Dear Sir,

Just out of curiosity, if God did create all that the Bible says He did, wouldn't a God with that much power be able to do all the things that you doubt (light before sun, plants before light, etc.)? At the same time, if God is, who are we to question His will or actions? Would it not be possible? Our minds are so feeble and inadequate that we don't even use 20% of our brain's power. How do you think our spiritual belief would expand if we could tap into the other 80%? You're taking a lot of time and energy disputing something that no one living even has the mental capacity to fully understand.
I believe in Jesus Christ for a number of reasons, the largest one being pure faith. Faith, in laymen's terms, is believing in something when commen sense tells you not to. I know you could make a pretty good joke about my commen sense, but everybody believes in either an eternal being or eternal matter. Neither of those two options makes much sense, do they?
Anyway, thank you for strengthening my faith in the Lord. I will pray for you.

Boone K. Lowe

-DM-

Dear Boone:

It would be nice to know who the "Dear Sir" is that you have in mind. Without the information requested in the large "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE READ!" message at the top of the feedback page, unless we can accurately guess which author and which article it is that you have in mind, we can't contact the author so as to provide the most meaningful response. I'm guessing in this case, however, that you are referring to the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html" target="_blank">BIBLE ABSURDITIES</a> section of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html" target="_blank">my articles on biblical problems</a>.

--

To answer your questions:

Any omnipotent "God" should be able to do the specific things that you mention. That would go for any of the other omnipotent creator-gods that men have themselves created as well as for the "God" of the Bible. However, I suspect that you disbelieve that any of these other gods had anything to do with creation. If so, then you and I are not that much different; I simply add one more "God" to the "don't believe" list than you do. One thing that I feel is certain: the biblical creation story, as well as many other biblical stories, is hogwash; there is too much about it that simply does not jibe with what we know about the physical universe, archaeology, history, and so on.

The question, "If God is, who are we to question his will or actions?" assumes that if "God is" that we would therefore know His will and/or actions. I say that if "God is," we do not and cannot know His will and/or actions based on anything that we have before us at this time. It is perfectly legitimate, in any case, to question the will and/or actions either of a make-believe "God" or an allegedly real "God" whose alleged "will" devout believers would make us all bend to if they could. I'm quite sure, for example, that you yourself would question the alleged will and actions of the "God" put forth by a Muslim who was out to convince you that you should become involved in Islamic Jihad based on "God's will." Correct me if I'm mistaken.

The statement, "Our minds are so feeble and inadequate that we don't even use 20% of our brain's power," is, so far as I am concerned, oxymoronic, self-contradictory. Why? Because if our brains were truly feeble and we only used 20% of a feeble brain, then we wouldn't likely be involved in a discussion such as this. On the contrary, I think our brains are quite powerful; the fact that we use only a small portion of our total brain power and nevertheless are able to achieve as much as we do is evidence to me that our brains are awesome in terms of their capabilities.

How do I think our spiritual belief would expand if we could tap into the other 80%? I think that "expansion" would be negative expansion. I think that if we fully utilized our brains, there would be much less "spiritual belief" to contend with, that only those who were intellectually subnormal would still believe in such absurd gods as the "God" of the Bible.

That we (or I) take a lot of time and energy disputing something that no one living even has the mental capacity to fully understand is an assumption, a belief, if by "something" you mean "God" or "spiritual belief." Frankly, I don't believe it. Having been a devout Christian myself, having come to the conclusion that the Bible is so full of problems that it could not possibly be the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God", having come to the conclusion that Christian theology is as full of holes as swiss cheese--I have learned to trust science and my own reason and I have found them much more reliable and trustworthy than the precepts from the Bible, a book written by relatively ignorant people who filled the gaps in their knowledge with the "God" explanation. I tend to go along with Tom Flynn, author of "The Trouble with Christmas," when he says: "Spirituality: Transcendent double-talk signifying nothing."

It always amuses me when a person attempts to support his/her religious belief on the basis of faulty logic and then ends up saying, as you do, that they believe largely on the basis of pure faith. In the first place, your faith is probably not really "pure"; by that I mean that you likely believe in Jesus on the basis of faith because that is what you were taught to believe; it is not likely that you arrived at your faith on your own simply as a result of "God's" alleged inspiration, for example. Secondly, faith is not a reliable path to truth; there are no bounds to what can be believed on the basis of faith. The fact that we have 20,000+ Christian denominations, as well as many Christian cults, as well as many other major religious belief systems proves the point that faith is no basis for believing anything--unless one doesn't care much about reality.

To say that everyone believes either in an eternal being or eternal matter is incorrect. Your statement would be more nearly correct had you said that everyone believes in either an eternal being or in eternal matter/energy, but even then you would not be entirely correct. One person who "believes in" neither is me; I am agnostic about such things.

Does either of the two options that you put forth make sense? My opinion: I don't know and neither do you. If I had to choose, I would go with eternal matter/energy inasmuch as I have learned over the years to trust science to a much greater extent than religious belief systems. Religious belief systems tend to perpetrate and perpetuate the same old errors until absolutely forced to change--often as a result of the findings of science. Science, on the other hand, tends to be self-correcting. I like that.

If we have somehow served to strengthen your faith in the Lord, and if that makes you happy, then I'm happy for you.

--Don--

P.S. Nothing fails like prayer.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

Indifference

if you call an implosion an expansion...

Speak for yourself. Most of us here have the mental capicity to at least see the blatant contradictions.

So in laymans terms, you're irrational.

whatever floats your boat.

Eudaimonist

We are rational and moral agents. What sort of wallflowers would we be if we didn't question and seek to understand? If anything, we are morally obligated to do so.

This doesn't follow. What does it matter how much of the brain we use? What matters is the power of the faculty of reason, regardless of the number of neurons that take part in it.

Are you saying that if we used 100% of our brains, we would be entitled to question God? If not, then why say this at all?

Reason is very powerful when people choose to use this noble faculty to its utmost. Through science and technology, we've sent men to the Moon. No small feat.

I get irritated by the Christian tactic to devalue reason in order to "boost" Christianity -- I suppose Christians think that lowering the tide makes all ships level with each other... on the ocean floor... and then Christians toss out a lifejacket (of faith) now that you've been rendered helpless and scared (that is, if you've fallen for this technique). This tactic is so transparent. I'm not falling for it. My ship rides high on the ocean of reason. I don't want any leaky ship of faith.

I'd think we'd be more rational and dispense altogether with belief in god and the supernatural. Any "spiritual beliefs" we would have would be about learning how to live well, enjoy life, and find happiness.

In which case those ideas should be discarded, because they are likely irrational. Why would you live by what you admit you don't understand? That's like trying to live by a square-circle... or by a flarg, and no one knows quite what a flarg is.

I don't believe in Jesus Christ for a number of reasons, the largest one being a lack of evidence.

Okay, so you willfully lack common sense. This doesn't sound admirable.

Eternal matter (more aptly: uncreated natural existence) makes good enough sense to me.

I don't know if this will help you understand the concept better, but I recommend you read the following short essay:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/rrbama66/SFNA5" target="_blank">Is there any need for a first cause?</a>

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

emotional

All this vast Universe,
The stars,
The galaxies,
The planets spinning by,
This planet Earth,
The chemicals,
The stones,
The plants,
The living organisms,
And all that is fascinating,

- All that, FOR WHAT?! Just a show of pomp and glory of an invisible creator?! Just a mere setting for humans to kiss the arse of an invisible creator?! This is BLASPHEMY!

Thou shalt not worship hidden gods; worship thou the sensed natural Universe alone, for all else is vanity.

Thor Q. Mada

Well-said devnet, and what a kind of a god would it be that wants to keep us all after our deaths as a kind of eternal pet???
And by the way, I don't solicit prayer, and I don't want anybody to pray for me.

Daggah

This is a myth, actually. Scientists have observed brain activity in all areas of the brain. I'm not sure where the "we only use 10% (or 20%) of our brains" myth came from, but it's very prevalent, and it's also utterly wrong.

FreeToThink

Snopes to the rescue again.

<a href="http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm" target="_blank">The alleged 10 percent myth</a>

sighhswolf

[QUOTE]Originally posted by &lt;Boone K. Lowe&gt;:
[QB]Dear Sir,

Just out of curiosity, if God did create all that the Bible says He did, wouldn't a God with that much power be able to do all the things that you doubt (light before sun, plants before light, etc.)? At the same time, if God is, who are we to question His will or actions? Would it not be possible? Our minds are so feeble and inadequate that we don't even use 20% of our brain's power. How do you think our spiritual belief would expand if we could tap into the other 80%? You're taking a lot of time and energy disputing something that no one living even has the mental capacity to fully understand.
I believe in Jesus Christ for a number of reasons, the largest one being pure faith. Faith, in laymen's terms, is believing in something when commen sense tells you not to. I know you could make a pretty good joke about my commen sense, but everybody believes in either an eternal being or eternal matter. Neither of those two options makes much sense, do they?
Anyway, thank you for strengthening my faith in the Lord. I will pray for you.


Dear Mr. Lowe,

I constantly hear from christians the testimony
of "faith", yet I am reminded also that many who preach of the bounty of "faith" and it's rewards
will argue among themselves as to the use of such faith whether faith without works is alive or dead.
Faith it would seem is the vehicle to reward, the cornerstone if you will in the personal house of god that is built within you.
Yet many of those who claim to be strong in "faith" have no tolerance for those who have no faith.
And many times those who preach the gospel of faith, hate and despise those who worship differently and do not recognize Jesus as the savior of mankind.
For everyone who says their faith is strong and then chastizes others for their lack of faith, or speaks badly of those who do not share the same religious affiliation, or those who would preach hell fire and damnation for the unbelievers I offer the following verses:

1Cr 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Cr 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.
In many instances the word "love" is used interchangably with the word "Charity".
So if I hold my fellow man in great esteem, and I am tolerant of others and their beliefs, and I try to share my fortune such as it is to help those who are suffering, I am following the path of the greatest attributes named by Jesus.
And everytime one of your christian brothers who claims to have boundless faith slanders their fellow humans for the lack of faith, they are not following those principles taught by Jesus.
Who is the better, a faithless humanist who seeks to make the world a better place for all of us and shows tolerance and concern for all people regardless of what they believe?
Or the faithful that damns everyone who doesnot share their ideals?
Wolf

IvanK

Well stated. If you choose to believe because of your faith, that's fine by me. Many of us choose not to believe in things that can't be demonstrated, and that really ought to be fine by you.

I'd like to know what the extent of your faith is and what criteria you use when deciding whether to believe something based on it or not. For instance, a man comes up to you in the street and offers to sell you the Nile River. He has a deed that appears to be authentic and the price, considering the amount of real estate involved, is a real bargain. Do you accept on faith that he owns the Nile River and can sell it to you legally? Why or why not?

Not exactly. I think you'll find (assuming you ever come back here) that many here do not trouble themselves with questions of where the universe came from or where it is going. Therefore, it's not necessary for us to believe in anything "eternal;" merely that what we can perceive with our human senses and reason is all that we need to consider as real.

And thank you for strengthening my convictions about the material nature of the universe. I will think for you.