On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2014

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning a friend said she had recently heard an atheist make the “I am atheistic about just one more god than you are” argument. Ricky Gervais makes the argument this way:

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Like many things the new atheists say, the argument has a kind of first blush plausibility but does not hold up on even a moment’s reflection. As David Bentley Hart explains in The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Gervais has made a glaring category error by lumping the God of the three great monotheistic faiths in with other “gods”:

according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all. He is pure being that is the source of all being. He is the necessary being, and by definition there can be only one necessary being. The necessary being cannot be compared to contingent beings. To lump the God of the monotheistic faiths in with Odin demonstrates that you understand neither God nor Odin.

Think of it this way. Gervais says in essense: “There are a bunch of oranges, and I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. You are little different from me because you admit that you also disbelieve in all of the oranges, except for that last little orange that you irrationally insist on clinging to.” No, Ricky, just like you I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. But I do believe in an apple. Why should I stop believing in an apple just because I don’t believe in oranges?

Comments

The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham His name is Yahweh not Allah.... The name Allah comes form an old moon god whose title was al-iLah who was worshipped in Babylon at the time.Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Jesus was not God? Sure he was either a mad man or he was God! Please don't confuse Ismael with Islam..... Islam only started as a religion about 500 AD Ismael son of Abraham has been around for at least 3500 years. My point is this. How do we trust the word of 1 man with no witnesses? The take home here is that 11 people witnessed Jesus, sure the could have conspired this as a lie, but their suffering for the next 40 years makes it unlikely that they would have been dishonest..... Dying for something you believe in is completely different than killing for what you believe in. These men had persecution at a level that most men can only dream of... You want to convince me it was for a lie?Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

So the God of Abraham is only the God of Abraham when it suits you.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Andre:
The more witnesses to an event the better we are at finding its truth.
Even if they all tell differing and conflicting stories?Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Joe The truthfulness of something in this case Christ, is not verified by the sources that are friendly to him, we know these sources are biased, I'll tell you when you start seeing truth, it's when your enemies agree with the friendly ones..... This is independent verification of a fact. We have no independent verification of a single thing Mohammed said. Now I believe that a fair and just God would make sure that many brought us the same message so that we can confidently trust its truthfulness and so that we are able to understand it completely. If the prophets contradicted each other we would have known its a lie..... Because it would be easy to ask... why are your messages all different?Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

BTW the trinity is contrived. Sir Isaac Newton pointed that out.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

No Andre- the passage you quoted is NOT correct. I have a copy of the Noble Qur'an with me. It was given to me while I was in Saudi Arabia by an Islamic Cleric. What you are saying is that the God of Abraham is not the God of Abraham. Jesus is not and never was, God.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Joe the passage I quoted in correct is also something I need to comment on.....
“People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three.’ Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him—That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian.” (4:171
The rejection of Jesus as the divine Son of God reflects Mohammed’s misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God is love, who was there to love before the creation of the world?Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Apologies the above passage is incorrectly quoted here is the correct one
Sura 4:157 says, "and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’—yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regard him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise, and they slew him not of a certainly—no indeed."
Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Joe, The more witnesses to an event the better we are at finding its truth. I am unable to accept the word of Islam because this statement is completely false........ The Qur’an says, "People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three.’ Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him—That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian." (4:171) We have independent confirmation outside of the Bible that Christ died, the Jewish scriptures confirm that and so does Tacitus and Josephus, we also know via medical science that Christ died due to his injuries. To make a claim contrary to the facts needs some extra ordinary evidence. Where is it? The word of one man is good enough?Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Jeremiah 3:15 "Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding."
So God made it clear that he will give us many independent prophets to verify His word. How do we verify Mohammed's word? if it is just him?Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

If anyone gets tired of this theological/philosophical discussion, and would prefer a little dose of real down-to-earth science discussion, you may switch to this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-520069 You may review the over 500 posts and choose the one you deem more interesting to comment on. :)Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Andre- who can verify those 11 witnesses? I would think that having many authors is worse than having one.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Andre- Allah is the same God of the Bible as the Qur'an is an extension of the Bible. Also The Qur'an states the mountains are affixed into the earth, not placed on top of it. Did you know that Islam accepts the prophets of Israel? That is one main reason why they are fighting today. The Arabs say that Israel had their chances- MANY chances- and screwed up, royally. Now they have to shut up because they blew it and have no one but themselves to blame. But seeing taht they won't shut up and still claim to be the "chosen people" it pisses off the Arabs who adhere to Islam.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

And therein lies the biggest difference between these two faiths, Jesus did not pen down a single word instead it was done by 11 witnesses giving testimony about what Jesus taught. How many witnesses to Islam's truth? Last time I checked it was only 1.Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Perhaps we have asked or heard this question: "If God, Why Suffering?" Here's an interesting article on this topic: http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/if-god-why-suffering/Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Genesis 17:20 -21 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."
Nobody disagrees that Arabs have been greatly blessed, but you see there is an issue, Israel all had many different prophets over the ages that proclaimed the same thing, Islam has one prophet only how are we to trust what he has to say without any independent verification, as we have with the prophets of Israel? Is the importance of multiple witnesses not a very important aspect in the world? I think independent verification od truth by multiple sources is content worth trusting but the word of one man? I am suspicious about that.....Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Joe It is true that Ismael was blessed, a promise we seen even today with the Arab worlds being blessed with wealth, but You can not say in any way that mountains are placed on top of the earth, that is inconsistent with scientific observation that mountain's rise up...... Allah is not God........Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

KF @ 55-58 Mucho food for thought. Thank you.Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

"The mountains may be removed and the hills may shake"? Really?? Again- The God of Abraham is the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is a fact that no one can change- not even Andre. BTW according to the Bible Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. However Isaac was NEVER Abraham's only son. Ishmael gets that distinction. Oops.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Or How about What Jesus said
Luke 20:34-36 "Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Why tell a bunch of men in heaven there will be no sex? Unless it's true of course..... Compare that with; But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

At some point or another, when hearing or reading something, we may ask these questions: “Why on earth is this important for the real world?” “What does this have to do with reality?” Eventually we could end up asking: “What IS reality?” May I suggest this short story for a starter? http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/why-on-earth/Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Islam may be an a version of the Abrahamic faith but it is not in anyway an account of facts as the bible claims to be here is why.....
Sura 16:15 : And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;
So Allah placed the mountains on top of the earth like tent pegs so the earth won't shake? Really? Compare that with the following statement from the Bible.....
Isaiah 54:10 "For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake,
It is very easy to be fooled that Allah and God is somehow the same..... but please don't be fooled they are not!Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

In light of this dilemma that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, ( ,,, with string theory, M-theory, etc..), is completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. Quantum Electro-Dynamics) it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process::
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence that Christ defeated death on the cross,,, Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Turbokid claims
Dionisio, no, I am not interested in looking for the ultimate absolute truth as I consider that a pointless quest.
Yet, absolute truth exists! This fact is readily demonstrable!
Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
And the fact that individual absolute truths exist testifies to the fact that an ULTIMATE absolute truth must exist,,,
Comprehensibility of the world - April 4, 2013 Excerpt:,,,So, for materialism, the Einstein’s question remains unanswered. Logic and math (that is fully based on logic), to be so effective, must be universal truths. If they are only states of the brain of one or more individuals – as materialists maintain – they cannot be universal at all. Universal truths must be objective and absolute, not just subjective and relative. Only in this way can they be shared among all intelligent beings.,,, ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever. https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/
Of related note to 'ultimate absolute truth', Fuller comments here,,,
"So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropiate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,," Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design - Video - (17:34 minute mark of the video) https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/
Yet, as Godel proved, if numbers are included, there cannot be a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything for physics that brings 'ultimate closure' to man's quest to find the 'theory of everything',,
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853
i.e. the truth of mathematics is not inherent to mathematics but is dependent on something outside of mathematics in order for mathematics to derive its 'ultimate absolute truthfulness'. Jaki explains the implications of the incompleteness theorem for a 'theory of everything' here,
"Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49
Even Hawking himself, at one time, admitted, and then subsequently forgot, that there cannot be a mathematical theory of everything,,
The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems - Princeton - 2006 Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson, among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a (mathematical) Theory of Everything.,, http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godel-IAS.pdf
The reason why there cannot be a mathematical theory of everything which is complete within itself, is fairly easy to understand,,,
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Moreover, there is not single mathematical theory of everything that is merely 'incomplete', but, in fact, in the most profound enigma of modern science, we find that there are two mathematical theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, each of which has great explanatory power in its own area, which refuse to be unified into a single mathematical theory of everything. The extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics/special relativity(QED), with Gravity, is humorously reflected in the following music video,,,
A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013 Excerpt: there’s a large contingent of physicists who believe that string theory is the heroin of theoretical physics. It has absorbed not just millions of dollars, but hundreds if not thousands of grad student lifetimes without delivering what it promised–a unified theory of the universe and life. It is hard, in fact, to find a single contribution from string theory despite 25 years of intense effort by thousands of the very brightest and best minds our society can find. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Most religions include a creation story, many purport to account for morality, many include miracles ...
Materialistic atheism fits that description.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Interesting exchange,,, Querius asks Turbokid,
Turbokid, Would you be willing for the True and Living God to enter your life? The possible answers are yes or no. If God actually exists, you’ll either be willing or not willing to have God in your life. -Q
To which Turbokid responds
Querius, if you want a yes or no then my answer is no. But as i say, the question does not really have any meaning to me.
Which reminds me of Nagel's remark,,,
“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
From whence does this irrational fear of God arise? The Bible, as usual, has this answer for this deep mysterious question of the heart.
John 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Genesis 3:8-10 & 21 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.",,, The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
i.e. God has made a covering, a 'Propitiation', for our sin,,,
G.O.S.P.E.L. – propitiation - video https://vimeo.com/20960385
What the sinner who is acutely aware of his sin readily understands, but the sinner, who is hiding from God because of his sin does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf (since we were incapable) so that we may be reunited with him. Love is the only proper response on our part.
Temple Veil – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNHoijNO2I Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1A
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

I think this is over-simplifying the argument. I see it is a point about epistemology not ontology. Although Gods differ very widely (including different interpretations of the Abrahamic God), people have many similar reasons for believing in them. Most religions include a creation story, many purport to account for morality, many include miracles and stories about one or more significant divine lives on earth which are then reported as history. The point being – if you do not accept these reasons as evidence for one God why accept it for another? If I do not believe in oranges because I don’t trust the advertisements then why should I believe in the advertisements for apples?Mark Frank_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

DiEb: the question of the reality of God as root, inherently good, maximally great and necessary being, creator and sustainer of the cosmos and its moral governor is most certainly not a distinction without a difference. Clever quips and attempts to improperly suggest a fallacious distraction notwithstanding. Indeed, that you refuse to acknowledge relevance and importance -- never mind the at one remove tactic -- is itself revealing. Please, think again. Now, I need to rest before a very early meeting. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

PPS: 1 is a natural number, and demonstrably necessarily exists. It is a knowable reality, independent of whether we choose to acknowledge it. So, BTW is 2 + 3 = 5. So also, that errors such as 2 + 3 = 4 exist. And so forth.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply