Recently on CNN I caught a video showcasing the story of a very gifted 12-years-old artist named Akiane Kramarik. There have been several young artists in the past, but I find Akiane rather unique.
What makes Akiane so fascinating is not so much how well she paints, but rather the subject of her work and her inspiration. Akiane claims to have met God when she was just 3. He told her that she needs to paint and help the less fortunate. He also noted that he’d be there to guide her along the way.
It gets more bizarre when you discover that her mother is an Atheist and her father a recovering Catholic. Religion was never discussed in the house and the kids are all home schooled.
Before you write her off as a freak, watch the report below, read this, and take a look at her art.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
“Where will you go when all the things you know have gone?
When all your anchors rust away, will you hold on?
We need to find a place to stand,
A place with firmer ground,
Or we’ll be washed away if we’re not falling free.â€
–Randy Vanwarmer
Thanks for sharing, but I’ve never been a fan of poetry nor am I any good at understanding its meaning. Thus, I’m sorry to report, Mr. Vanwarmer’s poem does not answer my question nor does it fix the inconsistencies in Christian theology.
God has bestown upon woman not one, but three prerogatives, for what reason, I have yet to discern.
1. To change her mind as often as she wishes, at the drop of a hat.
2. to turn anything a man says upside-down.
3. To always have the last word.
Someone talk about Akiane.
Hey: sidfaiwu
Proving that there is a God
First of all, if you will ever believe that there is a God, you will have to pay attention when people tell you things. Yes I know that I was not invited to this debate however I thought this was a public forum. I just thought I would try to help in what little way I could. It seems that you are in desperate need of this information and I would not feel right by not sending it to you.
I suppose as a Christian one of the questions that would be asked the most is “How can you prove there is a Godâ€
I read this recently and it is probably the best explanation I have found.
Proving to the lost that there is a God is not difficult, especially since Romans 1:19 tells us that “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.â€
One of the basic proofs for God has four points:
1) Creation
2) Design
3) Art
4) Order
(I touched on this in my post but you missed or perhaps ignored it. I was much briefer then but I thought you would get it.)
As you walk along and see the things around you, cars, trucks, buildings, watches, cell phones, and so on you know that they had a creator. . For each one of these things, buildings, watches, and so on you also know that it had a designer. When you see a work of art you know that there is an artist. When you see order, like twenty Coke cups in a row, you know there is an orderer.
So when you look around the universe, what do you see? You see CREATION, DESIGN, ART, and ORDER. If every other thing has a creator, a designer, an artist, and an orderer behind it, why would you not think that there is a Creator, a Designer, an Artist, and an Orderer behind this universe?
By the way, What evidence have you found that proves that there is no God?
May God bless you sidfaiwu
while it may not be aimed at me, i’ll respond anyway.
what if all of those things (i’ll use the more well known “watch in the desert”) contain within themselves the instruction for and a method of self-replication and change then why does it have to be created?
When sand falls in an hourglass, the grains land in a certain slope, did someone order them? no, it was merely gravity.
as for design and art, i’ll only say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Hello Buckles956,
I must apologize for never responding to your first post. MAPK’s posts (up until the end) were so interesting that I did largely ignore other posters. I promise you that it was not out of malice or snobbish disregard, it was just that my attention was drawn else where. I’ll at least respond to your most recent post and start to make amends.
Thanks for your thoughts. You do, however, make one incorrect assumption. Since you notice that I do not believe in the Christian God, you assume that I am an atheist. If you actually read my post, all I am pointing out is that Christians are wrong about the nature of God. I never even touched on the existence of God.
While there are flaws in the argument for God’s existence you provide, let’s ignore those, for the time being. What does this tell us about the nature of God? Well, as you point out, it tells us that God is a creator, designer, artist, and orderer. I will simplify these four traits down to one word: engineer. So we notice that everything in the universe seems to be engineered. So we know that God is an Engineer. This is a far cry from proving that the Engineer is the God of the Bible. Couldn’t the Engineer just as easily be the God of the Qur’an or Vishwakarma, the Hindu god of architecture and engineering? Or, even more likely, this Great Engineer could be nearly completely unknown to us and described in none of our books.
In this discussion, I’ve been less interested about arguments for and against God’s existence and more interested in the nature of God, supposing It exists.
Thanks for your contributions, Buckles 956.
This is simply incredible……..I can’t believe the talent…..I’ve been taking piano off and on for a few years and this child blows me away after a few months..
But the art..my God…the art….
I would like to find an honest art critic and get their opinions…granted I am just a lay person but I can’t believe this??
If one can speak of ships in the feminine without imposing body parts on them, why not God in the masculine? Isn’t it just tradition or convenience?
Let’s remember that this is a public forum committed to a young girl who may be reading it.
Oh no! Children might be learning the correct terms for human anatomy! They’ll be scarred for life!!!
I should of known better than to even suggest a hint that human sexuality existed amongst Christian Americans. They still have Puritan hangovers and are obsessed with keeping sexuality a secret from Children and out of public discussion (has it worked yet?). Thus, mentioning a sexual organ caused many of them to focus on that instead of what actually was being said.
Maybe this declaration will put them at ease (Sid clears his throat): I will henceforth refrain from mentioning sexuality and sexual anatomy when talking with Fundamentalists unless absolutely unavoidable. It is my hope that this will enable discussions to continue without interruptions from those who falsely believe that any mention human sexuality is dirty.
Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion of the inconsistencies of Christian Theology, Kent? Or, if you feel that we have strayed too far off topic, do you have a comment about the article?
You don’t have to be a fundamentalist to have discretion Sid.
And you didn’t answer the question. Do you also insist that ships have womens’ body parts just because we call them “she?†As far as I can make things out, no one but you has said anything God or man has is dirty.
Akiane says God talks to her. I don’t think she’s lying or that she’s crazy. As for religion, Buckles may have whatever it is you’re looking for. It pays to talk less, pay attention to people’s opinions sometimes, and respond with civility.
Hello again Kent,
Discretion is unnecessary, if correct terminology is being used. And why else would you not want it discussed if it is not considered dirty? True, fundamentalists are not the only ones who mistakenly think sex should be a taboo subject, but they were the source of this attitude. Anyway, I promised not to bring it up again, so it shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Since your question missed the point, I won’t say anymore about it. I’m not interested in weather God’s masculinity is literal or metaphorical. The point is that Christians claim they know much more about God other than the essential three MAPK and I were talking about.
“Akiane says God talks to her. I don’t think she’s lying or that she’s crazy.” I see you’ve read (or at least talked to someone who has read) The Case for Christ. I’ve read it. It’s an okay book with terrible logic. The choices you offer me, “God does talk to her”, “she’s crazy”, and “she’s lying”. This forms a false trilemma. It neglects a likely fourth explanation, she is honestly mistaken.
“As for religion, Buckles may have whatever it is you’re looking for.”
Read comment #106 for my response to Buckles. Also, I’m not looking for a religion, I am searching for answers. The search is what is important for me. It is what makes me a philosopher. I find religion distasteful for many reasons not the least of which is that it claims it already has all of the answers.
“It pays to talk less, pay attention to people’s opinions sometimes, and respond with civility.”
I agree. I assume that you typed this because you do not think I’ve been practicing it. Fair enough. I know I can get rather conceited at times and it’s worth being reminded of that now and then. But I took the opinion of MAPK and yourself seriously and promised not to offend your delicate senses with anatomy references. I also gave a thoughtful reply to Buckles that relates hes/her argument for God’s existence to the nature of God. Am I not considering opinions? How is this not civil?
“”I took the opinion of MAPK and yourself seriously and promised not to offend your delicate senses with anatomy references. “”
subtle…
I thought we discussed the point that she could be obviously mistaken way at the top of the page, but got carried away, some flaming followed, things quiet down and a real discussion ensues, often leading to the first mentioned explanation being semi-accepted.
As is quite often the case on this website.
Discretion is never unnecessary. Discussing certain types of subject matter in a cavalier fashion, as you have done here twice is indiscretion, and belongs, if anywhere, in the salloon.
My question didn’t miss the point. You brought up the masculinity of God. No one else did.
Buckles’s says “First of all, if you will ever believe that there is a God….â€
Can this not apply to an atheist or an agnosic? You finish your comment with the apparent afterthought, “supposing It exists.â€
As for philosophy and theology, Buckles may provide something to enlighten us all, re-ensuing another real discussion.
Hey Kent,
Ok, let’s discuss Buckles post (#104). You can see my original response to Buckles in comment #106.
His/Her argument was basically a form of Intelligent Design (ID), classically known as the Teleological Argument. Buckle’s version starts by stating that things in nature seem to be created, designed, artistic, and well ordered. For convenience, I combined these four traits into one term, engineered, since a well engineered object is designed, created, well-ordered, and often artistic. So here is a condensed version of Buckle’s ID argument:
1. Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered it.
2. There are objects in nature that biological intelligence did not engineer.
3. From 1 and 2, some intelligence other than biological engineered those objects.
4. The only other form of intelligence other than biological is God.
5. By 3 and 4 God created those objects.
6. Thus God exists.
Like in my previous response, I’ll start with what this argument tells us about the nature of God. So, again, suppose this argument works (it does not, I’ll cover why later). We know what about God? Well, we know God exists and engineered some objects in nature. This does not guarantee that God is omnipotent. We only know that God has enough power to engineer any object in nature. This does not tell us that God is omniscient. We only know that God has enough knowledge to engineer any object in nature. We do not know that God cares about humans. For all we know, God’s most marvelous engineering feat might be a cleaver trinary star system that has five planets in stable orbit in one of the 100 billion other Galaxies God created. Or maybe it is another biological intelligence on one of those five planets that is far superior to us. We don’t know that God desires worship, receives our prayers, answers them (sometimes), engineered everything in seven days, chose a favorite people (Jews), packed God’s son into one of those creations, flooded one of God’s billions of planets, authored or inspired a book (or two), or any one of the multitude of things that Christianity claims about God.
In short, even if Buckle’s argument were sound, it comes far short of demonstrating that Christianity is true.
Now as to why the argument is flawed in the first place. As with any deductive argument, all that it takes to render it invalid is the successful refutation of one of its premises. I will refute two of them. I start with premise 1, “Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered itâ€. I will do so via counter example(s). There are many things that appear to be engineered which are not. The most common example given is crystals. Which crystal, ice crystal, diamond, etc, is not important. What is important is that crystals are well-ordered atoms that are widely considered to be beautiful (artistic) and has the appearance of design. They are created by non-intelligent, purely natural forces. In other words, crystals appear to be engineered, but are created by non-intelligent means. Thus premise 1 is false, everything that appears to be engineered does not have an intelligence that engineered it. Crystals are only one example of spontaneous complexity found in nature.
The next premise I’d like to refute is 4, “The only other form of intelligence other than biological is God.†Why must we assume God? Why not some lesser engineer? It is even more likely that there was not a singular intelligence involved. Our most complex engineered objects are not engineered by one individual, but by groups of intellects. Objects in the universe which are even more complex suggest that multiple intelligences collaborated to create that object. In other words, the Teleological argument does not preclude polytheism.
In summary, Buckle’s argument for the existence of God, if it were successful, is in adequate at demonstrating the validity of Christian Theology. At best, it would have proven that God exists, but we would have to remain agnostic about most of the nature of God. Worse yet, the argument is not valid in and of itself because of the illegitimacy of two of its premises. Therefore, Buckle’s argument fails even at its most basic task, proving the existence of God.
Buckles may yet provide some useful light on the discussion. I don’t want to step into anyone else’s shoes, so I’d prefer that you discuss teleology with him/her. But I’ll ask a question. Is truth objective, or is it whatever one makes of it?
Hello Kent,
I’m disappointed. I was hoping you’d have an opinion on the Teleological Argument since you seemed interested in my response to it. Ah well. Hopefully Buckles will have a response if he/she is still following this.
To answer your question, I belief that there is an objective truth. How about you?
I am interested. I may comment about it later, but Buckles brought it up. I don’t want to intrude on anyone’s space. It’s a lot to think about, anyway.
I wonder if the one called Devon found an honest art critic’s opinion on Akiane’s work.
Devon certainly didn’t find one here ;)
It seems I have stirred some interest. First of all I would like to remind you that I do not possess a high caliber education and that perhaps I am out gunned in some areas here. I have an opinion and a belief. I believe in God, worship him and believe that often times people try to hard to read way more into the Bible than what is there. For instance I do not believe the words, omniscient, or omnipotent appear anywhere in the Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will agree that most people who believe in God believe that God has both attributes.
sidfaiwe,
I am a bit confused as to your explanation of the faults of my argument.
You say:
1, “Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered itâ€. I will do so via counter example(s). There are many things that appear to be engineered which are not. The most common example given is crystals. Which crystal, ice crystal, diamond, etc, is not important. What is important is that crystals are well-ordered atoms that are widely considered to be beautiful (artistic) and has the appearance of design. They are created by non-intelligent, purely natural forces. In other words, crystals appear to be engineered, but are created by non-intelligent means.
The line, in which you say crystals are well ordered atoms, seems to disagree with this and it points out that all though many things seem to have no intelligence behind their design it is that intelligence of design that makes them possible in the first place. Were it not for the blue prints of God so to speak, nothing would exist. EVERY THING no matter how random it may appear to us maintains the Creation, Design, Art and Order principles. This is what makes anything we see, what it is. To put it plainly it is ridicules for us to believe that these things happen accidentally.
Something else to keep in mind. You use this phrase;
We know what about God? Well, we know God exists and engineered some objects in nature.
God did not just engineer some objects in nature, he created all things. There is a common saying among Christians, “There is nothing new under the sun.†This is because ALL THINGS on this planet and in this universe for that matter were placed here by God. We have moved them around, thrown them together, and reshaped them significantly however God put them here from the start.
It’s like the joke about the scientists that confronted God and told him that they have figured out everything and that they did not need him anymore. God, knowing better, said fine but before I go let’s have a little contest to make sure you are right. God said “We will make a man from scratch, just like I did when I created Adam.†God reached down to earth and gathered a hand full of dirt as did the scientists. At that point God said, “Oh no, you’ll have to get your own dirt.â€
Plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here. The term biological intelligence confuses me a bit. These things that happen biologically do not take place on their own. They were created by the same God. The reason why this term confuses me is because it suggests that plants or other organisms somehow think of becoming what they are. Plants grow because God created them to do what they do. Kinda neat, the whole thing about plants releasing oxygen. (Certainly not an accident) The cells in my body or that of another living thing perform the functions they perform because this is what God created them to do. Take any of the components necessary to “Complete†anything on earth, put them in a bag, and “Big Bang†them all you want and you will end up with a bag full of nothing. There is no thing on earth that is here by accident. Find any item you wish, even the dirt you stand on and it has a use and even that thing is not a random mistake. There is no thing on this earth that is useless. Even our dying bodies, if allowed to return to the earth, will feed the soil and insects and animal life around it. How clever. I wonder if this is where the omniscient thing comes in.
Hello Kent:
I did not mean to wait this long to get to your post but I put this in here to end mine and I think it answers your question.
Bottom line is that the truth is not the truth until it is experienced. It is not likely that God will present himself in person to clear all this up. This is why he gave us the book. This is why we are supposed to read the book. This is why we are supposed to study the book. If we don’t, who do we have to blame but ourselves. Not God. True, he could make us do the right things and he could make us love him but then what good would that be?
Thanks for listening and may God bless all of you.
By the way, for those involved in this discussion. I am not offended by comments made by anyone here nor have I intended to offend any person by my comments. I found this discussion interesting and felt I could learn something here and I know that if someone is turned toward Christ at the same time nothing is lost. It is difficult sometimes to express your thoughts in text in a way that that everyone will accept in the manner in which it is intended. Some by their very nature have a tendency to be more abrasive than others however it may be unintentional.
God Bless
Hey Buckles956, I’m glad you’re back.
“First of all I would like to remind you that I do not possess a high caliber education and that perhaps I am out gunned in some areas here.â€
Everyone is capable of philosophy, Buckles. All that is required is the ability to think rationally and communicate your ideas. You’ve already demonstrated that you can do both. Please give yourself the credit you deserve as a thinking being.
Allow me to introduce new terminology into the discussion. Things appear to be engineered because they are complex. This is purely a linguistic convenience, since it allows for easier comparisons of different gradations. It is much easier to type ‘more complex’ than ‘more highly engineered’ or ‘better-ordered’, ‘better designed’, ‘more artistic’, and ‘better created’ (that last one, particularly is a mind-bender. I actually think that ‘creation’ should be handled separately from the other three, as we’ll see later). I do this because things in nature do express different grades of engineered quality.
What you are assuming in your rebuttal is that complexity is top-down only. That is, you assume that complexity can only be created by something more complex, an intelligence. My counter example of a crystal demonstrates that complexity spontaneously arise from lower levels of complexity. It is a “bottom-up” explanation of complexity. Ice crystals, such as snow flakes, are more complex than water. The water molecules are well-ordered whereas water molecules are not ordered at all.
Water molecules, themselves, are the spontaneous ordering of oxygen and hydrogen molecules. Oxygen is a more complex element than hydrogen that was built up from hydrogen via fusion in stars. Stars themselves formed spontaneously from random hydrogen molecules via gravitation.
So, as I have demonstrated, this highly complex snow flake, which exhibit well-orderedness, design, and art came to being from simpler and simpler, less well-ordered objects. No intelligence was involved at any step along the way. It is for this reason that the Intelligent Design argument fails.
I hope that clears up my refutation of the first premise.
If you’d like to claim that the first objects in the universe were the result of an intelligence, you can. But a bunch of (apparently) random, simple atomic particles don’t exhibit what most people would describe as being well-ordered, designed, or artistic. Being ‘created’ is a different story. If you’d like to claim that these particles were created, that is a separate argument, the Cosmological Argument; known more primitively as the “unmoved mover†argument.
“To put it plainly it is ridicules for us to believe that these things happen accidentally.â€
I happen to agree with you here, but there are some very intelligent and knowledgeable people who disagree with us. In particular, physicists who adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, first suggested by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Also, no randomness is incompatible with freewill. If nothing happens accidentally, then neither do our choices.
“Plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here.â€
Really? I believe that I am the one who placed my mug on my desk this morning. That is, as we have discussed, unless we have no freewill. Then I had no real choice as to whether to place my mug where it is. Also being ‘plain and simple’ doesn’t mean something is also ‘correct’ or ‘true’. The ‘plain and simple’ explanation of the sun’s daily travel through the sky is that the sun moves around the earth. The theory of gravity is a more complex explanation (we live on a ball that is spinning, held in orbit far away from a massive star), yet it is the correct one.
“The term biological intelligence confuses me a bit.â€
I’m sorry. I purposely used ‘biological intelligence’ for technical reasons. I should have just used ‘human intelligence’. I only used ‘biological’ just in case we are not the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Please re-read the my last post substituting ‘human’ for ‘biological’ and it probably would make a lot more sense.
Finally, you still did not address why we must assume ‘God’ is the one responsible for the order, design, art, and creativeness in the universe. Why not ‘gods’ or some other intelligence entirely? Also, your argument still comes nowhere near to proving the Christian concept of God. Isn’t Allah just as likely as a choice for Grand Engineer? Or some other, completely as of yet unknown Grand Engineer?
Hmmmmmmm. This seems a little late on the scene now,
but…
I am not a serious art critic either, but although Akiane’s artistic skill is far beyond her years, that is secondary to her claim to receive messages from God. Agreed? My purpose for stating this is to include and encouage participarion of others, but to keep the discussion focused for everyone’s benefit. If this meets with your approval, say “aye.â€
I also hold to the objective view of universal truth, Sid. I missed that before. It’s good you hear from you Buckles. I guess no one is in a rush here. May I say, I believe you used the word in a different context than I meant it. God exists, for example (used here just for the sake of discussion) apart from anyone’s personal experience. That is, God cannot exist only for the religious.
The terms omniscient, omnipotent are not in versions of the Bible we are familiar with, but their like may be in the Vulgate Bible. I agree that we can only blame ouselves for not reading the Bible, but (as you say you are, we should all be here to learn) think this over: God could make us do only good, but love can only be given freely.
As for formal arguments for the existence of God, I find no proof of things. This is no surprise, but my little book on them, put out by Birmingham University, weighs heavily on the probable existence of God. I guess we’ve established that also to be a secondary issue.
There must be something more to be said for beauty and creativity-of crystal, or what have you-than classifying them as engineering, even broadly.
You say that Akiane could be mistaken and not crazy. But to merely imagine hearing the voice of God and seeing visions of Heaven, and yet honestly believe them to be real experiences, Sid, can one say that’s not craziness?
No more crazy than a child hearing and seeing an imaginary friend. So no, it’s not craziness. That is especially true if the child gets a lot of positive feedback from adults, as Akiane does.
But adults don’t believe in imaginary friends or speculate on their existence. They do believe in God and speculate on the existence of God. The two don’t seem at all comparable. If Akiane claimed that an imaginary friend told her what to paint, I would imagine everyone would believe she was mistaken.
Hellow sidfaiwu:
Sorry it takes me so long to get back to you. I get busy and forget to come here. I will try harder to not do this.
You appear to have misinterpreted what I said about a few things.
When I said, “plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here.â€
By placing your mug on the desk this morning you have taken the thing that God already put here and repositioned it. The mug itself was constructed from whatever substance into a mug by some person or machine however the parts and pieces of both the machine and the mug were created and put on this earth by God. Hence the phrase, “There is nothing new under the sun.â€
The scientific community has a tendency to not understand the simplest of things. They want to “Big Bang†or in your example “Copenhagen interpretation†or what ever to explain things but this never explains where the things that “Banged†or interacted in relation to what ever, came from. Perhaps there have been a series of things “created†so to speak by the collisions of various “things†in the universe however these things are a result of the items already placed by God interacting with one another. The end result is, similar to your mug, nothing new created, just something already here being repositioned or reshaped.
This also addresses your snowflake example.
The intelligent design took place before the snowflake fell into place. The snowflake is the end result of something much more complex than you imagine. I’m not a scientist/meteorologist but consider the complete cycle of things that must take place for a snowflake to happen. No accident and not really as simple as it may appear. Perhaps a great deal of intelligence involved after all.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say;
“no randomness is incompatible with freewill. If nothing happens accidentally, then neither do our choicesâ€
I’m lost here. I don’t understand the point or the question.
When I said nothing happens accidentally I was not trying to be profound however, now that I think about it more, it is a little.
An “accident†occurs when a series of events are put into place by a person or thing but were it not for this person or thing the “accident†would not happen therefore it is not an accident. Crude, but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
I’m sorry, I do not have time to get to the rest of your question but I will soon. I promise.
God bless you
Hello Kent and Buckles956,
I’ll first reply to Kent:
You claim that ‘honest mistake’ is a possibility when it comes to imaginary friends, but not when it comes to God. From an atheist’s point of view, the only difference between the two is the number of people who believe in it. You post similarly says that God is not comparable to an imaginary friend because of the number of people who believe in God.
There are a number of ways I can address this distinction, but I will choose just one. Large groups of people (even all people) can also be honestly mistaken. Consider the number of people who believed the world is flat, or the number of people who thought the sun went around the earth in the past. Nearly all of them did. Those people were not crazy nor where they lying. They were honestly mistaken, just like Akiane, her parents, and others who believe God is speaking to her. This is, of course, presuming that her parents are not lying to cash in on their daughter’s talent.
Now I’ll reply to Buckles:
Please, feel free to take your time between posts. I’m very patient. I’d rather you take the time to think about the discussion and post a thoughtful reply than to rush to retort. So far, your posts have been worth the wait.
In your post, you are actually straying away from Intelligent Design towards another classical argument for God’s existence, the Cosmological Argument. Instead of asking, “Why do things appear to be engineered?”, instead you now seem to be asking, “Why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” My snowflake example was to demonstrate that things that appear to be engineered came about by non-intelligent, natural processes. You are correct in that both the matter that makes up the snowflake and the natural processes that produced it beg explanation. Again, “Why is there anything at all (such as matter and natural processes) instead of nothing?â€
The Cosmological Argument is one way that question is answered. There are many versions of this argument, the simplest being the “Unmoved Mover†argument and the “First Cause†argument. The “First Cause†argument is one that you seem to intuitively grasp. Simply put, there must be a ultimate cause for all the matter and natural laws and it is appropriate to call that First Cause “Godâ€.
I am not the best person to address any problems with the Cosmological Argument, since I happened to be swayed by it. Perhaps one of the atheist contributors will post their critiques. I believe it to be a convincing argument in support of the existence of God. But (and this is where are theologies significantly diverge) this argument tells us even less about the nature of God than Intelligent Design. All we know is that there was a First Cause which, by logical necessity, is either self-caused or eternal. We have no way of knowing if the First Cause was/is intelligent, much less if the First Cause is accurately described in any of our ‘holy’ books. As a deist, I believe in the existence of God, but remain agnostic about the nature of God, and remain extremely skeptical about any organization that claims it knows.
PS, given your description of ‘accident’, I can see why my sentence made no sense. It is very interesting, but somewhat beside the point of our current discussion, so let’s leave it alone for now so that we can focus on the nature of God. How’s that sound?
I can see your point about looking at God from the atheist’s view, but you’ve indicated that it is not your own position. That’s why I din’t take it into account in my comment. But it’s not just numbers that count. Mentally competent adult atheists don’t confuse the theistic term, God, with pookahs, except, perhaps, jocularly.
Respond if you wish, but since you seem to have engaged Buckles in discussion, I’ll just follow along for now, maybe commenting briefly.
I’m not so sure that any of the people that are so critical about Akiane’s talent have any children. When my son was 3 & 4 years old he was talented for his age (he could stay in the lines of most of his coloring books and draw pictures that I could evidentally make out what was what). But the talent of this young lady is special, no if ands or buts about it. You can say where you feel the talent comes from but, that is just your opinion, we all have plenty of those. This child for whatever reason has her opinion and beliefs, I find it so interesting that grownups feel a need to attack a child and undermine her talent and belief system just because they either don’t understand it or simply do not have the same belief. As far as her parents using her and her talents to profit, I’d like to see what any of you would be doing if this child was yours or you were in the position to represent her in the market place. Would you truly discourage her from showing her paintings or putting them up for sale? (If you stood to draw a percentage from the sales.) Would you take the money out of your own pocket to protect this child from the possibility of being exploited?
Also their are some of you that have made this site a forum to completely slam one another all with the intent of showing which side has the most morals, good will, proper out look on life, heaven, hell, eternal life or death is death and if religion and faith is so good, why would you want to live another day on earth if heaven is soo great. My only comment to all of this is, those of us that choose to believe call the Creator, God, those that choose not to believe do not. At some point in time your life began in your mother’s womb and when you are born you live your life on earth until your physical death on this earth. Your free will to make your on decisions to believe in God or not is totally up to you. If you choose a relationship with God is between you and God. If you choose to believe there is no God that is totally your free will. What we all need to understand as believers and nonbelievers is that we don’t get to save anyones soul. That, thank you very much, is not what I am here to do as part the Great Commission. I am to go forth and spread the Word. Not twist arms, not get into arguments, not fight over their nonbelief vs my belief, but to spread the Word. It is not for me to man handle people into the faith. I spread the seeds and God will harvest the crop as He sees fit. We all need to allow God to do His thing and for those that have heard the message and know the Word and have turned from it to their own belief or lack thereof, that is between them and their eternal ruler.
My concern is the badgering of this young girl for her willingness to speak out for how she feels and the grown ups that can not give her the rights she is due. I’m sure if she were standing up for what ever they feel is the power that drives them, they would be squeaking or shouting out on her behalf and condemning those that were against her.
Some of you seem to have more than just a few writings on this site. Maybe it would be more productive to write a book or maybe a news article and try to be published and make some money or would that be exploiting your nonbelief?
Well, even those who know they are not perfect, while it may be assumed by others that they believe they are, are nevertheless, in truth, far from pertfect, yet sincerely making a best human effort to be. We all fail. My humble apologies to one and all.
Hello sidfaiwu
To prove that God is God I would believe that the best source of information would be the Bible itself.
Before you can believe that God is real you have to believe that the primary source of information that exists about him is real.
The Bible is the work of God. It is not the work of men. This is explained in the scriptures themselves.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God… (2 Timothy 3:16)
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holly men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)
Now the first thing you are going to think is that this does not make God the author. You will say that MAN inspired by God wrote this. How is this different than a book you buy on the shelf that is by someone famous but they have a co-writer. You know, the person who does all the “writing†of the other person’s ideas. I think you get the point. Of course just because the Bible claims to be written by God does not mean that it is. Other proof should follow.
Historical accuracy. This was brushed on (no pun intended Akiane) earlier however the statement was:
“it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrongâ€
The historical facts are much easier to prove. We can discuss all day that plants were created before light and that Adam named all 10 – 100 million animals or what ever but we have no way to prove or disprove these things. It just makes more sense to use the things that have accurate documentation. There have been tens or thousands of archaeological finds relating to people, places, and events in the Bible, and not one has contradicted anything in the Scriptures. That’s incredible proof of the Bible’s trustworthiness.
The Bible is the only book in the world that contains hundreds of detailed prophecies. 25 percent of the Bible contains predictions of future events. Every single one of these prophecies has come true in the minutest detail, except for the few remaining prophecies about the return of Jesus Christ to earth. .
Some of the prophecies that came true:
The Book of Micah (5:2) tells us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem — not in Jerusalem, Atlanta, New York or any other city. And Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke2:4-7)
The Book of Zechariah (11:12,13) says that this Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15)
The Book of Psalms (chapter 22) says that this Messiah will be pierced in His hands and His feet. This prophecy is amazing because it was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever used as a means of punishment, yet Jesus was pierced in his hands and feet (Matthew 27:35)
Statistically there is no way man can predict the future with 100 percent accuracy. The only one who can is God.
Understand, I found these facts from other sources. They did not come from my head. I checked their accuracy myself. I am not the expert. I keep reading little by little and listening a lot. I learn as I go. If something does not sound right I check it out. Even when it does sound right I check it out. So should you.
This one I will quote from memory. I don’t know the book or the verse or maybe even the exact words but it goes…
“Blessed is he that I find doing my work when I returnâ€
I may not always get it right but I plan on trying real hard.
May God bless you all.
By the way, That last quote,
“Blessed is he that I find doing my work when I returnâ€
Fits right in there with what Rob said and what Akiane is doing.
buckles956,
“Blessed us he that I find doing my work when I return”
I think you are referring to Matthew 24:36-50 where Jesus is teaching on the Mount of Olives and speaks of being watchful and continually ready for His return. In verses 45-47, He speaks of being faithful and wise servants (christians), whom their master (Jesus) was puttin them in charge of His household (earth). 46) states “It will be agood for the servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47) I tell you the truth, he will put hime in charge of all his possessions.”
This teaching is, while we wait for the “Second Coming”, we are to be busy at God’s work. Which is sharing His Holy Word and living our lives more christlike. We are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God. But, through the sacrifice of God’s only Son, Jesus, we are cleansed of our sins as long as we chose to believe on Him, ask forgiveness for our sins and repent from our sinful ways. From that point on the Holy Spirit dwells within us and we then have the inner desire to do God’s work.
Oh, let me tell you, that does not mean you no longer have bad thoughts or sin. It means with Bible study, worship, prayer and the desire to have a closer personal relationship with God, you will begin to build your inner strength up against the worldly temptations. It doesn’t mean that all things will come up roses or your life will be a piece of cake from then on……….When you do your Bible reading just look at those that followed Jesus or even foretold of the coming Lord and their lives and deaths.
I can only speak of my own experiences. With all the trials and tribulations that my life has faced, without my faith in God and the promise of Jesus going to prepare a place for us and there we will be with Him. I do not know where I would be now. So, say what you will, my faith is firm in the foundation of Christ Jesus and the teachings of the God breathed Bible. Man put down the Words given to them by God and that is my guide for living. I do my very best to live by It and being human am known to fail at times. Thank You, Jesus for Your willingness to provide a way for our salvation.
As for Akiane being crazy for saying she hears God talk to her, there are millions of people (if they would just think about it with open minds), that hear God speak to them daily. The sad thing about it is the fact most of them are to busy to hear Him or to stubborn to listen. I do not mean the “God told me to kill my baby because he was possessed” people. I mean the people that feel the urging to help someone they see in need but, walk on by because they don’t want to get involved, it would take to much of their time or could be more involved than their just helping the person to a shelter or buying them a coat or a hot meal. God can speak in a still small voice or a loud clap of thunder, there are no limits. Trying to know God’s Holy Bible, which will help us know God’s nature and will can aid us in going where God work is being done and joining Him there. It also given real good instructions about going forth into all nations and sharing the Gospel. That’s kind of hard to do at a computer in areas that have no electricity, indoor plumbing or much of an indoors for that matter. Getting out into areas that have never seen people like yourself and babies run from you because of the color of your hair or sking or the slant of your eyes is very eye opening. The strangest thing about it is when you get there and you start talking to these native country people (so far back in the brush you think you will never get there and stepping out in faith that God will protect you and get you back home in one piece) one of the first things the chief or elder of the village will tell you is: “I knew the creator would send someone to tell us about him one day and explain all these things.” Instinctively they knew about Creator and were waiting patiently for Him to send us to tell them about Him. Their questions are so indepth for such a primitive culture it is overwhelming what God has put in their minds to ponder. Hours go by like minutes and a bond is made. You can say what you will, I praise Jesus for He is the way the truth and the life.
I know I’m off track as you guys put it but, I felt the need to say these things. I did not intend to offend anyone with my previous comment (MAPK)so if I did my apologizes. I’m just stating things from the hip which is how I gathered this forum went. I sign off and let the others continue. I accidentally found this site searching for information about Akiane. I had no intentions of getting into a religious decision. God Blessings to all and I pray all those that are searching find what they seek. Which in my eyes is the only Answer.
Hello Buckles956,
Now you have taken a leap much too large for me. Why should I accept the Bible a priori? Why not the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishad, the Tao Te Ching, Confucius’s Analects, the Torah, the Alkitab Alaqdas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Book of Mormon, or even Dianetics?
There is no shortage of ‘holy’ books in the world. My list isn’t even exhaustive. What possible reason do I have to choose any one of them as being ‘correct’ (which necessarily makes all the rest incorrect?
“The Bible is the work of God. It is not the work of men. This is explained in the scriptures themselves.”
This results in circular logic. Remember we are trying to discover the nature of God:
1. The Bible accurately describes the nature of God.
2. The Bible says that it is in the nature of God to inspire the writing of books.
3. The Bible is one such book.
4. Thus the Bible is the word of God.
1. Thus the Bible accurately describes the nature of God.
To be fair, you did admit that further proof is required. So on to the other defenses you present:
Historical Accuracy, “it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong”
Well it would be impossible when one assumes, a priori again, that the Bible is the ultimate truth source. When presented with evidence or sound reason that contradicts the Bible, you conclude that the evidence and reasoning is faulty since the Bible cannot be wrong. Plus, you have a ‘get out of logic free’ card since any portion of the Bible that is impossible can magically be fixed by God stepping in and violating the laws of physics with a miracle. Again, we have circular logic:
1. The Bible contains no errors
2. The Bible describes God as omnipotent
3. Thus God is omnipotent
4. The Bible contains events that violate laws of physics, reason, and/or observable evidence
5. God’s omnipotence accounts for these apparent errors via miracles
1. Thus the Bible contains no errors
Thus any book that describes an omnipotent being can use the same circular logic to defend its accuracy, whether historical or otherwise. For example, if one assumes that the Qur’an is the ultimate truth source (and many people do), than it would be impossible to prove to them that any portion of Qur’an is inaccurate.
The last reason you give is based on prophecy.
â€The Bible is the only book in the world that contains hundreds of detailed propheciesâ€
Funny, I recently heard the exact same claim made by a Muslim about the Qur’an. So the claim that the Bible is the only such book is clearly false. I’m sure there are other holy books that make prophecies besides the Bible and Qur’an as well. Also, how do I know that those prophecies that were fulfilled were not written after the fulfillment? More challenging still, how do I know that there were not many other prophecies that didn’t get fulfilled that were edited out after they failed to be realized? You could appeal to the Bible’s historical accuracy, but you have not established it convincingly. I have other good reasons for doubting the prophecies, but these reasons will suffice for our discussion.
I am not offended in the least. In fct, Buckles said as simply as can be said, what I meant to say in my whimsically complex way.
“I may not always get it right but I plan on trying real hard.â€
I’ve been awaiting the best opportunity to clear any offense done to others, especially to Sid. Please accpt this personal apology.
Hello MAPK,
I appreciate the apology greatly. I really enjoyed our discussion. I am sorry that I distracted from the conversation by purposely using strong language.
The topics we are discussing are important and I am passionate about them. I know that you, Buckles, and the others feel just as passionately about them. It is understandable, indeed even expected that we will let our passions get the better of us from time to time. Please, don’t let that deter you from rejoining our debates.
Well, bible being true as it says it is, is handled already but there bit annoyed me, so I decided to rant a little.
“25 percent of the Bible contains predictions of future events. Every single one of these prophecies has come true in the minutest detail”
Well aunt of mine is crazy about horoscopes and according to her, the horoscopes nearly always happen as predicted, to her that is. Should I believe in my horoscope as its message could be read as prediction after situation has happened? I gained money as it read in horoscope, I found few coins.
But what predictions of bible have come true? Predictions that have one and only one possible way to understand?
“The Book of Micah (5:2) tells us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem”
Well lets start with the fact that Book of Micah is one of the books of Nevi’im, which means prophets, and is part of Tanakh, a hebrew bible. (Just so all know what is talked of.)
Micah prophesied around 730-700 BC (the years are also somewhat debated) and of his book the first three chapters are attributed to him, the rest, well that depends of who you ask but chapters 6 and parts of 7 can be contributed to him with some probability. Rest of the chapters are from various sources.
So why did he say Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? He said a new king from the line of David would be born there. Bethlehem was the city where David was born and where he was anointed.
The city already had history and if Micah would have claimed the new king would be born on his own home town, who would care? It was a small village of no importance.
Bethlehem already had one great king born out of, so why would not another? And of same lineage too, the line of David. Does not really sound much of a prediction. So was Mary a descendant of David?
“The Book of Psalms (chapter 22) says that this Messiah will be pierced in His hands and His feet. This prophecy is amazing because it was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever used as a means of punishment.”
Crucifixion as a mean of execution is old. Greeks crucified pirates around the 7th century BC, In Eqypt it was common although methodology was somewhat different. The earliest historical crucifixion of some 3000 people happened in 519 BC by the King of kings Darius I. Zechariah is said to lived during that time in Babylon, if any are interested.
As the method does not leave much bodies to examine, (the bodies are left to rot on the cross) it is hard to say when the first crucifixion happened but I would not be surprised if it would be much older than that. Some historicist claim it is older but without evidence it is hard to verify, but Darius was hardly the first to use it.
Also when you consider the fact that jewish law punished treason with hanging, the guilty one, on a tree, while alive. It is not that amazing. Even the Jerusalem Talmud states that, the nail from a crucifixion is efficacious against certain types of ailments. Shabbath 6;8c
So crucifixion was common way to execute people so it is not amazing, merely fitting to the culture in that era.
so thats it, tadaa
Thanks for your reply, Sid. I now see that I made some hasty and erroneous assumptions regarding your position. Mistakenly, also (I think), I entered this forum taking a “debate†approach (an art in which I am not greatly experienced) rather than seeing it as a place of forged and tempered discussion.
I don’t mean to change the flow of discussion, but let me just insert this. In the verse above (101), the anchor, I take as a symbolic reference to our physical bodies (under gravitation) and the expression, “falling free†as referring to an awareness-of-self apart from our physical environment (free of any gravitation). That is, a self-awareness relating to things outside the universe. Discovering eternal truth about the meaning of love, life, hope goodness and beauty–knowing God, in other words–lies ultimately, then, in a spiritual pursuit, augmented by an in-depth study of all nature.
As it appears paradoxical upon the first reading, I have spent a great deal of time and thought working out an interpretation of this lyric (which comes from the suite, Terraform).
Hello sidfaiwu;
The word “priori†threw me so I looked it up. The definition I found was;
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary says;
“the head of a prioryâ€
Then I looked up “prioryâ€
The American Heritage Dictionary says:
“A monastery governed by a prior or a convent governed by a prioressâ€
So what are you trying to say when you say. “Why should I accept the Bible a priori?â€
When I gave the explanation of how the Bible was written by God and not by men I also asked what is the difference in this and when a famous person of today has a book and they have a co-writer yet they claim authorship. You ignored that.
I talked about “Historical Accuracies†because the other things that “you say†are flawed with the Bible such as the plants being created before light and so on can’t be proven one way or the other with what we have today. I leveled the playing field so to speak. You ignored that
I also pointed to some of the prophesies that were fulfilled. These prophesies are documented writings and the times when they were written are a historical fact. The books containing the fulfillment of these prophesies were written hundreds of years later. The times that these books were written are also known historical facts. You ignored that
You ask:
how do I know that there were not many other prophecies that didn’t get fulfilled that were edited out after they failed to be realized?
I think it best to stick to what we have and not suppose what we don’t have.
You have not disputed the birth or death of Jesus Christ and both were prophesized accurately in the Bible.
You do not like the “Get out of logic Free†card yet you fail to understand that a large part of this conversation is about the omnipotence of God. It stands to reason that if God is what the Bible says he is then he will know things that you can’t even begin to understand. Things that defy logic.
A bumble bee is not supposed to be able to fly according to known aerodynamics but it does.
As far as God violating the laws of physics, I guess when you make the rules, you can break the rules.
Several hundred years ago if you told people that man would one day fly into space, walk on the moon, and talk on phones smaller than a pack of cigarettes they would have said, “What’s a phone and a pack of cigarettes?†Locked you away, and thrown away the key. I’m sure to them it would have defied all logic. So just because you, or I can’t explain how it happens does not mean it can’t.
I tried to stick to the things that we know and are proven fact about the Bible. Not just by my standards but by many. The historical facts. Most of which even profound atheist will admit are accurate historical facts.
You bring up the Qur’an and other holy books which you say make similar claims of accuracy and prophesies yet you provide no examples.
By the way the Bible is the best selling book in the whole world. Approximately 150 Million Bibles are printed each year. No other book even comes close.
Jagannath: Get real
You say:
“Well aunt of mine is crazy about horoscopes and according to her, the horoscopes nearly always happen as predicted, to her that is. Should I believe in my horoscope as its message could be read as prediction after situation has happened? I gained money as it read in horoscope, I found few coins.â€
Hardly detailed. And certainly not made 7 centuries prior to the event.
You say that Micah’s prophesies was “not much of a predictionâ€
Considering that he made the “prediction some 700 years or more before it took place and that it happened as he said it would, I would say that it was astonishing. Not only did he predict where, he further predicted his lineage. To believe that any family would maintain standing for 700 years thereby making a prediction like this a “safe bet†would be foolish at best.
You say:
“Crucifixion as a mean of execution is oldâ€
This does not negate the fact that the prophesy was made when it was and that it was true.
Therefore your “so thats it, tadaa†is weak.
God bless
Hello Buckles,
Sorry about the ‘a priori’. Here is the definition on Dictionary.com. I was using it as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
I’m also sorry that you felt that I ignored your points. I did not. I do think that you missed my point (I’ll assume it was an honest mistake and that you were not ignoring me). Perhaps my use of an unfamiliar word is at fault. We are discussing three different points about the Bible, its authorship, historical/factual accuracy, and it’s prophetic content. The reason we are discussing the Bible is to determine whether or not it can be used to learn about the nature of God.
Authorship
Whether directly written by God, inspired by God, or written by man and God claims authorship is irrelevant at this point in the discussion. We have not yet established whether or not ‘authorship’ of any form is part of the nature of God. If authorship is not, then no book, including the Bible is the word of God. The challenge for you, then, is to demonstrate that authorship is in the nature of God without reference to a book supposedly authored by God. Otherwise you’d be using circular logic, which is invalid.
Historical/Factual Accuracy
This is a huge topic in itself. I want to avoid taking an instance by instance approach because it would easily distract from to topic at hand; the nature of God. Suffice it to say that the Bible contains events that defy all of our experience as to how the world works. What is your standard of proof? Mine relies on evidence (obtained via experience), deduction, and/or induction. Some of the events from the Bible violate this last proof method.
Here, I have not choice but to appeal to example. I have walked by hundreds, if not thousands of bushes in my life. Not once have I, or any one I know or even heard of, have seen a bush spontaneously bust into flames and begin speaking. Based on inductive reasoning, I have ‘proof’ that bushes never spontaneously burst into flames and begin speaking. You can apply this to any miracle described in the Bible. You will claim that God intervened, but we have not yet established that God has the power, ability, or inclination to intervene. Remember, we have only established that God exists and caused (and/or causes) things to exist via the Cosmological argument.
I have no doubt that some of the Bible is historically accurate. I’m also sure that it contains some inaccuracies.
Prophecy
As I said in my last post, I cannot trust the fulfillment of the prophecies until we establish the historical/factual accuracy of the Bible. The book says that such-and-such prophecy was fulfilled, but how do I know that the description of the fulfillment (or even the prophecy) is accurate? Thus any argument from book-based prophecy ultimately relies on the accuracy of said book. So, if it’s alright with you, let’s focus on the historical/factual accuracy first and then address prophecy later.
Have to say it is amusing adjective, that ‘weak’ but regardless of it.
Why a prediction is only valid if given very long ago instead of few days or weeks at a time? She believes that horoscopes tell what is going to happen. How is that different from believing in predictions in bible?
Why do religious people believe in only some predictions and not in all? If one would go through the verisimilitude of different prophesies of different faiths it comes clear that most of them come true. Some require more mental tap dancing to get to fit something that happens but many of those prophecies are even older than biblical prophecies.
I find Micahs prediction to be merely following the customs of his era as his prediction did not give anything that others had not already claimed, the difference is that Micah managed to be included in a list of minor prophets where upon others were not. Had he claimed something outside the main views of majority of people in the era, it could be said he made a true prophecy.
A simple comparison to Micah prediction in modern day is to say he predicted that the president will be voted into the office. That is common practice, no one selects the first born of Lincolns family line to be a president. The king being born out of a particular family line is part of monarchist view which was the norm in Micahs days.
The most important thing of Micahs prophecies is the fact that after you read the book you see the writings talk of Assyrians and of other Gentiles.
Book of Micah 5:6-8
6.And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
7.And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.
8.And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.
The historical situation during Micahs time was dire for the Jewish people as Assurians were threatening the southern kingdom. The northern was already ransacked at that time.
The belief of a saviour rising and driving the enemies of Jewish people was exemplified in King David who reigned around 1005 BCE until around 965 BCE by Hebrew bible. So a concept of a great saviour king was only 200-300 years old.
Micah most likely was hoping for a saviour right now and there instead of talking of Jesus as Assyrians were no threat during the time of Roman occupation.
Feeble Ta with sapless daa.
If human knowledge is gained by applying logic to experience, then we can accept claims of Moses, for example, witnessing and performing miracles. Unless we take him for a lunatic or a druggie, whatever he did see evidently was beyond nature. If we assume the power behind miracles to be outside the laws of nature, belief in miracles is logical. But for those who deny the existence or intervention of any supernatural power, a belief in miracles would be impossible, even if one were witnessed. This is not aimed specifically at you, Sid, or anyone, but I hope it will be of some benefit to the discussion over all.
Hello MAPK,
I’m glad you’re contributing again. I know your comment was not aimed at me, but I would like to respond.
“we can accept claims of Moses, for example, witnessing and performing miracles. Unless we take him for a lunatic or a druggie”
This sort of reasoning seems common amongst Christian apologists, but it really doesn’t hold any water. You are basically saying that either the story of Moses and the burning bush is true, he was crazy, or he was hallucinating (because of drugs, for instance). This forms a false trilemma. As I’ve said in an earlier post, there are other possibilities that are not being considered. In this case, here are some other possibilities,
- The story is fiction.
- The story was gradually fictionalized via progressive exageration over time.
- Moses was lying
- Moses was dreaming
- Moses mistook some natural phenomena for supernatural
- Other possibilities may exist that I cannot think of.
Consider, as an example, someone who claimed to have been abducted by aliens while alone in his bead one night. Would you buy my claim that this man was either actually abducted by aliens, lying, or crazy (to use the usual false trilemma used by apologists), especially if I demonstrate the this person is otherwise normal and honest? No, you’d say he was dreaming, despite his testimony to the contrary, or some other possibility that would make him honestly mistaken.
The problem would be compounded if the person was only a character in a book about an ancient time. Is that portion of the book a work of fiction? Did the man exist at all? If he did, is this just an example of historical fiction (ie, the man existed, but the scenario is fiction)? Was it based on a true event that has been exaggerated by the author and/or editors to make it more interesting?
“But for those who deny the existence or intervention of any supernatural power, a belief in miracles would be impossible, even if one were witnessed.”
Here I agree with you completely. This is likely the quintessential difference between a believer and a non-believer. It is one we must overcome if we are to understand one another. If I were to witness something inexplicable, my reaction, like most, would be to wonder how such a thing were possible. But if no natural explanation were available, I would not assume supernatural causes and for good reason.
There have been many phenomenon that were inexplicable in the past that were incorrectly assumed to be supernatural. The rising and setting of the sun was attributed to Apollo’s chariot riding across the sky daily, comets were sent my God as an evil omen, lightning was sent by Thor, and all sorts of other natural phenomenon were similarly attributed to various supernatural deities.
That fact that these, and many other supposedly supernatural events turned out to be wholly natural should at least give us pause when assume supernatural causes to any strange event.
Another reason that I think we should seek a natural explanation before a supernatural one is related to progress. If we see an unexplained phenomena, we either say ‘I wonder how that works’ or say ‘God works in mysterious ways’. The first statement leads us to seek to explain the event naturally. If successful (which is often in science), we advance human knowledge and potential better peoples lives. If we say ‘God did it’, then it is the end of the inquiry. At best, the status quo is maintained.
Notice that I do not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention. It’s just that assuming supernatural intervention has zero utility for us, whereas the assumption of natural causes has proven to have great utility for our species.
I find it very difficult to believe that any serious Bible critic would suggest that Moses is purely a fictional (made up) character or that the Judaeo-Christian theism is founded on intentional deceit, or that Moses could not distinguish between dreams and reality.
I do know some Christians, however, who at least acknowledge the possibility that in the story of Moses, the actions of a real person have become mythologized in the process of being told and re-told before it was written down. I personally am inclined not to accept any of these options, nor do I accept that he literally mistook natural phenomena for supernatural. I can accept that what he saw in the “burning bush†may have been some inexplicable (to him) natural occurance which he correctly perceived as inspiration from God to somehow restore his strength as leader of the nation of Israel. But I can also accept that Moses encountered a bush that was actually aflame, and yet not being consumed, symbolizing God as a purifying fire from which the consuming is escapable only by faith.
When we do attribute such things to divine power, we assume it is meant to help us understand our relationship with God so that we can be better-prepared for meeting our creator.
I want to say, also, that, by those who say God created and sustains the universe, comets, thunder and the rising and setting of the sun are still attibuted to supernatural forces. For your possible interest, read Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton.
Hello MAPK,
In a sense, I agree with you. Out of all the possibilities I suggested, some are definitely less likely than others. I only listed a bunch of possibilities, no matter how unlikely. I also agree with those Christians that you know that the most likely explanation is gradual embellishment from fact to mythology.
Where I disagree with you is that I find ‘God did it’ to be the least likely explanation, not the most likely.
“I want to say, also, that, by those who say God created and sustains the universe, comets, thunder and the rising and setting of the sun are still attibuted to supernatural forces.”
Again, we find ourselves in semi-agreement. I do think that the existence of all things in the universe are contingent upon a self-necessary being (I’m beginning to doubt that ‘God’ is an appropriate term for it). I see no reason to assume that this being is supernatural.
Finally, I have only recently gotten interested in Victorian era philosophy and theology. G.K. Chesterton sounds interesting. I’ll tell you what, I’ll read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton if you’ll agree to read Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russel. I have not yet read Russel’s book, but intend to, and I’d be interested in discussing it with a Christian who is reading it at about the same time.
My inclination is to say that even if there were embellishments to biblical accounts over time before the writing of them, I think the aspects of it that seem to defy the laws of physics (they may only defy how we understand them from the descriptions) are more attributable to the poetic nature of the writing. Poetry frees an author from absolutely literal description, which, would be necessary when writing of things outside the realm of the physical senses. If we take it as poetry, we can allow that what Moses (or whoever we want to say wrote the Pentateuch) describes as a burning bush or a staff becoming a serpent need not be a literal phenomenon, but only symbols pointing to some truth about God, for our benefit. To say the Bible is a product of men, who were truly inspired by God is not necessarily to say that it is inspiration dictated word-for-word by the Holy Spirit. In other words, I tend to take it as something not authored by God, as such, but divinely over-seen and author-ized.
To say that the self-necessary being upon which the universe is contingent is not above nature suggests that what we refer to as God is a physical being living in another universe or maybe is the universe itself,
plus something else we are unaware of.
I have meant to read Russsell’s “Why I Am Not A Christianâ€for some time, and accept your offer. I’ll have to review “Orthodoxy, too. It’s been several years since I’ve read that.
Fantastic! I’m committed to reading The Omnivorous Dilemma for another book discussion group. How soon I’ll get through it is largely dependent on how much I’ll enjoy it. If the first dozen pages are any indication, It’ll take me a while. My guess is about a month. Let me know which of the two you’d like to read first via email (sidfaiwu@gmail.com).
Look people a miracle just has happened: a muck product resulted in an emotional discussion about the universe and Gods.
Yes the story is fantastic and why not to place a doubt somwhere here? Just a doubt not complete denial. What if the whole story is another of many frauds to solicit money? What if the paintings are not her but her mother’s or father’s and under the stirct rules of their faith they unslaved the young and delicate child to keep it secret for God’s sake?
Although they (pictures) have a flare of aestethical beaty they have nothing to do with art and creation it is just a muck. They represent just an excellent trade skills and nothig more. If God had anything to do with the paintings I am sure they (actually Him) would actually be the greates ever pieces of art.
The nasty part of the whole story is the these ‘deeply religious’ people mix God in their dealings to get reach. This could just be unpleseant behaviour regardless of their overtly displayed intentions. So what percentage they actually offer for their charity?
Some of you ought to remember if not anything else…:
Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
AND after this post now we should expect:
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Let see.
While i agree her painting talent is exceptional, does it strike anyone as odd that her painting of jesus is of white male with blond hair? Considering where jesus came from? Surely he should be olive/dark skinned with black hair?
p.s. left fake email address as I never leave my mail on a site I don’t know. Found this site quite by accident while lookin for something else. Like the site.. keep it up. An atheist myself, I believe ppl are free to believe what they like.