Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (yes the one from the tv show Growing Pains) have teamed up to educate our youth with a series entitled Way of the Master. In one episode, Ray Comfort takes on Atheism and provides his viewers with the tools necessary to prove God exists. I know, you’re probably asking yourself, these must be some expensive and difficult to find tools. Tools that only the rich and powerful can afford. You couldn’t be more wrong. Watch the video my friend and become enlightened. I present you this clip in a completely unedited and pure form ;)
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
Wow! Praise be! I have seen the light, and it is yellow-tinted! ;-)
Seriously, are they *still* harping on about that banana/coke-can thing? What’s the average turnover rate for a religiousfreakery idea anyway? How long can we expect to wait before the next amusing little anecdote pops out of the religious “think” tanks which presumably write these things?
there is a huuuge problem I see with this explanation.
There is actually an easier way to open a banana. You simply pinch the bottom. Seriously try this some time. Take a banana, pinch the bottom of it, don’t be ginger, give it a good pinch. And viola, remove the nastly little bit that’s down there and enjoy.
This can also be seen when monkeys eat a banana. They don’t pick it off of the bunch and open in by the “tab” then pinch the bottom and eat without even taking the banana off of the bunch.
Idiots.
Well, to me it looks like he’s just proved we are descended from banana eating monkeys.
Wow…did they just prove evolution? if the banana is a good example, I’d love to see them explain why I’m eating this taco…”and you see, God made the tomato so you can use this knife…which has perfectly made notches for your fingers…which we couldn’t make without our perfectly created hands! anyhow..the tomato is cut so cleanly with the knife…and killing a cow for the beef taco! God made them just perfectly for a sledgehammer to the head…
Hi. I’d love to watch the video, but I can’t, since you’ve released it in the .wmv format, which only works on some computers.
Why not try something like .ogg in the future? That way everybody could watch it.
Hi Jeremy, wmv is fairly common for video on the net, probably more so than ogg. I am open to alternative codecs such as quicktime or just mpg. However, due to bandwith issues, I am somewhat limited. Possibly in the future I can use YouTube more often.
Anyone have suggestions?
gasmonso
Sure, it’s true that .wmv is more popular than .ogg, but it’s also true that practically any computer has the ability to play an .ogg. That’s not true about .wmv, and it probably never will be, since Microsoft only makes media players for specific platforms.
You Tube has a cool interface, but is based on Flash, which is, much like the .wmv format, proprietary and not free to anyone who wants to use it.
I’m not stuck on .ogg in particular, but I think it would be nice if the media were available to everybody, not just people for whom Microsoft made a media player. ogg is the first one that comes to mind for me, but it’s not the only option.
ogg isn’t a video codec.
Jeremy…
WMP for Mac if you own a Mac. http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
Need WMV for Linux? http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design6/info.html
OGG is primarily known for its audio codec, but it does have a video counterpart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora
Free flash/shockwave players can be found here for viewing content at YouTube:
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/
Flash for Linux: http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Linux
Instead of whining about OGG, go out and see what’s available. :)
Aaaaaaaargh, please no YouTube. I’m happily Flash-free and I’d hate to have to choose between your videos and installing the plugin.
How about Google Video instead? They handle Macs too, don’t they (.avi)?
There are three “industry standard” ways to publish video on the web: WMV/asf, Quicktime and realmedia (which is not liked by many users).
Recently flash is on it’s way to become mainstream.
OGG is not a common format to serve video (audio is mostly supported by recent players) and as such the enduser probably needs to install it themselves.
So the main options are as mentioned: WMV/asf, .mov or .rmv. By choosing one of these you have the biggest chance of reaching your audience.
as a sidenote it is worth to mention that most users have divx/xvid or compatible decoders installed.
I hate to detract from the topic of video file formats, codecs, and the evil spiders in my magic computer box that keep the “internets” functioning properly, but I think that Boner was the coolest character on growing pains. He was no pimp, nay not even a player, but I would have given my left nut to have girls falgging me down with the cheerleader magnet perv handle “Boner” HIS NAME WAS BONER ON PUBLIC TV BACK IN THE DAY! BACK IN THE DAY! How did they do it. A genius move, obviously Alan Thicke’s mastermind at work (Although I’m sure he had nothing to do with it, you can always tell who the power behind the power behind the power is. Word, Alan. i know. I’m on the level, we’re peeing in the same pool, buddy. You hump that cancelled TV show like a grandmother’s toy poodle on the postman’s leg!) Shit I coulda written for The Tick (Or maybe thats where this stems from.)
Any any case. Them guys are out there doing there thing. It’s really hard to PROVE anything Christian aside from “You gots ta put faith in that piece” but basically a good Christian knows that, and knows the only way to turn heads is by blind faith which I think Captian Ahab of Moby Dick fame was famous for saying, “That’s just crazy enough to work!” Or was that Wilt Chamberlin..I can’t remember.
lol!!!!
Is it really a religious propaganda video or just a joke? I mean, it’s so obvious even the guy on the right is laughing…
Good one anyway ;)
That guy on the right is Kirk Cameron.. the famous child star from Growing Pains. It is not a joke (intentionally) and has a huge fan base.
This is what makes it so good. How crazy can you be to believe this crap? Seriously, the lack of logic and reason amongst people like this is almost unbelievable.
Only in America can garbage like this be a smashing success. Truly amazing indeed… and sad.
gasmonso
Amazing and sad, and almost sickening. Blind faith makes them loose all common sense…
Anyhow, the video is hilarious.
It reminds me of that story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422/
(“Man tries to convert lions to Jesus, gets bitten”)
It’s a good one too :)
Here’s the problem for Mikey Sever and his New Zealander buddy. Bananas, as in the ones available at your local grocery store, are specifically bred for human consumption.
First off, you need to watch the entire episode to understand what is being talked about. It would be the equivalent of me reading one page of Origin of the Species and claiming I’m an evolution expert.
Second, there’s not nearly as much ‘evidence’ for evolution as you may think. Scientist love to take a few facts here and there and glue them together with fantastic scenarios that MAY have happened.
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/watch/evolution_video_high.html
scott c.
do you have the entire episode? i need to see more. at first i thought this was a SNL skit, but then i remembered that SNL hasnt been this funny in years. need more of this funny stuff… also, why has god made the orange so difficult to eat? i love oranges, but always make a mess eating them.
Click on the link I provided — it’s not from SNL or anything. It’s from an actual Christian television program called ‘Way of the Master’
As far as nitpicking the idea of all fruits being easy to eat or something like that…not everything good in life is easy to get.
This site is bizarre to say the least… ;)
cheap propaganda. they asked a bunch of young kids to explain evolution. great. once again, even if evolution is a complete crock of shit, how does that confirm creationism? or more specifically genesis creation? it does not. replacing “i don’t know” with “god did it” is terrible. atleast “i don’t know” is an honest answer.
as for the banana, the whole thing is insane. if you wanna take an (easy to eat) banana as an example for “gods creation”, then how ’bout we take hard to eat fruit as example of “no gods creation”? hard to eat stuff is way more common afterall…
“it does not. replacing “i don’t know†with “god did it†is terrible. atleast “i don’t know†is an honest answer.’
You’re right, it is an honest answer. I don’t think the goal of asking the kids to explain evolution was to “prove” creationism but to show that evolution is what one would call “Science of the Gaps.”
“Science of the Gaps.†indeed. noone is disputing that. as time goes by, we have been narrowing the gaps. one can not expect the fossil record to be complete, we’re lucky to find anything at all. bio matter degrades, remember? that still in no way does anything to improve the odds that creationism (genesis or otherwise) is true.
Is this for real?!
And how come forgot that the banana is the perfect size and shape to fit up, as well as down, an adult human?
If the fruit is easy to eat, it gets more of its seeds shat out and reproduces more often. Evolution right there.
If it was Ted Haggard he propably would have pulled down his pants and pulled out the other guys shlong, just to demonstrate how well adjusted and perfectly suited his buttocks are.
What was God thinking when he designed the pineapple?
Most of their arguments aren’t absolutely amazing. But the one which I found good was the ‘negative absolute statement’ argument. If you don’t have absolute knowledge you can’t say ‘God does not exist’ reliably. You either know that He exists, or you’re not sure.
If you want to really test your brains check out http://www.carm.org http://www.christiananswers.net or http://www.rzim.org
Also I wonder if you guys really do believe evolution. If so what are you grounding your faith on? If any of you actually do have any scientific evidence for evolution Dr. Kent Hovind will gladly give you $250,000 – http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k – go collect!
Here’s an extract from an essay I recently wrote:
Evolution relies upon mutation from single celled organisms to multi celled organisms, which then become progressively advanced. Dr. Lee Spetner famously wrote in Not By Chance ‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.’ This has profound implications on the theory of evolution. If an increase in information cannot take place then organisms cannot become more advanced. We will not see, for example, a monkey evolve wings or feathers. DNA is made up of a complex series of numbers, enough to fill several hundred books. These numbers contain the information used to create an organism (human DNA, for example, will have within it the information required to form arms, legs, and everything required to form the whole being). If this number cannot increase, as Dr. Lee Spetner showed, how will adaptation be seen? When DNA is passed on from parent to child there can be mistakes – mutation – and this will involve an information loss, or a change to the information already there (DNA may create three arms, rather than two – not an increase of information; the information to make the arm was already present). Evolution would not have come from primitive organisms, regardless of time frame. Were it possible to see organisms of times past they would have been more advanced than what we see today, not less. What we see does not suggest that living things came into being by any natural, evolutionary process.
I think http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/video/frogPrince.aspx goes far to show what I was trying to say. Sceptics reaction: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp
You can question if God exists, but you cannot reasonably say that you’re sure He doesn’t.
On the other hand scientists have themselves said that evolution is
“unproven and unproveable” – 100th edition of Origin of Species
“a fairy tale for grown-ups” – Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research at the National Centre of Scientific Research
“the greatest hoax ever” – Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the USA’s Atomic Energy Commission
Whoever said “Blind faith makes them loose all common sense…” needs to learn a lesson in respect. I personally am a Christian and do not live by ‘blind faith’. As far as my research has taken me entrusting the fate of your eternal soul on an unproven theory – who’s founder even said “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.” – is far ‘blinder’. No offence intended.
While Ray and Kirk’s apologetics could do with a brush-up the message they preach is the truth.
Much love to you all
Hello Damien Hine,
How is the ‘negative absolute statement’ any different from the ‘positive absolute statement’, the claim the God exists? Oh, and not just any God, but the Christian God described (inconsistently) in the Bible.
‘Dr.’ (his PhD is unaccredited) Hovind has just been sentenced to 10 years in prison for tax evasion, so I don’t think he’ll be offering the prize anymore. Anyway, if you read the fine print of his challenge, it’s not a challenge to provide scientific evidence of evolution, which would be easy for any biologist, but to disprove Genesis. Since Genesis is literary in nature, it’s open to interpretation and thus impossible to disprove every possible interpretation.
Anyway, you asked me on what faith I base my belief in evolution? Sure, I have faith in reason, evidence, and the scientific method. I have not personally verified evolution but I trust the scientific method’s proven ability to produce reliable results.
Dr. Lee Spetner (an actual Doctor this time!) was wrong. See these peer-reviewed scientific articles for counter-evidence of:
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 195; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
(taken from Talk Origins).
Could you provide a page number and some context around the Origin of Species quote. Pulling two adjectives from an entire book is nowhere near enough to draw any conclusions. Did the full sentence read “The Christian God is unproven and unproveable”?
The other two quotes you simply stole from Mr. Hovind. First of all, Louis Bounoure never served as the director of CNRS. Furthermore, the quote isn’t even his. From this site for this information:
As for the last quote, who gives a damn what Dr. Tahmisians opinion of evolution is? He’s not a biologist. Find a peer reviewed biologist that disputes evolution if you want some credibility.
I suggest doing research outside of the creationist movement. I’ve read Christian apologetics and science books. I know which group I trust.
‘How is the ‘negative absolute statement’ any different from the ‘positive absolute statement’, the claim the God exists? Oh, and not just any God, but the Christian God described (inconsistently) in the Bible.’
The difference is that you can make a positive statement. Let’s take another example ‘There is no gold in China’ (I know this one’s been used before). To know that would be true all you need to do would be to find one bit of gold. To know that that isn’t true you’d have to thoroughly search the whole land – you’d have to look into every mouth, under every rock – everywhere. Similarly with God let’s suppose somebody has 1% of all knowledge (Edison said ‘it would be amazing if we knew 1 millionth of a percent about anything’). If the person were reasonable he would have to admit that in the 99% he doesn’t know there could be ample evidence to suggest that God does exist. Admittedly I can’t wrap up God in a test tube and say ‘there is God’, you do have to accept him by faith. However as soon as you enter the realm of experience you know that He exists. Personally I feel that the two possible positions are acceptance of God’s existence or agnosticism, that is until some evidence is given to disprove God’s existence.
‘‘Dr.’ (his PhD is unaccredited) Hovind has just been sentenced to 10 years in prison for tax evasion, so I don’t think he’ll be offering the prize anymore. Anyway, if you read the fine print of his challenge, it’s not a challenge to provide scientific evidence of evolution, which would be easy for any biologist, but to disprove Genesis. Since Genesis is literary in nature, it’s open to interpretation and thus impossible to disprove every possible interpretation.’
You do have a point there. Simple fact, though, is that the offer has been debated as if all that you need is evidence for evolution (and I’m sorry for not reading the small print – I’ve got to learn to do that!).
‘Dr. Lee Spetner (an actual Doctor this time!) was wrong. See these peer-reviewed scientific articles for counter-evidence of:
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 195; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
(taken from Talk Origins).’
My friend I do have to confess that I’m not exactly a great scientist and so probably am a little out of my depth for this kind of discussion. I have a friend who would be much better, I may connect him with you (if you both are open). I briefly did some research and came up with answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp I’ll connect you up with Nick before long.
‘On the other hand scientists have themselves said that evolution is
“unproven and unproveable†– 100th edition of Origin of Species
“a fairy tale for grown-ups†– Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research at the National Centre of Scientific Research
“the greatest hoax ever†– Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the USA’s Atomic Energy Commission’
Could you provide a page number and some context around the Origin of Species quote. Pulling two adjectives from an entire book is nowhere near enough to draw any conclusions. Did the full sentence read “The Christian God is unproven and unproveableâ€?’
Sorry – I paraphrased these quotes. You’ll find the first in the introduction to the 100th edition of the OoS (of course I can’t give a page number – they change between publishers, etc.) but I’m sure it would not take long to search the introduction.
The other two quotes you simply stole from Mr. Hovind. First of all, Louis Bounoure never served as the director of CNRS. Furthermore, the quote isn’t even his. From this site for this information:
‘I suggest doing research outside of the creationist movement. I’ve read Christian apologetics and science books. I know which group I trust.’
Well said! I always try to be balanced, but I think that could be a timely word.
If we are going to be have a prolonged debate could I suggest that we shift the focus from evolution to the existence of God? Of course if you want to keep on with evolution that is your choice. An article I recently found to be unbiased (and might be a good platform) was http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3
Much love
Hello Damien Hine,
Yeah, we can move to the existence of God if you prefer. I’m out of my element with evolution as well since I am not a scientist, just a science enthusiast.
I’ll start by giving you my thoughts on the absolute negative statement. The exact same reasoning would force us to admit that all sorts of things exist, since we haven’t exhausted every possible location. Take for example forest gnomes. Have we searched every square inch of every forest at one moment (gnomes can move to places we checked previously) to conclusively prove that there are no forest gnomes? No, it’s not possible. Does that mean we should even consider that gnomes exist? No, of course not. The same goes for Zues, aliens, pink unicorns, celestial teapots, zombies, super-intelligent shades of the color blue and much, much more.
While your point about absolute negative statements is technically valid, it’s not particularly useful either. The same problem is evident in the burden of proof discussion within the link you provided. The author tries to side-step the issue by claiming that we have evidence that Santa Clause and mermaids do not exist. Yet he fails to mention what this evidence is.
Anyway, I’m less interested in a debate over burden of proof. Give me what you consider the most convince argument or evidence you have for God’s existence. I think that would be a good starting place.
“On the other hand scientists have themselves said that evolution is unproven and unproveable”
And this old chestnut is always wheeled out by relgious types and it’s a furthy. It’s a red herring, promulgated by people who wish to create a straw man that science is faith, then knock it down.
Science is an explanation for naturally occuring phenomena. It is not a replacement for faith. The bible/koran is full of unverifiable crap. Simple as that, not an ounce of substance. Science is all about substance and experience. We measure, we sample we replicate and test our assumptions and try for the best explanation. Is it the golden, proven truth? Hell no, that isn’t what science is about. Science is not religion. It requires no faith.
Brian I do not intend to offend, or anything to that effect, but could we keep this discussion between myself and sid? I simply think that that would be more productive. But to answer your point I would say that there are certain aspects of science – quarks, for example – which take a step of faith; no scientist has ever seen or experienced in any way a quark, we simply take their existence on the fact that it makes sense.
‘Anyway, I’m less interested in a debate over burden of proof. Give me what you consider the most convince argument or evidence you have for God’s existence. I think that would be a good starting place.’
That, I’m afraid, is a difficult thing to answer. Mostly because I think there are some good arguments, but the reason why I accept His existence is personal experience.
I think the argument for the extreme balance of the universe is a good one. Take, for example, the human body. We are made up of over a trillion cells. In each cell there is enough DNA ‘language’ (A, C, T, G) to fill out an Encyclopedia Britannica. If one of those letters was out of place I’d be dead, yet they’re not. The chance of just one cell surviving, without design, I’d say, is very slim. The chance of over a trillion cells all coming together by accident I’d suggest, therefore, is quite slim. The other suggested method – that hydrogen, given enough time and energy, became the human race, the galaxy, the ability to sacrifice, morality and personality – I think is less far fetched. I find it easier to believe that something was created out of nothing by something than something was created out of nothing by nothing.
May I return a similar question? – what is argument you find most convincing against the existence of God?
*the argument
Another one for Brian:
‘Science is an explanation for naturally occuring phenomena. It is not a replacement for faith. The bible/koran is full of unverifiable crap. Simple as that, not an ounce of substance. Science is all about substance and experience. We measure, we sample we replicate and test our assumptions and try for the best explanation. Is it the golden, proven truth?’
Of course throughout history science has helped us progress; it has put men on the moon, electricity into homes and the technology upon which we daily rely. Doing experiments in the present, making inferences with these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas have helped us achieve all of these things. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and there is often little room for speculation. This type of science is called operational, or process, science. There is, however, another type of science, historical science. This deals with the past. When it comes to interpreting the past science is limited simply because experiments cannot be done directly on past events and history cannot be repeated. In this science we observe the present and then use our observations to make suggestions about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often limited such that any deductions we might make take a deal of guesswork. The further into the past we travel, the longer the chain of deductions, the more guesswork, and the more room for non-scientific factors to influence conclusions- factors such as the assumptions (religious or non-religious of the scientist). So, what may be seen as ‘science’ may turn out to be little more than the scientist’s personal world-view. The conflict seen between religion and science takes place only in historical science, not in operational science. It is therefore not the evidence in the present that is debated, rather the assumptions made about the past that form debate.
Hello Damien Hine,
I hope the day finds you well.
That’s great for you but your experience is not sufficient to convince anyone else to believe. I’m sure you realize this but it’s still worth stating. Also, are you certain that God is the only explanation for your experience? How can you be sure it was the Bible-God and not Allah, Krishna, etc.? I don’t really want to debate your experience. Your experience truly is your own and only you can interpret it so I’m not going to tell how you should interpret it. I only encourage you to carefully consider what you experienced.
Your last paragraph is the Intelligent Design (ID) argument combined with the argument from personal incredulity. You, personally find a materialistic explanation for life impossible, thus it must not be true. Also, since you cannot think of any other possibility, you attribute complexity in the universe to not just a supernatural cause in general, but to the Bible-God in particular. This thinking if fallacious. Ancients could not find a materialistic explanation for lightning, so it must be Zeus. This is the exact same reasoning yet it yields incorrect conclusions. For this reason, the argument from personal incredulity is invalid.
Though it fails on many accounts, let’s just suppose, for a moment, that ID is valid. What does this argument tell us about the Designer? Well, we know that the Designer has enough power and intelligence to Design our universe. We also know…well…um…nothing else. ID does not prove that the Designer is the same as Bible-God. It does not prove that Jesus is the Designer-incarnate, that the Designer answers prayers, or that the Designer cares how we act. Actually high intelligence and power are not even guaranteed. Perhaps the Designer is a being of infinite luck and It accidentally created our universe. I know that you find an accidental explanation for are universe so extremely unlikely as to be impossible, but it would not be impossible for a being of infinite luck.
Well, I’m not exactly atheist, so I don’t believe it possible to disprove the possibility of God’s existence. I don’t, however, believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God (referred to as Bible-God for convenience). There are two closely related arguments against the existence of Bible-God that I find the most convincing. These arguments are known as the problem of suffering and the problem of evil. Basically, Bible-God is described as having the three following traits:
1. Omnipotence (all-powerful)
2. Omniscience (all-knowing)
3. Omnibenevolence (all-loving)
Yet we observe both unnecessary suffering and unnecessary evil in the world. This implies that either Bible-God does cannot prevent the evil and suffering (He is not omnipotent), Bible-God does not know about the evil and suffering (He is not omniscient), or Bible-God does not care that there is evil and that we suffer (He is not omnibenevolent). Any way you choose, the existence of unnecessary evil and suffering contradict the nature of Bible-God. Thus Bible-God cannot exist.
Alright, just chiming in for this one post, then i’ll shut up again.
I think it’s the worst argument of all. Looking outside, we see the universe is not balanced at all. Things like the gravitational constant could be a lot higher or lower and “a universe” would still exists, the speed of light could vary quite a lot and there would still be a universe. My point is that the universe merely seems orderly on the surface, but there’s a pretty wide margin for error. Besides, we have no way of knowing how many non-universes cam before us that didn’t work. Another theory states that there are an infinate number of universes, then it’s even easier, beacause ours HAS to be in there. (see dice argument further on)
The argument for human DNA doesn’t work, because of two points. 1 – A genetic defects usually produces just one bad strand, it happens all the time in your body, but because 99.9995% of all bad DNA can’t replicate, you don’t notice. 2 – The Odds of human life evolving are relatively small, but in a universe as big as ours it’s bound to happen. In the same way, throwing a million sided die a hundred million times, will definatly give you a couple of dozen “1′s”.
.
.
(now for something contributive)
I find the idea of using science to justify your religion just plain wrong. Faith cannot, by it’s very definition, be proven. All the evidence there is to “prove” your religion (not meaning anyone in specific) is either flawed or highly circumstantial.
If you choose to believe in whatever god you whish, please, do not do so because someone has told you, do not do so because of some evidence you have. Believe is not something you can quantify, it’s not something you can be “right” about. You shouldn’t believe in God because he exists, you should believe because you believe he exists, because you want it to be so, because you know it to be so, but not because it IS.
Faith is inherently unprovable. Any attempt to justify you believes with science is bound to fail, because it cannot be proven. All that it will achieve is that your evidence is either discarded as circumstantial, or disproven, leaving you with less then you started out with.
You should believe because you want to, because you want a god who looks over you, someone to find support with or someone who will make things right.
Something which makes sense requires no believe. If religion were absolutely, without a doubt, true, then there would be no believers.
You shouldn’t believe because it makes sense, to quote a Kierkegaard (and more recently a movie) you should believe BECAUSE it is absurd.
I hope i’m getting my point across.
” If religion were absolutely, without a doubt, true, then there would be no believers.”
Exactly! I don’t believe in aliens, and if I ever saw one I still wouldn’t believe. I’d know and wouldn’t have to believe. Likewise I dont’ believe in god, if I had undeniable evidence of god, I wouldn’t believe, I’d know he existed.
You do find me well today! Just incase you think I’m posting really early in the morning I’m actually in the UK. I hope I find you well too.
I’ll deal with Brian’s assertion first. Could I suggest that the word ‘believe’ has 2 definitions?
1. Believe as you suggested (ie. something exists)
2. Believe as in believing in someone – trust. It’s almost become a cliché ‘I believe in you’. I’m sure we both agree that that refers to confidence in the person’s honesty or ability, not existence
A lot of people do believe as in 1., but as soon as you move into the realm of experience you’re in 2.
Of course experience won’t convince you guys. To me it proves that God exists, from what I’ve seen He is the God of the Bible, but that’s a different debate. We trying to debate God’s existence, not God’s personality or attributes. A friend threw me this debate some time ago: Atheism vs. Christianity; http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=82106201831&sourceID=ibd. I really hope you find it useful – if you’ve 125 minutes on your hands any time soon.
sid wrote: ‘You shouldn’t believe in God because he exists, you should believe because you believe he exists, because you want it to be so, because you know it to be so, but not because it IS’ Unless I’m misreading this this is a very relativistic. Either God exists or He doesn’t – what I believe won’t change that. Take another example, many people don’t want the Irak war to be happening/happened. The simple fact is that it has/is and what I believe isn’t going to have a single effect on that. What I believe does not change the truth. If I were to walk off a building not believing in gravity would my sincerity offer me an protection?
I do see why you would find the ’1. Omnipotence (all-powerful) 2. Omniscience (all-knowing) 3. Omnibenevolence (all-loving)’ hard to fit together. The problem, I find, with many atheists (not in any intent to offend) is that they do not take into account every aspect of God’s aspect. If God simply were all loving, all powerful and all knowing then suffering would cause a problem. I would suggest that we need to take into account God’s justice. In debating God’s existence and his personality (now) we have to take into account what He plans to do. The plan I’m referring to is judgement day; there will be a day when God brings complete justice to every situation. Why can’t He deal with it throughout time as we know it, bringing it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?
Here’s another article I wrote some time ago:
‘The question seems to suggest that if a good God exists then there would be no evil. The question suggests that a good, all powerful God would stop all evil and suffering.
To answer this question I’d like you to ask yourselves two questions:
1. What is evil? It is that which is against God. Anything morally wrong or bad is evil. It is the causes injury, is depraved, wicked. Some examples could include murder, rape, stealing, lying and cheating.
2. If we want God to stop all evil how much of it would we want Him to stop? If just some of it then why? Surely if He stopped only part we’d still be asking the same question?
Let’s suppose I’m about to kill someone. To stop me God would maybe have to whisper something in my ear, or, if I ignored him, do something a little more drastic.
What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop that person too, right?
To be consistent if someone were about to tell a lie then wouldn’t God have to do something to stop that person from lying? He couldn’t let any evil occur, could He?
Let’s take a step forward. Suppose somebody thought an evil thought. Of course God would then have to intervene stop him from thinking something bad, right? Of course this would then mean that no-one could think freely. Since every single person in the whole world had to think only pure thoughts God would be pretty busy, and no-one would be able to think.
At what point do we stop? At the murder level, the stealing level, the lying level or the thinking level? The question implies that if we want God to stop evil, then He’d have to be consistent and intervene any time evil is about to be done, not just to pick and choose. It wouldn’t work.
We have to accept the possibility that the world has evil in it is partly because God, in His sovereignty, allows it and keeps it under His control.
One might say “Why couldn’t God just create us perfect – that way we wouldn’t sin.†Well He already did. In the beginning God created a perfect angel, Satan, He created a perfect man, Adam, and He created a perfect woman, Eve. Unfortunately they all chose to sin. God created us the way we are for a purpose. We might not know that purpose, but He does.
God is sovereign. He has the right to do as He wishes. If He so chooses
He can permit evil to accomplish His will. Want an example? Simple, look to the Cross. Were not the lies that put Jesus there evil? Yet God used the Cross for the greatest good. On the cross Jesus took away the punishment for our sins by buying, with own His blood, the gift of forgiveness to all who’ll accept it. It is only by the Cross that we can have our sins forgiven.’
As for the science I’m really afraid that I’m not a great scientist. I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with using science. If people are using science to attempt to disprove your faith the best way to counter that is with science. Thing is with evolution/creation is that we can’t go back to the day and see what actually happened, as I said. I found this clip – http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=71406211715&sourceID=ibd – quite interesting. It discuesses evolution, ethics, philosophy. You might not agree with a lot of it, but I hope it helps you see the other side of things.
Also sorry if I seemed angry at any point along there. I’m in a rush so my language may be a little better measured. Lots of love
“Thing is with evolution/creation is that we can’t go back to the day and see what actually happened”
Thats not the right way to think about it, it’s more “big bang/creation”. Many people believe in evolution AND creation. It isn’t a very good idea to attack evolution, it has A LOT of evidence to back it up. However most scientists can admit the beginning of existence and time bring up a lot questions and obstacles.
By the way, this is one of the funniest videos iv seen in a long time. Id say its still better than the “peanut butter” vid.
“The chance of just one cell surviving, without design, I’d say, is very slim. The chance of over a trillion cells all coming together by accident I’d suggest, therefore, is quite slim”
Of course it’s quite slim, but evolution is about small random mutations, not the sudden appearance of a fully fledged species. I’d say it’s quite likely that a series of small random changes could put one animal at an advantage amongst the rest of its species, thereby giving it a greater chance of reproducing and continuing the mutation, especially when there are millions of opportunities for a mutation to take place.
Creationism, on the other hand, fits very nicely with the theory that all species suddenly came into existence. Congratulations, you’ve proved creationism isn’t good science.
Ben what I was saying was that the chances of those cells all becoming so immaculately together by themselves would be pretty miraculous. I was saying that it was evidence for design, and thereby a designer.
irishthunder I would say that a lot of evidence has been USED to support evolution. Problem is that a lot of that evidence has been disproven or does not necessarily point unmistakably to evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp puts what I’m trying to say much better.
Im sorry but your gonna need to do a little better than “Answers in Genesis”. So are you saying that evidence used to prove evolution really helps creationism?
Hello again Damian Hine,
Unfortunately, the first link you provided didn’t work. The second one did, and I listened to it. He’s a decent philosopher, but a dreadful scientist. He doesn’t understand even the basics of the scientific method. All of his anti-evolution arguments are straw men and I’ve heard them all before. He had not one single credible or new critique. It’s sad that people take his ideas seriously. The end of his interview was downright insulting. His teaching others his irrational fear is nothing shy of evil. But we agreed not to debate evolution right now, so I won’t go into details. Also, you mis-attributed a quote to me. I think it was a copy-and-paste error, but I was still able to follow your comment.
You have identified that we have two lines of discussion going. First, whether God exists and second what the nature of God is. On the first topic, you did not responded to my critique of ID: since ID amounts to an argument from personal incredulity, it is invalid. Even though we have not established that God exists, I am still interested in debating God’s nature as well.
I don’t find the attributes of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent hard to fit together, I find the those three traits in one being to be inconsistent with suffering and evil in the world. Thankfully, you address this issue. Thus if there is a God, God cannot be have all three traits.
Whoa, wait a minute. You can’t defend the three aforementioned traits of God by invoking the additional traits of justice and the ability/desire to plan. Demonstrate these new traits first, if possible.
Again, this is an attempt to sneak in another quality of God without justification. You must demonstrate that God possesses the trait of defining good and evil. You cannot presuppose that God has anything to do with morality.
Yet again, you are assuming that God is omnific (all-creating) and that God has a purpose in mind without demonstrating either.
You do attempt to defend the three quintessential traits of Bible-God by invoking freewill. Personally, I see no reason to assume that we have freewill, but let’s suppose that we do. This only addresses human caused suffering. Clearly, creating a world without natural disasters would have no impact on freewill. Why, then, do we have natural disasters that kill millions? Is it because God could not create the world without such disasters? Then God is not omnipotent. Is it because God did not know the world would have natural disasters? Then God is not omniscient. Is it because God doesn’t care enough about our suffering? Then God is not omnibenevolent. Pick any reason and the result is that the Bible’s description of God is inaccurate at best.
Remember, the problem of evil/suffering is my proof of Bible-God’s nonexistence. To use other traits of Bible-God, you must prove that God possesses those traits first.
Lastly, I didn’t find your comment angry at all. In fact, you’ve been downright polite. Please don’t be too afraid to use strong language. As long as we refrain from name-calling, I don’t mind a heated debate.
Enjoy your day in the UK.
Good post Sid. I love the way believers postulate more and more attributes to god to explain away the intractable problems with the biblical aspects of god. The whole if god knows everything, then can god change his mind? No, because he knows everything. Therefore god is not omnipotent if he’s omniscent. Etc.
But before you can say this or that about god. Demonstrate that he exists. If you cannot demonstrate that god exists arguing that he is just or has polka dotted wings and is a big tipper at the casino is just pilling fantasy on top of fantasy.
‘Unfortunately, the first link you provided didn’t work.’
Oh right, don’t know why that would have been. I hope this one, too works http://www.sermonaudio.com/playvideo.asp?ID=82106201831&sourceID=ibd. I probably shouldn’t have given you that link, watching it again I noticed that his arguments are a bit straw-ry. The link I just gave you should work, I checked, if not there’s something up with your computer. It’s basically a debate between an atheist and a Christian on neutral turf. The video must have been produced in the 70s or something – the presentation will make you smile!
‘You can’t defend the three aforementioned traits of God by invoking the additional traits of justice and the ability/desire to plan.’
‘You are assuming that God is omnific (all-creating) and that God has a purpose in mind without demonstrating either.’
The problem is that these traits were separated in the first place. When you discuss why somebody/thing would do something/not do something you need to take into their whole personality/all their traits.
‘This only addresses human caused suffering. Clearly, creating a world without natural disasters would have no impact on freewill. Why, then, do we have natural disasters that kill millions?’
As for natural suffering I’m afraid that I’ll have to call up the Bible, but, as we’re assuming God’s existence, I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that.
Genesis 1:26 says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,”; God created man with the purpose of rule over nature. The particular words I want to highlight are “over all the earthâ€. Before we rebelled – whether you take the literal interpretation or not – everything was totally fine; we were able to rule the earth so that there wouldn’t be these disasters. Unfortunately did we mess things up and, thereby, lost that control. Our rebellion not only affected our nature, it affected everything that was under our influence.
I would say that if God did leave it like that – leaving the world fallen, despite having the power to rescue it – then yes there would be a problem. Of course that’s the difficulty atheists have – if you dismiss Jesus, forgiveness for sin and the promise of new heavens, new earth then He has done nothing. So that question is one that I can answer to you now, but one which might not make acceptable sense for you until you accept the whole of God’s plan.
‘Lastly, I didn’t find your comment angry at all. In fact, you’ve been downright polite. Please don’t be too afraid to use strong language. As long as we refrain from name-calling, I don’t mind a heated debate.’
I won’t do to much name calling…… sid
Have a great weekend!
Hello Damien Hine,
For the time being, I have no problem with assuming that God exists (though I’m still interested on your defense of ID) and focusing on debating the nature of God. I do have a problem with assuming the Bible accurately describes God. It is circular reasoning to use the Bible as a defense for the Bible’s description of God.
So, basically, we have suffering and evil because of The Fall. The claim, then, is that natural disasters are our own fault. This smacks of blaming the victim, if you ask me. I find it unreasonable to lay the blame for all the famines, hurricanes, plagues, birth defects, and cancers entirely at our own feet. Worse yet, this still contradicts the Bible’s version of God. If God were omnipotent, then God would have been able to create us with freewill in such a way that we would choose not to rebel. If God were omniscient, God would know that the way he created us would result in evil/suffering. If God were omnibenevolent, God would not allow the evil/suffering from occurring if God could.
Take, once more, the particular example of natural disasters. Did God not know that we would rebel and loose control of natural forces? Did God not have the power to regain control of natural forces after we dropped the ball? Did God not care that our failure would result in immeasurable sums of suffering? Again, we still have the same dilemma. According the the Biblical description of God, He should have the power, knowledge, and love to prevent all suffering and evil that wasn’t a direct result of our own freewill.
I still couldn’t get the link to work. I have attended a similar debate at a philosophy conference several years ago. I cannot remember who represented the atheist view point, but it I do remember it was a physicist that was very intelligent, but had almost no charisma and poor debating skills. Representing the theistic side was the well-spoken, charismatic Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Plantinga won hands down, in my opinion, but he was not defending the existence of Bible-God, but of an Ultimate Cause. His social skills played no small part in his victory.
Actaully, that was me, but no prob. My point was, that nobody is using science to attack religion in itself. Nobody can rightfully say “there is no god because of this and that” but what I often hear is “Your argument that God exsists because of creation, is wrong because of this and that” There is a massive difference between the two.
No, it jsut shows the “experiment” has to be done many, many times. which is something the universe is a great place for.
But, if there is an all knowing, all caring God, would he not have been able to prevent us from doing that? Even if you argue free-will, then we could still have been made free will, but not so that we would have caused the fall. This is still a circular argument.
oh, sorry Sid, I should have continued scrolling down, before making the exact same argument as you did, only shorter and less well suported….sorry.