I don't see anything saying Marcus Borg is a true Christian. He says he's very, very muddled, and he says he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. He doesn't say if loving Jesus and believing in him passionately counts as being a true Christian when this belief is so very, very muddled that he denies the resurrection. That meta-question would seem to be important in terms of your conclusion, including your headline.
It seems to me that many Xtians have difficulty grasping the whole conception of the resurrection.
Yet among those beliefs crucial to Christianity few are of greater importance than that of the Resurrection. Paul went so far as to allege the very foundation of Christianity rests upon its occurrence.1Cor. 15:14 "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." ( also: 1 Cor. 15:17)
Yet, why should the Resurrection be of such significance.(?) Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquietedme, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite ( 2 Kings 4:32, 34-35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21); Moses and Elijah revived at the time of the Transfiguration ( Luke 9:28, 30 );the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death ( matt. 27:52-53 ); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 ); the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15 ); and Lazarus rose from the dead ( John 11:43-44 ). All of these people ascended from death and all did so before Jesus. So why attribute so much importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a rather common occurrance. Moreover, people not only before Jesus but after as well. Peter raisedTabitha and Paul raised Eutychus.
Of course except for Jesus, all of the above-mentioned people eventually died again.(What ever happened to the physical body of Jesus?)
Was Jesus resurrected in the flesh (John 20:17, 26-27; Luke 24:39-43; Acts 2:31, 13:35) or was only a spirit resurrected? (1 Cor. 15:44, 50; 1 Tim. 2:5, 1 Peter 3:
. One wonders why there is such a fundamental disagreement over such a critical element of the story
Was Jesus so special,In fact, what did Jesus ever do that had not already been accomplished? He rose from the dead but only after others. He performed miracles but so had others. He raised people from the dead but so had Old Testament prophets. He healed but so had others. What, then, did Jesus do that was different, that had not already be [been] done? Plainly stated, "What makes him stand out from the crowd?" Thousands have claimed to be the savior; so what are the acts that substantiate his credentials. Assertions alone prove nothing. Anyone can claim to be the Messiah and thousands have.
JONBOY, you should read some texts in Systemic Theology. I can only briefly outline the answers to your questions.
The key difference between Jesus' resurrection and others being raised from the dead is this.
In Jesus there was no sin. The punishment for sin is death. Therefore, when he died (suffered punishment for sins) he did not die for his own sins, he died for someone elses (yours and mine).
Now if he had died and remained dead then we would have no hope. See the only way we can know that the substituionary death was acceptable to God is if the person who died eventually comes out from under the punishment (death).
So Jesus was the perfect sacrifice (in that he was sinless) and as such is the only worthy sacrifice. So yes is death is qualitatively different to anyone elses in all of history as is his resurrection.
You can quibble with this if you want too, but know that it is the standard view of the importance of Jesus' death and resurrection as presented by Protestant Theolgians. It is the generally accepted wisdom and has been since the time of Jesus (in fact this is more or less explicit in all of the writing of the NT.
Now I know the argument from recieved wisdom is not particularly strong. However I consider the argument from 2000 years worth of recieved wisdom as very strong.
Oh, and again, the general wisdom and interpretaiton of Jesus' resureciton is that it was bodily. After all he had Thomas physically touch his wounds and ate real food on a number of occasions. The general understanding of him coming through doors without opening is that he was resurrected and has the glorified body that we are all promised if we believe in him.
So JONBOY, there is a great deal less controversy about these things that you suggest. Most of this is dealt with in fairly basic theology and Christian doctrine.
Both the importance and bodiliness of Jesus' resurection are well documented in scripture and in the early church fathers (and even implied in anti Christian writings to some degree) and throughout the lifetime of the church deviations from it have been rightly treated as heretical (of course what was then done with the heretics may or may not have been rightly done).
I noticed this article too David.
Whilst I would argue that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is necessary for our faith to be of any use, I am not sure that it logically follows that we must believe in it to be considered Christian (By which I mean 'saved').
To put it another way...our being saved is dependent upon
1) us repenting and accepting Jesus, (who is God), as lord and saviour.
2) the physical resurrection of Jesus.
The only part that requires our belief to work is (1)
Why is the New Perspective wrong?
Matt said,
"Now I know the argument from recieved wisdom is not particularly strong. However I consider the argument from 2000 years worth of recieved wisdom as very strong."
No, that is incorrect. Having the same "recieved wisdom" accepted as fiat for 2000 years does not somehow make it a strong argument.
"So Jesus was the perfect sacrifice (in that he was sinless) and as such is the only worthy sacrifice. So yes is death is qualitatively different to anyone elses in all of history as is his resurrection."
Do you know how barbaric that sounds? In order to appease your god, a blameless man had to be beaten, bled, and crucified in order for your "loving" god to forgive you, even though you had not been born yet and had done nothing wrong?
GCT -
Perhaps you should consider that Jesus volunteered for the job . . .
Whenever I hear the argument that you make, which is that the crucifxion is barbaric, I think "there is a person who prefers mercy to justice." I, too, prefer mercy to justice because I know that I am a sinful man and don't want "what's coming to me." Perhaps you do too? Maybe you are opposed to capital punishment for murder, or "three strikes you're out?" But how many times would a thief have to steal from you before you would rather see justice done than forgive him? A truly merciful judge might let a thief off the hook and pay back what was owed himself. That is both justice and mercy.
I agree that crucifying an innocent man is barbaric. Please note whose fault that is.
Alan,
I think Paul disagrees with the premise for your argument. Consider Romans 10:9-10 -
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Jason....
With this new look for the site, I'm having a hard time finding the URL that links to the article referenced. Is it possible to get more contrasting colors for URLs compared to text?
Mr. Scott,
Whose fault is it?
I am indeed opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean that I advocate allowing people to walk away from their crimes scot free. I don't see killing as justice.
From an historical point of view, it was the Romans' fault. From a Christian point of view, it was the fault of fallen humanity. Blaming God for His Son's crucifixion is like blaming Him for 9/11 because He didn't make the jet engines fall off.
If the penalty for murder is death, any other sentence is mercy and not justice. The family of the murdered (and the murdered man himself) has been denied justice, because something has been taken from them and the penalty has not been paid. Jesus took the death penalty for himself to pay the penalty for our crimes against God so that there would be both mercy and justice. If you want to go deeper into the topics of Sin, Atonement, and Redemption, that's a bit beyond the casual combox.
What was the Romans' fault? How was it the fault of fallen humanity? I guess I'm not clear on what we are faulting. It seems to me that the requirement of a sacrifice is the fault of the one that requires it for their idea of "justice."
Why should the penalty for murder be death? Violence begets violence. Would it not also be justice to put a murderer behind bars for the rest of his/her life (assuming first degree murder or some similarly heinous act)?
This raises another issue. "Jesus took the death penalty for himself to pay the penalty for our crimes against God..." What crimes had I committed when Jesus was executed? What crimes had the newborn committed when Jesus was executed? Is this to mean that Jesus took my place so that I would not be condemned to death? I've never murdered anyone, so why would I be condemned to death?
You didn't commit any crimes when Jesus was executed because of the simple fact that you weren't born yet. I haven't committed any crimes yet either. I don't think the use of "crime" is right here. Sin is a better word. We know that since humanity began to exist there has been pain and suffering in the world. The whole point of the Cross is that it wasn't fair or just. The Cross is a sick symbol of a humanity that is lost in suffering and pain. Everywhere you look, you see that the world is not as it should be morally.
On a personal level, I think that none of us are morally where we should be before God. None of us are morally perfect. Sure, you never killed anyone and niether have I but I think we've both done wrong in our lives at one point or another. God knows that better than anyone. Since His creation went astray, He has been in pain because of it. He is in pain because he loves us so much. Jesus signifies the most significant time in which God decided to redeem his wayward creation. To show us a path of light in this present darkness. To have Jesus suffer and die, shows us that God feels the same whenever we are in pain or in dire straits. The Psalm writers of the Old Testament cried out to God in their times of great distress. They wanted to reach a merciful God. A loving God. John says that there is nothing higher than laying ones' life down for friends. Despite our mistakes and our evil, God sent his only Son to die in order that we may know Him and be saved by Him. I think that's an awesome gift. It's not abour someone's idea of justice, or some metaphysical construct of payment for past, present and future sins, but it's about the love of God. Like John said, "God is love."
I found this quote from C.S. Lewis today, he said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the rising sun; not because I see it, but by it I can see all else." We know that things aren't as they should be, that there is a sense of something more out there, like we are sailors that used to sail on a grand ship but were somehow shipwrecked on an island with no memory of where we came from. We are all lost, seeking for the right path back to God. We wont know for sure until until we meet Him in heaven but the best we can do know is confess that He sent his only Son to us, so that he could give his life as a ransom for many.
I know this is tough stuff, believe me. I can hear the rationalist part of me object. But I think that if we are truly honest we wont try to figure out God, who is by definition far far more wise and intelligent than we could ever be, but trust in Him that He knows what is right. In America today, I think many need to radically change their way of thinking because we get arrogent and think we have all the answers when we are really more clueless than we care to admit. I think it is healthy and necessary to believe in a loving God who both creates and redeems this world.
I suppose, I'll get off of my soapbox now.
Ron,
Pain and suffering existed before humans came around. Other animals have experienced it for millions of years. Humans experiencing it is just part of the natural world. That would be the world that god created for us? God created a world where pain and suffering exists, then placed us here and made us imperfect and in need of redemption? Then, god sent his/her/it's son down here to serve as a blood/human sacrifice to appease his/her/itself for the supposed sins that he/she/it placed on us in the first place?
You also didn't answer whose fault it truly is. I still maintain that the one that demands human sacrifice as atonement or justice is the one who is at fault for finding that a requirement for "justice." It is not justice. If god thinks it is, then I submit that my morals are superior to god's because I wouldn't torture a man in the name of justice.
GCT said, "Pain and suffering existed before humans came around. Other animals have experienced it for millions of years."
So? GCT is assuming, as many did within Anglican circles during Darwin's time, that creation should be idealistic (and idealistic according to their liking). The fact that people (especially in the modern Western countries) find the natural suffering of animals (and I'm talking about purposeful animal cruelty) to be abhorrent is due to a cultural love for pets.
It is worthy to note that Darwinism had a hard time spreading to the European continent (from England) because the Christian communities there had a stronger doctrine of Original Sin (that below).
GCT said, "Humans experiencing it is just part of the natural world."
Here, GCT makes the fallacy of assuming that "what is" was always "what has been". The Scriptures record that man was originally placed in a "garden". Garden was a Persian word for an enclosed area with large hedges as walls to protect whatever was inside (from the pain and suffering on the outside). Man was justly expelled from the Garden when he broke the only law in existence. Man broke it of his own free will, and as a result, his soul became imperfect (i.e. unholy) with a hatred for God and His Law.
GCT said, "I still maintain that the one that demands human sacrifice as atonement or justice is the one who is at fault for finding that a requirement for "justice.""
God the Father did not make up any law. It is His nature to be just, and He cannot go without punishing the sin of His creatures (otherwise God would become non-God; perfection would become non-perfection). Thus, the punishment for sin is a necessity, not an arbitrarily made law. When Jesus the Messiah was praying just before His arrest, He asked the Father if there was any other way to pardon men for their sin (and of course, the answer was no).
GCT said, "If god thinks it is, then I submit that my morals are superior to god's because I wouldn't torture a man in the name of justice."
That "man" went willingly and suffered for the sins of His people so that they should not suffer eternally.
Of course, if GCT's worldview is correct, then morality is just an illusion anyway. If materialism is true, then our thoughts are nothing more than the randomness of chance acting through the necessity of chemical reactions in the brain. People are nothing more than complex matter. Does a piece of plastic deserve human rights? How about a large chunk of carbon?
Thus, if GCT's worldview is incorrect, then he's wrong, and even if his worldview is correct, then he's still wrong.
Saint and Sinner (Romans 3:10-25)
Saint and Sinner,
Not to be rude, but did you think about what you wrote before you wrote it?
I never said existence should be idealistic and I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. It sounds a lot like a red herring to me.
So, your response is that man was expelled from the garden of Eden for breaking the law, but in the very next paragraph you state that "God the Father did not make up any law." So, which is it?
Let's also ask whether Adam and Eve really made a conscious choice and whether they really had free will. Did they? Did they understand the consequences of their actions? Didn't god know ahead of time that they would eat the apple? Why did god allow them to do it then?
Who cares if Jesus volunteered to be tortured? That makes him a pretty courageous guy, but what does it say about the other guy; the guy who is saying, "Well, I've got to torture someone in order to be appeased, so who's going to volunteer?"
Oh, and let's not get into the "There's no morality without god" canard. It's a non-starter of an argument. And, I never compared people to pieces of plastic, so let's just drop that straw man as well, shall we? If you are going to debate, at least try not to use logical fallacies.
GCT,
In Eden, God gave Adam one commandment.
"You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."
So, in answer to your questions, God did give them a law. Adam (and Eve) made a concious choice and yes, he understood the consequences. Although Eve may not have fully understood the consequences as her dialogue with Satan shows that she didn't hear God's commandment correctly (either she misheard or Adam wasn't really listening and screwed it up when he told her).
Did God know that they would eat the forbidden fruit?
Of course He did...He's God. Adam and Eve still actively chose to disobey God. Just because God knows what we will do doesn't remove our free will. (I think that Reformed Calvinists may disagree with me on this...) He's not actively controlling our decisions. We control our decisions, He knows what they will be before we choose.
God allowed Adam to eat the forbidden fruit because He loves Adam. In order to create a creature that was "very good," He needed a creature that would actively choose to love Him. All other animals on this planet do EXACTLY what God has programmed them to do. Humans don't. We have an intellect and free will that is absent in all other creatures on earth. That is what separates us.
So, He gave us a free will. Why? So we can actively be obedient to Him. When He commands us, we be obedient out of love for Him.
Adam was given the gift of eternal life. The eternal life was given through access to the Tree of Life. When Adam disobeyed God, God threw him out of the Garden and deprived him of the Tree of Life which brought death into the world.
Jesus restores the Tree of Life. By following Jesus, we have access to the eternal life promised to Adam. Why? Because of His obedience to God and because His obedience pays the debt of all of our sins.
Our sins put Him on the cross and He died for our sins so that we don't have to die.
In order for us to cash in on His promise for eternal life, we must follow Him (to the cross if necessary). We must have an obedience of faith. And we must love God above all things.
This is the Catholic perspective on Christianity and not every Christian may necessarily agree with this perspective.
Jesus didn't die to appease God. He died so that we don't have to die. That we can spend eternal life with God.
Oops. The sentence that says, "(and I'm talking about purposeful animal cruelty)," should say, "(and I'm NOT talking about purposeful animal cruelty)."
Saint and Sinner
Dennis,
It sounds to me in Genesis 3:22, that Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of life. In fact, god threw them out of the garden so that they would not be able to eat from the tree of life. It doesn't say anything about them eating from the tree of life before that time IIRC.
But, let's look at the story a little closer. God told them not to do something, but did they know that disobeying god was wrong? How could they, they had no concept of right and wrong before they ate the fruit of knowledge. So, how can they be held accountable for their actions? How can you say they knew the consequences without any knowledge of what "death" is or "right" and "wrong"? God also knew what they would do, yet punished them for it anyway, after facilitating the event. As an analogy, I know that if I don't take my dog out, my dog will pee on the carpet. So, let's say that I decide that I don't want to take my dog out for a day, the dog pees on the carpet, and then I get righteously angry and punish the dog. Is that just?
On the subject of free will, god made Adam in a certain way that he would in fact violate god's law. When Adam was made, god knew full well in advance that Adam would violate the law, so did Adam really have a choice in the matter? If god were to come down and hand you a book that told you everything that you will do for the rest of your life, would you really have the choice to do anything different?
OK, so Jesus died for our sins, but you skirt the whole entire issue. Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Was it not god that demanded that someone or something die for us to be redeemed in his eyes? Why did god demand a blood sacrifice? Isn't that barbaric? Why couldn't god just forgive us without torturing a man to death? What makes it even worse is that the man who was killed was reportedly without sin. So, a completely innocent man had to suffer so that god could be appeased and not hold a grudge against all the non-innocents.
Lastly, don't denigrate the will and intellect of the other animals on this planet. There are apes that can use sign language. There are insects that have very sophisticated communication schemes that tell where food is located. Our pets are surely able to sense our emotions and act accordingly.
GCT,
God tells them that they “are free to eat from any of the trees in the Garden” except for the Tree of Knowledge. The Tree of Life is what gives them life so yes, I think it’s a logical assumption that they ate from the Tree of Life.
They know that they are disobeying God. He gives them the consequences of their actions in Genesis 2: 17, “From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.” After that, Satan quizzes Eve and she knows that they will die if they eat it (but God never says that they can’t touch it.). Eve eats the fruit anyway.
How can they be held accountable for their actions? Because they actively chose to disobey God. In everything, if we disobey a law or a rule, we are righteously punished and if we actively disobey God (i.e. sin) then we are doomed to die.
Your analogy with your dog isn’t the same as Adam’s sin. Your dog isn’t actively disobeying you. He doesn’t have a choice. He has to pee. Adam had a choice. God gave Adam a choice. He could eat from ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN except for the Tree of Knowledge.
Regarding free will, just because God knows that Adam was going to violate the law doesn’t mean that Adam didn’t have a choice in the matter. God knew it was going to happen but Adam still chose it. Regarding myself, I’m going to live my life under the assumption that God won’t come down to hand me a book of everything I will do in my life. My only assumption is that God knows what I will do and I don’t. I still have to choose what to do with my life. My free will (and yours and everyone else who reads this comment) lies in my choice to choose what God wants me to do vs. what I want me to do. God knows what I will choose. I still have to choose.
I’m not saying that animals aren’t smart. They have very complex brains and were created/designed by God. I’m saying that they lack intellect and free will. In man’s intellect, we have the ability to contemplate God. All the other animals don’t. Animals (even humans) do what they are designed to do. As you mentioned, your dog will pee in your house if you choose not to take him out. Dogs are instinctual. God planted an instinct in them and they follow that instinct blindly. Why? Because they are doing what God planned for them. Man is different. We are also instinctual (like eating/breathing) but God made man differently in that He gave us the intellect to understand the existence of God. No other animal (not even apes who know sign language) can comprehend that. We can contemplate Him and we have a choice to either do what God has planned for us or to disobey God. And we make that choice every day. One choice leads us to eternal life. The other choice leads us to death.
In order to understand why God had to die for our sins, you really have to understand the Old Testament. In Leviticus 16, to atone for sin, a goat is slaughtered and its blood is sprinkled. The goat didn’t have sin. It was sacrificed for the sins of the Jews. In the Passion, Christ is without sin and He sacrificed Himself in obedience to the will of His Father and His blood is sprinkled to atone for our sins. The Jews from Jesus’ time would have understood this quite clearly. It was (and still is) unfathomable that God would offer Himself up as sacrifice for us. That He would choose to die because of His love for us and His desire for us to be with Him for eternity.
That in essence is the Gospel.
Dennis,
Good point about the tree of life. I never read it that way, but it does seem as though they might have eaten from the tree of life before the fall.
Now, can you really say that Adam and Eve knew was "death" was? They had never experienced it. It's like if I were to say that if you do action x, I will do action z to you. If I don't explain what action z is, you have no concept of whether it would be desirable to have action z done to you or not. We also don't put mentally handicapped people to death even if they commit capital crimes. Why? Because they don't have a concept of right and wrong, which is exactly what Adam and Eve lacked before they ate the fruit. It's only after they ate the fruit that they realized that what they did was wrong. It's not just to punish someone for that.
The analogy to my dog might not be perfect, but what I was getting at is that in the analogy I would be like god putting my dog into a bad situation and doing nothing to alleviate it, even though it was completely in my power to do so. Then, when the dog acts exactly as I knew she would, I punish her, even though I took no actions to avoid the known outcome.
God might not hand you a book that tells you what your whole entire life is going to entail, but you do admit that the possibility exists that god could do that? So, what then? Would you be free to choose a different path than what was in that book?
So, you differentiate between us and animals based on an entity that you posit exists and can only be sensed by humans? The only thing that shows is that we have a different or larger cognitive faculty, that we are more able to identify cause and effect. Of course, it turns out that apes are able to plan for the future, so there might not be as big a distinction as you think.
So, you think for me to understand why god demands blood sacrifice, it is enough to turn to the OT. In the OT, god is jealous, petty, and a bully. He demands blood sacrifices. Great. So, how is that moral? Why does god demand blood from us? Why does that somehow explain why the torturing of an innocent man isn't barbaric or unjust? Should I still not blame god for what deems as worthy atonement for breaking the rules that he has laid down? See, that's the point. God makes the rules knowing they will be broken. The rule breakers (us) were made in a way that makes us break the rules. God made us that way, so he purposefully made us such that we would break his rules. Then, he punishes us for doing what he made us to do and knew we would do all along. Then, he demands blood and torture in order to appease him, and we are supposed to think this is moral and just?
GCT,
I don’t know if Adam and Eve knew what “death” was. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. I think that you and I look at things from different perspectives. You see that Adam and Eve should have been motivated by the consequence of the punishment (death). What Jesus teaches is that our motivation should be our love for God. Where Adam and Eve screwed up is not that they didn’t know what the consequence was. The consequence was inessential. What was more important is that they placed themselves ahead of God. They made the decision that regardless of what God wants for them, they were going to do it anyway and thus showed that they did not love Him. For that, they were deprived of the Tree of Life.
I think they best way to describe my understanding would be to think about a husband and wife. What should motivate the husband to stay faithful to his wife? Should it be that he loves her? Or should it be because she would leave him if she finds out. I think we can both agree that a husband should stay faithful to his wife out of love. God wants us to do everything out of love for Him not out of fear of Hell.
Regarding your dog analogy, your dog does not have a choice. He has to pee. You’re not giving him choices. God gives us choices. We choose to obey or disobey. The decision is ours.
Regarding a God given book…God’s already given me a book. This book gives me the plan to get to eternal salvation. I still can’t follow it perfectly and constantly need to be asking for forgiveness. Does the possibility exist that God could give me a book highlighting every detail of my life? Sure…He’s God. In the Bible, He tells Peter that He will betray Him three times. Peter knew and Peter still betrayed Him. Peter didn’t betray Him because God said it. Peter betrayed Him out of fear and out of his own weaknesses. Not because of God. Would I be free to choose a different path? I don’t know. I guess I’d cross that bridge when I come to it.
I will agree that we have a different or larger cognitive faculty. Why is that? Is it because of evolution? Could it be something else? Apes are very close to humans in cognitive ability. They still can’t contemplate the existence of God. BTW…the God of the OT is the same God as today (and the God of the NT).
Your last paragraph indicates that you see things in terms of vengeance and punishment. It appears that you see things as God has it set up that we are made to break the rules. Well, you’re right. Without God’s help, we will break the rules. We cannot obey God without His help. What Christ showed us is that we should not live out of fear but rather out of love. That with God’s help, we can love God and be obedient to Him until our death. Not out of fear of punishment for breaking the law but rather because He loves us and we should love Him back.
His demand is not blood and torture. His demand from us is to love Him with all of our hearts.
I know this is hard to grasp but God loves you. Regardless of what you write…regardless of how you feel and regardless of what you think. God exists and He loves you. He yearns for you. He’s calling for you.
All He wants from you is to love Him back.
Dennis,
There was no concept of death in the garden of Eden, so Adam and Eve could not know what it is. Also, without knowing the difference between right and wrong, how could they know their actions would be counter to loving god? How could they make an informed decision without knowing the difference between right and wrong. It's like coming to a fork in the road where you have never been and seeing 2 identical paths. You would not know which to take. If you were to arbitrarily choose one and be damned for eternity for it, would you consider that just?
If god wants us to love him, why did he create us the way he did? Why did he create creatures that he knew would turn away and that he knew would betray him?
Can you look at what I wrote about the dog analogy? I'm not talking about whether the dog has a choice to pee or not. I'm talking about my actions in regards to the dog. If you really can't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.
Also, if you can't see the difference between the Bible and a book that god gives you that tells you everything that you will do for the rest of your life, then again I don't know what to say. I don't see how you would be free to choose a different path, however. That would violate the omniscience of god, would it not? Besides, god made you who you are, correct? So, he made you, fully knowing everything you would do before he made you, correct? Do you see the problem in now asserting that you have free will?
If the god of the OT is the same as the god of the NT, then why is his demeanor completely different? Has god changed between the books? Why are the rules different? Did morality change? Saint and Sinner would have you believe that morality comes from god, so what was moral in the OT should still be moral now. Was it not moral to own slaves in the OT? There was nothing wrong with it, so why is it not moral now?
If god could not forgive us without having someone be tortured and killed, then his demand is blood and torture. There is no two ways around that. If he didn't demand blood and torture, he could just as easily have said, "I forgive you all." That's actually what he should have done anyway, since it is his fault that we are the way we are. He created us to be this way, knowing full well we would be this way, then punished us for it. This is not love. This is not justice. This is sadism. This is barbarism. And, I hate to be blunt like this, but I believed in god, I would not find the god that you describe worthy of my love or respect. He condemns those that he supposedly loves to hell, even though he is responsible for their state, and only through barbaric acts of torture and blood sacrifice does he allow some people to be saved? If someone came along and placed you, your family, and all your friends on death row in prison just because he can, killed a couple to satisfy some blood lust, then had a change of heart and allowed a few people to go free while keeping the rest to be killed later, would you respect or love that person if you were one of the ones set free (or not)?
GCT,
I could see us arguing about this for a long time and I think I’ve made my point very clear. I think it may be best if we just stop arguing. It sounds like you are pretty firm in your ways. Please know that regardless of how you feel, God wants you to come back to Him.
It may take weeks or it may take years or decades. When you’re ready, God will run out and welcome you back with open arms.
Dennis,
You haven't made anything clear. All you've done is say, "God loves you," over and over. What I'm saying is that the god that is depicted in the Bible (the OT especially) is cruel and not worthy. He demands blood sacrifices (which you admitted!) and torture (which you also admitted!) You ignored the point of my analogy, even when I explained it to you.
The bottom line is that god made you to betray him and then punished you for it. That is sadistic. God has also changed his mind about what is moral and what isn't, even between the OT and NT, meaning that morals are not absolute. You don't have a leg to stand on here, so you go the route of proselytizing. If you can't debate the point properly, then try the emotional route you think. Too bad that we both know it is nothing more than concession of defeat.
But, I will go even further and ask you how you know god loves you or me or anyone. How do you know that god wants us to obey him? He has acted in the most vicious way possible. He even tortured and killed his own son, so what makes you think that he gives a care about you? This is the god that has ordered not just genocide, but the wiping out of every living creature in battle. The king of the Jews at the time decided to spare some people and livestock and was severly reprimanded by god for not being bloodthirsty enough. This is the god that destroyed the whole world, save a couple people and animals, simply because he felt like it. Of course, that brings other questions like, why did god allow things to get that bad, especially since he knew ahead of time that things would be that bad? When you can actually answer some of these questions and think rationally, let me know.
GCT,
I don’t want to argue with you about this as your perspective is too skewed to have a good/rational discussion. You’re missing the point.
The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. He’s not cruel and He is very worthy.
He is just.
He was just in the time of Noah and He is just now. You punishing your dog because you didn't let him out is not just and is not a valid analogy.
Morals are not absolute. Morality is not defined by God. Morality is defined by man. Everything that God does is good as God is good. 100 years ago, a woman wearing shorts and a halter top would probably be considered immoral. That is not defined by God.
God made man to love Him and serve Him freely. God did not make man to betray Him. That’s your interpretation and it is wrong. If we betray Him, we die. If we love Him and obey Him, we will be with Him for eternity. That truth screams out from the Bible.
I don’t concede “defeat.” I’ve stated the truth and offer it to you. You are free to reject or accept it. I’m done arguing as it seems that you are rejecting the truth of God’s love. Okay, reject it. It doesn’t change the objective reality that God still loves you and you have to choose to love Him back.
How do I know that God loves you (or anyone)? Because you are alive. Because He is responsible for the air in your lungs. Everything you have He gave you. He gave you life and it is your choice to follow His will or follow your own.
How do I know that He wants us to obey Him? If you have to ask that question then you really need to reread Scripture.
The God of the Bible grieves for every lost man’s soul. He loves all of us but if we choose not to love Him back, then it is our choices that cause us to lose our salvation and not God’s. God allows things to happen because He has given us the free will to choose Him or not choose Him.
GCT,
I wrote the above post. I accidentally put my name in the email part.
GCT,
You ask how Dennis “knows that God loves you or me or anyone.”
Here is my view. If you sincerely ask this question, God tells us you will get the answer.
“‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.’”
Do the experiment. It’s either true or it isn’t.
Dennis,
It's funny that you say that I can't be rational when you are the one that is relying upon logical fallacy. I'm glad that you at least admit that morality is relative. Try convincing the other posters on this blog of that, however.
It's not a valid analogy in your mind because you won't read or accept the explanation. No analogy is 100% valid, but you reject the explanation out of hand without being able to explain why? Nice.
If god made us to love him, then we would not reject him. It's as simple as that. God made us knowing before hand that we would reject him, yet he did it anyway. Don't you think god is powerful enough to have tweaked something to make us more apt to love him? Either god made us to love him and messed up, or god made us to reject him. So, which is it?
"It doesn’t change the objective reality that God still loves you and you have to choose to love Him back." I have to ask if you know what "objective" means. Do you? How in the world could you consider the second half of your sentence an "objective reality"?
So, how was it just to destroy the world? Could god have not used some more compassionate means to change people's hearts without utterly wiping them off the face of the Earth? How does my being alive prove that "god loves me"? How would reading scripture prove that god wants me to obey him? How are blood sacrifices moral or compassionate?
John,
You assume a lot in your post. It's ignorant of you to assume that anyone who does not believe in god or who reads the scripture and sees a petty, vindictive, entity not worthy of worship or adoration simply hasn't tried to believe. In fact, that assumption is usually wrong, especially in this country. What percentage of the population in this country is Christian? What do you think the odds are that I was raised as a Christian? It's arrogant to think that atheists are this way because we simply never tried to believe in god or were too lazy to think about things.
Do the experiment yourself. Read the scripture and see if you find a loving god. I would say that a loving god doesn't order genocide. I would say a loving god doesn't demand blood sacrifices. I would say a loving god isn't jealous or capricious. Do the experiment. I have. It's true or it isn't, right? Well, having done the experiment I can say that it isn't true.
GCT,
I don’t presume you are lazy. On the contrary, you spend quite a bit of time and effort on this site engaging others on a range of issues and question. Important questions. Did you truly seek the Lord with all your heart as you say (your experiment)? Only you know that. You asked how Dennis “knows that God loves me or anyone else.” In the context of your post, it was clearly a rhetorical question. You were asking the question for a purpose other than to obtain the information that the question asks. You were stating your position; that no one can ever know that God loves them. Regardless, I gave a response as if it were a sincere question. If I presume anything, it is that your experiment is not finished.
John,
Many other people have done the experiment and come to the same conclusion I have. If it is either true or not, then how do you explain that? Will you question whether they truly used "all [their] heart?" What about those of other religions. Do you not think that they are truly sincere? Do they think that your god loves them or do they disbelieve in your god in favor of their own? Giving a circular argument doesn't really do much to clear up the issue in my opinion.
GCT,
If God made us to love him and not reject him, then we would be like every other animal. Every other animal on earth does EXACTLY as God has designed them. Birds fly, fish swim, etc. In other words, they are following God’s will to a tee and CANNOT go against it. A fish can’t choose to live outside the water. An eagle can’t choose to swim. Man has the ability to reject God’s will. God has a plan for us and we can say “no.”
God is powerful enough to create an animal who can reject Him. And that says a lot. No other animal on earth can do that. It shows that He has faith in you to choose to love Him. If you don’t choose to love Him, that’s not God’s fault.
And yes, I know what “objective” means. The second half of my sentence is not the objective reality. The first part is the objective reality. I apologize if my sentence confused you.
In regards to Noah, God was just. God is the Creator of the world. We are not to question Him as we are mere mortals. He wiped out most of humanity because there was a great wickedness in the world. God can do anything He wants. He’s God.
Your being alive proves that God loves you because if He didn’t love you, you’d be dead. He has given you everything that you own. He gives you the air that you breathe. He created the water that you drink. Without Him, you would be nothing.
Regarding obedience to God, Christ commands that we be obedient to Him throughout the Gospels and that we follow His commandments.
And again, morality is defined by man. If God commands us to sacrifice a goat, we sacrifice a goat. Why? Because God commanded us and we love God. Abraham loved God and He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. And Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac without a second thought? Why? Because God commanded him to and he loved God.
It’s not about morality or compassion. It’s about following God’s commandments out of love for Him and from our love for God springs our morality and compassion.
Dennis,
If you loved someone, would you ask them to kill their own son? You don't see a problem with that?
Here's the sentence in question:
"It doesn’t change the objective reality that God still loves you and you have to choose to love Him back."
I'm still confused by it apparently, because I don't see how you could break this up into the first half that is objective and the second half that isn't. No part of that sentence contains objective reality. It does not bode well for your argument when you construct sentences of this kind, then make feeble attempts to explain them away. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but in a debate, things like this matter.
I do have to ask you if you really can go against god's will. When god created the universe he had infinite choices, correct? Let's, for the sake of ease, say that he had at one point a choice between option A and B. If he chose option A, then the world would turn out exactly as it has. If he chose option B, it would turn out exactly as it has, only you would make different decisions. So, let's say he chose A, and you turned out the way you did, making the decisions that he knew you would make when he made the choice to go with option A. Still think you have the power to go against god in your choices?
Also, let's look at the argument. God did not make us to love him, he made us to reject him. Else, he would have chosen a different option when he created a world, instead of one where man would necessarily reject him. So, god made us commit sin, and made the punishment for it. That is not love. I certainly wouldn't raise my children that way. I wouldn't tell them I love them, but if they do anything wrong that I will personally make sure that they burn in hellfire for all eternity. That's sick. So, why is it alright when god does it?
GCT,
I initially did the experiment and came to the same conclusion you did, but my experiment was flawed. I expected God to justify himself to me and account for His actions throughout the Bible (with some confidence that He could not). However, if He is God, He is by definition the perfect being. I’m not a perfect being (that I can say with great confidence). Acknowledging that I was not a perfect being was one step toward using “all my heart” in a new experiment. The next step was to realize that God may have made it possible for me to know Him, but chose to do so in a way that I would not have chosen (sending Jesus to die on the cross for my sins). This also required “all my heart,” because it required that I accept for a moment, that the Gospel could actually be true. Although God asks us to seek Him with all our hearts, He is the one who makes something happen at that point. When it happened to me, I knew it. Many others have done the experiment and come to the same conclusion as I.
I don’t know what happened in your experiment or in the experiments of those who came to the same conclusion you did. How do I account for them? Maybe they hear the Shepard’s voice, but don’t think He measures up to their idea of what a Shepard should be. Regardless, He keeps calling.
John,
I'm not perfect. I never claimed to be, and let's not go down the "arrogant atheist thinks he's perfect" road. We both know it's bunk.
There is a logical possibility that the gospels might be true, but how would one go about proving that, or even providing evidence of the fantastic claims entailed within?
Those points aren't of much interest to me, however. What is of interest is when you said, "Maybe they hear the Shepard's voice, but don't think He measures up to their idea of what a Shepard should be." That's mostly what the discussion has centered around here. I, personally, would not find god worthy of adoration or worship based on the actions taken by him in the Bible. Sending his son to die on the cross as the only way for him to forgive our sins is not something that I would consider "measuring up." It's a blood sacrifice. We don't do those anymore, and I think they are barbaric, as you would probably agree. So, why wasn't it barbaric then? Why did god need to kill his only son to forgive us of crimes that he made us to commit? How did Jesus dying make anything better? This story really describes a god that is only satisfied when blood is shed. Is that the kind of god that one should want to worship?
GCT,
I'm just wondering but what's your reasoning to think that shedding blood is barbaric?
I apologize for such a lengthy delay but I've been traveling and the weekend is really busy.
Anyhow, just wondering. God is not barbaric. God is God. If He asks for blood sacrifice, we give Him blood sacrifice and don't ask questions.
It's man that defines barbarism not God.
You asked me last week if I would raise my children the way God treats us.
My response is absolutely!
My child is destined to inherit something from me. If my child rejects my love for her, I am in my rights to withold her inheritance (although that is my right to give her my inheritance.)
Why would I leave her my estate? Because she was good to me? Because she loved me?
No. I leave her in my will because I love her.
However, if she rejects my love and rejects me, maybe I won't leave her in my will. I would never stop loving her but if she rejects me, I would be in my right to not leave her anything in my will.
That's how God is. He will give us eternal life because He loves us. We have the choice to love Him and He will give us our inheritance of eternal life. Not because of what we've done but because He loves us.
However, if we reject Him, He may not give us our inheritance. That's His choice not ours.
Not a perfect analogy but I think it explains the Catholic perspective quite well.
I don't know, it seems to me that the whole point on this "barbarism" thing is being missed. Regardless of whether you define the act of Jesus' death on the cross as barbaric or not is not the issue. When God was barbaric to Jesus (if that is your viewpoint), He was only being barbaric to Himself. Remember: Jesus IS God. The Father may be a seperate personality from Jesus, but He is the same being. Just as much as it was The Father that was "barbaric" to Jesus, Jesus was being barbaric to Himself. That is the Gospel in a nutshell: that God sacrificed Himself for our sake so that, in a legal sense, our transgressions would be paid for and our record wiped clean. After the fall of Adam it was the only way to thwart satan's plans of dooming us all.
Now surely we can relate to this so-called "self-barbarism": What good parent wouldn't give their own life for the sake of their child's well-being?
And please don't chime in with non-starters like, "Why couldn't God just forgive us our transgressions without the death of Christ?" The short answer is "because He is just."
In Old-Testament times, if someone was to get into so much debt that he would have to go bankrupt, all his posessions, including his land, would be taken away. Now before the creditor could take posession of the land, etc., a certain amount of time had to go by with a notice placed on the land in public view. During this time, anyone who could prove that they were of the same kin as the debtor could reclaim the land by paying off the debt to the creditor, that way the land could stay in the family.
Why am I telling you this? Mankind is the debtor, sin is the debt, satan is the creditor, the "posessions" are our bodies and souls, and our Kinsmen Redeemer is our Lord and King Jesus Christ. Praise Him forever more.
Dennis,
If I could add something to your analogy, it would be that (and I want to speak generically because I'm not trying to impugn you or your parenting in any way) the parent does something that turns the child away. That is what god has done. God made children that turn away, then decided that they should be punished for what god made them do.
But, getting back to whether blood sacrifice is barbaric or not, how about we institute bleedings and bloody killings for crimes? If someone steals something, we should cut them with a knife, drain an appropriate amount of blood and then send them on their way. Why not? If it is OK for god to demand blood, why shouldn't our legal system do the same? Yes, we do define barbarism, but god shouldn't get a free pass simply because it is our definition. God also traffics in slaves, while we see that as completely unacceptable. Does god get a free pass on that one as well? By not asking questions, we doom ourselves to never progress as a society and a species.
Fabio,
Your point is that because it was some sort of bizarre self-flagellation that it somehow makes it OK? God tortured himself? To what end? How did it solve anything? How does torture solve anything? Why is god suddenly OK with our sins after an episode of excruciating torture, or why is god sated after viewing torture? I don't like the comparison to a parent giving one's own life, unless you say that the parent had to kill him/herself in order to save the child from being killed by the parent in the first place.
I don't think "Why couldn't god forgive us without the death of Christ" is a non-starter. You simply saying it is, doesn't make it so. God made us who we are and then decided that the way he had made us was bad, but that it was somehow our fault. If god were just, he would recognize that he screwed up and would not fault us for what he has made us do.
Do you believe in hell? How does one become "saved"? God, still condemns some to death (and perhaps torture depending on your "hell" concept). Some even hold that god still chooses who to save and not save. From that standpoint, what was the point of Jesus at all? God still elects some to decide to forgive them and the rest all die and/or get tortured. I'm sorry, but I see no justice in creating something that will purposely fall short of your expectations just so that you can punish your creation when it falls short of your expectations.
GCT,
God did not create us to turn away. We turn away on our own.
Regarding a parent who does something to turn the child away. Yes, there are parents who don't treat their children lovingly or justly and their children do reject them.
The difference is that God is perfect whereas parents (and I will include myself) are not. In a relationship between child and parent, there are two flawed people. In a relationship between me and God, there is only one flawed person (and it's not God).
Regarding your question about our legal system demanding blood, no I don't recommend that we do that.
God is the only one who can bring life and He is (or should be) the only one who can take it away.
We are called by God to always choose life and also to love our neighbor as well as our enemies. Therefore, we respect and honor life from conception through until death.
Funny, I posted this exact same quote just the other day on this same blog in response to another comment:
Romans 9:10-24
"10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"
Those are my beliefs on the subject summed up nicely. Pay special attention to v22-24.
You believe what you want to believe because you desire to believe it. Intelligence doesn't factor in. And, wait for it: the same goes for me. (WHY we desire what we desire is another story).
And yet, I see a glimmer of hope in you in the fact that you are here. I seriously doubt you are here to save us all from our ignorance. Why, if we all just end up in the same pile of decaying matter?
May God bless you and prosper you all the days of your life.
Dennis,
I've already answered some of your objections, which you failed to address, except to reassert the same thing you said that I responded to. Here is what I said:
"I do have to ask you if you really can go against god's will. When god created the universe he had infinite choices, correct? Let's, for the sake of ease, say that he had at one point a choice between option A and B. If he chose option A, then the world would turn out exactly as it has. If he chose option B, it would turn out exactly as it has, only you would make different decisions. So, let's say he chose A, and you turned out the way you did, making the decisions that he knew you would make when he made the choice to go with option A. Still think you have the power to go against god in your choices?
Also, let's look at the argument. God did not make us to love him, he made us to reject him. Else, he would have chosen a different option when he created a world, instead of one where man would necessarily reject him. So, god made us commit sin, and made the punishment for it. That is not love. I certainly wouldn't raise my children that way. I wouldn't tell them I love them, but if they do anything wrong that I will personally make sure that they burn in hellfire for all eternity. That's sick. So, why is it alright when god does it?"
Also, once again you hold god's morals as separate from our own. We have some moral obligation to cherish life, but god doesn't? Why, because he created us? That absolves him of the duty to cherish life? That absolves him of the sin of being bloodthirsty? That absolves him of sentencing us to hell, fire, brimstone, eternal torment? I think not.
Fabio,
So, you present me with a passage that shows us a couple things:
1. God is arbitrary. Some people he likes, some he doesn't. That does not sound like the god that loves all of us.
2. God doesn't know the meaning of justice. Justice demands fair treatment for all based on the merits of the case. God seems to be exerting power just to exert it. That is not justice.
3. Why does god want us to be unquestioning servants? That sounds like he wants automatons. I'm told over and over that this is not the case. So, why am I told not to question god? Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to informed opinions. God seems to desire ignorance.
4. Comparing us to pottery makes us sound like god's playthings. The analogy also seems to speak against "free will."
I'm here for various reasons, but it's not to be "saved." Besides, if you believe as Mr. Heddle believes, it's not my choice anyway. But, don't insult me by saying my intelligence has nothing to do with it. I have been using my intelligence to come up with questions for you guys to answer and counterarguments. Do you supposed I come up with those arguments and questions from sheer desire? Rubbish.
Hi GCT,
I hope your not ticked at me; it sounds from your comments as though you are, but then again little notes like this are horrible at portraying emotion and tone. Anyways, just wanted to say that it's the least of my intentions to have you angry with me or anyone; sorry if I've done that.
Back to the topic.
1. There is a disconnection here. Why do you assume that because God loves some people and hates some others that He is arbitrary? It seems silly to assume that His choice was arbitrary just because you (or I) don't know how He made that choice. From my (admitedly limited) understanding of Scripture, God loves His children, presumably those He has chosen to save. The way I read it, the passage above is saying that some were created for salvation and some for destruction. Why would God create some people just to destroy them? The passage gives this suggestion: "What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory . . .?"
C.H. Spurgeon has a great quote on Romans 9:13, it can be found here: http://grace-for-today.com/11.htm
Predestination is a tough subject and I don't claim to have a very good understanding of it. The Bible, quite purposely I believe, doesn't go into much detail about it.
2. You are right, it is not justice. All people deserve to die (and by that I mean the second death). But God, through His sovereignty chooses to extend His Grace to some, so that they will not only live, but also be heirs of The Living God. Justice is death to us all for all of us have sinned; Grace is so much more than justice.
Now, for the sake of saving a few days worth of back-and-forth commenting I submit this: Surely you will say that since we were predestined to sin, it is unjust that we should suffer it's consequences. As a consequence to the lack of detail on predestination in the Bible, the Christian (or at least this Christian), has very little to say to that. In an attempt to avoid making up my own suppositions on the matter to fill in the missing detail, I would simply say that the Bible tells us that our judgement will be fair and that we won't be able to say a single word in argument to it. I wish I understood the delicate balance between predestination and free will, but I don't.
3. I'll ignore for the moment that you said "I'm here for various reasons, but it's not to be 'saved.'", which would refute your whole point here that questions are good because they lead to informed opinions. You ask "Why does god want us to be unquestioning servants?", which implies that He does indeed want that; The Bible says quite the opposite: Acts 17:11 as an example. The truth is that there are questions and then there are questions. There are questions asked simply because the one asking wants to learn (about God, in our case); and then there are questions that are asked in defiance. Paul's imagined litigator in this case is asking the latter kind of question. Note that after the rebuke, Paul does give an answer. So I am left wondering: How did you come to the conclusion that God wants us to be unquestioning?
4. That's just silly! It's an analogy, that's what you do in analogies. Webster's gives this definition of Analogy: "A resemblance of relations; an agreement or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely different. . . ." I for one had no problem seeing that humans and pottery are entirely different (as are a potter and God), nor did I feel like God's plaything. I think you're really just nitpicking here.
----
The "various" reasons you are here really do intrigue me. So let me ask you formaly; What is your purpose here? Is it to save us from our ignorance, to open our eyes?
Mr. Heddle, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think David's belief is that there is free will involved as well. Some people have described it like this: God puts in us, in various ways, the desire to do something and we then act on that desire. The net effect would be that God's purpose and will is done as well as our own (at least superficially). Again, the Bible tells us very little on this subject (on purpose), so I can't say that's exactly how it works. Bottom line: even you will think that your judgement is fair.
It was not my intention to "insult" you by saying that intelligence has nothing to do with it. Indeed, I included myself in the same boat, so I would be insulting myself as well. I don't suppose you came up with all your wonderful questions and counterarguments with "sheer desire." I said nothing of the sort. I was simply saying that at the end of the day all the intelligence in the world cannot answer all the questions about God in one way or the other; the reason you or I choose one way or another is the forementioned combination of predestination and free will. Another way to say this is that in this great debate about God there have been over the centuries countless people on either side. Some of which were/are far more intelligent than even you. Yet, over all these centuries, with all these very smart people, nothing conclusive has been decided either way. So maybe this time it will be more clear: "You believe what you want to believe because you desire to believe it. Intelligence doesn't factor in. And, wait for it: the same goes for me."
I can't help but wonder how your beliefs would stand up to your own level of scrutiny. Perhaps you could detail for us all of your beliefs on God and faith, etc., so that we can ask you some intelligent questions. I don't suppose you'll do that, and I'm sure your reason for not doing it will sound great.
I pray that God calls you and that you answer.
Fabio,
I'm not upset. I don't get angry over stuff like this, so don't worry about it.
If you believe in predestination, then I don't see how the choice of who god loves or hates could be anything but arbitrary. God hates everything that people do, think, say, anything until they are compelled to serve (are chosen for salvation) under the doctrine of predestination (as explained in an earlier post by Mr. Heddle.) If god hates all of us, then how can he choose one person over another? Is it based on what their future acts will be? Sorry, but their future acts will be hateful to god unless they are already chosen. Is there any way it could be non-arbitrary?
Further, in response to the part about god creating some people to be damned in order to show the saved the "riches of his glory" I have to say that this is sickening. That would be like if a terrorist group took the two of us hostage. Then, they decide to kill me and spare you so that you can see how merciful they are. So, you go back and proclaim to everyone how great that group was because they spared you.
I'm glad you agree that it isn't justice, but I have to profess that I don't like your answer either. But, I do have to ask why you unquestioningly accept that your judgement will be fair. If the judge tells you your judgement will be fair and then sentences you to death for jaywalking, will you simply accept it because he told you that the judgement would be fair? Also, you can see my other objections to this in previous comments on this thread.
All non-rhetorical questions are chances to learn (and even some rhetorical questions are as well.) But, you've already told me that I am not allowed to question god. Why not? Are all questions about god's actions "defiant questions"? What is wrong with a question asked in defiance? If someone asks you, "Why should I believe in your god?" isn't that a question asked in defiance? Why would that not be worth answering?
I know that no analogy is perfect, and maybe I am nit-picking a bit, but I do think the question of free will is somewhat murky in that analogy. I will leave the play-things idea behind.
So, you wish to know why I am here? There's a few reasons. I'm not trying to convert anyone, because I know that you won't be converted no matter what I say. There may be lurkers, however, who will see the debate and decide that I have valid points and will go and make their own choices. That's one reason. Also, I've seen a lot of anti-evolution stuff on here, and I debate that frequently as a civic duty, as well as debating ID (ID is really just anti-evolutionism, but I wanted to specify). Also, I am interested in religion and religious thought.
Now, if you want to know my beliefs, all you have to do is ask. I'll answer anything that you ask. I do not believe in god. I'm one of those dreaded atheists *gasp*. Personally, I see no reason to believe in an entity such as a god. There's certainly no proof for such and in the absence of evidence (I know it's not evidence of absence) I lean towards disbelief. I also find many philosophical/physical problems with the god ideas put forth. For instance, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god doesn't quite work with the idea of free will (as I explained in an earlier comment above.) Does this meet the requirements of detail? If not, ask away.
You said, "I don't suppose you'll do that..." Well, hopefully I surprised you.
Hi GCT,
"If you believe in predestination, then I don't see how the choice of who god loves or hates could be anything but arbitrary. God hates everything that people do, think, say, anything until they are compelled to serve (are chosen for salvation) under the doctrine of predestination . . ."
Well, one of the postulations that I've already given about how our free-will and God's sovereign predestination could co-exist would solve this conundrum. To keep it short: God gives us our desires and we act on them. Again, I must say that I don't KNOW that this is how it works, just that it's one possible solution. One possible solution (even an incorrect one) is enough. You don't know what you don't know.
"Further, in response to the part about god creating some people to be damned in order to show the saved the "riches of his glory" I have to say that this is sickening. That would be like if a terrorist group took the two of us hostage. Then, they decide to kill me and spare you so that you can see how merciful they are. So, you go back and proclaim to everyone how great that group was because they spared you."
That would be an accurate analogy if:
a) God was evil. - Terrorist groups are inherently evil and God is not. If you mean to prove that He is so through this analogy, well, you must know that that's a circular argument?
b) we were gods or God was human. - "Terrorists" are people and "the two of us" are people, which puts us at the same level.
c) the terrorists had created us. - My life is not my own, it is God's. I don't think any captive would claim that about his terrorists.
d) your previous point about God being arbitrary was true.
". . . I do have to ask why you unquestioningly accept that your judgement will be fair."
That's easy: Because I believe that the Bible is the innerant word of God and the Bible says that my (and your) judgement will be fair. This is equivalent to asking me why I believe God exists. Which is the whole reason we are having this discussion. So asking me in your next comment WHY I believe that the Bible is the innerant word of God will just lead straight back to this same discussion we are already having.
"If the judge tells you your judgement will be fair and then sentences you to death for jaywalking, will you simply accept it because he told you that the judgement would be fair? Also, you can see my other objections to this in previous comments on this thread."
Un-analagous analogy again, but let's not beat a dead horse. I'm not sure what overall point you are trying to make here. On the surface it sounds like you are saying that God's judgement will necessarily be unfair. But that requires that God exist, which you don't believe. If, instead, you are trying to say that my belief in a fair judgment is unfounded, the same could be said about your converse belief, and the argument is null and void.
"All non-rhetorical questions are chances to learn (and even some rhetorical questions are as well.)"
Well put. But a "chance to learn" and a willingness to learn are two different things. Questions asked in a defiant spirit are not asked for the sake of learning and are therefore not chances to learn. Is it possible that somebody ask a questions in defiance and then actually learn something? Yes, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Put another way, defiant questions usually aren't questions at all, they're high on "defiant" and low on "question."
One more thing on this: Isn't there a difference in the spirit in which you ask a question when that question is posed to, say, your colleague and when it is posed to your boss? How about your boss' boss? Do you ask the same question in a slightly different way? Shouldn't it then follow that questions asked to the Creator of All Things should be asked with the utmost of reverence and respect? (Assuming of course that you believe in such a being).
"But, you've already told me that I am not allowed to question god. Why not?"
OK, here you are either trying to confuse the reader about what I've said, or you are plain dull. I really doubt you are dull. Despite your claim, I previously said, "You ask 'Why does god want us to be unquestioning servants?', which implies that He does indeed want that; The Bible says quite the opposite: Acts 17:11 as an example." If you wish to continue claiming that I said you're not allowed to ask God questions, please point out where.
"I know that no analogy is perfect, and maybe I am nit-picking a bit, but I do think the question of free will is somewhat murky in that analogy."
Murky. That's the word I was looking for. I agree. Now the question is: Is the analogy murky because God doesn't exist or because He purposely wanted to leave it murky for the time being? I touched a little on this before. However, that's a question that can only be answered if you've already decided if God exists or not, which is what we're discussing.
"I do not believe in god. I'm one of those dreaded atheists *gasp*."
I have plenty of atheist friends. We've had plenty of heated but friendly discussions (and don't get me started on politics 
. Also my cousin, whom I love dearly and get along with very well is an atheist. So no, I don't dread you. Who knows maybe we'll be great friends one day. No *gasp*s, maybe a *sigh*.
"Personally, I see no reason to believe in an entity such as a god. There's certainly no proof for such and in the absence of evidence [. . .] I lean towards disbelief."
That sounds logical on first read. But surely you're familiar with the concept of burden of proof. It seems to me that the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe necesitates at least a force from outside said universe to at least start the process. I know we are miles away from proving the existence of the God of the Bible (though a step closer), but the burden to prove that a god does not exist (or that the origin of the universe is different from stated and doesn't require an outside force) lies squarely in your lap.
That aside, if there is no creator and the universe is some big fluke, then it is safe to say that the very first action that occured in the universe determined everything that would and will ever happen. We can determine several things from this fact, a few of which are:
a) Nothing could have turned out any different than it has
b) You and I would have no free will
c) There would be no absolute good or evil, only that learned in, through and by society
So maybe you and I aren't that different ideologically (except for that last one)? About item c), do you believe this? I mean you would have to at least through implication, but is it an active belief? If so, then your life and mine are only precious in the the same sense that our money is precious: it has value because we all agree to give it value; in actuallity it's nothing more than paper and ink. Likewise, any value of a human is attributed, not inherent. Is this any less barbaric than what you claim my God to be? Isn't it just as "sickening" as your terrorist example and others? Surely you've asked yourself these questions before? Surely you've put your beliefs through the same rigorous questioning that you've put mine through?
And yet all these arguments are nothing compared to the simple fact that if you LOGICALLY THEORIZE that the universe is a fluke then you have to accept that there is no reason to believe that our LOGIC, developed through fluke, is VALID LOGIC at all. Therefore, since our LOGIC is FAULTY, we CANNOT LOGICALLY THEORIZE that the universe is a fluke. Or that God doesn't exist. Or that He does. All of our thoughts would be nonsense, not to be relied upon any more than the logic of the crazy, drunk guy in the street yelling profanities at the telephone pole.
My brain hurts now, good night.
Fabio,
"Well, one of the postulations that I've already given about how our free-will and God's sovereign predestination could co-exist would solve this conundrum. To keep it short: God gives us our desires and we act on them."
But, that's just the point. I don't think they can co-exist. Plus, look at what you've written. "God gives us our desires." Under the doctrine of depravity, that would mean that god gives us our desires to be depraved.
"That would be an accurate analogy if:
a) God was evil. - Terrorist groups are inherently evil and God is not. If you mean to prove that He is so through this analogy, well, you must know that that's a circular argument?"
No, it's not a circular argument. I'm taking the actions of god and applying them to an analogous situation. You saying that god is inherently good is begging the question.
"b) we were gods or God was human. - "Terrorists" are people and "the two of us" are people, which puts us at the same level."
I see no logical imperative why this would stop the analogy from holding, especially if you believe in absolute morality. Even if you don't, we can still come to a conclusion about what we find moral and immoral and we can judge god's actions accordingly.
"c) the terrorists had created us. - My life is not my own, it is God's. I don't think any captive would claim that about his terrorists."
By this logic, we should be able to kill our children if they disappoint us. Simply because god made us does not mean he has the right to be cruel to us.
"d) your previous point about God being arbitrary was true."
That's part of what we are investigating with the analogy.
"That's easy: Because I believe that the Bible is the innerant word of God and the Bible says that my (and your) judgement will be fair. This is equivalent to asking me why I believe God exists. Which is the whole reason we are having this discussion. So asking me in your next comment WHY I believe that the Bible is the innerant word of God will just lead straight back to this same discussion we are already having."
Then, you either rely on circular logic (i.e. the Bible is true because god says so and I believe in god's word because it is in the Bible) or you rely on faith that is not backed by reason.
"Un-analagous analogy again, but let's not beat a dead horse. I'm not sure what overall point you are trying to make here. On the surface it sounds like you are saying that God's judgement will necessarily be unfair. But that requires that God exist, which you don't believe. If, instead, you are trying to say that my belief in a fair judgment is unfounded, the same could be said about your converse belief, and the argument is null and void."
I'm not saying that god's judgement will necessarily be unfair, but I am saying that you can't know. Your belief is unfounded, it is based on faith. That does not make my belief also unfounded, because you are making the positive assertion with nothing to back it up.
"I have plenty of atheist friends. We've had plenty of heated but friendly discussions (and don't get me started on politics . Also my cousin, whom I love dearly and get along with very well is an atheist. So no, I don't dread you. Who knows maybe we'll be great friends one day. No *gasp*s, maybe a *sigh*. "
I'm glad you don't have the same irrational distaste/fear/etc. that some do.
"That sounds logical on first read. But surely you're familiar with the concept of burden of proof. It seems to me that the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe necesitates at least a force from outside said universe to at least start the process. I know we are miles away from proving the existence of the God of the Bible (though a step closer), but the burden to prove that a god does not exist (or that the origin of the universe is different from stated and doesn't require an outside force) lies squarely in your lap."
I'm going to disagree with you again. The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertions. It is up to you to prove to me that god exists. Besides that, appealing to popular opinion is a logical fallacy. Simply because people believe that a god started the universe does not make it so, nor does it shift the burden of proof.
"That aside, if there is no creator and the universe is some big fluke, then it is safe to say that the very first action that occured in the universe determined everything that would and will ever happen. We can determine several things from this fact, a few of which are:
a) Nothing could have turned out any different than it has
b) You and I would have no free will"
I fail to see how this is a logical necessity. In fact, it is the other way around. With a god that already knows what will happen when that god makes the universe you have this situation.
"c) There would be no absolute good or evil, only that learned in, through and by society"
This one is correct. No god = no absolute good or evil. Moral relativism is what I believe, but some morals have been so ingrained in society through the ages (for evolutionary and societal reasons) that they seem absolute, like not killing for instance.
"If so, then your life and mine are only precious in the the same sense that our money is precious: it has value because we all agree to give it value; in actuallity it's nothing more than paper and ink. Likewise, any value of a human is attributed, not inherent. Is this any less barbaric than what you claim my God to be? Isn't it just as "sickening" as your terrorist example and others? Surely you've asked yourself these questions before? Surely you've put your beliefs through the same rigorous questioning that you've put mine through?"
Yes, the value that we have is what we have given ourselves. I fail to see how it is barbaric or cruel, however. The life we make is our own; it does not belong to another. We have no imperative to attribute our successes to some other entity, while wallowing in our failings. With a god belief, we give all our best human attributes and successes to god; they no longer belong to us. Our failings, however, we keep. It makes humans evil and mean by nature. I'd rather prefer to think of people as both good and evil instead of just evil.
"And yet all these arguments are nothing compared to the simple fact that if you LOGICALLY THEORIZE that the universe is a fluke then you have to accept that there is no reason to believe that our LOGIC, developed through fluke, is VALID LOGIC at all. Therefore, since our LOGIC is FAULTY, we CANNOT LOGICALLY THEORIZE that the universe is a fluke. Or that God doesn't exist. Or that He does. All of our thoughts would be nonsense, not to be relied upon any more than the logic of the crazy, drunk guy in the street yelling profanities at the telephone pole."
Do you mean to assert that logic comes from god, so no god = no logic? This has not been the case historically, as people have been able to win arguments in ways that we would deem illogical. Further, that would mean that math does not work if there is no god. I think that notion is absurd. There is no logical imperative to have a god for logic to be logical.
GCT,
If the God of the Bible were to reveal himself to you in a way that convinced you he existed, would you be arguing with him whether he was barbaric for allowing Jesus to die on the cross? If you no longer questioned His existence, you wouldn't be in a position to judge whether he measured up as God any longer. You would have to conclude that He is God despite the fact that His will does not correspond to your own. If you hold the position that God can only exist if He conforms to your expectations of Him, then you are not seeking Him. You are instead seeking some manifestation of your own expectations for God, and if they don't appear, you conclude there was never a God to be found.
Can I give you a rational explanation as to why a blood sacrifice was needed in payment for sins? No. I can't. What I can say, however, is that God does reveal Himself to those that seek Him. Seeking Him with ugency, from a position of humility, is the experiment that I was referring to my earlier post.
John,
If god came to me there would be lots of things he would have to answer for. Ordering genocide, the torture of Jesus, turning a blind eye to slavery, etc. If this god exists, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is worthy of worship. Certainly, the god of the Bible is not worthy of worship IMO. This doesn't mean that god's will must correspond with my own (or that god doesn't exist unless he conforms to my expectations), but god, if he exists, should at least measure up to some standard of morality (especially if you believe in absolute morality) else he is not worthy of worship.
Also, what makes you think I am currently seeking god? Note, this doesn't invalidate what I told you before. Besides, you are trying to apply a subjective experience objectively, and it doesn't work that way. Simply because you have a subjective belief in a god does not mean that others will share that belief even if they share your actions.
John,
Something else occurred to me. You seem to be making the case that might makes right. If god exists, then he is necessarily just because he has more power, knowledge, etc. than any of us. That is not necessarily the case, however. Simply because god is all powerful would not logically entail that god must be just. Might does not necessarily make right.
GCT,
I don’t know whether you are currently seeking God or not, but something drives you to engage in this discussion. You said you had done the experiment and found it wasn’t true. That would imply that you sought God in the past, but didn’t find Him. If you had completely rejected the idea of there being any truth to the Gospel, I would not expect you to be here on this blog. From an atheist’s point of view, you have a limited number of precious minutes left in your life before it runs out. If I were an atheist, I wouldn’t be spending those minutes here.
When you say I’m trying to apply my subjective experience objectively, I take this to mean that my experiment can’t be validated by you or anyone else. I would say that my experiment has been validated by others, those who have had the same experience as a result of trusting Christ.
You said you read the Bible and didn’t find a loving God. I think that the experiment goes beyond an objective evaluation of whether the God of the Bible meets your definition of loving. I didn’t read the Bible and then conclude that God is loving. I trusted Christ and was shown that He is loving. Do I have objective proof? No. Can you prove it to yourself? Yes, you can.
John,
"I don’t know whether you are currently seeking God or not, but something drives you to engage in this discussion."
I'm not seeking god, so you don't have to proselytize to me. I engage in this discussion for the reasons outlined above. You could actually read my comments.
"You said you had done the experiment and found it wasn’t true. That would imply that you sought God in the past, but didn’t find Him."
Correct. In fact, I think most people in the country are conditioned to try this experiment. The Christianity of this country is overwhelming. It's everywhere.
"If you had completely rejected the idea of there being any truth to the Gospel, I would not expect you to be here on this blog."
That depends on what you mean by truth. Are some of the historical parts of the Bible true? They very well could be. Certainly, there's no reason to believe the miracles are true nor many of the other stories.
"From an atheist’s point of view, you have a limited number of precious minutes left in your life before it runs out. If I were an atheist, I wouldn’t be spending those minutes here."
All life is an adventure. It's only a waste if I make it one.
"When you say I’m trying to apply my subjective experience objectively, I take this to mean that my experiment can’t be validated by you or anyone else. I would say that my experiment has been validated by others, those who have had the same experience as a result of trusting Christ."
That is incorrect. Not one of those people can point to any objective data. Plus, if it were objective, it would work for all.
"You said you read the Bible and didn’t find a loving God. I think that the experiment goes beyond an objective evaluation of whether the God of the Bible meets your definition of loving. I didn’t read the Bible and then conclude that God is loving. I trusted Christ and was shown that He is loving. Do I have objective proof? No. Can you prove it to yourself? Yes, you can."
Let me be clear. I read the Bible and find the actions of god as recorded to be deplorable and non-loving. I don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise to be honest. God asks a followed to sacrifice his own son. God does sacrifice his own son. God orders genocide. God destroys the world, sparing only a few people and animals. And, god made all of this happen, and knew it would all happen when he set the events in motion. That is simply sadistic.
Hi GCT,
I'm back. Actually, this will be my last post on this thread. I think the length of it and how it has wandered from its original topic means that not many if any will see this, and you've made it clear that you want nothing to do with God and Christianity except to criticise. For these reasons I believe that it would be to no one's benefit to continue. If anybody has read this far down and you want to hear more from me, please reach me at fabtheman at gmail dot com. On with the show.
"But, that's just the point. I don't think [free will and predestination] can co-exist."
What you "think" doesn't really matter in this case. The point is that a possible way has been put forth; it's not impossible.
"No, it's not a circular argument. I'm taking the actions of god and applying them to an analogous situation. You saying that god is inherently good is begging the question."
Like I said, this is not an analagous situation for the reasons outlined. Please re-read the definition of analogy above. The subjects in the analogy themselves are not important, but rather the relationship(s) between the subjects is what is paramount in an analogy, and that is what's messed up.
"I see no logical imperative why this would stop the analogy from holding, . . ."
Again, see the definition of analogy.
"By this logic, we should be able to kill our children if they disappoint us. Simply because god made us does not mean he has the right to be cruel to us."
Nope. You know full well that we "create" children only as a biological function, not in the same sense that we "create" a house or "create" a computer program. God created us in this sense. BIG difference. No sane person could ever blame you for destroying anything that you created.
"That's part of what we are investigating with the analogy."
My bad. That's what I get for writing so late at night.
"Then, you either rely on circular logic . . . or you rely on faith that is not backed by reason."
Poppycock. I think you can clearly see from my posts that my faith is backed by plenty of reason (you may think it is wrong reasoning, just as I do yours, but it is reasoning nonetheless). I don't, however, need to have absolute proof of God and perfect theories about every doctrine in order to believe in The God of the Bible. If I did think I had to, you could group me in with the same wacko's that believe the earth is flat and that we never went to the moon, or the poor, lonely geeks that think we're in the matrix. Your strict standard of reason, if applied to all else, would mean that we would never really be able to "know" anything other than what we experience with our own six senses. Did Napolean ever live? We could never know. Did the Hindenburg crash? No reason to believe it did. As far as my logic being circular: I don't believe in God because the Bible tells me so and in the Bible because God tells me so.
"I'm not saying that god's judgement will necessarily be unfair, but I am saying that you can't know. Your belief is unfounded, it is based on faith. That does not make my belief also unfounded, because you are making the positive assertion with nothing to back it up."
First you say that you aren't saying that God's judgment will necessarily be unfair, but then you say that my argument does not make your belief unfounded. If you weren't saying that God's judgement would be unfair, what is your belief that you are referring to? Although you may not have said it outright, it is obvious to just about any reader that you believe that The God of the Bible would necessarily be unjust and that His judgment would be too. Now, if there were already a general consensus that God's judgment will be unfair, then your argument stands. But we have no such thing. What we have is two people making opposite claims with no proof in either direction. I can't prove that my positive assertion is correct, and you can't prove that your positive assertion is correct, so the arguments are null and void.
"I'm going to disagree with you again. The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertions. It is up to you to prove to me that god exists."
You've got this wrong. The positive assertion here is made by scientists who say that the universe started with the big-bang. Seeing as this is all but proven and is widely accepted by the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on those who positively assert that the universe started in some other way. This widely accepted theory logically calls for a being outside of the universe that at least started the whole process. If you disagree, then you must present proof that the big-bang theory is incorrect.
"Besides that, appealing to popular opinion is a logical fallacy. Simply because people believe that a god started the universe does not make it so, nor does it shift the burden of proof."
I don't get it?!?! I never said that God exists because many people believe He does. Are you actually trying to say that simply because scientists believe the big-bang to be true, it doesn't make it so? You said you like debating evolution. Why do you believe in that and not the big-bang? Especially considering that scientists saying that it is so doesn't make it so. We're back to the idea that we can't know anything outside our own personal experiences through our own five senses. According to this, if someone says that the Holocaust happened they are making a positive assertion and they need to provide proof. The big bang is inherantly un-provable, just as the theory that two parallel lines will never touch cannot be proven. But they are accepted as fact and anyone who disagrees must provide proof to the contrary.
"I fail to see how this is a logical necessity."
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The very first thing to have happened would have NECESSARILY caused the next; that, in turn, would have necessarily caused the next and so on. This is admitedly over-simplified, but you get the idea. Every action would be a hierarchical descendant of the very first action; these actions, having equal and opposite reactions, could not have turned out any different than they have. If they did, that would be the definition of a miracle. It is nothing short of the laws of nature being suspended.
"I fail to see how it is barbaric or cruel, however."
I'm sure most logical, un-biased readers would not fail to see this. With your thinking, Ted Bundy is not guilty of any real wrong-doing. There is nothing absolutely wrong with what he did.
"Do you mean to assert that logic comes from god, so no god = no logic? This has not been the case historically, as people have been able to win arguments in ways that we would deem illogical. Further, that would mean that math does not work if there is no god. I think that notion is absurd. There is no logical imperative to have a god for logic to be logical"
It sounds like you are trying to say that we know that our logic is sound because math works. The reader will note that this last statement is indeed made using logic. If we are not certain that our logic works, we certainly cannot use this same (probably faulty) logic to try to prove that it does. What reason do we have to believe that our logic, which is a product of countless random happenings (according to you), is indeed sound? The chances are stacked against it. Having no reason to believe that our logic is good, we cannot use logic itself to defend logic.
This truly is goodbye GCT. I wish you the best in everything you do. God bless you.
Fabio,
Sorry, but I can't let your answers go unanswered, because they were so ill-informed that it's hard to know where to start.
"What you "think" doesn't really matter in this case. The point is that a possible way has been put forth; it's not impossible."
I was saying that your idea of free will can not co-exist with your idea of god. Again, I point to the examples I outlined above as to why this is so. If you can not answer those objections, then merely restating your assertion is meaningless.
"Like I said, this is not an analagous situation for the reasons outlined. Please re-read the definition of analogy above. The subjects in the analogy themselves are not important, but rather the relationship(s) between the subjects is what is paramount in an analogy, and that is what's messed up."
Yet, your objections to my analogy were based on the subjects themselves and not the relationship between the subjects, or does saying, "God is inherently good, terrorists are not" count as a relationship between subjects? You've just contradicted yourself and helped make my point for me. Thank you.
"Nope. You know full well that we "create" children only as a biological function, not in the same sense that we "create" a house or "create" a computer program. God created us in this sense. BIG difference. No sane person could ever blame you for destroying anything that you created."
So, if I create a test-tube baby, then I can kill it at any time and not worry about it, even after it becomes a legal adult? Like I told John, having power does not make one automatically legitimate. Might does not necessarily make right.
"Poppycock. I think you can clearly see from my posts that my faith is backed by plenty of reason (you may think it is wrong reasoning, just as I do yours, but it is reasoning nonetheless). I don't, however, need to have absolute proof of God and perfect theories about every doctrine in order to believe in The God of the Bible."
But, your "reasoning" is all based off a faulty premise (faulty because it is an unproven assertion, i.e. that god exists.)
"Your strict standard of reason, if applied to all else, would mean that we would never really be able to "know" anything other than what we experience with our own six senses. Did Napolean ever live? We could never know. Did the Hindenburg crash? No reason to believe it did."
Here, you have resorted to a slippery slope argument. But, once again it is backed by faulty premise. Simply because one does not believe in god does not mean that one can not see the validity of accrued observations and verified results.
"As far as my logic being circular: I don't believe in God because the Bible tells me so and in the Bible because God tells me so."
Then, why do you believe in these things? What objective data or proof do you have for such things?
fabio,
This is continued because I hit the "publish" button by accident.
"First you say that you aren't saying that God's judgment will necessarily be unfair, but then you say that my argument does not make your belief unfounded."
Those were two separate things I was replying to at once. One was the assertion that I think god's judgement will necessarily be unfair and the other is that my disbelief in god is unfounded and that the burden of proof lies on me. I was saying that I don't think that god's judgement will necessarily be unfair, but the story told in the Bible would not leave me hopeful for fairness. The second is that it's hard to call a disbelief in your positive assertion unfounded in the face of no evidence from you to back up your claims.
"What we have is two people making opposite claims with no proof in either direction. I can't prove that my positive assertion is correct, and you can't prove that your positive assertion is correct, so the arguments are null and void."
The positive assertion you make is that god exists. I deny that assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to make that claim stand.
"You've got this wrong. The positive assertion here is made by scientists who say that the universe started with the big-bang. Seeing as this is all but proven and is widely accepted by the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on those who positively assert that the universe started in some other way. This widely accepted theory logically calls for a being outside of the universe that at least started the whole process. If you disagree, then you must present proof that the big-bang theory is incorrect."
You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. The big bang does not necessitate god. Nor is god a "logical conclusion" of the big bang. Positing unprovable answers that can neither be shown nor disproved is not a logical conclusion to a question. I do not deny the big bang occurred. It is the best scientific explanation for the start of the universe. Wherever you got that idea is a mystery to me.
"I don't get it?!?! I never said that God exists because many people believe He does. Are you actually trying to say that simply because scientists believe the big-bang to be true, it doesn't make it so?"
The way I read your argument, it sounded like you were appealing to popularity. If you are not, then I must have misread you and withdraw the objection.
"You said you like debating evolution. Why do you believe in that and not the big-bang?"
What makes you think the big bang and evolution are mutually exclusive? I accept both as the best explanations that we have for their respective areas of study.
"According to this, if someone says that the Holocaust happened they are making a positive assertion and they need to provide proof."
That is correct. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive assertion. Luckily for us, we have ample evidence such that anyone denying the holocaust is rightly thought to be nuts, because the burden of proof has been met.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The very first thing to have happened would have NECESSARILY caused the next; that, in turn, would have necessarily caused the next and so on. This is admitedly over-simplified, but you get the idea. Every action would be a hierarchical descendant of the very first action; these actions, having equal and opposite reactions, could not have turned out any different than they have. If they did, that would be the definition of a miracle. It is nothing short of the laws of nature being suspended."
I get the idea that you again have no clue what you are talking about. Are you saying that the universe happens like this, except in the case of miracles, which change the preconceived outcome? Or, are you arguing for randomness? I thought most theists abhorred the idea of random happenings. I, however, don't. There is no logical imperative for your eventuality to come to play. There are random/chaotic events that happen all the time. Your assertion is simply misinformed. I would be more willing to believe that with a god who has created a universe knowing full well what will happen throughout the lifespan of the universe before it happens would lead to the situation that you describe. How will you change what god has already happened in the eyes of god?
"I'm sure most logical, un-biased readers would not fail to see this. With your thinking, Ted Bundy is not guilty of any real wrong-doing. There is nothing absolutely wrong with what he did."
I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. Without god and absolute morals then we must all be completely amoral? I'm finding it hard to believe that you were serious when you wrote that. Ted Bundy is guilty because we as a society have shaped our own morals and we as a society have learned what to do and not to do. If morality is absolute, then why is slavery not outlawed in the Bible? Why is segregation not outlawed in the Bible? Just a couple hundred years ago both slavery and segregation were both seen as completely moral. Why is that, if morality is absolute? Or, did we evolve as a society and learn that our previous actions were not just?
"It sounds like you are trying to say that we know that our logic is sound because math works."
No, I'm saying that just like math is true, logic is true. Logic, is an ongoing process, however. A couple hundred years ago, it was logical to decide whether someone was guilty or not of a crime by a trial by combat. Do you think that is logical now? Of course not. Those involved at the time sure thought it was logical, however. Why would they think that if logic was absolute and god-derived?
"The reader will note that this last statement is indeed made using logic."
And, the reader will also note that your statement does nothing to back your position.
"If we are not certain that our logic works, we certainly cannot use this same (probably faulty) logic to try to prove that it does. What reason do we have to believe that our logic, which is a product of countless random happenings (according to you), is indeed sound? The chances are stacked against it. Having no reason to believe that our logic is good, we cannot use logic itself to defend logic."
Just like the holocaust, the burden of proof has been met for logic. Why is it so hard for you to understand that? The rest of your argument is simply strawman. Also, if you are going to make a probability argument, you best be prepared to back it up with some sort of probability distribution. It is meaningless to say what you said without some sort of numbers, and you can't provide those numbers because it is inherently impossible. So, that is a non-starter.
"This truly is goodbye GCT. I wish you the best in everything you do. God bless you."
If you don't respond, I won't hold it against you, but I had to respond to such ill-informed arguments, lest anyone reading this think that you actually responded meaningfully to me. I was hoping that this would prove to be a useful dialog, but you resorted to logical fallacy instead of reasoned debate. So, if you don't respond, that is fine by me.
GCT,
I said, "I don’t know whether you are currently seeking God or not, but something drives you to engage in this discussion."
You replied, “I'm not seeking god, so you don't have to proselytize to me. I engage in this discussion for the reasons outlined above. You could actually read my comments.”
I’m not sure what comments you are referring to. When I read your past comments, they don’t really offer any explanation as to why you engage in this discussion. Why not just say it directly? What draws you to write in this blog?
Would it be more accurate to say that you are seeking the truth rather than seeking God?
John,
Above, I said, "So, you wish to know why I am here? There's a few reasons. I'm not trying to convert anyone, because I know that you won't be converted no matter what I say. There may be lurkers, however, who will see the debate and decide that I have valid points and will go and make their own choices. That's one reason. Also, I've seen a lot of anti-evolution stuff on here, and I debate that frequently as a civic duty, as well as debating ID (ID is really just anti-evolutionism, but I wanted to specify). Also, I am interested in religion and religious thought."
Hopefully that will clear up your question.
GCT,
You said "So, you wish to know why I am here? There's a few reasons. I'm not trying to convert anyone, because I know that you won't be converted no matter what I say. There may be lurkers, however, who will see the debate and decide that I have valid points and will go and make their own choices.”
Does it count as proselytizing if say I don’t really expect to convert you?
When it comes to seeking God, everybody makes their own choice for themselves. Those that seek Him out will be drawn to do the experiment, because He is bringing them to that point. Will the valid points you make here resonate with lurkers on this blog? Perhaps. You are clearly skilled as a debater, but I don’t think anyone chooses to seek God (or not) based upon points made in debates. I think they decide, at some point, to actually listen for themselves to hear whether there really is a Shepard’s voice to be heard. For those who put their debating tools aside for a moment and ask for the forgiveness that is offered through Christ, they hear it, and it resonates with them. Just like He said.
As another reason for writing, you also said “I've seen a lot of anti-evolution stuff on here, and I debate that frequently as a civic duty, as well as debating ID (ID is really just anti-evolutionism, but I wanted to specify). Also, I am interested in religion and religious thought."
Me too. With regard to evolution, I’m mostly interested in the arguments that Behe makes against the proposed mechanism for the evolution of molecular machines, and the associated responses that various people have made (like Ken Miller’s The Flagellum Unspun, The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"). So far, I haven’t found the responses I've read very satisfying. Maybe you know of some better ones.
John,
I'm not sure if it counts as proselytizing or not if you don't expect to convert me. I think it's actually in the effort, not the expected result. I know you were joking, but sometimes I answer jokes seriously.
A question does arise from comments about people choosing to seek god. Do you think that our culture has anything to do with it? Do you think that many people seek god because they are really making a choice, or because it is foisted upon them by a culture that looks down on those that decide not to believe. A recent study showed that atheists are the most hated group in the country. Our culture is saturated with messages that urge one to be religious. Is it really a free choice or is it coerced?
As to Behe's argument, it is fatally flawed. First, he makes a negative argument when he says that organism or part X could not have evolved. So, logically it's a no-go from the start. Also, it has yet to be explained why anything that is IC can't have evolved that way. An organism could have multiple parts and then become IC through deleterious mutations via evolution, where the deletions would eliminate unnecessary functions, pathways, etc. Why would this present a problem for evolution?
Why do you think Miller's criticisms are not adequate? I would also suggest checking some of the evolutionary algorithm work. I'll have to do some digging to find references for things though. I don't have that stuff handy.
GCT,
You said, “As to Behe's argument, it is fatally flawed. First, he makes a negative argument when he says that organism or part X could not have evolved. So, logically it's a no-go from the start.”
When you say Behe’s argument is flawed, I’m assuming you are referring to his conclusion that irreducibly complex machines cannot be generated through evolution, therefore they must be designed. I don’t think the first part of this argument is flawed. I think Behe makes a logical argument as to why the mechanisms of evolution are not sufficient to account for the generation of irreducibly complex machines. When he goes further to say that the evolution of molecular machines must have been designed, I would agree that the latter conclusion doesn’t follow as the only possible alternative.
What I find very disappointing about Ken Millers’ “The Flagellum Unspun” is that he doesn’t really show a flaw in Michael Behe’s argument against the mechanism of evolution. Behe chose the flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex machine. Miller argues that the TTSS is a subset of the proteins that comprise the flagellum and therefore represents proof that the flagellum can be reduced further (and therefore was never irreducibly complex in the first place). Since Behe defined the flagellum as irreducibly complex, according to Miller, the existence of the TTSS shows that he has wrongly identified the flagellum as irreducibly complex. Behe is thus wrong about the existence of irreducible complexity.
Since the TTSS plays no role in locomotion, is it correct to say that the TTSS represents a flagella that has been further reduced in terms of its complexity, yet still functions? It’s function is not related to motility, so does the existence of the TTSS disprove the irreducible complexity of the flagellum? Further, the TTSS is a complex machine in it’s own right, with respect to toxin secretion. How did it’s numerous protein co-evolve together? From a flagellum (progressively losing proteins nonessential to toxin secretion)? If so, how then did the many original proteins of the flagellum co-evolve to provide a platform for TTSS evolution?
The basic problem to my mind is that evolution requires that you have many proteins (in either the TTSS or the flagellum) that are being selected simultaneously for two or more different functions. Given that each mutation in a given protein must confer some selective advantage in order to be selected, it seems unlikely to me that you can add a selectable motility function (even a grossly inefficient one) through one or two mutations to a protein that functions for secretion (or vice versa).
Regarding the pervasiveness of Christianity and one’s ability to choose, I don’t think our culture determines the outcome. I have lived in places where Christianity is everywhere, like you suggest, and in places where you never hear about it at all. I personally don’t know of people who are Christians because it was foisted upon them (Do you?). I know plenty of people who are uncomfortable with Christianity and choose to ignore it or walk away from it, but I don’t think they are hated for that. There may be places where Christianity dominates in this country, but there are perhaps more places where it is decidedly unpopular and where the atheist is the comfortable one.
John,
In order for something to be IC, one must be able to knock out any piece of the item in question and it ceases not only to function, but to be viable. That is not true of the flagellum. If you remove pieces, you still have a viable, working part in the TTSS. That's why Behe's argument about the flagellum doesn't work. If he moves the goal posts and says that, "Well, the TTSS is not a flagellum, and it doesn't count because the TTSS isn't motile" then the argument is lost, because it makes no sense to say that the precursors to flagella must have had the same functions or else they didn't exist. Evolution certainly doesn't say that, so he would be arguing a straw man.
As for his arguments about whether evolution could have created something that is IC or not, there's still a flaw. Nevermind the fact that evolution could create something that is IC (by deletion mututation). Behe's argument is that natural processes could not have made an IC system without intervention from an intelligent designer. He doesn't know what all the natural processes possibly are, however, so how could he know that? That's why the argument is flawed.
Regarding Christianity's pervasiveness, it does not "determine" the outcome of choice, else I would be a Christian. It does certainly influence, and cultural selective pressure is a huge influence on many people. Personally, I do know Christians who are Christians solely because they were brought up that way. I used to date a girl that called herself a Catholic, even though she never went to church, didn't believe in confession, etc.
Are you aware of the recent study that was done by one of the Universities in Minnesota regarding public perception of atheism?
http://www.soc.umn.edu/amp/pubs/
...ngs_Atheism.pdf
"There may be places where Christianity dominates in this country, but there are perhaps more places where it is decidedly unpopular and where the atheist is the comfortable one."
Are you serious? Do you actually live here in the US? Christianity dominates just about everywhere here, and I'm wondering how you can think that atheists (with less than 10% of the population) can dominate larger portions of this country than Christians. This comment of yours is mind-boggling. I've noticed that some Christians have a persecution complex (eg. the War on Christmas, the War on Christians) when it comes to attitudes toward Christianity in this country. It's a crock. There is no war on Christianity and people need to stop trying to play the martyr. Please don't be that guy.
GCT,
You said :
“In order for something to be IC, one must be able to knock out any piece of the item in question and it ceases not only to function, but to be viable.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Viability is associated with organisms, not the components of organisms (their molecular machines). A flagellum is no more viable than any other component that comprises an organism (like a ribosome, a secretory vesicle, or a nucleus). It makes no sense to say it loses function, but remains “viable.” Show me the biochemistry text where flagella, the TTCC complex, or any other molecular machine is described as “viable,” distinct from functional.
Let’s consider what Behe calls irreducible complexity:
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system
cannot be produced directly... ” - Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box
or Demski:
“A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of
well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part
in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original,
function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the
system.” - William Demski in No Free Lunch
If we were to apply these definitions to the flagellum, the entire set of indispensable proteins comprising the flagellum which enable it to function as a means for cell motility is the system.
If we were to apply these definitions to the TTSS, the system is the entire set of indispensable proteins comprising the TTSS which enable it to function as a means for toxin secretion.
These are two different systems with regard to irreducible complexity. The proteins of the TTCC are a subset of those included in the flagellum (they are actually homologous to a comparable set of proteins in the flagellum, but let’s say they are actually the same set of proteins, in either the TTCC or the flagellum).
If we are considering the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, we are by definition including all the proteins of the flagellum because they are all needed for its motility function. To say that you can take away proteins from a flagellum (which functions a means for motility) and it still “functions” as TTCC complex (which has a different function, in toxin secretion), is switching the function of one irreducibly complex system for another. Moving the goalposts, you might say. When considering the irreducible complexity of a system, you have to define the function of that system, and in the case of the flagellum that function is motility.
You said: ” That is not true of the flagellum. If you remove pieces, you still have a viable, working part in the TTSS.”
Let’s reword this sentence to say “If you remove the pieces, you still have a functional TTSS.” That is to say, the remaining proteins (the TTSS) will allow the organism to be survive selection based upon the function of the TTSS to transport toxins. The function of the TTSS to transport toxins will not however, confer any advantage to the organism’s survival if it faces selection based upon its capacity for motility. The TTSS doesn’t provide any function with respect to motility.
If the TTSS can be considered a precursor for the evolution of a flagellum, how does it begin to acquire the function of motility? This isn’t a straw man. It’s the core question that should be explainable using the known mechanisms of evolution (mutation and selection). Is the idea that a single protein within the TTCC acquires a new mutation and the TTCC has a small (but selectable) function with respect to motility? Do additional stepwise mutations increase its capacity to function with respect motility? I personally don’t see this as plausible. Do you?
Of course, we could take the other tack and say that the TTCC evolved from the flagellum (through deletions of proteins that are not essential to toxin secretion). If we do that though, we now have come up with an evolutionary scheme to put together the more complex flagellum system.
Regarding the pervasiveness of Christianity-
Did I say anything about a War on Christians that would suggest I am playing a martyr? Don’t make me out to be that guy.
I’ve spent most of my life in academic science. Generally speaking, Christians take a pretty low profile in that community. That’s my experience. It may not be the same for others.
John,
You are missing the point. The IC argument IS a straw man, because it makes an argument for evolution that evolution does not make. Namely, that a system has to have the same function throughout its evolutionary history. If we look at the flagellum, you are saying that if we knock out some proteins, it is no longer motile. But, evolution does not say that it had to be a motile system throughout its evolutionary history. That is straight up straw man.
Second, the TTSS could have joined with another system through co-option and become the flagellum. That is possible and frankly I'd much rather investigate that possibility than what ID has to say on it, which is what? ID simply says it was designed. How? Does saying that the flagellum was designed give us any scientific insight into it? No. Do we know anything about the designer? No. It's a violation of Occam to posit a completely unknown entity such as a designer, and worse yet when that designer is god, an unmeasurable, undetectable entity. The best we could say was that the flagellum was "poofed" into existence.
I also note that you have consistently ignored the fact that the flagellum (and other IC systems) could very well have come about by deleterious mutation. IOW, a system is there and deletes away redundant proteins, thereby becoming IC. This is more than possible through evolution. So, when Behe says that something IC could not have evolved, he is incorrect.
As for Xtianity, I was going off of your assertion that there are more areas in this country where atheism is more popular than Xtianity. It's simply not true. Also, if you deal in academic science, then you should know that Xtians don't necessarily take a low profile, but they simply set it aside when doing science. Science can not proceed from Xtian assumptions. We do not do that in physics, chemistry, etc., yet there are many who want to do just that in biology by introducing ID. You should know better.
GCT,
You said ”You are missing the point. The IC argument IS a straw man, because it makes an argument for evolution that evolution does not make. Namely, that a system has to have the same function throughout its evolutionary history. If we look at the flagellum, you are saying that if we knock out some proteins, it is no longer motile. But, evolution does not say that it had to be a motile system throughout its evolutionary history. That is straight up straw man.”
My point is that the only evolutionary process that we can observe and verify is natural selection. When a mutation occurs in a protein, it is either deleterious, advantageous or neutral with regards to the survival of organism that requires the function of that protein. If you find that finches have different shaped beaks based upon the types of food sources available to them, you can infer that genes involved with beak development have acquired successive mutations over time, and these mutations provided a selective advantage that allowed those mutations to persist in the surviving finch population.
The changes in protein function that arise through mutation and selection are well documented, and evolution of proteins by this process can be shown experimentally. We can mutate flagellum genes and see the consequences of those mutations on the survival of the cell. This selective process would allow something with poor motility function to acquire better motility function. However, you say that evolution does not say that the flagellum had to be a motile system throughout its evolutionary history. Further, you suggest that the “TTSS could have joined with another system through co-option and become the flagellum.”
Let’s pursue that idea. I agree that it would be an interesting to investigate that possibility, and further agree that it is more interesting than the ID explanation. Since neither of us has any interest in defending the ID position about the role of a designer in the origin of the flagellum, we don’t need to bother ourselves with the weaknesses of that argument.
Instead, we can think about the science behind the TTSS co-opting another system. What other system did you have in mind when you suggested this? Does the system still exist in form today, or did it only exist sometime in the past? Do you have any idea of what such a system might be, or are you making up a hypothetical system? I’m assuming it’s hypothetical, but steer me to the actual references if it’s not. What would the function of that system be? How did the TTCC “co-opt” this system? At some point during the process of TTCC co-opting the other system, it must have provided a selective advantage to cell with regards to motility. What was that molecular event that took place that enabled the TTCC/COS (Co-Opted System) to confer motility to the cell? Did this change occur as a result of a single mutation or multiple mutations within interacting proteins?
You also mentioned that it is more than possible for evolution to generate IC by eliminating redundant genes from a system. Is there any evidence for another system that is a precursor system to the flagellum? How did the starting system (hypothetical?) itself arise with its interacting parts? If we can only generate irreducible complexity by deletion of redundant components from more complex systems, how do we ever get the more complex systems to start with?
Regarding Christianity, you said ”I was going off of your assertion that there are more areas in this country where atheism is more popular than Xtianity. It's simply not true.”
I gave you my impressions based upon my experience. Another impression I have (that may not be true) is that most people don’t feel particularly threatened by Christianity.
You also said “Also, if you deal in academic science, then you should know that Xtians don't necessarily take a low profile, but they simply set it aside when doing science. Science can not proceed from Xtian assumptions. We do not do that in physics, chemistry, etc., yet there are many who want to do just that in biology by introducing ID. You should know better.”
If the theory of evolution is science, one should be able to argue its merits or deficiencies without ever bringing up ID at all. You seem to think that any arguments against evolution must be defending ID, and by arguing against ID you have defended evolution. You should know better.
"Let’s pursue that idea. I agree that it would be an interesting to investigate that possibility, and further agree that it is more interesting than the ID explanation. Since neither of us has any interest in defending the ID position about the role of a designer in the origin of the flagellum, we don’t need to bother ourselves with the weaknesses of that argument."
Pardon me if I took the tack that you were an ID supporter. That is why I argued as I did.
"Instead, we can think about the science behind the TTSS co-opting another system. What other system did you have in mind when you suggested this? Does the system still exist in form today, or did it only exist sometime in the past? Do you have any idea of what such a system might be, or are you making up a hypothetical system? I’m assuming it’s hypothetical, but steer me to the actual references if it’s not. What would the function of that system be? How did the TTCC “co-opt” this system? At some point during the process of TTCC co-opting the other system, it must have provided a selective advantage to cell with regards to motility. What was that molecular event that took place that enabled the TTCC/COS (Co-Opted System) to confer motility to the cell? Did this change occur as a result of a single mutation or multiple mutations within interacting proteins?"
I am not an expert on the flagellum, and I won't pretend to be. In fact, we don't know the answer to lots of these questions, which is probably one reason that ID focussed on the flagellum. It's easier to attack areas where the science is little known. Seeing as how I was attacking ID, I wanted to go after the IC idea that "evolution could not have produced the flagellum." Certainly co-option should be considered a viable possibility. The TTSS would probably have co-opted another organism that has motility. Do we know the answers to all your questions? No. I'm sure there are some people working those areas and I'm sure that they have ideas about some of those questions although we may never know whether it came down to single or multiple mutations.
There's a lot science doesn't know about the flagellum and even more that I don't personally know. Until we find concrete answers, however, I would stick with the best current answer we have in evolution. As we find out more, we will add to the theory and make it even more robust, or we will find that we need to expand and explore new mechanisms.
"You also mentioned that it is more than possible for evolution to generate IC by eliminating redundant genes from a system. Is there any evidence for another system that is a precursor system to the flagellum? How did the starting system (hypothetical?) itself arise with its interacting parts? If we can only generate irreducible complexity by deletion of redundant components from more complex systems, how do we ever get the more complex systems to start with?"
Again, not being an expert of the flagellum, I'm not able to answer those questions. How could an organism do this? Well, imagine an organism with many cilia that allow it to feel the area around it. It could very well have evolved to lose its feelers in exchange for one tail that allows motility. Am I saying that this is how it happened? No. I'm saying that this is a possibility. There are probably many such possibilities. We will figure out more the more we study it. In a couple years, the evolution of flagella will probably be pretty well understood.
"I gave you my impressions based upon my experience. Another impression I have (that may not be true) is that most people don’t feel particularly threatened by Christianity."
I would agree that most people probably don't feel threatened by Xtianity in this country. It's hard to feel threatened by the majority when you are part of the majority.
"If the theory of evolution is science, one should be able to argue its merits or deficiencies without ever bringing up ID at all. You seem to think that any arguments against evolution must be defending ID, and by arguing against ID you have defended evolution. You should know better."
There is over 150 years of evolution in the peer-reviewed literature. It is a theory by the scientific definition. It certainly has both merits and deficiencies, but there is no competing theory out there, and it can certainly hold its own in any argument. I argued as I did because I thought you were defending ID. I do wonder what it is you are arguing for, or are you simply arguing against evolution? If you want to point out that we don't know everything, well fine, but that's no big secret. Of course there are gaps in our knowledge. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
Arguing for evolution is different from arguing the stance of ID vs. evolution. I do not think all arguments against evolution are pro-ID, nor do I think that anti-ID arguments somehow support evolution. To this point, I wasn't really trying to support evolution as much as argue against ID. It is funny that you should bring this up, however, because all too often supporters of ID (or even just evolution nay-sayers) think that if they can cast enough doubt upon evolution, then their idea (ID or whatever) automatically wins be default without having to go through any verification what-so-ever.
John,
Something else occurred to me just last night.
You say that the IC argument is flawed, because the role of the designer is a weakness, yet the whole argument rests on that weakness. But, you also say that the refutations, which point out this weakness somehow don't make you want to reject the theory that you admit has a fatal flaw? Wha?
GCT,
If you are going to go after the IC idea that “evolution could not have produced the flagellum,” you have to use scientifically meaningful terminology and more importantly, scientifically meaningful biology. Regarding the evolution of a flagellum from the TTCC, when you say “Certainly co-option should be considered a viable possibility,” you are using a term (co-option) that has no meaning in molecular biology. Tell me where “co-option” is described as a biological process in any biochemistry text. You said “The TTSS would probably have co-opted another organism that has motility.” Give me a hypothetical example of the molecular events that would take place during “co-option.” This description should include molecular events such as (1.) The process by which the genes of the other organism were introduced into the organism expressing the TTCC, (2.) The process by the DNA encoding these genes avoided degradation once inside the cell, (3) The process by which the new genes were inserted into the genome of the organism containing the TTCC, (4) The process by which the new genes were brought under the control of new promoters with the same regulatory features as the TTCC, (5.) The process by which the new genes were maintained in the genome in the absence of any selectable function, (6.) The process by which the new genes were subsequently selected to produce proteins that would physically interact with the components of the TTCC without decreasing the TTCC’s function in toxin secretion. (7) The process by which the TTCC gene products were selected to retain their original function in toxin secretion while being simultaneously selected for a new function (motility). To my knowledge, the processes you refer to as co-option have never been described. For you to say that it could “certainly” happen seems unwarranted given that the molecular basis for it has not been described anywhere in the scientific literature.
You also offer an explanation regarding the origin of the flagellum in which it evolves from a cilium. You said “Well, imagine an organism with many cilia that allow it to feel the area around it. It could very well have evolved to lose its feelers in exchange for one tail that allows motility. Am I saying that this is how it happened? No. I'm saying that this is a possibility. There are probably many such possibilities. We will figure out more the more we study it. In a couple years, the evolution of flagella will probably be pretty well understood.”
I know you are not an expert in this area, but this couldn’t happen. A cilium has a completely distinct and unrelated set of protein components compared to a flagellum. They also have completely different mechanisms for transducing energy into motion (BTW, cilia don’t function as feelers) as well as completely different energy sources. Because they are so absolutely dissimilar, no one has ever suggested that one might have evolved from another. When you say it is a possibility, I would have to disagree and say that it isn’t a possibility. I think that even the most imaginative molecular evolutionists would agree with me on this one.
They do look alike however.
If you were postulating evolutionary pathways without an underlying understanding of the molecular biology of the two systems you might think they were related in an evolutionary sense.
Did you not read about flagellum and cilium when you read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box? I’m assuming you did since you consider it your civic duty to effectively argue against anti-evolutionary thought and the flaws of IC. If you remember, there is even a bit about people using imagery instead of science when devising evolutionary pathways.
My point? The theory of evolution has a serious conceptual flaw. That flaw precludes the evolution of molecular machines like the flagellum. No one has yet made a good scientific argument that overcomes the flaw. You can take the position that the flaw doesn’t exist and use imagery instead of sound scientific reasoning to talk around it, but the flaw is still there.
GCT,
I never said the IC argument was flawed. What I said was “since neither of us has any interest in defending the ID position about the role of the designer in the flagellum, we don’t need to bother ourselves with the weakness of that argument.”
The IC argument reveals a flaw in proposed mechanism by which molecular machines are thought to evolve. This flaw has nothing to do with a designer. The flaw can be described in terms of known scientific principals that do not require one to invoke the intervention of a supernatural entity.
Having defined a flaw in the theory of evolution, Behe goes one step further to speculate how molecular machines arise. At this point, he invokes an intelligent designer. Although this is a logical hypothesis, he cannot test it using scientific principals. The hypothesis that molecular machines were designed by an intelligent entity would be vastly strengthened if one could describe the designer and the methods used, but that can’t be done scientifically. That is the weakness of the intelligent design argument which you have pointed out yourself, and with which I agree. However, lacking the means to produce the designer is just a weakness to the designer hypothesis. It doesn’t disprove the hypothesis. The hypothesis could be true, it just can’t be proven scientifically. We have already discussed the “experiment” that would lead you to determine for yourself whether it is true.
Will anyone be convinced of the existence of God by ID? Possibly. It may be part of the process by which God softens a hardened heart. If you begin to doubt the dogma of evolution because it has a fatal conceptual flaw, it might cause you to consider whether there could possibly be a designer, as incredible and unlikely as that seems. On the other hand, our desire to turn away from the concept of God is incredibly strong. It is far easier to ignore the flaw in evolution and find a way to believe in it, even if that can’t be done on scientific grounds.
John,
Co-option has indeed been described. See here for an example of how it could have helped produce the flagellum, and the relevant papers that are used:
http://www.talkorigins.org/index...CB/
CB200_1.html
Also here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/index...c/CB/
CB200.html
"My point? The theory of evolution has a serious conceptual flaw. That flaw precludes the evolution of molecular machines like the flagellum. No one has yet made a good scientific argument that overcomes the flaw. You can take the position that the flaw doesn’t exist and use imagery instead of sound scientific reasoning to talk around it, but the flaw is still there."
What this really is, is ID/Creationists trying to find systems that we haven't adequately studied yet, don't yet completely understand, then trying to obfuscate and conclude design. It doesn't show a flaw, it shows a lack of understanding. Even if it does show a flaw, that's a mark against evolution and not for design.
"Having defined a flaw in the theory of evolution, Behe goes one step further to speculate how molecular machines arise. At this point, he invokes an intelligent designer. Although this is a logical hypothesis, he cannot test it using scientific principals."
Then, is it really a "logical" hypothesis? To propose that "goddidit" is never a logical hypothesis within science.
"However, lacking the means to produce the designer is just a weakness to the designer hypothesis. It doesn’t disprove the hypothesis."
No, nothing disproves the hypothesis that "goddidit" making it non-scientific.
"The hypothesis could be true, it just can’t be proven scientifically. We have already discussed the “experiment” that would lead you to determine for yourself whether it is true."
Can't be proven or disproven scientifically you mean. Again, not science, and your "experiment" does not work, nor is it scientific.
"Will anyone be convinced of the existence of God by ID? Possibly. It may be part of the process by which God softens a hardened heart. If you begin to doubt the dogma of evolution because it has a fatal conceptual flaw, it might cause you to consider whether there could possibly be a designer, as incredible and unlikely as that seems. On the other hand, our desire to turn away from the concept of God is incredibly strong. It is far easier to ignore the flaw in evolution and find a way to believe in it, even if that can’t be done on scientific grounds."
Or, one can say as I have that we don't know yet and go about our business of doing science without invoking entities that can neither be proven nor disproven. As I've said above, there isn't a "fatal" flaw, it is simply an area that we don't know enough about yet. Perhaps we will have to find new pathways for evolution to work. Perhaps we will have to evolve/modify the theory. But, I certainly wouldn't throw it out as it has 150 years of peer-reviewed research in support. Those papers do not become invalid all of a sudden simply because one potential problem arises. That would be like people in the 1800s throwing out Newton's work because they noticed that Mercury's orbit didn't quite work.
What is not acceptable, however, is to fall back on "goddidit." No other science does that when faced with potential problems to major theories. Why would we foist it on evolution?
GCT,
Let’s go through the co-option pathway you cited, step by step, and see if there are any conceptual flaws in the proposed mechanism of evolution.
The author writes-
“Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum. One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
Co-option event # 1.
“A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). “
[Here we start with a protein that allows something (a small molecule) to cross the cell travel across a cell membrane of a bacterium. It is “nonspecific,” which must mean that it transports a variety of different small molecules. The author doesn’t give us a known example of such a pore, possibly, because pore protein complexes are actually quite specific in what they transport. However, we want this pore to be nonspecific so that it will readily acquire the ability to transport a new small molecule, like a protein. Does this ever happen in known systems? Oh nevermind… we are not concerned with data here. We next “add” gating proteins. How do we “add” gating proteins to the pore? This process of adding proteins must have first involved a pore protein gene duplication event. The duplicated gene had to persist for some time in order to allow it to undergo mutations that would allow it to interact with the pore, become a gating protein, and regulate the pore transport function. Since the evolving gene can’t instantly acquire new mutations to express a gating protein, it must have slowly acquired them over time. Yet in order for the gene to persist, it must have a selectable function or it would be lost (made nonfunctional by mutations). Since it has only one function (that of the pore), it must be maintained by selection for that function. Yet to become a gating protein, it must also provide some selectable function with respect to gating. It is thus evolving under two selections simultaneously. In order for the evolution of the duplicated gene to begin at all, the very first mutation it acquired during its evolution would have to provide some selectable function with respect to gating. But we know that a single mutation couldn’t do that. So how did this gene evolve?]
GCT- My point here is that in the very first step of the proposed co-option pathway, we have run into the conceptual flaw in the evolution of the gating protein. The author simply said we “add” the gating proteins as if they could be added by speaking them into existence. This casual approach to the molecular complexities of the proteins and the selective requirements for their evolution occurs throughout the proposed co-option pathway
Step 2
“Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.” [I can’t wait to get to the next step, when the protein evolves active transport through ATP hydrolysis, but let’s do that on the next post].
This “paper” highlights some important points. One important point is that this is not a scientific reference at all. Scientific papers have data, or at least refer to other people’s data. They are peer-reviewed and published in journals. This “paper” and the others proposing a pathway for flagellum evolution on this website (TalkOrigins) have never been peer-reviewed or published anywhere. They can’t be used to say that co-option has indeed been described, at least, not scientifically described.
However, I like these “papers” because they are fertile ground to show the conceptual flaw in evolution.
You said “Even if it [evolution] does show a flaw, that's a mark against evolution and not for design.” Does that mean that you acknowledge the flaw? If the flaw isn’t clear from this post, we can thrash through the remaining steps and find it again and again.
Regarding your comments about ID not being scientific, I’m in complete agreement with you. ID is not scientific. Just like evolution, ID doesn’t explain how complex molecular machines arose. Since we agree, do you need to continue on as if we don’t?
John,
What you are doing is what Creationists have been doing for decades. No matter how much detail is provided, it is never enough, because evolution MUST be wrong. What you neglected to see, however, is the talkorigins and the link provided both provide papers to back up their statements. That's the data. Talkorigins just presents it to you without having to wade through all the data. Your claim that none of this has been published or peer-reviewed is flat out false. Check the papers that are listed at the bottom of the page. There's 10 references for just this one page, I'm not sure how you could have missed them.
Oh, and copying errors can account for mutational changes that add function. You completely neglect that in your treatment of how the process can work. So, no, I don't see the "conceptual flaw." And, like I said, even IF (and notice that "if") there is a flaw, it only counts as a mark against evolution. Seeing as how we have no other competing theory, what do you suggest we do if we find a spot where evolution doesn't quite hold? What do you suggest we do about the other 150 years worth of data where evolution fits quite nicely?
You said “No matter how much detail is provided, it is never enough, because evolution MUST be wrong.”
Actually, I will accept the theory of evolution if you explain to me how to overcome the conceptual flaw. It isn’t a matter of detail.
Here is the simple presentation of the flaw. Gene A is duplicated (encoding a pore protein if you like) to produce gene B. At the start, both genes are identical and functional . They can both be selected based upon the transport function. Selection keeps them both around, but only one is necessary at this point. The duplicated gene B can begin to mutate without causing the cell to die, but whatever mutations occur, those mutations have to provide some selective advantage to the cell (or else there is no selection for cells containing those mutations in gene B). If gene B acquired mutations that gave it a new function, the selection could occur based upon the new function. However, new functions require many mutations in gene B and they require long periods of time to accumulate (because mutations are rare). If gene B isn’t selected based upon a new function, the only means of keeping it around is selection based upon its original function. So now we are limited in the types of mutations that gene B can acquire. They must not decrease its original function (or gene B is lost or rendered nonfunctional) and they must at some point generate a new function which will allow selection for cells based upon this new function (independent of the first function). This requires that many mutations arise and persist in gene B until one final mutation causes the new function to appear. The problem is that these mutations, intermediates along the way towards a new gene B function), will not persist because they don’t provide any selective advantage (based on either the transport function, or a new function).
You said you don’t see the flaw before. Do you see it now? You can’t select for the function of gene B until many new mutations have been acquired, yet in the absence of the new function, there is no means to select and maintain those mutations in the intermediates.
I would like a real answer on this. How do you get around this flaw without evoking some new mechanism that no one has ever observed (evolutiondidit/goddidit)?
You said, “Oh, and copying errors can account for mutational changes that add function. You completely neglect that in your treatment of how the process can work.”
Maybe you can explain what you mean by this. I am familiar with copying errors as a source of mutations (copy errors are just one of several different means by which mutations are generated), but they are just mutations. There is nothing special about copy error mutations as compared to radiation or chemical induced mutations. They don’t provide any new molecular mechanism to overcome the flaw in the evolution of molecular machines. If you think they do, let’s hear it.
I’ll get to your comments about references in the next post.
John,
Nope, not seeing the conceptual flaw. The conceptual flaw is your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Many mutations are neutral, so they don't affect the fitness of the organism. We also know that it does happen. We know that through mutation and selection we have seen bacteria that have developed the ability to eat nylon. So, what's the problem?
As for the copying errors stuff, I think I was simply misreading something you said.
Here's info on the nylon bacteria:
http://www.talkorigins.org/index...CB/
CB101_2.html
GCT,
You said “Nope, not seeing the conceptual flaw. The conceptual flaw is your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. “
This seems like an easy way out if you are having difficulty coming up with a response to the conceptual flaw in evolution. Even though the kitchen is hot, I would encourage you to stay in at this point rather than getting out. How do molecular machines evolve given our knowledge of mutations and natural selection? This is a scientific question and should be answerable in a scientific discussion. If you can come up with a good scientific explanation, you will have fulfilled your stated purpose and civic duty (to effectively argue against anti-evolutionary thought and irreducible complexity). If you cannot, you might consider finding another civic duty, one that doesn't require that you argue science.
If you want to suggest I don’t understand evolutionary theory, you have to point out where I have made errors and explain why they are errors. If you understand evolutionary theory yourself, you should be able to explain to me or anyone else, how molecular machines evolve through natural selection. The examples that we have discussed so far are appropriate systems to make your argument. In your explanation, be specific. Make it logical. Produce a hypothetical pathway for the evolution of a molecular machine (a gated pore or a flagellum) indicating how natural selection is driving the process through the various intermediates that occur through mutation of a duplicated gene over time. You don’t need data for this, only logic.
If you make a comment like this; “Many mutations are neutral, so they don't affect the fitness of the organism. We also know that it does happen,” explain what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that neutral mutations play any role in the evolution of a molecular machine? They are by definition, neutral. They don’t confer a selective advantage or disadvantage. Are you seriously suggesting this as a relevant component to your response (or is this another biology faux paux, like cilia feelers and copying errors)?
You said “We know that through mutation and selection we have seen bacteria that have developed the ability to eat nylon. So, what's the problem?”
The selection for bacteria that degrade nylon does not involve the evolution of molecular machines. If you think it does, or you think it this work is relevant in some way to overcoming the conceptual flaw in evolution, explain why you think so.
About scientific references, you mention that all the data in support of co-option as an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum can be found in the references at the bottom of the TalkOrigins webpage. Let’s find out if that is really true. I’m game for going through them one by one and seeing if they actually provide data on co-option as a pathway for evolution as you suggest, or are instead general references on the gene structures of the components of the flagellum. This of course, will take us back into the hot kitchen of science. Are you in or out?
GCT,
The first article of ten which you claim has the data to support co-option as an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum is:
Blocker, Ariel, Kaoru Komoriya, and Shin-Ichi Aizawa. 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(6): 3027-3030.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/...full/100/6/
3027
It's a great article. Very nice review of the structure of the TTCC and the flagellum. However, it doesn't even suggest that the flagellum evolved from the TTCC much less anything about co-option.
I don't think we will find our missing data here. No matter. I'm sure it's somewhere in the remaining nine references. Do you want to point to the one that has the data? That might speed things along.
John,
"This seems like an easy way out if you are having difficulty coming up with a response to the conceptual flaw in evolution."
Easy way out? If you are asserting there is a flaw in the logic of a 150+ year old scientific theory that no one has seen until you came along, (which would be stunning since you think it is so obvious and elementary,) then I would think that you have the burden to point it out to me. Making errors in your explanation of what you think evolution does is not the way to go about it. You acted as if all mutations are either good or bad. That is NOT the case. Many mutations are neutral. That does not mean that when the environment changes (i.e. selection changes) that these mutations will remain neutral. What is it you were saying about the hot kitchen? Oh, and I didn't point this out before, but selection is generally thought to work on populations, not individual organisms. But hey, if you would rather puff your chest out and try to denigrate my understanding of biology (which I've already admitted I'm not a biologist) go ahead. But, if you insist in this conceptual flaw idea, you will have to point it out. And, pointing out gaps in our knowledge does not consist of a conceptual flaw.
"If you can come up with a good scientific explanation, you will have fulfilled your stated purpose and civic duty (to effectively argue against anti-evolutionary thought and irreducible complexity). If you cannot, you might consider finding another civic duty, one that doesn't require that you argue science."
You can't chastize me for arguing against ID saying that I don't know the difference between arguing for evolution and against ID, then make the same exact error. If I am arguing against the illogic of anti-evolutionary arguments, that doesn't mean that I have to argue for evolution. That I choose to do that, however, is a bonus for you, but don't get smarmy with me. BTW, have you come up with an alternative yet?
"The selection for bacteria that degrade nylon does not involve the evolution of molecular machines. If you think it does, or you think it this work is relevant in some way to overcoming the conceptual flaw in evolution, explain why you think so."
Why not? It is a mutational change involving many mutations that produced a novel function. What is a "molecular machine"? How do you define that?
I'll have to get to your other statements in another post, I've got cycling to watch.
GCT,
You said “Easy way out? If you are asserting there is a flaw in the logic of a 150+ year old scientific theory that no one has seen until you came along, (which would be stunning since you think it is so obvious and elementary,) then I would think that you have the burden to point it out to me.”
I did, ...twice actually. I could do it again, but maybe we can move forward with the original model instead. You can also find the flaw described in Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box as well. You should read it. Even though you are not a biologist, it may give you better handle on how you would effectively argue against irreducible complexity from a scientific point of view.
Let’s get to your most recent comment about silent mutations and their role in the evolution of the flagellum. You say I’ve overlooked silent mutations as part of my misconception of evolutionary theory. You didn’t actually introduce the concept of silent mutations into the form of our present example, but maybe I can do that for you (and you can take it from there). If I have it all wrong, you can point out all the errors and tell me what you really meant.
We start with a nonspecific pore gene (gene A) and a duplication of this gene (geneB). We select for both gene A and gene B based upon their pore function, otherwise they are lost because they provide no advantage to the cell. Gene B begins to acquire silent mutations, mutations that have no effect on its function as a pore protein. The amino acid changes encoded in geneB are taking place slowly over time. If enough silent mutations occur over time, gene B will have acquired a substantially new primary amino acid sequence (except at positions that cannot tolerate a silent mutation), but its secondary and tertiary structure will have remained substantially the same as the original pore (encoded by gene A) because it still has to function as a pore in order to confer an selective advantage to the cell (and avoid being lost or rendered nonfunctional by deleterious mutations). A new selection is placed upon the cell that didn’t exist at the time of the duplication. The new selection will allow cells with gated pores to survive better than cells with ungated pores. The silent mutations in the gene product from geneB are such that they result in a functional gating protein that interacts with the pore and provides the cell with a selective advantage under these new conditions. Gene B now has a new function that allows it to evolve further, based upon selection of its gating function (and independent of the original selective pressure). Gene product B becomes a dedicated gating protein that now bears only a slight resemblance to the original pore protein.
Is this the idea?
If I’ve got it wrong, make it right (i.e., a simple response like “Nope, that’s not what I meant,” without any explanation might be construed as running out of the kitchen again).
I’ll have more to say about the 150 years of evolutionary theory and some of your other recent comments, but I have to get to the lab.
I'm not a "blogger" but happened to read Jonboy's question about "what makes him [Jesus] stand out?" in connection with His resurrection when others throughout history (yep, even today)have been risen from the dead. Well, for one thing Jesus's life, purpose, and death was the only one foretold hundreds of years before His birth. Not one other being ever born on earth (including Buddah, Mahammed, Confusious, etc.) can say they knew where they would be born, who their parents would be, how they would die, where they would be buried; etc.; In fact, in the last 24 hours of his life, Jesus had to fulfill 31 prophesies written hundreds of years about the Messiah's death: 1) He would be betrayed by a friend (Ps 55:12-14; 41:9) 2) He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zec. 11:2); 3) the money would be used to buy a potters field (Zech. 11:13); 4) His disciples would forsake Him (Zec. 13:7); 5) He would be accused by false witnesses (Ps. 35:11; 109:2); 6) He would be beaten and spat upon (Isa. 50:4-6); 7) He would remain silent before His accusers (Isa. 53:7); He would be wounded and bruised (Isa. 53:5,7,10); 9) He would be nailed to a cross (Ps. 109:24) 10) His hands and feet would be pierced (Ps. 22:16); 11) He would die between two thieves (Isa. 53:12); 12) He would bear shame, reproach, and dishonor (Ps. 69:19); 13) He would pray for His executioners (Isa. 53:12, Ps. 109:4); 14) People would shake their heads at Him (Ps. 109:25, 33:7); 15) He would be ridiculed (Ps. 22:; 16) People would be astonished (Ps. 22:17; Isa. 52:14) 17) His garments parted and lots cast for them (Ps. 22:1; 1 He would thirst (Ps. 69:3); 19) He would be given gall and vinegar to drink (Ps. 69:21); 20) He would cry out "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" (Ps. 22:1) 21) He would commit His soul to God (Ps. 31:5); 22) He would give a cry of victory and triumph (Ps. 22:31); 23) His friends would stand far off (Ps. 38:11); 24) His bones would not be broken (Ps. 34:20; Ex. 12:46); 25) His side would be pierced (Zec. 12:10); 26) His visage would be marred (Isa. 52:14); 27) His heart would be broken (Ps. 22:14); 2 Darkness would cover the land (Amos 8:9); 29) He would be buried in a rich man's tomb (Isa. 53:9); 30) He would be cut off, but not for himself (Dan. 9:26); and 31) He would be the Lamb of God (Isa. 53:7)
The odds of one man fulfilling just these 31 prophesies is 1 chance in 431,696,000; In His lifetime there were over 300 prophesies, all of which He fulfilled (the odds of that are too staggering to list here).
Yes, others have come and gone and have claimed to be the Messiah, but none other has stood the test of time.
Anne, quick question.
How did you calculate those odds?
John,
"I did, ...twice actually."
No, not really. You've done what others have done before. Found a place where we haven't done a lot of study to figure out how evolution worked, and then asserted that it was some sort of "conceptual flaw." It is not a conceptual flaw and your assertions don't make it so. If you do find a conceptual flaw, I will write letter after letter to the Nobel prize committee until they award you with the Nobel Prize for everything and anything (there's no prize for biology). They should also proclaim you to be the greatest scientist of the history of man and I will push for that as well. Problem is, you have found nothing.
As for your example, that is not my understanding of how evolution works. Evolution, as I've said before, works on populations, not on single pores. You would be better off to talk about a population where many mutations occur, and the best continue to survive, while deleterious ones result in death of the organism. What you are describing also sounds of Lamarckian evolution, where acquired traits are passed on. You would be better off to try and describe a situation where the genes are successively modified through many mutative and reproductive events.
Either way, I see that you think evolution has a fatal flaw, but you don't have an answer for the fact that we know evolution occurs. We have seen organisms evolve, like the nylon eating bacteria for example. Evolution also has made predictions that work; island species will grow smaller due to lack of resources and Tiktaalik to name a couple. And, you present no alternative, because there is none.
"Even though you are not a biologist, it may give you better handle on how you would effectively argue against irreducible complexity from a scientific point of view."
And, to point out one last flaw in your argument, you have created a false dichotomy. You argue that evolution is unable to produce a flagellum, so Behe must be correct. We both know why that is false. IC has been effectively argued against by the likes of Miller and Avida. Avida even resulted in IC systems. Your complaints are holding no water.
GCT,
The system we are considering is one based upon a hypothetical bacterium which contains genes, the genes express proteins, and those proteins have some function required for the survival of the cell. The scenario is consistent with basic cell biology based upon the central dogma (DNA is transcribed into RNA which is then translated into protein… you’ve heard of it? Nothing Lamarkian here). The selection takes place on the bacterium expressing the protein, not on the protein itself. The hypothetical bacterium is one within a population of organisms that all fall under the same selection.
You make the point that we shouldn’t treat evolution any differently than other sciences. In other sciences, we test models to see if they work. That is what we are doing here.
I don’t know where you get the idea that there is somehow “evolution of a single pore” involved in this model. I can’t even imagine what you are thinking about here, but this hypothetical example shouldn’t be all that confusing to you if you have even a basic understanding of cell biology. You said “You would be better off to try and describe a situation where the genes are successively modified through many mutative and reproductive events.” What do you think we have been talking about for the last week? Are you just now getting on board?
At the start, I was assuming you had some familiarity with these concepts and that we could use them to discuss evolution in molecular terms. Talking about evolution in molecular terms (which is what irreducible complexity is all about) requires that you have at least some working knowledge of how genes work and how selection occurs.
Maybe I may assumed too much. Not everyone has a background in biology, so it isn’t reasonable to expect a nonscientist to engage in a scientific argument. However, I assumed (incorrectly) that you wouldn’t enter the scientific discussion in the first place unless you had some capacity to manage it.
You claim that you are not a biologist (so you shouldn’t be held accountable for bad biology), yet continue to take the position that your points (just words actually….feelers, copying errors, silent mutations, populations) are a valid response to the conceptual flaw in evolution. You seem to be trying to make the appearance of arguing science by introducing a scientific term here and there without really having an idea of how it might be used in a real discussion. I would still like to hear know how we will get to the flagellum from our pore gene (silent mutations and all), but I’m doubtful that you will be doing any cooking in that kitchen.
I appreciate your offer for letters (I’m sure the committee would consider them highly), but I’m not trying to make any point about myself or my ideas here. All I’m looking for is an explanation of how a flagellum could evolve that makes use of known scientific principals. If you want to point to a reference in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that does this, please do so.
John,
You are setting up an example where one specific pore gains a bunch of successive mutations then is selected for with a new function. One specific pore. It is not my misunderstanding, but yours. Quit being sanctimonious. If you seriously think that you have such a great handle on this and that you have found some obvious fatal flaw to evolution that NO ONE else has figured out in over 150 years, then I suggest it is most likely you who has the mistaken understanding. If you were indeed talking about a population and successive mutations through reproduction events, then you did not express yourself very carefully, and after all, you must be careful and concise when talking about science, else it leads to misunderstandings very easily.
I gave you a possible explanation for the evolution of the flagellum. You would rather just simply deny it, then skate around the issues that you are uncomfortable with. The problem with IC is that it says that there is NO plausible pathway for an IC system to evolve. Well, guess what, there is a plausible pathway for the flagellum. End of story. I've already presented it. Simply because you argue from incredulity doesn't mean that you have disproven it or that you have pointed out a "fatal flaw" in evolution. Not only that, but even if we can't account for the flagellum, it does not present a fatal flaw for all of evolution and does not disconfirm the 150 years of peer-reviewed confirmatory evidence that exists for evolution, which I see you like to skirt around. You also like to skirt around the issue that you have NO alternative. Why is that?
So, to sum up, you ignore 150 years of confirmatory evidence, you offer no alternative theory, you use fallacious reasoning in your argument from incredulity, and also fallacious reasoning in reasoning that if the evolution of the flagellum is not understood that it somehow disproves all of evolution. Before you try and talk science, you might want to work on your basic logic skills.
Commenting by HaloScan
