Hello David.

I came upon your site when I was trying to find sources on Horus, the sun God. I'm an atheist, and I came across those claims and thought it was pretty interesting, but I can find no actual source for the information as far as the internet is concerned. There are books I could buy on the topic, supposedly, but I'm really not that concerned since I am atheistic for other reasons.

You talk an awful lot about needing to prove things. You sound like an atheist in the wings to me. Of course, it seems you have somehow convinced yourself that there is evidence for God's existence, which is silly. This evidence, as I gathered from reading your articles, is basically that we exist, therefore we must have been created, etc. I believe a debate over the origins of the Universe are pointless for the moment. Science hasn't advanced enough to give a solid answer, though there are theories. I'm wondering what prevents you from believing that Science will eventually produce a theory of creation, just as it has produced the theory of gravity and theory of evolution?

You compare God to emotions, and say that emotions exist but are not directly observable. We can observe brain patterns that produce certain reactions, and we make drugs that elicit specific emotional states by trigger those parts of the brain with chemicals. This is not a mystery. Do you really think our handle on observing and controlling emotion is comparable to the idea of God? A being that supposedly interacts directly with our environment yet there has been no verifiable evidence since the dawn of the 20 and 21st century, the dawn of the age of information collection? Really? Sam Harris is working on mapping the neurological responses to concepts such as "true" and "false." Scientists have developed neurological maps that allow a monkey to control a robot arm with only it's thoughts. Why do you think science will be unable to precisely decipher these things, especially considering the giant leaps in technology in the past few decades? There are books written explaining how emotion and thought interact with the body in a purely material manner, and have proven such to a fair degree: yet you have faith that science will never have the specific answers to these problems, thus you accept an entire philosophy on life based around a zombified savior. Why?

You remind me of a person living during the Dark Ages. If they can't understand it, they attribute it to God. Since we can't yet precisely understand the creation of the universe or consciousness, you immediately attribute them to the existence of a God. Don't you believe you're making the same mistake as those who lived during the Dark Ages? Science has debunked so many things, and continues to debunk so many things, that it's illogical to assume that scientific revelation will no longer occur in grey areas.

Dan 8/17/09

Dan,

Thanks for writing.

"You sound like an atheist in the wings to me."

I'm a former atheist, actually.

"I believe a debate over the origins of the Universe are pointless for the moment."

Okay. But I don't. I think that if we stop debating the origins of the universe, then we'll never got one inch farther in understanding it. I believe that debate promotes understanding. It doesn't hinder it.

"I'm wondering what prevents you from believing that Science will eventually produce a theory of creation, just as it has produced the theory of gravity and theory of evolution?"

Nothing prevents me from believing it. It may well do so. And if that theory is a better explanation for why the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life than purposeful creation is, then I'd have no problem believing it. But let's see what that theory is before we start debating its likelihood, okay?

But if we, as you suggest, cease on debating the origins of the universe, I think that this would probably hinder us from ever coming up with a theory of creation.

"You compare God to emotions, and say that emotions exist but are not directly observable. We can observe brain patterns that produce certain reactions, and we make drugs that elicit specific emotional states by trigger those parts of the brain with chemicals. This is not a mystery. Do you really think our handle on observing and controlling emotion is comparable to the idea of God?"

No, our handle on observing and controlling emotion is not comparable to the idea of God. Our inability to directly observe emotions, despite their existence, is comparable to the idea of God.

"Why do you think science will be unable to precisely decipher these things, especially considering the giant leaps in technology in the past few decades?"

Huh? When did I say that I think science will be unable to decipher those things?

"There are books written explaining how emotion and thought interact with the body in a purely material manner, and have proven such to a fair degree: yet you have faith that science will never have the specific answers to these problems,"

Sorry, but you're not making any sense. What problems do you think I'm saying science will never have the answer to? Are you saying that science may someday reach the point where we can directly observe emotions? Perhaps it will. If one day we can directly observe emotions, then my comparison will no longer make sense. But for now, we cannot directly observe them, so my comparison does make sense. It's just a comparison, and you seem to be trying to stretch it into something else.

"thus you accept an entire philosophy on life based around a zombified savior. Why?"

Because I feel that the historical evidence favors Jesus' resurrection.

"You remind me of a person living during the Dark Ages. If they can't understand it, they attribute it to God. Since we can't yet precisely understand the creation of the universe or consciousness, you immediately attribute them to the existence of a God."

Quite the opposite, in fact. I didn't start to believe in God until I was 20, so my "immediate attribution" was not to God at all, but to natural processes. It was only later, after a college course in astronomy and careful thought on the matter, that I came to realize that natural processes do not sufficiently explain why our universe is capable of creating life and sustaining it for billions of years. I believe in God for roughly the same reason I believe in evolution - not because I am able to directly observe it, but because it's the most rational explanation for the observable evidence.

Hypothetically, evolution *could* be false, but, if so, then we'd have say that the fossil record suggests a simpler-to-more-complex flow for no particular reason, "just because it does". Or we'd have to come up with a different theory that explains the fossil record better than evolution does. But since we don't have a better theory yet, and the idea that the fossil record is that way "just because" isn't rational, then I believe in evolution.

Similarly, the idea of purposeful creation by God *could* be false, but, if so, then we'd have to say that the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life for no particular reason, "just because it is". Or we'd have to come up with a different theory that explains the universe better than purposeful creation does. But since we don't have a better theory yet, and the idea that the universe is this way "just because" isn't rational, then I believe in God.

If, hypothetically, science were to come up with a theory that explains why the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life (and not "just because") that makes more sense than the idea of purposeful creation, then I will gladly believe that theory. Until then, I'll do the rational thing and believe the theory which best explains the evidence rather than writes it off to mere coincidence, same as I do with evolution.

"Science has debunked so many things, and continues to debunk so many things, that it's illogical to assume that scientific revelation will no longer occur in grey areas."

If science debunks God, then I'll gladly stop believing in God. But you seem to want me to stop believing in God *now* based on your belief that it *eventually* will debunk Him. You realize how silly that idea is, right?

David 8/18/09

""think that if we stop debating the origins of the universe, then we'll never got one inch farther in understanding it. I believe that debate promotes understanding. It doesn't hinder it.

Let me clarify: I think debate is good. I don't think debate with religious people is good, because they are looking in the wrong places for the answers to the question. Let the scientists who understand the mathematics behind the theories debate it. As far as I know, "God did it" still isn't a popular theory among scientists since it's, well, a bit simplistic. It's the atheistic nature of a scientist that drives them to search for answers beyond "God did it" - by all accounts, if scientists held the position you do, we'd never come to an understanding of the universe.

"Nothing prevents me from believing it. It may well do so. And if that theory is a better explanation for why the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life than purposeful creation is, then I'd have no problem believing it. But let's see what that theory is before we start debating its likelihood, okay?

The problem is that your theory requires no evidence: God did it, God is invisible etc, therefore it could be true. Well, a democracy of magical faeries could have created the universe just as easily in this way, but I don't see you touting that theory.

"No, our handle on observing and controlling emotion is not comparable to the idea of God. Our inability to directly observe emotions, despite their existence, is comparable to the idea of God.

We directly observe what causes emotion and what an emotional state looks like on scans of neurological patters. We can provoke emotional responses through manipulation. We cannot directly observe what caused God or what God looks like in any form, and we cannot provoke responses from God. Big difference. It seems you're purposely stretching your definition of "observing emotion" beyond reasonable standards, just so you can continue to say they are unobservable.

"Because I feel that the historical evidence favors Jesus' resurrection."

Please elaborate the on the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Note: At this point, Dan and I got into a side discussion on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.  I have decided to put that conversation on a separate webpage instead of having you, the reader, jumping back and forth between issues as we did.  If you want to see the other discussion, go here: Letter/ReligiousThingsJesus

"I didn't start to believe in God until I was 20, so my "immediate attribution" was not to God at all, but to natural processes. It was only later, after a college course in astronomy and careful thought on the matter, that I came to realize that natural processes do not sufficiently explain why our universe is capable of creating life and sustaining it for billions of years. I believe in God for roughly the same reason I believe in evolution - not because I am able to directly observe it, but because it's the most rational explanation for the observable evidence."

God has repeatedly failed as an explanation for natural processes after these first 100+ years of scientific revolution, but you seem to think that there's still a chance He did something. This is not rational, this is you resorting to mysticism to explain a world that so far as been completely explainable by theories on natural processes.

"Similarly, the idea of purposeful creation by God *could* be false, but, if so, then we'd have to say that the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life for no particular reason, "just because it is". Or we'd have to come up with a different theory that explains the universe better than purposeful creation does. But since we don't have a better theory yet, and the idea that the universe is this way "just because" isn't rational, then I believe in God."

You seem to be be working creation of the Universe and creation of life into the same argument as evidence for God. There are many scientific books written on how life started on earth without a creator; why do you believe these books are irrational compared to the notion of a God? Also, as I said, I can just as easily say that a society of democratic magical faeries created the universe this way, and I'd be using the same logic that you are using. Also, your need for a reason for our consciousness seem to be making your required burden of proof bias. "Just because it is" is not a reasonable enough explanation for you: tell me why it is an unreasonable explanation.

"If science debunks God, then I'll gladly stop believing in God. But you seem to want me to stop believing in God *now* based on your belief that it *eventually* will debunk Him. You realize how silly that idea is, right?"

No, not considering that of all the things that used to be attributed to God, he has had to run to the corners of Universe to maintain his existence. If we lived 600 years ago you'd be attributing the spread of disease to God, saying that since humans don't know what causes it, God is the best explanation: you'd also be wrong.

Dan 8/18/09

"Let me clarify: I think debate is good. I don't think debate with religious people is good, because they are looking in the wrong places for the answers to the question."

Then why did you engage me in debate? Did you not know that I was a religious person? If you want to stop the debate because I believe in God, just because you don't think it's good for you to debate with me, then feel free to stop here. I'd rather debate, if that's okay with you, though.

"Let the scientists who understand the mathematics behind the theories debate it."

They can debate it, also. And if they come up with a theory which explains the evidence better then purposeful creation does, I'll gladly believe in it.

"by all accounts, if scientists held the position you do, we'd never come to an understanding of the universe."

The position of believing in the theories which best explain the evidence?

"The problem is that your theory requires no evidence"

As with many theories, it's used to understand the evidence. It's like with evolution. You can't point to a single piece of fossil evidence which in and of itself proves evolution. But with the fossils showing a gradual progression from simpler to more complex, the theory of evolution explains this progression better than any competing theory. Similarly, there is no single piece of evidence which in and of itself proves purposeful creation, but with the universe being something in which life can be created and sustained, the theory of purposeful creation explains this better than any competing theory. If scientists come up with a competing theory that explains why the universe sustains life, other than "just because", I'll gladly consider it.

"God did it, God is invisible etc, therefore it could be true. Well, a democracy of magical faeries could have created the universe just as easily in this way, but I don't see you touting that theory."

Nope, though it's still a better theory than any I've heard from atheists. But I reject the democracy of magical faeries due to Occam's Razor. The fact that the universe can create and sustain life is best explained by some sort of purposeful creator, but there's nothing pointing to a democracy of magical faeries in particular. With one creator and multiple creators being equal otherwise, Occam's Razor favors there being one. Nothing suggests that the creative force is multiple beings, so a single being is more in line with Occam's Razor. And a being capable of creating a universe is better described as a "God" than a "faerie".

"We directly observe what causes emotion and what an emotional state looks like on scans of neurological patterns."

But we still can't directly observe emotions themselves. If you're saying that "seeing what an emotional state looks like on scans of neurological patterns" equals "directly observing emotions", I'd disagree. If, hypothetically, I agreed with the equality, then I'd have to find a better example of something which exists without being directly observable.

"We can provoke emotional responses through manipulation. We cannot directly observe what caused God or what God looks like in any form, and we cannot provoke responses from God. Big difference."

True, but it doesn't change the fact that we cannot directly observe emotions, which was the basis for my analogy.

"It seems you're purposely stretching your definition of "observing emotion" beyond reasonable standards, just so you can continue to say they are unobservable."

If you want to say that emotions are directly observable, then I'll gladly agree to disagree. The point I was making is that things can exist without being directly observable, and I was using "emotions" to make the point. The point still exists with or without emotions being an example.

"God has repeatedly failed as an explanation for natural processes after these first 100+ years of scientific revolution, but you seem to think that there's still a chance He did something."

Even a lot of naturalistic explanations regarding the universe didn't hold up after these first 100+ years of scientific revolution. Mainstream science used to believe that the universe was static, not expanding, and that there were no subatomic particles. By your logic, we should reject naturalism as well, shouldn't we?

"This is not rational, this is you resorting to mysticism to explain a world that so far as been completely explainable by theories on natural processes. "

Natural processes don't explain why the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life at all, though. I have yet to hear of any naturalistic theory that doesn't ultimately attribute the state of the universe to "just because". This is as ridiculous as attributing the simpler-to-more-complex order of the fossil evidence to "just because", when we have the theory of evolution which explains that order.

"You seem to be be working creation of the Universe and creation of life into the same argument as evidence for God. There are many scientific books written on how life started on earth without a creator; why do you believe these books are irrational compared to the notion of a God?"

I don't. I believe that purposeful creation explains *why* the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life without attributing it to random chance.

"Also, as I said, I can just as easily say that a society of democratic magical faeries created the universe this way, and I'd be using the same logic that you are using."

No, because then I'd want to know why you think there's a democracy of them or why they're faeries. That idea doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor.

"Also, your need for a reason for our consciousness seem to be making your required burden of proof bias. "Just because it is" is not a reasonable enough explanation for you: tell me why it is an unreasonable explanation."

For the same reason that it's an unreasonable explanation for why the fossil chain goes from simpler to more complex - because it doesn't explain it and there is a competing theory which explains it nicely. If someone came up with a better theory, which also explained the evidence (for either one), I'd gladly go with that.

If, hypothetically, there was no better theory than "just because", then I'd likely go with "just because". It certainly explains some things, at times.

"No, not considering that of all the things that used to be attributed to God, he has had to run to the corners of Universe to maintain his existence. If we lived 600 years ago you'd be attributing the spread of disease to God, saying that since humans don't know what causes it, God is the best explanation: you'd also be wrong."

Perhaps. It would depend on whether or not there was a better theory, which explained the evidence, available to me. People have been wrong about many things in the past due to the correct theories not being available to them. Hypothetically, there could be a better theory, without involving a God, which explains why the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life. As of yet, I have not come across that theory. "Just because" isn't it. If someone comes up with the theory and it does explain the evidence better than purposeful creation does, then I'll gladly believe in it. But I'm not going to believe in a theory which has yet to exist and may never.

David 8/18/09

"Then why did you engage me in debate? Did you not know that I was a religious person? If you want to stop the debate because I believe in God, just because you don't think it's good for you to debate with me, then feel free to stop here. I'd rather debate, if that's okay with you, though."

There are things to debate other then the fundamental creation of the Universe. If you think this is what our debate is limited to, so be it, but I'd like to think differently.

DAN: "by all accounts, if scientists held the position you do, we'd never come to an understanding of the universe. "

DAVID: "The position of believing in the theories which best explain the evidence?"

Your position does not best explain the evidence. Your theory entails an entity with no mass, with no physical atomic structure, with no seeming neuronal system resembling a brain, yet has consciousness. This is an entity which can arbitrarily create and restore matter, and arbitrarily manipulate any object in the Universe. Do you not realize how many laws of science this entity violates? You say that God is the best theory, at an attempt to sound like you're taking a scientific approach, but you're not. You're breaking hundreds of other theories in order to make a "theory" on Universe creation. This is not how science works. The best theory is one that doesn't break hundreds of other theories on science.

"But I reject the democracy of magical faeries due to Occam's Razor. The fact that the universe can create and sustain life is best explained by some sort of purposeful creator, but there's nothing pointing to a democracy of magical faeries in particular. With one creator and multiple creators being equal otherwise, Occam's Razor favors there being one. Nothing suggests that the creative force is multiple beings, so a single being is more in line with Occam's Razor. And a being capable of creating a universe is better described as a "God" than a "faerie"."

But your God is a god of blood sacrifice; of rules on circumcision; of killing his literal son, who is actually a duplicate of Himself, for the forgiveness of mankind; of flooding the earth out of vengeance; and of hundreds of other strange, odd, and sometimes malicious quirks. All of these things compound the complexity of this hypothetical "simple creator God" your purport to claim is based on Occam's Razor. To act as if your creator-God is "simplistic" compared to a democratic faerie society is preposterous.

"But we still can't directly observe emotions themselves. If you're saying that "seeing what an emotional state looks like on scans of neurological patterns" equals "directly observing emotions", I'd disagree. If, hypothetically, I agreed with the equality, then I'd have to find a better example of something which exists without being directly observable."

Then we'll have to disagree. What would be directly observing them for you, a caption bubble appearing over the person's head with a smiley face saying "I am an emotion. My name is happy."? Once again I feel you're being unreasonable in your definitions, not because you're being rational but because you're being religious.

"If you want to say that emotions are directly observable, then I'll gladly agree to disagree. The point I was making is that things can exist without being directly observable, and I was using "emotions" to make the point. The point still exists with or without emotions being an example."

Things can exist without being directly observable, but this only really happens with highly scientific, highly mathematically formulas on unique types of matter. To equate this into "proof" that a God could exist without being directly observable doesn't work realistically speaking, especially since God is directly interacting and directly manipulating things in our world according to your Bible.

"Even a lot of naturalistic explanations regarding the universe didn't hold up after these first 100+ years of scientific revolution. Mainstream science used to believe that the universe was static, not expanding, and that there were no subatomic particles. By your logic, we should reject naturalism as well, shouldn't we?"

Give me a single case where naturalism has been replaced by supernaturalism and I'll grant you your point. Naturalism being replaced by more accurate naturalism is hardly the same as replacing naturalism with supernaturalism, as you are doing.

"I believe that purposeful creation explains *why* the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life without attributing it to random chance."

So I suppose your argument boils down to the 6 constants of the Universe then? (i think there's 6... can't remember). Science also has theories on why these constants have lined up correctly for life, some theories say it was random chance due to multiple universes, some say the values of these constants may be tied intrinsicly with each other, leaving it highly probable that these constants would have lined up simply because of the nature of their effect on the Universe. But yes, purposeful creation can explain the "why", only if you break all those other theories of science and matter first by including a entity like God.

DAN: "Also, as I said, I can just as easily say that a society of democratic magical faeries created the universe this way, and I'd be using the same logic that you are using."

DAVID: No, because then I'd want to know why you think there's a democracy of them or why they're faeries. That idea doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor.

OK, just so long as you tell me why God needs to kill a duplicate of Himself just in order to get rid of His own concept of "sin.". Or how about when your creator God gets jealous with other tribes when they like another deity, so He lets His followers wipe them off the face of the earth through genocide. Or why your God feels the need to commit infanticide to make a ruler release some slaves. My faeries aren't nearly as crazy as all that.

"For the same reason that it's an unreasonable explanation for why the fossil chain goes from simpler to more complex - because it doesn't explain it and there is a competing theory which explains it nicely. If someone came up with a better theory, which also explained the evidence (for either one), I'd gladly go with that.

If, hypothetically, there was no better theory than "just because", then I'd likely go with "just because". It certainly explains some things, at times."

Again, there are theories on how these constants of the Universe interact with each other, and how it came to pass that they lined up this way for this Universe. You might want to check out the book "Quantum Gods." It address this issue directly. I'm trying to work my way through it but the science is fairly hard to wrap my mind around. It details the reasons why we shouldn't be placing God in the grey areas of quatum mechanics and Universal constants. You claim you're waiting for science to fill in the gaps, but it doesn't seem like you're reading many scientific journals on the subject. Seems like you'd rather just sit back and relax waiting for internet stragglers to prove you wrong?

Dan 8/18/09

"There are things to debate other then the fundamental creation of the Universe. If you think this is what our debate is limited to, so be it, but I'd like to think differently."

Okay. But that was the primary issue you contacted me about in your first letter. I'm just not clear why you think you shouldn't discuss this stuff with religious people, and then engaged a religious person in discussion about it. If you'd rather stop discussing the creation of the universe, and just stick with our discussion in the middle about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, that's fine. Personally, though, I'd rather keep discussing it.

"Your position does not best explain the evidence. Your theory entails an entity with no mass, with no physical atomic structure, with no seeming neuronal system resembling a brain, yet has consciousness. This is an entity which can arbitrarily create and restore matter, and arbitrarily manipulate any object in the Universe."

No, the ability to restore matter and arbitrarily manipulate objects within this universe has nothing to do with my theory. My theory here has only to do with the creation of the universe itself, not with what this being also may or may not be capable of. The creator could (hypothetically) be something that set things in motion, and then excused Himself from anything which happened afterwards, as deists believe.

I do believe that God is capable of restoring and manipulating matter, but for other reasons, not due to the fact that our universe is capable of creating and sustaining life.

"Do you not realize how many laws of science this entity violates?"

Sure I do. It violates none. We know that something caused the universe as we know it to exist (since it began to exist), and to say that this force was purposeful as opposed to purposeless does not violate any laws of science.

"You're breaking hundreds of other theories in order to make a "theory" on Universe creation. This is not how science works. The best theory is one that doesn't break hundreds of other theories on science."

What theories am I breaking? And how am I breaking them? There are many competing theories within science. Are we not allowed to favor one theory over another for fear of breaking the other one? Is no one allowed to be a proponent of a theory which competes with another?

"But your God is a god of blood sacrifice; of rules on circumcision; of killing his literal son, who is actually a duplicate of Himself, for the forgiveness of mankind; of flooding the earth out of vengeance; and of hundreds of other strange, odd, and sometimes malicious quirks. All of these things compound the complexity of this hypothetical "simple creator God" your purport to claim is based on Occam's Razor. To act as if your creator-God is "simplistic" compared to a democratic faerie society is preposterous."

None of that "blood sacrifice, circumcision, etc." has anything to do with the theory of how the universe began to exist. I'm not saying that the fact that the universe can create and sustain life suggests the existence of the Judeo-Christian God in particular, just that it suggests that whatever force created the universe had purpose. I believe in the *Biblical God in particular* for other reasons, not because of the fact that the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life.

"What would be directly observing them for you, a caption bubble appearing over the person's head with a smiley face saying "I am an emotion. My name is happy."?"

Since we can't directly observe emotions, it's difficult for me to fathom what doing so would be like. I imagine it would be something akin to synesthesia (where people have one type of perception cross over into another, making people capable of seeing sounds or tasting shapes), but I can't even imagine what that would be like.

"Once again I feel you're being unreasonable in your definitions, not because you're being rational but because you're being religious."

So...only religious people believe that you can't directly observe emotions? Non-religious people believe that you can directly observe them?

"Things can exist without being directly observable, but this only really happens with highly scientific, highly mathematically formulas on unique types of matter."

And not with emotions?

"To equate this into "proof" that a God could exist without being directly observable doesn't work realistically speaking, especially since God is directly interacting and directly manipulating things in our world according to your Bible."

Once again, you're moving past the theory I'm describing here. The theory is simply that the fact that the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life is best explained by purposeful creation. Even if the Bible is 100% false, even if God is incapable of manipulating things in our world, that doesn't make the theory itself false. Many people believe in God without believing in the Bible. I believed in God before I believed in the Bible, myself.

"Give me a single case where naturalism has been replaced by supernaturalism and I'll grant you your point."

Then you're missing my point. A particular supernatural belief being disproven doesn't disprove all supernatural beliefs, any more than a particular naturalist belief being disproven disproves all naturalist beliefs.

"So I suppose your argument boils down to the 6 constants of the Universe then? (i think there's 6... can't remember). Science also has theories on why these constants have lined up correctly for life, some theories say it was random chance due to multiple universes,"

Which can be true with or without a purposeful creator for the universe(s). If a God can create one universe, He can create many.

But for the record, one can use multiverse theory to prove *anything*, no matter how unlikely. I could argue, for example, that everything I've written to you in our discussions was actually the result of my cats walking across my keyboard, hitting keys at random as they did so, and the letters just happened to create the words you see before you, even your own quotes. If there are enough universes that this event would logically come to occur one them, then I could argue that this happens to be that one.

I doubt you'd buy it, of course. That's a large part of the reason I have trouble accepting multiverse theory as a rational explanation for anything.

"some say the values of these constants may be tied intrinsicly with each other, leaving it highly probable that these constants would have lined up simply because of the nature of their effect on the Universe."

I actually kind of agree with this one, but why are the constants lined up this way? Just because they are? Or because they're supposed to?

"But yes, purposeful creation can explain the "why", only if you break all those other theories of science and matter first by including a entity like God."

You seem to be under the impression that someone favoring one theory over another somehow "breaks" the other theory. There are many competing theories within science, with proponents on both sides. When there are competing theories, one of them is usually wrong, but only when a theory has been utterly disproven is it "broken".

"OK, just so long as you tell me why God needs to kill a duplicate of Himself just in order to get rid of His own concept of "sin.". Or how about when your creator God gets jealous with other tribes when they like another deity, so He lets His followers wipe them off the face of the earth through genocide. Or why your God feels the need to commit infanticide to make a ruler release some slaves."

Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Even if all of that stuff is untrue, it doesn't disprove God's existence. Many people find purposeful creation to be the best explanation for a universe capable of creating and sustaining life, without believing in the Bible. This theory convinced me of God's existence when I was 20, but I didn't start believing in the Bible until I was 27.

"You claim you're waiting for science to fill in the gaps,"

No, I'm waiting for science to come up with a better theory than the one I currently accept. It's not that the theory you want me to accept is almost complete and just needs a few gaps filled in before it is complete, but that the theory you want me to accept doesn't exist at all. I'm not going to accept a theory which has yet to exist (and may never) over a theory which already explains the evidence. Once the theory exists, I'll weigh one against the other and see which one is the better explanation.

"but it doesn't seem like you're reading many scientific journals on the subject. Seems like you'd rather just sit back and relax waiting for internet stragglers to prove you wrong?"

No, I don't need to be proven wrong. I just need a theory which better explains the evidence. You're saying that one day science will produce a theory of creation that doesn't involve a God. If so, that's fine, and I'll gladly accept it as long as it is a better explanation for the evidence. But I'm not going to believe a theory which science has yet to come up, and perhaps never will. That would be silly.

David 8/18/09

I'm going to filter most of our conversation into a few sentences here, just so there isn't all this clutter. Basically, you're idea of a creator-God is separate from your idea of Spirituality. We need to resolves this issue before we bother to continue this particular debate any further. I'm pretty sure you claim to be a Christian, and you claim to believe that Jesus Resurrected, but you don't actually believe that these are the entities who created the Universe and created life?

When I say God violated science, I was assuming your idea of God was based on something somewhat related to the Bible. You apparently don't. You said that this creator-God likely started things in motion, then excused Himself from anything which happened afterwords. This is contradictory to the stories of the OT and NT: the God who created the world and life is the same God who kills himself on a Cross. The Bible also makes it abundantly clear that there is only one God, so I'm not sure how you can justify your division of creator-God and OT/NT God when they are, according to the Biblical God, the same entity. Do you believe the creator-God was some other entity, and then the Biblical God somehow came into the picture later? Then you'll have two Gods on your hands to explain, as if there's a species of gods out there somewhere.

Also, the emotion debate seems fairly boring so I'm gonna pass on it. We'll just agree to disagree.

"A particular supernatural belief being disproven doesn't disprove all supernatural beliefs, any more than a particular naturalist belief being disproven disproves all naturalist beliefs."

The problem is that supernatural beliefs can't be proven, yet you give them equal status with natural beliefs, which can be proven. This is ridiculous.

DAN: "some say the values of these constants may be tied intrinsicly with each other, leaving it highly probable that these constants would have lined up simply because of the nature of their effect on the Universe."

DAVID: "I actually kind of agree with this one, but why are the constants lined up this way? Just because they are? Or because they're supposed to?"

I think this theory will become clearer when scientists finally figure out that "theory of everything" which they've been working on for years. We understand certain constants and their value, but we don't have the math and technology to really judge what all they control or are controlled by as far as universe-creation is concerned.

Dan 8/18/09

"Basically, your idea of a creator-God is separate from your idea of Spirituality."

No. Rather, my reasons for believing that the universe was purposefully created is separate from my reasons for believing in the Judeo-Christian God in particular.

"I'm pretty sure you claim to be a Christian, and you claim to believe that Jesus Resurrected, but you don't actually believe that these are the entities who created the Universe and created life?"

I am a Christian, but my reasons for being a Christian are different than my reasons for believing the universe was purposefully created. I'm a Christian because I find the evidence for Jesus' resurrection to be convincing. I believe the universe was purposefully created because the universe is capable of creating and sustaining life.

"When I say God violated science, I was assuming your idea of God was based on something somewhat related to the Bible. You apparently don't."

My current idea of God is related to the Bible. But my reasons for believing that God exists in the first place has nothing to do with the Bible. I believed in God for several years before I believed in the Bible.

To draw an analogy, imagine that I were to look at an abstract painting, without a signature on it, and wonder whether it was created by an explosion in a paint factory or was purposefully painted. Finally, I decide that, despite it being somewhat abstract, there's enough order in the painting that I'm convinced that it was purposefully painted. And then a few years later, I find out that some people have credited it to a painter named Charles Kronzak, and I find these people convincing. Now, my reasons for believing it was purposefully painted (that there is some order in it) would be different than my reasons for believing that Charles Kronzak painted it (that I'm swayed by those who claim he did). You see?

"You said that this creator-God likely started things in motion, then excused Himself from anything which happened afterwords."

No, I said that it was hypothetical that He did. My reasons for believing that God is able to manipulate things within the universe are separate from my reasons for believing that He created the universe in the first place.

"This is contradictory to the stories of the OT and NT: the God who created the world and life is the same God who kills himself on a Cross."

What I'm saying is that my reasons for believing in the Biblical God in particular (who I came to believe in when I was 27) are different for my reasons for believing in God in general (who I came to believe in when I was 20)

"Do you believe the creator-God was some other entity, and then the Biblical God somehow came into the picture later?"

No, I believe they're one and the same.

"The problem is that supernatural beliefs can't be proven, yet you give them equal status with natural beliefs, which can be proven. This is ridiculous."

I was simply pointing out that your claim that because some supernatural beliefs have been disproven, that this means that supernatural beliefs shouldn't be believed at all, is ridiculous. If true, that would mean that we'd have to give up on naturalist beliefs, since many of them have also been disproven.

"I think this theory will become clearer when scientists finally figure out that "theory of everything" which they've been working on for years. We understand certain constants and their value, but we don't have the math and technology to really judge what all they control or are controlled by as far as universe-creation is concerned. "

Once they come up with the theory and it can be measured against what I believe, I'll gladly consider it. But you want me to give up what I currently believe in preparation for believing in a theory which has yet to exist, and many never, and I'm not that silly.

David 8/19/09

"To draw an analogy, imagine that I were to look at an abstract painting, without a signature on it, and wonder whether it was created by an explosion in a paint factory or was purposefully painted. Finally, I decide that, despite it being somewhat abstract, there's enough order in the painting that I'm convinced that it was purposefully painted. And then a few years later, I find out that some people have credited it to a painter named Charles Kronzak, and I find these people convincing. Now, my reasons for believing it was purposefully painted (that there is some order in it) would be different than my reasons for believing that Charles Kronzak painted it (that I'm swayed by those who claim he did). You see?"

There are some problems with your analogy. Your idea of the painting being "purposefully painted" is much different then how Charles Kronzak claims to "purposefully paint" things. To you, the painting appears like there were no paint brushes used, no color mixing, just buckets of paint splashed all over; purposeful, but not meticulously crafted. Charles Kronzak later tells you that He used extremely tiny paint brushes for the whole painting, that He mixed all sorts of colors together for specific purposes, and that he's actually been adding to the painting for the past 5 years here and there. Art critics think Charles is lying because the painting doesn't back up his claims, plus it's been behind glass for the past 5 years, so they debunk him as the painter of this painting. You believe what Charles has to say and still think he's the painter, despite the evidence to the contrary.

"My reasons for believing that God is able to manipulate things within the universe are separate from my reasons for believing that He created the universe in the first place."

It's not just your reasons that are different: you have to changing the entire concept of God back and forth so you can believe in both theories. You can't push this off as irrelevant. You're manipulating God's personality and God's powers to fit your own theories. You're telling me that, in your mind, both of these statements are true at the same time:

1) God started the Universe off and and left forever.

2) God was active and engaged with the earth for thousands of years.

If you believe one of these statements isn't true, which you obviously must, feel free to tell me.

"I was simply pointing out that your claim that because some supernatural beliefs have been disproven, that this means that supernatural beliefs shouldn't be believed at all, is ridiculous. If true, that would mean that we'd have to give up on naturalist beliefs, since many of them have also been disproven."

LOL. I'm done with this debate on natural vs. supernatural. Good luck convincing scientists on it. I'm sure they're all anxious to start chalking things up as supernatural occurrences and call it a day.

"Once they come up with the theory and it can be measured against what I believe, I'll gladly consider it. But you want me to give up what I currently believe in preparation for believing in a theory which has yet to exist, and many never, and I'm not that silly."

You're right, the theory of a blood sacrificed, zombified Jewish savior to erase imaginary sin is a much more reasonable explanation for now. Good job.

Dan 8/19/09

"There are some problems with your analogy. Your idea of the painting being "purposefully painted" is much different then how Charles Kronzak claims to "purposefully paint" things. To you, the painting appears like there were no paint brushes used, no color mixing, just buckets of paint splashed all over; purposeful, but not meticulously crafted. Charles Kronzak later tells you that He used extremely tiny paint brushes for the whole painting, that He mixed all sorts of colors together for specific purposes, and that he's actually been adding to the painting for the past 5 years here and there. Art critics think Charles is lying because the painting doesn't back up his claims, plus it's been behind glass for the past 5 years, so they debunk him as the painter of this painting. You believe what Charles has to say and still think he's the painter, despite the evidence to the contrary."

Prior to your twisting my analogy around, did you understand what I was saying? I'm just curious as to whether you even made an attempt to get my point, or if I needed to make it clearer. You seem to have some trouble with analogies.

But even with the twisting of my analogy, it still works. Okay, so (for the sake of your alterations to my analogy) many art critics disagree that Kronzak painted the painting, with good reason. But, as I said, I believe (for whatever reason) that he did. You're saying I'm probably wrong, but, either way, the fact remains that I believe, for some reason, that Kronzak made the painting. My reasons for believing Kronzak painted the painting are still *different* than my reasons for believing that the painting was purposefully painted by *someone*, which, as I pointed out, I believed for years prior to my belief that Kronzak painted the painting. Therefore, even if I listen to the arguments of those art critics and am persuaded by them that Kronzak himself didn't do the painting, my reasons for believing that the painting was made by a purposeful painter rather than an explosion in a paint factory are still valid. I wasn't, in this case, wrong about the painting being purposefully painted, just about Kronzak being that painter. Just like if (hypothetically) I'm wrong about the Judeo-Christian version of God existing, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about the universe being purposefully created. Do you understand?

"It's not just your reasons that are different: you have to changing the entire concept of God back and forth so you can believe in both theories."

I'm not changing the concept of God at all. The idea that the universe was purposefully created does not *require* God to be unable to manipulate matter within our universe, but only leaves it a possibility. Per the theory of purposeful creation, God may be able to manipulate matter in our universe or He may not. Manipulating matter within our universe isn't required in order for it to be true. One who believes in purposeful creation *could* believe that God *cannot* manipulate matter within our universe, and it wouldn't be in violation of the theory. Or one who believes in purposeful creation *could* believe (as I do) that God *can* manipulate matter within our universe, and it wouldn't be in violation of the theory.

"You can't push this off as irrelevant. You're manipulating God's personality and God's powers to fit your own theories. You're telling me that, in your mind, both of these statements are true at the same time:

1) God started the Universe off and and left forever.

2) God was active and engaged with the earth for thousands of years.

If you believe one of these statements isn't true, which you obviously must, feel free to tell me."

Sure. I believe that the first statement isn't true, and I never said I believed it was, only that it was hypothetically possible that it could be true. If I believe one thing, that doesn't mean that I don't believe the opposite thing isn't hypothetically possible.

David 8/19/09

"Prior to your twisting my analogy around, did you understand what I was saying? I'm just curious as to whether you even made an attempt to get my point, or if I needed to make it clearer. You seem to have some trouble with analogies.

But even with the twisting of my analogy, it still works. Okay, so (for the sake of your alterations to my analogy) many art critics disagree that Kronzak painted the painting, with good reason. But, as I said, I believe (for whatever reason) that he did. You're saying I'm probably wrong, but, either way, the fact remains that I believe, for some reason, that Kronzak made the painting. My reasons for believing Kronzak painted the painting are still *different* than my reasons for believing that the painting was purposefully painted by *someone*, which, as I pointed out, I believed for years prior to my belief that Kronzak painted the painting. Therefore, even if I listen to the arguments of those art critics and am persuaded by them that Kronzak himself didn't do the painting, my reasons for believing that the painting was made by a purposeful painter rather than an explosion in a paint factory are still valid. I wasn't, in this case, wrong about the painting being purposefully painted, just about Kronzak being that painter. Just like if (hypothetically) I'm wrong about the Judeo-Christian version of God existing, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about the universe being purposefully created. Do you understand?"

Your analogy was inaccurate. You may think it properly represented your beliefs, but it didn't. Your analogy was primarily an attempt to reconcile your belief in an inactive creator-God with your belief in an active Jesus-God, and that fundamentally won't work. Your analogy ignored the fact that your idea of "creator-God" and your idea of "Jesus-God" are two very different things. That is why I took the steps I did.

I agree with your second paragraph. If you throw out the Bible, you can maintain your position that the Universe was created by God. However if you KEEP the Biblical God, you cannot maintain your position that the Universe was created by God. If you continue to believe that Kronzak is the specific painter, you are ignoring evidence to the contrary. If you continue to believe that the Biblical God is the specific creator of the Universe, you are ignoring evidence to the contrary.

DAN:   "You can't push this off as irrelevant. You're manipulating God's personality and God's powers to fit your own theories. You're telling me that, in your mind, both of these statements are true at the same time:

1) God started the Universe off and and left forever.

2) God was active and engaged with the earth for thousands of years.

If you believe one of these statements isn't true, which you obviously must, feel free to tell me."

DAVID: "Sure. I believe that the first statement isn't true, and I never said I believed it was, only that it was hypothetically possible that it could be true. If I believe one thing, that doesn't mean that I don't believe the opposite thing isn't hypothetically possible."

Then you ignore science, and how the events of the Bible contradict science and history in hundreds of ways. And no, don't even think about starting a debate on how events of the Bible contradict science and history. I have no interest in debating something as blatantly obvious as that. If you want the proof, read some atheist literature some day. I doubt you will though: your faith, and your fear of being wrong, prevents you from actually searching out new information from professional writers and scholars.

Dan 8/19/09

"Your analogy was inaccurate. You may think it properly represented your beliefs, but it didn't."

I wasn't trying to represent my beliefs, just to show you that the reasons for one believing that something was purposefully created aren't necessarily the same reasons for believing that one person in particular was its creator. Even with your twisting of my analogy, it still showed it. Even if one could prove that Kronzak didn't actually do the painting, it doesn't change the fact that it was purposefully created as opposed to being the result of an explosion in a paint factory. Theory #1 (that it was purposefully painted) isn't dependent upon, or in conflict with, theory #2 (that Kronzak was the painter). When it comes to creation, theory #1 (that it was purposefully created) isn't dependent upon, or in conflict with, theory #2 (that the Judeo-Christian God was the creator).

"Your analogy ignored the fact that your idea of "creator-God" and your idea of "Jesus-God" are two very different things."

One is more general and one is more specific, just as "a painter" is general and "Joseph Kronzak" is specific. But the "creator-God" could be "Jesus-God" just as "a painter" could be "Joseph Kronzak". There is nothing about the idea of the purposeful creator for the universe which conflicts with the idea of the Judeo-Christian God.

"However if you KEEP the Biblical God, you cannot maintain your position that the Universe was created by God."

Huh? I don't think you meant to say what you just said, so do you want to rephrase it? If you actually meant that, then please explain to me what you meant by it, because I can't see how it makes any sense at all. Many people who believe in the Biblical God accept that God created the universe.

"If you continue to believe that the Biblical God is the specific creator of the Universe, you are ignoring evidence to the contrary."

What evidence is that? The only thing I can see it possibly conflicting with is a very literal interpretation of Genesis, but many Christians (myself included) don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"I doubt you will though: your faith, and your fear of being wrong, prevents you from actually searching out new information from professional writers and scholars."

Yeah, that's why I'm always responding to mail from atheists, and debating with them in message boards, and visiting and responding to atheistic websites.

David 8/19/09