After my dad’s last email, Robert wrote back.
Well John, I have no argument against you because you discredit my sources. As for physical proof and laws you speak of, I question the accuracy of those laws. Come on man, the very basic fundamental understanding of our make up is a THEORY!! ie the atomic thoery…. Not to mention the heavy hitters on your side such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking cannot go any further than THEORY to explain creation, etc. Why then can you put all of your stock in the unknown world of Science, with an extra emphasis on putting down believers in God, when in the scientist’s infinate wisdom, they still cannot disprove God. God is a spirit and deals with things on that level. You and the scientific comminity want to stamp a phsical law of approval on something that expresly defines itself as non phisical. No wonder, in your mind, all of your arguments seem valid. The Bible has stood up to approx 6000 years of scrutiny and attacks, yet to anyone willing to take the time and effort to study out a 1500 plus page document, they will find the truth about God, life, death, and the afterlife. God makes some very bold claims about who he is, who you are, how we all came about, and everything inbetween. You so easily say there are written records from China and Egypt, giving them full validity, however the Bible is hogwash and cannot be credited. This seems a little bias to me John. I think you have a self serving view point that is only valid if you try and discredit the Bible. I wish you the best in the afterlife, and will pray that you can see the light of Christ.
Dad wrote back…
Robert….do you even know the SCIENTIFIC definition of “theory” as in “atomic theory”, “theory of gravity”, or theory of evolution? You do realize, don’t you, that it is different from the common, everyday definition which is somewhat close to “wild-assed guess”, or a “theory” you come up with for something after knocking back a couple of six-packs?
The SCIENTIFIC definition is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.” Don’t take my word for it; look it up.
As to “Why then can you put all of your stock in the unknown world of Science….” We do this every time we ride in a car, get on an airplane, use a telephone, or even sit at our computers. It is thanks to science that we have plenty of food to eat, clean water to drink, comfortable heat and air conditioning. “Unknown” world of science? Surely you jest. I can point to the world of science….can you point to gods? I can test the world of science, but you can’t test the world of gods, because it is dependent on an unverifiable afterlife that no one comes back from to confirm.
As to “with an extra emphasis on putting down believers in God,….” Whoa, whoa, whoa here! I can put down religion without putting down people who believe in gods. The belief in gods is a hypothesis about how the world works, just like belief in capitalism, socialism, communism, Republicanism, conservativism, Keynesian economics, etc. Surely we can debate these ideas without necessarily “putting down” the people who believe in them. I’m calling you out on this one for a false accusation. You need to be able to differentiate between a person and the beliefs that he holds dear. You can point out bad ideas without it being a put down to the person who passionately believes those ideas. For instance, if you question atheism, I don’t take it as a personal put down.
As to: “when in the scientist’s infinate wisdom, they still cannot disprove God.” Scientists can’t “disprove” smurfs, unicorns, leprechauns, voodoo, astrology, etc.” Again, I don’t think you understand how science works. “Proving” and “disproving” are for mathematics. Science accumulates evidence. If it accumulates enough evidence for or against something, then it becomes foolish not to give provisional consent to the idea. Like gravity, for instance. Scientists don’t “prove” gravity exists, it just provides enough evidence that to believe otherwise would be foolish. And, if enough evidence otherwise is found, then the scientific stance on gravity would change.
So, what science has done over the centuries is it has replaced supernatural ideas (and god is a supernatural idea)with scientific ideas backed up by mountains of evidence. Every single time—note that, 100%—supernatural ideas have been replaced by natural ones: whether it is demons in the blood being replaced by germ THEORY, the earth centered universe of the bible being replaced heliocentrism, that god made the stars on one of the first six days (we see stars being made in the Onion Nebula and others right now), and so on for thousands of instances. But Not. One. Single. Time have we seen a natural explanation of phenomena replaced by a supernatural one backed up by mountains of evidence. Not One. Time.
“The Bible has stood up to approx 6000 years of scrutiny and attacks…”Well, NO, it hasn’t. Again using the example of Noah’s flood…the written records of those dynasties is supported by archeological records you can point to. Physical proof. If there had been a flood like that, the ice cores would have a layer of silt at the 6000 year old level. That layer of silt doesn’t exist. The earth biosphere is essentially a closed system…there is no place that water could have come from and no place it could run off to. There would be a geologically verifiable layer of silt around the world. It isn’t there. The ONLY evidence for the flood is a claim for it in a bronze age book of myths. There are absolute mountains of evidence that it didn’t happen and couldn’t happen. I am amazed you dismiss archeologically empirically verifiable real evidence in favor of nothing more than empty claims in a book of mythology.
“God makes some very bold claims about who he is…” As does Allah, Zeus, Odin, and every other god man has made. When you figure out why you don’t believe in the others, perhaps you can figure out why I don’t believe in yours.
“I wish you the best in the afterlife…” I doubt there is one. Thanks anyway.
“and will pray that you can see the light of Christ.” There are 9 million children under the age of 5 who die every year. I would prefer you pray for your god to do something about that instead of for me to see the light of a being who is supposedly all powerful but allows that to happen
Then Robert wrote…
I have studied many other views on spirituality, and would have to say your presumption is innacurate that I have not. Many of the other religions out there have similar elements to my God, however, when they begin giving man the credit for this or that, that is where I get off the bus. I don’t really know what your hope for this life or the one to come is, if you even have one, as I have only seen you working the negative side of things. If you are satisfied with the present evil world being all that you will ever experiance, then who am I to try to give you hope of something better. Just remember John, you believe in nothing, and put poeple down to a level where we are helpless, and have nothing to look forward to. I am simply trying to share a simplistic truth about hope with you, not putting you down or saying your reality doesn’t exist unless you can prove my God exists……and yet you will remain dancing around the point that you cannot prove that he does not exist.
I am also not so proud as to continue on with a futile argument with someone who has no desire to consider what I say. Therefore John I will graciously end this with a request that we agree to disagree.
“Just remember John, you believe in nothing, and put poeple down to a level where we are helpless, and have nothing to look forward to.” On the contrary, I believe in a number of things…I just don’t believe in your preferred deity. Saying we have nothing to look forward to because there is no god is like saying we can’t look forward to Christmas holidays because there is no Santa Claus.
Wishful thinking and hoping does not create reality.
“and put poeple down to a level where we are helpless…” On the contrary, it is YOU who “put people down to a level where we are helpless”. My position is that it is people who must help people, which is the antithesis of being helpless.
“and yet you will remain dancing around the point that you cannot prove that he does not exist.” No dancing whatsoever. I can’t prove your god doesn’t exist, but I can’t prove ANYONE’S god—or anything else whatsoever—doesn’t exist. Show me how this is done: how about YOU prove other god’s don’t exist? I also can’t prove fairies, unicorns, smurfs, extilumpers, or a good many things don’t exist; and I don’t try to. For these, just as for your god, I ask for evidence that they DO exist. You are making an affirmative claim your god exists, it is you responsibility to provide evidence. Just as if I were to claim that leprechauns or Allah exist, it is up to me to provide evidence for their existence….not to demand that you prove they don’t exist.
It is like….I claim there are cows with ten horns and purple eyes. I demand you prove they don’t exist. Go.
Now, is it up to me to provide evidence they do exist-pictures or whatever–or is it up to you to prove that they don’t? How is it even possible to “prove” something doesn’t exist?
You can’t prove ANYTHING doesn’t exist….all you can do is point out there is no evidence FOR its existence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
“I am also not so proud as to continue on with a futile argument with someone who has no desire to consider what I say.” Hmmmm. I thought I considered and responded to virtually every thing you said. I don’t happen to agree with it, and you didn’t respond to much of what I said, but, whatever.
“Therefore John I will graciously end this with a request that we agree to disagree.” Fine by me. After all, you are the one who brought it up, not me. Best wishes to you and Robin.
Part III at 2pm EST.