Moses & God's Ass

There’s a story in the Old Testament that many of you know involving Moses and God’s ass. It’s never quite presented like that in church, but that seems to be what it’s about.

In Exodus 33, Moses is chatting with God “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (v. 11) and he gets the great idea to ask God:

“Show me your glory, I pray.”

Kinky. But God isn’t quite into that, and says:

“You cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.”

Which wasn’t quite what Moses asked, but God wanted to make a scary point to his BFF.

A few verses before said Moses talked “face to face” with God, but now God says Moses can’t see his face. God should either make up his mind or those scribes should have reconsidered using “face to face,” because it’s a bit inconsistent.

Regardless, God continues (this time in good old KJV):

“Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by , that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by : And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”

There you have it, folks. Even if you’re God’s friend, you can’t see his face, but you can see his ass. Now if someone could just find it, we’d finally have some evidence for God’s existence.

  • yahweh

    I guess god prefers to be the catcher in the relationship. (Remember, it’s not religion, it’s a relationship)

  • http://agnosticism2010.blogspot.com/ nomad

    Wow. That’s got to be the most glaring inconsistency in the Bible. Most of the time it’s one book contradicting another. But this one happens in the same passage. “We can talk face to face but you can’t see my face.” What, was God wearing a mask?

  • Kodie

    Kissing Hank’s Ass seems that much more pertinent than it used to, even.

  • http://www.thathurtsmyears.blogspot.com/ michael

    I assume by “ass”, you are talking about god’s donkey. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass? Kinky…..really kinky. I think I’ve seen that porno film too.

  • CoffeeJedi

    Moses hated to see him go…. but loved to watch him leave.

  • http://agod-sizedpuzzle.blogspot.com/ Eruesso

    Come on guys let be a bit more respectful…nah I’m just kidding. I can imagine it now.

    God: “Okay, Moses you stand over there, and close your eyes.”
    Moses: ??
    God: “You got your eyes closed?”
    Moses: “Yeah they’re closed. What’s this all about?”
    God: “Open them up, cause there’s a full moon out tonight!”

    God’s got a better sense of humor than his believers.

  • Tabbie

    Growing up as a child of an Assembly of God minister, it was not uncommon for us to receive mail with automatically generated (?) address tags which read something like this:

    Rev (my father’s name)
    Ass of God
    Address

    Assembly was almost inevitably abbreviated to Ass. I always found it humourous. Perhaps the senders felt likewise.

  • Mike

    “..you can’t see his face, but you can see his ass. Now if someone could just find it, we’d finally have some evidence for God’s existence.”

    No chance. Most fundies can’t find their own ass with both hands and a flashlight.

  • http://justrobins.wordpress.com Justrobin

    OF course he was wearing a mask… he seems to be a little shy there our allmighty big creationist.

  • Another Ex

    It gets even funnier.

    What exactly was Moses asking to see, hmm?

    • http://www.thathurtsmyears.blogspot.com/ michael

      He wanted proof that god existed. We’re still waiting for proof. Moses claimed to have seen something but then again he was the only one to witness seeing god’s ass. It’s hard to believe that the people bought everything that moses said without question.

      • Mike

        Some people but Scientology, so I guess Moses had an easy sell.

  • http://Wwwirritant.blogspot.com Professor Chaos

    I bet God has a great ass!

  • Cliff

    could this be a metaphor for a solar eclipse?

  • Sheila Sharkey

    Dang! In that painting it looks like God has a long, ropey pink penis slung around behind him.

    Now THAT’S pareidolia!

    • nazani14

      This isn’t a rendering of god. In this section of the Sistine Chapel, “the creation of the sun and the moon,” god is just to the right of this figure. Michelangelo was very sly about pareidolia.

      • Sheila Sharkey

        I thought it was God because when God touches Adam he’s wearing a pink dress. I guess this was before God invented chaps.

  • arah

    101 Contradictions in the Bible:

    101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

    Shabir Ally

    1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

    God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
    Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
    2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

    Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
    One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
    3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

    Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
    Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
    4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

    Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
    Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
    5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

    Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
    Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
    6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

    Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
    Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
    7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

    Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
    Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
    8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

    Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
    Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
    9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

    After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
    Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
    10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

    Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
    Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
    11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

    One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
    Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)
    12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

    Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
    Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)
    13. In what year of King Asa’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

    Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 – 16:8)
    Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)
    14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

    Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
    Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)
    15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

    Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
    Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)
    16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

    Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
    Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)
    17. How many were the children of Zattu?

    Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
    Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)
    18. How many were the children of Azgad?

    One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
    Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)
    19. How many were the children of Adin?

    Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
    Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)
    20. How many were the children of Hashum?

    Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
    Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)
    21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

    Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
    One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)
    22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

    29,818 (Ezra)
    31,089 (Nehemiah)
    23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

    Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
    Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)
    24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

    Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
    Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)
    25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

    Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
    No (Joshua 15:63)
    26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

    Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
    Hell (Luke 3:23)
    27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

    Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
    Nathan(Luke3:31)
    28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

    Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
    Neri (Luke 3:27)
    29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

    Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
    Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.
    30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

    Joram (Matthew 1:8)
    Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)
    31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

    Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
    Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)
    32. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

    Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
    But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)
    33. Who was the father of Shelah?

    Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
    Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)
    34. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

    Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
    No (John 1:19-21)
    35. Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

    Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
    No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)
    36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

    One – a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
    Two – a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.
    37. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

    By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
    His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)
    38. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

    By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
    On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)
    39. When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

    Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.
    No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.
    40. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

    Yes (Mark 6:8)
    No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)
    41. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

    Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
    No (Luke 9:9)
    42. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

    Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
    No (John 1:32,33)
    43. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

    Yes (John 1:32, 33)
    No (Matthew 11:2)
    44. According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

    If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
    Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)
    45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

    Yes (Matthew 21:12)
    No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17)
    46. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

    Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
    No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)
    47. Did Judas kiss Jesus?

    Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
    No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)
    48. What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

    The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:38)
    Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.
    49. Did Jesus bear his own cross?

    Yes (John 19:17)
    No (Matthew 27:31-32)
    50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

    Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
    No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

    • Yoav

      Or you could just post the link.

    • http://www.thathurtsmyears.blogspot.com/ michael

      Are you trying to imply that the bible might be contradictory? There goes civilization, right down the drain!

  • Jordan

    My good ole’ Oxford Annotated Bible just translates it as “back”. The KJV isn’t that great or accurate of a translation, but if it is indeed actually referring to God’s ass, perhaps people’s asses weren’t as comedic in ancient Israelite culture as they are today, or maybe they were and the humor was intentional!

  • Yoav

    Probably one of these pesky leftovers from older myths that are the source of the buybull from before they decided that god doesn’t have a corporal body.

    • Kodie

      I thought god was supposed to have walked through the garden of Eden and asked Adam why he was putting on pants. I could be wrong about that, but I guess Adam not being as historical as Moses, the image of god was not recorded. So, either Moses saw a man who claimed to be god, or Moses told the others that he met a man who was god (imagined or buIIshltted), but when they asked what did he look like?? he back-pedaled, god spoke to me with his back turned, I couldn’t tell what he looked like. Which is weird, because I’ve seen pictures of him and he’s an old white guy with a long white beard. Everyone knows that.

      • Yoav

        These passages are signs of biblegod evolutionary origins, like a whale vestigial pelvis.

  • busterggi

    Have to wonder if Moses said, “I hate you and I hate your ass-face.”.

  • arah
    • DarkMatter

      Stop trolling.

    • Sunny Day

      “It is human yet divine”

      Great, now how do we tell them from Non-Divine words?

    • trj

      A Muslim attacking the Christian Bible using unsubstantiated claims that are just as inane and foolish as those found in the Bible. How novel.

    • Tabbie

      Ditto. Stop trolling. The Qur’an isn’t the word of some god any more than the Bible is. It’s just another bit of text like MAD magazine, My Dad Says or The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, except it’s not nearly as clever, interesting or enjoyable as the latter three.

  • Brian

    what does the hebrew say, as opposed to a 17th century translation?

    Since you were looking for a laugh instead of progressing intellectual debate, here is the word you inaccurately translated:
    a-hor, “back, backward, behind, i.e., pertaining to a position which is “behind,” relative to another position”

    • Tabbie

      Interesting. I think, however, you’ve missed the point somewhat, and disregarding any intended humor, it’s important to realize many fundies accept the obviously flawed 17th century KJV in its entirety as being the divinely-inspired, infallible and absolute word of their god. What further purpose would your “progressing intellectual debate” serve in this context aside from creating a spot of contention? We already know the Bible is inaccurate, including the Tanakh.

      • Brian

        I think the best way to progress intellectual discussion isn’t by giving the least unintellectual groups the most attention and focus. There’s no use in beating the dead horse “fundies,” and feeling like you’ve accomplished something when it’s quite obvious poor scholarship is all you used to make fun of other poor scholarship.

        I came to this site expecting an intellectual, reasonable grouping of ideas, thoughts, and philosophical arguments. Instead it’s been nearly anything but. My contention is founded in this disappointment.

        • Sunny Day

          “I came to this site expecting an intellectual, reasonable grouping of ideas, thoughts, and philosophical arguments. Instead it’s been nearly anything but. My contention is founded in this disappointment.”

          How terribly disappointing for you. Where did you read about this site that you had such expectations? Was it the About page?

          You do know there is more to this site than just this one article, right?

          • Jabster

            @Sunny Day

            Yes how dreadful that intellectual Brian is incapable of realising that you don’t have to be serious all the time. Maybe he doesn’t think it’s right that religion can be the subject humour?

          • Tabbie

            Indeed. This site contains some very intellectual, reasonable and philosophical arguments as well as the science to back it up. It also contains some humor, some sarcasm, a little shock and awe, some criticism (both constructive and arguably nonconstructive) and some fairly hardcore opinions added into the mix. Having the mindset to embrace it all is especially important in this life since, like it or not, there’s not going to be an afterlife for any of us.

            • Jabster

              @Tabbie

              … and Brian’s contributon seems to consist of some waffle, a cut and past and the inability to use the reply feature. He’s just so awwwweeesooomeeee ….

            • Jabster

              @Tabbie

              … and add to that list the inabilty to understand that a post entitled Mose & God’s Ass might just be humour but for those of the hard of thinking they can even see it’s tagged as humor.

    • Yoav

      שׁActually the way the hebrew text reads it definitely referring to god’s back side. When a’hor is used in this context in modern hebrew it’s referring to the ass although I guess it’s possible that back then it was meaning the entire back side of a person. Behind will be me’a’hor.

      • Brian

        “Is it not therefore probable that in the theophany of Ex 33:23 the emphasis is not on an extreme anthropomorphism saying that Moses could see God’s back but not his face? Rather, it was meant that Moses could see the glory and afterglow behind the Lord as he passed by, but his very presence could not be seen. Of course the anthropomorphism is possible and not even objectionable, but a semi-physical distinction between face and back is apparently not the strict meaning of the words.”

        Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert Laird ; Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 033

        Sorry Yoav, I didn’t have time to write out a paraphrase of that, so I just copied it. So, even if it is referring specifically to God’s back (which it very well could be the case), it is not his “back-side” in the sense that the author of this article inferred.

        • Yoav

          The emphasis on the ass was I guess a literary trick on Daniel side (Daniel feel free to correct me on that). The way I read the text it is talking about the physical back side of god which is a bit of a contradiction with the kind of non-corporal god that is a major point of judaism. Christianity obviously have less problem with the concept of god being incarnate in a physical form. If you read the bible, like I do, as a work of folklore then these kind of stories are interesting in the way they illuminate the way these traditions evolved from the oral traditions of middle eastern nomadic tribes into the biblical story as we know it today.

    • Bavon WW

      ‘a-hor’ Variations of this can be heard in Bantu languages too I am assuming that the word has similar origins linguistically.
      Ke ahora go back or behind (Take it easy): Kikuyu
      Am I right?
      Shame if so, as I was rather hoping it meant arse and nothing else.

  • Brian

    I find a lot of stuff on this site to be funny. A recent post was a picture of a guy with “JESUS” scraped out of his arm. “God loves you, but sometimes he worries” – that was funny. I watched a clip on here from Dexter and am now hooked on it because it was a funny clip and its a good show. Hopefully you enjoy this clip I think is ridiculous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uTfD-XQFpA

    When a poorly researched (if at all) article poses as being a contributor to the larger compilation of “reasonable thoughts on religion, science, and skepticism,” what other conclusion can I come to but disappointment?

    So far, I haven’t read any profound philosophical, metaphysical, contingency, or any other kinds of arguments. I’ve seen broad brushstrokes of “the Bible is mythology,” “the apostles were hallucinating,” and other overused and under researched critiques (if one can call rebutted theories such as these “critiques”) of Christian Theism.

    IMO, You shouldn’t embrace everything that you read, Tabbie. You should test it to see if it is accurate and worth embracing. However, I am open minded enough to continue reading things I don’t agree with because I know that intellectual people can come to different conclusions (Dawkins is not a moron, nor is William Craig). I just think you should come to a conclusion not by embracing you read, but by looking at the best arguments from both sides instead of ignoring the toughest “competition.” If you want to prove that the uber fundies are wrong, it shouldn’t be a problem. Just direct yourself to the above link, and you’ll know exactly how little time one should spend refuting idiots.

    However, if you really are open-minded, you’ll look for quality evidence from both sides instead of reading only the literature you agree with.

    • Sunny Day

      Feel free to post your evidence.A lot of us would appreciate it.

      • yahweh

        That will take a while Sunny as I am sure there is so much evidence to go through to post. Actually that may explain why we NEVER see any evidence from thiests here. There is just so much of it they can’t possibly condense it so that our “un-evolved” brains could comprehend it all.

    • yahweh

      “IMO, You shouldn’t embrace everything that you read”

      Um Brian, you should follow your own advice. Escpecially when it comes to a story book written thousands of years ago by goat herders and shepards who had a limited understanding of the world around them.

      • Brian

        Their understanding of the physical universe does not disprove their worldview, nor does how their belief in Yahweh came to exist count towards its truth or falsity. To assert otherwise would commit the genetic fallacy.

        The Bible isn’t a science textbook. It doesn’t talk about evolution, quantum physics, cosmic expansion, or the spherical shape of the earth. Neither did Aristotle or Socrates’ works, but they are the Fathers of western thought – individuals whose work in logic and reasoning are the very foundation of the arguments and debates you partake in. Yet they believed the world was flat and outer space was a liquid.

        So if your argument against the ancient Semitic writers of the Bible is thus: they had a limited understanding of the world, therefore their belief in God is not correct; then it should follow that you think Western thought as founded by the unenlightened minds of Socrates and Aristotle should be disregarded as well because of their limited understanding of the universe.

        When it comes to intellectual coherence/consistency, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        • trj

          Sorry, that doesn’t wash.

          There’s a crucial difference: We’ve discarded those parts of ancient Greek science and pseudo-science which are false, and today nobody promotes or defends these ideas. Whereas we still keep the Bible in its entirety, and many millions of people champion it as absolute truth.

          It is quite possible, indeed rational, for us to keep some parts of, say, the works of Aristotle, while discarding others. But Christians generally won’t apply this principle to the Bible. In general, we should always aim to question what we’ve learned by ways of science. That is how science progresses. That’s opposed to Christianity or other religions where we’re told to believe what the Bible tells us to.

        • Francesc

          Yep, what trj said, nobody is taking Aristotle’s words as “The Truth”. Even if his thoughts -I agree- are fundamental to our culture we have discarded the ones that were proven false.
          Example (from the wiki): “In a similar vein, John Philoponus, and later Galileo, showed by simple experiments that Aristotle’s theory that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object is incorrect”

          Anyway… I agree that “how their belief in Yahweh came to exist [doesn't] count towards its truth or falsity”. But you have two problems here:
          1.- No evidence counting towards its truth.
          2.- You cannot distinguish by any means their belief form any hallucinated one (all hail the FSM!)

    • Tabbie

      @ Brian

      LOL I hardly embrace everything I read. I’m not an idiot. I’m not a theist.

  • Brian

    The existence of objective moral values points to a theistic universe. The Kalaam cosmological argument is another piece of evidence which adds to the coherence of a Theistic worldview.

    Certainly neither side can “prove” their argument. We can look at the evidence critically with as much objectivity as possible. The only evidence I’ve seen posited on this site has not been positive evidence for a non-theistic universe, it has only been vastly overgeneralized negative critiques of the textual formation of the Bible seasoned with a hint of chrono-centrism.

    • Jabster

      “evidence” … it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      Oh and your first two points … LOL if that’s what you think is classed as “intellectual, reasonable grouping of ideas, thoughts, and philosophical arguments”

    • Custador

      Yes, but the problem with the Kalaam argument is that it’s complete bullshit dreamed up by a theistic moron who understood neither mathematics nor physics. The premises on which it is based are at best unproven and at worst patently false, and it’s conclusions don’t necessitate a creator deity. It does not advance the argument. The nice thing about being atheist, however, is that I don’t have to prove my argument. You are the ones making a positive statement (that God did it), therefore it’s on you to prove it. Essentially theists think atheists are heretics because we won’t take your word for absurd claims which even you yourselves have no reason or evidence to believe.

      • Jabster

        @Custy

        I had to laugh at intellectual Brian moaning about the level of debate (although he seems to think that this blog consists of a single thread) and then posting some tosh to show how well read and open minded he is. What it really reminded me off was you can polish a turd as much as you want be it’s still basically a turd …

        • Bavon WW

          I think it would have to be a fossilised turd to have any chance of polishing it. However you are right; it would still remain a turd. ( Unless a genie popped out of it as you were rubbing it down)

          • Mogg

            Mythbusters managed to polish a lion turd, which turned out to be more capable of being polished than a giraffe turd. Or maybe better than a rhino turd, I can’t remember now. It took a lot of effort and preparation first, though.

    • Francesc

      “The existence of objective moral values points to a theistic universe”
      Mmm… Kant couldn’t prove that… and we don’t acknowledge objective moral values. Coincidentally, history and antropology seems to be in our side, you know: slavery, sexism, racism and homophobia where once accepted as “moral”. Reality has an atheist bias!

      About the second argument, we have discussed it before. Those are the premisses in the Williams Craig variation:
      “1.- Whatever begins to exist has a cause”
      This is the one I find more controversial. Although Craig claims it is supported by intuition and experience, it is not. First, intuition has been proven a bad supporter for scientific ideas.
      Second, we don’t have any experience about things that begin to exist “strictu sense”. Does a house “begin to exist”? The bricks existed before, so did bricks’ atoms; it was simply “assembled”. Everything we know wich “began to exist” did not in the sense in wich the universe did, except for…
      Third, particles do begin to exist according to quantum theory in the void. They simply “pop” to existence. We haven’t seen any primary cause for them, so our experience points really to “Not everything wich began to exist had a cause”. [Of course, it could also be possible that an invisible cause caused the existence of those particles, I'm not denying it]
      4th. He is trying to apply a rule wich works in a set to the set itself. Consider the set of numbers wich are even. Hey every number here is even, so can i say that the set itself is even? It wouldn’t have sense as “even” is not defined for sets

      I agree with the second premisse (The universe began to exist.) -obviously as science also considers a beginning for the universe. The conclusion (Therefore, the Universe had a cause) is unproven as the first premisse is not determined as truth -as I discussed above. But besides, considering that premisse 1 and premisse 2 where proven, I would have to accept the conclusion but…

    • francesc

      Sorry, as I was saying, even if we accept the conclusion (Therefore, the Universe had a cause) Craig still has to prove that the cause is:
      1.- Not an accidental cause.
      2.- A being with will
      3.- Abraham’s god
      4.- A god who cares about we
      5.- A god strangely obsessed with our sexual lives

      • trj

        Reminds me of this.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X