Sunday, December 03, 2006
Green v. AG - Round IV [part i]: Point
(Ed. note: Due to the ever increasing lengths of these posts, I'm now putting my letters and AG's responses in separate posts, in an attempt to break it up and hopefully make it a bit easier to read. Parts ii and iii follow)
Two weeks later we went at it again...
From: Green
To: American Guy
Subject: finally! My response.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003
AG:
Sorry it's taken me two weeks to reply to your last message. I could accredit the reason to laziness, but that's not true (entirely). I did attend a conference last week that took up my prime e-mail and web-surfing time. However, I've tried to put a lot of coherent thought into this letter, in our ongoing discussion. And since it's been so long I figured I better make this email a good one. Let me also say that I jumped ahead last time with a few additional questions, because I needed to be sure of your response, before I went any further.
Regarding evolution: Last I checked, science was still calling this the "Theory of Evolution" and not just "Evolution," unless, of course, evolution was conclusively proven while I wasn't looking. For the record, the definition of evolution is either the adaptation of species to their surrounding environments over time OR as the theory that life on Earth gradually developed from simple to more complex organisms. While we're at it, lets define theory as:
1) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well
established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3) a system of rules or principals
4) contemplation or speculation
5) guess or conjecture
Let me use an illustration pirated from The Truth: God or Evolution by Marshall and Sandra Hall... "So if evolution is correct we've developed from single celled organisms over time to the complex humans we are today. Consider one of the smallest organs in the human body, the eye, and see (no pun intended) if it logically could have taken the evolutionary route. If it didn't, then could we reasonably deduce that it came from the hands of an intelligent designer (God)? Here's the case: If you were to take away any part of the eye, -the retina for example- the eye doesn't work. Subtract the lens? No sight. Take away the cornea? Blindness. For the eye to function, all parts must be present and functional. That in itself is a strong argument for design. But lets go in another direction. Take the concept back into the evolutionary chain. Somewhere along the way, a creature making it's way to humanity would have had to begin having an eye. But how did it start? The eye couldn't have evolved, because there was nothing that would have caused a creature to begin forming a sightless eye. Since the evolutionary theory says changes come about by adaptation, what would have caused an eye-less thing to will a useless eye into its head? How would it know it would ever need an eye that could see? An eye can either see or it can't. There is no reason for a creature to develop a partial eye just so it could become a seeing eye later. So where did the eye begin? Randomly, or by design? The mind staggering intricacy of the eye and the interrelatedness of all necessary parts (irreducible complexity) attests to a God who knew what He was doing."
Now if evolution is true, from simple organisms to complex, that would explain the physical side of life more thoroughly, but what about nonphysical things such as morality and conscience? These things are not physical, yet they exist as surely as any physical object. To go one step further, why are humans the only creatures that have morals and conscience? Why didn't lobsters develop consciences? How about that raccoon? Do you think it's morality would be troubled about the right or wrongness of ripping open some trash because it smelled food inside, only to regret it later? (Ah, I digress...)
I don't claim to be an expert on the classification of fossils and the like, but evolution, in it's broadest sense just doesn't make sense. So, if I must, I'll classify myself in the evolution by intelligent design camp, as you figured I would.
I'll agree with you, that the concept of everlasting life and of eternity is unfathomable. I will also agree that most people feel that death is inescapable. The reason that the concept of "there is no 'what comes next'" is so difficult to grasp is because the concept is wrong, inaccurate, and just not true. How can I be sure aside from my faith that there is spiritual existence after death? Truth is I can't. Unless I knew of someone who died but is no longer dead... Well what do you know, I'm in luck. I do know of just such a person.
I asked you the 2+2 question (a loaded question if ever I saw one - 400 pages, eh? Wow!) to help illustrate my next point, which is simply this - No matter how convincingly I or anyone try to tell you that there is another answer other than four to that equation, you'd think they were nuts, because you KNOW what the answer is, and you can prove it in those 400 pages. The same can be said about religion. There can only be one true religion and all the rest are false. And it can be proven - just count the total number of pages in your typical Bible. So my point is that it is a grave error to equate Christianity with any other religion, because there is no comparison between the two. Let me use another brief but silly illustration: I think you'll agree that all Chevrolets are cars, but not all cars are Chevrolets, right? Christianity certainly is a religion, but no other religion can match Christianity.
Why? You can visit the grave site of every single founder of every single religion the world has ever known, and that grave site will still be occupied! Also, you can bet that people who believe in that particular religion, and who guard said grave site would have you be reverent and respectful, so as not to disturb the remains of said religious founder. But with Christianity, this is all irrelevant. Certainly you can visit the proposed grave sites of Jesus (there are two, and I have) but you won't find a body at either one, because Christianity is based on the HISTORICAL FACT that it's founder is alive, even though He was quite publicly executed by crucifixion. In fact, Christianity would be worthless and would singularly be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by man if Jesus Christ were still dead.
You see, a funny thing happened to the Romans who ruled Judea in the first century. They either feared or hated this new sect called "Christians" so much that they thought that they could wipe out Christianity by getting rid of places that Christians considered sacred. How? By building temples to their pagan gods on the places that early Christians revered. So, in their zeal to destroy Christianity at its roots, the Romans unwittingly preserved these places ad infinitum, simply by where they built their temples. Because of these buildings, (later generations built churches over the remains of the Roman era buildings) we know today, within a few feet, precisely where the events spoken of in the Bible took place. For example, when we (My ex and I) visited Israel in 1996, we went to the ruins of a town called Capernaum. We stood in the remains of a Roman temple from the fourth century AD that was built directly on the foundation of a Jewish synagogue from the first century, which the Bible records that Jesus taught in. I have a great picture of the two foundations, and the contrast in the stone is remarkable.
Now if Jesus were still dead, and if there were an actual body and an occupied tomb that we knew about, it would have to be one of the most heavily guarded places on earth, then and now, between the pilgrims visiting in reverence or would be plunderers trying to desecrate it, throughout the centuries. So, let me assure you that you can feel confident that there is no hidden tomb out there with Jesus bones still in it.
Aside from the lack of an occupied tomb, we must consider the lives of those men who were disciples of Jesus. The Bible records that all of his disciples saw Him alive after the fact, nail wounds and stab wound still visible and even that he spoke to as many as 500 people at once afterwards, many of whom lived well after the resurrection. Back to his disciples: these were not highly educated men, fishermen for the most part, who got scared and deserted Him the night he was arrested and who became some of the most powerful speakers and writers of that day. Most of whom were martyred for their beliefs by the Romans. Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be willing to die for something that I knew was a lie, would you? Josephus (a secular Jewish historian of the first century) records some details of the deaths of these men.
Also, consider the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. I can't think of another culture and race that has been through as much as they have. Historically, the Jewish people have been through much. Consider these remarkable HISTORICAL FACTS: The Jewish people have considered Israel their homeland for roughly 4,000 years. They were first slaves in Egypt (most historians say in the time of Seti and Rameses II.) They left Egypt, conquered many peoples who lived in Canaan, who were more numerous and much stronger than they, after wandering around in the desert for 40 years. They were invaded and conquered by the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans. The most sacred place in Jerusalem (the temple), was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BC, rebuilt about 120 years later. This second temple was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD (Islamic Dome of the Rock and Al Asqua mosques occupy the site now). In 135 AD the Jews were kicked out of Israel and prohibited from returning or be killed. They were scattered amongst the nations, and were subjected to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, and Holocaust, not to mention wrongly persecuted from countless Christians (acting in the name of God) throughout the centuries, just for being Jewish. And it wasn't until May 14, 1948 that they were allowed back into their homeland, with Jerusalem under their control for the first time since before the invasion of Babylon, YET they managed to survive and retain their culture and racial identity, even though they were without a homeland for almost 1,900 years.
Why is this significant? The Bible says they are God's chosen people. Why is peace in the Middle East always front page news? Civil Wars happen all the time throughout history and usually don't get much more than a passing glance in history, but Israel vs. Palestine and the rest of the Arab world? Front page news since 1948. Why is this particular conflict so engrossing? Because Israel is God's people and country. Jews vs. Arabs? - the greatest family feud that the world has ever seen, or ever will. Both Arabs and Jews consider Abraham their common ancestor. Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son is the progenitor of the Arabs and Isaac, the younger son, is the progenitor of the Jews.
I mention the Bible a lot in this message. Let's consider it for a moment. It was written by about 40 men over a span of 1,500 years or so (the last book, Revelation was written in 95 AD) and in more than three different countries (Israel, Babylon (modern day Iraq), Egypt, Rome and other cities in Greece and modern Turkey). It was also originally written in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). And since translated into Latin and many other languages since. Yet, the Bible has been miraculously preserved throughout the centuries, before the computer age, with remarkable accuracy, as the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the 1940's in a cave near the Dead Sea can attest.
The Bible is never contradictory of itself (there are parts that are hard to understand, certainly, but all seeming contradictions when studied out show what remarkable harmony it has). Further, it has never been proven inaccurate in the field of Archaeology. True, there are parts of the Bible which Archaeology hasn't verified yet, but so far is "dead on accurate".
Also consider that about a third of the Bible is prophetic. Many of the events the Bible talks about had not happened when the original manuscripts were written. Of those prophecies that have been fulfilled so far, 100% of them have happened exactly as predicted. Some of the prophecies written about in the Bible still are awaiting fulfillment. Based on previous track record, you can expect the Bible to continue to be 100% accurate. Just to give you two examples, Isaiah makes several predictions about details surrounding Jesus. Isaiah wrote 700 years before Jesus was born. History will tell you that there have been four world dominating empires in history: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. The Old Testament book of Daniel, written during the Babylonian and (beginning of) the Medo-Persian empires predicted this, not once, but twice! Also, Daniel alludes to the reformation of the Roman Empire, of which I believe the European Union is a forerunner and is happening in our modern world. So what does this have to do with the present argument?
Why otherwise would sacred texts (the modern Old Testament) from an (historically speaking) otherwise insignificant little group of people from an otherwise insignificant little country in the Middle East and writings from an offshoot of Judaism known as Christianity (the New Testament) be the most read and (still) best selling book of all time? That is nothing to say of the fact that the Bible is the most written about book and most hotly debated book in the history of the world? Simply because there is a God out there who not only exists, but has been the inspiration behind the authors of the Bible and that this God has had everything to do with it's remarkable preservation throughout history.
So, as you can see, my faith is not just some willy-nilly thing, (my term, not yours) but is well grounded in history and fact. Now I know I went off on several tangents there, but the bottom line is this: I believe that we have a soul and that there is life after death because a very credible source has "been there" and "done that." And since that source was and is God, who by definition is incapable of lying, it goes without saying, though I will anyway, that I believe it.
About Jesus, you previously said that you agree that He was a historical figure and that he was a religious man and a prophet in the usual sense of the word (whatever that means). C.S. Lewis, Cambridge University professor, author and former atheist candidly sums Jesus up this way:
In your email of April 23, 2002, you said that your beliefs may have been different if you hadn't been forced into Catholicism as a youth, and that you're not entirely sure that there is no God. I'll bet growing up that you were never really exposed to the Bible by your church or encouraged to read and or study it on your own. And that you were more or less force fed the precepts that Catholicism teaches, with out having an opportunity to discover for yourself if what you were being force fed was true or not. I hope that I've gotten you to think thoroughly through your present beliefs and allow for the possibility that you might be missing something. I can tell you and you already know that there are many people out there who discount the existence of God. I can also tell you that there are those who, in their effort to disprove the existence of God, have become believers in the very thing that they were trying to disprove. I think it's interesting that you gave zero chance that Jesus is God, yet you assign to the realm of possibility that "the most extraordinary events can and do happen" in regard to the marvelous universe we live in. Your Oxham's Razor principle is a great example. All things being equal, is it easier to believe in the random chaos of the universe, suddenly having precise order to the nth degree simply by chance or that there is a God behind it all, who knew what He was doing? Oxham's Razor says the simple solution is usually the correct one. Again, I say the God solution is simpler to believe than the other.
Let me end this extremely lengthy email with this quote from Robert Jastrow, an astrophysicist and (former?) director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
Green
Two weeks later we went at it again...
From: Green
To: American Guy
Subject: finally! My response.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003
AG:
Sorry it's taken me two weeks to reply to your last message. I could accredit the reason to laziness, but that's not true (entirely). I did attend a conference last week that took up my prime e-mail and web-surfing time. However, I've tried to put a lot of coherent thought into this letter, in our ongoing discussion. And since it's been so long I figured I better make this email a good one. Let me also say that I jumped ahead last time with a few additional questions, because I needed to be sure of your response, before I went any further.
Regarding evolution: Last I checked, science was still calling this the "Theory of Evolution" and not just "Evolution," unless, of course, evolution was conclusively proven while I wasn't looking. For the record, the definition of evolution is either the adaptation of species to their surrounding environments over time OR as the theory that life on Earth gradually developed from simple to more complex organisms. While we're at it, lets define theory as:
1) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well
established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3) a system of rules or principals
4) contemplation or speculation
5) guess or conjecture
Let me use an illustration pirated from The Truth: God or Evolution by Marshall and Sandra Hall... "So if evolution is correct we've developed from single celled organisms over time to the complex humans we are today. Consider one of the smallest organs in the human body, the eye, and see (no pun intended) if it logically could have taken the evolutionary route. If it didn't, then could we reasonably deduce that it came from the hands of an intelligent designer (God)? Here's the case: If you were to take away any part of the eye, -the retina for example- the eye doesn't work. Subtract the lens? No sight. Take away the cornea? Blindness. For the eye to function, all parts must be present and functional. That in itself is a strong argument for design. But lets go in another direction. Take the concept back into the evolutionary chain. Somewhere along the way, a creature making it's way to humanity would have had to begin having an eye. But how did it start? The eye couldn't have evolved, because there was nothing that would have caused a creature to begin forming a sightless eye. Since the evolutionary theory says changes come about by adaptation, what would have caused an eye-less thing to will a useless eye into its head? How would it know it would ever need an eye that could see? An eye can either see or it can't. There is no reason for a creature to develop a partial eye just so it could become a seeing eye later. So where did the eye begin? Randomly, or by design? The mind staggering intricacy of the eye and the interrelatedness of all necessary parts (irreducible complexity) attests to a God who knew what He was doing."
Now if evolution is true, from simple organisms to complex, that would explain the physical side of life more thoroughly, but what about nonphysical things such as morality and conscience? These things are not physical, yet they exist as surely as any physical object. To go one step further, why are humans the only creatures that have morals and conscience? Why didn't lobsters develop consciences? How about that raccoon? Do you think it's morality would be troubled about the right or wrongness of ripping open some trash because it smelled food inside, only to regret it later? (Ah, I digress...)
I don't claim to be an expert on the classification of fossils and the like, but evolution, in it's broadest sense just doesn't make sense. So, if I must, I'll classify myself in the evolution by intelligent design camp, as you figured I would.
I'll agree with you, that the concept of everlasting life and of eternity is unfathomable. I will also agree that most people feel that death is inescapable. The reason that the concept of "there is no 'what comes next'" is so difficult to grasp is because the concept is wrong, inaccurate, and just not true. How can I be sure aside from my faith that there is spiritual existence after death? Truth is I can't. Unless I knew of someone who died but is no longer dead... Well what do you know, I'm in luck. I do know of just such a person.
I asked you the 2+2 question (a loaded question if ever I saw one - 400 pages, eh? Wow!) to help illustrate my next point, which is simply this - No matter how convincingly I or anyone try to tell you that there is another answer other than four to that equation, you'd think they were nuts, because you KNOW what the answer is, and you can prove it in those 400 pages. The same can be said about religion. There can only be one true religion and all the rest are false. And it can be proven - just count the total number of pages in your typical Bible. So my point is that it is a grave error to equate Christianity with any other religion, because there is no comparison between the two. Let me use another brief but silly illustration: I think you'll agree that all Chevrolets are cars, but not all cars are Chevrolets, right? Christianity certainly is a religion, but no other religion can match Christianity.
Why? You can visit the grave site of every single founder of every single religion the world has ever known, and that grave site will still be occupied! Also, you can bet that people who believe in that particular religion, and who guard said grave site would have you be reverent and respectful, so as not to disturb the remains of said religious founder. But with Christianity, this is all irrelevant. Certainly you can visit the proposed grave sites of Jesus (there are two, and I have) but you won't find a body at either one, because Christianity is based on the HISTORICAL FACT that it's founder is alive, even though He was quite publicly executed by crucifixion. In fact, Christianity would be worthless and would singularly be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by man if Jesus Christ were still dead.
You see, a funny thing happened to the Romans who ruled Judea in the first century. They either feared or hated this new sect called "Christians" so much that they thought that they could wipe out Christianity by getting rid of places that Christians considered sacred. How? By building temples to their pagan gods on the places that early Christians revered. So, in their zeal to destroy Christianity at its roots, the Romans unwittingly preserved these places ad infinitum, simply by where they built their temples. Because of these buildings, (later generations built churches over the remains of the Roman era buildings) we know today, within a few feet, precisely where the events spoken of in the Bible took place. For example, when we (My ex and I) visited Israel in 1996, we went to the ruins of a town called Capernaum. We stood in the remains of a Roman temple from the fourth century AD that was built directly on the foundation of a Jewish synagogue from the first century, which the Bible records that Jesus taught in. I have a great picture of the two foundations, and the contrast in the stone is remarkable.
Now if Jesus were still dead, and if there were an actual body and an occupied tomb that we knew about, it would have to be one of the most heavily guarded places on earth, then and now, between the pilgrims visiting in reverence or would be plunderers trying to desecrate it, throughout the centuries. So, let me assure you that you can feel confident that there is no hidden tomb out there with Jesus bones still in it.
Aside from the lack of an occupied tomb, we must consider the lives of those men who were disciples of Jesus. The Bible records that all of his disciples saw Him alive after the fact, nail wounds and stab wound still visible and even that he spoke to as many as 500 people at once afterwards, many of whom lived well after the resurrection. Back to his disciples: these were not highly educated men, fishermen for the most part, who got scared and deserted Him the night he was arrested and who became some of the most powerful speakers and writers of that day. Most of whom were martyred for their beliefs by the Romans. Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be willing to die for something that I knew was a lie, would you? Josephus (a secular Jewish historian of the first century) records some details of the deaths of these men.
Also, consider the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. I can't think of another culture and race that has been through as much as they have. Historically, the Jewish people have been through much. Consider these remarkable HISTORICAL FACTS: The Jewish people have considered Israel their homeland for roughly 4,000 years. They were first slaves in Egypt (most historians say in the time of Seti and Rameses II.) They left Egypt, conquered many peoples who lived in Canaan, who were more numerous and much stronger than they, after wandering around in the desert for 40 years. They were invaded and conquered by the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans. The most sacred place in Jerusalem (the temple), was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BC, rebuilt about 120 years later. This second temple was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD (Islamic Dome of the Rock and Al Asqua mosques occupy the site now). In 135 AD the Jews were kicked out of Israel and prohibited from returning or be killed. They were scattered amongst the nations, and were subjected to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, and Holocaust, not to mention wrongly persecuted from countless Christians (acting in the name of God) throughout the centuries, just for being Jewish. And it wasn't until May 14, 1948 that they were allowed back into their homeland, with Jerusalem under their control for the first time since before the invasion of Babylon, YET they managed to survive and retain their culture and racial identity, even though they were without a homeland for almost 1,900 years.
Why is this significant? The Bible says they are God's chosen people. Why is peace in the Middle East always front page news? Civil Wars happen all the time throughout history and usually don't get much more than a passing glance in history, but Israel vs. Palestine and the rest of the Arab world? Front page news since 1948. Why is this particular conflict so engrossing? Because Israel is God's people and country. Jews vs. Arabs? - the greatest family feud that the world has ever seen, or ever will. Both Arabs and Jews consider Abraham their common ancestor. Ishmael, Abraham's oldest son is the progenitor of the Arabs and Isaac, the younger son, is the progenitor of the Jews.
I mention the Bible a lot in this message. Let's consider it for a moment. It was written by about 40 men over a span of 1,500 years or so (the last book, Revelation was written in 95 AD) and in more than three different countries (Israel, Babylon (modern day Iraq), Egypt, Rome and other cities in Greece and modern Turkey). It was also originally written in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). And since translated into Latin and many other languages since. Yet, the Bible has been miraculously preserved throughout the centuries, before the computer age, with remarkable accuracy, as the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the 1940's in a cave near the Dead Sea can attest.
The Bible is never contradictory of itself (there are parts that are hard to understand, certainly, but all seeming contradictions when studied out show what remarkable harmony it has). Further, it has never been proven inaccurate in the field of Archaeology. True, there are parts of the Bible which Archaeology hasn't verified yet, but so far is "dead on accurate".
Also consider that about a third of the Bible is prophetic. Many of the events the Bible talks about had not happened when the original manuscripts were written. Of those prophecies that have been fulfilled so far, 100% of them have happened exactly as predicted. Some of the prophecies written about in the Bible still are awaiting fulfillment. Based on previous track record, you can expect the Bible to continue to be 100% accurate. Just to give you two examples, Isaiah makes several predictions about details surrounding Jesus. Isaiah wrote 700 years before Jesus was born. History will tell you that there have been four world dominating empires in history: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. The Old Testament book of Daniel, written during the Babylonian and (beginning of) the Medo-Persian empires predicted this, not once, but twice! Also, Daniel alludes to the reformation of the Roman Empire, of which I believe the European Union is a forerunner and is happening in our modern world. So what does this have to do with the present argument?
Why otherwise would sacred texts (the modern Old Testament) from an (historically speaking) otherwise insignificant little group of people from an otherwise insignificant little country in the Middle East and writings from an offshoot of Judaism known as Christianity (the New Testament) be the most read and (still) best selling book of all time? That is nothing to say of the fact that the Bible is the most written about book and most hotly debated book in the history of the world? Simply because there is a God out there who not only exists, but has been the inspiration behind the authors of the Bible and that this God has had everything to do with it's remarkable preservation throughout history.
So, as you can see, my faith is not just some willy-nilly thing, (my term, not yours) but is well grounded in history and fact. Now I know I went off on several tangents there, but the bottom line is this: I believe that we have a soul and that there is life after death because a very credible source has "been there" and "done that." And since that source was and is God, who by definition is incapable of lying, it goes without saying, though I will anyway, that I believe it.
About Jesus, you previously said that you agree that He was a historical figure and that he was a religious man and a prophet in the usual sense of the word (whatever that means). C.S. Lewis, Cambridge University professor, author and former atheist candidly sums Jesus up this way:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else He would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is the Son of God - or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Mere Christianity, p. 41)
In your email of April 23, 2002, you said that your beliefs may have been different if you hadn't been forced into Catholicism as a youth, and that you're not entirely sure that there is no God. I'll bet growing up that you were never really exposed to the Bible by your church or encouraged to read and or study it on your own. And that you were more or less force fed the precepts that Catholicism teaches, with out having an opportunity to discover for yourself if what you were being force fed was true or not. I hope that I've gotten you to think thoroughly through your present beliefs and allow for the possibility that you might be missing something. I can tell you and you already know that there are many people out there who discount the existence of God. I can also tell you that there are those who, in their effort to disprove the existence of God, have become believers in the very thing that they were trying to disprove. I think it's interesting that you gave zero chance that Jesus is God, yet you assign to the realm of possibility that "the most extraordinary events can and do happen" in regard to the marvelous universe we live in. Your Oxham's Razor principle is a great example. All things being equal, is it easier to believe in the random chaos of the universe, suddenly having precise order to the nth degree simply by chance or that there is a God behind it all, who knew what He was doing? Oxham's Razor says the simple solution is usually the correct one. Again, I say the God solution is simpler to believe than the other.
Let me end this extremely lengthy email with this quote from Robert Jastrow, an astrophysicist and (former?) director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world... The essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem: Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks what cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? And science cannot answer these questions... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries. (God and the Astronomers, [New York: Norton, 1978], pp. 14, 114, 116).Look forward to your thoughts.
Green
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
