Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, is one year away from opening up what is to be the world’s only premiere Creation Museum. The museum is a $25 million, 50,000 sq ft facility that will serve as a tool to teach the "true" story of creation–that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago. Full story here.
Ham contends that this museum will provide Christians the necessary tools to prove that, "the Bible is true and that the Christian faith can be logically defended." Furthermore, the museum will explain the "real" history of dinosaurs. This will be a place where, "parents, their children, and youth groups can get solid answers to counter the anti-Christian attacks of our day." "Visitors will leave knowing how to use the Bible to build their thinking in all areas."
If you think this is just another crazy project that won’t take off, think again. They have already raised $21 million and construction is well underway. The museum itself is $14 million, and the rest will be spent on acquiring exhibits from all over the world.
This really disturbs me because they are positioning this museum as a weapon against evolution. Evolution is science and is based on countless years of research, physical evidence, and methodical testing. The story of Genesis is not science and is best described by Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were.
This is borderline insanity. Check out what John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, had to say on this matter… "The museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life."
"Americans just aren’t gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish."
Well John, I think you overestimate Americans because they certainly were ignorant enough to donate $21 million dollars to what amounts to nothing more than a Fairy Tale museum.
Feel free to chime in on this one.
Related posts:
“Think about it this way, if you were a clone of hitler, and somehow someone went back in time and replaced you with hitler as a fetus, without anyone noticing or altering anything, than you would turn out just like hitler, and nothing like you are.”
Well, i don’t know about “just like hitler.” People are born with certain biological personality dispositions. Any other person growing up in Hitler’s place would not necessarily grow up like Hitler. Although they would probably pick up similar social and religious norms of the day.
I think it is fair to say that a person who is a deeply religious (born with a tendancy for religiosity) in one life would probably deeply religious in another life… but with a different religion.
Also, I would like to note that I have talked to many radical atheists who seem to have VERY similar personalities to fundamentalist Christians. They say that radical atheists make for the easiest and most devout Christian converts. It has something to do with a basic need for certainty.
The difference between Christianity and other religions, in my mind, is that it can be historically cross checked. The Bible is full of many descriptions and people that can be researched. These events continually prove to be true.
It is not fair to say all Christians are raised in that environment. It is not the case. I accepted Christ at 25, and did not live in a religious home. On a whim (or inspriation), I decided to start researching the world religions, to see what made these people tick. I covered everything from Christianity, to Islam, to Buddhism, to even Naturalist Paganism. Personally, I do not think all of these religions are wrong. They just do not have the full story. There are conmon threads weaved throughout these religions, that I think draw on a common influence.
One convincing argument for me, is the conviction of the early Christians. These individuals were killed for spreading the Gospel message. Now, martyring yourself, isn’t the whole point. Many people martyr themselves for all sorts of things. The difference here is that the early Christians were in a position to have actually talked, walked, and eaten with Jesus. He became a part of their physical world, and they were in the unique position to KNOW if he was the son of God. They would have seen him die, then seen him alive 3 days later. No other religion can boast such a claim.
I encourage anyone to investigate this period in time. A few helpful resources are:
Who Made God? – Ravi Zacharias (Comparitive Religion)
Case for Christ – Lee Strobel (Historicty of Jesus)
What Happen to Me? – Randall Niles (Accepting Christianity)
Most of all, I encourage you to read the Bible. I am always amazed at the wisdom, and insight contained therein.
“It is not fair to say all Christians are raised in that environment.”
Not all, but most. If you are an American, you did grow up in a (mostly) Christian environment. Had you been born and raised Muslim in a Muslim country, you would almost certainly be a Muslim right now.
-matthew
Ok. But neither case speaks to the legitamcy of a religion.
“If we are superior to animals, then why are we over 98% identical DNA wise to chimpanzees?”
I’m pretty sure we are superior to animals. My proof: filet mignon with blue cheese cooked medium rare, mushrooms sauteed in butter and wine, and a glass of a good vintage Cabernet. I’ve yet to be able to train my chimp to cook steak.
Seriously though.
“He became a part of their physical world, and they were in the unique position to KNOW if he was the son of God. They would have seen him die, then seen him alive 3 days later. No other religion can boast such a claim.”
Other religions claims that there has been unbroken history since contact with Diety:
Judiasm – Moses wrote the Law after talking directly to God, and there has been an unbroken chain of authority from that time. Miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea, manna, and the pillar of fire are taken as historical truth.
Buddhism – Founded by Buddha ÅšÄkyamuni, an actual historical figure with writings to prove he existed. His followers interacted with him in the physical world.
Mormonism – Joesph Smith claims to have seen God, Jesus, and angels. An angel informs him of where a set of golden plates with holy inscriptios are. Later, 11 other people write a sworn testament that they saw and handled the plates.
Branch Davidians – Clamed that Vernon Howell was the “Lamb” (a antetype of Jesus Christ) and would open the 7 seals from Revelation. They endured much persicution and martyrdom because of their stance that they were in the unique position to KNOW that he was the Lamb. They ate, talked, and walked with Howell. Even after his death, some Davidians still claim that he was Divine, and will still open the seven seals.
Perhaps you may want to rethink that “no other religion can boast such a claim.”
You rattled off some interesting history, but none of it refutes my statement:
Judiasm – This is part of the Christian belief.
Buddhism – They interacted with him. Great. Did they see him die, and then come back? No.
Mormonism – 11 other people write a sworn testament that they saw and handled the plates. Ok. Would they have died to back that up? The Chirstians did.
Branch Davidians – I don’t remember accounts of his resurrection.
I stand firm, that no other religion has people martyring themselves, for something they are in the position to KNOW is true or false.
The Davidians had no way of KNOWING Howell was “the Lamb.” Yes, they martyred themselves, but as I stated earlier, that isn’t the unique part. The Christians were witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That is the claim that cannot be matched.
to add to that list.
Scientology — Depending on your age YOU could have had diner with Ron Hubard.
on the historical facts, they’re not set in stone abosulutes. Take the exodus for example. It’s been proven that a group of people actaully did leave egypt, but nowhere the numbers mentioned in the bible. The historical path is different from the one in the bible to. The new testament is less provable because it’s impactwas less severe (trouble finding the right words) The war witht the filistenes (thou shalt not kill?) has been exaggerated horribly as well.
as far as historical evidence for Jezus, I believe it goes as far as “There was indeed a man called jesuz, likely to have been born near nazareth.” The problem here is that the number of sources mentioning all the marvelous things jezus did is exactly Zero. this could however be because of a lack of research on my part, please correct it if so.
Still i’d like to sketch another situation.
A group of people crawl out of their caves and find a river, the earth, rain, thunder, animals etc etc.
They explain it. God gives us water, rain earth etc etc. Then some of them go uphill and find the source of water, they find out god has nothing to do with it. They find animals and see they don’t pop-up out of the ground and find out god has nothing to do with it. and so on and so on. They find out god doesn’t make lighting, doesn’t cause famine or natural disasters, is not responsible for the sun rising or the moon eclipsing. Then they find out god isn’t resposible for creating the world and animals, but for some reason the religous among them refuse that. They’ve reached the end of their rope and tied a knot in it. After they’ve figured out god isn’t responsible for anything they used to think, they refuse to let go of their last religious vestige.
WHY??????
“I stand firm, that no other religion has people martyring themselves, for something they are in the position to KNOW is true or false.”
ok, so christians are more fanatical then others (probably refutable, but not at 1AM in the morning)…does that make them right?
“The Christians were witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That is the claim that cannot be matched.”
Actaully the claim is easily matched. Seeing how there is no other proof then one single book (the bible) of Jezus doing that, claiming it with the same “proof” is not that hard…
There are many sources. The entire New Testament for starters. Keep in mind that this isn’t one book. THis is many books written by many people. This results in many sources. Second, you can look at Roman and Jewish historical texts. Please read my recommended resources, as they speak exaclty to this point. They lay out the evidence very well.
Case for Christ – Lee Strobel
What Happened to Me? – Randall Niles
Another interesting note is that both of these authors were once atheists that set out to disprove the Bible.
As for your example, explaining how something occurs, does not address the origin or the intent of the event. For example, I could throw my TV out of my window. You could tell me gravity works, how far it fell, etc. Only the observational points. You would not know who threw it, or why they threw it.
As a side note: What you take a proven scientific fact, I take as questionable conclusions based on incomplete data, that are biased by the FAITH of the scientists. Creationists and evolutionists all work from the same data. It is their worldview that influences where their conclusions will fall. If you don’t admit the possibilty of God, you surely will not find evidence for him. If you do admit that possibility, you will find that it better fits the data.
Sorry, I was responding to 158.
For Alcari 159:
Where do you live that it is 1AM right now? The Bible as it is known today is not a single book. The church compiled many texts for easy study, and to eliminate false texts from being spread. You can also read my previous post fro more sources.
“The Christians were witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That is the claim that cannot be matched.”
Ahh, this is true, but logically incomplete on 2 points. The first is that only Christians require resurrection as proof of Divinity.
“Buddhism – They interacted with him. Great. Did they see him die, and then come back? No.”
A good thing for them too. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, if Buddha had been resurrected, that would have destroyed thier beliefs.
“Mormonism – 11 other people write a sworn testament that they saw and handled the plates. Ok. Would they have died to back that up? The Chirstians did.”
They would have. Joeseph and Hyrum Smith were killed by a mob, and the others were forced out of thier homes. many early Mormons died at the hand of mobs, local milita, and in the pilgramage to Utah when they were expelled from Missouri by the government.
“Branch Davidians – I don’t remember accounts of his resurrection.”
To them it would have been illogical, because he was already the resurected Christ.
The point is that all religions CLAIM that thier founders were in a unique position to KNOW the truth. Not all religions claim that thier God was resurrected, because not all religions believe in ressurrection.
The second logical problem is that there is no unbiased record of the resurrection. Let’s restate the problem as such:
Two men are robbing a store that has no security cameras. There is a clerk and one bystander. The clerk attempts to defend himself with a gun, and accidentally shoots the bystander. Knowing that gunfire will bring police, the robbers shoot the clerk and put the gun in the bystander’s hand. When the police arrive, they explain that the clerk and bystander shot each other. (Ignore any CSI type evidence.) Because there is no unbiased witness, the police can not prosicute. The only witness they can find is a woman who saw the two men and the bystander enter the store.
Jesus dies. Many people, Jewish, belivers in Christ, and Romans alike saw this. Jesus is resurrected and only the belivers see it. To claim that the mere strength of their conviction is proof, when there are no others to offer unbiased record, is to say that convincing others that something is true makes it true.
If the two robbers wrote several books about how the bystander robbed the store and killed the clerk, and many people believe them, does that make it true? No.
If the early Christians write several books about how Christ was resurrected and appeared only to them, and many people believe them, does that make it true? No.
It’s not fair to say that only believers saw him. This is not the case. Unbelievers saw him as well. It is after this that they became belivers.
Again you pointed out that mormons died. You are missing the point. The people of concern, are those in the position to KNOW the truth.
Your evidence is incomplete. The apostles, and the hundreds of other people did not sign a sworn affidavit. They died, proclaiming they personally saw the resurrected Jesus. If they did not see him, why would they not save their own lives by simply renouncing their claim. Jesus and the Jewish prophets, predicted (for lack of a better word) that the Messiah would die, and be resurrected as proof of his divinity. This is why Christians require such proof.
Howell’s followers had no way to KNOW for sure that he was the lamb. Their death was built on faith alone, without any knowledge.
The same applies to the mormons you mentioned, since they weren’t the ones to see the plates. Had they been given the chance to save their lives by renouncing their claim, would they? For they to were in the position to KNOW if they really saw the plates. To my knowledge, they were never in that position.
Buddha was a historical figure, but there was no observable evidence for his divinity.
Jesus offered physical, observable, evidence for his divinity so that there would be no doubt. The witnesses to those events, believers and unbelievers, then spread word of these events. The Bible is full of unbelievers that were changed, so it is not fair to see that Jesus only appeared to Christians. It is just wrong. Please read the New Testament, or any of my other mentioned sources, and you will see that your statement is not true.
Your example about the bank robber is correct, but the comparison to Christianity is not. Put a gun to the bank robbers head, and tell him you will shoot him unless he admits he did it. Now the situation is comparable. My guess is that he will fess up real quick.
Jason:
You said:
Your example about the bank robber is correct, but the comparison to Christianity is not. Put a gun to the bank robbers head, and tell him you will shoot him unless he admits he did it. Now the situation is comparable. My guess is that he will fess up real quick.
The problem is, while this will probably work, it will also work on an innocent person. You always can get people to tell you what you want to hear, if you torture them long enough (this is what the inquisition did on their witch hunts).
The point, however, that these followers died for their believes, doesn’t really tell us anything. Muslims, Jews, et all are still dieing in this day and age for their beliefs. They kill other people for their beliefs.
This doesn’t make the belief right. It just shows that people are very dedicated to the beliefs they have.
You are all missing the point. I am not talking about everybody that dies for beliefs. I realize everybody does that. I am talking about someone dieing for something they know is a lie. Nobody would do such a thing.
People claimed they saw the resurrected Jesus. They either did or they didn’t.
“The problem is, while this will probably work, it will also work on an innocent person. You always can get people to tell you what you want to hear, if you torture them long enough ” Heinrich 164
This illustrates my point even better. People would even go against the truth to save their life. How much more certain must the early Christians have been, that they took their claim to the grave?!
They most certainly saw him after his death, or they would have saved their own skin.
Jason,
“People claimed they saw the resurrected Jesus. They either did or they didn’t.”
False dichotomy (a fallacy Christians often fall for). They might just *think* they saw Jesus. Or the reports of their witness are unreliable and twisted.
People claim to see Jesus in a piece of toast. They aren’t lying. They really think they see it. Religion does funny things to the mind.
“They most certainly saw him after his death, or they would have saved their own skin.”
You’d die before renouncing the truth of Jesus’ divinity, wouldn’t you? Why would you do that if you’ve never even see Jesus before?
-matthew
Jason,
Also, you should keep in mind that the Christian dogma maintains that once you’ve heard the Gospel, you can’t reject it or you go to hell. So here is a simple scenerio where someone who only thinks he saw Jesus might be willing to die for it. (names changed to protect the innocent)
Bob: Hey Joe, I saw this wierd guy today. Kinda reminded me of that Jesus character who was crucified the other day…
Joe: Really? That is amazing! You saw Jesus! He is resurrected!
Bob: But i…
Joe: You know what this means, don’t you? You have to convert to Christianity. If you now reject what you saw, you will go to hell.
Bob: Really? I don’t want to go to hell.
Joe: Yes, Bob. You have to. Jesus talked about..
[Joe reviews the teachings of Jesus for Bob at length]
Bob: Gee, Joe, I had no idea. WEll, I guess I am a believer now. I don’t really have much choice, do i? If anyone threatens to kill me for my beliefs, I must endure their death or I face God’s wrath…
I wasn’t arguing that people did or did not see him. Only that they were not intentionally misleading anyone, as in the bank robber example.
As for your statement of dogma, it is not necessarily true. It really depend on the denomination. There is a strong case to be made for eternal salvation upon accepting Christ.
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29)
“Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition [Judas], that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).
These 2 passages would argue with your atatement of dogma. Jesus says that once you are his, you are always his. Once you are born, you cannot be unborn.
“I wasn’t arguing that people did or did not see him. Only that they were not intentionally misleading anyone, as in the bank robber example.”
Ok, fine, but either way witnesses are not necessarily very reliable. Ask any trial lawyer. Two people who see the same event can come to very different conclusions, even when there is no bias. People will swear under oath that they saw so and so commit a crime and it is later revealed that it wasn’t that person at all. Now, introduce religious motives and biases and you can’t trust anyone. People will see Jesus in a piece of toast, if that is what they want to see.
“As for your statement of dogma, it is not necessarily true. It really depend on the denomination. There is a strong case to be made for eternal salvation upon accepting Christ.”
Yeah, a lot of Christian theology seems to depend on denomonation. It becomes very difficult to take any of it very seriously. I mean, if ya’ll can’t even agree on the existence of Hell, what’s the point? Sure, I could read the Bible myself (i’ve read some) and come to my own conclusions, but then it is just my interpretation against a billion others. And if it is going to come down to that anyway, I might as well just search beyond teh Bible and find a religion/philosphy/practice that really suites me.
If that is what you feel is right. It seems to me that you will not even give it a chance, so nothing I say will persuade you. The only word that matters is God’s. I have really tried to be forthcoming with you all, and hope you will entertain the possibility of God.
I have heard many of you, and even some in the church, say “If God will show me the truth, I will follow it.” This is not trust, it is knowledge. Try saying, “If I will follow God, he will show me the truth.” This is excercising trust, and showing faith. It is only by trust and faith that a fulfilling and meaningful relationship can be built.
Because I have spent quite a bit of time on here lately, I will be saying goodbye. I appreciate those of you that were asking questions in sincerity.
I will pray for you all.
God Bless,
Jason
“If that is what you feel is right. It seems to me that you will not even give it a chance, so nothing I say will persuade you.”
wow, that’s exactly what I was thinking to.
It’s been a good discussion.
I said I was done, then I ran across this quote. As it applies directly to this topic, I thought I would leave it for your reading pleasure. Stephen Gould is one of the most prominent evolutionary apologists. Here is a statement he made about “accepted” science:
“Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone’s notion of the prevailing “consensus” of scientific opinion. . . . Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. . . . The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists.
(Brief Amici Curiae of Stephen Jay Gould (and other scientists) in support of petitioners, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (No. 92-102).)
Done believe it, just because “most scientists agree” that it is true. Check it out for yourself. I have.
Now for real this time…Last post…Really =)
God Bless,
Jason
“prominent evolutionary apologists”
Evolutionary theory hardly needs any “apoligists.”
“Done believe it, just because “most scientists agree†that it is true. Check it out for yourself. I have.”
You might start by actually reading some of Stephen J. Gould’s work instead of quote mining him for irrelevent remarks.
What exactly did you “check out yourself,” Jason? Are you a scientist? Have you done any work in the field? Or did you just search for enough dissenting arguments to put doubt in your mind about evolution so you could justify an irrational believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?
As much as you would love to pigeonhole me, I never said anything about a literal interpretation of a 6-day creation. That is not to say that I agree or disagree with it. Only that I have left the possibility open. The Creation Museum will bring some much needed balance to the debate. That is all I have asked throughout this discussion. I am well aware of Gould’s work. This just so happens to be a particular point on which we agree.
I am not a scientist by title, but an engineer. I would rather not get into qualifications as they are irrelevant. I don’t need a degree to interpret what Gould is saying.
The quote is actually quite relevant, as this was my point as well. From your emotional response, I would say it struck a nerve.
You claim I am being irrational. Aren’t you commiting the same by not admitting the flaws in evolutionary theory? Your reluctance to admit such, is evidence that this really is a faith for you. You and your science have become your own god. You can’t bear the thought of something bigger and better.
You don’t have to admit you are wrong, only that you could be. Wouldn’t you expect the same of me?
God Bless,
Jason
The Bible has no room for wrong interpretations as it is claimed to be true, yet its primary purpose seems to be a quote mine for justifying an infinite amount of human interpretation.
If it were proved that God exists tomorrow, I would not become Christian. There are too many things I disagree with in that doctrine. Good for God and all, but he can do better. Much better.
Jason,
YOu said:
“As much as you would love to pigeonhole me, I never said anything about a literal interpretation of a 6-day creation. That is not to say that I agree or disagree with it. Only that I have left the possibility open. The Creation Museum will bring some much needed balance to the debate. That is all I have asked throughout this discussion. I am well aware of Gould’s work. This just so happens to be a particular point on which we agree.”
See, that is just it. It isn’t a “debate.” It is a matter of scientific study. Now, people CAN debate it if they like, but when it come down to it it is like two laymen arguing over the validity of quantum mechanics. For me it doesn’t really matter much one way or another because I am not a scientist working on the subject, but if you ask me which side of the “debate” I fall on, I have to go with the scientists and evolution. I have no reason to be “open” to the possibility that the Bible is correct on this scientific matter because I am not a Christian and that creation myth is no more valid than the dozens of other creation myths out there.
And:
“I am not a scientist by title, but an engineer. I would rather not get into qualifications as they are irrelevant. I don’t need a degree to interpret what Gould is saying.
It isn’t necessarily about qualifications, it is about relatiopnship with the subject. I don’t think just anyone who has “looked into it” is really in a position to judge one way or another. I think evolutionary *sounds* right. It makes sense. And as far as the age of the Earth goes, it certainly looks extremely old, but there is so much about geology, biology, genetics, paleantology, etc that I do not understand. I will probably never understand any of it half as well as specialists in the field.
And:
“The quote is actually quite relevant, as this was my point as well. From your emotional response, I would say it struck a nerve.”
You struck a never in the sense that you annoy me. I’m annoyed by people who think that because they’ve read some high level arguments about something that they know the details. It would be like if you just read some Newsweek article about the Middle East and then went over there talking to people as if you were an expert on their problems.
And:
“You claim I am being irrational. Aren’t you commiting the same by not admitting the flaws in evolutionary theory? Your reluctance to admit such, is evidence that this really is a faith for you. You and your science have become your own god. You can’t bear the thought of something bigger and better.”
Save the “you can’t bear the thought of something bigger and better” speech for an actual atheist, ok? You dont’ even know who you are talking to. It is like you haven’t read a thing i’ve typed. This is simply not a religious matter for me. My faith does no rest on such trivial matters.
“You don’t have to admit you are wrong, only that you could be. Wouldn’t you expect the same of me?”
What you want me to admit is that evolution and creation are equally scientifically valid, and I will admit no such thing. I may not know a lot about the details of geology, biology, genetics, astronomy, etc, but I do know the difference between science and myth.
Matthew
“Save the “you can’t bear the thought of something bigger and better†speech for an actual atheist, ok?”
I am an actual atheist and that still doesn’t hold water. I, personally, would be overjoyed if god was real. My mother died of cancer recently still strongly believing in god. The only good religion ever did was give her a sense of peace knowing her end was near. If anyone cares I stopped challenging her on her believes during this time, but it didn’t change mine. If god did appear to me I’d spit in his face. Before that time my atheism was more live and let live, I didn’t see any real harm to believing. Now I see clearer and religious freaks harm society by pushing their superstition on everyone. All gods are false. Period. I sometimes wish atheists (as a whole) were as narrow-minded and belligerent as god-freaks. I think Emile Zola summed it up best…
“Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.”
Ouch :p
But Elliott, what is the difference between a religious person swearing in the existance of god without proof and an athiest person swearing in the non-existance of god without proof? The same unfaltering conviction is held in common here.
Come join the agnostics on the dark side ;)
Hello Agnostic and Elliot,
One can argue that in a debate about the existence of anything, the burden of proof is on those advocating existence. The problem with this approach is that, taken to an extreme, it would result in solipsism.
To demonstrate, I claim that I exist. Let’s assume for a moment that you believe that I do not exist. Thus the burden lies on me to prove to you that I exist. But how can I do so? How can I prove that I have a subjective experience beyond your perceptions of me? How can I disprove that I am nothing more than a simulation? In short, I can’t prove to you that I exist. Nor can anyone else. It is entirely possible that you are the only person in the entire universe plugged into a Matrix style simulator.
This would lead to ethical problems. If you honestly believed such a thing (not that I think you actually do), then you would also likely believe that none of these simulated ‘people’ are entitled to the same moral protections that you, as a real person, are entitled to. For instance, you could kill any one of these simulated humans without committing a moral offense. Note that you would still be committing a legal offense and the simulations would be likely to through you in jail.
Just some thoughts.
Agnostic, sidfaiwu,
I understand what you’re saying, the difference is historically believers push their beliefs on others it’s part of their doctrine. Atheism is achieved through observation and critical thinking. To be honest I do lean a bit (but only a bit) towards agnosticism, the problem is believers always jump on that qualification like it proves their point. I cannot say absolutely that god does not nor can not exist. It’s impossible. However ALL tangible evidence points to no gods existing. I ignore the anecdotal evidence believer all seem to spout. Just because you (or science) can prove something it doesn’t follow that it must be god.
sidfaiwu, I would say that since you have all proven I exist by your perception of me, the burden of proof would again fall to saying I don’t since all conceivable evidence would suggest that I should, in this case perception being reality. I know it sounds like a bit of a cop-out but that’s as far as I can go without having fall apart. Additionally, I would consider it a moral offense to kill a simulated person, IF I believed it was self-aware or if I perceived it as a ‘real’ person. I tend to think if you do something you think is wrong, whether it is legal or not, then you HAVE committed an offense. I’m not being judgmental, I think moral AND legal offenses are sometimes necessary in a society, I just think they should be ascribed to the PEOPLE who commit them, an ideology cannot commit an offense.
” Just because you (or science) can prove something it doesn’t follow that it must be god.”
I gotta learn to proof-read. I meant;
” Just because you (or science) CAN’T prove something it doesn’t follow that it must be god.”
Hello Elliott,
I agree with your assessment of solipsism. I perceive others as behaving as though they have an existence separate from mine and as though they have an inner experience not too dissimilar to my own. With this evidence, I do, indeed, conclude that solipsism is false. Furthermore, since others are like me, the golden rule kicks in and I have a moral framework.
This leads me to another question for you, if you don’t mind answering. I’m not trying to convert you to theism; I am merely interested in the atheist’s point of view on this. How do you defend against the cosmological argument? That is, how is it that anything exists if it were not created by something? Your response to this will probably lead to further questions for you. I hope you don’t mind discussing this.
Thanks.
LOL, I’ve got to proof read better as well. I messed up my italics tag. Only the word ‘anything’ should be in italics. :)
gasmonso, do tags carry over from post to post? Just in case I’ll put a closing tag just before this word.
Nice find sidfaiwu and also quite annoying. I’ll have to look into that bug.
sidfaiwu,
I know that this wasn’t directed at me, but I thought i would give it a go.
You said:
“That is, how is it that anything exists if it were not created by something?”
There are a few problems that I have with the comological argument. My first objection is covered in the page you linked to. The primary objection is that if the universe must have been created, then so must God have been created. Who/what created God? The first rebuttle to that is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” which states that God doesn’t have a beginning like the universe does so therefore wasn’t created. Problem is, who says the universe had a beginning? We don’t know that. It is an assumption.
The Argument from Contingency states that the universe could have not existed… and therefore must have been created. And that God necessarily exists.. so therefore God created teh universe. All I can say to this is “WTF!?” How do we know the universe could have not existed? And also, this argument assumes its conclusion. It is basically saying that God necessarily exists, therefore he exists!
Very very weak arguments.
sidfaiwu
Matthew gave you sort of the answer I would have. It’s difficult to imagine the universe springing from nothing, I don’t have an answer, if someone says god I reply ‘what created god?’. Sometimes you (as in me) have to live with what you don’t know. I don’t think it does any good abandon reason just to have an answer.
As an aside I want to say, I’m very glad that I found this site. Every one seems to interested in stating their opinions, and answering others without it degenerating it flame-wars. It’s a refreshing change from yahoo groups.
Hello again Matthew and Elliot,
What I’ve always disliked about the cosmological argument is the conclusion the original creator must be God defined in a way that suites a particular agenda. This is where reason is abandoned. If someone accepts the cosmological argument they know there is a creator. To conclude that this creator is all-knowing, all-powerful, loves mankind, and hates gays is to depart from logic.
The way I avoid this pitfall is related to the ‘what created God’ counter-argument and is a variation of the Kalam version. The creator created itself. Or, equivalently, God created his/her/its self. Note that this only gives us ONE attribute of God. Also note that the conclusion is not “the Christian God exists” or “Allah” exists, it simply states that there is something that exists (or did exist, permanence is not guaranteed by this version of the cosmological argument) that has the power to create both itself and the entire universe. When taken from that perspective, the argument is not so weak. The conclusions that we can draw from it, however, are weak. For instance, it does not guarantee that God is all-knowing. It doesn’t even argue that God need be intelligent.
The objection that the universe has always existed is overcome by the argument from contingency. The argument from contingency is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I am particularly fond of this argument because Leibniz, one of my favorite philosophers, was a proponent of this version of the cosmological argument. It is logically possible that the universe could have never existed, thus it is a contingent reality. Contingent realities require an explanation. It could rely on another contingent reality which could, in turn, rely on yet another contingent reality, etc. Eventually, there must be reliance on a necessary reality, the direct or in-direct causer of the universe. Again, this version of the argument does not allow us to conclude any details about the causer. The only thing this argument demonstrates is that there is something that exists necessarily. In more traditional words, God could not fail to exist, this sounds sketchy. It should be rephrased something could not fail to exist.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Indeed, I have seen many debates that on other sites would have quickly collapsed into flames and swearing that have held together, if not strengthed. I love it here.
sidfaiwu,
As far as I can tell, the argument from contingency assumes its own conclusion.
Assumption: A necessary reality exists (God).
Conclusion: God exists.
I don’t see why it is so difficult to imagine that the universe has always existed in some form or another. Few people nowadays would argue that the universe is finite in space (what would be beyond the boundry?). So why must it be limited in time?
I followed some links regarding the mathematical impossibility of actual infinities, but I’m not sure I buy them. Basically what they come down to is a paradox. Namely, the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. But I don’t think something isn’t impossible because it leads to a paradox. All a paradox means is that we don’t have the right concepts to come to a proper conclusion.
“don’t think something isn’t impossible”
haha, a triple negative! Should be “don’t think something is impossible”
Okay Matthew I just read the wiki on Hilbert’s Hotel. I’m going to go lie down now.
Hello Matthew,
Here is how the argument from contingency is laid out
1. Everything that that exists contingently ultimately must rely on something that exists necessarily. (This is the assumption.)
2. The Universe exists contingently.
Thus
3. Something exists necessarily.
The reason #1 does not assume what it is trying to prove; that something exists necessarily is that, logically, the assumption does presuppose the existence of anything at all. If nothing contingent exists then it is still logically possible that nothing exists necessarily either. Thus the argument is sound deductive reasoning. To avoid the conclusion one must reject one or both of the assumptions. Personally, I think that #2 is on shakier ground than #1. Why should we assume that the universe’s existence is contingent?
Also, I see no problem with the existence of actual infinites either. All mathematics since Descartes assumes the possibility of actual infinites (even though Descartes didn’t realize it at the time).
sidfaiwu,
“Personally, I think that #2 is on shakier ground than #1. Why should we assume that the universe’s existence is contingent?”
Indeed, that is my problem with the argument.
DAMIT ppl!!! you’re still arguin about “God” and “Evolution”!!!!
sorry to inform you… you’re only 4.6 Billion years late… God has just left to a better place…
R.I.P.
i want a project
i want mathematics project the topic is “the day when mathematics and measurement disapear from the world what happens?”
It is unfortunate that this museum is even allowed.But Kentucky is a backward state.I know I’ve been through there.I was taught evolutionism in school and found it to be free from any doubts or mistakes.The bible on the other hand is a book of true fiction with very little historical references to prove itself.I have no problem with faith or believing in God but to prove the bible is reality is insanity.Are we to believe the world is flat,and that the sun revolves around the earth.This museum represents turning logic back hundreds of years to the middle age.
To the critics of the Bible, I must say I am truly amazed! Apparently we have forgotten that recorded history dates back much further than our present time or recollection. The Bible is recorded history, the problem is, if you want to argue it, you have to know history.
I have a B.S. in Biology from a large secular University in Ohio and as we studied Evolution we found there to be discrepancies in it. Please remember, Evolution is still a “Theory”, which by its own definition is NOT fact. In all actuality, you have to have more faith to believe in Evolution than in the Bible. The Bible has never been proven wrong; even our BEST scientific methods have!
Don’t fall prey to criticizing the Bible simply because you don’t understand its truths.