crevsevoarg

Message #1 Timothy's Reply to my FeedBack to his site: www.trueorigins.org

Hi David,

Thanks for writing.

> ...I do believe [TalkOrigins writers are] not
> entirely nonscientific...

You're right -- some of what they say is certainly based on some science.

> ...Many people believing in the Bible aren't
> either!...

That's also true. Hooey can circulate within circles of naive and
uncritical Christians just as easily as it can within circles of naive and
uncritical non-Christians.

> ...What about a designer requiring a designer?
> In order for there to be a designer, someone must
> design the designer...

Well, from a purely human standpoint, that certainly would seem to hold
true. Science seems to tell us that no effect happens without being caused.
So either there is an endless, eternal string of causes, or there is a
single First Cause behind it all. The God of the Bible claims to be the
latter, and suggests nothing to the effect that He could be any part of the
former.

> ...If God is to be lord of all lords, and king of
> all kings, he must end the infinite amount of Gods,
> because there must always be a more intelligent/
> powerful/simultaneously powerful and intelligent
> "God" than him!

On the contrary, He ends the conjecture of that supposed infinite string by
being the only, original, omnipotent and omniscient Creator of all. What we
observe from science points to all things having a beginning. For example,
matter and energy are not being destroyed (though matter can be converted
into energy and vice versa), but the amount of "work ready" available energy
in the universe is understood to be steadily decreasing, which points
backwards to a point in time when a maximum (not infinite) amount of "work
ready" energy was available. This alludes to a Being who must dwell outside
of the space-time-matter-energy continuum which constitutes the universe in
which we reside -- a Being who is sovereign and transcendent to the
creation.

In other words, science suggests a First Cause of the universe, one bound
neither by the limitations of the universe, nor by our limited capacity for
comprehension. Various forms of philosophy might invent all kinds of
fantastic "god" scenarios and requirements (e.g., an infinite string of
creators/designers), but we must remember that these are the imaginings of
men, and they don't even necessarily reflect the implications of science.

Finally, consider that God, by definition, is not a product, design, or
creation of anything. Having existed "before" the universe (including time
itself) came into being, and now existing entirely without dependence on the
universe or its inhabitants, He simply is unlike anything man could know,
and cannot be defined by man's limited understanding (including a humanly
contrived claim that the creator must have been somehow created by another).

> So, hasn't the Bible shown a tint of fallibility,
> severely discrediting your view of intelligent
> design as in regard to the Christian God?

In a word, no: The Bible doesn't corroborate the philosophical exercise you
suggest, and nor does genuine science impose the conclusion of that exercise
on the Bible.

> By the way, I truly am not trying to offend
> you in anyway.

I appreciate that very much. That's a very commendable approach --
especially for someone your age. You have not offended me at all. Your
questions seem reasonable and honest, which is why I don't mind responding
to them.

> My cousin believes doubting the existence of
> God is a insult to God.

I can't argue with your cousin, and I wouldn't advise you to: Would you not
also take offense if someone who had seen (and greatly benefited from) much
of your personal handiwork, had been told who you are, and yet openly
doubted your very existence?

> I don't want to insult anyone, but thoughts are
> thoughts, you know what I mean?

Yes, I think I do. I don't perceive that your curiosity is based in
hostility or a desire for conflict or offense.

> I just want to get somewhere without,
> as you say it too, ill-supported
> presuppositions.

And I don't think you can be blamed for that at all.

Kind Regards,

Timothy Wallace, MCSD

Message #2 Reply to Timothy's Reply

> What we
> observe from science points to all things having a beginning. For
> example,
> matter and energy are not being destroyed (though matter can be
> converted
> into energy and vice versa), but the amount of "work ready"
> available energy
> in the universe is understood to be steadily decreasing, which
> points
> backwards to a point in time when a maximum (not infinite) amount of
> "work
> ready" energy was available. This alludes to a Being who must dwell
> outside
> of the space-time-matter-energy continuum which constitutes the
> universe in
> which we reside -- a Being who is sovereign and transcendent to the
> creation.
Why must it be a being? Couldn't it be a mechanism, without a mind? I mean, it is out of time, isn't it? You can say it's unreasonable to believe that it is merely a mechanism, but you're saying that the laws of the universe do not limit its ability. Hence, reasoning that the mechanism "requires" a designer is in itself is refuted because the mechanism didn't require anything, since it can break all supposed laws! Haha!
> In other words, science suggests a First Cause of the universe, one
> bound
> neither by the limitations of the universe, nor by our limited
> capacity for
> comprehension. Various forms of philosophy might invent all kinds
> of
> fantastic "god" scenarios and requirements (e.g., an infinite string
> of
> creators/designers), but we must remember that these are the
> imaginings of
> men, and they don't even necessarily reflect the implications of
> science.
        Okay, I agree, but doesn't that make your claim of the Christian God as valid as a God that rewards atheists and agnostics? If there are so many possibilities in which are infinite, why should we bother looking for something that isn't provable either way?
> Finally, consider that God, by definition, is not a product, design,
> or
> creation of anything. Having existed "before" the universe
> (including time
> itself) came into being, and now existing entirely without
> dependence on the
> universe or its inhabitants, He simply is unlike anything man could
> know,
> and cannot be defined by man's limited understanding (including a
> humanly
> contrived claim that the creator must have been somehow created by
> another).
        Then, given this, it further brings into question our understanding of anything. If we can't understand how a God could exist (limited comprehension), how can we even begin to think that we are being correct in type of observation/science?
> I can't argue with your cousin, and I wouldn't advise you to: Would
> you not
> also take offense if someone who had seen (and greatly benefited
> from) much
> of your personal handiwork, had been told who you are, and yet
> openly
> doubted your very existence?
        Actually I would be delighted that my creation can think! Even if humanity is incorrect, knowing that my little guys down there pondered something different than my existence would credit my ingenuity in giving man imagination. It is a little arrogant for me to assume that just because my creation is "great" and "awesome" my beings of intelligence I created should think the same. I would love them indifferent to their thoughts.

> And I don't think you can be blamed for that at all.
>
> I'd like to suggest that you have a look at http://www.needgod.com/
> to make
> sure you have a basic understanding of what the biblical Christian
> message
> to mankind (yourself included) is.
Yeah, basically my whole family is Christian. So I know the basics in order to be a Christian. I've heard the message that the site conveyed to me a billions times, but thanks anyways :).
> Should you have any further
> questions or
> concerns, I am certainly open to hearing from you again...
Thanks! Same here.
> Kind Regards,
>
> Timothy Wallace, MCSD

DavidtheDuke                                  www.geocities.com/davidyourduke

We're all more mature than the other, that is what makes us so immature.

Message #3 Timothy's Reply

> Why must it be a being? Couldn't it be
> a mechanism, without a mind?...

I suppose you could naively call Him/it whatever you want, but to be
reasonable, you'd have to do so without neglecting the principles of science
concerning cause and effect (an effect can never be greater than its cause):

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of love must be loving
The First Cause of life must be living
The First Cause of free will must be sovereign

If you really think you can attribute these characteristics to a mere
"mechanism", I'm hardly in a position to stop you, but it doesn't seem to
hold a lot of credibility when viewed against a backdrop of sound scientific
principles and basic logic.

> ...Hence, reasoning that the mechanism "requires"
> a designer is in itself is refuted because the
> mechanism didn't require anything, since it can
> break all supposed laws! Haha!

Frankly, you're engaging in sophomoric reasoning here (which isn't
particularly funny, not even to an old coot like me).

> > ...Various forms of philosophy might
> > invent all kinds of fantastic "god"
> > scenarios and requirements (e.g., an
> > infinite string of creators/designers),
> > but we must remember that these are the
> > imaginings of men, and they don't even
> > necessarily reflect the implications of
> > science.
>
> Okay, I agree, but doesn't that make your
> claim of the Christian God as valid as a
> God that rewards atheists and agnostics?

No. First of all, you haven't cited a single claim of mine ["your claim"]
concerning the God who reveals Himself in the Bible, so your argument is
missing some substantial elements. Secondly, the fact that men invent
philosophical folly has no bearing on the validity of the truth -- unless
you insist on limiting your criteria for discovering "truth" to these
competing philosophies, particularly at the exclusion of the corroboration
of science and history. Thirdly, who has ever seriously postulated a viable
testimony of a "God that rewards atheists and agnostics"? The very concept
is mere sophomoric pseudo-philosophy. Atheists, by definition, don't want
ANY God to be postulated, and agnostics, by definition, insist that NO God
can be truly postulated. So it would be a most futile act to suggest a "God
that rewards atheists and agnostics".

> If there are so many possibilities in which
> are infinite, why should we bother looking
> for something that isn't provable either way?

There are NOT infinite possibilities. There may be many, but they are not
infinite in number, if we want to stay on the side of reason and logic, and
not ignore other realms of human knowledge and experience. And we SHOULDN'T
bother "looking for something that isn't provable either way". Science and
history corroborate the biblical record to a measure unmatched by any human
philosophy or religion. Human behavior and character corroborate the
biblical record to a measure unmatched by any human philosophy or religion.
The same Living God who has provided and preserved that record plainly says
that those who truly want to find Him will, and those are truly willing to
obey Him will know what is true and what isn't. He proves Himself to men on
a person-by-person basis -- not on the basis of some philosophical game --
nevertheless, the reality of His character and existence are not completely
hidden from anyone.

> ...it further brings into question our
> understanding of anything...

Only if we BEGIN by rejecting -- for purely philosophical and/or
self-oriented reasons -- the biblical foundation upon which knowledge and
science were established.

> If we can't understand how a God could exist
> (limited comprehension), how can we even begin
> to think that we are being correct in type of
> observation/science?

Frankly, if you REALLY believed that, you would be suicidal right now. The
logic you are advancing says that because you can't know everything, you
must assume that you can't know anything. You can't practice that vain
philosophy for a moment in the real world: You make many decisions and take
many actions without full knowledge of the process and principles that
govern the world around you, whether the physical world, the legal world,
the spiritual world, or the world of persons and personalities.

Modern science didn't start in a vacuum. It was based on the understanding
of men who concluded that the Creator, whom they had come to know and trust,
being consistent and orderly in both His character and His creation, would
have made a creation that also adheres to consistent and orderly standards
of being and behavior. The creation could thus be studied and genuine
knowledge reliably and accurately gathered.

This foundation is largely ignored by many in the modern "scientific
community" -- but if they were to begin modern science all over from scratch
without that foundation, they would be exactly where you pretend to be:
"How can we even begin to think that we are being correct in type of
observation/science?" Some philosophers of science have actually arrived at
similar places, because they were at least honest enough to start with their
own foundations, and not assume that it's okay to "borrow" the biblical
Christian foundation in order to avoid futility.

> Actually I would be delighted that my
> creation can think!

You miss the point. You wouldn't be so delighted if that creation not only
thought, but used his thinking skills to reach and propagate arrogant and
false conclusions, denying that you were his creator, insisting that he came
into being from completely natural causes, and that he could do whatever he
pleased without owing you any thanks or accountability.

> Even if humanity is incorrect, knowing
> that my little guys down there pondered
> something different than my existence
> would credit my ingenuity in giving man
> imagination.

Only in your own imagination. They're hurting themselves and each other,
they're denying that you even exist -- they're not crediting you with
anything but being a fairy tale. You are being completely dismissed and
ignored by the very beings you designed to be the recipients of your
steadfast goodwill.

> It is a little arrogant for me to assume
> that just because my creation is "great"
> and "awesome" my beings of intelligence I
> created should think the same...

Yes it is -- but only because you're not really God. This is where the
analogy breaks down. If your very being were the essence of perfect
knowledge and character, you would be incapable of arrogance. Your state of
perfection would in fact be the ideal, the most noble, worthwhile and
glorious thing of all. You would be denying the truth, and doing a
disservice to both yourself and the creatures you made in your own likeness,
if you were to adopt such a false humility as would prevent you from making
your excellence known as the superlative ideal.

> Yeah, basically my whole family is Christian.
> So I know the basics in order to be a Christian.
> I've heard the message that the site conveyed to
> me a billions times, but thanks anyways :).

Billions? That sounds like an exaggeration.

Here's the bottom line as I see it:

You may be trying to weasel your way around the truth by adopting the
philosophical approach many people invoke. It's very common -- I did as a
teen, and as a young adult. If you want to be concerned at all about being
consistent, you'd better slow down and be open to recognize the glaring
weaknesses in human philosophy. No human philosophy or religion better
lines up with the facts of science, history, and plain old common
observation, as well as biblical Christianity. (I openly challenge you to
demonstrate this to be a falsehood.)

You claim to understand the gospel, yet openly reject it. I suggest you ask
yourself why. Do you disbelieve that you are a sinner? Do you disbelieve
that your Creator will hold you accountable for your sins? Do you believe
that the biblical record has been stripped of its credibility? Do you deny
that Jesus Christ is who He says He is?

These things deserve to be explored in depth and honestly, if you wish to be
able to say you've done a thorough investigation. To fall short of a
thorough job, and yet go about claiming to have "tried that" or to "know the
basics" without considering a response of any importance, is to trivialize
(if not deny) something that has proven to be the most profound,
life-changing, and personally satisfying aspects of human experience.

Be careful about doing something like that for too long.

Kind Regards,

Timothy Wallace, MCSD

Message #4 Reply to Timothy

> I suppose you could naively call Him/it whatever you want, but to
> be
> reasonable, you'd have to do so without neglecting the principles of
> science
> concerning cause and effect (an effect can never be greater than its
> cause):
>
>   The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite
>   The First Cause of endless time must be eternal
>   The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent
>   The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient
>   The First Cause of love must be loving
>   The First Cause of life must be living
>   The First Cause of free will must be sovereign
>
> If you really think you can attribute these characteristics to a
> mere
> "mechanism", I'm hardly in a position to stop you, but it doesn't
> seem to
> hold a lot of credibility when viewed against a backdrop of sound
> scientific
> principles and basic logic.
You YOURSELF claimed that God doesn't have to apply himself with the rules of the universe and logic. If God, being ominiscient and omnipotent, doesn't have to follow any rules, why does the equally valid possibility of just a nonself-concious being creating the universe not have the ability to transcend logic? Anyways, how can those First Causes be truly proved? I don't see how. Of course man needs to have a foundation of logic to actually deduct the amount of possible scenarios of reality. But if he can't prove that his perceptions are correct, why should he try to create grand realities in which are impossible to prove, on a absolute level?
> > ...Hence, reasoning that the mechanism "requires"
> > a designer is in itself is refuted because the
> > mechanism didn't require anything, since it can
> > break all supposed laws! Haha!
>
> Frankly, you're engaging in sophomoric reasoning here (which isn't
> particularly funny, not even to an old coot like me).
Why is this false reasoning? I was simply implying that my Nonconscious Creator Theory is just as valid as your theology.
> > Okay, I agree, but doesn't that make your
> > claim of the Christian God as valid as a
> > God that rewards atheists and agnostics?
>
> No. First of all, you haven't cited a single claim of mine ["your
> claim"]
> concerning the God who reveals Himself in the Bible, so your argument
> is
> missing some substantial elements. Secondly, the fact that men
> invent
> philosophical folly has no bearing on the validity of the truth --
> unless
> you insist on limiting your criteria for discovering "truth" to
> these
> competing philosophies, particularly at the exclusion of the
> corroboration
> of science and history.
Sadly, I have to exclude
> Thirdly, who has ever seriously postulated
> a viable
> testimony of a "God that rewards atheists and agnostics"? The very
> concept
> is mere sophomoric pseudo-philosophy.

> Atheists, by definition,
> don't want
> ANY God to be postulated, and agnostics, by definition, insist that
> NO God
> can be truly postulated. So it would be a most futile act to
> suggest a "God
> that rewards atheists and agnostics".
Actually, it is a useful act. God, could of easily just created the Bible, and everything as "evidence", and just played with us. He may be a cosmic trickster, giggling at our attempts to probe reality. You can't refute or prove my theory. I'm pretty sure you know that. My point is that it is just as valid as the God in which you envision.
> > If there are so many possibilities in which
> > are infinite, why should we bother looking
> > for something that isn't provable either way?
>
> There are NOT infinite possibilities. There may be many, but they
> are not
> infinite in number, if we want to stay on the side of reason and
> logic, and
> not ignore other realms of human knowledge and experience.
You want me to stay on logic and human knowledge? Well, then I'll go back to my argument that your God needs a creator in itself. There needs to be a first cause. If there isn't, then he can't possibly exist. But you say he can break the laws of physics. Okay, then I can pose that the Creator wasn't self-concious. Why does God/whatever have to be self-concious to be the creator? Again, there so many possibilities, and yes, they are infinite. I will explain how. I can create a infinite amount of possibilities mentally (imagination). If none of these possibilities can be refuted on a absolute level, things become pretty much baseless.
> And we
> SHOULDN'T
> bother "looking for something that isn't provable either way".
> Science and
> history corroborate the biblical record to a measure unmatched by
> any human
> philosophy or religion. Human behavior and character corroborate
> the
> biblical record to a measure unmatched by any human philosophy or
> religion.
> The same Living God who has provided and preserved that record
> plainly says
> that those who truly want to find Him will, and those are truly
> willing to
> obey Him will know what is true and what isn't. He proves Himself
> to men on
> a person-by-person basis -- not on the basis of some philosophical
> game --
> nevertheless, the reality of His character and existence are not
> completely
> hidden from anyone.
I welcome any of his advances for me to join his faith, but I simply can't find a reason, which is of higher validity to other motivations, for me to trust his word.
> > ...it further brings into question our
> > understanding of anything...
>
> Only if we BEGIN by rejecting -- for purely philosophical and/or
> self-oriented reasons -- the biblical foundation upon which
> knowledge and
> science were established.
It is not purely philosophical. I started thinking about a year ago.
> > If we can't understand how a God could exist
> > (limited comprehension), how can we even begin
> > to think that we are being correct in type of
> > observation/science?
>
> Frankly, if you REALLY believed that, you would be suicidal right
> now.
Okay, I'm dead then.
> The
> logic you are advancing says that because you can't know everything,
> you
> must assume that you can't know anything.
> You can't practice that
> vain
> philosophy for a moment in the real world: You make many decisions
> and take
> many actions without full knowledge of the process and principles
> that
> govern the world around you, whether the physical world, the legal
> world,
> the spiritual world, or the world of persons and personalities.
I don't practice it in the "real world", whatever that is. If I cannot prove that my perceptions of the world are correct, I inherently can't prove anything. Hence I find no use in trying to prove what our origins are as they are not provable.
> This foundation is largely ignored by many in the modern
> "scientific
> community" -- but if they were to begin modern science all over from
> scratch
> without that foundation, they would be exactly where you pretend to
> be:
> "How can we even begin to think that we are being correct in type
> of
> observation/science?" Some philosophers of science have actually
> arrived at
> similar places, because they were at least honest enough to start
> with their
> own foundations, and not assume that it's okay to "borrow" the
> biblical
> Christian foundation in order to avoid futility.
Those "Some philosophers" I am part of. I started from scratch.
> You miss the point. You wouldn't be so delighted if that creation
> not only
> thought, but used his thinking skills to reach and propagate
> arrogant and
> false conclusions, denying that you were his creator, insisting that
> he came
> into being from completely natural causes, and that he could do
> whatever he
> pleased without owing you any thanks or accountability.
        Then you missed my point. My point is that I wouldn't make my world in any way that would make many ,if any, dubious of my existence. In my opinion, it is completely unreasonable and unfair, when viewing his low-intellect. I would rather show myself, openly in a supernatural, grand way. Then he would indeed know that I did create the world. If a God doesn't have that much common sense/kindness to make himself obvious, I doubt a God can be a God and be that low on the common sense/kindness scale. I can understand if he just wants to watch us make our little ant piles.
        Also, why would man be arrogant to assume I don't exist? By him doubting my existence doesn't undermine the fact that I created the world. Instead of eternally damning him I would show him the true light. If he still insist in my nonexistence, so be it. I'm not going to punish something for having thoughts that I don't desire.
> Only in your own imagination. They're hurting themselves and each
> other,
> they're denying that you even exist -- they're not crediting you
> with
> anything but being a fairy tale.
First, I would not allow them to hurt each other. Secondly, again, I wouldn't be unreasonable to not show myself, in my supernatural form. I suppose we've come to a stalemate in sense that, well, we have different opinions and ways to rule the world.
>You are being completely dismissed
> and
> ignored by the very beings you designed to be the recipients of
> your
> steadfast goodwill.
If they knew, in a much more obvious form, that I existed they wouldn't dismiss me!
> Yes it is -- but only because you're not really God. This is where
> the
> analogy breaks down. If your very being were the essence of
> perfect
> knowledge and character, you would be incapable of arrogance.
But the way I see it, "God" is being arrogant. So God can do anything, including mass murder, adultery, and have the qualities of a arrogant human being and not be arrogant? Okay, anything God does similar to a human still makes God perfect. It does make sense, but gives God the ability and right to do whatever he pleases, while we have to do what he says.
> Your
> state of
> perfection would in fact be the ideal, the most noble, worthwhile
> and
> glorious thing of all. You would be denying the truth, and doing a
> disservice to both yourself and the creatures you made in your own
> likeness,
> if you were to adopt such a false humility as would prevent you from
> making
> your excellence known as the superlative ideal.
I would have humility for my created beings because they don't know what they're doing. I have a belief in universal equal humility, for all existent beings known by me, and others to be discovered. Just because I am "more intelligent" or "more powerful", or more "moral" than others, I don't believe that gives me the right to look down upon them. I may be able to suggest ideas in which to make their society better, but not commanding.
> Billions? That sounds like an exaggeration.
Intentionally, of course :).
> It's very common -- I
> did as a
> teen, and as a young adult. If you want to be concerned at all
> about being
> consistent, you'd better slow down and be open to recognize the
> glaring
> weaknesses in human philosophy. No human philosophy or religion
> better
> lines up with the facts of science, history, and plain old common
> observation, as well as biblical Christianity. (I openly challenge
> you to
> demonstrate this to be a falsehood.)
I don't have to. First you want me to follow that God can break the rules because he is omniscient and omnipotent. But when I suggest it doesn't have to be a God, but rather just a mechanism that only creates the universe and life you say that is unreasonable, when this mechanism doesn't have to follow logic or laws. Seems circular to me.
> You claim to understand the gospel, yet openly reject it. I suggest
> you ask
> yourself why. Do you disbelieve that you are a sinner? Do you
> disbelieve
> that your Creator will hold you accountable for your sins? Do you
> believe
> that the biblical record has been stripped of its credibility? Do
> you deny
> that Jesus Christ is who He says He is?
I don't disbelieve, or believe. I cannot conclude. I cannot determine whether a supreme being exists. Listening to evolutionists blindly isn't going to make me believe their claims.
> These things deserve to be explored in depth and honestly, if you
> wish to be
> able to say you've done a thorough investigation. To fall short of
> a
> thorough job, and yet go about claiming to have "tried that" or to
> "know the
> basics" without considering a response of any importance, is to
> trivialize
> (if not deny) something that has proven to be the most profound,
> life-changing, and personally satisfying aspects of human
> experience.
I know what the claimed importance of Christianity is. If I don't do it, I go to hell. I burn forever. Good riddance?
> Kind Regards,
>
> Timothy Wallace, MCSD
> [email protected]
>
> The TrueOrigin Archive
> http://www.trueorigin.org
>
>
I thought this argument would get me somewhere, but it just led to a bloody pool of semantics. Thanks though, it has been interesting.

DavidtheDuke                                  www.geocities.com/davidyourduke

We're all more mature than the other, that is what makes us so immature.

Message #5 Timothy's "Devastating" Reply to My Argument

David,

Sorry for the delay. I'm a bit busy these days, so my time is limited. You
seem to be a bright person, but this doesn't prevent you from invoking a
double standard in your argumentation: You repeatedly demand that another's
assumptions be rigorously questioned, yet you fail to apply the same
standard to your own assumptions. I find myself providing answers that are
being ignored, or at least seriously contemplated.

This being the case, frankly, I have better things to do with my time, so
please do not be offended if I do not make a high priority of responding to
your posts.

> You YOURSELF claimed that God doesn't have
> to apply himself with the rules of the
> universe and logic.

Please watch what you say: If you need to quote me to make a point, then
please do. But don't go putting words in my mouth by spouting reconstituted
tripe like the above statement. It's a demonstration of unbridled folly,
and it's not very impressive. I did NOT "claim that God doesn't have to
apply himself with the rules of the universe and logic". The way you phrase
that strongly suggests that you're unwilling to contemplate whether your
Creator may truly be required to exhibit the inherent limitations of you,
the creature -- which is an unreasonable and arbitrary assumption on your
part.

> If God, being ominiscient [sic] and omnipotent,
> doesn't have to follow any rules, why does
> the equally valid possibility of just a
> nonself-concious [sic] being...

What exactly makes "the possibility of just a nonself-concious [sic] being"
an "equally valid" proposition? [Answer: nothing.] Before you start
shoving these sophomoric assumptions under my nose, you'd best justify them.
I'm not here as a voluntary testing ground for a string of petty and vacuous
philosophical contrivances. If you really think you have a point, build it
from the ground up -- don't expect me to swallow your prior assumptions.
There's nothing "equally valid" about the universe having arisen from "the
possibility of just a nonself-concious [sic] being". If you think there is,
then you must START by making a viable case for that claim.

If you are really in such a hurry to spew your pseudo-philosophical babble
at me that you won't read what I have written to you, then we might best end
this exchange right here. I gave you a list of characteristics attributable
to the First Cause of the universe according to the scientific principle of
cause and effect. These pointed to a First Cause characterized (as best as
possible in human terms) as infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
loving, living, and sovereign. The list was by no means exhaustive. If
you're as smart as you make yourself out to be, it wouldn't have taken you
but a moment to recognize that the First Cause of consciousness must be
CONSCIOUS, and that the First Cause of personality must be PERSONAL.

Instead, you unreasonably persist in your empirically, philosophically, and
logically baseless aim to foist upon me your pet fantasy that the creator
must somehow be "a nonself-concious [sic] being".

It would have taken you just another moment to realize that the First Cause
of logic must be LOGICAL. [This, by the way is a part of what I was talking
about as the basis for modern science: without it, there's no point in
expecting science to have any meaning.]

Yet you're apparently in so much more of a hurry to speak more than to think
that you go on talking about you unjustifiable "nonself-concious [sic]
being" having "the ability to transcend logic". My patience wears thin with
this kind of childish "argumentation" -- which is no argumentation at all:
You're merely shoving your agenda under my nose and failing to demonstrate
yourself willing to either substantiate it or truly listen to and meditate
on what another has said: Nothing matters but that you get to reiterate and
embellish your hypothesis.

> Anyways, how can those First Causes be
> truly proved? I don't see how.

They can't be proven empirically, which by itself doesn't render them false
or invalid. If we arbitrarily demand that these conclusions must be
invalid, then we have no business applying such scientific principles as
cause-and-effect elsewhere, either. In analogous terms, faced with a
towering figure in a thick fog, we would be cutting off the feet, simply
because we can't see whether there is really a head.

So, we have no legitimate logical, philosophical, or empirical basis for
arbitrarily rejecting the cause-and-effect conclusions I have cited (and
many more), when the principle has applied with universal consistency
elsewhere.

> ...Of course man needs to have a foundation of
> logic to actually deduct the amount of possible
> scenarios of reality. But if he can't prove that
> his perceptions are correct, why should he try
> to create grand realities in which are
> impossible to prove, on a absolute level?

I hope the futility of the philosophical angle you're describing hits home
with you eventually. The logical end of your approach is that all human
endeavors for truth are a waste of time, for there's no way of knowing.
It's a lost cause. Life as we know it, ultimately, is meaningless. Like it
or not, that's the end of the road where you're heading.

Christianity doesn't operate that way. It doesn't begin with your
assumptions, and doesn't end with your futility. You so eagerly assume the
Christian faith to be just one of many "grand realities" created by man,
that you entirely neglect facing the possibility that is not that at all.

For your information, I was once an agnostic, and before that I was an
atheist. Afterwards I embraced "new age" philosophy. For many years, I
treated Christianity the same way you're doing now. I refused to consider
even for a moment that I really was a sinner, that there really was a
personal Creator, and that Jesus Christ really was "Lord and Savior" like
all the "Jesus freaks" said he was. I didn't like the idea that I somehow
needed to "saved" from my "sins" by submitting myself to this Jesus. And I
sure didn't like the idea of having to "live like a Christian" -- it would
have embarrassed me to no end.

During all that time, I did a lot of philosophizing -- not unlike what you
are doing. I embraced certain beliefs and rejected others. The selection
process was just as much (if not more) based on personal preference than
in-depth study, logic, or science. I decided for myself what the truth was.
(After all, what else can you do when there are no absolutes?) Everybody
has a worldview, and most folks cobble theirs together from bits and pieces
they've found elsewhere -- even though some of the combined parts are often
mutually exclusive. But we all try to get along as best we can.

It wasn't until I was really willing to investigate the historical and
scientific reliability of the biblical record, and consider the essence and
the truthfulness of the biblical message, that any of that changed. And I
didn't exactly decide one day that I would consider genuine, historical
Christianity. Far from it! I wouldn't have deliberately chosen to become
one of those "Jesus lovers".

I had been taught that evolution was fact, and that the Bible was unreliable
and full of mistakes, I operated largely on these two assumptions. But
eventually I was challenged to explore how truthful my assumptions were.
What I found surprised me. This was also the first time I actually came to
really understand what the gospel is. (You claim to come from a Christian
background -- do you actually know what the gospel is?) When I saw how
questionable most of evolutionary thought is, and how reliable the Bible
(and its history) is, I was compelled to take the message of Jesus Christ
seriously.

The bottom line is this: If Jesus Christ is who He says He is, and if He
has done what the Scriptures testify to His having done, then there is a
limitless resource of absolute truth, which no amount of philosophical
game-playing or hypothesizing will ever overcome. I personally stiff-armed
that fact for most of my life, but was eventually brought to face it
head-on, having grown weary of the futile and vain philosophical table
scraps I had been clinging to for many years.

Having said all of that, the point here is that starting with the biblical
worldview is no mere assumption or humanly contrived "grand reality" to the
Christian. Far from merely embracing a set of intellectual beliefs
masquerading as religion, He has come to know and respond to His Creator in
the real and powerful relationship which that Creator has openly offered.
The validity of his worldview comes not only from concurrence in science and
history, but is also corroborated in his life-changing relationship with the
God who reveals Himself in the Scriptures. And if you get nothing else from
our exchange, please get this: THESE COMBINED CRITICAL ELEMENTS ARE NOT
FOUND TOGETHER IN ANY OTHER WORLDVIEW OR BELIEF SYSTEM KNOWN TO MAN.

So, where you start by assuming nothing is absolute or reliable, the
Christian has no reason to agree with you -- in fact, he has very good
reason not to.

In light of the above, I see no point in entertaining the balance of your
arguments. They continue to invoke assumptions which you remain unwilling
to defend or question, and seem to have no real aim other than an exercise
in the art of debating, and I'm not at your service for that purpose.

Kind Regards,
Timothy Wallace, MCSD
[email protected]

Message #6

> Sorry for the delay. I'm a bit busy these days, so my time is
> limited. You
> seem to be a bright person, but this doesn't prevent you from
> invoking a
> double standard in your argumentation: You repeatedly demand that
> another's
> assumptions be rigorously questioned, yet you fail to apply the
> same
> standard to your own assumptions. I find myself providing answers
> that are
> being ignored, or at least seriously contemplated.
>
> This being the case, frankly, I have better things to do with my
> time, so
> please do not be offended if I do not make a high priority of
> responding to
> your posts.
I understand. Makes sense. I am sorry.
> For your information, I was once an agnostic, and before that I was
> an
> atheist. Afterwards I embraced "new age" philosophy. For many
> years, I
> treated Christianity the same way you're doing now. I refused to
> consider
> even for a moment that I really was a sinner, that there really was
> a
> personal Creator, and that Jesus Christ really was "Lord and Savior"
> like
> all the "Jesus freaks" said he was. I didn't like the idea that I
> somehow
> needed to "saved" from my "sins" by submitting myself to this Jesus.
> And I
> sure didn't like the idea of having to "live like a Christian" -- it
> would
> have embarrassed me to no end.
>
> During all that time, I did a lot of philosophizing -- not unlike
> what you
> are doing. I embraced certain beliefs and rejected others. The
> selection
> process was just as much (if not more) based on personal preference
> than
> in-depth study, logic, or science. I decided for myself what the
> truth was.
> (After all, what else can you do when there are no absolutes?)
:)
> Everybody
> has a worldview, and most folks cobble theirs together from bits and
> pieces
> they've found elsewhere -- even though some of the combined parts
> are often
> mutually exclusive. But we all try to get along as best we can.
>
> It wasn't until I was really willing to investigate the historical
> and
> scientific reliability of the biblical record, and consider the
> essence and
> the truthfulness of the biblical message, that any of that changed.
> And I
> exactly decide one day that I would consider genuine, historical
> Christianity. Far from it! I wouldn't have deliberately chosen to
> become
> one of those "Jesus lovers".
>
> I had been taught that evolution was fact, and that the Bible was
> unreliable
> and full of mistakes, I operated largely on these two assumptions.
> But
> eventually I was challenged to explore how truthful my assumptions
> were.
> What I found surprised me. This was also the first time I actually
> came to
> really understand what the gospel is. (You claim to come from a
> Christian
> background -- do you actually know what the gospel is?) When I saw
> how
> questionable most of evolutionary thought is, and how reliable the
> Bible
> (and its history) is, I was compelled to take the message of Jesus
> Christ
> seriously.
>
> The bottom line is this: If Jesus Christ is who He says He is, and
> if He
> has done what the Scriptures testify to His having done, then there
> is a
> limitless resource of absolute truth, which no amount of
> philosophical
> game-playing or hypothesizing will ever overcome. I personally
> stiff-armed
> that fact for most of my life, but was eventually brought to face
> it
> head-on, having grown weary of the futile and vain philosophical
> table
> scraps I had been clinging to for many years.
>
> Having said all of that, the point here is that starting with the
> biblical
> worldview is no mere assumption or humanly contrived "grand reality"
> to the
> Christian. Far from merely embracing a set of intellectual beliefs
> masquerading as religion, He has come to know and respond to His
> Creator in
> the real and powerful relationship which that Creator has openly
> offered.
> The validity of his worldview comes not only from concurrence in
> science and
> history, but is also corroborated in his life-changing relationship
> with the
> God who reveals Himself in the Scriptures. And if you get nothing
> else from
> our exchange, please get this: THESE COMBINED CRITICAL ELEMENTS ARE
> NOT
> FOUND TOGETHER IN ANY OTHER WORLDVIEW OR BELIEF SYSTEM KNOWN TO
> MAN.
>
> So, where you start by assuming nothing is absolute or reliable,
> the
> Christian has no reason to agree with you -- in fact, he has very
> good
> reason not to.
>
> In light of the above, I see no point in entertaining the balance of
> your
> arguments. They continue to invoke assumptions which you remain
> unwilling
> to defend or question, and seem to have no real aim other than an
> exercise
> in the art of debating, and I'm not at your service for that
> purpose.
Well said, and I must heartily agree. Thank you very much. I will start investigating. I am now determined to form a worldview based on science and neutral observation. Do you know what would be the best path to begin study?Just would like to add to this response: I believe my argument is just as valid as yours, for now. But your argument has driven me to think about things, again. :) Most Christians would know what to say in reply to my beliefs, just believing in their blind faith. You're different, and thank you for giving your time to help me out.
> Kind Regards,
>
> Timothy Wallace, MCSD
> [email protected]

DavidtheDuke                                  www.geocities.com/davidyourduke

We're all more mature than the other, that is what makes us so immature.