this letter dedicated to Rikbe

[hakancan]

i am in summer holiday for 1 week and i havent enough time for internet also i didnt read all you wrote when i return home i will read and answer bye

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Rikbe
Because the whole issue about creation is contradicted by science.

That statement is more than a bit premature. Nothing in science contradicts the idea of a creator God. In fact, the Big Bang theory comes close to proving that the universe had a beginning, which in my opinion would necessitate the existence of a creator God. Of course, we won't know for sure whether the universe had a beginning or not until we develop a unified theory of quantum gravity and we can see past the Planck time. If you were basing your beliefs about God solely on logic, you would do the intelligent thing and suspend judgment until science has gathered all of the relevant information.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Because there is not one proof that a God ever interfered in this world. I don't take the stories and fairy tales of Bible and Koran as evidences.

There is no indisputable proof, but there is certainly a huge mass of evidence. Also, it's quite immature to dismiss the Bible as fantasy a priori just because it contains large elements of the supernatural. Examine the evidence first. You will find that archeology has repeatedly confirmed the historical validity of large parts of the Bible.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Because the God figure responds to the psychological need of immature people for a father figure and what people can not have, they imagine.

Again, that is an immature statement. Not everyone who chooses a theistic philosophy does so to fulfill their emotional needs. There are plenty of theists who base their philosophy on reason and logic. There are also plenty of atheists who reject God for purely emotional reasons. There is wish fulfillment on both sides of the aisle.

In A Grief Observed C. S. Lewis (someone who went from Atheism to Christianity based on logic) noted that even when he was neck deep in marital bliss, and had every one of his physical and psychological needs satisfied, he still felt a strong connection to God. This led him to totally reject the idea that God is an emotional construct designed to satisfy our need to be loved while we wait for the real thing.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Because there is no the logic in the whole issue.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is an extremely well hought out world view, built upon solid, logical philisophical foundations. To learn about them, I would recommend Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lan Craig and J. P. Moreland.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Why did he create diseases, pain and suffering? WHy he created evil? A perfect being would create a perfect universe, not the bunch of exploding rocks that are all around us (I mean stars).
If there was a God, he would be evil, megalomaniac and sadist. But according your religion, he is perfect.

Theodicy is a complex issue. If you want to learn about it, I would recommend The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis, and When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Kushner.

Originally posted by Rikbe
How can you believe in such a God?
The answer is that you were brainwashed from your birth till now and therefore you cannot imagine there is no God. They have blocked your brain by the menace that you will go to hell if you have doubts. You believe because you are too scared to do not.

Now you're just ignoring facts. There are thousands of people who are not raised religiously, yet become religious of their own volition, as adults, after seeing how hollow atheistic philosophy is. Lots of them go on to write good books, such as Chesterton, Lewis, etc.

[Rikbe]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

That statement is more than a bit premature. Nothing in science contradicts the idea of a creator God.

Science contradicts the Bible.
Nothing in science indicates ther is a God.

In fact, the Big Bang theory comes close to proving that the universe had a beginning, which in my opinion would necessitate the existence of a creator God.

The Big Bang theory explains the beginnning of our universe as we know it. Not the creation of it.

Of course, we won't know for sure wheather the universe had a beginning or not until we develop a unified theory of quantum gravity and we can see past the Planck time. If you were basing your beliefs about God solely on logic, you would do the intelligent thing and suspend judgment until science has gathered all of the relevant information.

When I am in a discussion with someone who leaves no possibility for the non-existance of God, I use similar arguments.
I wrote earlier, "if it would be proven there is a creator, it would in no way affect my reasoning nor my way of living". If it would be proven there is one, it would affect dramatically the life of all believers.

I think our science is only in it's childhood and it is indeed premature to conclude there is no creator. But it is totally immature to base a life and way of living on the existance of it. Result is narrow-mind thinking and intolerance.

There is no indisputable proof, but there is certainly a huge mass of evidence. Also, it's quite immature to dismiss the Bible as fantasy a priori just because it contains large elements of the supernatural. Examine the evidence first. You will find that archeology has repeatedly confirmed the historical validity of large parts of the Bible.

Till now, no one was able to give me evidences. The Bible stories are not only supernatural, they are also illogical.
That the Bible relates historical facts does not mean the theological allegations are correct.

Again, that is an immature statement. Not everyone who chooses a theistic philosophy does so to fulfill their emotional needs. There are plenty of theists who base their philosophy on reason and logic.

They use logic to proof their prejudices. They all start with stating there IS a creator and from there they build a "logical" reasoning to proof it. That is immature because that statement on wich is build their reasoning is not a fact, but an assumption. If this assumption appers to be false, their whole reasoning collapses.

There are also plenty of atheists who reject God for purely emotional reasons. There is wish fulfillment on both sides of the aisle.

True, I do not consider them as real Atheists.

In A Grief Observed C. S. Lewis (someone who went from Atheism to Christianity based on logic) noted that even when he was neck deep in marital bliss, and had every one of his physical and psychological needs satisfied, he still felt a strong connection to God. This led him to totally reject the idea that God is an emotional construct designed to satisfy our need to be loved while we wait for the real thing.

I would like to read a psychological analysis of this Lewis.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is an extremely well hought out world view, built upon solid, logical philisophical foundations. To learn about them, I would recommend Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lan Craig and J. P. Moreland.

As I wrote, it is base on the assumption that there is a creator. Not a solid foundation IMO.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Why did he create diseases, pain and suffering? WHy he created evil? A perfect being would create a perfect universe, not the bunch of exploding rocks that are all around us (I mean stars).
If there was a God, he would be evil, megalomaniac and sadist. But according your religion, he is perfect.

Theodicy is a complex issue.
[/quote][/b]
Let's assume the IS a God. WOuld there be any creature capable to understand him? I don't think so and yet, all believers know exactly what God thinks, what God wants, when and why he is anry and when and why he is happy.
But all believers disagree with each other.
They even kill each other for it.

Now you're just ignoring facts. There are thousands of people who are not raised religiously, yet become religious of their own volition, as adults, after seeing how hollow atheistic philosophy is. Lots of them go on to write good books, such as Chesterton, Lewis, etc.

Yes, un-educated people that have no philosophy of their own and they convert under influence of religious experts in brainwashing, called missionaries.
I would not call my philosphy hollow, it satisfies me fully for already 40 years.

Sorry, I am not familiar in English litterature. THe only Chesterton I know is G.K. and he wrote funny detective stories about a Father Brown. I am not sure you mean the same.

[Rikbe]

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Rikbe
Science contradicts the Bible.
Nothing in science indicates ther is a God.

In light of the anthropic principle, it would seem that the only two ways to explain the existence of intelligent life are God and multiverse theory. I reject multiverse theory.

Originally posted by Rikbe
But it is totally immature to base a life and way of living on the existance of it. Result is narrow-mind thinking and intolerance.

Most religious believers base their beliefs on a lot more than cosmology and metaphysics. They feel God working in their lives, and see God working in history. Also, it's immature to claim that religion always results in narrowmindedness and intolerance. From my personal experience, more often than not it results in charity and fraternal love.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Till now, no one was able to give me evidences. The Bible stories are not only supernatural, they are also illogical.
That the Bible relates historical facts does not mean the theological allegations are correct.

Ok, I'll provide some.
1. The phenomenon of predictive prophecy. I will use the book of Daniel as representative of the whole Bible. Parenthesis indicate historical background. Everything else is taken straight from the text.

Daniel predicted that the Greeks would conquer Medio-Persia and build a large empire (which they did under Alexander the Great), which would subsequently split into 4 smaller empires (Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Cassander). The Northern and Soutern empires would struggle back and forth, with the Northern (Seleucid) empire eventually gaining the upper hand. From the Northern empire there would arise a leader (Antiochus Epiphanus) who would brutally opress the Jews and suspend the temple service in Jerusalem. However, the Jews would eventually defeat their opressor (Maccabean rebellion) and after 2,300 days from the time it was ended (171 B.C. to Dec. 25, 165 B.C.), the temple service would be restored. There are only 2 ways to explain this phenomenon. Either the Bible is inspired of God or the prophecies were written after the events they claim to have foretold. However, all of the internal and external evidence regarding the date of composition of Daniel suggests that it was written shortly after the Persians conquered Babylon.

2. The remarkable history of ancient Israel. The Wellhausen gang tried to reconstruct Israel's history based on the presupposition that there never was any supernatural interference. Their view of history has since been shown to be far less accurate than the one recorded in the Bible.

3. The Resurrection. It is possible to build a powerful case for the Resurrection of Christ based on known historical facts. See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...832717-2433542
and
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

4. Miracles. They are well documented. The evidence may not meet Hume's criteria, but then again, his purpose was to raise the bar so high that nothing could get over it.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm
http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsa0010.htm

Originally posted by Rikbe
As I wrote, it is base on the assumption that there is a creator. Not a solid foundation IMO.

From philisophical and historical arguments, it is possible to logically conclude that God's existence is probable. Going from "it is probable that God exists" to "I am positive that God exists" is where faith comes in.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Let's assume the IS a God. WOuld there be any creature capable to understand him? I don't think so and yet, all believers know exactly what God thinks, what God wants, when and why he is anry and when and why he is happy.

It would be impossible to understand God, unless He chose to reveal Himself to His creatures. This is the basis of most religions.

Originally posted by Rikbe
But all believers disagree with each other.
They even kill each other for it.

Don't throw all believers in the same boat. Look at Bono, the Pope, and Mother Teresa.

Originally posted by Rikbe
Sorry, I am not familiar in English litterature. THe only Chesterton I know is G.K. and he wrote funny detective stories about a Father Brown. I am not sure you mean the same.

One and the same. Chesterton's most famous theological works are Orthodoxy: the Romance of Faith and The Everlasting Man.

[Shenlong]

"Prophecies"

How many times has the bible been re-written?

[Shenlong]

There are so many Gods and creation stories out there that there is practically no way to tell wich is divine and the only way to do that is to provide evidence. Without evidence there is no way of to determine wich is true. Therefore the theory with the most evidence has a higher chance of being true. I have not seen any evidence for the biblical creation story that would make it more divine over other creations stories (Greek Mythology, Pagan Creation, etc.). The only theory that actually has evidence to support it is evolution. The more evidence the more credible, therefore it evolution has the lead awhile the biblical creation story has remained at the starting line for about 2000 years.

Same with Gods - There are so many known to the human race that it is hard would be impossible to tell wich is divine and the only way to do that is to provide evidence. Unfortunately no one has been able to bring forth evidence that supports the existence of the suggested God. Leaving that God in competition for divinity with an infinite other possible Gods. Wich leads us to inquire, Why resort to a single god and not to more then 1?

Where is the logic into concluding to such a conclusion?

How do you know that God doesnt know that he was created by a higher more powerful God that doesnt know he was created by an endless chain of god-producing gods in wich are all stronger then each other?

Here is where Occam takes action
Just take the simpler answer!
(Infinite Universe; Where as a big bang sends all matter to the other side of the universe where it remeets in order to cause another big bang)

[Rikbe]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

In light of the anthropic principle, it would seem that the only two ways to explain the existence of intelligent life are God and multiverse theory. I reject multiverse theory.

You asume the AP to be correct.

Most religious believers base their beliefs on a lot more than cosmology and metaphysics. They feel God working in their lives, and see God working in history. Also, it's immature to claim that religion always results in narrowmindedness and intolerance. From my personal experience, more often than not it results in charity and fraternal love.

Most believers are believers because they have been told since they were a baby that thay HAVE to believe.
Babies usually don't know much about cosmology and metaphysics. Most of them never question themselves about if their blief is correct or not. Anf if they do, they feel a strong feeling of guilt because they were told never to doubt, cause this would lead to hell.

I do not feel God working in my life, and not in history. That some feel this is because of their indoctrination.
WHat I see everywhere are proofs of ecvolution.

Ok, I'll provide some.
1. The phenomenon of predictive prophecy. I will use the book of Daniel as representative of the whole Bible. Parenthesis indicate historical background. Everything else is taken straight from the text.

Daniel predicted that the Greeks would conquer Medio-Persia and build a large empire (which they did under Alexander the Great), which would subsequently split into 4 smaller empires (Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Cassander). The Northern and Soutern empires would struggle back and forth, with the Northern (Seleucid) empire eventually gaining the upper hand. From the Northern empire there would arise a leader (Antiochus Epiphanus) who would brutally opress the Jews and suspend the temple service in Jerusalem. However, the Jews would eventually defeat their opressor (Maccabean rebellion) and after 2,300 days from the time it was ended (171 B.C. to Dec. 25, 165 B.C.), the temple service would be restored. There are only 2 ways to explain this phenomenon. Either the Bible is inspired of God or the prophecies were written after the events they claim to have foretold. However, all of the internal and external evidence regarding the date of composition of Daniel suggests that it was written shortly after the Persians conquered Babylon.
2. The remarkable history of ancient Israel. The Wellhausen gang tried to reconstruct Israel's history based on the presupposition that there never was any supernatural interference. Their view of history has since been shown to be far less accurate than the one recorded in the Bible.

As Shenlong said, the Bible has been rewritten numerous times, it is logical to conclude it has been corrected as many times.

3. The Resurrection. It is possible to build a powerful case for the Resurrection of Christ based on known historical facts. See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...832717-2433542
and
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

4. Miracles. They are well documented. The evidence may not meet Hume's criteria, but then again, his purpose was to raise the bar so high that nothing could get over it.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm
http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsa0010.htm

During 1500 years after the death of JC, the church has completely dominated the science and litterature. Enough time to make up evidences.

Miracles have a far more logical explanation by psychology.

From philisophical and historical arguments, it is possible to logically conclude that God's existence is probable. Going from "it is probable that God exists" to "I am positive that God exists" is where faith comes in.

So, no logic, only faith.

It would be impossible to understand God, unless He chose to reveal Himself to His creatures. This is the basis of most religions.

ut he never did. Only some pepole pretend he did to them, what gave the considerable materialistic advantages.

Don't throw all believers in the same boat. Look at Bono, the Pope, and Mother Teresa.

There has not been ONE pope, but many of them and a lot were corrupt.
I don't know BOno and Mother Theresa I only know from name.
I did not write that ALL believers are bad, but I don't think that there is much difference in the good/bad ratio in a Religious community, than in an Atheist one. That ratio has IMO nothing to do with religion but with education. An Atheist can teach the same morality to his children as a Christian, but without telling them it comes from God, and the result will be the same, they will mostly follow the rules in their later life. Probably better if the the logic of these rules are explained, rather than to say: "God told so". I remember that when I was child, that kind of answers were very frustrating.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Shenlong
How many times has the bible been re-written?

There is no evidence that the Bible has ever been rewitten, save the replacement of a few archaic words with their modern synonym, and small explanatory notations inserted into the Gospels. The Jews were incredibly scrupulous in preserving the integrity of their sacred texts. Consider this: the Masoretic text of the Old Testament was transcribed in the 10th century. The manuscripts found at Qumran (dead sea scrolls) were transcribed before 150 B.C., yet they are nearly identical to the Masoretic text. The Jews have preserved their Bible in nealy the original form. A few numbers are now off by a decimal place. That's it. That's all the corruption that has entered the text after 1000s of years of transcription.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Shenlong
There are so many Gods and creation stories out there that there is practically no way to tell wich is divine and the only way to do that is to provide evidence. Without evidence there is no way of to determine wich is true. Therefore the theory with the most evidence has a higher chance of being true. I have not seen any evidence for the biblical creation story that would make it more divine over other creations stories (Greek Mythology, Pagan Creation, etc.). The only theory that actually has evidence to support it is evolution. The more evidence the more credible, therefore it evolution has the lead awhile the biblical creation story has remained at the starting line for about 2000 years.

That's why people interpret the Biblical Creation story metaphorically.

Originally posted by Shenlong
Same with Gods - There are so many known to the human race that it is hard would be impossible to tell wich is divine and the only way to do that is to provide evidence. Unfortunately no one has been able to bring forth evidence that supports the existence of the suggested God. Leaving that God in competition for divinity with an infinite other possible Gods. Wich leads us to inquire, Why resort to a single god and not to more then 1?

I have provided evidence in favor of the existence of God. It was 2 posts ago.

If you want detailed philisophical argument, read The Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview. If you want to know why the Christian God is far more credible than the Greco-Roman gods, read The City of God by Saint Augustine.

Originally posted by Shenlong
Here is where Occam takes action
Just take the simpler answer!
(Infinite Universe; Where as a big bang sends all matter to the other side of the universe where it remeets in order to cause another big bang)

The oscillating model of the universe isn't the most well supported.

[Edited by Fear_nam_Beanntan on 15th July 2003 at 11:57]

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Rikbe
You asume the AP to be correct.

I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Rikbe
I do not feel God working in my life, and not in history. That some feel this is because of their indoctrination.

Or it could be because they have a genuine, familial relationship with a deity.

Originally posted by Rikbe
WHat I see everywhere are proofs of ecvolution.

Natural selection is certainly a real phenomenon. But it has not yet been established that it is the only force involved in evolution. To me, irreduceably complex systems and a punctuated equilibrium imply interference from an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by Rikbe
As Shenlong said, the Bible has been rewritten numerous times, it is logical to conclude it has been corrected as many times.

Except it hasn't been rewritten. There is no evidence. Why would a people who believed that if they changed the Bible, God would smite them, change the Bible?

Originally posted by Rikbe
During 1500 years after the death of JC, the church has completely dominated the science and litterature. Enough time to make up evidences.

If you actually read the links you will find they refer to recent events.

Originally posted by Rikbe
So, no logic, only faith.

Logic establishes that theism is a tenable philosophical system, and that there is credible evidence of interference from above. Faith takes off from there. You should read Fides et Ratio by John Paul II. It is available at http://www.vatican.va

Originally posted by Rikbe
ut he never did. Only some pepole pretend he did to them, what gave the considerable materialistic advantages.

Mohammed may have benefitted materially from his claims to be a prophet. However, most of the Old Testament prophets got nothing but crap for telling people God's word. Also, Jesus was dirt poor His entire life. He devoted Himself to teaching and charity. Pure altruism. He even gave up His life. The apostles followed suit. They gave up their entire lives to preach the Gospel, and many were martyred.

One would expect a charlatan to renounce his claim to divine revalation if people were going to kill him for it.

You can't claim that people who live a life of poverty and service in the name of their religion are "in it for the money."

Originally posted by Rikbe
An Atheist can teach the same morality to his children as a Christian, but without telling them it comes from God, and the result will be the same, they will mostly follow the rules in their later life. Probably better if the the logic of these rules are explained, rather than to say: "God told so". I remember that when I was child, that kind of answers were very frustrating.

I agree. Religious parents should explain to their children the logic of why God told so, when it is discernable.

[Shenlong]

King James rewrote the bible.

[Shenlong]

How is it logical that if complexity derived from complexity would be finite instead of being looped?

If complexity derives from complexity then it must, by its own rule, be infinitely looped.

If our complex universe derived from a complex designer then where is the logic in saying there is no other higher complex power that designed that designer with a complex design?

I dont know about you but I dont find that logical.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Shenlong
King James rewrote the bible.

So get a different translation that is more faithful to the original manuscripts. NAS, NAB, RSV, etc.