Let me try to get this stuff straight:
1. God is all-powerful enough to create the universe but he needs my money for some reason.
2. God is all-powerful enough to create the universe but he requires the very beings he created to worship and adore him. In fact, that need is so strong that he'll cause any non-worshippers (his creations, too!) to spend an eternity in pain and torment.
3. God gave us a brain with which we can pursue knowledge though the use of logic and evidence, but requires us to accept his word about things without thinking, to the extent that seeking insight from the tree of knowledge is considered evil enough to condemn every generation of humans for all time with that sin committed by the very first humans.
4. God loves all his creations but is evidently willing to send them to eternal torment for various reasons, especially not believing in him and following his rules.
5. God is a jealous god (even though jealousy in humans at least is known to spring from a lack of self-confidence and trust), despite his infinite power, knowledge, wisdom, and benevolence.
6. God can become angry easily - so angry, in fact, he once wiped out nearly all life on the planet - just because his creations did what he himself created and empowered them to do.
7. God evidently creates all homosexuals (since they can't reproduce on their own) but then says that homosexuals are evil and should be killed. And the point of creating them in the first place was ... ?
8. God is in an eternal battle with one of his own angels, but is apparently waiting for the right time to put an end to a conflict that's causing untold numbers of human casualties in the meantime, even though he's infinitely powerful.
9. God sent his own son to die for the sins of all humans (even newborns), but it wasn't actually his son - instead it was himself in human form and he often had conversations with himself until he caused the son-form to be killed by humans - but not really - before rising from the dead so he could sit side-by-side with himself (which also includes a ghostly form) in paradise.
10. God created everything out of nothing.
11. God made women just to be companions to men and to do anything their man told them to do.
12. God is o.k. with slavery - just follow certain rules and it's no problem enslaving others.
13. God is o.k. with genocide - again, follow certain rules and you'll be fine.
14. God apparently gave us pretty limited brainpower compared to him, so we can't possibly understand why he allows pain and anguish to be visited upon us for no apparent reason.
15. God is all-powerful and knows everything (past, present, and future) - so he must know what we mere humans are going to do and in fact must have created us to do whatever we are destined to do - but somehow in there, we're supposed to have free will.
16. God designed a perfect universe just for human beings - but put a sun in the sky that can cause us to develop cancer, produces all sorts of natural disasters, and pits one tribe of humans against another to the point they go to war and slaughter each other.
17. God knows everything about us, including all our deepest thoughts and subconscious desires, but demands we go to his place of worship and swear oaths of loyalty to him over and over at least weekly for our entire lives.
18. God grants mercy and forgiveness - so much so that no matter how violent and malevolent one's deeds, if you become a believer at the very end of your life, every misdeed is instantly forgiven and he's fine with you living forever in joy and happiness (alongside the victims of your violence, but they'll be there only if they're smart enough to believe in him, too).
19. God created a universe so large, its size is beyond human comprehension and there's very little chance we'll ever be able to visit more than a tiny part of that vastness, just for us on one tiny planet. Apparently, we have a lot of lebensraum, although almost all of it is utterly hostile to human life.
20. God created humans in his own image, but humans encompass a vast diversity of physical traits, leaving it pretty ambiguous which of us is truly in his image.
I may add more as thoughts occur to me ...
Winter Solistice
10 hours ago
6 comments:
The question is not about who created the Universe, but instead, who gave the Universe order? Does your sock drawer spontaneously order itself? Does your garden hose coil up all by itself after use? Does your bed make itself in the morning?
Come on, man, use the reasoning and logic you claim you've got. The chaos of the big bang would have remained an entropic mass if someone, or perhaps something, hadn't imposed order under a system of natural law. I can't prove the existence of God anymore than the atheist who claims there isn't one can disprove it. So that's a wash.
But even a simple man like me can infer the creator's existence by examining the laws that universe operates under. The supreme spirit who created all the natural laws science ever has or ever will "discover" will prove his own existence to everybody, on his own schedule. Til then, he surely laughs at these mere mortal skeptics demanding such proof. It's coming, all right. But you're free not to believe this and it's not my place to convince you. You've got to figure it out on your own.
Mark,
I hate to be the one to inform you, but your arguments are not news and are actually fallacious.
Spontaneous organization in certain circumstances as a consequence of known physical laws is a scientific fact. Your sock drawer/garden hose/bed examples are certainly valid examples of non-spontaneous actions but they fail completely to preclude the reality that self-organizing structures can and do exist in the universe.
The system of natural law that you propose is precisely what organized the universe after the big bang, insofar as science understands those processes. The imposit
Your "wash" is true insofar as it goes, but fails completely to understand the notion of "proof" versus the scientific principle of "the preponderance of evidence" (which incorporates the absence of credible evidence). I've written on this topic in older blogs.
That there is order in the universe is not in dispute, but I choose to avoid postulating a being when I have no credible evidence for the existence of such a being. If some imaginary creator is laughing at the beings he created for their fumbling efforts to understand the universe, then he's not a being worthy of my veneration or even respect.
But thanks for granting me my constitutional rights to my own opinions on this topic.
Edit of my previous post: The third paragraph should read:
The system of natural law that you propose is precisely what organized the universe after the big bang, insofar as science understands those processes. The imposition of a creator is unnecessary and illogical when you have sufficient knowledge of natural laws. If you want to assume such a being, I can't prevent you, nor do I even wish to try to prevent you.
I received additional comments from Mr. Hedley that were mostly off-topic, failed to address the points I made, and were notably ad hominem attacks on me and my ShockNet Radio colleagues. There's no value in allowing such an exchange to continue, so I'm no longer publishing any comments from Mr. Hedley.
For the most part I cannot agree with the point of this post, but I suppose I will bite, and will even play devil's advocate by giving you a little ammo since you might add more.
You forgot that God, in creating this beautiful world and "seeing that it was good," gave this world to us for us to "subdue and replenish," and is apparently fine with us running rampant over the environment for corporate gain. What does it really matter if we're going Heaven anyway, right?
Not that I'm actually believe it's okay...I was being rhetorical...in fact, I think God's probably pretty ticked off about the damage we've done to the planet. I think we've invoked the subdue clause pretty well, but not the replenish clause. And I do believe that in Ancient Israel he gave laws/provisions related to the conservation of natural resources in the land (Leviticus 25:20-22).
I'm a little surprised you didn't mention that since you care deeply for the environment and the consequences of using it.
On an off-topic point, one day I would like to see your thoughts on those miserable, guilt-trip-happy chain letters and pictures they pass around on the internet and email.
Garrett,
I appreciate your contribution, despite your evidence disagreement with the point of my post. If I think about it long enough, I'm sure I could come up with hundreds of such points to make. As you observe, my concerns about the environment make my attitude pretty negative toward the widespread use of the "dominion" argument to justify all sorts of environmental abuse. But it's probably not a point that would be high on the list to include in this blog post.
As for chain letters ... I can't say when or if I'll be sufficiently exercised about it to post something.
Post a Comment