Breitbart.tv

Awesome

bee-a-u-tee-ful…

Rosie O’Donnell saw the Milky Way over her house too. But Rosie was hoping it was a Snickers.

An awesome breathtaking and beautiful sight. Thank you.

milkyway is better then snickers.,with them dang nuts getting
stuck in your teeth.

Awesome display of God’s creation. Amazing!

Amazing!

I just sent this video link to my daughter who will be graduating college in May, and is traveling in a couple weeks to Hawaii on her spring break to spend a week with her Marine boyfriend before he’s deployed to Afghanistan. Here is what I wrote with the link:

You need to get someplace dark. Light pollution in Hawaii must be minimal for them to have an observatory there.

I haven’t seen the Milky Way since I was 4 years old. I was in awe of it then, but had I known I wouldn’t be able to see it again in my lifetime I would have stood under it longer. Even as a little child I had no concept of the distance, measured in not miles or years but ‘light years’ that meant it was completely unreachable ever.

The idea that it is the edge of our galaxy and we are barely a speck within it is as humbling as if Christ Himself were to appear in front of you. To wonder is there anyone else out there in the immeasurable vastness of this cold darkness can make you feel so lonely … it did me when I was very little.

If just one of my children has an opportunity to look up into the night sky and witness this brush stroke of God I will myself have seen it again.

Things like that are the definition of the word “awesome”. Truly amazing video.

God’s fault.

Believe it or not, it’s actually FREEZING at the top of that mountain IN HAWAII. You have to wear heavy clothing to visit.

WOW!!! How small we really are!

What? No liberal message?

Interesting! Didn’t see God anywhere in those pics!

“Stoic” probably voted for Obama.

Stoic, God is spiritual, I would have thought everyone would know this. But, yea, he’s spiritual in case you were looking for him.
Peace.

Two people argue about a gardener who comes to care for his garden. The unbeliever states, “But no one has ever seen your gardener. No footprints are found in the garden, indicating his presence. In addition, when we put an electric fence up, and dogs about the garden, no gardener is ever caught and no scent from the gardener is ever detected by the dogs.” The believer replies, “That’s because the gardener is invisible; he leaves no footprints; he makes no sound; he is impervious to electric fences; he leaves no scent which dogs can detect.”

The unbeliever replies, “Tell me then, what is the difference between your gardener and an imaginary gardener…or, no gardener at all?”

The Lord states heaven exists just above the clouds. And where is that? What you just saw.

@ Stoic

You should change your name from “Stoic” to “Feeble”

Just a thought.

Have a great time smoking dope on your goat farm today.

You don’t have to go to Hawaii to see the Milky Way like this. I grew up in the Sandhills of Nebraska, so if you love the heavens, find a place to stay in the heart of the Sandhills, in the most remote location and get ready for a show.

Good discussion, all. I want to be fair here and make sure I understand what some of you are saying before trying to simply write something pithy.

Stoic, are you then saying that it’s more reasonable to conclude that nothing caused something to come into existence or that something caused something to come into existence?

Have you come to the conclusion that natural causes are the only causes? How did you come to that conclusion?
Did you use science?

Science only tests the natural world, so is that really a fair conclusion, to use a natural test to tell you that nature is all that there is?

By only using one test, one conclusion is all you will find isn’t it?
This seems to be a “science of the gaps” theory. In other words, some assume (perhaps not yourself, hence why I wish to clarify) that “there is definitely a natural cause for everything. We know this because we have used natural tests to test the natural world and naturally, nature is all we’ve found”.

Now, I know that is a bit oversimplified, but the essence is there. Have I at least been fair with the causality point? I’m not very good with garden analogies, so let’s just cut to the chase.

The heart of it is this. All of NATURE (time, space, and matter) came into existence at one finite point in history (big bang). We know from science that all effects (like the universe) must have a cause sufficient to the effect. So, something OUTSIDE of nature (outside of space, time, and matter) had to cause nature to come into existence. Whatever that cause is, we know that it must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (again, because those three elements came into existence at one point and are an EFFECT of a CAUSE).

So, my only questions to you are this:

1). Is it more reasonable to assume that nothing caused something to come into existence or that something caused something to come into existence
2). If evidence points to a cause that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (which it does because of the big bang), would you be willing to accept the evidence wherever it leads?
3). Is it really reasonable to use science to tell you that science is the only way to discover truth? Wouldn’t that be like deciding which instrument to use, then using that instrument to tell you that that instrument is the only reliable instrument? To at least be fair, isn’t that circular?
4). Would you consider it reasonable for someone to use that line of reasoning to show the reliability of a holy book? For instance would you allow them to assume the holy book was true, then using the book’s assertions about itself to demonstrate why it’s true? Is this really all that different from the way scientific naturalism is being defended?

Thanks for your patience. I know that’s a lot to read, and I hope none of the points came across as sarcastic or condescending. Heaven knows (pardon the pun) that I myself am not that smart, but we’ve all got questions, so let’s just see which explanation makes the most sense, right?

Have a great day!
-BAM

Your analogy is flawed Stoic, for footprints are left everywhere… didn’t you watch the video?

@New Hampshire Coast

Smoking dope and running a goat farm … sounds like a nasty combo, eeep!

Allah ruh-roh, Stoic!

@ Lone Survivor

Adam Gadahn, the American Al-Qaeda loser was raised on a goat farm by his dope smoking hippie liberal loser parents in Marin County, California. I figured it would be a good comparison to “Stoic”

@BAM, “Is it more reasonable?” Yes, that is the question. And that is what I am trying to get at with my own question, one you did not answer. So let’s try again:

Your gardener cannot be seen, cannot be heard, does not leave footprints, is impervious to electric fences, whose scent cannot be discerned by bloodhounds…etc. Yet, you claim there IS a gardener!

So tell me then, how is your gardener different from an imaginary gardener…or, no gardener at all?

Test. This is to see if Breitbart is censoring

Genesis 15:1-7

:
breathtaking every time
:
Whether we look at the Creation at the macro or micro level, it always shows that God painted better than Michelangelo and all the masters combined
:

The Case for a Creator
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational_and_howto/watch/v18399826mgNx8Ss4
A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God

NWaff, yes, but we all know many folks talked to, heard, and touched Michelangelo!

Again, “What is the difference between your Artist and an imaginary artist…or no artist at all?”

No artist doesn’t make stuff, an imaginary artist doesn’t make anything, an artist makes stuff. There is “Stuff” therefore there is an Artist to make it. Or are you saying stuff doesn’t exist?

@G.W. – True, an imaginary artist doesn’t make stuff. But your supposed *real* artist, who can’t be seen, heard, smelled, touched…who cannot be detected by any human sense or instrument, is thus NO DIFFERENT THAN AN IMAGINARY ARTIST!!!

I could just as easily say that the Universe is the result of a giant Spaghetti Monster!

@Stoic

Hi again,
Thanks for the quick reply and thanks for being civil. Sorry about some of the vulgar and crude responses to your posts, those are unfortunate. I think there’s a small delay in the posting of the replies, so hopefully this comes through relatively soon.

To be completely fair, I didn’t actually claim to believe in the “gardener” as you’ve characterized Him or it. I actually haven’t said what I believe one way or the other. I didn’t respond immediately to the gardener example simply because there are so many problems inherent with using these types of analogies. I would not imply that you have nefarious intent here, so please don’t misunderstand me. Obviously you care about the issue, so I make no Alinsky-like critiques on your character.

Instead, I wish to address the issues at hand which are.

1). How did you come to the conclusion that the “gardener” would leave those types of physical evidences behind?

You’ve laid out an example where, true, if the “gardener” as you’ve described him should, in fact, leave those types of evidences behind and doesn’t, then we are fair in assuming there is no gardener.
What you have not done sufficiently, and hopefully will do as we continue a civil dialogue is present why you believe that the CAUSE of the garden itself would leave behind those kind of evidences.

***We must first look to the NATURE OF THE CAUSE, before we assume it is a cause of nature, should we not?

So, what kind of evidence might we look for to either qualify or disqualify this gardener as you’ve described him.
I refer back to my original questions regarding the big bang.

Whatever the CAUSE of nature is, we know the following things.

1). Every effect requires a cause that is sufficient to the effect
2). All of time, space, and matter came into existence at a finite point in history (we know this from big bang cosmology)
3). So the universe is an effect of a cause sufficient to its existence
4). The cause of the the universe (time, space, and matter), must logically be TIMELESS, SPACELESS, AND IMMATERIAL

So, what is the NATURE OF THE CAUSE?
Something:
1). TIMELESS
2). SPACELESS
3). IMMATERIAL
As evidenced from the big bang.

So, NOW and only now are we able to fairly evaluate what the nature is of this timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause (as I’ve described it) or the gardener (as you’ve described it)

In this description, do you see how looking for physical footprints from an immaterial cause is somewhat unfair? I don’t believe you did that on purpose nor am I in any way questioning your reasoning or intelligence. But we have logically looked for the NATURE OF THE CAUSE of the garden first to determine what kinds of evidence we can use to qualify or disqualify His / its existence and THEN we’ve moved to evaluate it.

By assuming that the timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause OF the garden must somehow leave temporal, physical, material evidence behind simply does not follow.
Again, I don’t believe at all that you left that out intentionally. I just wanted to point that out so we can both be fair in our evaluation.

So rather than argue, I just want to know from you if I’ve done a fair job in characterizing your argument.
If so, have I done a fair job in characterizing the NATURE OF THE CAUSE before we evaluate it.

If so, is it logical to disqualify the existence of the cause of the garden because He / it does not meet qualifications that do not fit the nature of the cause – not based on faith or religion, but based on logic extending from the big bang.

In summary, waiting for physical evidence for something that is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, and refusing to believe in it until it meets those qualifications is somewhat akin to saying…
“I’ll believe in the color blue when I taste it”

It’s a bit of a category error isn’t it?

Hey, sorry this was so long. Thanks for engaging politely and responding.
Looking forward to hearing back if I did ok on this one. If I mischaracterized your view, please correct me.

Have a great one!
-BAM

Stoic, so you think we ought to accept a logical argument that existence is a result of chance?

G.W., I am content to accept that I exist. I don’t go around wondering each day about my existence, or my family tree. I don’t need to find a way to assuage anxiety about my existence, or that one day I will cease to exist, because I have no anxiety about it. Remember, we are talking about “reason” here, and not emotion.

You say “there must be a creator because there has to be!” Yet, whenever you’re asked about the creator you tell us about how he/she/it is not accessible to the eye, ear, touch, smell. You say you know this creator, but apparently via a knowledge that is not accessible to me. So I ask, and your ilk continue to say he can’t be seen with eye, heard with the ear; You cannot touch him with your hand, smell him with your nose, taste him with your tongue. Yet he is real.

So tell me again. How is your God any different from an imaginary God?

@BAM,

Yes, I suppose I can concur with your first 4 on the the CAUSE of the universe. Although even yours are assumptions. Given that “time” is part of the *nature of the universe*, who’s to say that our universe isn’t a sub-set of a greater, or different kind of, time? Further, your conclusion about the origins coming from something IMMATERIAL is also an assumption. Who’s to say that the Universe isn’t some kind of sub-set of a greater material reality, rather than an IMMATERIAL one (or spiritual, as you might say)? Such discussing points are purely speculative.

And I’m not sure I agree with you that my search for evidence in the material realm is “unfair” as you say. It’s all that I know…and really all that you know. Take away your eye sight, your hearing, and your sense of touch, and you would not know of me, nor would you be having this conversation. For all intents and purposes, I would not exist to you if you did not have these sensory abilities. All knowledge of this world and the people in it are the result of your ability to see, hear, touch, smell, taste. Take those away and you would cease to know anything more in life….even the love from others. Begin life without the senses and you would know absolutely nothing!

So to say it’s unfair for me to expect evidence of a gardener/creator from things in nature is itself unfair. If he/she/it is not going to leave traces of some sort, which my eyes can see, ears can hear, hands can touch, then talk about him/her/it is a bit non-”sensical”. It would be kind of like telling the blind man it’s unfair that he uses a blind man’s cane to see the road on which he walks. How else is he supposed to see the road?

If there be a creator who gives eyes to see, but they cannot see him/it. If he/it makes the ear to hear, but ears cannot hear him/it. If he creates the hand to touch, yet the hand cannot feel him/it., then what’s the point? Talking about such a creator is no different than talking about an imaginary creator!

Stoic, so a good summary of your view would be:

“My fives senses are reliable because my five senses told me so.”

GW,

You can attempt to besmirch my position all you like. But you’re just digging yourself deeper. If my 5 senses are unreliable, (and I have no problem granting you that position as a possibility), then how much more so is your own metaphysical (ie. spiritual) source of knowledge? I daresay you have no qualms about trusting your own 5 senses, and that you rely on them much more than whatever metaphysical source-knowledge you claim to have.

@Stoic

Hi again,

Thanks again for reading and replying. Lots of fun! Really appreciate you taking your time out of your day to chat through these things.
I actually agree with you on many of your points. Very well said. You are absolutely right in asking the question “who’s to say” to any number of things. Infinite possibilities abound for many things don’t they?

But, since alternate theories are not evidence, I wonder if I might challenge you to think through the evidence and consider the points. If I’ve made a logical misstep, I’d love to correct it.

Now, honestly, you wouldn’t accept an answer from someone who answered your question with a “who’s to say”, now would you? You’d want them to address your points, not point out that somehow someway in some universe it could be possibly another way, now would you? Wouldn’t that just be another way of saying “well who’s to say it wasn’t a Spaghetti Monster”? (ala Michael Shermer)

I grant many possibilities may exist or may not. But, we deal in the realm of evidence, do we not? So, if you have evidence for things like a sub-set of greater universes, or greater realities, then let’s discuss it. But until then, I must apply your own standard of “spaghetti monster” philosophy and categorize those assertions as blind faith statements. Is that fair? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I am merely trying to play by the rules you stated in your gardener example.

“Who’s to say” is not an argument, nor is it evidence for a point of view, so let’s leave it aside as it’s really not helpful to our discussion is it?

The question is, “what is the best explanation for the evidence we see?”
Merely pointing out that someone with no senses couldn’t have a conversation isn’t strictly an argument, neither is it evidence for another view.
After all, truth is true, regardless of one’s ability to perceive it isn’t it?

I must point out as well that your argument regarding sensory perceptions is unfortunately self-refuting. Logic is non-physical. You are using logic which is not seen, nor tasted, nor heard, etc, yet you reasonably assume that it exists.

Let’s take a look at your argument and see how it pans out. “All knowledge of this world and the people in it are the result of your ability to see, hear, touch, smell, taste. Take those away and you would cease to know anything more in life…begin life without the senses and you would know absolutely nothing”

How did you come to that conclusion exactly?
Did you use your senses?
Are we not right back where we started, a PRE-SUPPOSITION, that one thing is true and then using that thing to show that it’s the only true thing?

Isn’t this remarkably similar to the claim “without science we can’t know anything” – well how did we know that? Do we use science to discover that science is the only way?

What about religion? Would you accept that? I used this HOLY BOOK to tell me that this holy book is the only way to know anything.

Or in your case:
“Without our senses, we can’t know anything” – How did you come to that conclusion? Did you use your senses? Isn’t that circular reasoning?

***“I’ve used my senses to sense the world around me and I have a sense that you can’t sense anything without senses…make sense?”

Again, I want to be fair here, but I have to point out that the error is the same in each case. These are category errors…using the wrong tool for the job. It’s right back to trying to taste the color blue. You can’t use your senses to determine that senses are the only way to know anything now can you?

I don’t mean to be nitpicky or unreasonable. So I apologize if I am coming across that way. I just want to make sure that we deal in the realm of argument and evidence and go from there.

In summary:
1). Alternate Theories Are Not Evidence
2). “Who’s To Say” Is Not An Argument Nor A Refutation
3). If Physical Senses Are the Only Way to Know Anything, Then You Couldn’t Know THAT…That assertion is an idea which is non-physical which pre-supposes non-physical truths like logic and the law of non-contradiction (you can neither taste, see, hear, touch, nor smell logic –yet you believe it exists without physical evidence)

Now, we know that we both have the same standards of evidence. No “spaghetti monsters” and no “blind faith” statements. Fair enough?

As to your final point, I really appreciate that one. I can sense a certain frustration there. I mean why would this “creator” make it impossible to find him? Or as Bertrand Russell put it; something to the effect of “why did you hide yourself so well”? Right?

I agree wholeheartedly with that frustration.
But what if we found that it was not that the Creator / Causer / Gardener was hidden, it was merely that we were using the wrong tools.
I’m painstakingly trying to point out that categorical errors in assumptions have consequences when evaluating the evidence. If we’re using the wrong instrument (the physical world) to find PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of someone which we have discovered using logic (which is IMMATERIAL) is also IMMATERIAL, then we’ll be constantly disappointed won’t we?

So, in our search for the answers, let’s remember where we arrived logically from what we can observe.

The Creator we’re looking for is:
1). Immaterial – at least outside of OUR matter
2). Timeless –at least outside of OUR time constraints
3). Spaceless – at least outside of OUR space

We also know that you are willing to accept realities that are non-physical through your use of logic.

So we know:
1). The supernatural is possible as evidenced by the Big Bang when all of nature entered existence
2). You believe in non-physical reality as evidenced by your use of logic
3). The universe is an effect which requires a cause outside of itself SUPER (outside of) NATURAL

***Since the supernatural is reasonable and you already believe in non-physical truths, are you willing to grant at least that there is nothing at least outright unreasonable about belief in a non-physical, immaterial, spaceless, timeless cause?

Thanks again for your time. Really appreciate the talk! Have a great day!
-BAM

@BAM

“Who’s to say” is not an argument, nor is it evidence for a point of view, so let’s leave it aside as it’s really not helpful to our discussion is it?

Actually, I wasn’t offering it as an argument. I was only saying that neither of us knows anything about what stands prior to the universe, either physical or metaphysical. I was simply stating that any talk of such things is “speculative.” Yes, the universe could be the result of an IMMATERIAL source, but it could also be the result of another MATERIAL source. You stated that it had to be the former, based on your pre-supposed deduction. Also, you stated that the universe’s CAUSE must be TIMELESS…I guess since time is a characteristic of the universe, and not necessarily a characteristic of the CAUSE in back of the universe. But this too is speculative. It could also be that the CAUSE behind the universe isn’t timeless, but some other kind of TIME. We don’t know.

So I wasn’t answering your question with an “alternate theory” per se, an argument. I was only making the point that your foundational categories were speculative.

If Physical Senses Are the Only Way to Know Anything, Then You Couldn’t Know THAT…That assertion is an idea which is non-physical which pre-supposes non-physical truths like logic and the law of non-contradiction (you can neither taste, see, hear, touch, nor smell logic –yet you believe it exists without physical evidence)

Sure I could. Logic is based in material reality. If event A happens before event B, and event B occurs before event C, then event A also happens before event C. This is logic, but is dependent upon such categories as cause and effect which occur in time…all categories of our universe. If I had no access to these events, such that my senses give access, then I could not know the logic behind them as well. I daresay if you had been born with none of the 5 senses, you would have no knowledge to that field called logic, for logic depends on these. Logic exists because the physical universe exists first. Logic is conceptual, but so also is theory. If I had none of the 5 senses I could never know such concepts or theories as gravity, or motion, or entropy. These are things I can know only by having access to the universe…access through my 5 senses.

I am open to the possibility of a creator, yes. My problem, however, is not Bertrand Russell’s who wonders why God hid himself so well. My argument is more, what’s the point of a God if he/she has created me in such a way so as to not be able to perceive him/her/it? It’s not so much that he/she may be hidden, but that he/she/it created human beings without an ability to see, hear, touch, smell, taste the creator. Seems odd that a personal God creates in such a way that we cannot access him/her for personal encounter.

O.k. stoic, so what I’ve concluded from you responses to me and BAM is that your position would more correctly be:

“My unreliable senses tell me that my senses are unreliable, also that this finite material world was possibly created out of an infinite “super”-material world outside of itself, yet the super-natural doesn’t exist because the unreliable five senses can’t perceive it.”

Am I getting warm?

“…Given that “time” is part of the *nature of the universe*, who’s to say that our universe isn’t a sub-set of a greater, or different kind of, time? Further, your conclusion about the origins coming from something IMMATERIAL is also an assumption. Who’s to say that the Universe isn’t some kind of sub-set of a greater material reality, rather than an IMMATERIAL one (or spiritual, as you might say)? Such discussing points are purely speculative.”

If a person writes you a letter you can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste them, but you are still having a personal encounter with them. Does that mean they don’t exist? You will say, “But I COULD have perceive them if they were here” and I will say, “If God wanted you to see him he could manifest himself to your senses as well (as he did to Moses and others).” Just because YOU never saw God, doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist, anymore than Australia doesn’t exist because YOU never saw it. Jesus Christ was God incarnate, and plenty of people saw him.

GW,

You seem to want my position to be: “The 5 senses are unreliable.”

This is not my position. Rather, the 5 senses are all we have. Even if they be unreliable (as you wish), nevertheless it is through them that we know what we know. Without them, we don’t know anything! Again, if you were born without your 5 senses you would know nothing about anything…not the face of your mother, not the sound of her voice, not the touch of her hand, the smell of her skin. You would know nothing of the world around you either. Even your letter writing example doesn’t work. How would I know of you unless I first know how to read? How would I know how to read unless I first am able to see? Even those who cannot see will defer to another sense for knowledge…they learn to read by braille (ie. touch…another of the 5 senses.) But how would a blind man who also had no sense of “touch” know of you, or about you? Answer: he would have to defer to another of the senses…hearing, let’s say. An audio of you could give him access to knowing you. But if he also had no sense of hearing? His access to knowing you is becoming increasingly limited. And without any of the senses, he could not know you at all….not anything at all.

You know what you know because your senses have given you access to it. Even the conceptual, theoretical and mathematical knowledge we have is only possible because we first see, hear, touch, smell, taste. In other words, if you were born with none of the 5 senses, you could never know that 2+2=4.

If a creator has created us with the 5 senses in order that we might “know” the people and world around us, but these 5 senses have no access to the creator then what’s the point of such a creator?

Talk of such a creator is no different than talk of an imaginary creator…or no creator at all.

Hey again, guys,
Great discussion. I’m really impressed with the civility that is so absent from many of these discussions, so kudos!

The questions that I’m still a bit stumped on are these, Stoic, if you have a moment to walk me through them so I know exactly where you’re coming from:

1). Could you spell out for me precisely what kind of evidence it is that you’re looking for that would be convincing to you as to the existence of a Creator
2). Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that that is the kind of evidence He would in fact leave and that you should, in turn, expect?

Thanks for your patience! I never want to assume I know where someone is coming from, so your articulation of what you believe and why you believe it helps me out a great deal. I’m never good with dealing with analogies I guess, so if you could just spell it out for me, I think our discussion could move forward if you have a moment.

Again, I really appreciate the remarkable respect and civility here, and really appreciate your engagement with the issues. I’m still learning a lot myself!

Have a great one,

BAM

Stoic, my point is that yes, you cannot perceive God with your five senses – I granted you that. My other point is that YOU were the one unsure about the 5 senses, not me. I merely believe they are nothing but senses, they don’t tell you 2+2=4, your mind through deduction etc. interprets and categorizes the things your senses take in, but your senses don’t think for themselves. Lastly, my analogy was sound because I believe God revealed himself to our five senses through his written word, the Bible, and that is the source of my knowledge of Him (the “letter” I referred to). Without the Bible, you are right, we would know next to nothing about God or (I believe) much of anything else. Science did not form in a vacuum, it was mostly carried out by the Western world in its heavily Christian influenced culture. They took for granted their senses were reliable for “sensing” but not perceiving/interpreting. Using a Biblical world view they knew that this was all real and not an illusion, that it was finite, that there are fixed laws, etc. Not every world view believes these things that you and I take for granted (or at least I do).

Stoic, my point is that yes, you cannot perceive God with your five senses – I granted you that. My other point is that YOU were the one unsure about the 5 senses, not me. I merely believe they are nothing but senses, they don’t tell you 2+2=4, your mind through deduction etc. interprets and categorizes the things your senses take in, but your senses don’t think for themselves. Lastly, my illustration was sound because I believe God revealed himself to our five senses through his written word, the Bible, and that is the source of my knowledge of Him (the “letter” I referred to). Without the Bible, you are right, we would know next to nothing about God or (I believe) much of anything else. Science did not form in a vacuum, it was mostly carried out by the Western world in its heavily Christian influenced culture. They took for granted their senses were reliable for “sensing” but not perceiving/interpreting. Using a Biblical world view they knew that this was all real and not an illusion, that it was finite, that there are fixed laws, etc. Not every world view believes these things that you and I take for granted (or at least I do).

The Bible is God’s word?

Who wrote the Bible? Answer: Men did. Men who claimed God spoke to them. So apparently God does communicate, but not in general? As Evangelicals will say, “God wants a personal relationship with you!” I assume this God was being “personal” with those who wrote down his word? But this same God who wants to have a “personal relationship” with me doesn’t speak to me as he supposedly spoke to Moses? He doesn’t sound very personal then.

Has this God ever spoken to you? If so, did you “hear” a voice? Did you “see” a form or apparition? Did you “feel” some kind of hand upon your back? How is it you think that yours is a “personal relationship”, unless your senses have been given access to God?

Stoic, did Abraham Lincoln ever speak to you personally? Can you know nothing about him then? He spoke to those he chose to speak to and told them to tell others. According to Christian theology God then uses the testimony of those people and through His Holy Spirit, yes, does speak directly to you. It is when the words of the Bible become the word of God, when you hear what was said to the prophets and apostles as though God were talking directly to you. So, yes, God uses your sense of hearing, but it is the Holy Spirit within his people that interprets it as God’s voice, or else the sense of hearing is not enough. I don’t presuppose that there is no supernatural world, doing so would be biased. I accept the testimony of reliable witnesses, and have experienced conversion. If you are truly unbiased, you will also read the Bible, try to understand it, and pray to “God” and see what happens. I guarantee that if you are sincere in your search, you will also “taste and see that the Lord is good.”

@Stoic

Might I respectfully ask for some clarification?

The questions that I’m still a bit stumped on are these, if you have a moment to walk me through them so I know exactly where you’re coming from:

1). Could you spell out for me precisely what kind of evidence it is that you’re looking for that would be convincing to you as to the existence of a Creator
2). Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that that is the kind of evidence He would in fact leave and that you should, in turn, expect?

Thanks for your patience! I never want to assume I know where someone is coming from, so your articulation of what you believe and why you believe it helps me out a great deal. I’m never good with dealing with analogies I guess, so if you could just spell it out for me, I think our discussion could move forward if you have a moment.

Again, I really appreciate the remarkable respect and civility here, and really appreciate your engagement with the issues. I’m still learning a lot myself!

Have a great one,

BAM

GW,

Yes I can know something about Abraham Lincoln by reading about him. However, I cannot know Abraham Lincoln the person by reading about him. Apparently you believe you can know God by reading the Bible, but that never happened with me. And when I ask people like yourself to describe how it is they know God, they usually use words like, “God spoke” or “God touched” or “God showed me”…etc. They use the language of the 5 senses to tell how it is they know God. When pressed, however, they admit that they really did not “hear” any voice from the sky, or “feel” any kind of hand or touch, or “saw” any appearance. Yet they use the language that you and I use when we describe how it is we know our family and friends….people we do “hear” do “feel” do “see.”

In the end, they talk as if they’ve had a sense encounter, but really they haven’t. It all takes place in their head.

Hence, there is no difference between their God and an imaginary God.

BAM,

I guess I’d say this: If God is personal, and wants a personal contact with us, at some point it’s got to get personal. If God shows himself to someone like Moses, with voice and apparition….something Moses could hear and see, then why am I expecting too much to ask the same?

How did I come to this conclusion that this is the kind of evidence needed? Easy! I read it in Exodus 3!

Stoic,

Thanks again! Seems like a fair answer.
Could I just repeat it back in my own words to make sure I understand correctly? I would never want to mischaracterize your views, so please correct me if I have this wrong or if it seems like I’m being uncharitable.

1). The only convincing evidence you’d accept as to the existence of a Creator / God is a personal, individual visitation
2). Because of the description of a visitation from God to Moses in Exodus 3, you’ve come to the conclusion that personal, individualized visitations are something each individual should or at least could reasonably expect from God

Did I do ok with that?
If I could clarify, strictly speaking, we haven’t arrived at the idea of a “personal” God just yet, we’re simply working out what His nature might be and what evidence to expect / detect from Him. Fair enough?

If you would permit me, might I suggest a slight adjustment to the reading of this passage?
If I’m reading it correctly, it does, as you mentioned DESCRIBE an event that happened of a visitation from God. Strictly speaking it wasn’t precisely physical in the way one might expect (as God showed up AS fire, but nowhere is He described as being made OUT OF fire), but I understand what you were getting at, I don’t mean to be nitpicky, just trying to be as precise as possible as to what we should expect from this God we’re looking for.

But, back to the point, it does DESCRIBE what happened, but does it PRESCRIBE that that event that happened is something all individuals might expect for themselves in order to confirm the existence of God?

I’m confident it was merely an oversight, so no harm done. I just wanted to point that out to see if you agree that perhaps that passage better DESCRIBES an event rather than PRESCRIBES a general rule or expectation.

At a larger point though, I wonder if you might be so patient as to examine that second question again.
Since we haven’t yet really established if God is, in fact, personal or not, could you explain again:

1). What evidence would convince you as to the existence of God
2). How you came to believe that those expectations are correct

And if I may add a follow up to that…
3). Are you, in fact, actually WILLING to be convinced?

Thank you again!
Really enjoying the dialogue!

Sincerely,
BAM

Stoic, you would need to be omniscient yourself to know there is no God anywhere in the universe (and then you’d be that god), the most that you can say is “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, then you should not be biased one way or the other. You believe in the universal laws of logic (2+2=4 everywhere in the universe) and that these are derived from matter/time itself, but that requires ontologically that the world would be finite (2 of some “thing” plus 2 of some”thing” else), and if finite than it can’t be prior to itself and self-caused. It makes more sense (to me) that the world was caused by something im-matter-ial beyond and prior to it (and you yourself postulated a world beyond this one as well). If the material world is infinite then time would also be infinite and not a measure of successive change. With an infinite regression you could never arrive at today. Sure, in theory or in abstraction one can have infinites etc., but then you’d have to say the world is an abstraction (i.e. not real), and the laws of logic you believe are derived from the material world go out the window. We are talking about a real world, with real, changing, finite matter (like dirt), where “a” cannot be “-a” at the same time and the same sense. In order to get around all of this one would have to “imagine” a first-cause world or being far more “out there” than one simple Creator/God. The simplest answer is usually the best one.

Anyway, I’m rambling, and I’m not sure it is even worth it (not that YOU’RE not worth it, just arguing this further). I don’t believe in neutral/brute facts, or neutral people, and every philosophical system is circular in the end (including your empiricism):

My senses are the ultimate test of truth because my senses told me so
Reason is the ultimate test of truth because reason told me so
God is the ultimate test of truth because God told me so

If I tried to reason you into Heaven, then I’m saying “human reason is the ultimate authority for you to follow,” same thing with the senses, and I may win a battle, but loose the war. So all I can say is that given that empiricism, rationalism, and theism are all ultimately circular (not necessarily a bad thing), don’t swear your allegiance to one without trying on the others first (again, if you are truly unbiased- which I don’t think you/me are). The difference is that senses alone can’t teach you anything, and reason without the senses is useless, but reason cannot interpret the sensory data in a vacuum without assuming things about this world you nor anyone else could ever possibly find out. When you make those assumptions, ask yourself “Am I borrowing this from a theistic world-view, or smuggling in something I learned from Western culture’s Christian influence” and you’d be surprised just how many “givens” are not “givens” to say a Buddhist, or Hindu.

But again, I guarantee that if you really and truly want to know for certain, there’s really only one way to find out, and that is to read the Bible and pray. You will learn that the God who created the lights above Hawaii is the same God who created you, and your reason to seek him out in his word. Also don’t assume God wants a personal relationship with you. Does the Queen of England want to hang out with you? But if he opens your eyes someday, I look forward to hearing about it.

peace.

GW,

But mine is agnostic. I don’t know if there is a God, but I don’t arrive at belief in God by concluding, “Well, there just has to be a reason for why the universe exists so I will believe in God!” If you check your bible I don’t think you will find anyone in it coming to belief in this way…via deductive method. And certainly you won’t find anywhere in the bible anyone moving from such a deduction to its conclusion, “I therefore know God because I’ve deduced his existence!” Such a deduction may be satisfying to you; it may qualify as knowledge of God for you, but not so for me.

And as far as your counsel to me to read the Bible and pray, you assume that I haven’t. But I have. However, reading words does not qualify as knowledge “of” someone. You can know “about” someone by reading, but a certain kind of encounter is needed to say, “I know this person.”

Furthermore, a Mormon will say the same thing to me about the Book of Mormon…that if I just read and pray, the Holy Spirit will convict me of its truth. Alas, this “Holy Spirit knowledge,” that Mormons and Christians speak of always reduces to some inner feeling of conviction, which then claims to be a knowledge of God. Not for me.

I don’t claim that my senses are the ultimate ground of truth. I only say that my senses are all that I have to access the universe and people like yourself. It is through them that I come to “know” what I know. If the senses have no access to God then how do we come to know God? Answer: read the bible – does not work! A Muslim says the same of his Koran. A Mormon says the same of his Book of Mormon.

Funny thing is, when each speaks of how it is they know God they will attest to how very real God is, but then say that the same is unseen, unheard, untouchable… transcendent. Why is this funny? Because when each tries to explain how it is he knows this God, each will use the language of the senses…ie., “God spoke to me,” “God showed me,” “God touched me.” In truth, they heard nothing, saw nothing, felt nothing.

Nope, a God who cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, is a God who remains outside the realm of human knowledge. If there is some other way to knowledge of him/her/it, then I don’t know it. Reading the bible does not do it, anymore than reading a history of Abraham Lincoln gives me a personal knowledge of Lincoln.

A Gardener who leaves no footprints, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched….is no different than an imaginary Gardener, or no Gardener at all.

BAM,

I don’t think we are getting anywhere with the questions. For some reason you don’t want to come right out and say that you believe in God, and are even deliberate about saying that you have not divulged what you believe. Not sure why you want to keep this distance, but I get the sense that you’re trying to lead me somewhere, but won’t come clean yourself.

If you believe in God, and claim to know God, then just say so and we can go from there. I’m really not interested in being led down some apologetics labyrinth.

Regards!

Stoic,

Many apologies, sir. Ironically, it appears that my fact-finding approach has come across as something remarkably like your namesake. A bit stoic perhaps?

Well, that’s certainly not my intent. It probably takes some getting used to when someone genuinely wants to know what YOU think. Unfortunately for our online discussion, understanding and precision require time and patience and I certainly appreciate yours over the past few days in helping me try to understand what you believe in a precise way.

As to my personal beliefs, I haven’t seen where they would have been relevant to the discussion at hand as they really offer no evidence one way or the other as to the existence of a Creator. You’re interested in objective evidence, not personal opinion anyway. After all, what we’ve been discussing is –

1) If there is a Creator, what is the nature of the evidence He would leave behind and how do we discover it
2) What is the evidence you, Stoic, are using to discover this Creator
3) How did you come to the conclusion that that evidence is the correct method of discovering this Creator

What I’m truly puzzled with is why you would consider these fairly basic questions to be labyrinthian. I would assume the most straightforward question of all was the final question from my previous post which is still unanswered.

***Are you, Stoic, actually WILLING to be convinced

Now, you made the claim that “a gardener who leaves no footprints, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched…is no different than an imaginary gardener, or no gardener at all”.

That was your assertion, not mine.

I’m playing no games and am actually being very fair to your views. In fact, I’ve taken each thing you’ve said very seriously, including your response to Exodus. You haven’t responded to my answer there, so if it seems like we’re not getting anywhere with questions, it may be because you are not taking your answers to them as seriously as I am.

You’ve answered the first question, but I need to know that I understood your point correctly. Could you just confirm for me that I had it correctly in my previous post? I can’t move on until I know I understood your point. Do you believe that the only convincing evidence you’d accept as to the existence of a Creator / God is a personal, individual visitation or not?

I’ve brought up a counterpoint to your second answer regarding how you came to your conclusion and I need you to address that before we can move on, ok? If your conclusion rests upon an incorrect reading of Exodus, then we need to find a different supporting passage for your views. If you feel that my counterpoint was in error, then you need to point out where I’m mistaken. Fair enough?

Finally, I need to know if you are actually willing to be convinced, because if you’re not, then why should I take your views as seriously as I have been?

As always, I’m sincerely enjoying the discussion and appreciate your thoroughness.

Sincerely,
BAM

Stoic,

Many apologies, sir. Ironically, it appears that my fact-finding approach has come across as something remarkably like your namesake. A bit stoic perhaps?

Well, that’s certainly not my intent. It probably takes some getting used to when someone genuinely wants to know what YOU think. Unfortunately for our online discussion, understanding and precision require time and patience and I certainly appreciate yours over the past few days in helping me try to understand what you believe in a precise way.

As to my personal beliefs, I haven’t seen where they would have been relevant to the discussion at hand as they really offer no evidence one way or the other as to the existence of a Creator. You’re interested in objective evidence, not personal opinion anyway. After all, what we’ve been discussing is –

1) If there is a Creator, what is the nature of the evidence He would leave behind and how do we discover it
2) What is the evidence you, Stoic, are using to discover this Creator
3) How did you come to the conclusion that that evidence is the correct method of discovering this Creator

What I’m truly puzzled with is why you would consider these fairly basic questions to be labyrinthian. I would assume the most straightforward question of all was the final question from my previous post which is still unanswered.

***Are you, Stoic, actually WILLING to be convinced

Now, you made the claim that “a gardener who leaves no footprints, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched…is no different than an imaginary gardener, or no gardener at all”.

That was your assertion, not mine.

I’m playing no games and am actually being very fair to your views. In fact, I’ve taken each thing you’ve said very seriously, including your response to Exodus. You haven’t responded to my answer there, so if it seems like we’re not getting anywhere with questions, it may be because you are not taking your answers to them as seriously as I am.

You’ve answered the first question, but I need to know that I understood your point correctly. Could you just confirm for me that I had it correctly in my previous post? I can’t move on until I know I understood your point. Do you believe that the only convincing evidence you’d accept as to the existence of a Creator / God is a personal, individual visitation or not?

I’ve brought up a counterpoint to your second answer regarding how you came to your conclusion and I need you to address that before we can move on, ok? If your conclusion rests upon an incorrect reading of Exodus, then we need to find a different supporting passage for your views. If you feel that my counterpoint was in error, then you need to point out where I’m mistaken. Fair enough?

Finally, I need to know if you are actually willing to be convinced, because if you’re not, then it’s a waste of time for me to take your views as seriously as I have been.

As always, I’m sincerely enjoying the discussion and appreciate your thoroughness.

Sincerely,
BAM

Stoic, if you come upon a garden, don’t you deduce there is a gardener regardless of whether you see him or not? You keep using that example, but you’re setting yourself up for the classic teleological argument (design implies a designer). I’m reluctant to use the classic arguments (Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Moral) because I think they are ultimately useless, however, if you insist on using that analogy that is how I will respond. Also, you said:

“If you check your bible I don’t think you will find anyone in it coming to belief in this way…via deductive method. And certainly you won’t find anywhere in the bible anyone moving from such a deduction to its conclusion, “I therefore know God because I’ve deduced his existence!” Such a deduction may be satisfying to you; it may qualify as knowledge of God for you, but not so for me.”

Why you would even say this after my last post is beyond me; you are pretty much repeating what I said, and then saying I disagree with it. Neither the Bible nor I ever state that one can be “reasoned” into belief in God, because both the Bible and I state that man’s reason has been so affected by sin that his “reason” is impaired (or biased against God – the “noetic effects of sin”). I mean, it’s “reasonable” to believe that, “a garden implies a gardener” (to use your example), but you believe in a self created garden, and will not believe otherwise unless the Gardener personally visits you. But if the Gardener visits you and tells you he’s responsible, how would you know he wasn’t lying unless you were there to see it? You would still have to have “faith” in his word. Frankly, I don’t even think witnessing the Gardener making the world would be sufficient without the word of God to interpret the event. (The same could be said of Christ’s resurrection i.e. without the Bible interpreting that event as part of “the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God,” one could just as easily witness it first hand and conclude that some random Jewish guy beat the odds, came back from the dead, defied gravity, and floated into space to start a colony on the moon – who could dispute you?). Anyway.. so pretty much, you will not believe in God because you weren’t there to witness first hand him making the universe, and I maintain that even that wouldn’t help. I don’t have a time-machine to give you, nor special goggles that will help you see a spirit (if God were “material” he would not be God, because he would have to be caused by something else), but I do maintain that the Gardener did visit us and told us, and that His word is reliable. So all I can say (again) is read the Bible and compare it with the book of Mormon, Koran, etc. In my own research I find it to trustworthy, reliable, internally consistent and any contradiction is usually just sloppy reading or a minor scribal copyist error. I’ve read other “holy books” and cannot say the same for them. My 2 cents.

Also, this is my last post, but I sincerely wish you the best. God bless

BAM,

If you have been reading my posts to both you and GW, I think it’s fairly clear that I have searched, I have read, I have attempted to pray. If this does not convince you that I am a seeker, I’m not really sure what you’re looking for. My citation of the Exodus 3 passage as an answer to the question you asked would also give strong indication that I have taken the subject seriously, and considered the subject enough to know what Exodus 3, is alluding to. Moses “saw” and “heard” something that did not come as a result of reading some text, but is a reported as an encounter with God, and which occurred at Moses’s sensory level. At that point God became a “personal” God to Moses.

Now, assuming this event did take place, all we have of this “personal” God is a story of someone else’s experience. But reading about it does not give the reader the same. And if this event did in fact take place, then the question of the “personal” nature of God is highly suspect. If such a God wants a personal relationship, and does so by revealing him/her/itself to Moses via his sensory faculties, then that God can do the same for all.

So I’m left wondering if the story is true. And even more so when others try to tell me it’s true but can point to nothing to confirm it, other than some inner feeling or conviction they have.

So yes, evidence of such a God would need to be, at some level, sensory….especially since that is how we know anything. How else would Moses have known he had an encounter? If the bush had not burst into flame, if the voice had not been heard, Moses would not have “known” God. God met Moses at the sensory level.

As far as your question, “Are you willing to be convinced?” I would say yes. But if that means going forward on some rational exercise where I am led to a logical conclusion, then probably not. I’ve been down that road man times. Let’s just say that rational proof and direct knowledge are not the same thing. Somewhere in your bible it says that yours is “not the God of the philosophers.” I believe I know full well what that means! Knowing God is not the same as being convinced by some argument, or some exercise in rationality. Personal means “personal.” Arguments have a hard time giving that conviction of “knowing.”

You may have read the bumper sticker – ["That argument you had with your wife?...You didn't win!"] Point of the bumper sticker?: Even though you may present a convincing argument for why you are right, it is not always enough. Personal encounter is what is needed for conviction of a “personal” God.

Stoic, my friend,

I really appreciate where you’re coming from on all of this. I want to thank you for sticking with this discussion over the past few days and helping me understand your viewpoint.
I agree with you on so many points, but let me list the ones in particular that hit home with me as well.
I’ve experienced firsthand the kind of frustration you probably have felt in wondering what exactly religious people were talking about when they described these ethereal experiences of “hearing from God” or “feeling His presence”, etc. “Well how does that happen exactly”, would be my question and likely yours as well. That seems not only a fair question, but a fundamental one as well. After all, you have all of these people “experiencing” this God, but in ways that are frankly, untestable, aren’t they?

As you said, how is it really that different from no God at all? Well in my mind, and in yours, the answer is; very little. So, I actually agree with the validity of the question entirely! IF we are to expect that kind of confirmation, then how the heck do we experience it? For heaven’s sake, we’ve only got 5 senses and if these religious people are telling me it can’t be sensed that way, then what’s the difference between that God and no God?

Am I hitting the right note here? I fully and completely agree that -

1). IF personal, physical experience with God is to be expected to confirm His existence and
2). IF that experience is communicated in some way that we are not equipped to “sense” then
3). Logically, there is NO difference between God and no God

It may not disprove His existence, but for our purposes, the idea is useless isn’t it?

The sticking point I’ve really wanted to examine with you is located in that word “IF’. And let me be the first to tell you that this is a qualification that many Christians and religious people do not make. I think there’s so much confusion within Christianity itself, that the expectation and frustration you’re communicating to me as someone who is, relatively speaking, “outside” of the faith, is nearly identical to the frustration “within the faith.”

It’s that expectation at the outset followed by its requisite disappointment that lead to both of the chief problems in Christianity – apostasy (abandoning the faith) and heresy (teaching things that are directly opposed to the essential truths).

The reason why I kept hammering on the question of “how did you come to the conclusion that you are to expect a physical, personal experience” of God is the same reason I ask it to Christians. The bottom line is that, as you’ve likely been sensing (no pun intended), this idea may in fact not be expressed in the Bible the way so many Christians (often well intentioned, but poorly informed) characterize it.

I needed you to examine why you felt that you needed this kind of confirmation and to hammer down very specifically what that would look like. Further, I needed you to examine in Scripture where God ever gave us the idea that we could expect that kind of thing from Him as a normal experience as proof or as something critical to the Christian life.

The simple answer after much study and consideration on my part is that the Bible teaches no such thing. But, I must, as a matter of caring, refer you to someone who can explain these concepts much more elegantly than myself.

If you are as interested as you say, and I believe you are, I want to challenge to you examine a few brief articles which address the concerns I think are at the heart of what is frustrating you. They’re written by Dr. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, an organization which examines philosophy, religion, and ethics.

I’ve arranged them topically according to the concerns I picked up from reading your posts and I hope you’ll find them, if not compelling, at least thought provoking. I’m not a “blind faith” kind of person, and I don’t suspect you are either. So, if you’re serious about finding answers, here’s a good place to start.

1). A Critique of the Prevailing Christian Understanding of “Hearing” from God: You’ll enjoy this one quite a bit! If you only have time to read one, this is the one to read!

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5955

2). Relationship vs. Religion -examines the idea of what the heck people are talking about with this whole “personal relationship” business

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5533

3). General Overview of Christianity – just some broad, but foundational elements of the faith (most Christians don’t know these, so if you read this, you’ll have a leg up on 50%)

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5089

4). What is the value of Experience to Christianity & Are Our Senses Reliable? (a free downloadable mp3 of his radio show)

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Radio_Archives

Look for the show listed November 6, 2005 – 110605.mp3
If you register, you can download as many radio shows as you’d like (and no, they won’t send anyone to visit you at your house) haha!

That’s how I learned a lot over the past 3 years. I’ve just been downloading and reading and asking tough questions!

If you find the information interesting, search around the site. Greg hosts a call in radio show on Sundays and he’s one of the few folks who will actually take the time to talk about the issues that concern you. I’ve called in myself before and had a great dialogue with him on air. Again, if you’re really searching, then you owe it to yourself to have a chat with him.

Thanks again for the dialogue. It’s really been a pleasure. I’m going to keep checking by the site on my lunch breaks to see what you think if you’d like to keep chatting.

Until then!
Have a great night!

Sincerely,

BAM

Thanks BAM for the links. I will look into them!

And thanks for your candidness. Much appreciated!

Unfortunately, I can’t type much today…too busy a day! I will look at the links later this evening!

Regards!

Stoic

Deaf, dumb and blind boy he’s in a quiet vibration land. Strange as it seems his musical dreams ain’t quite so bad.

Cant belive that seeing this turned into a argument about if there is a god or not!!!

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.