Dad is getting my emails part III

Despite saying he would agree to disagree, Robert returned to emailing my dad.

I am looking at the world spiritually and you are looking at it physically, which is obviously not cohesive, John. They are nowhere near the same, and cannot be compared, therefore, I reinterate my previous request of agreeing to disagree. I must however mention that if you are correct, and there is no God, my vain efforts are no harm no fowl. On the other hand, John, what if I am correct? I guess you can choose to or not to deal with that, right?

Dad wrote back…

“if you are correct, and there is no God, my vain efforts are no harm no fowl. On the other hand, John, what if I am correct? I guess you can choose to or not to deal with that, right?” What if the folks who believe in one of the other 3500 or so gods so far identified are correct and you are not? I guess you can choose to or not to deal with that, right?

You might also note this old argument–known as Pascal’s wager—offers absolutely no proof for the existence of your god, it is just an exhortation for others to hedge their bets.

It works like this: in essence you are saying how can I take the chance that your god isn’t real?

Show me how it is any different from this: I believe in the god Jon-O. The God Jon-o requires that people walk naked down Main Street at noon or bad things will happen to them in the afterlife. I know you don’t believe in Jon-o, but how can you take the chance he isn’t real?

Should I expect to see you in the buff on Main Street at noon because it would be silly for you to take the chance that Jon-O isn’t real? If not, how does this differ from what you expect of me to not take a chance?

“I must however mention that if you are correct, and there is no God, my vain efforts are no harm no fowl.” You could say exactly the same thing about believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

“I am looking at the world spiritually and you are looking at it physically, which is obviously not cohesive, John.” NO. You claim your theory of religion is how this world works. That your god impacts and changes–and even made–this physical world. That animals talk just like in Aesop’s Fables, that a man lived 3 days in the belly of a fish,that there was a physical flood of the earth that wiped out everything, and so on.

“I guess you can choose to or not to deal with that, right?” Yes. I am not worried about Santa not bringing me presents, or the tooth fairy not buying my tooth, or your nonexistent god punishing me for not being scared into belief.

Robert wrote back…

I didnt try to scare you, I said what if. Isn’t that the premise of every scientific experiment? Its like you saying I wont give any attention or credit the the tornado sirens on the grounds I dont like being warned or told what to do, (take shelter). To me this is more or less a screw the man attitude of dont tell me what to do.—- God does not threaten eternal damnation for unbelief, he promises it. Your science is all about proving the properties of the physical world to essentially be absent of any intelligent design, that I claim my God created. However the laugh I get from this theory, is that is is conjured up by a group of “intelligent folks” who deny any intelligence…..This puts me in stitches. It seems that you are unwilling to accept the Bible as truth because it doesn’t line up with silt deposits, and so on. Who is to say that those deposits would be present. Were you there, and have you been witness to any global floods of that magnitude? Or are you basing your point on a scientific theory, that by definitiion can change its stance on virtually any subject, and still be considered accurate by many, dismissing that it just disproved itself. — You are saying the Bible cant be true because it speaks of things that you do not understand. Your locked into the idea that if there is a physical world, with mountains of physical evidence that it exists, that there cannot be a spiritual world, because I cannot prove it the way I do in the physical world. God makes note of these things and warns us not to try to compare the two. As for Aesops fables, I would ask you to point those out in the KJV Bible, of which I used as my reference.

p.s. here I am going on like a hypocrite, still arguing my point….lol, somehow I just cannot resist….

Also, your science can coexist with my God on the grounds that there are certain things, deemed by God to be understood for our benifit, and certain things he simply asks us to have faith in him. Not some extrordinary act of sacrifice, or change of life and ways, simply a faith as simple and elementary as believing that your car will start, or that the chair you choose to sit in will not bust to pieces when you sit on it. I know you posess that kind of faith, John, but for some reason, faith in a God that if you truly read his message for you, you would see is intangible,therefore completely out of you scope belief. I have to ask you again, what is your hope for this life, and do you have any HOPE for anything after? Not evidence, but hope. I love looking at all of his beautiful creation, and can certainly do so without constanly trying to find my own awesome way of explaining it all. I trust him, and thank him for all that we are given.

Dad responded…

“God does not threaten eternal damnation for unbelief, he promises it.” Reminds me of when I was a kid and somebody said they would whip my ass, the reply was “Is that a promise or a threat?.” Call it what you will, a rose by any name would smell as sweet. Of course he threatens. If is promise to blow up your house, it’s a threat.

“, is that is is conjured up by a group of “intelligent folks” who deny any intelligence.” You’re kidding,right? No one denied intelligence, only intelligent design of the universe. They aren’t even close to one and the same.

“.This puts me in stitches. It seems that you are unwilling to accept the Bible as truth because it doesn’t line up with silt deposits, and so on”. That is correct. I depend on physical evidence over empty claims from a bronze age book of mythology.
And I’m sure you do also, at least sometimes. For instance, do you believe day is caused by Helios in his chariot pulling the sun across the sky? Why not? could it be because of the physical evidence to the contrary?

“Who is to say that those deposits would be present.” Geologists who have studied what happens every. single. time. when it floods. This is like asking “Who is to say objects fall down every time instead of up. I can’t believe I’m hearing this question.

“Were you there, and have you been witness to any global floods of that magnitude?” I wasn’t there for the civil war, but I have no doubt it happened because of the evidence for it. Where is the evidence for your flood?

Gotta run. Catch you later.

Robert responded…

“Geologists who have studied what happens every. single. time. when it floods. This is like asking “Who is to say objects fall down every time instead of up. I can’t believe I’m hearing this question.”—–I am not attempting to be a smart ass, but they were not Witness to a flood of that magnitude. Therefore skeptics are seeking physical evidence for a one time event, having no idea what a flood of that magnitude would leave behind as physical evidence. Are scientists so damn smart to discredit the fact that they are seeking evidence of an event that they have no clue the full scope, exact time (God gave no exact date in the Bible), or even what to look for. This kind of thing has never happened since, so setting a bar of possible or not, based solely on evidence that is innacurate to the scope of this subject, would be like trying to figure out how all things work together in the world, when you havent seen all the things that have happened. Your scientific theories are scewed because you base things on the physical evidence in front of your face without giving credit to the fact that you may have missed something. Does the pyhsical evidence of a flood look the exact same and have all of the exact same properties of physical and scientific evidence as the last? If so, and your are basing your theory on repeatable results, you are stacking your evidence against something that has never been done since. Shit man, there were plenty of things you could not prove in science in the past that man has found a way to prove. Because at one time it seemed impossible to physically prove that particular truth, does it take away its power or its validity now? If you answer no, then how could you begin to argue that spirtual things, not proven physically, are impossible. Just like some scientist had his time of people not believing him, I too come to you and claim God to be the one true God, Creater of Earth and Heaven, and all things contained therin. And that there is one mediator between God and man, and that is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who died for your sins according to the scriptures, he was burried, and he was raised again the third day, for our justification. And that is the power of God unto salvation to all those which believe. My claim is that you will eventually find out, just as those scientist did. There will be a moment of reckoning with God, whether you believe me or not. Your unbelief cannot take away from the truth of God’s Word. God’s word is all the evidence I need. The Bible is an accurate historical document and is plenty of proof. You have little or nothing more to present as evidence that the cicil war took place, short of historical documentation, Right. You may want to argue carbon dating of atrifact, which I would retort, proove the accuracy of those tests. See, John its a big, giant revolving door. Yes there are pieces of physical evidence supporting all sorts of things, and there is not one singel shred of physical evidence supporting the spiritual things of the Bible…..because they cannot coexits…..I believe that the faith of Christ saves me from death, and everlasting punishment, which cannot be seen or proven. I challenge anyone to take it from me or say that it doesn’t exist.

Dad wrote back…

  “Therefore skeptics are seeking physical evidence for a one time event, having no idea what a flood of that magnitude would leave behind as physical evidence.” This is like saying if we have a bigger animal than we have ever had, it won’t leave poop like smaller animals.

“(God gave no exact date in the Bible)” The bible does contain historical figures and events from which people who make the effort can figure out a timeline. Google up “biblical scholars +Great flood”.

“evidence that is innacurate to the scope of this subject” t he idea that a worldwide flood of this proportion would leave absolutely no evidence is a form of denial. You might as well say we shouldn’t expect any evidence atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it was a one time event.

“would be like trying to figure out how all things work together in the world, when you havent seen all the things that have happened.” NO. It wouldn’t be like that at all. Evidence of a specific worldwide event is nothing like analyzing all of the interactions of the universe. Not even close.

“Does the pyhsical evidence of a flood look the exact same and have all of the exact same properties of physical and scientific evidence as the last.” NO, but they all have some things in common. Just like all tornadoes have some things in common, regardless of how big they are.

“Your scientific theories are scewed because you base things on the physical evidence in front of your face without giving credit to the fact that you may have missed something. ” the nice thing about science is when it has evidence that it missed something, then science changes. One of the bad things about religion is that no matter how much evidence to its contrary, believers ignore the evidence and keep believing. Take Noah’s flood, for instance.

“Shit man, there were plenty of things you could not prove in science in the past that man has found a way to prove.” Yes, like the biblical claims for an earth centered universe, a flat earth, and a worldwide flood of cataclysmic proportions.

“If you answer no, then how could you begin to argue that spirtual things, not proven physically, are impossible.” THIS IS THE POINT. PAY ATTENTION! I don’t argue they are impossible. I just insist that you provide evidence for them. And you consistently fail to do that. In addition, you consistently ignore evidence that contradicts the bible.

“There will be a moment of reckoning with God, whether you believe me or not.” I don’t. Nor do I believe any of the other 3500 gods around will give me a moment of reckoning. They are all, including yours, superstitious drivel on the same level as magic and voodoo.

“Your unbelief cannot take away from the truth of God’s Word.” Your belief doesn’t make it exist.

“The Bible is an accurate historical document and is plenty of proof.” The bible is a bronze age collection of myths. The purpose of the OT was control the ancient Jewish society and the purpose of the NT was to promote a new cult.

“You have little or nothing more to present as evidence that the cicil war took place, short of historical documentation, Right.” Wrong. I have photos, canonballs, muskets, uniforms, bullet holes, and a veritable mountain of evidence. EVIDENCE. The thing you do not have.

“You may want to argue carbon dating of atrifact, which I would retort, prove the accuracy of those tests.” You need to learn about carbon dating. Do your own homework. google up “tests showing how carbon dating is accurate”. There is plenty of information readily available on accuracy.

“I believe that the faith of Christ saves me from death, and everlasting punishment, which cannot be seen or proven.” The followers of Pikkiwokki, the Papua New Guinean mud god, believe his followers will be rewarded with a pig and all the coconuts they can carry. I don’t believe either of you have an y evidence.

Part IV at 4pm EST.

Patheos Atheist LogoLike What Would JT Do? and Patheos Atheist on Facebook!

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X