Mistakes God made: Where is the Mongoose of Truth?

Believe, or do not believe. That is for each of us to decide. However calling Christianity Absurd is insulting to the millions of believers in any God, no matter what we call God. I will agree that there are incongruities in the belief.   Is it possible that the incongruities are caused by human interpretation of divine messages.  In the end, salvation will be determined by God, and by the believer. IF when time ends, and we face our God, we actually believe that we have lived a life of Faith and Service he will tell us whether we are wrong or not. The absurdity is that anyone can evaluate what God wants.

I think this is an interesting look at some common stories that are part of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim stories about God (as the three religious all take into account the same foundational stories).
Jim- I don’t see any statement here that religion is ‘absurd’, but its taking a look at some of the stories that were passed down among ages and generations and multiple languages just by word of mouth- way before they were even written down.  Believing that those stories after generations of the game “telephone” were actually word for word translations of the original happenings– that is something to wonder about. 
Plus, I didn’t even know all the stories discussed here- particularly Lilith. I want to hear more about her! 

I got here from a site that sited Christianity as Absurd. I was referencing that article, but also this one.
No one can evaluate what God wants, but we can evaluate what we believe.  If you believe in nothing then murder, stealing, debaucheries of any kind are just fine. However if you want a life that is more than the best evil you can come up with, you have to believe in “SOMETHING”. I choose to believe in God.  Belief in SOMETHING is better than a belief in nothing.
It is a rather sad human being who can not find in his heart something better than himself and humanity in the Universe. If there is nothing after death then why live?

Jim,

If you believe in nothing then murder, stealing, debaucheries of any kind are just fine.

I think you’re confusing religious belief with morals. You can have one without the other. If your religious belief is really all that’s keeping you from murdering others, then you’ve got problems.

It is a rather sad human being who can not find in his heart something better than himself and humanity in the Universe.

To me, this isn’t “sad”. Sure, I can see it’s a disappointing attitude if you’re religious. But this perspective actually makes me feel better about the world. So much more is explainable, and makes more sense.

I also have an optimistic attitude that the human race will continue to improve itself over time. This is also a great cause for hope: let’s explore and really know this world we live in, and use that knowledge to improve ourselves!

If there is nothing after death then why live?

For some people in horrible situations, this is a good point, because living may really not be worth the pain. It’s terrible, but true. But for the vast majority, my answer is this: We choose to live because it’s all we’ve got, and while we live we can make life better for ourselves and others. Death is a sad ending. But until then, you’ve got the biggest opportunity any person ever gets – and the one opportunity we all get - the chance to change the world for the better.

Andy

nbjayme,

He is God — or are we to consider God is a slave of wants from Creation?

I don’t know what you mean by this. Can you please restate it?

Moreover, God in century have proven His existence:
The Eucharistic Miracles, The Fatima Miracle, and Miracles in the Life of St. Padre Pio.

I think you’re going to have to find less controversial (and, frankly, more) examples before the word “proven” will make sense.

Therefore, what scientific inference you have that life can only start on earth?

I never claimed that.

Evolution only understands the process chosen by the Designer.

I’ve heard this statement before, and I don’t agree: Taking it to it’s logical conclusion, it states that, “The world today is the way it is because God designed it that way.” However, the big flaw in this idea is that, whether or not your god exists, the world would still be exactly the same either way.

Another way to understand the above is from a quote by Philip K. Dick:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

The data does not disprove a Designer that made things work  as described by science.

I think you misunderstand the burden of proof: If you state a claim, it’s up to you to provide sufficient evidence for that claim. And if your claim is “the world with a god is exactly the way science predicts, because the god designed science that way”, then your assertion can’t be proved or disproved – there’s nothing at all to test.

Moreover, men of science proved Eucharistic Miracles and that of the Fatima Miracle.

Who were these men of science?

So the idea of an atheist is:
“I know how the chicken-ala-pasta was made, therefore I don’t think the Cook exists.”

No. Your statement is incorrect. Instead of saying what you think an atheist thinks, please let me know why you think the atheist is wrong. You’ve given reasons why you think the way you do. What about the atheist viewpoint? Does it have any validity to you at all?

Oh, you dodged this simple scientific probability question:
All that makes up life are floating substance before Earth.  Therefore, what scientific inference you have that life can only start on earth?
—
“I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,” he wrote. “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.” Pekka Eric Auvinen – Finnish killer of seven students and Atheist.

For atheists, man exists for no “Purpose and Reason”. Man is equated to no different than bacteria and animal. Morality is but man-made rules; it can change to suit their ends.

Eucharistic and Fatima Miracles prove otherwise.

BTW, one of my upcoming articles will address the Fatima “miracle”.

Also, I don’t understand what “Eucharistic miracles” you are referring to. Could you tell us what that is?

Also, I don’t understand what “Eucharistic miracles” you are referring to. Could you tell us what that is?
“…in 1973, the Superior Council of the World Health Organization appropriately appointed a commission of scientists who carried out more than 500 examinations on the Relics from the Miracle.  The commission confirmed the results of the analyses carried out by Professor Linoli.”
Miracles are also demonstrated to occur in humans — the Life of St. Padre Pio
 

It does not get stronger through repetition. It is very true that Science does not know everything (and never will),

Science simply describes the process. It does not come in to terms yet on scientific fact and data disproving the existence of God.  Even if we put it in a scientific observation — The properties that make up concious life are floating around the Universe.  The same substance identified and described by Abiogenesis Theory.  Therefore, the dismissal of God is not only scientifically illogical but unreasonable.  And, that fallacy does not get stronger through repetition. ;-)
Saying that God must be the beginning of all things is proof God exists is simply circular reasoning.
The statement simply explains that there is a “Creator” of all things observed by science.  It does not deny the process how things work.  Therefore, there is no circular reasoning into this.  It simply affirms there is a concious act done in the  Creation of things. ;-)
We do not create any part of our own body and we are concious and able to think.  This same matter and substance that make up this human is also available in space.   Therefore, scientific logic can infer to the existence of a Creator — the Uncaused cause.  The reason but all things science observe and will observe in the future.  ;-)
Do you have scientific fact to infer that there is a limit on how large a living being can be?
Do you have scientific fact to infer that a living being must only possess specific material properties and no other?
Which is older the Universe or Earth?  And from abiogenesis, what scientific fact do you have to infer that those substances floating around hasn’t form to produce a concious being?
(i.e. Fish are created in a bit different set of law of material properties to allow it to live in water, other animals have fur, etc. etc.)
Let see then…..
Atheists does not believe in God even no scientific data nor fact disproving the existence of God.  Hence, Atheist is also into fairy tale talk.
 

nbjayme –
First, please let me object to your characterization of Science — “Science simply describes the process”.  Allowing your verbiage somewhat, it is important to recognize that science, when “describing a process”  does so through the use of objective evidence.  Objective evidence is evidence that is the same to all observers, using the same protocol, within a given statistical variation defined by the limits of the protocol.  The observations remain constant regardless of the “beliefs” of the observers.
Can you say the same about your conclusions?  I think not.  Your conclusions seem to merely reflect a wish-fulfillment fantasy on your part.  They lack any known protocol others can use to replicate them.  They depend upon a jargon and logic that is available only to yourself.  This makes them highly subjective, and therefore not generalizable into any sort of “truth”.
Your opinions are one set of many that exist in complete conflict with other subjective opinions that all claim to be based upon the same source of information.  Your set of opinions in fact conflicts with themselves, violating the principle that any truth must be consistent with itself.
As an example, your statement: “The statement simply explains that there is a “Creator” of all things observed by science.  It does not deny the process how things work.  Therefore, there is no circular reasoning into this.  It simply affirms there is a concious act done in the  Creation of things”
If Creation is always conscious act, then what conscious act created your Creator?  You attempt to circumvent this error with jargon — the “Uncaused Cause” — but merely abusing language does not result in a new form of logic.   We can also ask “What is South of the South Pole?” just for fun, but it does not reveal any great truth, it merely reveals the limitations of language.
Second, there is no “Law of Cause and Effect”.  There is entropy, and a time arrow evidently, but my physics education contained no concept of Universal Cause and Effect.   I know you desperately need it to exist to give your fantasies substance, but alas, we must all give up Father Christmas sometimes.
And third, your statement: “Atheists does not believe in God even no scientific data nor fact disproving the existence of God.  Hence, Atheist is also into fairy tale talk.”
An atheist (or any person, including yourself)  lives there life without any requirement to prove the existence of any number of things — unicorns, dragons, Zeus, Wotan, etc.  Your insistence others meet your burden of proof in regards to your God is a form of special pleading which only highlights the desperation of your position.
If you were right, then your life would be distinguishable in some objective way from the lives of billions of others humans on this planet, especially from the lives of non-believers.  Can you identify one single thing that is objectively different about you as a result of your belief that separates you from the rest of mankind?
I think not.
 

DBSupporter:
If Creation is always conscious act, then what conscious act created your Creator?
Creator of the Universe, in itself, does not require any Creator.  This Creator we mean is the Uncaused cause. The beginning of everything that is.  Your question simply denies that there is a beginning in the Universe — which is illogical and unreasonable.  That there is conciousness in the Universe is another scientific theory or logic that can be inferred because the same Universe created concious beings.  Nothing was absent in the floating space of the Universe before Earth came to exists. ;-)
Physics does believe in Law of Motion — from point A to point B — an origin. ;-) The Evolution Tree as well as, the Abiogenesis, to Planetary formation — science does agree to this fact.  The Law of Cause and Effect exists.  Abiogenesis is a theory that tries to explain how life can be formed in an inanimate matter / object — but it only focuses on Earth.  Therefore, the substance I am speaking is not an imaginary logic but a scientific logic — which you just ignore. ;-)
Evolution and Abiogenesis only explains how it percieves life on earth, also BigBang theory only tells us how the Universe may have been formed but it does not provide any data to disprove that there was an Author of these * process  described * by science.  That is not imaginary and it’s not as absurd as an atheist acting like a bacteria.
“I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.” – Auvine, an atheist
In the case of the Fatima Miracle, if the Church will do fraud they need not do that at Fatima.  At the time, anti-Catholic communist is strong and the children are just risking their lives.  But Truth prevailed and God cannot be mocked.
 

DBSupporter:
From science it says that DNA stores information on how a specie grow.
If that is so, who came first the DNA or was the DNA a result from the first specie?
If a DNA combination can come out of the blue for a specie to form — what then is your scientific inference that no other DNA can combine to form another specie without the need for evolution?
;-)
 

“Sorry, world, you’re just not working out. I’m going to destroy you and try again. Hey, Noah, ‘Humankind 1.0′ is acting a little buggy. I’m going to reboot the computer in a little bit. Trust me on this – Get in a boat.”
Those that drowned were people who neglect God.  They were the first to go away from God with their various immoral acts – fornication, rape, murder, drunkeness – etc.  It’s a society that has collapsed.
God saved the other members of Noah on account of Noahs righteousness and humility.
You surely have your own house and you don’t want to keep guests that will not follow house rules.
;-)
God is Love but we forget one thing … God is also Justice.  God is slow to anger … and patience have it’s brim.
 

Hello Andy,
From the viewpoint of Burden-of-Proof does it amount to showing proof as proselytizing?  But isn’t this also what your website is devoted to.  Proselytizing atheistic belief?  So we are on the same boat.
In my knowledge, i have great of reason, to believe that the Church won’t fraud the Fatima miracle and the Eucharistic Miracles.
1) Fatima was a home of anti-Catholic Communist at that time.  This would mean risking the lives of the children, but the children moved on with conviction even without full support from the Church and their families.
2) There have been reported miracles, purportedly of the same kind, even Eucharistic, and the Church is less interested and apply cold shoulder, sometimes pending Church rigorous investigations that take years.
Again, it is the discretion of the reader to weight the issues.
I want to address Babel in a short note. God changed the language of the people in order to stop their illusion of grandeur.  They want to stay at one location by having a landmark.  God commanded to “fill the earth” — by changing the language it served God’s purpose and wisdom.
So you’re saying that intelligent life could have evolved outside of Earth, and created humankind, and these aliens are what people worship as God? I suppose so. I don’t think it’s the most likely situation, but if that’s your belief, I think that makes more sense than the traditional religious creation stories.
Science don’t have enough proof of *alien* life.  But in the absence of proof you are inclined to open your view.  This is nothing different if we Treat God as an embedded concious being in the Universe — larger than the alien you want to believe. The fact that you are even willing to concede even if it lacks scientific data means the logical acceptance of God is no difference.
;-)

So if I believe in aliens, then I believe in the Christian God? That doesn’t make sense to me. I just said that your alien theory is more logical – and more probable – than the traditional religious creation stories.

Actually you are willing to concede of an alien god whether that be Christianity’s God or not makes no difference.  Therefore the acceptance of having  God is logical and reasonable.  Both don’t have scientific data and you were willing to concede the idea of god.

;-)
“God is great!” is not proselytizing … it’s my belief and I am free to express just as you express your hate or ridicule against God.
;-)

nbjayme said:
“God is great!” is not proselytizing … it’s my belief and I am free to express just as you express your hate or ridicule against God.
From wikipedia, the definition of proselytizing:
“Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. …”
nbjayme’s attempts at conversion here are an obvious fail.  Perhaps St. Augustine’s warning about foolish Christians is appropriate here:
 
“…if they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion…”

rc_moore,
From wikipedia, the definition of proselytizing:
“Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. …”
Conversion is a personal action and will.  Mine is only to present Why I believe what I believe.  There’s no proseletyzing to that.  ;-)

“Yes.  you learn it in beginning Biology classes.”
In case it does not sink in to you.  Biology class is focusing on Earth not the Univese.  Moreover, what is the maximum measurement of a living being.  Remember, andy comprehend aliens to be a possibility.
 
“No. I do not have “scientific facts” for this, as the question is either incomprehensible,”
Meaning science does not know all — yet you use science (even without data and fact) — to prove you know it all.  Science simply does not have the answer yet regarding God. ;-)  If you cannot even comprehend that question meaning there are questions you haven’t explored yet to fully realize and reassess your position.  ;-)
 
The Universe, of course.
Therefore to predict the entire facet and properties of the Universe is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.  Science even does not comprehend the entire of Universe. ;-)
 
Which came first DNA or a specie?
 
 

“Rejecting my answers because you know little of science is not much of a response.”
Rejecting?  Where? It’s your answers and I am presenting my proposition base on the logic and response you presented.  Beside, what’s with the “I-am-more-intelligent” attitude you’re having?


“As to science proving God – again, another straw man you use to avoid having to admit you have no evidence of a God either.  As has been noted many times in this thread, the burden of proof is on you — and you have not supplied any.”


The Eucharistic miracles and the Fatima Miracle is the reason for my belief.
If the Church would do fraud its messing with anti-Catholic communists at the time.  They are only endangering a lot of people.  But the children persisted even with discouragement from Church officials.  ;-)
 
“DNA came first.  It’s precursors were most likely strands of RNA.  The beauty of the complementary nucleic acid pairs is that their very molecular geometry leads to self-replicating molecular chains.”
 
Therefore, the theory that we came from only one ancestral specie is a big question.  The myriads of available compounds and matters can create a variety of DNA combinations — independent and precursor to the formation of a specie.  That a specie can be of an independent tree is scientifically logical and probable.  Therefore, although a specie can be of resemblance it is not proof of one evolving from the other or the other way around. ;-)
By the way, the Bible knew about evolution — the serpent loosing it’s leg  Also of “aliens” by Ryan, the Bible speak of other beings having contact with earthly females.  There’s just really some things the Bible is ahead of science. ;-)
Evolutionary process does not negate that there is an Author of the process.

nbjayme,

I sense we’re getting really off track here. I’d rather not argue for argument’s sake. Permit me to consolidate what I believe are the core aspects of the discussion between us:

It doesn’t really make a difference Mr. Andy.  you proprosed the alien god without scientific facts and you were willing to concede to that.

When I said the following:

“…given a choice between the alien/god hypothesis, no gods at all, and yes, alien life on other worlds, the ‘no gods at all’ theory has the highest probability of being right.”

Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?

So Mr. Andy Kaiser, it seems you’re willing to concede only to your own fairytale without scientific basis.  And the more it shows you are motivated by *emotion* and not by logical consistency.

What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention? Atheism? Or the idea that an alien life is comparable to god? If this is atheism, I can address that. If we’re talking about the alien idea, then please answer my probability question above, and we’ll go from there.

Andy

“Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?”
The probability of alien life forms points to the hypothesis that there are myriad life forms. ;-)  And, since we need not scientific proof to warrant the possibility of such hypothesis, the same is true to the approach of the hypothesis of the existence of God.
1) That all properties of known life are processed and coming from a source called Universe.  Conciousness  is a property beyond material realm.  Hence, Conciousness comes from Conciousness and material state comes from material state.  Conciousness is one that makes the Universe say, “I’m alive.”  Life as we know on earth take only what have been made available. ;-)
2) As one suggested the Universe to be older than Earth and with the hypothesis of myriad lifeforms there is then that logical hypothesis that life can come in different packages (or properties of matter). 

Am I supposed to pretend you have produced one credible fact?
“No God exists” is already a belief to start with.  Thus, one can be bias even any amount of credible facts are presented. ;-)   There is no credible fact in science disproving God and the  “No-God-exists” idea requires burden of proof.
In my case, I accepted the idea of God because of manifestation in historical event (i.e. the Fatima Miracle). 

“Show me one example of consciousness without a living organism.”
The question begs that non-living has conciousness.  Therefore wrong assertion on your part. ;-)  Moreover, what hypothetical organism are you looking into?  If you are to limit this on earth then you miss the entire point of the hypothetical logic as it presents myriad lifeforms from  possibility of extraterrestrial down to the Universe.   Thought in itself is a concept with no material properties. ;-)
 
“This is not a “belief”, per your definition of the term. “
“No God exists” is a belief.  A belief not within the bounds of religion.  Moreover, Santa has nothing to do with it.  Anyone knows the background facts on Santa.  But the belief of “No-God-exists” requires scientific proof and presumption that science learned the entirety of the Universe.  Science is just beginning to learn and learn to begin each day. ;-)
 
“No because you choose to, as it reinforces what you want to believe.  You discard a multitude of “historical events” that do not match your beliefs.”
The logic begs that one event did not happen because all others happened.  The Fatima Miracle happened in history.  Others of the same purported event have known to be a manipulation of man or have no credible background to speak with.  The Fatima event is different, with the children having their own conviction amidst discouragement from family, media, Church officials, and the anti-Catholic communist State.  ;-)
“There are lots of “miracles” attesting to the presence of completely contradictory Gods.”
Thus, science will be there to attest and confirm, as well as, investigations from Church officials to determine it’s authenticity.  Was there background authenticity and scientific study on those purported miracles you want to lump all-together?  I believe none, unlike that of Fatima Miracle.


“All possible life forms proposed are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.”
Your conciousness is not governed by laws of physics and chemistry.  No one can predict what you are to do or think next, we can only imply.  Does that mean you don’t exists?
:D
I think you need a serious look into your *version* of science, and reasses from where you come from.   A basic logic tutorial will help you focus on logic and stop using *emotions* and *nonsense* to this issue.
 

nbjayme,

You didn’t really answer either of my questions:

1) Do you understand how different hypotheses could have different probabilities of being true?

What is your basis for probabilities to be true?  Aliens have no solid scientific proof to speak of, yet you were willing to concede the idea of existence in the absence of scientific proof.  Have you ever seen all possible alien life forms in the Universe to judge that they breath the same air we do, talk  like we do, or communicate the way we do?  ;-)  Even in the absence of proof it’s not unreasonable nor illogical for one to be open to the idea.  Same also with the belief of God’s existence. (Which God is it or religion is another subject to explore).

No human structure exists without someone building it.  That the galaxy as a material structure points to a highly logical conclusion that there is a Builder.  That the planetary motions and environment follow not an “abstract” law but a “concrete” law expressed in scientific fields of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. — points to a highly logical conclusion that the Builder has Intelligence.
This reminds me of:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/el-dorado-legendary-lost-city-gold-amazon/
 
The perception of science is still dependent on the observer (scientist).  We build scientific machines to amplify our perception, yet we have to put in mind that our perception is dependent on our 5 senses – See, Hear, Taste, Feel, Smell.  We are machines built with those senses — could there be more that we are not aware of?  Science need to explore all the forest where God might be hiding.

2) What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention?

Read #1. ;-)

Andy