Post Re: Post Re: Post Re: Post Re: Post

This post contains my volley back at Alex's post found here


I think you must be reading my posts all wrong. They were never meant to be read literally, they are only meant to be read metaphorically. Sorry -had to throw that in there I couldn't resist.

Well, I'll see if I can clear some of this up. In my haste to come up with a post AND try to keep it less than seventeen pages long, you and I had a discussion in my head where I made a point and you followed with a counter-point along the lines of where I thought you would take the discussion. Perhaps a bit unfair to you, but a necessary evil when we try to have discussions like this in cyberspace rather than face-to-face. The Coles' notes of the ingainary conversation are as follows:

Alex: How do you reconcile your belief in God with your non-belief in UFO's?
Me: That's easy, based on the evidence.
Alex: And what evidence would that be?
Me: All UFO's have going for them are grainy pictures, stories from less than credible witnesses, or conspiracy theories supported by only a handful of people. God on the other hand has plenty of evidence going for it (insert the evidence I offered in my previous post).
Alex: What makes that evidence any more credible than the evidence for UFO's?
Me: How do you define credible?
Alex: it must be quantifiable, observable, undoubtable.
Me: I'd suggest that there is no such thing as credible if we use that standard.
Alex: Then what standard would you suggest we use?
Me: Mine
Alex: That is a fantastic idea! Please proceed.

In any case, that's pretty much how it went. So I may have taken some liberties with what I am anticipating your position to be, but I get that luxury when you're not there in person to back up what your virtual self says to my brain :)

So where were we?

Oh yes, I think the easiest way to settle the apparent inconsistency that you rightly pointed out with my comments is to say that I beleive there is far more credible evidence for the existence of a god than there is for the existence of UFO's. I think the discussion will eventually lead back to where I was trying to go, but maybe we'll need to let that discussion happen out in the open, rather than in the confines of my cerebral cortex and see if I was right.

So now to look at a few of your direct points:

Historical Accuracy of Many Events in the Bible
Are you talking about the Moabite Stone? The Jehu Obelisk? The Babylonian Chronicle?I think a well researched discussion on what exactly the accuracies are purported to be might be a good one indeed. It will also give us a chance to discuss the inaccuracies.

Actually, I wasn't talking about any of those. Where I was going with that was that I am pretty comfortable with the evidence out there that there is a significant amount of content in the Bible that is historically accurate with respect to people, places and events. While I do not think the Bible is meant to be a history textbook, to ignore that many of the people and events written in it are verified to have existed and happened would be an error in my opinion. I also acknowledge that saying a guy like Jesus was a real person and claiming that he was the son of God are two very different positions. I think the discussion will get there eventually. I also acknowledge that there are many apparent innaccuracies in the Bible as well. I don't claim to know the answers either, but I will say that I have a hard time throwing the whole Bible out based on these innaccuracies. I'll also save for a later discussion how much weight I put in the Bible when it comes to forming the basis of why I beleive - which for teaser of what's to come, is not much weight at all.

Sheer Numbers of Believers
Believing anything based on a “sheer number” is known as the “Ad Populum” fallacy. A belief in a claim should never be based on the number of people that approve of the claim.

I think we would agree here if this was the only piece of evidence I was offering. But it's not. Just as I would expect that in a court of law that if 10 witnesses said they saw one guy pull the trigger and only one person said they saw another guy pull the trigger, a jury or judge would probably give more consideration to the side with 10 witnesses than to the side with one witness. Maybe our lawyer friend here could shed some light, but I think that passes the sniff test.

Physical Evidence All Around Us [Pointing to Intelligent Design]

This would be another great discussion to have, showcasing the physical evidence of intelligent design! Of course, physical evidence would imply just that.. which should be in abundance as it is “all around us” I mean the smoking gun, right here.. all around us. Let’s discuss. It should be assumed though, although apparently unnecessarily, that the lack of science able to prove something does not and should not point to physical evidence of “intelligent design”. But I’m sure you already know that.Also, an Atheist would never believe in what they believe if they agreed to what you are talking of here, or they can’t call themselves “Atheists”.

This is the area where the rubber really meets the road for me. And the reason really boils down the opposite way to what many expect. The more science uncovers about the universe and the created order, DNA and evolution, particle science (I could go on), the more I am conviced that this did not all happen randomly. Even such a thing as String Theory theory does not one bit pose a threat to my faith. I'd offer that if such a thing could ever be proven that it would be even more evidence that there is one origin for everything in the universe. I'm not trying to suggest that the holes in scientific discovery point to a "designer" is my evidence, I'm trying to suggest that the scientific discovery itself is my evidence. The more they prove, the easier my job gets. As far as the athiest comment goes, it was merely to observe that many athiests are abandoning their athiest positions in light of the complexity and improbability that the light of science has shed on the universe and it's origins. You are right that this does mean they are no longer athiests.

A Cohesive Force Holding Everything Together
See above reference to String Theory. I hope they prove it. It sure beats the hell out of trying to reconcile Chaos Theory with my faith.

Hope that helps re-align the discussion a bit.

Fire away :)