & wonderfully fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I some will naturally disagree to the comment above as unbelievers or skeptics, but I think if we’re honest we should at least see there is something more going on that just a history of the Jews and a carpenter from Nazareth.
Any comments?
Right, I asked Jim, he fobbed me off.
Disappointed.
Eddie - you need to do some more research if you believe the Old Testament account is in any way historical. Also, please provide some evidence that Jesus actually existed, before making claims for him.
Hi Alex good to hear from you again, we dialogued last week and I made an argument from a pre-suppositional viewpoint; one thing I asked was... I wasn't sure why you were responding if we are all just re-arranged pond scum. Looking through the blogs I admire your persistence, but am still at a loss why you do this. I don't think you really responded to this problem I raised.
However moving on from there I believe you are in a minority as to believing whether Jesus existed or not. I think you will have to reject nearly all of ancient history as the bible is so well attested both from an abundant source of reliable manuscripts, backed up by sound archeology were as other works of antiquity are generally accepted with much less evidence. Fulfilled prophecy is what really moves the scriptures into the Divine realm. This is just a blog and time and space are limited, but there is no doubt Jesus truly fulfils Old Testament prophecy perfectly.
"but am still at a loss why you do this."
Because I don't like theists lying.
I think you need to go and actually LOOK at those supposed extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus, they don't say what you think (I've read them, and I can assure you they provide no evidence at all)
Please tell me of a single prophesy that has come true. Just one.
First I don’t accept you statement that Christians are lying, but if some are intentionally lying concerning the faith I would question whether they are true believers or not. Again and I have to keep bringing this up... according to your worldview why would lying be wrong... if for instance it helps my survival why would it be wrong. Furthermore is there really an objective right and wrong if there’s no God.
Ok a fulfilled prophecy...
BORN IN BETHLEHEM EPHRATHAH
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. 700 B.C.
Matthew 2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod; Magi from the east came to Jerusalem
Over the years there have been a number of "Bethlehems" in Israel. At the time of Jesus' birth, Bethlehem Ephrathah, referred to in Matthew as "Bethlehem in Judea", was a village about five miles south of Jerusalem, and there also was a town named Bethlehem about seven miles northwest of Nazareth. (Per footnote Matthew 2:1 of the Zondervan NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition, (c) 1995)
It’s not just Jesus fulfilling one prophecy, but there are dozens. No-one else can fit these Messianic prophecies but Jesus.
Ok, Eddie, your presented prophesy is flawed in a number of ways -
1. The passage in Micah goes on...
"5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
5:4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.
5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."
it's clearly speaking of a military leader that would defeat Assyria, not the Messiah.
2. Matthew alters the text from "Bethlehem Ephratah" to "Bethlehem, in the land of Juda". Bethlehem Ephratah doesn't refer to a place, rather to the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah.
3. You assume that the (actually) unknown author of 'Matthew' is writing of an historical event, when it is entirely likely that he was writing his version of the birth of Jesus with Micah in mind. Basically 'Matthew' was making sure the nativity story matched (almost) something that he (the writer) thought of as a prophesy of the coming Messiah.
Not only does the Micah passage NOT prophesy the Messiah, the anonymous writer later dubbed 'Matthew' is merely imprinting his own belief on the Jesus myth that he'd heard (no, he wasn't an eye witness, none of the gospel writers were, no matter what some believers would wish)
Want to try another?
Hi Alex, sometimes I’ll get back to you with what appears to be a delay as I’m living in Ireland and I may be getting 40 winks while you guys are basking in the sun.
I think you may have a point in that Matthew does sometimes quote Old Testament events that have an immediate fulfilment, but Matthew also sees an ultimate fulfilment of these OT passages in the life of Jesus or events surrounding Him..
For eg the massacre of the innocents by Herod which he points to the passage in Jeremiah 31, but the passage also had a fulfilment around the time of Jeremiah.
What is happening here is that Matthew in particular is seeing’s Jesus fulfilling the events of the OT in the sense that the OT is pointing towards the Messiah & in His coming. This trend was recognised by the Jewish people too, but unfortunately most of them rejected Jesus in the end as also foretold.
OT history although are real historical events are also types and shadows of what was to come.
In regards to Micah 5.2 I do believe the tone is very Messianic... the passage says that His origin are from of old, some translations speak of Him being from everlasting. The point is the passage strongly alludes to Him existing before He was born. In the Matthean passage the Jewish leaders point to this verse too as Messianic and Matthew picks up on this. In regards to the conquer you mentioned Jesus will not only defeat His enemies in the geogracfical area of Assyria, but also the whole world at His second coming.
There are other passages though that can only allude to Jesus... take for instance Isaiah 52.13 & 53. This can only be fulfilled in Jesus, some commentators say that the servant here is Israel, but had Israel no deceit in its mouth? and did Israel bore the sin of many?
Another passage for a literal fulfilment would be Daniel 2. The statue of Nebuchadnezzar. It shows 3 kingdoms arising after Babylon and the passage reads that during the time of the fourth kingdom God will set up an everlasting kingdom... This kingdom belongs to the Son of Man, Jesus the Lord.
This again came true with amazing accuracy.
But as I keep saying your worldview cannot account for the things you are saying and your persistence in trying to prove your point. I think you hold to a radical form of scepticism which comes from your presupposition of naturalism.
Volumes could be written here on OT prophecy, but what I’ve just written needs to be taken into account when looking at prophecy. God has beautifully shown that Jesus is not just a Messiah, but is in fact God manifested in the flesh and Saviour of the world who has totally triumphed were Israel has failed, but Israel will fulfil her calling in the future.
Eddie
daniel was written between 180 and 100 BCE, hundreds of years *after* the events it claims to prophesy. I'll explain how this is known when i get home from work....typing on my phone isn't easy!
Daniel is often seen as literature, actually describing the reign of King Antiochus, rather than prophetical from centuries earlier.
Hi guys, liberals will be liberals..! When something as profound as fulfilled prophecy is clearly seem the sceptic needs to explain it away or else be faced with God who foretells the future.
Your dating of the book is wrong for several reasons as I have researched this too. If Daniel did not write this in the 6th century then the book is a fraud as Daniel writes he was a part of the exiles to Babylon. The Jews would not have included it in their bible nor the Christians if this was the case. Jesus also spoke of the prophet Daniel writing the book of Daniel. There is much more that could written to confirm this early writing thus confirming the prophecy, but let’s for the sake of argument say Daniel was written in 150bc this still does not account for the Roman empire and the kingdom of God been set-up in that time.
Alex I really do think you are a knowledgeable guy and have taken a great interest in all of this, but you need to think why this is... That is how if were just evolved pond scum do you account for knowledge, memory, morality etc and why you are so zealous to see others come to your way of thinking. We are all just matter that lives and dies right! and in the bigger cosmic picture we have no more importance than broccoli...right!
No heaven, no hell, no reward, no ultimate Justice, just blind pitiless indifference, just dancing to the tune of our DNA. I say no but that God is absolutely necessary for us to even speak of these things and everything else too.
You see you are image bearer of God and you cannot get away from it, that’s why you are so persistent and I believe you feel deep down too there's more to you than evolved pond scum.
Eddie
Trent is correct, and it's the clear references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, coupled with no mention of Daniel in the book of Sirach's list of Great Men of Israel (written around 180 BCE) before his sudden appearance in a similar list in I Maccabees (written circa 100 BCE) that firmly dates its writing in the 2nd century BCE.
So that's the Micah/Matthew 'prophesy' and Daniel explained - got any more? :)
"If Daniel did not write this in the 6th century then the book is a fraud as Daniel writes he was a part of the exiles to Babylon."
That's right. But it's literature aimed at using a period from the Jewish past to explain the present. Kind of like the way Battlestar Galactica used sci-fi to talk about the occupation of Iraq (only they obviously used fiction).
Let's look at the list of empires - whilst a lot of Biblical scholars (including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Japet Ibn Ali, Saadia, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, E. J. Young and Seventh-day Adventist scholar Gerhard Pfandl*) accept
1. The gold head - Babylon
2. The silver breast and arms - Medo-Persia
3. The brass belly and thighs - Greece
4. The iron legs - Rome
there are others (including Flavius Josephus, John J. Collins, H. H. Rowley, Gurney, Lucas, and Walton*) who think that the empires are -
1. The gold head - Babylon
2. The silver breast and arms - Media
3. The copper belly and thighs - Persia
4. The iron legs - Greece
5. The feet partly of iron and partly of molded clay - The Seleucids and the Ptolemies
Interestingly the Christadelphians (my parent's church) believe the that feet of clay represent the modern world. The remainder of their interpretation follows the more common first version above.
The Christadelphian view is utterly flawed, as it leaps from the Roman Empire to the present day, ignoring far mightier empires that existed between Rome and the Modern World, including the largest, and longest lasting empire of all time, the British Empire (covered most of the globe at its height, and lasted over 500 years), it also fails to take into account that there are modern nations which, though not heads of physical empires, hold more power than Rome or Greece ever did at the peak of their powers.(France under Napoleon, Germany, Russia, and, of course, the USA).
Even if the prophecy was written when Daniel would like you to believe it was, it's still vague, has to combine the Median and Persian empires (which were far more separate than some believers would like) if you accept interpretation 1, or doesn't finish with Rome if you accept version 2. That there are too many empires historically to fit for it to be a credibly accurate prophecy makes it something that can't be held up as an example of God's accurate foreknowledge.
Hope that answers your questions, Eddie.
I believe the Books of Esther and Job are often considered literature as well.
Not necessarily exact history, but more to illustrate the author's point.
As I said before liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives.
So that's the Micah/Matthew 'prophesy' and Daniel explained - got any more? :)
Well that's the prophecies explained according to your view not mine. I could produce many more, but I what I wrote holds its own weight.
The Medes and Persians rule as one not two as evident from Daniel itself.
"The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. Daniel 8.20
One rams (kingdom) two horns (kings of Media & Persia).
Therefore the 2nd kingdom of the statue is the medes and Persians. The next kingdom is Greece which was divided up into four after Alexander’s death, but not destroyed until the rise of Rome. Therefore Rome is the fourth kingdom. The Lords kingdom was set-up in this time period and will be consummated at His second coming as recorded in Daniel.
There are some problems with the length of Persia’s rule... the Jews estimate about 56 years while we in the west say around 208 years. While some others take a number in between. The problem exists because Alexander destroyed the chronological records when he attacked Persia/Medes. This is what is causing a problem with were kingdoms fit in while trying to calculate it into Daniel’s 70 weeks. However the 4 kingdoms are the ones I outlined finishing with Rome.
Alex I hope one day you will show me how your worldview fits in with reality!
As I said before liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives.
So that's the Micah/Matthew 'prophesy' and Daniel explained - got any more? :)
Well that's the prophecies explained according to your view not mine. I could produce many more, but I what I wrote holds its own weight.
The Medes and Persians rule as one not two as evident from Daniel itself.
"The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. Daniel 8.20
One rams (kingdom) two horns (kings of Media & Persia).
Therefore the 2nd kingdom of the statue is the medes and Persians. The next kingdom is Greece which was divided up into four after Alexander’s death, but not destroyed until the rise of Rome. Therefore Rome is the fourth kingdom. The Lords kingdom was set-up in this time period and will be commutated at His second coming as recorded in Daniel.
There are some problems with the length of Persia’s rule... the Jews estimate about 56 years while we in the west say around 208 years. While some others take a number in between. The problem exists because Alexander destroyed the chronological records when he attacked Persia/Medes. This is what is causing a problem with were kingdoms fit in while trying to calculate it into Daniel’s 70 weeks. However the 4 kingdoms are the ones I outlined finishing with Rome.
Alex I hope one day you will show me how your worldview fits in with reality!
"The Medes and Persians rule as one not two as evident from Daniel itself."
You can't use Daniel as a source of external evidence for itself!!
The Medes and Persians DIDN'T rule as one, no matter how much you would have liked them to.
Daniel is, 100%, a 2nd century BCE work.
"I believe the Books of Esther and Job are often considered literature as well.
Not necessarily exact history, but more to illustrate the author's point."
Absolutely (and I'm glad we have some areas we can agree on Trent!)
Job is most likely a non-jewish text that had the beginning and end added at a later date.
Bible literalists miss a lot of the interesting details when they insist on taking everything at face value.
"You see you are image bearer of God and you cannot get away from it, that’s why you are so persistent and I believe you feel deep down too there's more to you than evolved pond scum."
No, I'm not, not unless your god evolved on a planet with exactly our gravity, atmosphere and mineral make up.
"Alex I hope one day you will show me how your worldview fits in with reality!"
Er.....I honestly don't know what to say to that level of projection and transference!
Hi Alex, sorry about my spelling/grammer.. please bear with me.
Why should I not use Daniel as my chief source, what makes your sources better?
You have not yet given a proper expalnation to your worldview. Your ultimate standard is your brain evolved from slime.. how can you trust it? You are using reason,logic to make your case and therefore you are using my worldview to do it,also you really are trying to change peoples minds to your worldview.. first it doesn't make sense and secoundly what does it have to offer?
You seem a pretty intelligent guy but your worlview doesn't make sense in the real world.
Eddie, all I'm doing is encouraging people to think critically and think about what's actually true.
Fact: Evolution happens
Fact: our planet is over 4 billion years
Fact: the Bible's account of the origins of life and the Earth is demonstrably wrong.
Eddie, do you truly believe the Earth is only six thousand years old?
btw, you can't use anything as proof of it's own accuracy, you have to apply various test and see if it meets them.
Its good to encourage people to think, but the issue is your worldview & presuppositions will determine how you think, if you are an atheist you will think of this world in naturalistic terms without any supernatural interventions and vica versa. What we should therefore do is too think which worldview makes sense of the world.
From your point of view every man is a law unto himself and he determines truth so truth is not objective but subjective. The Chrsitian sees truth as objective and therefore truth & knowledge can be really known. It really comes down to your ultimate standard to judge by, The Christian's ultimate standard is God and His word and this is the only standard that can account for knowledge,truth & morality. The atheist ultimate standard is his own subjective view and understanding of the world and as our brains are just evolved matter how can you truly trust your head to determine truth.
You say evolution is a fact, but do you know how life started to begin with?, do you know where the information comes from in our dna? Do you know what caused the big bang if you believe in a big bang? Can you tell me if matter is eternal or did it come into existence by itself?
Can you explain the fine tuning of the universe without making a faith claim to a multiverse?,Can you tell why self replicating life became male and female each with its one highly complexed sexual organs which compliment and work together perfectly? Why is there such a huge difference between us and animals and why do we eat animals but not humans since as you say were all jut animals anyway? How do you know materialism is all there is? The questions could go on, but I know there is no one on the planet that can give adequate answers to all of these from a naturalistic viewpoint and yet you say evolution is a fact. Look it's getting late here and I'm off to my bed.. talk soon.
Hi just one correction I have to make from an earlier comment... I said the Jewish chronologist said the Persian Empire only last 56 years the real number is 52 years... But my point still stands.
Eddie, if your god had inspired the Bible there would be no 'near enough' numbers, they'd all be SPOT ON.
Hi Alex,
not really sure what you mean by this, the numbers of 52 years and 208 years are from both Jewish and non-Jewish historians and are reckoned on sources outside the bible. The 56 years was a simple error on my part.
However I have a question for you... If as you say the book of Daniel was written after the events recorded in the book unfolded, how did the book of Daniel get it so wrong when it says that the Persian and Medes rule as one kingdom... Surely the writer would have known what happened in their recent history.
Eddie, the writer of Daniel simply didn't know his history as well as he thought. Darius the Mede didn't exist at all, but Daniel writes about him. Remember, the writer wouldn't have necessarily had access to all the sorces we've since discovered.
As the story was using 'history' to speak of contemporary second century BCE events, factual accuracy was not important. The 'prophecy' was a common literary devise.
Alex, I would be a little bit careful about making an absolute claim that Darius the Mede never existed. Although there are some questions about whom this person actually is it doesn’t mean he never existed.
Archaeologist have made claims before about people or nations (The Hittites for example) which although recorded in the bible the archaeologists said they never existed only to embarrassed later on when evidence of their existence was found. Ironically it was once argued that Belshazzar of the book of Daniel never existed, but again archaeology has proven the critical scholars wrong.
Eddie, by the same token you have to accept that certain things (such as the Exodus, and the fall of Jericho's walls) were accepted as historical for many years until archaeology proved them wrong.
Even if Darius was proved to exist, that would show nothing more than the author of Daniel knowing his recent history...it would not miraculously move the writing of it back to before the events it 'predicts'
As I said earlier in the blog liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives.
We can argue these points till the cows come home, if you believe there is no God then the supernatural/telling the future is impossible. Liberals and atheist have no choice but to move the date of Daniel centuries forward due to the accuracy of the prophecies even if you insist Darius never existed.
There are scholars of both sides of the fence that will argue their case for the historicity Daniel, the conquest of Canaan and Jericho, and the Exodus as well as many other portions of Scripture. And just in relation to the literary device you spoke on earlier concerning prophecy…
The Jews were very zealous for their bible (the Tanakh) and I can’t believe for a second that they would allow Daniel to be given canonical status as the book would be an outright lie according to your view. Daniel himself throughout the book claims to exist in the timeframe of Babylonian & Persian dominance. He also said he received revelation from God concerning future events. The genre of Daniel does not allow for the literary device you are talking about.
And as I stated earlier too your worldview will determine how you evaluate the evidence and that goes for all aspects of historical knowledge... Evolution, textual criticism, archeology and so on.
"Liberals and atheist have no choice but to move the date of Daniel centuries forward"
No, Eddie, FACTS date the book, not what people believe about invisible sky daddies.
Non-believers will go where the evidence leads, the faithful seem to decide what the end point is first, and then go looking for only the evidence that supports it.
If Daniel were written when it claims to have been then there would be no reason to say otherwise, the FACT is that it was written between 180BCE and 100BCE.
Are you the type of Christian who thinks that scientists are just lying because they want to live 'sinful' lives? Are you one of those 'Evolution is a lie' types?
I see that one of my pages links to this post. But I have no idea why! Blogger.com has been cutting up lately on the links, so I just wanted to express my mystification on this.
Alex, I think you’re making an error in talking about facts of history... it comes down to probabilities. You said Christians were lying earlier in the blog, do you think they are lying because they don't want to face the fact there is no God as you believe.
Atheist when looking at evidence will evaluate the evidence according to their worldview as do Christians... there's no neutral ground. Like I keep on saying is what worldview makes sense, but I don’t believe atheist are lying.
The real issue is what worldview can account for knowledge, truth, morality, beauty, meaning, our memory, our love and freewill as I’ve been saying all along.
By the way you never answered my questions on the “fact” of evolution so I'll ask some again.
How do you explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe without making a faith claim to a multiverse?
How did life come from non living matter ?
Where does the information in DNA come from?
How do you know materialism is all there is?
Is matter eternal?
What caused the big bang?
You keep stating facts so I would appreciate factual answers to these questions? You don’t have to write a long essay on this just provide links that give factual answers to say even the first 3 questions.
Thanks
Eddie
Eddie, i've replied, but it seems to be stuck in some kind of filter (i know you've had the same problem, as i've been getting emails of your replies that have then not appeared on the site)
Eddie, Alex sorry, they were stuck in Blogger's SPAM filter. I don't monitor much on the weekends. Alex, I think that I unintentionally deleted your reply as it looked like a duplicate of Eddie (you were quoting him).
I was quoting him.
That's a pity that you deleted it, as I can't be bothered to retype it.
To be honest I'm getting tired typing too.
Have a nice day.
Eddie
Because it was my mistake deleting the comment and Alex B. can't be bothered...
Alex B has left a new comment on your post "Responding to the Problem of God’s "Deception"":
"Alex, I think you’re making an error in talking about facts of history... it comes down to probabilities."
Er....no it really doesn't.
"You said Christians were lying earlier in the blog, do you think they are lying because they don't want to face the fact there is no God as you believe."
I think most of them were brainwashed by their parents when they were growing up....that's how most believers are made.
"Atheist when looking at evidence will evaluate the evidence according to their worldview"
Nope. They use a little thing called the Scientific method.
"as do Christians... there's no neutral ground."
No again - Christians start from the point of view that their god exists, and then ignore evidence that contradicts that.
"Like I keep on saying is what worldview makes sense, but I don’t believe atheist are lying."
It's not about what 'makes sense', it's about what's true...and the Bible isn't.
"The real issue is what worldview can account for knowledge, truth, morality, beauty, meaning, our memory, our love and freewill as I’ve been saying all along."
That'll be evolutionary biology then.
"By the way you never answered my questions so I'll ask some again.
How do you explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe without making a faith claim to a multiverse?"
The universe ISN'T fine tuned!! Tell me, how much of the Universe can YOU live in? In fact, how much of this planet can you live on without any aid?
"How did life come from non living matter ?"
We don't know....yet, but we've got some good ideas - google abiogenesis.
"Where does the information in DNA come from?"
There's an excellent chapter on that in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Dawkins, you should read it.
"How do you know materialism is all there is?"
Because there is not, and never has been ANY evidence that the supernatural exists.
"Is matter eternal?"
No idea, why is it even relevant?
"What caused the big bang?"
Possibly the death of a previous universe, or it perhaps spewed out of the other end of a black hole in a larger universe, maybe it was the result of a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. We may never know, but that doesn't mean a being that you can't even prove exists, let alone that he has the power to do anything like build a universe, did it.
"You keep stating facts so I would appreciate factual answers to these questions?"
There you go. I've answered.
Ok then Tim, thanks for posting this... atheistic evolution is very often said to be fact just as we’ve seen in this blog, but there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty when one asks some questions on it.
I can't see how something can be fact and have such uncertainty at the same time.
Let me list some words of uncertainty used in Alex's apologetic...
"How did life come from non living matter?”
We don't know....yet, but we've got some good ideas - google abiogenesis.
"Is matter eternal?"
No idea, why is it even relevant?
"What caused the big bang?"
Possibly the death of a previous universe, or it perhaps spewed out of the other end of a black hole in a larger universe, maybe it was the result of a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. We may never know, but that doesn't mean a being that you can't even prove exists, let alone that he has the power to do anything like build a universe, did it.
Post a Comment