The Prime Mover Debate: Conclusion

Here is my conclusion to the Prime Mover debate that I have been enjoying with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com  A complete dialog of the debate will be posted soon. But if you wish to be current please review these links in order.

Bushey's introduction

My introduction

Bushey's rebuttal

My rebuttal

Bushey's second rebuttal

My second rebuttal

Bushey's three questions

My three questions

Bushey's conclusion

My Conclusion 

Mr. Bushey claims that “The infinite doesn't exist in nature”  and he opts to verify this statement by using thought experiments.  I have responded that nature is absurd and therefore a logical contradiction cannot disprove nature.  I've supported this by showing how classical logic has no weight in the quantum realm.  One need only Google the famous double slit experiment, quantum superposition or quantum tunneling  to find that classical logic is not universal.   

Bushey feels that I did not address his objection to my claim that contradictory statements can sometimes be simultaneously true.   I find this frustrating since I did address this objection, twice.  He simply doesn't acknowledge any of my responses; he doesn't admit that there is such a thing as quantum logic and that it is incompatible with classic logic. Instead he simply plows onward re-stating ad nauseam that the claim “two contradictory statements can be simultaneously true” is self defeating.   He marvels endlessly at the nonsensical outcome of applying classical logical rules to the absurdity of quantum facts.  Bushey is essentially claiming that quantum mechanics cannot be true since its principles are self defeating.  I hope he reconsiders.

My 3 questions were designed to illustrate the inconsistency in Mr. Bushey’s  logic.  The 1^st question was meant to show that supernatural hypothesis’ are irrational since a supernatural event is essentially defined when something is explainable.  Please note that transcendent and supernatural are synonymous.  Bushey contends that his argument deductively arrives at the conclusion of a transcendent cause.  My claim is that unless he has deductively eliminated all possible natural explanations, then his logic is flawed.  He writes:

“I think there are many conceivable instances wherein it would be irrational to cast doubt upon the supernatural as an explanation, even when there are possible natural explanations” 

……Like comets crashing into the moon spelling out "Jesus is lord"!? Note that Bushey couldn't provide an actual instance to illustrate this point.  

The 2^nd question was meant to illustrate one simple truth: no one prefers a priori deductions over scientific conclusions.  Deductive reasoning alone cannot produce technology, it has cured no diseases and we should be skeptical of its claims to know the origins of the universe. The 3^rd question Implies that a claim about the cause of the universe ought to make a prediction about that cause which could be empirically verified or falsified.  One cannot apply this concept to itself because the statement “a good theory ought to be empirically provable” doesn't make any specific claims about nature.   Bushey’s objection that this is self defeating arises from a sort of equivocation fallacy.   I find it odd that he thinks a good theory shouldn't require empirical verification to succeed.  I don’t find it odd that he could not propose an experiment to verify the necessity of a prime mover.  

Bushey's argument failed to prove that infinity doesn't exist in nature, failed to prove how a mind can exist without a body, time or space, failed to eliminate all natural explanations in order to prove the necessity of a transcendent explanation and failed to show how a prime mover could be empirically verifiable through experimentation.   Therefore, the argument for a prime mover fails. 

The Prime Mover Debate: 3 Questions

This is the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey of ThereForeGodExists.com.  We are debating whether or not a "Prime Mover" is necessary and we are at the point in the debate where each of us gets the opportunity to pose 3 questions to our opponent.  Mr. Bushey's turn was first. His questions and my responses are below. If you wish to make yourself current with the progression of the debate, please scroll down to the previous post which contains links to our discussion so far.

Question 1:
If time and space had a cause, would you agree that it follows that the cause must transcend time and space?

On Choosing Atheism over Agnosticism

There is a misconception in American culture that unless you are 100% certain of God's existence, then one ought to self-identify as an agnostic. This is inaccurate, and what is worse is that the mislabeling provides shelter to bad religious ideas. Once the title of agnostic is worn, one feels they are in a non-position to comment or disagree with religious ideology. "Who knows the real truth? Who am I to disagree?" As a former agnostic, I found myself defending religion, not because I believed in it, but because I felt atheists were guilty of the same logic-crimes as a religious person: claiming to know the unknowable. It wasn't until a few years ago that I realized I had mislabeled myself as an agnostic. As it turns out, my mistake was purely in the definition of the terms.

The Prime Mover Debate: First Rebuttal

This is a continuation of the "prime mover" debate I am participating in with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com  If you wish to be current on our dialog so far, please read the following links.

His introduction

My introduction

His first rebuttal

My first rebuttal 

In my response to Mr. Bushey’s debate introduction and argument for the existence of a “prime mover” I raised a several objections. To my objections, Mr. Bushey’s has kindly responded in his rebuttal. Yet, despite his response, my objections remain unsatisfied. 

To Be and Not To Be

My first objection was in regard to the paradoxes offered as proof that the infinite cannot exist in reality.  Bushey insists that the mathematical notion of infinity, when applied to real-life thought experiments, will produce logical absurdities and therefore prove the non-existence of infinity.  My response was that a mathematic paradox which produces logical absurdity does not prove non-existence.  I offered a well known example of quantum mechanics, a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat, in which it can be simultaneously true that a cat exist in a living and dead state.  Bushey correctly identified the effect which produces the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as quantum superposition.  Unfortunately, that was the end of his correctness on the subject.  His interpretation of quantum superposition was that it implies contradictory states 

The Prime Mover Debate

I recently exchanged a few tweets with an Christian apologist on twitter. As it turns out: we couldn't agree on very much. So I suggested that the topic was too big for a 140 character limit. He then politely referred me to his blog which contains an excellent pre-fabricated debate format. I chose the topic of "first cause", a popular point of contention between atheists and theists.  The debate format is as follows:

1 Introduction (1500 words or less) per debater.
1 long rebuttal (1000 words or less) per debater.
1 short rebuttal (750 words or less) per debater.
(This dialogue is temporarily suspended after short rebuttal)
3 questions posed for the other debater to answer (the answer to the 3 questions will be in 750 total words or less) per debater.
1 closing statement to end the debate (500 words or less) per debater.

The person who is making the affirmative case (depending on the topic) will make the first introduction while the other will make the last conclusion.

I think this is a fantastic idea. My Co-debater is Mr. Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com and he was kind enough to send a link to his debate introduction which was posted on his blog. A link is provided in my introduction below. We shall continue the debate, posting our responses on our own blogs until the debate is complete. With Mr. Busheys permission, I shall post the debate in its entirety after it is complete.

So without further ado.

I recommend reading Mr. Bushey's 1500 introduction first and it can be viewed here: http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/is-a-prime-mover-necessary/

.... mine is posted below.

Introduction

For centuries, without empirical data, philosophers and theologians have pondered the origin of the universe.  Theists claim that certain philosophical arguments like the Kalam Cosmological are philosophical proof of a supernatural primary mover, that is: an uncaused-cause which exists necessarily, outside of space-time, and initiated the causal chain of our universe.  Most even take it a step further to provide philosophical proof that this primary mover must be a personal being.

The concept of God and evil are incompatible

The age old question: Is the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God compatible with evil?  It has been debated amongst theists and atheists for centuries. I have been participating in a little debate on the subject myself recently. Despite my repeated attempts to reach some type of consensus, my opponent repeatedly dodged my questions, and when one issue was addressed another sprung up, until, he finally directed me to the author of his beliefs: William Lane Craig. Craig is a philosopher who is also a Christian who argues in favor of Gods existence. The essay i was directed to was called The Problem Of Evil, and is a Theist response to the "age old question". I would recommend that you read through the seemingly convincing argument put forth by Craig, before reading my reply. However, i have set up this post as a imaginary dialog between myself and Craig, so the basics are here. Anyone who disagrees with my representation of William Craig's position, can check the essay, and offer a correction in the comment section at the bottom of this rebuttal. 

Religion in Politics

I used to find comfort in knowing that my political representatives were on an invisible religious leash. What i mean by that is this: I thought that a believing person, who had the fear of Gods judgement would be more honest in a position power. However, i no longer support the position in favor of religions ability to control a persons morality. I have found no correlative data to support the idea that religion has control over the individual to self-govern. Sure there are probably people out there who genuinely feel afraid that god is watching and judging their every action and thought, and behave solely because of that fear. To those people i would like to ask this: If you knew there where no God, would you turn to a life of crime? Would you suddenly disregard the feelings, rights and suffering of your fellow humans. Hopefully the answer is no, and I would bet, that even ones feelings of pride when helping someone in need aren't diminished just because there is no subsequent reward by God.

Back to my original point, i was examining the requirements for holding a position of political office. For the most part, the only restrictions were put on age, and time spent as a citizen. You can even be a convicted felon and still be a U.S Representative. This is very scary to me. My daughters teacher in kindergarten needs at least a bachelors degree and a clean record. Aside from the specific requirements noted in the constitution, there are several requirements that are not written, but useful to persons with an interest in a political career. Professed affiliation with certain religious groups, such a Christianity, is certainly important in a country with a population that is over 80% Christian. It is a well known fact that in most areas of this country, if a potential candidate were to identify themselves as an atheist, the public mass disapproval would be the equivalent to political suicide. In order to be a member of government in a modern superpower, one is not required to be a student of political science, economics, law, civil engineering, military history or international relations. One need only be an expert fund raiser, look good and carry his or herself well on television, and profess a belief in the popular mythology. In our present political setup, a well spoken actor with knowledge of the bible, would defeat a quiet genius with a Nobel peace prize, who doesn't accept supernatural doctrines.

This brings me to my point, and my rather recent change of heart. I would support an Atheist candidate just on the idea that he is likely to be more honest than a religious one. While it is true, that we can never know the true motivation of any politician, any man or woman can claim to be religious to gain the upper hand in an election by supporting a popular idea. But only an honest person would claim to be an Atheist knowing that releasing such information would only hinder his or her campaign.

On a final note, i would also like to point out that any politician who claims to act on the authority of God, is the most terrifying person that i can imagine to be in control of a modern superpower. If you consider the strong possibility that God does not exist, you have to wonder, where did that voice that our leaders mistook for God come from? When someone prays for guidance, and then imagines that they heard an answer, they hold that answer to much higher degree of validity than that of their own opinion. They may disregard all reason, and act on whatever advice they imagined came from god. A religious person would certainly feel that the divine advice they received should not be subject to the same scrutiny as advice from a friend. Maybe it was the wind, maybe it was someone in the next room, maybe it was their own internal monologue, maybe it was an imaginary man whom they feel is infallible. Whatever the possibility, it is a truly frightening notion.

The Concept of Self

I am currently working on a thorough and complete argument against religious claims to humans moral dependency on God. It is an important piece of writing for me, because as I've said before, Religion can only attempt to claim jurisdiction in a few areas of understanding, morality and creation. My up coming post is my best effort to put the nail in the coffin on the subject of morality. In the mean time please enjoy an interesting perspective on the human soul that i came across a few years back while visiting The Agnostic Mom. Great debate has been made in the past about possibility of the souls existence. However, science has made such enormous progress in mapping the human mind and is close to a full understanding of how our mind works, the debate is over as far as I'm concerned. We have matured intellectually, and allowed science to eliminate all supernatural hypothesis to describe our world. The concept of the soul has washed away with the rain of science and understanding, but for some reason, a circular debate amongst believers will continue. On the atheist side of the coin, here is a fantastic analogy from Dale McGowan, taken from an interview on http://www.agnosticmom.com/ on the subject of what happens to our "self" when we die....

"Whatever sense of self and personal identity we have springs entirely from the constantly recomposed electrochemical symphony playing in our heads. Some find that horrifying; I find it utterly amazing. And asking where our “self” goes when that electrochemical symphony stops playing is just like asking where the music goes when an orchestra stops playing."
- Dale McGowan

The Easter Story

Sir Lionel Luckhoo is the Guinness book of world records "Most Successful Lawyer", with over 245 successive acquittals for persons charged with murder. He is also a Evangelical author of several famous christian propaganda booklets. In one of these booklets Sir Lionel uses his persuasive lawyer skills to "prove" that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, and such a fact would hold up in a court of law. Quite an impressive feat no doubt, and yet doubt is my speciality! The reason is am posting this is for two reasons:

1. Today is Easter.

2. I have recently been reassured by a friend that the evidence proving Jesus' Resurrection is very compelling because the most successful lawyer ever is says it would hold up in a court of law.

The first thing that comes to my mind when i hear about a man helping people to be acquitted in over 245 straight murder cases, is this: Statistically some of these people were guilty, and were set free by this alleged pious man. This only goes to show that this mans orator strength is not found in his ability to tell the truth, but rather, his skill is to persuade ones opinion in spite of what is truth. Not a very noble man, in my opinion. Ultimately the claim that "Because a really famous lawyer says the Resurrection story is true, it must be true." does not prove anything. A trial has been famously summarized as 12 people trying to decide who has the best lawyer.

Here is an excerpt from a book called: Losing Faith in Faith, by Dan barker. In this excerpt, Dan shows some of the discrepancies in the gospels accounts of Jesus' Resurrection. I will ask you a jury of my peers, a similar question that has been asked by Dan Barker: Try to decipher some type of story, that would hold up in a court of law, based on the bible.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Special thanks to The Atheist Revolution for the link to Dan Barkers fantastic website.

Obama Speaks To The Muslim World

A few days ago president Barack Obama addressed Turkey with promises of peace, declaring that "The U.S. is not at war with Islam." What a wonderful concept: a Christian nation and a Muslim nation working together for a common good. I wonder if anyone in Muslim audience at the press conference regrets that Barack Obama will burn in hell. That is the accepted belief in Turkey, not about Obama specifically but about all Christians. IF true how unfortunate for the 81% of Americans that feel that 86% Of Turkey will also burn in hell. Apparently our political representatives feel this is a minor obstacle.

While noting this insane viewpoint, its even stranger to watch politicians tip-toe around each others religious viewpoints, both sides feigning respect for each others dogma. I have to question the political sincerity of our efforts. American political policy is riddled with disdain for apparent sin agendas of the pro-choice and homosexuals. I wonder what is considered worse in the Christian mind: Aborting your unborn child, or raising your child Muslim? It would seem that from a Christian perspective, an unborn child would at least have a chance at heaven. Yet from that same perspective, raising a child to worship a false god would seem to be far worse, considering that instilling a child with Muslim beliefs is the christian equivalent of a ticket straight to hell . Why don't Christians openly fight Muslim parents who are sentencing their children to hell?

I wonder..... if turkey was a homosexual nation, would Obama fall under heavy criticism from the right-wing Christians my for his show of diplomacy? I could almost certainly say yes. Would America even attempt diplomacy with a homosexual nation? Probably not, such is the warped perspective of religious logic. Obviously "a homosexual nation" is just a made up concept to illustrate a point. The Christian political agenda, should put more effort into fighting false idol worship, since going to hell is the worst possible thing that could happen to a person. Yet this is not the case, and only further illustrates the inconsistencies of religious views in America. As much as i detest Islamic extremist (or religious extremism in general), at least they are logically consistent in their warped moral beliefs.

I only hope that before the "perceived" end of the world comes, we can overcome these pointless obstacles. I fear that if something were to happen, which humanity thought was the start of the end, Christians certainly wouldn't aid the damned, for fear of damnation themselves, and Muslim nations certainly won't offer any support to infidels. I know Christians won't wanna be caught showing support for the apparent Muslim anti-Christ and his nation if they strongly believe that God is about to make an appearance and reign down fire on the sinners. The same is probably true for Muslims

This whole scenario is not a long shot so long as religion is the primary guide of our action, yet it is so pointless that it makes me disgusted. Perhaps someday people from two different nations can meet and unite together with no imaginary boundaries to lead us to hate or disagree in policy. Disagreements which are based on two incompatible pretend ideas, that shouldn't even be a consideration in matters of great importance.

Great atheistic accomplishments

Recently i was challenged by a friend and fellow blogger, to take a different approach to my debate tactics. Instead of pointing out problems with religion and diminishing its value to mankind, (which is not what i was doing anyway) why not write a piece pointing out all the wonderful things atheism has given humans. I suspect that this fellows request was based on the assumption that i would be hard pressed to find accomplishment that could be directly attributed to atheism. Though he is quite wrong, i feel his comments represent a common misconception about atheism. A misconception that atheist don't carry or possibly even recognize. Maybe this is why atheist don't feel a need to write about this topic very often. The religious or perhaps even agnostics however, do not see what atheism has contributed to society, or why we so proudly promote atheism. I shall do my part to put this concept to rest, and explain why proving atheism's importance is not always the focus of our atheist vs. theist debates, as it is truly common sense, yet unrecognized by mainstream society.

Before i offer some examples of atheistic accomplishments. I must try to define what an atheist is and what an atheistic accomplishment would be.

Atheist- One who believes that there are no supernatural entities.

An atheist looks at all things, as having natural causes. Now having said that, it is possible that many people who believe in a god may still take an atheistic approach to life. Will god help me win the game? Or will practice, hard work and dedication help me? If you feel that practice is more important, then you've taken an atheistic approach to winning. Will god maintain my health? Or will proven things like diet and exercise? If you feel the latter is the correct way, then you've taken an atheistic approach to health. To summarize: An atheistic accomplishment is an accomplishment that can be directly attributed to not-believing in supernatural entities. Now all of a sudden atheism doesn't seem so uncommon does it?

Lets start with all of science: I would like to remind you that everything unexplained was once attributed to God. Learning that hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes are not the result of Gods wrath and truly have natural causes, has allowed humans to make very accurate predictions about the "how and when", which I'm sure has chalked up a few saved lives. Then of course there is all of modern medicine. I would like to remind you again, that for thousands of years demons or angry gods made people ill, not viruses. Prior to medicine only religious rituals could aid the ill.

I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis. I feel its safe to say that all breakthrough advances in science would be left in the dust if mankind had persist down the religious path and clung to theistic hypothesis to explain our world. In matters of science, atheistic accomplishments are the only accomplishments.

So isn't everyone by that definition kind-of an atheist?

Sure, but not totally, this is what i mean: Today's definition of atheist states that all hypothesis' have a natural origin or explanation. Here's where the total atheist of today and the scientific atheist in practice deviate. While many scientists might take an atheistic approach to solving a problem in biology they still go home and thank god for their life and and many blessings. This is the only difference. Atheism is predominate in all of modern society, it is directly responsible for all advances in science, and yet is completely unrecognized for its contributions by the religious and religious supporters.

Today the domain of the supernatural clings only to morality and creation. That is the difference, when someone today says 'I'm an atheist' they are really only atheistic about two extra subjects than most religious. So why should modern atheist be identified as radical for trying to put a natural hypothesis to explain morality and creation? Great scientist throughout history who refused to accepted the god hypothesis have been viewed as radical. The best example of atheism is our society was pointed out by Richard Dawkins who said: "We are all atheist about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Perhaps if the atheism in all of us was recognized, those of us who push atheism one step further wouldn't seem so radical.

With regard to my thoughts on the atheistic approach I have been told to "Remember, Secular (atheist) scientists fought hard to keep the Big Bang Theory out of the classrooms because they dismissed it as religiously based." This comment was supposed to show how the atheistic approach could hinder science.

I would like to remind everyone that all new idea's in science are dismissed at first, not because of credibility or context, but rather, because the old ideas have so many supporters. Scientist have dedicated there lives to supporting theories, written books, based subsequent theories upon said theories, and are not so quick to have their pride and life's work tossed out. Further, the big bang theory is still in direct contradiction with the genesis version of creation, which states that all of existence was created in six days. Trust me there are a lot of people who still hold this view. The fact that the big bang theory was put forth by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître only proves that the religious often take an atheistic approach to science. Had he represented the theistic approach he would have directed his efforts to proving how the universe was created in a day, which took place only 6,000 years ago as the holy bible clearly states.

Atheism is an approach to problem solving, its not anything other than that. Those who try and state that atheism is new kind of religion are way off. Such a statement could be compared to calling the scientific method a religion. For truly that's all atheism is; It's just an unrecognized step in the scientific method that rules out supernatural explanations. I'm grateful for atheism, and so should anyone who appreciates the level of knowledge and understanding that we have today.

Biblical Giant Ears.

While listening to Christian radio as i often do, i was fascinated by a discussion about the extreme ages of biblical figures like Noah. I don't feel the need to try and refute these claims of extreme longevity in this post (but maybe in future post) because a ridiculous idea has me completely distracted. It is a well documented fact that the human ears and nose never stop growing. When this fact is applied to a biblical figure like Methuselah who was supposed to have lived 969 years, i started to wonder just how large the human ears might grow if given such a life span. Here is a list of a few biblical figures and their ages according to the bible:

Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5)
Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8)
Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27)
And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29)

I did a bit of Internet research to try and determine if there was a documented growth rate for the human ear, and as i turns out there was not at least in the form that i was looking for. However, i did find a site that posted a documented average of ear sizes for different points in human life. Unfortunately the website i found only dealt with metric but i will do the conversion for the end results. The male ears yielded larger results in all ages of life, and since the bible mostly deals with the ages of males i will post only the male results to illustrate my point.

The average male ear size at birth was 52mm at birth, 65mm at adulthood (20 yrs old) and 78mm at 70 yrs. By taking this information i have created my own formula by assuming that after reaching full physical development at the age of 20, within the next 50 years our ears grow an average of 13mm per fifty years of adult life. I would like to point out that i feel this is at least mildly accurate for this concept and would not even bother trying to defend my formula since it is scientifically irrelevant.

If we take the formula: Age at death minus 20years of pre-adulthood divided by 50 with the result multiplied by the known growth rate of 13mm plus 65mm (average ear size at 20yrs) it should yield a number that we can determine how large these biblical figures ears were. Here is the formula if you don't like story problems.

[(Age-20)/50] x Growth rate} + 65mm = ear size

And here are the results:

Adam's ear size at 930 years old: 301.6mm or 11.87 inches

Seth's ear size at 912 years old: 296.9mm or 11.86 inches

Methuselah's ear size at 969 years old: 311.74mm or 12.27 inches

Noah's ear size at 950 years old: 306.8mm or 12.07 inches

The results of this research are completely circumstantial and irrelevant, yet still totally hilarious! To imagine these biblical figure and their giant ears makes me chuckle every time. Yet still it brings a larger question to mind: Did these giant ears, enable these religious icons to better hear the voice of God? While this is certainly a preposterous notion, it could explain why my prayers were never answered, by suggesting that my ears were simply too tiny to hear Gods voice! If it were true this problem would be of no concern to famous televangelist Pat Robertson and his tremendous ears, and would definitely confirm the means by which he stays in direct communication with God.

Proof of God

I have read my first philosophical proof of god and I have found it very compelling. Several times in this proof, the arguments of a man named St. Thomas Aquinas was referenced. His writings are vital to this proof. Fortunately I have a copy of his book that feature the referenced arguments. So please read this post carefully as it is a complex argument. The entire post/proof is not posted here. Although I will post a link to the rest of it. I cut it short at the point where I feel there is a questionable argument. The rest of the proof is dependent on this particular point. So I will interject some my own questions and thoughts in regard to this point. Hopefully you will have some thoughts to share as well!


Here is the post copied fromwww.Catholic.com

The First Vatican Council taught that the existence of God can be proven by our reason alone:

God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created. (Dei Filius 2)

But the Church has never offered an actual proof of God; it has left that to the philosophers. Although many have attempted to prove God’s existence, what they end up with is mere arguments. They may be quite persuasive, but they lack the metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof. They may presuppose some bit of knowledge, or they may leave room for possible doubt.But the medieval understanding of God, which St. Thomas Aquinas espoused, does not allow for doubting his existence. The proof that follows is a paraphrasing of the Angelic Doctor’s many writings that dealt with this subject. It proves the existence of a being that is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent.

In fact, you can be more certain that God exists than that you are reading this article right now.

A Brain in a Vat
Let’s start by taking a position of radical doubt. Suppose for a moment that you are not really a human being with an actual body. In reality, you are nothing more than a brain floating in a vat of fluids, with electrodes attached to various parts of your exterior that allow evil scientists to manipulate you into thinking that what you perceive is actually there, when in fact it is nothing more than an imaginary world constructed by the scientists. Right now, they are making you think that you are reading this article when in fact you are not.From this point of extreme skepticism, we will prove beyond all possible doubt that God exists.

1. One cannot deny one’s own existence. Cogito, ergo sum. Even if you’re just a brain in a vat, your own existence can be verified simply by the fact that you perceive—that is, you see, hear, smell, taste and touch things. Whether or not your perceptions are accurate is another question, but even if you doubt your own existence, you must exist, for it is impossible for a non-existent thing to doubt. In fact, the very act of doubting proves that you exist. Therefore, denying your own existence is a contradiction in terms. I can deny yours and you can deny mine, but I can’t doubt mine, nor can you doubt yours.

2. There is at least one thing that exists. It is possible for you to be deceived in your perception. In fact, it’s conceivable that every one of your perceptions is a delusion. But even if that is the case—even if nothing you think exists actually exists—you still must exist.Entity is the word we have for anything that exists. You exist, so you are an entity.

3. There is such a thing as existence. You can know with certainty that there is at least one entity, at least one thing of which the term existence can be predicated. If there were no such thing as existence, nothing would exist, not even you. But, as we have seen already, that is impossible.
As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."

4. The nature of esse is actuality. Now that we have established that esse is an entity, we must ask: What is the nature of this entity? What is its definition?To answer these questions, we must consider existence by itself, apart from everything else.What do we mean when we say that something exists? We mean that it is actual. For example, an acorn is actually an acorn and potentially a tree. A tree is actually a tree and potentially lumber. Lumber is actually lumber and potentially a desk. A desk is actually a desk and potentially firewood. Firewood is actually firewood and potentially ashes..........

The rest of the proof is located here:http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

O.k, so here is the summary of this argument so far, as i understand.
1. You must exist, you can doubt every other aspect of reality, but you must admit that you exist.
2. The second part of this argument is divided into three sections by the author, There is at least one thing that exist, There is such a thing as existence, The nature of esse is actuality.

All of these topics are derived from St Aquinas's writing. Here is the quote on this subject taken from the Third Article in The Existence of God.

God’s existence can be proved in five ways. The first and clearest proof is the argument from motion. It is certain, and in accordance with sense experience, that some things in this world are moved. Now everything that is moved is moved by something else, since nothing is moved unless it is potentially that to which it is moved, whereas that which moves is actual. To move is nothing other than to bring something from potentiality to actuality, and a thing can be brought from potentiality to actuality only by something which is actual. Thus a fire, which is actually hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, so moving and altering it. Now it is impossible for the same thing to be both actual and potential in the same respect, although it may be so in different respects. What is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, although it is potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in the same respect and in the same way, anything should be both mover and moved, or that it should move itself. Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover, as a staff cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. We are therefore bound to arrive at a first mover which is not moved by anything, and all men understand that this is God.

The second way is from the nature of an efficient cause. We find that there is a sequence of efficient causes in sensible things. But we do not find that anything is the efficient cause of itself. Nor is this possible, for the thing would then be prior to itself, which is impossible. But neither can the sequence of efficient causes be infinite, for in every sequence the first efficient cause is the cause of an intermediate cause, and an intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate causes be many, or only one. Now if a cause is removed, its effect is removed. Hence if there were no first efficient cause, there would be no ultimate cause, and no intermediate cause. But if the regress of efficient causes were infinite, there would be no first efficient cause. There would consequently be no ultimate effect, and no intermediate causes. But this is plainly false. We are therefore bound to suppose that there is a first efficient cause. And all men call this God.

These two proofs have been selected for examination here because they are the most accurate proofs I have read. They are also the foundation of the argument referenced in first quote from http://www.catholic.com/

IF you wish to read the 3 additional proofs visit http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/nature_grace.vi.ii.iii.html

In both arguments, there is a key point made. One statement that is the philosophical glue that holds it together. It is this "glue" that I have been struggling to grasp and understand.
I accept that nothing can be the cause of itself. That makes perfect sense to me. This brings us to the "glue", an infinite string of causes.

"Whatever is moved must therefore be moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved is itself moved, this also must be moved by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on for ever, since there would then be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, because secondary movers cannot move unless moved by a first mover....."

According to Thomas Aquinas, an infinite string of causes is impossible, I fail to understand why. A friend of mind once illustrated this concept. He asked me to count numbers, he said "Start at infinity and count down to one." This is of course impossible. I feel that this is a similar to what Aquinas is referencing. If you did not have a starting point for your journey you could never arrive at an ending point. That makes sense to me as well.

However if you could count numbers infinitely in both directions, (positive and negative) you could still have a middle, as well as other points that are defined along the way. (This could be and analogy for time: having to beginning and no end) Although you could not locate these points by referencing the end, or the beginning. For example you could not say this number is located ten numbers after the beginning. You could say this number is located ten numbers before the middle.

The question is this: IF there was never an initial cause of events, does that mean that a middle effect could never occur along the way. This implies some very heavy things that I'm not sure are comprehensible by me. I know that time is relative, according to Einsteins Special Relativity Theory Which means the past for me can be the present for you. So i wonder, is it possible that time is traveling backwards and forwards?

Some claim that a thing just is. This is also a hard concept to grasp, for example subatomic particles were supposed to be the smallest building blocks of matter. Now we theorize that Subatomic particles are made of superstrings, which now are the smallest. If anyone asked "What are superstings made of?" We would say, nothing, they just are. The superstring just Is. And so we arrive at the original cause of matter.

Again, before the argument can continue we must answer: Is it possible to have an infinite line of causes?

I understand that there are a lot of questions as well as a lot of opinion on this subject, but for the sake of this argument, lets limit the discussion to the possibility of an infinite string of causes. IF your comment is not in that context please refrain.

Definition of religious terms

Many times here on The Revolution, we engage in a religious debate of some type. Often there has been confusion caused by a lack of common labels for this or that belief. So for the sake of discussion here on this blog, i will define the existing terms and propose new names for beliefs that aren't clearly defined.

Passive Religious One who believes in a specific god(s) yet does not feel the need to act in accordance with the specific requirements of their religious doctrine.

Religious One who believes in a god(s) believes in a specific doctrine, and acts in accordance with said doctrine.

Radical Religious One who believes in a god(s) believes in a specific doctrine, acts in accordance with said doctrine, takes doctrine beyond reason, denounces other beliefs, tries to convert others follow their beliefs, willing to subject oneself to pain, torture, martyrdom, unusual behavior in the name of said religion.

passive atheist One who does not participate in religion, doesn't believe in god(s).

Atheist One who does not participate in religion, believes that everything exist due to natural origin, believes that there are no supernatural forces or gods in existence.

Radical Atheist One who does not participate in religion, believes that everything exist due to natural origin, believes that there are no supernatural forces or gods in existence. One who believes that no one should have religious beliefs. One who tries to convince another that religious beliefs are false,wrong, or irrational.

Agnostic One who does not support the belief that god(s) exist or the belief that god(s) do not exist, one who feels that such knowledge about god(s) existence is not known.

*Godnostic One who accepts that it is possible that god(s) exist as well as the possibility that god(s) does not exist. Yet believes that a divine entity of some sort is likely to be the cause of existence in some unknown way.

Gnostic One who accepts that it is possible that god(s) exist as well as the possibility that god(s) does not exist. Yet feels that based on scientific evidence, the origin of the universe and all of its contents is most likely not the creation of a supernatural entity.

IF you do not agree with the terms defined please make a suggestion!

*new term

God logic

The existence of God....Every time I visit the blog scene I am amazed at how many individuals feel they can know the nature of god, or think that they have the concept figured out. I think I've read enough self-proclaimed refutations of God to last a lifetime. You name the method, I've read it: Logic, Reductio ad absurdum, Burden of Proof, and of course the most common rebuttal thrown around is the Omnipotence paradox.


I do not claim to know if there is a god, if fact I claim just the opposite: "I do not know if god does or does not exist." I am very skeptical of any one who states that god is impossible, or states that god exist. I really tend to think that these idea's are unknowable. That is not to say that you shouldn't believe whatever you wish, you have that right. Though it is important to remember that there are many possibilities, despite what evidence you provide you cannot prove gods existence. Therefore we must be objective in regard to each others views and opinions, and not claim a superior perspective.

Burden of Proof

The several arguments against God are very subjective. The most unfounded reason for claiming gods non-existence is Burden of Proof, which basically states that one who makes a claim is entitled to prove the claim is true. In this case, the Christian who says God exist, must prove to the atheist that his statement is true, obviously such a claim cannot be proven, and so the advocate of burden of proof says the statement is false. The debate takes on a false until proven true characteristic, were the one who carries the burden is false until he can convince the other that he is true. Here is an example from Way of the Mind :

"Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims."

There is a difference between quotes like this and the "God debate", the difference being that the quote (and burden of proof) involves two key features, a known truth and a statement that conflicts with a known truth. You are human (Known Truth) some one claims you are alien (Conflicting statement). In the God debate, there is not a known truth, and therefore each side has a burden to bear if they wish to prove some truth in their side of the debate. If anything, being that belief in god is more common that not, I would say based on the format of quote, the conflicting opinion is that of the atheist, and would therefore become their burden to prove that god does not exist.

For any one who claims that god does not exist due to a lack of supporting evidence please know this: Lack of evidence is not a good reason to abandon the possibility of god. Before any truth was known or proven, there was a point in time when it was lacking evidence. If we gave up at such a point where would we be today? The only reason to abandon the possibility of god is because evidence has proved that god is impossible. Which brings me to my next point.

Omnipotence paradox.

This is the crutch of many non-believers who claim that god is impossible.
The Omnipotence Paradox states that: A being cannot be omnipotent, because the characteristics of omnipotence are self-contradictory. For example if omnipotent being could create anything, could he create a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift? If he could not create a rock that big, then he fails to be omnipotent by proving a limitation, if a rock exist that omnipotence could not lift, again it creates a contradiction and thus we have the Omnipotence Paradox. There are several examples of these types of literary contradictions. Could God deny himself? Could god create a triangle that has angles which did not add up to 180 degrees? All these follow the key assumption that if there is an omnipotent god, he is bound to the logic that he created.

Why does this assumption goes unchecked? Why does a Omnipotent being have to adhere to the same logic that he supposedly created? Descartes wrote:

"[Omnipotence] is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."

In my creationism post i offered a similar analogy:

Imagine yourself a board game designer, the game you set out to create can be as unique and complex as your imagination will allow. You define the rules of game play, how the game pieces can move, the who, what, why, where and when. Now further imagine that the game pieces were given a consciousness and able to reflect on their existence. (...but only as far as the experience was limited to the board game and the rules you created). So now the game pieces begin to argue about the true nature of you the "creator". Some feel that the concept of a creator is contradictory. More than likely the game pieces would assume that you must move in a similar manner as they, that you the creator must draw a card or roll some dice before you could act. If one game piece suggested that the creator could acting without first rolling dice, that would seem as illogical, because it is contrary to the nature of their logic. Therefore according to the game piece logic, they could prove that you are impossible like this.

One cannot act without first rolling dice.

If god created the game and all its contents.

Then god must have created dice,

Yet he could not act prior to the creation of dice.

And therefore could not create.

Perhaps this seems silly, but I say, "It is equally silly to assume that an omnipotent god is inconsistent by logic that he created. There is no reason to assume that a omnipotent creator must adhere to his own rules. An apparent contradiction by our logic, may not be a contradiction in regard to Omnipotence.

Please remember that I wrote this only to show there are many possibilities and the possibility of god is not to be thrown out so easily. I do not think that my post proves gods existence, it just proves that the omnipotence paradox is not valid. God is a possibility.

Death, Marriage and Christianity

I have a couple of questions regarding religion,
perhaps you can help me out with a few things.

As you all well know I am not religious, though I have been in and around many religious environments all my life. One question i have had since i was a child was in regard to marriage and death. Having known many religious people who have lost a spouse, and then remarried. This behaviour has always struck me as a selfish act.

Isn't this kind of a contradiction of beliefs? On one hand you believe that you will be reunited with loved ones in heaven, yet some can not wait for death to find a new lover. I always envisioned this reunion in heaven as being very awkward. One husband sits at the pearly gates anxiously awaiting his wife's arrival to heaven, only to find her walking with some other dude. I imagine the original husband is just like: "Who the hell is this guy? Ohh that's just great honey, you couldn't wait ten years, and now we have to spend eternity as a menage a trios." I just don't understand the logic of someone who believes in the afterlife, and remarries after a lover dies.

On another totally different note, I have read a interesting point that someone has made about Christian beliefs. I say someone, but it is really a website, other than the point I'm about to mention, the site was just a bunch of atheist propaganda, so i don't feel it deserves a link. Anyway.....

Many of you have heard about the wondrous healing powers of faith, thousands claim that prayer has healed their illness, cancers, heart condition, financial situation, etc. There are many who would point to these miracles as the source of proof that God heals. Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." So the point i was referring to is directed at those who believe that God does heal through prayer:

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?
Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.

Suppose that your arm or leg was amputated.
We know that drugs, science, treatments, nothing man made could bring your arm back, yet God could, he is Omnipotent.

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Perhaps God chooses only to intervene and provide healing in ambiguous situations, where the source of cure could be interpretive. If an arm was returned however there would be no denying a miracle. It is an interesting point to consider.

The Philosophy of Contradiction

It makes no sense whatsoever that an infinite, omnipotent god would need to incarnate himself as a human and then subject himself to an agonizing and bloody death just so he could persuade himself to forgive us and save us from the cruel fate he created for us. It makes even less sense that the all-wise creator of the universe would manifest himself in an isolated corner of the world during a primitive age of its history, teach proverbs identical to those of the other belief systems of the day, promise to return quickly to destroy the world, and then vanish utterly for a span of time now going on two thousand years, leaving behind no trace except for a few hazy memories and anonymous writings that he had ever been here at all.

This is a excerpt from a Blog i like to visit called Way of The Mind. Now as you may have guessed I'm not Christian, however I do recognize that religious beliefs, text, gods, and the like are very difficult to prove wrong. Many atheist like to find a contradiction in text or practice and use it as a key argument against God and/or Christianity. The above text is very perfect example of the type of argument often thrown into the religious boxing ring.

As i read this quote I had to wonder if the author was qualified to make such a claim, surely he has a right to speak his mind, but is it a relevant argument? According to the quote it would appear that an infallible deity, has made quite an error. If it were true that a supposed infallible entity acted in error, or made decisions that were irrational, it would prove that the Christian God is not omnipotent or infallible. Furthermore I am certain there are countless atheist who feel that this type of contradiction is a excellent reason to condemn Christian beliefs. Let us investigate the possibility of an Omnipotent god acting irrational as the quote and Bible imply.

The most important question to ask is, who is qualified to state which behavior is irrational.

I feel that there are two key requirements, you must have equivalent knowledge about the action, or you must be able to judge the results of the action. For example:

Lets look at a doctor: First, what makes individual a doctor is the knowledge, not the degree, or what the name tag or uniform says. What knowledge does a doctor have? Clearly knowledge about health and the various factors that aid or hinder it. Now, there are only two ways that a doctors practice could be judged. It could be judged by someone who has similar knowledge, they would certainly be qualified to state that a doctors methods for treating a patient were irrational. If you did not have knowledge about health then how could you accurately address his methods? Obviously you couldn't.

Yet you could judge his ability, by observing the results of his treatment. For Example: If you visit to a doctor because you have constant headaches. The doctor would run his test, evaluate your condition, and treat your problem in the manner required (if possible.) If, after his treatment, your headaches reside, you would have learned about his ability as a doctor. You still are uninformed about his methods, because you don't have that knowledge. The evidence would suggest that his methods were rational and his knowledge is true, based on his ability to cure your headaches.

The same logic applies everything: You could judge an auto mechanic by observing the results of his work; "did his repair fix the problem with my car? " If not, then perhaps his knowledge is not reliable. If he fails repeatedly, you could say his methods are irrational. If you could not observe such a scenario, then you must have equivalent knowledge about the mechanics of an automobile, in order to state that his methods (actions related to his knowledge) were irrational.

A fellow blogger named TXStorm, has replied to my position thus far:

Rev,
Fortunately logic and knowledge are not hamstringed as you would have us believe. You are STILL arguing that I must be X in order to comment in any fashion whatsoever upon X. The fact is that I can prove a politician to be a liar without every having been a liar or a politician. I need not experience what he experiences or have the power he has to understand the concepts of honesty and coercion.

With the notions of “god” you have (and in this case you explicitly cite) omnipotence, which is inherently and necessarily contradictory. I do not have to *be* omnipotent in order to know this, for all I need to know is 1. basic sound reasoning, 2. the meaning of “omnipotence” and 3. what constitutes a contradiction.

Fortunately I, and countless others, have these characteristics so we stand as very clear counter-examples to your claims, thus proving conclusively that your claims are simply false.
There is simply no identity relationship necessary for understanding any particular characteristic. If this were true, then it would never be possible to recognize that any other has any ability which you do not have. I can understand a great artist without having his vision or talent. I can understand the mechanic without being a mechanic. I can understand the irrational lunatic without being a lunatic myself.

What you are doing is arguing for accepting the conclusion as axiomatically true, as well as trying to grant special privilege to xnty that is not granted to any other position. The rules of reason work equally for all subjects, so we cannot simply stipulate that one subject is off limits and beyond question.

Ahh yes, Unfortunately TX' has overlooked what i have clearly stated: That one may judge anothers ablitity based on the observable results, or based on evidence. You need not be a mechanic to judge the ability of a mechanic. You need not be an artist to recognize beauty, Yet you must be able to observe the effects of a either when there knowledge is applied in practice. (and have some sense of reason as TX' states)

TX's statement about not needing to be a politician or a liar to prove one wrong at first glance, seems like a total rebuttal to my argument. Yet to say "I can refute a politician or a liar without being either" is a vague statement. In reality, there is something more specific that occurs when someone is proven wrong, the guilty party must make: a statement, a policy, a claim, a law, be involved in a hypocritical action. Therefore all that is required is prove the liar/politician wrong is knowledge about his claim/policy/law/behavior. For Example: If a politician states, "My new proposal will create 1,000 new jobs within the next year. You need not have a political title to prove his claim false. (After all, it is not the title, but rather, the knowledge that is important.) You must have knowledge about how the proposal will function, how it will be applied. You must have knowledge about how the economy functions, and how jobs are created. Then you could correctly state this proposal is irrational. OR you could just wait one year, count the jobs created and say with little more than a third grade education. His proposal did not work, and was flawed or irrational.

In regard to the initial quote about the Christian God; If my argument "holds water" I will ask: Does the author of the first quote, or anyone for that matter, have authority to judge the behavior of an Omnipotent being. The requirements would have to be: having the equivalent to Omnipotent knowledge, being able to observe the results of omnipotent knowledge.

Because we certainly do not have any knowledge that could compare to omnipotence, nor do we have knowledge about the "mechanics" of the afterlife. We must ask; Are the effects of Gods actions observable? Clearly we would not know if he did save us from hell, or if it was necessary, or if there is even anything to observe, until we die. I conclude that the statement at the beginning of this post not valid, because the author can not meet the requirement to correctly make such a statement. Therefore based on the text of the Christian bible, it is not possible to make such a conclusion.

According to TX' all that is required to identify irrational behavior is knowing the following:

1. Basic sound reasoning.

2. Meaning of the word "omnipotence"

3. What constitutes a contradiction.

This is very logical, but lets put TX's theory to the test and see if it "holds water". I will tell you about a story that i read. It is a story about an infallible painter, but in order to put this into context, you must imaging that you have no knowledge about being a painter. That is, you must imaging that you do not have the knowledge that a painter has, which is about mixing colors, the nature of paint, how to achieve depth and proportion, proper brush-stroke technique. If you forget this,you'll have about as much knowledge about paint, as you have about the mechanics of omnipotence.

Once upon a time there was an infallible painter, who painted the most beautiful landscape ever painted. Every stoke was planned and intentional, every color and texture was envisioned before he ever made a stroke. To begin his masterpiece he painted the entire canvas orange, he paused, then he laid down a beautiful dark mountain range. He reflected for a long time, Then he painted over the entire canvas with white, then started over with another mountain range. Once more he paused, this time he repainted the canvas grey, and again repainted a different mountain range on top of the grey. He stepped back, looked his work and said: "yes it is done, and it is just as i originally envisioned." The painter was proud and he told several friends and family about his masterpiece and his vision. Yet before anyone could see the painting, he hid it away and then disappeared. All that remained was the story about how an infallible paint created the greatest picture ever.

Now I'm sure that anyone could look at the text from this story and say: "This painter was certainly not infallible, and he couldn't have planned every stroke and color. He repainted his canvas three times before he was satisfied. Clearly a contradiction in the text. " Based on TXStorms requirements you would be right. Based on mine you are not qualified to judge, because you do not have the knowledge of a painter, and you cannot judge the work, to verify if it is as beautiful as the story claims.

What you might know IF you had the knowledge of a painter is this: The painter knew that his oil-based paints could not be entirely covered when painted over, it would create the appearance of depth with shading. Every layer added depth, every mountain range on top of every layer further added to this effect. It was intentional, every layer, yet because we did not have his knowledge we misjudged.

I say this is true for all types of knowledge, you must have equivalent knowledge to judge ones action in regard to their knowledge. OR you could judge their ability to use their knowledge, based on the observable evidence.

It is possible, and I'm not saying its true, but if there is a omnipotent creator out there, his actions will not be judged by man. For we do not know about the various factors involved in how a sin would effect a soul, or how it is cleansed. Or what order the necessary actions must occur.

So for every atheist who has used similar rhetoric to beat down the text of the Holy Bible, I say "By stating that you know what is irrational behavior for an omnipotent entity, you have seriously overestimated your own knowledge." I will suggest that if you wish to continue to disprove Christianity, looking for contradictions in text may not be of any use to you. Perhaps try to prove that the source of the text is not credible. Otherwise your only option is to prove that the existence of an omnipotent being is impossible. Which would be quite an argument to undertake, one that I would love to read if possible.