This is Not a Hoax
Are there really people who believe everything came from nothing? Yes, and to prove it we now have this rare, never before seen, footage of real evolutionists. There are many skeptics who don’t believe there are any evolutionists left, but in fact there are many enclaves yet to be studied. We predict that soon anthropologists will bring us a much greater understanding of this bizarre phenomenon.
Would you call evolutionists who believe that everything came from nothing "poof-olutionists"?
ReplyDeleteOk, I admit it;-) I borrowed that from here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/genetics/new-mechanism-of-evolution-poof/
I always thought the POOF phenomena was referred to as Sheer Dumb Luck (SDL). Are they the same religious belief? or is there a distinctive doctrinal difference?
ReplyDeleteTheists believe in poof-universe, atheist believe in poof-multiverse.
Delete:)
It's bizarre that a conservative Christian like Hunter accuses others of sharing his own beliefs: that everything came from nothing. Speaking of puffery, didn't God poof everything into existence from nothing?
ReplyDeleteAnd apropos of nothing in particular, here is how Michael Behe (a leading ID proponent) relies on puffery, in the words of Larry Arnhart:
A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Well, that's not going to be very persuasive as a scientific answer. And clearly Behe and other ID proponents prefer not to answer the question.
Well it is not the same you thing that there was nothing and then everything started, we believe that there was something (God) that started everything, excluded Him, from nothing.
DeleteSo Blas, you believe that there was nothing, then poof there was "God", then poof there was everything else?
DeleteWho or what poofed "God" into existence from nothing? And exactly how is your chosen "God" any more real and verifiable than all of the other so-called gods that people have ever imagined and ever will imagine?
It's bizarre that a conservative Christian like Hunter accuses others of sharing his own beliefs: that everything came from nothing. Speaking of puffery, didn't God poof everything into existence from nothing?
DeleteThat's why I smile when Hunter trots out his "from nothing" sneer.
I've yet to see a theist explain how an immaterial god that is literally NO THING creating a material world from an immaterial NOTHING answers that question of how that material world came into existence.
pedant,
DeleteI've yet to see a theist explain how an immaterial god that is literally NO THING creating a material world from an immaterial NOTHING answers that question of how that material world came into existence
One version is the incarnation, the time line is a bit tricky.
velikovskys,
DeleteI'm familiar with that version. So, an incestuous relationship between God, the Father, and the offspring of his children Adam and Eve generated Jesus.
How that solves the problem of how SOMETHING came from NOTHING is not clear to me.
pedant,
DeleteI'm familiar with that version. So, an incestuous relationship between God, the Father, and the offspring of his children Adam and Eve generated Jesus
That sounds more like the Greeks, the Christian version is more, in order to create the universe God had to become part of the material world, kind of like a Big Bang with a purpose.
I don't believe there was any hankypanky involved.
How that solves the problem of how SOMETHING came from NOTHING is not clear to me.
By definition
velikovskys,
DeleteI don't believe there was any hankypanky involved.
The Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, Who art in Heaven.."
"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Do you think the Father and the Lord are different persons? If so, who's who?
What do you think "with thee" means? Somewhere in the vicinity? I don't think so...
pedant,
DeleteThe Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, Who art in Heaven
Only on a spiritual plane, I believe is the common understanding, it also provides support for the notion of a patriarchy.
Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Do you think the Father and the Lord are different persons? If so, who's who?
No, think they are the same guy, different hats
What do you think "with thee" means? Somewhere in the vicinity? I don't think so.
I believe it means,if I remember 3rd grade Cathecism, that one can see outward signs of a person's holiness, a reflection of God's goodness, kinda like the Dalai Lama. Or like Luke Skywalker , the Force was strong in that one.
velikovskys,
DeleteYou need to think outside of the 3rd grade catechism box. It's no wonder Catholics are discouraged from reading the bible:
"And the Angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee..." (Luke 1:28)
"'Highly favoured' indeed, my pretty," said the Lord, twirling his moustache.
(Be that as it may be, vel, I'm not going to pursue this line further, and I thank you for playing.)
Pedant,
DeleteYou need to think outside of the 3rd grade catechism box. It's no wonder Catholics are discouraged from reading the bible:
I actually made it a bit farther, but meaning of " with thee" was covered earlier.
In my experience,Catholics tend to value reasoning , combined with a healthy dose of pagan symbolism and superstition, over a literal reading of Biblical text.
"And the Angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee..." (Luke 1:28)
"'Highly favoured' indeed, my pretty," said the Lord, twirling his moustache.
Perhaps you are correct,but if getting girls was the motivation of the Incarnation, Robert Plant would have been a better choice than an unemployed carpenter.
(Be that as it may be, vel, I'm not going to pursue this line further, and I thank you for playing.)
My pleasure
Upon reflection, vel, my point was not that THE LORD was lustful, it was that the sexual intercourse between THE LORD and Miriam was incestuous, given that she was his child (as are we all).
DeletePedant,
DeleteUpon reflection, vel, my point was not that THE LORD was lustful, it was that the sexual intercourse between THE LORD and Miriam was incestuous, given that she was his child (as are we all).
You are assuming your conclusion, the need for sexual intercourse has not been established for the Immaculate Conception to occur. At best you might have a case of workplace harassment due to the differential in power.
Ha, ha.
DeleteVel, you need to brush up on your dogma. Christ's conception had to have been immaculate (without original sin) by all that's holy, but the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception refers back a generation to the formation of Miriam's zygote by the sexual congress of her mom and pop. (And we hope they enjoyed it anyway.)
As far as Jesus' conception is concerned, I'm not saying that his zygote required a physical penetration (God forbid!) but THE LORD was Miriam's father (a point that you haven't disputed), so depositing those divine chromosomes (by whatever other means) into her ripe ovum was an incestuous act, by my reckoning.
Do you dispute that THE LORD would be liable in a paternity case? (Assuming the availability of a LORDLY DNA sample.)
pedant,
DeleteVel, you need to brush up on your dogma. Christ's conception had to have been immaculate (without original sin) by all that's holy, but the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception refers back a generation to the formation of Miriam's zygote by the sexual congress of her mom and pop. (And we hope they enjoyed it anyway.)
That rings a bell, makes you wonder, if original sin could be wiped out so easily, why go through a gory tale? Apparently origin sin could be just brushed away when convenient
As far as Jesus' conception is concerned, I'm not saying that his zygote required a physical penetration
I was beginning to wonder
THE LORD was Miriam's father (a point that you haven't disputed),
He was also her son. And grandfather.
so depositing those divine chromosomes (by whatever other means) into her ripe ovum was an incestuous act, by my reckoning.
We do not know if any " deposit " was necessary.A mere jiggle of the fabric of reality would suffice I expect. Perhaps it was like Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in Ghost
Zeus (Father of the Gods and Men) had more fun jiggling things other than the fabric of reality.
DeleteGreek babes Danaë, Europa, and Leda, for example.
velikovskys,
Delete...makes you wonder, if original sin could be wiped out so easily, why go through a gory tale?
Poor planning?
If it didn't conflict with THE LORD'S imputed omniscience, one might speculate that the Triumvirate didn't anticipate the political fallout of incarnating in a rebellious Roman province. Them Romans didn't take kindly to Jews with Messianic pretensions.
My Jesuit priests said that the Passion was just the icing on the cake: just incarnating as a lowly human was enough of a sacrifice for a God to make, and Jesus could have lived to a ripe old age like Moses, and we would still be redeemed.
In any case, it's nice to know that we're redeemed, although I wonder whether it felt any different to be unredeemed BCE. I doubt that most people noticed, even in Palestine. Today's Jews still haven't gotten the message.
pedant,
DeleteZeus (Father of the Gods and Men) had more fun jiggling things other than the fabric of reality.
Greek babes Danaë, Europa, and Leda, for example.
Yahweh is strictly business god.
If it didn't conflict with THE LORD'S imputed omniscience, one might speculate that the Triumvirate didn't anticipate the political fallout of incarnating in a rebellious Roman province. Them Romans didn't take kindly to Jews with Messianic pretensions.
Maybe it is better to be tortured to death than be ignored in the Messiah business. Being slowly brutally killed shows commitment
My Jesuit priests
Mine were rented.AMDG
said that the Passion was just the icing on the cake: just incarnating as a lowly human was enough of a sacrifice for a God to make, and Jesus could have lived to a ripe old age like Moses, and we would still be redeemed
It would have made a lousy movie, and been devastating to the future sales of the crucifix industry. After all " Christ lived in retirement for your sins" is hardly a good recruitment tool.
In the original plan, Jesus kicked the Romans ass, but polling indicated a martyr was more effective as long as the possibilty of a sequel was available
In any case, it's nice to know that we're redeemed, although I wonder whether it felt any different to be unredeemed BCE. I doubt that most people noticed, even in Palestine. Today's Jews still haven't gotten the message.
I am sure Adam and Eve appreciated being let off the hook at least for original sin, too bad the Garden of Eden part wasn't included in the redemption. Now that would have been convincing.
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteAre there really people who believe everything came from nothing?
Are there really scientifically trained unscrupulous people who think it's OK to lie about and misrepresent the science to try and push their religious beliefs? Who think they're honoring God by constantly lying in his name?
Yes, and to prove it we now have this rare blog.
cornelius, what is your point in posting that video and your comments?
ReplyDeleteAl I can figure is that you're equating "evolutionists" with what you think are primitive, savage, immoral (naked), ape-like people. By doing so your intent is apparently to insult "evolutionists" but you're also intending to insult the people in the video.
The people in the video are living the only way they know how. Also, I seriously doubt that they believe that everything came from nothing. They likely believe in some sort of spirits/gods, because, like you thumpers, they are afraid of things that they don't understand. They have a good excuse though, and you don't. You thumpers have easy access to all kinds of information that those people don't.
By the way, were two of the people in that video adam and eve?
I'm guessing most Americans are not aware of a meaning of "poof" in the UK.
ReplyDeleteDon't get Nat started again
DeleteWhat is "poof" in UK, Ian?
Delete"Poof" or "poofter" is a disparaging slang term for a gay man. "Woofter" or "willie woofter" are variant forms. It crops up in at least one Monty Python sketch satirizing the attitudes of people who use the term.
DeleteThanks Ian, theists believe in gay-universe, atheist believe in gay-multiverse
Delete:D
If you drop a soap in those universes-watch your back and don't trust anyone.
Thorton,are you proud you are fighting for poof-rights?
The problem is that the Biblical injunction against homosexual behavior is just one of a number of prohibitions in the Old Testament. Most of them are quietly ignored. You don't hear angry demands for rebellious children and adulterers to be stoned to death, for example. So why pick on gays?
DeleteThe fact is, demonizing one particular group as a source of society's ills, when there is no evidence they are any such thing, comes perilously close to what the Nazis did in Germany and is beginning to happen in Russia today.
Thorton
DeleteNein, Sie sind falsch poofter-Verteidiger, habe ich nichts dagegen pofters solange sie nicht hinter mir sind!
Eugen,
DeleteIf you drop a soap in those universes-watch your back and don't trust anyone
You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about gay sex, the lady doth protest too much?
Hey, I didn't start this!
DeleteOtoh, it was nice to learn something new today. I'll try this new word on my British colleagues on Monday. I may end up with a black eye on Monday.
:D
So Blas, you believe that there was nothing, then poof there was "God", then poof there was everything else?
ReplyDeleteNo, GOD always existed. He is eternal and UNcaused, which is why only HE could be the first cause.
And exactly how is your chosen "God" any more real and verifiable than all of the other so-called gods that people have ever imagined and ever will imagine?
Through logic, eyewitness testimony, facts, common sense, history, archaeology etc. Just because there are many 'gods' claimed to exist does not negate the fact the Judeo-Christian GOD exists, anymore than the fact there are many wrong answers to a math equation does not negate the fact there's a right answer.
nv, what "logic, eyewitness testimony, facts, common sense, history, archaeology etc."?
Delete"No, GOD always existed. He is eternal and UNcaused, which is why only HE could be the first cause."
Prove it. And prove that it's a "HE". Does "God" have a penis? Do you have the results of genetic gender testing of your chosen "God"?
You are aware, aren't you, that most of the people who have ever lived and who are alive right now didn't/don't believe in, worship, and promote the same so-called "God" as you do? Why do you suppose that is?
National VelourAugust 16, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Delete[...]
No, GOD always existed. He is eternal and UNcaused, which is why only HE could be the first cause.
An oldie but goldie:
If there can be an uncaused, eternal God why not an uncaused, eternal universe?
Answers on a postcard to....
No, GOD always existed. He is eternal and UNcaused, which is why only HE could be the first cause.
DeleteHow convenient. The reasoning goes something like this:
P1: Everything has a cause.
P2: Wait! I can't imagine an infinite sequence of causes.
That's rather embarrassing. Hold on, I'll wriggle out of it by inventing an uncaused cause.
Let's call it God.
Gee whiz. All of you "stay at home" critics of Hunters blog. (Shit, you either have to be on the govt retirement tit, or some way or the other have way too much time on your hands.}
ReplyDeleteYour spend inordinate amounts of time responding to Hunter's legitimate criticisms of your "pet philosphophy" without any kind of material substantiation of what your call "NDE science". What a bunch of jack-asses. Why don't you go back to work for the public you have screwed to get your inordinately huge pensions, and actually come up with something that supports the bullshit conjecture you rammed down the throats of innocent children you had laid before you over the years. {If you were not a publically employed teacher of evolutionary biology at any level in the public schools on up to college, please ignore this comment. You fit into another category of bullshit.}
Drunk angry teenaged Fundy spotted again.
DeleteJoe G wannabe.
DeleteNo fundy here. {You continue to over utilize the fallacy of name calling over and over and over again, for your purposes. And you continue to demonstrate that you apparently are, what I think, are paid HACKS, who are here to protect the status quo speculations promulgated by the psuedo scientific NDE regime of bullshit artists} I am just someone who spots non scientific crap from anti science fundies who promote NDE bullshit without sufficient scientific demonstration. If you had such resources to refer to, {other than your usual referential bluffs}, you could have ended these kinds of disscussions long ago. But, for some reason, you have stong enough "feelings" regarding what can "scientifically" be derived regarding these topics, that you have UNSCIENTIFIC REASONS to continue to promote VAST AMOUNTS OF CONJECTURE, SUPPORTED BY UNDEMONSTRATED ASSUMPTIONS, THAT APPEAR TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN EXPRESSIONS OF PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCES.
DeleteYou continue to represent yourselves and your philosophy, is such ways that, even the uninitiated can see the bullshit representations you want to pass off as support for your over the top conjecture.
What a bunch of pricks.
Angry teenaged Fundy Creationist got into his parents' liquor cabinet again.
Delete"Angry teenaged Fundy Creationist got into his parents' liquor cabinet again."
ReplyDeleteOk. So what if someone did get into the parents liquor cabinet and made the above statements. How does that diminish the comments made regarding your over the top speculations regarding nde?
Maybe it takes someone who is young and not subject to the status quo bullshit promulgations passed off as "science" without adequate verification, to stop the horseshit speculations passed off as science, and to help promote an intellectual "pause" to engage real scientific thinking on the issues involved.
What a jackass. Please point us to "peer reviewed" literature that demostrates how nde processes produced a bacterial flagellum. You arrogant prick. {Or take your choice. Dont want to limit your options. Choose any biological mechanism you want. And go for it, know it all.
Angry teenaged Fundy Creationist got into his parents' liquor cabinet again and drained it dry.
DeleteOk.
ReplyDeleteYou win.
If the universe has existed for eternity, then it's had an infinite amount of time to reach thermodynamic equilibrium, negating the possibility of computation/life.
ReplyDeleteIf the universe has existed for a finite period of time, then there is only one explanation: it poofed into existence.
The atheists/anti-theists on this blog haven't denied or refuted this, they've simply avoided the issue and made fun of the God-poof-model without explaining why the Nothing-poof-model is better or more scientific.
"My poof is better than your poof" pretty much sums of the entirety of Thorton's arguments.
Wow bpragmatic, that's the best name for a sockpuppet you could come up with?
DeleteI'm not a sockpuppet. I just poofed into existence.
Delete=)
You're not very creative. MSEE came through here a few weeks back pretending to be a man's right testicle.
DeleteSo you'd rather insult my username than address my points?
DeleteThat says a lot about your poofery, Thorton, I must say. I'm pretty disappointed (but not surprised) in the level of poofery you're willing to sink to.
Talk about creativity...
omG liek kewl
DeleteSo you'd rather insult my username than address my points?
Since you didn't make any points, yes.
Your only value added is for amusement.
Sorry to interrupt your life's work of saying nothing and arguing for nothing, Thorton, but you'll have to explain to me some day how something came from nothing.
DeleteomG liek kewl
DeleteSorry to interrupt your life's work of saying nothing and arguing for nothing, Thorton, but you'll have to explain to me some day how something came from nothing.
You're the guy who claims your supernatural deity POOFED everything into existence from nothing, not me. All I offer is the scientific explanation for what happened after the Big Bang.
You provide your explanation of how something came from nothing.
I'd also like to critique the atheists and anti-theists that frequent this blog for their mis-characterization of God as immaterial. For the Bible makes it clear that while God is invisible, his essence is comprised of Spirit (John 4:24). Now at this point the atheist will holler "Well you can't quantify Spirit or prove that it exists" but the simple truth is they haven't done their homework, because the Bible tells us exactly what physical substance we can identify with God: Light.
ReplyDelete1 John 1:5 - "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
If God is light, then literally anything becomes possible. If Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence E = mc^2, then God (who is Light and thus pure energy) can reproduce more light (Genesis 1:3) and then use that light to fashion mass by simply slowing it down. How does he do this?
HE SPEAKS.
In Genesis 1 alone there are at least 8 "And God said" statements. By using harmonics, God changed the shape of light into various forms of mass, and from that light he created dust and from that dust he created us.
As an addendum, for those who might be looking for a Trinitarian explanation:
DeleteThe Father plans and oversees it, the Son creates it by speaking (He is the literal Word) and the Holy Spirit empowers it.
omglkk
DeleteIf God is light, then literally anything becomes possible. If Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence E = mc^2, then God (who is Light and thus pure energy) can reproduce more light (Genesis 1:3) and then use that light to fashion mass by simply slowing it down. How does he do this?
Does that mean God cannot escape from a black hole? Can something be material and outside time? Is God affected by gravity as light is? Is God limited by the speed of light in travellling? Is God only the visible wavelengths of radiation?
Just because God is Light doesn't mean all light is God. God's power is limitless, so it's no problem to parse of light that is contingent upon the laws of existence without affecting His fundamental being.
DeleteThe Bible is extremely clear that the whole universe is unraveling at the seams and degenerating towards an eventual end, but since God exists outside of this universe and He actually states that IT'S IN HIS PLAN, I don't think He's too worried about black holes.
As for light existing outside of time, why not? It makes more sense than darkness...
All of your other questions depend on the assumption that God's existence as Light is somehow bound to the laws he created, when it is in fact beyond them.
I mean, would you ask a software engineer if they ever get sick when they have a bug in their code?
You're a lot more entertaining when you're drunk and cursing that when you're doing the standard Fundy boilerplate proselytizing. :(
Deleteomg,
DeleteJust because God is Light doesn't mean all light is God. God's power is limitless, so it's no problem to parse of light that is contingent upon the laws of existence without affecting His fundamental being.
How can a material being have limitless power or a god be contingent on anything? Or is this a metaphor?
Thorton, your silence is a fitting explanation for how something came from nothing.
Deletevelikovskys, God is a spirit whose essence is manifest as light, not the other way around, so His power is not contingent on already-existing material substance (finite waves and particles) but His eternal spiritual substance, which is neither created, destroyed, defined or measurable.
omgkkkk,
Deletebut the simple truth is they haven't done their homework, because the Bible tells us exactly what physical substance we can identify with God: Light
Is the essence of God material or immaterial?
Well, since God is a spirit, one could make the argument that He's both.
DeleteSpirit is "material" in the sense that it is something that exists and not nothing.
Spirit is "immaterial" in the sense that it exists outside the boundaries of our physical universe and cannot be seen or quantified; the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).
These fruits are the essence of God; whether you interpret them semantically as material or immaterial really is of no consequence, as God exists in either circumstance (whether we believe it or not).
A couple of follow up questions:
DeleteDo you consider light material or immaterial?
Do you consider energy material or immaterial?
Do you consider consciousness material or immaterial?
The answer is,if material means can interact with it , it is material.
DeleteLight
Material,
Energy
Material
Consciousness
Material
omg,
DeleteThese fruits are the essence of God; whether you interpret them semantically as material or immaterial really is of no consequence, as God exists in either circumstance (whether we believe it or not).
Except earlier, "I'd also like to critique the atheists and anti-theists that frequent this blog for their mis-characterization of God as immaterial" so apparently it mattered to you
What matters is that atheists and anti-theists assume that by using rhetoric to categorize God as "material" or "immaterial" they're able to somehow disprove God's existence, especially given the potential for God to exist as both.
DeleteWhat is inconsequential is which box the materialist/atheist/anti-theist decides to put Him in, as God is inside, outside and apart of the box.
If Energy, Light and Consciousness are all considered material in your book, then so too is God. Further, if Energy, Light and Consciousness existed AFTER the Big Bang, on what grounds do you reject their existence BEFORE the Big Bang?
Correction: The first sentence should read "What matters is that atheists and anti-theists incorrectly assume..."
DeleteA bible thumper said:
Delete"Well, since God is a spirit..."
"...the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)."
---------------------
Oh really?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33)
"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)
omg,
DeleteIf Energy, Light and Consciousness are all considered material in your book, then so too is God.
You have yet to provide evidence that God is any of those things or anything at all.
Further, if Energy, Light and Consciousness existed AFTER the Big Bang, on what grounds do you reject their existence BEFORE the Big Bang?
I don't reject that, I simply don't know. You are making a claim of knowledge, I am just trying to see where it leads.
None of those verses contradict God being a spirit or the fruits of His spirit being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
DeleteAre these verses supposed to present some theological rebuttal to God's existence, or simply trying to distort the nature of God? If it's the latter, then your concession that God exists speaks louder than your gross misapplication of scripture. If it's the former, then perhaps you should read the Bible more carefully, as each of those verses you quoted are a direct consequence of God's love, goodness and faithfulness to His people.
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
John 3:16-19 " For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
Psalm 145:17-20 "The Lord is righteous in all his ways and faithful in all he does.
The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.
He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them.
The Lord watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
omg,
Deleteone of those verses contradict God being a spirit or the fruits of His spirit being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Then provide the evidence the author of those verses had
velikovskys, the evidence is in Jesus Christ's life, miracles, teachings and most importantly his willing sacrifice on the cross for our sins.
DeleteColossians 2:9 - "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form..."
Jesus was sent as a direct representative for the invisible God, a Messiah prophesied hundreds of years before he was to be born, speaking and acting as God incarnate while demonstrating the full capacity of God's grace and mercy, dying for sinners so that they might be reconciled from the bondage of sin.
If you read the Gospels and don't recognize Jesus' ministry as one of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control, then I'd be extremely interested to hear your reasoning.
If you read the Gospels and don't recognize Jesus' ministry as one of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control, then I'd be extremely interested to hear your reasoning
DeleteJesus sounds like a very nice guy,however your claims were about God. What is your evidence about God's nature,beyond someone else's assertion in the Bible?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIndeed, but since the argument is that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, He expresses God's nature in its fullness.
DeleteIf you want to know God's character/nature, look at Jesus. You don't need someone else's assertion, as Jesus himself asserts it clearly and succinctly, citing His words and miracles as evidence for His deity.
John 14:9-11 - "Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
omg
DeleteIndeed, but since the argument is that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, He expresses God's nature in its fullness.
That is not an argument,it is an assertion.
If you want to know God's character/nature, look at Jesus. You don't need someone else's assertion, as Jesus himself asserts it clearly and succinctly, citing His words and miracles as evidence for His deity.
No offense but his words are not that unique and we only have his devotees to attest his miracles. It is a shame that he decided to appear at a time in history when communication was so primitive, leaving only second hand reports of his actions.
...he decided to appear at a time in history when communication was so primitive, leaving only second hand reports of his actions.
DeleteActually, that was an essential element of the plan.
@ velikovskys
DeleteHis words are not that unique? What other major religion hinges upon a man claiming to be God? Also, it wasn't just his devotees who attest to his miracles but the very people who conspired to put him to death--in their own Talmud, the Jews chronicle Jesus as a "sorcerer," an obvious title for someone performing miraculous deeds who they intend to crucify for blasphemy.
Furthermore, if you study the book of Daniel (chapter 9, specifically) you'll discover that God gives a specific timetable predicting the exact year the Messiah would present himself to his people from the time that the city of Jerusalem is decreed to be rebuilt (444/445 B.C.). This is so there will be absolutely no confusion when the Messiah arrives. It just so happens that Jesus makes his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt the very year Daniel's prophecy predicts. This, of course, doesn't include the dozens of other prophecies Jesus fulfilled in his birth, life, death and resurrection.
Now, while it's easy to disregard history as myth or tall tale, denying it altogether takes quite an extraordinary leap of faith, especially when it's corroborated by prophecy after prophecy predating the birth of Christ. I mean, do the hundreds of thousands of martyrs in the early church mean so little to you? Do you know anyone, let alone an entire group of people, willing to die for a lie?
One last point: the gospels of Matthew and John are both eyewitness accounts, so claiming we only possess second hand reports of his actions simply isn't true.
omg,
DeleteOne last point: the gospels of Matthew and John are both eyewitness accounts, so claiming we only possess second hand reports of his actions simply isn't true.
When was the Gospel of John written?
This, of course, doesn't include the dozens of other prophecies Jesus fulfilled in his birth, life, death and resurrection.
For instance?
omg,
DeleteHis words are not that unique? What other major religion hinges upon a man claiming to be God?
Actually I was referring to His message , not to His claim of divinity. Though people believing they are God is not that unique.
Also, it wasn't just his devotees who attest to his miracles but the very people who conspired to put him to death--in their own Talmud, the Jews chronicle Jesus as a "sorcerer
See that is the problem, there is disagreement about that. Though it is curious that the most learned scholars in the Bible at that time did not recognize Jesus as the fulfiller of prophecies, and strangely still don't. Even Christians are not universal in their beliefs. It just seems much of this confusion could be easily avoided.
an obvious title for someone performing miraculous deeds who they intend to crucify for blasphemy.
So are you saying the Jews honestly believed Jesus was blasphemous?
Pedant,
DeleteActually, that was an essential element of the plan.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
velikovskys said, “When was the Gospel of John written?”
DeleteJohn’s Gospel was probably written during the last part of his life, somewhere between 95-100AD, after the synoptic gospels had circulated for at least a few decades.
velikovskys said, “For instance?”
Here are just a few. The Old Testament scriptures are from the Greek Septuagint, translated from the original Hebrew by expert Jewish rabbis centuries before Christ’s birth.
-Birth-
*Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.*
(OT) Michaeus 5:2 - And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.
(NT) Luke 2:4-6 - So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born…
*Messiah would be born of a virgin.*
(OT) Esaias 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
(NT) Matthew 1:20-21 - But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
-Life-
*Messiah would be a prophet.*
(OT) Deuteronomy 18:17-18 - And the Lord said to me, They have spoken rightly all that they have said to thee. I will raise up to them a prophet of their brethren, like thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them as I shall command him.
(NT) John 8:28 - So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
*Messiah would be rejected by his own people.*
(OT) Esaias 49:7 - Thus saith the Lord that delivered thee, the God of Israel, Sanctify him that despises his life, him that is abhorred by the nations that are the servants of princes: kings shall behold him, and princes shall arise, and shall worship him, for the Lord’s sake: for the Holy One of Israel is faithful, and I have chosen thee.
(NT) John 1:10-11 - He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
(continued in next post)
-Death-
Delete*Messiah would be crucified, having his hands and feet pierced.*
(OT) Psalm 22:14-16 - I am poured out like water, and all my bones are loosened: my heart in the midst of my belly is become like melting wax. My strength is dried up, like a potsherd; and my tongue is glued to my throat; and thou hast brought me down to the dust of death. For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
(NT) John 20:25 - So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
*Messiah does not speak against his accusers who seek to kill him.*
(OT) Isaiah 53:7-8 - And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.
(NT) Matthew 26:62-63 - The high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" But Jesus kept silent.
-Resurrection-
*Messiah would die, yet not see corruption.*
(OT) Psalm 16:9-10 - Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
(NT) Mark 16:6-8 - “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
*Messiah would ascend to heaven.*
(OT) Psalm 68:17-18 - The chariots of God are ten thousand fold, thousands of rejoicing ones: the Lord is among them, in Sina, in the holy place. 18 Thou art gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for man, yea, for they were rebellious, that thou mightest dwell among them.
(NT) Acts 1:9-11 - After saying this, he was taken up into a cloud while they were watching, and they could no longer see him. As they strained to see him rising into heaven, two white-robed men suddenly stood among them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!”
velikovskys said, “Actually I was referring to His message , not to His claim of divinity. Though people believing they are God is not that unique.”
His message is incredibly unique! He is literally the only person in all major religions who speaks of the utter futility of man’s efforts to reconcile himself to God, understanding fully the conundrum Socrates presents to Plato in saying “It may be that the Deity can forgive sins, but I do not see how.” While all other religions mistakenly proclaim that we will be forgiven by our works, Socrates understands that we, as imperfect sinners, will never be able to earn our salvation from a perfect, holy and sinless God. This is where the message of Christ radically departs from other religious messages, telling us that our salvation is a free gift given to anyone who puts their faith in God. This is diametrically opposed to any other religion, hinging upon God’s mercy on unworthy sinners to save us instead of the sinners’ works saving themselves.
velikovskys said, “See that is the problem, there is disagreement about that. Though it is curious that the most learned scholars in the Bible at that time did not recognize Jesus as the fulfiller of prophecies, and strangely still don't. Even Christians are not universal in their beliefs. It just seems much of this confusion could be easily avoided. “
DeleteEven this rejection of their Messiah is part of God’s overarching plan of salvation, for if the Jews had not rejected Jesus, salvation would not have been made available to the Gentiles. Additionally, the Sanhedrin was already divided into two factions, Sadducees and Pharisees, with the Sadducees rejecting virtually all spiritual/supernatural beliefs (including life after death) and the Pharisees accepting these beliefs. Thus, in witnessing Jesus’ miraculous ministry, it’s not hard to see why a great schism amongst the Jewish authorities would exist. That said, the early church was almost completely Jewish!
But you’re right about one thing, this confusion could and would be easily avoided if people studied the Bible more carefully:
Acts 17:11-12 - Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
But even 2,000 years ago, there were extremely well-respected members of the Sanhedrin who cautioned against rejecting the words of the Apostles outright, understanding the strong possibility that Jesus’ ministry was of God:
Acts 5:34-39 - But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
velikovskys said, “So are you saying the Jews honestly believed Jesus was blasphemous?”
The ones who sought to kill him, yes. At least, this was their superficial reasoning. Inwardly, they feared the people would establish him as king and their power would be usurped.
John 10:31-33 - Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Matthew 26:65-68 - Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.
omg,
DeleteEven this rejection of their Messiah is part of God’s overarching plan of salvation
If the scholars had free will,how did God know what they would choose in order to make it part of His Plan?
for if the Jews had not rejected Jesus, salvation would not have been made available to the Gentiles
Yikes.
Additionally, the Sanhedrin was already divided into two factions, Sadducees and Pharisees, with the Sadducees rejecting virtually all spiritual/supernatural beliefs (including life after death) and the Pharisees accepting these beliefs
So even then the Bible was in contention.
Thus, in witnessing Jesus’ miraculous ministry, it’s not hard to see why a great schism amongst the Jewish authorities would exist. That said, the early church was almost completely Jewish
Sounds more political than religious, how many Jews accepting Him would have triggered the no gentile clause? If all the Jews accepted Jesus tomorrow would all Gentiles be retroactively unsaved? I find this fascinating.
But you’re right about one thing, this confusion could and would be easily avoided if people studied the Bible more carefully
Except the Rabbis study it plenty why is your interpretation correct?
Velikovskys,
DeleteIf the scholars had free will,how did God know what they would choose in order to make it part of His Plan?
Aside from the go-to answer of “God is omniscient,” it is precisely because the scholars had free will that their choice was so obvious, for He had seen them play out the same pattern of faithlessness over and over and over again. This is the same people who, upon being rescued by God (through Moses) from Egypt through a series of miraculous events, began doubting almost immediately, murmuring that they should have never left Egypt in the first place. Virtually every book in the Old Testament features God or one of His prophets admonishing the Jews, punishing the Jews or calling them to repentance for their sins. As God succinctly put it, “I have seen these people and they are a stiff-necked people” (Exodus 32:9).
That doesn’t mean that God expected all of the Jews to reject their Messiah, merely those in power whose hearts had been corrupted to wield their influence to (unknowingly) accomplish God’s purpose of making Jesus an atoning sacrifice for sin.
Yikes
I may be overstepping in saying “salvation would not have been made available to the Gentiles,” as the Romans may have ended up putting Jesus to death on a cross anyway. The point, however, is that Jesus’ crucifixion was always Plan A because salvation for the entire world was always God’s plan; the Jews were merely the vessel through which God would bring this salvation, and their rejection of their Messiah unknowingly facilitated this.
So even then the Bible was in contention.
Yes, in contention between the faithful and the faithless.
Contention between the Jews and the Word of God is nothing new, as demonstrated by the relationship between the Prophets and their people; King Ahab tried to kill Elijah and imprisoned Micah, Zechariah was stoned to death after speaking against the idolatry of Jewish high priests, Jeremiah was beaten and thrown in prison for warning of the calamity they faced, Amos was condemned to exile for denouncing corruption in Samaria, John the Baptist was imprisoned (and eventually beheaded) by Herod for speaking out against his adulterous marriage and the list goes on.
As a sidenote, following Gamaliel’s logic, the Sadduccees became a relic of history after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD while the Early Church exploded into millions, and billions, of believers. Not that I necessarily correlate truth with strength in numbers, but it’s worth mentioning.
(continued from last post)
DeleteSounds more political than religious, how many Jews accepting Him would have triggered the no gentile clause? If all the Jews accepted Jesus tomorrow would all Gentiles be retroactively unsaved? I find this fascinating.
If “political” is slang for “self-serving,” then absolutely. And while asking hypothetical questions about diverging from God’s intended purpose may serve as an interesting thought experiment, they ultimately tell us nothing as God did accomplish His purpose according to scripture; had the Jews accepted Jesus unanimously as their Messiah and never condemned him to death, the history of world events may have played out very different or perhaps the same scenario would have played out with Roman antagonists instead of Jewish ones. As it stands, they did reject him, they did condemn him to death and salvation was made available as a consequence.
As for the hypothetical about retroactive unsaving, the answer is absolutely not. Once Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, it was finished. Salvation was made available to everyone according to God’s plan. Jews accepting Jesus as their Messiah in a modern context simply means that they’re putting their faith in the resurrected Messiah rather than the pre-resurrected Messiah and does not affect the salvation of Gentiles one way or another.
Except the Rabbis study it plenty why is your interpretation correct?
First, it’s worth pointing out that over 300 active Messianic Jewish ministries are operating in Israel alone, so I do not stand alone in this interpretation, nor do Christians. Second, there have been plenty of Rabbis (most recently and famously Yitzhak Kaduri) who have come to recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
For the long answer, I highly recommend Dr. Michael Brown’s (a Messianic Jew) 5-volume anthology “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.”
The short answer goes something like this: Jesus is alluded to in every book of the Bible, from Genesis when the seed of the woman is prophesied to crush the head of the serpent (destruction of sin) to God testing Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his only begotten son (note Abraham’s response to Isaac’s question in Genesis 22 regarding where the sacrifice would come from: “God himself will provide the lamb.”) to Moses commanding the Israelites to smear the blood of a sacrificed lamb over their doors to save themselves from the angel of death, to the very system of sacrifice instituted in the Jewish Law, including the Day of Atonement where all of the sins of the people are removed by the shedding of blood of an innocent lamb.
Literally every aspect of Judaism is a pattern, symbol or prophecy pointing to the Messiah, so when John the Baptist boldly proclaimed “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” it isn’t a matter of interpretation so much as it is one of recognition.
As to why the Rabbis are unable to see what is so obvious, I’ll leave you with Jeremiah’s words:
Jeremiah 5:21-23
"Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear:
“Should you not fear me?” declares the LORD.
“Should you not tremble in my presence?
I made the sand a boundary for the sea,
an everlasting barrier it cannot cross.
The waves may roll, but they cannot prevail;
they may roar, but they cannot cross it.
But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts; they have turned aside and gone away."
omg,
DeleteAside from the go-to answer of “God is omniscient,” it is precisely because the scholars had free will that their choice was so obvious, for He had seen them play out the same pattern of faithlessness over and over and over again
Perhaps Jesus was insufficiently persuasive at the time.
This is the same people who, upon being rescued by God (through Moses) from Egypt through a series of miraculous events, began doubting almost immediately, murmuring that they should have never left Egypt in the first place
Is this when they were pointlessly wandering around in the desert?
Virtually every book in the Old Testament features God or one of His prophets admonishing the Jews, punishing the Jews or calling them to repentance for their sins. As God succinctly put it, “I have seen these people and they are a stiff-necked people”
It is a better narrative to show what happens when you disobey God. Ghost stories.
As to why the Rabbis are unable to see what is so obvious, I’ll leave you with Jeremiah’s words:
Or you are incorrect.
Velikovskys,
DeletePerhaps Jesus was insufficiently persuasive at the time.
Luke 16:31 - "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
Is this when they were pointlessly wandering around in the desert?
No, they are punished to wander the desert because of their faithlessness.
Or you are incorrect.
God only knows, eh?
James 1:5-8 - If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
omg,
DeleteBut when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
Faith without doubt is meaningless.
omg, you speak as though the fairy tales in the bible actually happened and as though your imaginary sky daddy is real. If you had been born and raised in Iran, do you think that you would be believing in and pushing christianity?
DeleteYou're a product of your programming, and your religious beliefs are ridiculous, contradictory, monstrous, impossible fairy tales. What is so bad in your life that you need such an unrealistic crutch?
The whole truth,
DeleteDo you ever wonder why you're always the one asking the questions, yet never producing any answers of your own? Surely someone so confident in their own philosophical footing should reveal what evidence they've obtained to give them such religious faith in atheism.
Since you mentioned being a product of one's programming wherein the religious beliefs are ridiculous, contradictory, monstrous and impossible fairytales, as an atheist, would you mind explaining a few things to me according to your belief system?
-Where did the universe come from?
-Where did life come from?
-Why is the universe fine-tuned for life?
-Where did information embedded in DNA come from?
-How does something come from nothing (the logical conclusion of atheism)?
-If science adheres to the rule of biogenesis (only life can come from life), doesn't logic dictate that whatever created the first life had to be alive itself?
-Do you think consciousness is a self-emergent property inherent to the universe? If not, how do you explain your own consciousness? If so, what's preventing you from believing that the universe itself is conscious?
-Why are you willing to believe in the miracle of creation (the universe and all of its fine tuned properties emerging from nothing, life and all of its spectacular design emerging through purely mindless chemical/physical reactions) but so reticent to believe there is a Creator?
omg,
ReplyDeleteIf, as you claim, God is inside His creation, you are a pantheist. In case you haven't noticed.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a pantheist...
DeleteIf that was the only thing I claimed, perhaps. But it wasn't.
DeleteI also claimed that God transcends His creation, which explicitly rules out pantheism.
omg,
DeleteYes, you have abundantly shown that you are comfortable making inconsistent claims.
Actually, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand what a paradox is.
DeleteI understand that a person who thinks that he can wriggle out of a logical contradiction by playing a paradox card is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
DeleteSo is your contention that paradoxes don't exist, or that they exist only when they conveniently explain logical contradictions in physics (Schrodinger's cat, double-slit experiment, Uncertainty principle, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, etc.)?
DeleteI think you missed one option in your list of possibilities: "or the paradox is genuine and the person rejecting the paradox is either stupid or intellectually dishonest."
omg,
DeleteWhen you invoked "paradox" to deal with logical contradictions in your thought processes, as you did when you said that your god is both inside and outside of its creation, you were just making something up to deal with those two other things you made up.
How about citing your criteria for determining whether a paradox is "genuine" or not?
Pedant,
DeleteA paradox is genuine when the addition of non-contradictory information to the original statement clarifies a mistaken assumption and renders any logical “contradiction” moot. A logical contradiction is genuine when a statement is self-refuting and cannot be reconciled, regardless of additional information.
“Something came from nothing,” for instance, is a logical contradiction. Nothing is the absence of anything and thus cannot produce something. One might attempt to convert the contradiction into a paradox by introducing new information like “Something came from nothing, assuming nothing is actually X” but they merely shift the logical contradiction around, redefining “nothing” as “something,” using semantics to change their argument from “Something came from nothing” to “Something came from something (that we mistakenly call nothing).”
As far as God simultaneously participating in and existing outside of His creation, this can easily be shown to be paradoxical if we can explain a scenario accounting for both premises without contradicting either.
A real world example can illustrate this concept fairly easily: If I claim to be both inside and outside of my backyard pool, you might say “That’s logically impossible” but when I explain that I stuck my feet in the water to cool down but declined to go swimming and fully immerse myself. By simply giving you new information, the incomprehensible idea of me existing in two simultaneous states quickly reveals itself as logically valid.
Therefore, if I say to you that “the Holy Spirit, who is God, permeates all of creation, while God the Father supervises everything from Heaven” I’ve reconciled this assumed contradiction without contradicting either premise. Of course you might respond with, “It’s a logical contradiction for one divine being to be separated into three person,” to which I’d respond with 1. How do you know? and 2. If it’s not a logical contradiction for one human being to be separated into two persons (conjoined twins), why would it be for God?
Thanks, omg,
DeleteSo, when John says, in his first epistle, as you quoted, "...God is light...," John was not speaking metaphorically, but literally.
How do you know that?
And how do you reconcile that with Genesis 1:3, where your god is reported to have said, "...Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."
It looks to me (ignorant and humble atheist that I am) that the author of Genesis is saying that his god created light.
Would you kindly explain how a creature (light) is identical to its creator?
And please don't say that it's a "paradox" or a "mystery." That is ridiculous.
If it’s not a logical contradiction for one human being to be separated into two persons (conjoined twins), why would it be for God?
Deleteomg, please try to get a grip on logic. One human being is one person and vice versa. Two human persons are two human beings, and vice versa. If those two persons had the misfortune of being joined at birth, they were and are two human beings.
Do you deny that conjoined twins are two "souls," each with an independent will?
Do the hypothesized separate persons in your god have separate, independent wills? I think not.
Pedant,
DeleteSo, when John says, in his first epistle, as you quoted, "...God is light...," John was not speaking metaphorically, but literally.
How do you know that?
I don’t see why both possibilities aren’t on the table. God is certainly light in a metaphoric sense, but double (or triple, or quadruple) entendre is a common rhetorical device in scripture used to embed two (or more) meanings in one phrase. I’ll clarify my original point by saying that I don’t think the fullness of God can be described exclusively as light in the same way that the fullness of man can’t be described exclusively as “flesh and blood,” though that description is apt and truthful.
Rather, light is a physical attribute of God’s glory; we see this when Moses speaks to God in a burning bush (that doesn’t consume the bush), when David describes God in the psalms as “clothing himself with light” (Psalm 104), when God leads the Israelites through the desert as a pillar of fire, when Daniel describes the countenance of God as “lightning” with garment that is whiter than snow and in Revelation when New Jerusalem is illuminated not by the sun but by the glory of God. I’m sure there are a number of other examples that point to an explicit, tangible relationship between God and light, but I’ll leave it at those.
And how do you reconcile that with Genesis 1:3, where your god is reported to have said, "...Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."
It looks to me (ignorant and humble atheist that I am) that the author of Genesis is saying that his godcreated light.
Would you kindly explain how a creature (light) is identical to its creator?
And please don't say that it's a "paradox" or a "mystery." That is ridiculous.
Before answering your (worthwhile) questions, it’s important to clarify that just because a created substance maintains an attribute of its creator, this in no way makes it identical to its creator. For instance, water is an essential attribute of a human being, comprising 60-70% of their molecular substance. Water is also an essential attribute of a swimming pool. Does this mean if I fill an empty pool by spitting in it (over a long, long period of time) that the pool is now identical to me? Of course not. Part of me is in the pool, but the pool is not me and I am not the pool.
That said, yes, God did create light but what’s interesting is that upon close inspection of Genesis 1, God indicates that he spoke the light into existence rather than extracting it from His being. Thus, even if you don’t accept my spitting-in-the-pool-analogy, the Bible itself confirms that while God is light, the light of the universe is not God.
So if created light isn’t God, the question remains: what mechanism could God have used to create light? Well, we already know he speaks from Genesis 1:3, so sound (acoustic waves) is one facet, but sound alone won’t account for light, so we’re still in a bind. This is where close attention to detail is vital, because if we read Genesis 1:1-2, we see that the heavens (the boundaries of time and space in our universe) and the earth (still formless and void) were created before light and, most importantly, “darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved along the face of the waters.” This means one of two things: 1. Water was a foundational molecule in God’s creation, before even light or 2. Water existed in whatever Prime Reality preceded the Big Bang.
So before light, we have sound and water, which just so happen to be the two necessary elements for sonoluminescence (a strange, but very real phenomenon). Thus, by speaking at the right frequency into a water-filled expanse, God created light and from that light created the rest of the universe.
omg, please try to get a grip on logic. One human being is one person and vice versa. Two human persons are two human beings, and vice versa. If those two persons had the misfortune of being joined at birth, they were and are two human beings.
DeletePedant, when I say “human being” I mean human body, as in the physical substance and space which that person occupies. Typically you are correct, as there is almost always a ratio of one person to one body. This is why the conjoined twin thought experiment is worthwhile, because our normal assumptions about identity as it relates to physicality are turned upside down.
For example, say there’s a set of conjoined twins who share everything from the neck down but have two heads sticking out of their shoulders. Now let’s say you touch one of their arms yet both of them feel the sensation—while I agree that this indicates there are two distinct persons living within this one body, how will you distinguish which arm belongs to who? This is a clear example of both persons experiencing the same sensation through one being (their body). Now let’s say that while those persons may have separate, independent wills, in order to do ANYTHING below the neck, they must coordinate their movements in harmony to accomplish an agreed upon objective. That is, if one person wants to go on a walk, the other person must necessarily commit to this idea for it to come to fruition. In this we see two separate persons (metaphysical) struggling as one unified being (physical).
Do you deny that conjoined twins are two "souls," each with an independent will?
Nope.
Do the hypothesized separate persons in your god have separate, independent wills? I think not.
When Jesus is praying in Gethsemane, he directly refutes your assumption:
Luke 22:42 – “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.
If Jesus did not have his own separate, independent will then He would have never uttered this statement. That said, the reason why the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unified in their purpose isn’t because of some mechanical necessity (like the example of the conjoined twins) but rather because of the LOVE between them. So great is Jesus’ love for the Father that he exemplifies obedience even unto death. Thus, while separate, independent wills exist within each person of the Godhead, the perfect love, humility and obedience present within this Divine relationship brings them into perfect unity with each other.
...it’s important to clarify that just because a created substance maintains an attribute of its creator, this in no way makes it identical to its creator.
DeleteBut you said: "God is light." Do you deny that light is a creature of your god? How can your god be both a creator and a creature? Don't you see the incoherence?
If Jesus did not have his own separate, independent will then He would have never uttered this statement.
DeleteInasmuch as Jesus was at that moment in your imaginary history a human creature of your father god, that utterance obviously was a product of his human nature. That is the problem of being a chimera: which of your natures is relevant in a given situation?
Pedant,
DeleteRegarding the nature of exchanges between people discussing paradoxes, thank you for demonstrating my third option with such poise.
Best Regards,
omG liek kewl
And I thank you, omG liek kewl, most heartily, for apprising me of absurdities in Christian theology that had previously escaped my notice.
DeleteAu revoir,
Pedant
Are we beating a non living equus ferus caballus?
ReplyDeleteJust sounding the depth
Delete