It's All Ball Bearings These Days

Now hold still while I explain god to you . . .

pic link

I Can Has Hypothesis?

If you google image "evidence of god", this picture comes up on the first page. I have no explanation for this.

Somebody at the Huffington Post doesn't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. At all.

A complaint often voiced by scientific atheists is that there is simply no evidence for God and therefore belief in the old codger is thoroughly unjustified. Frightened witless by this snort, creationists (and I include intelligent design advocates here) scurry about frantically trying to provide just such evidence. But what would scientific evidence for God look like, and what implications would it hold?

"Scientific atheists"? What does that even mean? Given that every atheist is an atheist because they find there to be no proof for any gods, we're all scientific atheists, or simply atheists. I can answer the question of what implications scientific evidence for god would hold: there is a god. The end. That wouldn't prove any particular religion correct necessarily, but it would end atheism, scientific or whatever.

This little episode highlights the absurdity of treating God as a hypothesis. He's impossible to pin down -- as might be expected from someone whose job description includes being infinite and everywhere. But as a thought experiment, let's set aside this little problem and assume that the scientific atheists and creationists are right and God can be treated as a hypothesis. If so, there ought to be conditions under which the hypothesis receives support, possibly even strong support. The ramifications of this are just too intriguing not to consider.

Haha! Not being able to prove the existence of god(s) is a feature, not a bug, foolish atheist! I win! I'd be annoyed by this, but hey, I can play that game, too! It's absurd to treat the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a hypothesis, because he's impossible to pin down, just as (s)he* should be, which proves that the FSM exists! Red sauce and parmesan for everyone!

If the physical constants fail as convincing evidence of God, then what might succeed? In his bookUniverses, philosopher John Leslie conjures up a rather fanciful scenario for potential God-evidence (I'm taking a few liberties here in order to make Leslie's example a bit more fun). Imagine obviously intentionally engineered artifacts descending harmlessly from the sky (God doesn't want to hurt anyone!) each with an engraved label saying "made by God." Scientists are able to perform definitive tests on these artifacts and conclude beyond all doubt that they have been fashioned by an omniscient, all-powerful agent.

I can't find anything on the Leslie scenario, but my guess is your "few liberties" are causing him to cough up his skull right now. But okay, yes, if the stars in the sky all line up one night to say OH HAI, YOU HAS BELIEFS IN ME, KTHNXBAI, yeah, I'll believe.

Now this may seem too whimsical to be taken seriously, but the important point is this: however one envisions convincing scientific evidence of God, let's suppose we've got it. Let's further suppose that this god is pretty much the god we all expected to find -- not Aristotle's reclusive thought-contemplating-itself god or Plato's disappointingly limited Demiurge, but the "golden rule," Ten Commandments kind of god with whom we are all pretty familiar. This God is now on the same footing as gravity, evolution, and the germ theory of disease. He is an accepted scientific fact. Now what?

The god we all expected to find? Who's "we"? The Hindus? The Muslims? The Buddhists? I could assume he's referring to the Christian god, but not even the Christians can agree on what he's like. Some think he's all about the love, some think he's chomping at the bit to smite the wicked and anything in between. So I guess by "we all" the author means to say "me."

Well nothing major -- only the end of both atheism and Christianity. If scientific atheists are true to their convictions, then it seems that they have no choice but to become theists. Their worldview is based on evidence and the evidence says there's a god.

Thank you for that, at least. I'll give the author props that he doesn't fall into the trap of painting atheists as nonbelievers so determined to nonbelieve that we'd ignore actual evidence. The problem is that it gets really weird from here, the basic thesis being that evidence of god is bad, in that it would prove Christianity wrong. Therefore, evidence is not to be sought.

Think about that for a moment. You don't want to prove your beliefs, because proof would make you wrong, therefore . . . ineffable? That's just willful cognitive dissonance right there.

Luckily for everyone, scientific attempts to prove or disprove God are all doomed to failure. We live in exactly the world the thoughtful Christian would expect to find. For those who believe, hints of God are everywhere. But none are convincing. Faith remains a requirement and atheism remains an option. A God who values free will would set it up just that way.

So, the world conforming to ineffability is proof of god, not proof that proponents have created a nice little work around to the no proof problem. Imagine your partner said to you one day, "You're cheating on me." You're not cheating on them, and they say, "I found no proof of your cheating, therefore I know you are cheating on me." I imagine you'd be a little frustrated. Pretty much how I feel about this line of reasoning.

However, pondering the questions raised by the God hypothesis have potential value. If the scientific atheist is sincere in claiming that it is a lack of evidence that compels disbelief, then he or she ought to be able to specify the type of evidence necessary to reverse this situation.

No, actually. I don't have to tell you what evidence is necessary. You're the one asserting the claim that your particular god exists, it's up to you to provide me with evidence of your claim. That's how logic works. Ineffable is not evidence.

*Is the FSM gendered?

pic link

Why Would They Die for a Lie?

cult, christianity, death, proof, stupid, apologetics, witness, evangelism,

One of the most annoying arguments for Christianity is Why would Jesus' apostles have died for a lie? In other words, Christianity must be true because people have died for it.

First of all, I haven't seen any credible historical proof that the people named as apostles in the Bible actually existed, or wrote anything they are said to have written, when it was claimed to be written. We don't have any original writings and every bit of evidence I have seen tends to be self referential or lacking in backup documentation. For example, I can prove that George Washington existed because we have his original writings as well as the original writings of literally dozens of people who knew him. They all agree on the basic facts of George's existence. We can't say the same for Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. (Never mind why the other apostles' writings didn't make it into official canon.)

What we are left with, in this argument, is whether or not people are willing to die for lies. Yes, they are. This has been proven countless times. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, the Solar Temple are all proof of this fact. So, if you are making the argument that "People have died for it, it must be true", you need to go find yourself some cyanide Koolaid and a comet, or risk eternal suffering.

The Proof is that there is no Proof

bible, prophecy, jesus, god, proof, unfulfilled, ray, comfort,

Ray Comfort has made his silliest argument yet, and it's one many a Christian makes: all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, and the ones that haven't been fulfilled will be, and that's proof that God exists.

Wait, what?

"In Mark 14:62 in response to the chief priests and the council who have posed the question 'are you the Christ,' Jesus says: 'I am. And YOU will SEE me sitting at the right hand of power, and COMING with the clouds of heaven.' Did those men SEE him coming with the clouds or sitting in power? They almost certainly saw him die, but the Bible never confirms that this prophecy was fulfilled. In fact, when the Bible record ends, his disciples are still awaiting His coming. It never happened. It still hasn't happened 2000 years later. Why Ray? Is Jesus a False Prophet?"

You forgot that the hour is coming when all that are in their graves shall hear His voice (see John 5:28). There is going to be a resurrection of the just and the unjust (see John 5:29). Every eye will see Him. The chief priests will bow the knee before Him. So will Hitler and every murderer, rapist, thief and liar. Richard Dawkins will bow down to Jesus Christ as Lord of the Universe and Creator of all things (see Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10). By Him, everything was created (see Colossians 1:16) and every human being will see him in His glory, including you. John saw the resurrected Christ and trembled in terror. He shines with a brightness above that of the sun (see Acts 26:13).

So it would be wise to stop asking whether He was a false prophet. Instead confess and forsake your sins, and put your trust in Him while He extends His mercy to sinful men and women. He has waited for 2,000 years because He is not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance. Everything Jesus said would happen has happened throughout history (see Matthew 24 and Luke 21), and you can therefore bet your very soul that those men to whom Jesus said will see His coming, as sure as Hell will see it.

First of all, that's not an answer to the question, nor is it proof. It is a bald assertion, followed by a threat. Think about this for just a second. If someone borrowed $500 from you and promised to pay it back "soon", and then after a year, you asked them for the money and they said, "oh, yeah, soon, don't worry about it", would you accept that answer? Really?

Secondly, let's look at Matthew 24 and Luke 21. (Oddly, those were the two that Ray did not link.) In Matthew 24, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple where the Dome of the Rock - مسجد قبة الصخرة‎ - now sits. At this point, the Temple Mount had already been destroyed once, by the Babylonians almost 600 years previously. Predicting that something that happened in the past may happen again in the future isn't that much of a leap.

What follows are the conditions that will precede Jesus' return, and what a unique set of circumstances those will be! Wars, rumors of wars, wars, famine, disease, earthquakes and lawlessness. Seriously? That's a prophecy? I predict that tomorrow, somewhere on the planet, it will rain. Because that's never happened in the history of the world.

Luke 21 contains the exact same text, word for word (or very close to it) as Matthew 24.

So there we have it, folks. Jesus predicted the predictable and the commonplace. And anything he predicted that hasn't come to pass, will. You have someone's word on it.

There are, in fact, a number of unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible, starting with Adam and Eve.

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24

These verses [in Isaiah] falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20

This verse [in Isaiah] predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18

"The light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold." Well, this is one prophecy that will never come true. Since the moon has no light of its own, but only reflects that of the sun, it could never shine like the sun. And the sun will not, at least not while there are humans to see it, shine 7 times as bright as it does now. 30:26

"David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today. 33:17

"They shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them." Despite this promise, the Jews have been continually uprooted and their lives disrupted. Even today, their land ownership falls into question. 9:15

The gospel of Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi. But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. 3:1, 4:1, 5

That's just a short listing of all the unfulfilled prophecies and promises of God. Christian apologists who are Biblical literalists will tell you that some of those prophecies were fulfilled, because while the Bible says x, it really meant y. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "literal" is.

Proofs of God's Existence

god, logic, proof, atheism, atheist,
Some of you have probably seen this before, but Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence is hilariously illogical, and they should all sound familiar if you've been at this for a while. A few selected proofs:

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (the Ray Comfort argument)
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That's how God's infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

CALVIN'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

and Ray Comfort's personal favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Missing the Point

proof, ray, comfort, religion, god, jesus, atheism, atheist, christian, christianity, witness, evangelism,
It's the atheist anthem: Proof, give me proof!

The believer's response is always the same: Faith, I've got faith!

We can see this play out in Ray Comfort's latest post, wherein he responds to a request for proof with the same insult twice and a plea to faith. That is missing the point.

"God is not based upon observable, testable evidence. He is based upon faith. With God we are unable to make predictions and test them to see if they are correct." Rabbitpirate Reasonable request, Rabbitpirate. If I assert that I have a magical bowling ball that, when let go, rises up rather than falling down, (rendering it useless for bowling) everyone, including Ray, would demand proof of this. If I failed to produce this proof, everyone, including Ray, would reasonably conclude that I do not have such a bowling bowl.

So why doesn't god fall into the same category as my magical bowling ball?

That is not true. Creation is "observable" evidence of the existence of God to all but a fool (not my words--See Psalm 14:1). Oh, yes, Psalm 14:1, The fool has said in his heart there is no god. (That one I've got memorized.) I do love a good insult, Ray, but your magic book written by your invisible friend isn't proof of anything*, nor is creation proof of the creator. God is not "based upon faith." Such a thought is ridiculous. His existence or non-existence has nothing to do with whether or not I have faith. i'll grant you that. proof of god certainly does seem to be based on faith, however. As with human relationships, the means of exchange between God and Mankind is based on trust (faith). trust and faith are not the same things. also, i can prove that the humans i am involved in various relationships with are real. you can meet them, see them, hear them, smell them, etc. we cannot say the same for god.

Anyone can make the prediction that God will manifest Himself to them, and then they can test the prediction to see if it is valid. that's true. it also disproves god, because lots of people have been foretelling the second coming of jesus for quite some time, and nobody's seen him yet. (the jehovah's witnesses claim he did, but it was invisible, which doesn't really count.) There are two stipulations when coming to God. which has what to do with proof of god? First, you must believe that He exists. so, in order to get proof that god exists, i first must believe that god exists? sure, you can see the tiny pink unicorns in my basement- but only if you first stipulate that you have already seen the tiny pink unicorns in my basement. That makes sense. no, it doesn't. Why would anyone come to God if they didn't believe He existed. headdesk Again, in the light of creation, such a person would be a fool. that's probably a record for Ray, calling atheists fools twice in three paragraphs. And the second stipulation is that we have a humble heart. betcha this sets up the "atheists are too proud for god, they want to be god" line. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. blessed are the meek, Ray. If you are a proud person, you have already cut yourself off from God by your sins. score! However, all those who humble themselves, repent, and trust in Jesus Christ come to know Him who is "life eternal." It's that simple. circular reasoning is always simple, Ray, that doesn't make it logical or provide me with proof.

Proof fail.

*I love how Ray attempts to hide behind the excuse of "Well, it's not like I said it" when insulting atheists en masse. Here's a clue, Ray, if you tell your wife that other people have said she's fat and ugly, but it's not you that's saying that, it's other people, she's not going to be any less angry at you.

I'm So Glad I Had My Abortion

abortion, prolife, prochoice, proof, stupid,
No matter how you feel about abortion, this is a rather silly argument, and doesn't even approach logic:

(from Follow Up Thoughts on Jane Roe Commercial by Disciple Nations Alliance)

Something a friend of mine has told me many times now continues to resonate in my mind . . . she says, “I’ve never heard of a woman who says, ‘I’m so glad I had my abortion.’”

Can you imagine the reaction if a woman did say this? (At least in the US, I don't know how other countries are about the issue.) At the very least, she would lose friends. At least one person in her family would probably stop talking to her. She'd probably lose her job and get a few death threats. Assuming someone didn't just go ahead and kill her.

Considering how many abortions are done every year, and the fact that I am 33, and most of the women I know are in their childbearing years, I have to know someone who has had an abortion. At least one person. Yet, I've never heard anyone I've ever known admit to having an abortion*. It simply is not something that is safe to talk about in the US.

This does not mean that there isn't anyone who isn't happy, or at least relieved, to have had an abortion. It also doesn't mean that every single woman who did have one is currently consumed by grief and guilt.

Want proof?

Well, here you go:

Un-Expecting
Roe vs. Wade vs. My Boyfriend

*I have heard some suspicious miscarriage discussions, but it's entirely possible that as many women who are horrified to be pregnant miscarry as women who were trying to get pregnant.

If I Don't Believe in God, I Can't Believe in Anything At All

Ray Comfort has taken logic to a strip club, gotten it drunk, given it some ecstasy and wound up with this:

"At least there's evidence to support the existence of Charles Darwin."--Mudley

I'm a skeptic when it comes to the existence of Charles Darwin. I would be grateful if you could give me some evidence that he did exist. Thank you.

(Watch how atheists avoid answering this--there's good reason for their silence. They don't know how to intelligently respond to it, without digging themselves into a deep hole).



ummm . . . why even bother to reply to that? it's just silly. so Ray replies to himself:



(Watch how atheists avoid answering this--there's good reason for their silence. yeah, it's silly. They don't know how to intelligently respond to it, without digging themselves into a deep hole what hole? the hole of objective evidence? is ray attempting to make some sort of cogito ergo sum investigation?).



what ray is getting at here, in case you're missing it, is that not believing jesus was the son of god is like not believing any specific person every existing. well, no, actually ray seems to think that atheists don't believe jesus existed at all. not true, but nice strawman. atheists acknowledge, that given the historical evidence, a man named jesus was in judea around 2,000 years ago. we do not acknowledge that he was the son of god, that he performed miracles or that he was resurrected and ascended bodily into heaven after death. this whole argument of ray's is beside the point, but after dealing with a troll who thinks gays should be put to death, i need a breather.



Mudley replied: "How about I take you to his tomb? If you really wanted to make a stink, you could probably convince someone to open it so that you could examine the corpse."Sorry, there’s no "corpse." After around 120 years of decomposition, all you will have is skeletal remains. which is more than we have on jesus, or god, for that matter.



"You could also compare the DNA of the corpse to the DNA of his descendants, and to the DNA of the hair which was taken from his desk, which you had mentioned in a previous post." That would just prove that it’s the same man whose hair was on the desk. okay, this actually is a good point. we don't have any kind of chain of evidence on the hair, which was supposedly collected after Darwin's death, so no, we really don't know whose hair that is. However, we could compare the hair to Darwin's known descendents and work backwards. That would at least prove whether or not the person whose hair is on the desk is related to Darwin.



I want proof before I will believe as you do. Acknowledging that Darwin existed is not belief. Neither is acknowledging that my chair exists. Also, how do you know that those who claim to be his descendents are actually his offspring, without having faith in genealogical records? wait, you mean like the begats? Jesus was supposedly the last in the line of King David. The only evidence of this is a genealogical list. that's it.

"There are also photographs of him, and books and papers published in his name." We have photographs of a man who people maintain was Charles Darwin. Do you have any eye-witnesses who knew him, and can testify that those pictures are authentic? again, more than we have for Jesus or God. Ray needs to learn to be careful with logic that is pointy on both ends. How do you know who wrote the books and papers? yeah, I know, who were matthew, mark, luke and john. we have no eyewitnesses. and don't even get me started on the torah. A name on a book proves nothing. wow. did ray just prove my atheism for me?"

He is also mentioned in records such as the ship roster of the HMS Beagle."Who wrote the records? How can you have faith in a man you don’t know, who wrote records in a roster 177 years ago? wasn't the bible most recently added to about 2000 years ago? i'm confused. is information from 2000 years ago more reliable than information from 177 year ago? And how can you be sure that they haven’t been altered down through the years? yeah, exactly, ray! It’s healthy to be a skeptic who refuses to have a blind faith in the documents of men, because that’s all you have. oh, i think i know where this is going. documents of men from 177 years ago, bad. documents of god from thousands of years ago, irrefutable. that isn't logic, ray.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. yeah, he did. mary found him there. or, didn't find him there, but certainly expected to. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. no, you can't. if you could, i'd convert, but you can't. There’s my empirical proof. what an interesting use of "empirical proof". empirical proof is dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation. what you have, ray, is a complete lack of empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. and that's called faith. See John 14:21 for further details.

John 14:21- Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him

that's not empirical proof, ray. although i now have an undoubtedly blasphemous image of jesus as a flasher. thanks.