Sketches on Atheism

THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED

Post dedicated to America’s Newest Best Worst Apologist, Mel Wild: senior pastor at the Cornerstone Church.

It is the most conspicuous religious question never answered, and this simple brute fact should aggravate and needle every waking moment of every person who believes this world was created:

Why did the Creator create? For what purpose was this artificial world intended?

In the Christian theatre, the totality of thought paid to this rarely even asked question begins and ends with the 13th century musings of the Dominican friar, St. Thomas Aquinas: bonum diffusivum sui, goodness spilled out.

This suggestion (that creation was some sort of an inevitable accident) is fatally flawed; a victim of Christianity’s own laboured definition of the nature of their god, a Middle Eastern god named Yhwh. According to the Christian philosopher, Yhwh is an aseitic being, meaning fully contained and existing in and of itself. Nothing is, or can be, outside God. God is all, and all is God. Pantheism and aseity are inseparable, and because they are inseparable, there can be no spill-over. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity.

Self-evidently, the Dominican friar was wrong. Creation could not have been an accident. Something wholly unique—something artificial—was created, and apologists like Mel Wild (who repeatedly claims only religion can answer the “why” questions) have no option but to embrace the synthetic corporeality of this world , stating “God is NOT the universe!” “He exists outside the universe,” and here, again:A “constructed” world is a false world. It is an unnatural, synthetic contrivance; a petri dish quarantined from the actual world (all that which is the aseitic Creator), and we know this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

An aseitic being cannot, after all, not be. An aseitic being cannot die. No such limitation exists in this world. A single-celled amoeba will enter this world, uninvited, live its entire life and die in two days. A human being, if they’re lucky, eighty or ninety years. Our planet, the earth, will be reduced to a cloud of atomic dust in about five billion years. And in one shape or another, the universe itself will cease to exist as it does today in a handful (or perhaps a basketful) of trillions of years. For the theist, that inevitably means we’re 1) outside the (eternal) Creator, and 2) inside an artificial scape; a world which did not have to be created, but was, and that leaves the greatest religious question still unanswered… Why?

What is the purpose of this petri dish we call the universe?

Why was this artificial world created?

What function does it serve?

Why are we here?

 

 

Advertisements

437 thoughts on “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED

  1. Good to see you back with yet another incisive question that should make any thinking person go “hmmmm?” The only answer the deists have is to worship this outside time and existence being. Sort of makes the being a sad and lonely sorta guy!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Deism can be defended because you can posit a disinterested creator. The Christian, though, proposes an interested, mindful god, and if we consider that this world did not have to be created, then they really should be able to answer “Why was it created”? Not having that answer would drive me nuts.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The answer is to know (P)erfection, ie., objective (S)upremacy, which you INEXPLICABLY conceive as an artificial “limitation.”

        Imagine, the highest IQs in the white race put their collective minds towards either conceiving of a “limited” (P)erfection (an oxymoron) or just plain deny (P)erfection outright (self-denial) such that they are left to ask, “What is objective (S)upremacy” without a hint of naïveté.

        Mr. Zande…

        You simply do not know a will to do ALL Right… A desire for (P)erfection (you actually do, but are in deep denial). “It” is not a mechanical “thing.” And yet, no aseitic uni-verse can fail to accommodate “it.”

        Like

      • Because you cannot recognize (G)od > (g)od just as you cannot recognize white (S)upremacy > white (s)upremacy. What this tells me is that you are an anti-(C)apitalist and intentionally engage in a subversive use of the English language.

        Like

      • (T)his (i)s (h)ilarious(!) (J)ust (b)lew (c)offee (o)ut (m)y (n)ose (f)rom (l)aughing (s)o (h)ard(!) (Y)ou (a)theists (R) (s)ick (i)n (t)he (h)ead(!) (F)riggin(‘) (W)eirdos(!) (W)hat(‘)s (f)riggin(‘) w(r)ong wi(t)h yo(u) peop(l)e (?)

        Liked by 4 people

      • No. Hopefully he’s attempting to be humorous because those comments are incomprehensible gibberish. I thought I’d seen ’em all, but those comments have opened me up to a whole new level of “detachment from reality syndrome”. 😀

        Liked by 3 people

      • Mr. Zande…

        I only preface a few select words, namely, (S)upremacy and (P)erfection.

        These two words are like crypto-night to the godless ones.

        BUT…

        Only because *you* are largely a DERACINATED and soulless bunch.

        So it makes perfect sense.

        Deracinated, soulless “beings” CANNOT KNOW (P)erfection, ie., objective (S)upremacy.

        PS I bet you can see “white (s)upremacy,” though? And what an “ugly” thing that it is, right?

        Like

      • I’ll once again draw your attention to the Reformational Philosophy Association’s Chairman’s highly astude 2013 obser(v)at-ion:

        “postmodern [Christian] writing is often impenetrable”.
        -Gerrit Glas

        Like

      • Mr. Zande…

        You are drawn to (P)erfection, but deny this attraction.

        Why?

        “How” does this equal high intelligence?

        Like

      • Mr. Zande…

        Your “cosmos as se” is perfected at its beginning otherwise an imperfect origin is se. Ergo, Aseity equals bad mechanics (versus perfected mechanics). This is “radical autonomy.”

        Like

      • Mr. Zande…

        You are a white (S)upremacist suppressed by anti-racist atheism. You must use your high IQ to break free.

        Like

      • Inspiredbythedivine1…

        One either desires (P)erfection or he rejects (P)erfection.

        And it does not matter whether one is an anti-racist atheist satanist or a hardcore racist white Christian (S)upremacist.

        The most vociferous of high IQ “white” male anti-racist atheist satanists REJECT objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection, but are intelligent enough not to state this explicitly in public.

        Where are you at on the desire or rejection of (P)erfection?

        Like

      • I(‘)m (e)nteri(n)g (A) (s)tate (of) (P)erfection no(w)(!) (W)hen I(‘)ve re(a)ched sai(d) st(A)te (,) a(LL) w(I)ll kn(OW) be(cause) t(he) (SKY) wi(LL) be(come) p(ur)ple (&) (ANTS) w(ILL) da(NCE) (&) (SING) (J)ohnny (C)ash (Tu)nes (IN) La(tin) (4) a(LL) (2) (en)joy(!) $Amen$

        Liked by 2 people

      • IBTD1…

        (P)erfection = objective (S)upremacy —> white (S)upremacy —> subjective (s)upremacy —> “white (s)upremacy…”

        You are an anti-“white (s)upremacist” AS an anti-racist egalitarian.

        And you are an anti-white (S)upremacist as an atheist anti-Christian.

        In other words, you are SIMPLY an anti-white (S)upremacist.

        But you have hardly examined the consequences of this belief.

        Such belief renders you “terminable without consent” by your own rules.

        Like

      • (V)ery tr(ue) (!) Cou(L)d (NOT) a(gree) m(OR)e(.) (AS) (a) (DARK) (s)kinn(ed) (m)in(or)(i)ty (I) (t)ake (MY) (dis)like (of) (W)hite (du)des (AS) (SER)ious(LY) (A)s (I) (TAKE) (EVERY)thing (E)lse(!) (W)hen (M)y (KIng)(DOM) (COMES) (MY) (W)ill (SH)all (BE) (D)one (&) (S)tick(s) (‘N) (ST)ones (wo)n’t h(ur)t m(E) (!) (L)ike (ODIN) (O)nce sai(d) (2) (Lo)ki(:) (“) (BOY) (,) (g)o aw(AY) (,) (Y)a(‘) both(er) (me).(“) (Be)ware (the) (TR)ees (U) (R) be(ing) (mon)itored (at) (A)ll (time)s(.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • (THE) ch(i)cken cam(e) (1st) (&) (th)en i(t) (lai)d (2) egg(s)(.) (1) (egg) (th)at (con)tain(ed) (a) (Thanks(giving) (Tur)key (&) (an)other (t)hat (contained) (&) (a) (TURKEY) (4) (x)mas(,) (&) (ther)e (WAS) (G)reat (re)joicing(!) (Be)WARE (THE) (parked) (c)ars (U) (p)ass(!) (U) (R) (be)ing (WATCHED) (v)ery(,) (v)ery (C)losely(.) (THEY) (K)now (WHO) (U) (R)(!) (B) (afr)aid(.) (B) (v)ery(,) (v)ery (a)fraid(.) (Th)ey’re (WATCHING) (R)ight (N)ow(!) (SQUAWK) (!) (SQUAWK) (!) (SQUAWK) (!) (I) (l)ike (my) (e)ggs (sc(r)ambled(,) (P)lease(.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • IBTD1…

        It’s not entirely clear whether you are affirming my point or whether you are unaware of your affirmation of my point? Either way, per “equality,” you are mired in a state of “radical autonomy.” As a pseudo-scientist, you are in a rebellion against objective (S)upremacy. The trickle down effect being a noxious aversion to white (S)upremacy and trans-formation into mundane shit-lib.

        Like

      • (U) have(E) (B)een (RE)corded. (Be)ware (t(H)e Tr(ees)(.) (Watch) (ou)(T) whe(N) (MEN) (in) (Blac)k sun(GLASSES) (P)ass (by) (U)(.) (Where)ever (U) (GO)(.) (What)ever (YOU) (d)o(,) (you) (R) be(ing) (wat)ched(.) (Th)ey (k)now (X)actly (wher)e (y)ou (a)re (a)nd (they)’re (Com)ing (4) (U)(.) (T)his (Mess)age (h)as (b)een (br)ought (2) (U) (BY) (t)he (p)eo(p)le (who) (R) (W)atching (every) (M)ove (u) (make). (Watch) (t)he (t)rees(,) (&) (p)lease(,) (W)ipe (ur) mo(uth)(.) (Th)ey’re (WATCHING)(,) (&) (th)ey’re (st)icklers (4) (g)ood (hy)giene(.) (BURP)(!)

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting. Most interesting is Mel’s statement. First he claims a belief (without evidence). Then he offers an opinion (without evidence), then he employs logic?

    I was trained as a negotiator. In a particular form of negotiating, one lists all of the reasons/needs behind the solution one wants to fins, then one digs deep and comes up with as many options one can imagine, then one sifts through the options looking for combinations of them that satisfy the reasons/needs. One of the things we are trained to avoid is the possibility of people sneaking onto the list of reasons/needs an option they desire because then the only way to satisfy that need is with that option. For example, if one says “I need a form of transportation that is faster than walking” to get to work, that is a real need, If one says “I need a bicycle,” that is an option disguised as a need.

    It seems that these Spin Doctors (I am a real doctor, I have a PhD in theology!) all seem to follow this pattern. Working backward, since there was a designer, one should be able to see designs and if there are visible designs then those designs need to have been constructed. So, premise #1, premise #2, conclusion I desire. There is, of course, no way to establish whether those premises have any validity at all and, in fact, modern creationists are struggling mightily to show any design whatsoever (and they always start with gemstones or bananas, instead of puddles and mud holes.

    I have a post (today?) that may shed some light on this.

    Liked by 6 people

    • He’s deserving of The Best Worst Apologist award. He’s even coined “Science of the Gaps,” which I’m sure would interest you. In fact, he just put up a Science of the Gaps post a few minutes ago. Of course, being the Best Worst Apologist means Mel is not at all interested in knowing his speaking nonsense. It sounds good to him, and that’s all that counts.

      Like

    • Leads us back to the old unassailable query: “So where did ol’ God come from?”

      (Unassailable because unanswerable—thus quite infuriating.) (No wonder that so many questioners ended up burned on a stake.)

      Liked by 2 people

  3. The terrible questions “where are we from, why are we here, and where are we going”, have eluded philosophy and religion ever since we became so curious. I was raised in the Mormon faith. Joseph Smith could throw answers off the cuff about theses things, finally giving answers to the unanswerable. He said god appeared to him and his message resonates with millions of followers. The problem is he made them up. Tell someone what they want to hear and you can dupe them into believing anything, take their wives and their money while demanding complete obedience. I am unqualified to answer this question, but after I see Mel’s response I’ll know for sure. The Mormon answer is for us and god to have joy. For his pleasure. He built this earth to see what we would do outside of his presence, and if we did good we could go back and live with him again in total bliss. After reading your book lately, I am still processing the data to decide if that would be a good thing or not.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mormons believe Yhwh is in this universe, don’t they? Interestingly enough, I wrote a post ages ago about suing the LDS church for false advertising. It’s actually doable, based on chapter 3 of Smith’s 1835 Book of Abraham, and specifically, this line, “the name of the great [star] one is Kolob,” then constrasted with Section 76 of his Doctrine and Covenants.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Maybe I could get some money back. Lol. They believe god is aware of everything in the universe but has a resurrected body of flesh and bone in perfect form. . . So will we after the resurrection, and be like god. I like the lawsuit idea. I bet they have pretty good lawyers though, and they can hide behind belief.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ah, but as Kolob is a supermassive star then it has a finite life, and when it goes supernova, then so too does the Celestial Kingdom!

        I actually like the way you expianed the Mormom answer. At least it is an answer, albeit a rathter nefarious one.

        Liked by 2 people

    • And you think people don’t want to hear that they will be annihilated upon at physical death?

      What is the consequence of believing in General Entropy as an article of faith?

      Nothing?

      Impossible.

      Like

  4. Frankfurt (1988:125):
    [His] “statement is grounded neither in a belief that it is
    true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is
    just this lack of connection to a concern with truth — this
    indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of
    the essence of bullshit.”
    I think this is the most interesting aspect of the word (and other) games played by types like Mel which are simply exercises in deception.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. Why questions are unanswerable except in terms of an agent contemplating alternatives. If there is no such agent, why questions have no answers, exactly like questions about the present king of France. So it is only those who posit a purposeful creator who need to answer your question.

    But I propose a trivial answer. I can imagine a deity who wishes to display love, or malice, or a cocktail of these and other ways of interacting with his creatures, and therefore creates a universe

    Liked by 2 people

    • exactly like questions about the present king of France… I like that line!

      and therefore creates a universe… something more akin to a perverted experiment than a garden. The TOOAIN thesis is more logically/historically sound.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think of the garden more as a plantation and Adam the first hire. He and his helper eat something they weren’t allowed to eat (stealing) so they were fired and started their own gig. Now there’s competition, and the boss don’t like that so eventually he throws his weight around and destroys everything in a rage. Might make a good western

        Liked by 3 people

  6. It goes without saying John — although that’s what I’m about to do 😛 — your work and secular writing are exceptional and this post demonstrates why… if I can borrow your question(s). Haha.

    In order to offer some important debating, or apologetics, as the Devil’s Advocate here — since I do indeed have a lengthy background and education in this particular field, as does Peter, Nan, Charity, and several others, and should no one show up here from the Christian theological side to participate — I want to answer those last four questions from Holy Scriptures. After all, since God/Yhwh’s revelations to humanity come from a combination of THREE methods: 1) General Revelation, 2) Special Revelation thru His Word/Scriptures, and <b.3) Special Revelation thru the Holy Spirit… and of these three, #2 is the only strong(?) “revelation method” that is testable and more easily examined and scrutinized than the other two. #1 and #3 are overly subjective, not unanimous among Christians, and so very precarious at best! With my Devil’s Advocate answers, I will give supporting passages of Scripture at the end of each answer. So… to your fine questions John! 😁😈

    “What is the purpose of this petri dish we call the universe?”

    Answer: Humanity’s chief and highest end is to glorify God/Yhwh and fully to enjoy Him forever! Supporting Scripture: Romans 11:36, Psalm 73:24-28.

    “Why was this artificial world created?”

    Answer: The function of creation is that with it God did in the beginning, by the word of His power, made out of nothing the world, and all things on it, purely for Himself, within the space of six days, and all of it very good. (Genesis 1, Hebrews 11:3, Proverbs 16:4)

    “What function does it serve?”

    Answer: God’s creation of life and existence are His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures; ordering them, and all their actions, to His own glory. Period. End of discussion. 😉 (Psalm 145:17, Psalm 104:24, Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 103:19, Matthew 10:29-31, Romans 11:36)

    “Why are we here?”

    Answer: See above answers, but also… Our/Humanity’s very first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and consequently fell from the estate of pure innocence in which they were created and intended. This fall brought humanity into an estate of sin and utter misery. And what exactly is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature. Then God/Yhwh rectified His shortsighted mistake and made a covenant of grace with and onto His one and only Son the Second Adam. Only through the Son Christ is grace received to escape (be redeemed) from creation’s sin and utter misery! (Genesis 3:6-8, 13; Romans 5:12, 1 John 3:4, Galatians 3:16, Genesis 3:15, 1 John 5:11-12, John 3:16, Proverbs 1:23, 2 Corinthians 4:13, Galatians 5:22-23, Ezekiel 36:27, James 2:18, 22; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Ephesians 2:18)

    —————————————————-

    There you are John, straight from God’s/Yhwh’s breathed holy Words… Scriptures that are utterly infallable! Unless a hardcore Christian apologist wants to get into the extremely slippery, precarious General Revelation or paranormal Holy Spirit revelations to individuals around the world, these are essentially the BEST answers they can provide to you John.

    P.S. What do you think might happen if I am challenged by Xian apologists on these answers? Is it ME that is being challenged or is it their Holy Scriptures? 😉

    Liked by 6 people

    • I hope some do challenge you, just to see how the answers vary.

      For his glory has always been a dodgy answer as it leads inexorably to vanity, and the apologist loathes having to defend that character trait.

      Created the world purely for himself is also troublesome as it still doesn’t address the why. Was it for curiosity? The pivotal point here is that this world did not have to be created. There was no actual need, so what was the motivation?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Fantastic further questions John. Let’s hope Mel or someone similar — or honestly based on Christians around the entire globe: very different? — do indeed participate and offer NON-circular answers. We can certainly expect otheer “Christians” to chastise, antagonize, etc, Those are a penny-a-dozen and do nothing to benefit their “faith.” We’ll see, huh? 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • “The ‘answers’ in scripture are not answers.”

        Exactly. So then AT BEST the theist or Xian apologist is left with General Revelation (Nature & the Cosmos) and/or paranormal evidence of some Holy Spirit that can be a unanimous consensus for answers. Neither of which, after 2,000 – 3,000 years, has ever been done. In fact, over the last 3-4 centuries (provided progressive education, science, and critical-thinking skills are taught in a civilization rather than folklore & mythology) the evolution of cognitive sciences, both neural and social, keep showing every decade or half-decade that antiquated paradigms of religion border on ludicracy with no compelling supporting evidence other than orthodoxy, if I’m perfectly honest. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

    • Prof … some inquisitive (yet doomed to eternal Hellfire) may ask a simple question:

      Who created Satan? (As in ‘where the hell did Satan come from?’)

      I’ve never yet had a satisfactory answer and certainly I can’t answer it myself.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Argus … first of all, Satan doesn’t even exist. Second of all … if you haven’t already, you need to read my book where I discuss the Big Bad Guy in detail. But failing that … I will (eventually) write a post on the subject. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you Nan. But if I’m perfectly honest…

        it is God’s/Yhwh’s parade of concise, perfect answers right there in His Holy Scriptures that all 2.2 billion Christians agree upon are the answers to all of life’s and death’s questions. 😀

        Like

      • Ahhh, Argus! Thank you! I was REALLY hoping someone would ask such a question because God’s/Yhwh’s infallible Holy Scriptures answer that very question! Are you sitting down? Okay, wait to be blown-away by Scripture…

        Answer: Since God/Yhwh created all angels by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, has elected some angels to glory; and in Christ has chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extends or withholds favor as he pleases,) has passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. (1 Timothy 5:21, Ephesians 1:4-6, Romans 9:17-18, 21-22)

        Where did Satan come from? God created all the angels spirits, immortal, holy, excelling in knowledge, mighty in power, to execute his commandments, and to praise his name, yet subject to change. (Colossians 1:16, Psalm 104:4, Matthew 22:30, 25:31; 2 Samuel 14:17, Matthew 24:36, 2 Thessalonians 1:7, Psalm 103:20-21, 2 Peter 2:4)

        God by his providence permitted some of the angels (e.g. Satan), willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory; and established the rest in holiness and happiness; employing them all, at his pleasure, in the administrations of his power, mercy, and justice. (Jude 6; Job 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, Mark 8:38, Hebrews 12:22, Psalm 104:4, 2 Kings 19:35)

        ————————————————-

        There you are Argus. Clear as day available for ANYONE reasonable enough in intellect to read and understand. Done. End of debate.

        Now, if you’re going to ask me WHY create Satan, I’m going to slap you silly man and have more perfect answers straight from God’s mouth! Hahahaha! 😉 😛

        Liked by 3 people

      • Hahaha! Right, but I’m not the one who wrote it NomadWizard, it’s all right there in the Holy Scriptures that according to millions is straight from “God’s” mouth. Notice all the scripture references — that would be the “holy diarrhea spray” and “babble.” 😆

        Liked by 2 people

  7. As it happened, your latest post was read after I just read a report over on Mother Nature Network (MNN) about new ideas about the formation of our universe, and other universes, “Physicist believes vestiges of a previous universe could be floating around in our own. The idea challenges the theory of the Big Bang.”

    In other words, the truth of our existence, the whole existence, is far from settled. A grand overlord, a God, is a pathetic idea. But it is worse than a pathetic idea. The fire in Grenfell Tower in England some months ago killed many for no other reason than they were unlucky. A few lucky ones escaped. There was no plan, no logic, behind who died and who lived. It was utterly random. The fickle finger of fate!

    How could anyone believe in a loving, caring God who dealt the Grenfell Tower hand!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Exactly. If you wish to posit a mindful, competent designer, then you’re forced to defend a staggering amount of apparent incompetence.

      Now, the baryonic world (what we know) comprises only 4.6% of this universe. It shows some godawful degree of hubris to claim to have answers based on that fraction of information.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes! Along the lines of if there is a God Club then it’s a club of which I would rather not be a member.

        More seriously, I didn’t realise that humans know less than 5% of this universe. That is …., oh I don’t know, ….. almost spellbinding. Something to lose one’s heart and mind in. Just as I find myself utterly lost when staring into the night sky. Beyond words! Beyond meaning! But not beyond a gratitude of being alive at this moment. Alone in the cockpit of a yacht at night far out in the Atlantic Ocean.

        Sorry! Didn’t mean to ramble on! What was the question again? 😀

        Liked by 4 people

    • Bugger. The ‘oscillating Universe’ tried to answer that first thought. I like it, if we have to have a Big Bang … why should it be just the one?

      And let’s not forget that God wrote that tower into the script before The Creation. (Once Creation was up and running everything was in auto and not even God could change it.)

      Liked by 2 people

  8. I can’t contribute much but I do enjoy John Z’s efforts that beget such discussion and expose the snake oil salesmen of religion. I’d tackle John’s overall and ending questions of why etcetera by accepting that we evolved from chemical reactions; that we should function for our mutual benefit (not there yet ) and that a good purpose would be enlightenment.

    Liked by 4 people

    • a good purpose would be enlightenment

      I second that!

      The theist, for whatever emotional reason, wants to posit some grand purpose, but so what if there’s no grand purpose? If there were, it would only mean we were a pawn in someone else’s adventure. The fact that we’re not just a mindless pawn is wonderful news… We get to make your own purpose. We are responsible for meaning, for love, for creativity. We get to shape your world by what we deem important.

      Liked by 4 people

    • …by accepting that we evolved from chemical reactions; that we should function for our mutual benefit (not there yet ) and that a good purpose would be enlightenment.

      E.O Wilson, the renown Harvard University entymologist and proponent of eusociality and more improved forms of Homo sapien Superorganism behavior, would utterly agree with you Bob. That was a fine comment Sir.

      Liked by 2 people

    • 320+ question marks on this webpage and not one, it seems, adequate answer to appease those who appear to hold all of them; I suppose I should continue the trend and add another two just for sake of it.

      …what if there’s no grand purpose?

      If?

      I would have thought that someone as dogmatic as you would be phrasing it, “since” there’s no grand purpose…

      What’s the go?

      Like

  9. As for the why, I think different religions have different reasons they push. For example when I was in SDA church school we were told those who were saved and to heaven would spend eternity witnessing of god’s saving grace / power / truth to all the rest of the universe. We were basically to spread the word of god’s greatness to the universe as church members did on earth, only much better. Horrible way to spend eternity having to sling praises to god and repeating all the same stories every where. I wonder if whole planets could be slammed in your face? I almost got detention when I asked ” why would people without sin who have never been separated from god need us to preach to them?

    As for Mel, I don’t understand why he keeps trying to shoehorn his religious beliefs onto a platform of pretend science. He will claim science can’t answer the question of why and then spend the whole post trying to prove that science proves him correct. Weird. Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

    • We were basically to spread the word of god’s greatness to the universe as church members did on earth, only much better.

      Yeah, there’s that whole “glory” thing, and that smacks of vanity. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like what a God-Trump would do.

      Mel is a truly special kind of apologist.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. John, you hallucinating, atheist fool! Why did God create the universe? Easy! He created it so people like me can have a platform, my belief in Him, to stand on so that I can call you an atheistic, hallucinating fool without having a shred of guilt or shame about it. Therefor, since I’ve fully answered your question without leaving even the tiniest wiggle room for argument, I’ll say it again: You simply must stop hallucinating and see things MY way or you’ll never be 100% correct about anything, ever! Have a great day hallucinating!

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Which proves the fact that all questions are inherently answered in whatever it is I say. That others cannot see this is a reflection of ignorance and laziness on their part. Like St. John once said to his cook, Maria, ” Maria, just because others hallucinate doesn’t mean you have to too. Now, make me some lasagna.”

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Tom was cleverly putting the concept of the vastness of Time, Space, and the Omnipresent into words that folks could/would understand. Sort of. “Goodness overflowed” is a whole lot better than an entire scientific library plus.

    Or we might put it: In the beginning all was void and empty, and then the nothing exploded and now we have pop corn, Trump, and little things that go squelch when you step on them.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. To now answer your final question:

    It’s obvious to anyone capable of fogging a mirror that we’re here ‘cos God got lonely.

    Or perhaps He couldn’t afford a television …

    Liked by 3 people

  14. My dear John,
    First let me say that I the technical aspect of your work (the look of your email) is very nice. Secondly, it is so nice to hear from you, especially now, in that you give me the opportunity to wish you a Happy Christmas. About your question, I would address it this way. Parenthood is part of who God is (“Father”). He created the universe for us–you and me. He created you and me so that we could become all He ever desired for us to be–as a parent, He always has had our best interest in mind.

    Like

    • Merry Christmas to you, too.

      Interesting concept, but it appears there are two irreparable flaws in your answer:

      1) It is logically inconsistent. If Yhwh (a “father”) wanted a relationship with us, then why place us in an artificial world where he, the “father”, does not even exist?

      and

      2) If we take the “father” to be aseitic, then creation was an act of pure evil, contradicting the proposed character of the “father” you’re positing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Richard,

      God’s Holy Scriptures — His final infallible Word — would absolutely DISAGREE with a few different statements/concepts you are postulating there as I listed up above in my answers to John’s and other’s questions.

      And Happy Holidays to you too and yours.

      Liked by 2 people

      • PINK:

        hold on jest a gold-arned minute thar!

        Let God (YHVH) look after His chosen people (the Jews); and let God (Jehovah) look after His chosen people the Christians, and let God (Al Lah) look after His chosen peeps the Muslims.

        If the kids drowning in the Med are Muslims that’s a stroke against their God right from the start (although their Imams and things will try to claim that God’s loving mercy separated them out for a special ‘hot-foot’ flight direct to Paradise*).

        Preferential treatment for being modern martyrs—don’t knock it, all the houris you can eat and all the booze denied in life, for ever~!

        * Wow … where do I sign up? Sure beats plunking harps …

        Liked by 3 people

  15. I have asked, and asked … if science cannot answer, the question:”What is our purpose,” then what is the answer that your religion and your god provides?
    And where in the bible is this explained – please provide exact book and verse.
    I then have to wade through,”… can’t be bothered to dismantle your strawman arguments,” ”’Ark, you are pathetic, this is pure scientism”, ” …it’s intuitive”, etc etc ad nauseum.

    I think he must have considerable problems as a preacher as he cannot even provide a reasonable argument to convince himself let alone any sort of congregation, unless the members of his church are, in fact, actual *sheep.

    * bona fide stupid believers that will pull the wool over their own eyes.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. It seems to me, that the quotation from Mel Wild depicts a bigger problem, from wich religiosity springs from, but wich is ever also kept alive by religiosity. The real problem being: Finding something to be true on mere intuitive base. He claims the world to reveal design by intuition, but my intuition tells me nothing of the kind. Is his intuition somehow more accurate than mine? Or has he simply just abandoned all desire for objectivity in favour for his all encompassing subjective view? I do not reject the “design” he claims to find from the world, because my intuition says otherwise, but because I find any intuition to be a lacking method to even attempt to evaluate the question of design.

    While inituition is a great tool for survival in a rapid situation, where one has no time to analyze the surrounding reality, it is a poor and innacurate tool to evaluate issues, that a person has the time to analyze.

    This can be seen in for example politics (part of wich religions really are, as they are ideologies acting in the fields of politics and values, not any sort of methods for revealing design in nature, or any gods for that matter), where the rise of populism and conservatism are very much linked with the strong emotional fears people have for the unknown and primitive desire for security offered by authoritarian leaders.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Is his intuition somehow more accurate than mine?

      No, but he’s less honest than you. Mel’s embrace of evolution, for example, boils down to this:

      Good stuff = Yhwh.
      Bad stuff = Not Yhwh
      Bad stuff that led to good stuff = “I don’t care about the details!”

      Literally, he said that.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Indeed. I must admit, I am becoming a bit tired of the religious. Even though they make me feel my self conparatively clever without putting much effort to it. I wonder if it works both ways? Do they get the easy satisfaction of feeling intelligent in comparrison to me, by coming up with such nonsensical notions?

        Honesty seems to be more trickier than I ever thought. Is Mel really being dishonest to anyone else exept himself? Like Arkenaten said abowe: “…he cannot even provide a reasonable argument to convince himself…”

        I just run into this religious childrens radio program, by accident, in wich the narrator claimed that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Contrary to what any Bible scholar with an actual university education on exegesis knows. The radio narrator propably did not know any better, but from how he presented it, it seemed that this was a major issue to him and that he really wanted the kids to become convinced of it (because, you know, get them while they are young). It was intuitively seeming to me, that the narrator had run into problems with this issue, and wanted to make sure that the kids would be indoctrinated to believe as he himself would very much want to believe about the issue. As if he was trying to convince himself as much as the kids. However, as I do not trust my intuition to tell me the motives of other people (let alone wether nature is a construct by some intelligence or not), rather I remain undecided on what made him present it the way he did. I recognize that I do not know. Of course that is easy for me, because his motives do not rock my world. While the person with strong religious cultural heritage has their entire identity tied to the question wether their particular god actually exists or not – if it ever comes to question.

        The actual point is, that the Bible scholars are not too keen on sharing what they know about the Gospel authors with the laymen. If they did, everything they have studied and their profession as Theologists – and even their personal beliefs and that part of their identity, that they aquired before they knew what they know after studying – would be rendered rather pointless.

        The priests, ritual experts and apologists make their living by coming up with excuses for their gods not appearing anywhere ever to anyone, exept maybe as emotional states.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ignorance is not a valid excuse when a person is in public “teaching.” I feel sorry for those kids who now have to work to overturn that lie. As for Mel, as a pastor, he’s telling lies to adults, and to himself. As adults, though, they choose the lies… which is a little sad.

        Liked by 2 people

      • RAUTAKKY:

        “(because, you know, get them while they are young)”
        … in the crowded accommodations (!) in earlier generations of warships they had a saying—”First up, best dressed!”

        And the US Civil War general made a pertinent point about how he won so many battles— “Battles are won by whoever gets there firstest with the mostest!”

        Obviously the blank page is easiest to write on.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Indeed Argus.

        Getting there first is in the root of the problem of evaluating the universe with intuition. Intuition is set by what you learn first. It is curious how even adult people cling on to what they believe only because it is what they heard first about any issue. It seems, people far too often mould and fix their identity on what they think they know. The issue of HOW they “know” never even comes up. Or, if it does, they get aggravated by somebody questioning the “truth” to which they have identified to.

        I find it hard to take seriously anybody who claims to know the truth of any matter because of their intuition. They have (unwittingly) already admitted defeat in face of logic and are simply trying to impose their subjective view on reality around them and on me and you. It means, they rely on the information they once learned, but most likely can not even remember from where, but they have a feeling, that it was from a reliable source. It is not far from believing Santa Clause is for real because my parents, whom I have every reason to believe, once led me to believe Santa actually exists. We are all better than that, so why is it, that for some people – like Mel Wild, in the quote in the topic post – intuition remains a viable method of evaluating complex reality around them?

        Why is it, that so often the most likely people to deny any relation to the animal kindgom are the ones most likely to rely (and even boast about it) on their intuition and instincts?

        As for battles, in my understanding of history, just getting somewhere “firstest and with the mostest” seems like the most rudimentary and not a very reliable method of winning any.

        Like

  17. Hello John,

    Isn’t everything around us “constructed”, having a beginning or a cause.

    I start with the chair and table I’m sitting at, the computer I’m typing on, the well designed and constructed house around me, to the street out front, and the city I live in.

    All these things were thought out in advance, well designed and purposly made.

    Why is it such a leap to conclued that the planet I’m on, given the reality that everthing happens to be perfect to sustain life, was not also designed purposly?

    Everything we construct has a purpose but we are an accident? Everything around us is perfect to sustain life but it created itself by chance?

    It takes a monumental leap of faith to think all of us are here due to cosmic blind luck.

    Your last paragraph and subsequent questions are in contridicion. Why is it a problem that God can not die but every living thing on the Earth does?

    “Our planet, the earth, will be reduced to a cloud of atomic dust in about five billion years.” How do you know this for sure?

    and this,

    “And in one shape or another, the universe itself will cease to exist as it does today in a handful (or perhaps a basketful) of trillions of years.” How do you know this for sure? The answer is you don’t, because you can not see into the future.

    You then state, “For the theist, that inevitably means we’re 1) outside the (eternal) Creator, and 2) inside an artificial scape; a world which did not have to be created, but was, and that leaves the greatest religious question still unanswered… Why?”

    Your #1 is false. Theist believe the Creator lives in us and that we all were created with an eternal component within us. Reference the Book of Acts. It is my belief that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the action by which God takes up permanent residence in the body of a believer in Jesus Christ and that the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

    Your #2 is also false. Theist do not believe we live in an artifical world or that it did not have to be created.

    All your questions have answers John. I am sorry you don’t accept them.

    Peace.

    Like

    • Leroy,

      Your popular teleological argument has been addressed well before you were born. First and foremost you are arguing FOR a Creator, not for Yahweh. Even if this amputated argument succeeds (and it doesn’t), then it only gets one to some type of Creator. It does NOT support or establish the Hebrew-Christian-Muslim God Yahweh any better than any other thousands of possible Creators. And what about bad, horrible, unfair “designs”? Why allow those even for little children born maligned-badly deficient, or as Guevedoces in numerous nations around the world, or before the age of 4-15 murdered; this list could go on and on. What your teleological argument actually results in is merely a confused committee of possible gods, ala the work of Congress or Keystone Cops.

      “Design” by a Designer or Designers in the world says nothing about Yahweh, His revelations, miracles(?), the purpose of prayer, the wildest invention: the virgin birth, sin, redemption, or even Yeshua/Jesus.

      Second, and almost as important as the first is there are MANY complex systems that are NOT “designed.” These are called emergent systems. For example, biological evolution is a most astounding emergent system that develops from thousands of simple interactions we frequently cannot cannot explain! How do all the crystals and snowflakes form, all in unique never-before-seen shapes? Never repeatable! Termites build their mud mounds up to 90-ft tall, yet termites have no architects, no engineers. Humanity’s thousands and thousands of languages are another prime example. All human languages — and all other species too — evolved over hundreds to thousands of years. They are STILL evolving today and will be tomorrow, ad infinitum, as NEW problems and systems are discovered and refined.

      This here is an extremely short rebuttal of the teleological argument for “Design” and the erroneous method of arguing from results rather than cause or a cause.

      No, actually not all questions have answers Leroy, not even compelling answers.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Me and my lost soul are grateful for your all-powerful ears and patience with my errant fingers and hasty, sinful, Biblical answers and “sketchy” philosophical and sciency answers to all questions!!! 😁

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Prof,

        The universe, when it popped into being, without cause, out of nothing, just happened to be, by chance, fine-tuned for intelligent life with a mind-numbingly unlikely precision and delicacy. To call the odds against this fine-tuning occurring by chance “astronomical” would be a wild understatement.

        93 remarkable items just happen to be present for life.
        allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument.htm

        You have a lot of why questions too, Prof. Why is life not fair? Why must we all have struggles to some degree? Why, why, why.

        The discussion is incomplete with out the historical personage of Jesus Christ. The book of the Hebrew-Christian-Muslim God Yahweh, as you put it, ends with the Good News that God came to Earth in the form of flesh and blood to teach and be a living sacrifice that whosoever believes shall have eternal life.

        Christ said, “I am the truth the way and the life”, not me.

        You wish. Emergence systems point directly to design. To emerge is to come forth into view or to develop. Develop has a starting place, it just doesn’t pop into being by magic.

        The stunning diversity of snowflakes gives rise to the idea that every single one is unique. While “no two flakes are alike” might be an attractive metaphor, it isn’t entirely true Prof. smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/snowflakes-all-fall-one-35-different-shapes-180953760/

        Termites respond to very local chemical cues left behind by other termites and to temperature/humidity and airflow cues that are affected by the shape of the nest, wind currents, the amount of heat generated within the nest and other local phenomena. The termite’s behavior affects the shape of the nest and the shape of the nest affects the termite’s behavior. Termites do what termites are designed to do.

        Languages and dialects are not proof of evolution any more than fashion and hair style trends do.

        You state, “No, actually not all questions have answers Leroy, not even compelling answers” yet ALL questions have an answer.

        Regards Prof,

        Like

      • No surprise, we are as far away from any similar cognitive-logical or miniscule agreement possible, I’m sure. I didn’t and don’t expect you to really even consider anything I have to say about your personal assertions. That’s fine; life goes on. There are hundreds of secularists and non-Xians that could also totally dissect, disassemble, and disprove your personal assertions here, many of them here if they desire or have the enormous patience with you to do so. 😉 But I will ask you this to close our (likely) pointless dialogue…

        Have you used this/these shaky argument(s) anywhere else at non-religious, non-Xian events, internet forums, philosophy department debates, more widely public forums than WordPress? In other words, other than your own website or church gatherings or identically like-minded friends? I can make an informed educated guess based on your/our blog-history, however, if yes, how did your assertions stand-up there… honestly? Can you provide direct links to some?

        Liked by 1 person

      • What, you want my resume too Prof? Want to know what degrees I hold and where I got them? I don’t spend a lot of time on blogs and haven’t put anything up new on mine in years. This is the only place I use my real name and pic, although it wasn’t always the case. I’m perfectly content remaining “anonymous” at other sites and prefer not to give the list. After all, you know sometimes I don’t play fair.

        Like

    • I start with the chair and table I’m sitting at, the computer I’m typing on, the well designed and constructed house around me, to the street out front, and the city I live in.

      Yes, all constructed, according to a plan, with a goal in mind.

      Can you demonstrate that evolution is goal-orientated, adaptively directed?

      Liked by 3 people

      • I don’t believe in evolution as I think you might. I do not believe in descent with modification. I do believe there is evidence of evolution within species, but birds will always be birds and alligators will always be alligators.

        But sure, there is plenty of evidence of evolution within species. Look at the iguanas on Galapagos Islands evolving into the ability to forage in the sea. The goal is to survive and you have to eat to survive and they are thriving on algae.

        Like

      • Hello Ark,

        God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit.

        A quick, very short illistration how Jesus is God can be found in The Parable of the Vineyard Owner. Mark 12

        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=HCSB

        Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one”. John 10:30

        When Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized with water, God and the Holy Spirit both manifested in tangible form. “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him [Jesus], and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22).

        In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1-5

        However, as it is written:
        What no eye has seen,
        what no ear has heard,
        and what no human mind has conceived”- the things God has prepared for those who love him – these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:9-14

        Good evening Sir,

        Like

      • Ark,

        You want to know “how can I prove creation to be true, that God the
        Father/Son/Spirit is real, without using the Bible?” The question has a presupposition. What you are really saying is that you cannot accept the Bible as truth, you want external evidence.

        But my presupposition is that all evidence is interpreted in the light of biblical truth. If I reject that starting point, then I have already conceded the argument.

        The Bible never attempts to publish an argument about whether or not God exists. If evidential apologetics were correct, then Genesis would open with a treatise on this subject. Instead, Genesis opens with the words “In the beginning, God…” The existence of God is assumed to be self-evident. That is why Paul explains in Romans 1 that actually everybody knows inside that God exists, so they are without excuse. The only discussion on the possible non-existence of God in the Bible is the repeated verse found in Psalm 14:1 and again in Psalm 53:1.

        Like

    • LEROY:

      (I thought I’d replied but must’ve had a ‘senior moment’—so am trying again, bit by bit.)

      You invoke first cause. Yet you sidle past the implication that God is part of ‘every’ thing. Unless part, he’s nothing. (I vote from observation nothing). But wait, you go deeper—
      “All these things were thought out in advance, well designed and purposly made.”

      If God exists … He was thought out in advance. (If not your argument has a wee hole in it). Who by?
      So not existing, He managed to invent Himself—or, who designed Him?
      Many times I’ve postulated a simple answer to this conundrum:

      God was designed and created by a Godier God than Him. And anticipating the obvious here, that one was designed by a more Godier God, etc etc ad infinitem.

      Then mortality—
      “Why is it a problem that God can not die but every living thing on the Earth does?”

      Either God isn’t on Earth (which makes a mockery of His omnipresence) or He doesn’t live—as you said yourself, every living thing dies.

      Vision: you don’t allow John Zande to see into the future yet the cause your are espousing can? What (other than God’s touch) makes the Prophet/s different, that they can?

      And IF they can, then the future ‘exists’ per se—and thus makes a mockery of the Christian concept of Free Will. (Which concept is also very much mocked by God’s omniscience, no?)

      You conclude by referencing your ‘holy’ book. But you don’t reference other holy books? This suggest a bit of inbreeding or restrictions, no?
      Or is your very own personal HB holding the monopoly on Truth … or are all others proscribed by the holder of the religious franchise you personally endorse?

      I state, often (and have never yet been challenged) that all* religions are the pursuit of Wealth and Power; big business, and that whatever the brand you follow it is simply a franchise.

      No?

      * Bugger. You’ve made me use an ‘allness’ statement. (I hate doing that—there may yet be an exception, and it would make me false.) (Put in a bid for your own franchise if you wish.)

      Liked by 3 people

  18. For those who would like specific dissections or counter-rebuttals to Leroy’s incomplete (ignored? naive?) response to my challenge of his old, popular teleological argument, I give you some of my favorite ones here:

    The universe, when it popped into being, without cause, out of nothing, just happened to be, by chance, fine-tuned for intelligent life with a mind-numbingly unlikely precision and delicacy. To call the odds against this fine-tuning occurring by chance “astronomical” would be a wild understatement.

    This is personal opinion and anecdotal. Thousands if not millions would consider all of his points in a plethora of different ways that do not align with his personal views. “Fine-tuned for intelligent life“? LOL! Hmmm, like Turkeys — males will mate with a fake decoy female even if it has no body or feathers present — or Kakapos — if you scare them, they will either freeze motionless, or climb a tree and then leap, but since they can’t fly, it merely hits the ground in a pathetic heap. Don’t scare them? Then they’ll probably come out to greet you and, if it is a male kakapo, it may try to have sex with you despite not looking at all like a female kakapo! — or Pandas — they don’t know that bamboo gives them very little protein/energy to do much of anything and the females most often have no clue they’re pregnant and therefore never recognize her own cubs! — or Cane Toads — like male kakapos, male cane toads will hump anything, even all sorts of dead animals! 😛 Talk about “fine-tuned for intelligent life with mind-numbing precision” from the same type Creator! Hahahaha! Wow, and I’ve listed only FOUR out of hundreds more — and lets not forget about those dumb animals that have already gone extinct for similar reasons/causes.

    93 remarkable items just happen to be present for life. allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument.htm

    From the About Page of “All About Philosophy” — “Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus.” The website and organization asserts that monism is a Universal law and proveable. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Furthermore, “93” generalities doesn’t compare at all in any significant way when just on this planet Earth there are more than 8-10 million living organisms operating inside highly unique diverse ecosystems and with endless proteins and peptide-chains, the combinations (that science knows about!) are likely infinite! Thus, 93 generalities(?) doesn’t import anything relevant to this discussion.

    The discussion is incomplete with out the historical personage of Jesus Christ. The book of the Hebrew-Christian-Muslim God Yahweh, as you put it, ends with the Good News that God came to Earth in the form of flesh and blood to teach and be a living sacrifice that whosoever believes shall have eternal life.

    This one is so far out in orbit with so many presumptions, there is simply not enough time or space here in JZ’s comment section to address all the fallacies with this paragraph! Hahahaha! 🤣 If anyone else here wants to tackle this one, have at it… please! Leroy and I have already discussed these imaginations before, at length.

    You wish. Emergence systems point directly to design. To emerge is to come forth into view or to develop. Develop has a starting place, it just doesn’t pop into being by magic.

    Simply wrong, incorrect. Leroy didn’t understand what Emergent Systems consist of in their integrative levels. He must of grabbed his “emerge” definition from Webster’s dictionary instead of the correct word: emergent systems. Here’s one correct definition…

    “Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same – their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.” [Wikipedia, and my emphasis]

    The stunning diversity of snowflakes gives rise to the idea that every single one is unique. While “no two flakes are alike” might be an attractive metaphor, it isn’t entirely true Prof. smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/snowflakes-all-fall-one-35-different-shapes-180953760/

    From Leroy’s same Smithsonian article listing 8 broader groups of snowflakes: “Irregular snow particles” is one group. I don’t know, sounds a lot like irregular, or unpredictable, or not showing any previous form or design. LOL 🤣

    Termites respond to very local chemical cues left behind by other termites and to temperature/humidity and airflow cues that are affected by the shape of the nest, wind currents, the amount of heat generated within the nest and other local phenomena. The termite’s behavior affects the shape of the nest and the shape of the nest affects the termite’s behavior. Termites do what termites are designed to do.

    I’m sorry, I really tried hard not to bust out laughing at this one, especially that last sentence, yet I did. But nonetheless, would anyone here label his description of termites as already well-known entymological information? And would anyone say anything else about the final sentence other than ‘he didn’t explain anything’ about whether they build identical mounds every single time to specific construction codes? 😉

    Languages and dialects are not proof of evolution any more than fashion and hair style trends do.

    🙄😒 Really? Does he even realize that portion of my comment was about Emergent Systems NOT evolution? I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt: perhaps his brain was overheating. 😉

    You state, “No, actually not all questions have answers Leroy, not even compelling answers” yet ALL questions have an answer.

    I had already stated (as he quoted) that I argue his assertion of all questions past, present, and future DO NOT all have answers readily available. Is this a broken record? 😉 Nevertheless, I’ll divulge this merry-go-round and offer some questions that myself and most all of humanity do NOT have a precise unanimous answer for:

    — What exact date and time will you die?

    — Can you define exactly what emotions (passion?) are and what conditions they manifest in everyone?

    — If you live a life without passion, are you really living at all? Define those details.

    — Are there exceptions to every rule?

    — Outside of death and adultery, does Yhwh/God allow marital divorce and multi-divorces?

    — Will Quantum Entanglement be proven?

    — Why does time exist?

    Now, for everyone here what could Leroy POSSIBLY mean by “yet ALL questions have an answer“? This claim is puzzling to say the least. LOL 😛

    Liked by 2 people

      • I had to re read it this morning. It was fun trying to keep up with it all yesterday. I see why John limits his number of posts. It can get quite lengthy trying to open closed minds. I’ve only been an atheist for a few years, and for my own reasons. You guys are really filling my “atheism in the gaps”. Thanks for taking the time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oh jimin, no worries or problems whatsoever. But I must also humbly repeat… PLEASE do not take MY words, styles, thinking, etc, on this stuff. Feel totally free to challenge me as well.

        At the risk of stating the obvious, please do your own homework, research, legwork, discussing, debating at YOUR pace with and/or under tutelage of MANY… trusting your critical-thinking skills too! IMHO that’s the best way (for now) to hedge against gullibility and foolishness. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hahahaha!!! Jimin, way back in the day when I was neck-deep in all this hocus-pocus stuff, I had so many “lightning rods” protecting(?) horrible things, Natural things, that all I ended up doing was attracting or manifesting EXACTLY all the mythological self-fulfilling trajedies I feared!!! LOL 🤣👽

        The human brain is remarkably malleable and gullible if you close it off then obsess about 1 or 2 things! HAH! 😛

        Like

      • Nothing will protect you more than a little salt on the window sill. Hey I just happen to have a little salt for sale. It’s special salt just for Windows. I got this!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Hahahaha!!! Alright, NOW you sound/read like this highlly entertaining used car salesman I know or this local Evangy-Non-denominational charismatic preacher I know about… with the WILDEST three blue-eyed, blonde bombshell daughters hedonism has EVER unleashed!!! 😉 😈

        Like

      • Also, in Panama the locals are super-superstitious. They believe everything. Quite entertaining from my view, but you can attribute god or spirits to just about anything from back pain to colds

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yep! I know exactly the type. Having travelled to and lived on 4 of the 6 inhabitable continents on this planet (soccer/futebol), especially in West Africa, I have heard, read, and seen the most IMAGINATIVE human “creations” that would put Monty Python’s to shame! I tell ya jimin… some of it is the best damn SciFy fiction I’ve ever witnessed! 😛

        Like

      • It is thick. My favorite old wives tale to date is, if you get back pain from standing on cement, you have to massage it out using the left foot of a twin. Unfortunately the only twins in my pueblo are about 20 stones apiece.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Prof, after reading many of your hallucinatory, atheistic comments, I must try to clarify reality for you. If X is equal to a book, then all that is written in that book is the embodiment of X. Thus, Y has nothing to do with reality. This is such an easy concept to grasp, even a child could understand it. The atheist always tries to spin reality and facts to make the world seem X-less or Y-ful, but it can not logically be done. To spin X, which is equal to THE Book, in such a way goes against the intricate balance of a universe created by X for X’s own purpose. Y is but a falsehood that can not, and should not, be argued for, unless one is suffering from hallucinations, like you are. To reiterate, an inerrant property such as X is simply NOT Y! Once Y enters the equation, the hallucinations and baseless lies of the atheist become apparent. Thus, I am right in feeling superior to you, and, if necessary, I will be justified in calling you childish names and swearing at you. Furthermore, Please, please refrain from trying to twist X into Y. OK? (Good morning, Professor, how are you today?)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hahaha! Damn you sound eerily familiar to several people and bloggers I know! I think You just MIGHT BE omnipresent and omniscent and seemingly bored to tears — based on Your X-Book — with Your unsatisfactory Creation of Everything and Your Creatures if You are so obsessed with just little ole me! 😉 😛

        I had to read and reread Your clarifying explanations 5-6 times; I think I get it. Basically (I think), I must be an obedient child with its accompanying mentality — or would that be preprogrammed motor-skills and no thinking? — and stop spinning teleological (X-less) and ontological (Y-full) arguments reflecting reality! Right?

        To spin X, which is equal to THE Book, in such a way goes against the intricate balance of a universe created by X for X’s own purpose.

        Okay, so that’s 1, 2, 3 X’s… or XXX. And a rating of XXX is bad or good? Am I hallucinating again? Y isn’t XXX not why? In a “child’s” school and learning developmment, in order to progress we must often ask Y to know 3-X’s (XXX), especially if considering that occupational industry of Y-ing outside of X-ing… “apparently.” And I hope You don’t start calling me “childish names and swearing at me” when I’m only trying to understand the ABC’s of Your Creation XYZ’s and THE Book.

        Please, please refrain from trying to twist X into Y.

        So I am twisted (XXX) with three X’s? Y?

        Btw, thank you so SO very much for taking time out of Your busy, busy schedule to deal with little ole me! I’m SO HONORED!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Every question you’ve asked here has been answered by my previous comment. It is a clearly written, concise argument proving the undeniable truth of THE Book upon which X was formed. There are a plethora of links to scientific sites I could give you to show you just how true all I say is, but, me being an apologist and all, that would require far too much of my time to do. Therefor, since we’ve both come to several agreements about how right I am about everything and how infuriatingly wrong you are about everything, we can finally put this argument to rest knowing that I’ve totally obliterated your hallucinations and have, hopefully, put you on the right path to accepting, just because I say so, that all I say as true.
        Man, this apologist work is fun.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You’re exactly right John. Saw plenty of that too. As many nations and cultures I’ve lived/travelled, I eventually noticed that MOST/MUCH of those wild superstitions were previously inside those 16th thru 19th century Colonial-Imperial Age locations dominated by the Roman Catholic Church! Yet, culturally embraced even today. Coincidence or Schematics (indoctrination)? 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • John, wu wu, either your question make no sense or my alcohol soaked brain just left the dock.

        Why was this artificial world created?

        To be artificial, the world, everything it contains, and every ounce of matter in the entire universe would have to have came in being naturally. Naturally meaning without special intervention. So, your question makes no sense because an artificial world, by definition, is not one that was created.

        So lets drop the word ‘artifical’ and presume the world was created.

        And why? The utter lifelessness of other planets in our solar system illustrates the fact that earth is unique and specially created for life.

        Q2 answer is even simpler…The purpose of this world is to sustain the life is was created for.

        If we drop the word ‘created’ and presume the earth is indeed artificial and ask, ‘why did this artificial word come into being’ we would have to rely on theory. Or just answer, i don’t know, guess we got lucky. And if it was just luck then there is zero purpose other than the fittest survive and damn the rest. In an artificial world there is no moral absolutes other than whatever a group of us gets together and decides on.

        Interesting stuff, thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You didn’t read the post, did you?

        The artificiality of the world is explained as it exists outside the aseitic creator. The aseitic being is natural. Everything else is unnatural.

        The utter lifelessness of other planets in our solar system illustrates the fact that earth is unique and specially created for life.

        Have you explored Saturn’s and Jupiter’s moons? And are you serious… you’re just pointing to our (unexplored) 5 billion years old solar system, in a 13.4 billion years old galaxy containing trillions of planets and moons, in a 13.8 billion years old universe housing hundreds of billions of galaxies? And what do you mean, specifically created for life? 10 billion years late, and what kind of life? Prior to the Great Oxygen Catastrophe 2.5 billion years ago the planet could only really sustain obligate anaerobes, who dominated the planet for over a billion years. And it was only after the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction 66 million years ago did the surface of the planet become hospitable enough for mammals to radiate out.

        The purpose of this world is to sustain the life is was created for.

        “World” here is used as it is in philosophy, meaning the universe. The universe did not have to be created (an aseitic being needs for nothing, desires nothing), so why was it created? What purpose does it serve?

        Or just answer, i don’t know

        I agree, but Mel Wild won’t accept that answer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John, do you think Leroy understands this popular astrophysic’s equation just for our Milky Way Galaxy?…

        N = R* • f(p) • n(e) • f(l) • f(1) • f(c) • L

        And to help him along and more importantly, what then is implied by the MASSIVE derived values in the equation? What does one “conclude” with N?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Drakes equation? He might.

        Greg Egan (fantastic writer) proposes some interesting solutions to the Fermi Paradox, one being most high civilisations (who survive, only to find intergalactic travel impossible) bed down inside black holes, waiting for the universe to fill and become a little more interesting.

        Liked by 2 people

  19. Although the whole creator outside the creation schéma is ridiculous since it creates more questions than it answers, the question of “why” is equally misplaced. Only humans believe in reason. Dualistic notions like “before and after”, “if and then” and “why and because” find there roots in the limitations of language which forces us to put words in an artificial order. “Beings” don’t need a reason, they just “are”. There is no reason outside humans. The universe has no reason or cause.

    To your credit, whoever believes in a creator – whether in or outside their creation, are too philosophically castrated to grasp such reasoning and will seek the “why” in Go’s mysterious depths.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Isn’t the fact, that the Univers is governed according the law of mathematics an oddity, and not necessity of existence? How came these laws to existence? Maybe created by some kind of programmers? Maybe the programer made a mischief and enabled within the system under very certain conditions to come to existence life, consciousness, human intelligence all what we can observe on the earth? Maybe he is even watching his creation, that evolves independently from his original intention, to what his mischief will come too. Will it be destroyed by the humans? By wars using arms with global influence or by unrestrained population and economic growth, that will top over the cliff the system enabling uniquely on earth biological metabolism. Maybe the planetary systems life span is few billion years, but the human civilisation lifespan is not more than hundred years from the present? Then the programmer will say, puff, and have a great laugh.

    Liked by 2 people

      • And more, maybe the modernity with all the sciences, economic growth, technology, processes causing inbalancing to the global system, is just part of the joke of the programer, who was too bored by the ignorance of the humans, and decided to end the game ?
        Am i too bleak?

        Liked by 2 people

      • To this i would reply, the ways of “God” are incomprehensible. But again we are watching the existence from human perspective, even if systematically, with amazing instruments we developed, etc. When religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam were created, the only perspective humanity had was at human dimension of time and space. This is why earth was the center of everything and the world was created about 7000 years ago. Galileo with his telescope had changed all this. To believe in the bible as a book describing reality is denying the existence of telescope and the Large Hadron Collider, and other technological achievements the humanity created. There are religious Jews, Christians or Muslims who do just that. It is useless to try to speak to them. Those more sofisticated, creationists, thay still base their claims on human perception of time and space. Evolution is incomprehensible within human life and size span dimension.
        Still, the science is limited to human comprehension, and within it there are too many opened issues, without which the chances that the humanity will exist beyond this century is rather unprobable. The global metabolic and environmental system is out of balance, and a big correction has to come. What shape this correction will take is a mystery. The humans have no tools to prevent it and also not to cope with it.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. John, you are arguing outside of these folks’ conceptual toolbox. They have spent years imagining an unmoved mover without considering the true difficulties of causal relationships for such an entity, not to mention the problems with claiming that such an entity could have a mind.
    They have cultivated a degree of comfort with the language of classical theology, They have learned the associated catechism of equivocations.
    They are going to do what they can to maintain the psychological infrastructure of their religious belief because it is incredibly useful to them.
    What is your purpose in arguing with them – you will not dissuade them?
    Are you simply curious about their thought process? Offering some push-back?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Hey Keith, good to see you around.

      Honestly, I’d like to hear their answer. Ultimately, sure, it’s to get them thinking about what it really is that they’re proposing.

      Mel, who this post is dedicated to, has spent the last few months repeating over and over again, in post after post, that science cannot answer the “why” questions (he even coined the term, “science-of-the-gaps” to try and defend his position), but when asked directly to present his “why” answer/s, he simply avoids it like it’s the plague.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John, I suspect that Mel or anyone who subscribes to that/his fundamental faith-following of a deity and its monism will always repeat and try to force everyone onto that merry-go-round. Why? My first guess is because of their self-inflicted paradigm of Closed-Systems (control?), e.g. Scriptural Canons.

        But you and I and thousands of others KNOW even that concept is historically untrue, utterly fallacious! Their “closed-system” (canons) have been opened up countless times and changed, modified, even deleted to accomodate contemporanious theological events/problems! LOL 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

  22. One of the comments above triggered a delicious memory that still invokes marvel (if it wasn’t JZ it would have been Ark) but someone posted a while back on the Jewish religious nut who when the aircraft he was a passenger in was flying at umpty tens of thousands of feet over a graveyard … sealed himself inside a head-to-foot plastic bag lest he absorb ‘unkosher’ contagion.

    Eight miles up in a hermetically sealed (sort of) pressurised metal tube with regurgitated air he still had little faith in the power of his God (and science) and relied more on the protective powers of a plakky baggie?

    Don’t you just love ’em?

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Nan I know I asked you this once on ColorStorm but guys I have a question I can’t find an answer for. I keep wondering how to tell “poes” for the real believers? POE for those who might not know are: A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe’s Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it. Or like with Leroy does it not matter as the question and the answer is what is important. Thanks. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Btw John, I have several comments directly to Mel on Mel’s blog awaiting moderation, yet my comments directly to OTHER commenters go straight into approval. Didn’t know blog-owners could moderate with such detail. LOL 🤔

    Like

      • And I noticed that he actually feels(?) as if he answered them sufficiently, but certainly not convincingly. :/ I tried to help him better understand what you were further implying — with his teleological argument — like here with LeadRoy, but who knows if he’ll release/unmoderate those suggestions. For the sake of fairness to his tiny Followers, I hope he does.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Teleology was one of the very, very, very first things Mel and I “discussed.” It’s my favourite subject. That was, unfortunately, also my first taste of his diversionary tactics, like claiming the questions/discussion weren’t specific to the post, so they could be ignored. That post, mind you, was about gods design. In that one, he refused to address Paley’s observation and follow-up question:

        “Contrivance proves design, and the predominant tendency of the contrivance indicates the disposition of the designer.”

        The question: What is the predominant tendency of the contrivance?

        Liked by 3 people

  25. Oops. Back to the point …

    Does the Lord of all creation, the Infinite, the ineffable etc etc etc need explain Himself (Their selfs, being there’s three of Him) to a mere transient like (SFX: insert ‘hoick … SPIT!’ here please. Good and squelchy) you?

    An immortal (First Class, with Hons even) of the highest rank (they come no ranker than that) with infinite everything and lots of it … does such a being actually need a purpose?

    Oh, really? Why?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Hi John,
    Do you have an alternative theory to the Christian creation and God belief ? Human beings are the only life forms to create religion and a belief in God. If we are an evolved life form, with no real differences from other animals than our brains, what possible survival advantage is a belief in God ?

    Is religion a figment of Man’s imagination ? Is it a genetic defect that keeps reappearing over thousands of generations ? If it is a defect, natural selection should have removed it by now. Maybe a false religion gives a population a competitive advantage over weaker religions or Atheist civilizations.

    If belief in God is false then what is the truth ? Is creation merely a long series of random accidental collisions of atoms that eventually created humanity ?

    Humans have a short life span. If there is no afterlife and our thoughts die with us what is the point of having ever been alive ?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Alan, good to see you around

      what possible survival advantage is a belief in God?

      Enormous advantages for both the individual and the society, but not so much in a specific belief in the gods, rather a shared belief system in general… in this instance, a shared belief in some life after life.

      The three critical terms here are Mortality salience (coupled to symbolic language), Existential Death Anxiety, and Terror Management Theory. But first we have to make a distinction between genes and memes, because in the human theatre it is memes (ideas), not genes, which drive societal evolution, and our survivability (as individuals) is intimately tied to the strength and durability of our societies. We are, after all, a social animal.

      All these things (memes, symbolic language, mortality salience, Existential Death Anxiety, and Terror Management Theory) have a common germinating point: the frontal cortex, which is the result of cooked meat. All mammals have frontal cortex’s, but cooked meat produces more calories without increasing stomach size, and somewhere between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, the human frontal cortex reached its current (proportionately colossal) size, and when it did, we, quite literally, became modern “Humans.” The frontal cortex is responsible for imagination, predictive and abstract thought, planning, language, personality, long-term emotional memories.

      “Imagination allows us to escape our current time, place, or perspective in favor of an alternative context, whether that may be fanciful or mundane. So imagination is a mechanism for specifying and maintaining a context that differs from our more immediate and stimulus-driven experiences or contexts”

      Before the frontal cortex, none of those things (like thinking about the future, about death, about our own death) were possible. None. And we see this astonishing moment exampled in a single (repeated) event: the first Palaeolithic burials with grave goods; tools and weapons and adornments useful only to the living. Burials with grave goods are the first indications that the human species had envisaged some possible (invisible) world outside reality. Why else, after all, would a clan 100,000 years ago include instruments of impossible value and scarcity (tools and weapons and jewellery) in the graves of the dead if they had not first imagined the dead having some use for these possessions in some other existence, some life after life?

      This was a direct response to mortality salience. With the capacity for predictive thought, we became aware of our mortality, obsessed by it, but having the capacity for symbolic language meant we could find solutions to death, and share those solutions. “True existentialism,” wrote Colin Wilson, “is the dramatic investigation of human nature through the medium of art.”

      Now, while a huge frontal cortex enhanced our survivability through planning and predictive behaviour, a shared belief system would have also forged stronger bonds between clan members. Stronger clans were more likely to survive thereby reinforcing the behaviour and encouraging its development even further. The practice would have also put immense strain on available language, demanding the invention of new words to both identify the act of burial and begin to explain this fantastic new notion of some form of life after death. Greater language capacity also increases survivability.

      If there is no afterlife and our thoughts die with us what is the point of having ever been alive ?

      Our capacity for thought ceases, but our thoughts can live on. Do you think the ‘point’ of the United States, for example, is good? Well, isn’t the US the living thoughts of your founders?

      Liked by 5 people

      • John,

        So religion is merely a sign of imagination, which in turn is a survival tool enabled by the increasing size of the evolving human brain? Religion then would be a positive for any stone age-copper age-bronze age human group competing against other tribes for space and resources? This competition would result in Atheist groups being wiped out or absorbed into increasingly complex multiple deity societies?

        ” Well, isn’t the US the living thoughts of your founders? ” Sure. In the same vein we would all hope that our thoughts will live on in the memories of our family and friends, but it is only a hope. There is no way to know since you do not believe in an afterlife. You will not be looking down from the cloud observing your friends telling humorous stories about your life at your funeral.

        Again, lets say you succeed in destroying Christianity. What then is the new reality? Are we only here because of a long series of unlikely events beginning with the big bang?

        Like

      • Religion then would be a positive for any stone age-copper age-bronze age human group competing against other tribes for space and resources?

        I said a “shared belief system” was beneficial. That belief really could be anything.

        Sure. In the same vein we would all hope that our thoughts will live on in the memories of our family and friends, but it is only a hope.

        You don’t believe the United States exists?

        Again, lets say you succeed in destroying Christianity. What then is the new reality?

        Destroying Christianity? I’m afraid Christianity isn’t that special, Alan. But I think a better articulation of myself would be promoting Humanism.

        Are we only here because of a long series of unlikely events beginning with the big bang?

        Does that bother you?

        Like

      • Alan Scott, you raise interresting questions. Like “Again, lets say you succeed in destroying Christianity. What then is the new reality?” To wich, I would say, we all live in the same shared reality and that it is in our common best interrest to understand it in the most objective manner possible. Christianity, just like any other religion, do not offer any alternative realities. They offer a point of view to the reality, but it is typical to religions – all of them – that they also offer imaginary supernatural explanations to unknown questions. Instead of encouraging discovery of what the objective reality really is, they seek to forbid any discovery, because it might harm the authority of the belief system on wich the pyramid schemes of ritual experts exploiting others are based on. Look at creationism!

        You also presented a question, that: “Are we only here because of a long series of unlikely events beginning with the big bang?” To me it seems, you have failed yourself in setting up the question in a particular way. We are not here “ONLY” because of unlikely events. We are here as a result of a marvellous chain of seemingly unlikely events and we can make the most of it for our selves and others sharing our experience at present and in the future. The only reason we would even come to think the chain of events leading to us is actually unlikely, is because the objective view on the unvierse around us at the moment tells us most of it is void and hostile to life such as us. Did the gods make the universe hostile to life only for us to conclude, that our existance is unlikely and therefore somehow artificial? To me, the rarity of our form of existance tells, that it is indeed quite natural. That is the relation of complexity and rarity in all of nature. Is it not? It is only natural, that more complex things are rare. Is it not? Why would we even need an unnatural creator artificer to explain such a natural state of things? It seems counter intelligent, does it not?

        As for the chain of events beginning from a big bang or not is a nother matter, because we do not know what was before the blank time before said event. We can be pretty certain, that the chain of events wich has now on our part led to us happened, but there is no indication, that it was ever set up to specifically lead to us. It is quite healthy and sobering experience to come to grips, to the fact that the universe does not exist for you, or for us as humans, but that it coexists around and whith us. Is it not?

        However, even if we knew nothing about the big bang, formation of the universe, or even evolution, it would still not really warrant us to make up imaginary supernatural or otherwise unnatural explanations to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. Let alone, that such imaginary supernatural explanations would provide us the authority to order other people on how they should live their lives, or limit the scope of discovery, or lead us to wars against each other on the commands of these imaginary deities, that keep popping up all along human history to provide excuses for one group of people to abuse a nother. Or would it?

        Liked by 1 person

  27. Answer to questions: As it is written: “The Word [Mind, God]* became flesh. Purpose ? To reunite our imperfect selves with perfect Creator through redemption through Jesus Christ. End to universe ? It is still expanding and growing so Creation is never ending which of course beyond human comprehension.

    * my insertion hence brackets not parenthesis

    Does the alleged Second Coming end the age? I am a heretic on this Second Coming (which is indeed scriptural). If Jesus is in our midst we having embraced the Holy Spirit , if already present, he has already come. Every time one turns to Christ, Jesus comes. He comes again and again and again when people walk in his Light.

    “If there is no afterlife and our thoughts die with us what is the point of having ever been alive ?”

    Predestination gives us the matter of the Elect. The primitive understanding is that Elect means who will be saved or who’s going to heaven in alleged afterlife. To be of the Elect means to be chosen to extend God’s blessing through Christ to all human kind. That is what is meant to be “chosen” as initiated by Jews and extended to Gentiles as revealed by Paul. I would suggest that as Christianity postulates we are never to be the source of anyone’s misfortune and we never pass up the opportunity to perform a charitable act is quite an immense PURPOSE for living and an admirable legacy for each of us and that certainly lives beyond death. We are to glorify God in all Creation.

    Liked by 1 person

      • The standard Christian answer which I’ve just copied and paste here is: In general, Scripture teaches us that God created the world and all that is in it for His own glory and because He desired to share His life with others. The creation of all these things demonstrates His glory, His love, grace, mercy, wisdom, power, goodness, etc
        Now that is the answer from a basic Christian perspective and have an inkling that would be Jewish too. It is a satisfactory answer for those who chose to live within the boundaries of Christianity. It is supposed to be enough of an explanation and we are to be satisfied with that and as Calvin postulates God’s Will is inscrutable to man and Job story suggest that is is silly arrogance and juvenile to think we can understand , to attempt to understand and plain insolent to propose such questions to God.
        Naturally having read your sophisticated and scholarly and imposing thoughts on the matter this religious approach/ answer is not satisfactory for you and allied thinkers as you consider the question outside of faith’s circle and scripture ( by the way I accept evolution and reject that silly new earth foolishness – 6,000 years old ). As a Christian I don’t even ask “why creation” anymore for the process is answerable. I’ve returned to church after a long absence and enjoy the fellowship and focus on routines of daily living displaying the faith in righteous and charitable living.

        Will you find your answer in the philosophical disciplines ? In the empirical protocols ? I doubt it. Could you even manufacture a reasonable answer for yourself ? Probably not. The world of logic and evidence and the world of religious faith are on two different dimension or planes and do not intersect. Jesus say “My kingdom is not of this world.” It is of a spiritual realm . Creation gets us here with minds and souls but perhaps Creation itself inconsequential in the spiritual realm.

        I have decided to a degree that the answer to why Creation may best be answered by poets and artists. Seems they are a link between the physical and spiritual and in whom we may catches glimpses of the Great Why.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Carl,

        I wouldn’t call the post ‘sophisticated’ by any stretch. Merely pointing out that what answer has been suggested is actually wrong according to proffered theological/philosophical positions Christians adopt. There are some Christians who suggest weak panentheism (which ties in with your relationship idea here), but that also has severe problems as, unlike strong panentheism, it rules out God have any direct influence in this world. It also contradicts aseity, which the apologist needs so as to excuse the Creator from the rules of causality.

        As a Christian I don’t even ask “why creation”

        Really? You’re not even the slightest bit curious? As long as you’re happy though, that’s all that counts in the end.

        Could you even manufacture a reasonable answer for yourself ?

        Actually, I have, wrote two books on the matter… But I don’t actually “believe” it. Taking a theistic position, then actually looking at the patterns revealed over 13.8 billion years, the answer one arrives at (if they’re honest) is pretty ghastly.

        Liked by 1 person

    • RAWTAKYY “… they seek to forbid any discovery, because it might harm the authority of the belief system on wich the pyramid schemes of ritual experts exploiting others are based on.”

      May be true for tiny minority of literalists and some fundamentalists(I say some fundamentalists because not all are literalists and anti science but fundamental in a sense or returning to simple basics of 1st, 2nd Century models of believers ( primitive church- no accouterments Roman Church) and teachings of Jesus and Paul without frivolity of Roman Church) and for flat earthers and new earthers but contemporary people of faith are not like the Roman Church’s persecution of Copernican and Galileo realities which does illustrate your statement. I would agree that the Roman Church is the author of pyramid schemes. That’s one reason we Presbyterians were instrumental in the Reformation.

      Reasonable Christians see the reality (world of science and tangible particulars) without supernatural based plausibility structures (term coined sociologist Peter Berger) . We live within it. Faith is simply a guide to charitable living and connection with Higher Power and a wish for good to prevail over evil, an answer to “how do we live in this world, this reality?”. For me Big Bang stuff and supernatural attributions are of no consequence in choosing a Christian lifestyle of availability for service to others and to do no harm to others. I don’t need angels and chariots and supernatural signs (alleged) to desire the life style or be convinced.

      “long series of unlikely events”. Universe seems quite an astonishing very well planned reality of mathematics and physics with very intricate details and constructiveness. Cause and effect to effect to cause again linear progression.

      Like

      • John,

        To be honest, I have never been curious as you are as to why God created everything. I personally put it down to, God had his reasons. I as a limited being am not going to know why an unlimited being created me and the rest of the universe.

        To me there are more important questions. If he wishes me to believe he exists, then why does he allow evil to sometimes win? Why does he disappear seemingly for long periods, only to return really mad that believers have drifted away?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Alan Scott, you say: “God had his reasons.” What I do not understand is, why go that far? It is not an answer to why we are here, nor is it even based on anything remotely verifiable. It may seem like an answer, but what has it actually answered? It has only created even bigger and more complex questions without any answers.

        As I am a limited being, I have no way to conclude, that an unlimited being created the universe, or even that such an unlimited being exists. Do you? I do not know what caused the universe to exist and I am fine with that. Realizing as much does not really take anything from me. Does it? I give myself my own meaning, just like everybody else. A religious person may give themseves the meaning, that they are here because some imaginary unlimited being, they are unable to verify even exists, gave them the meaning, but I would say this is rather complex fantasy without any actual meaning relating to the objective and verifiable reality around us. Personally I would like to base the meaning I give to myself as much as possible on verifiable and objective reality, rather than wild fancy about unnaturally unlimited beings.

        Like

    • As a Christian I don’t even ask “why creation”

      Really? You’re not even the slightest bit curious?

      I think I know reason for my creation. . My drug addict daughter abandoned 7 and 13 year old two years ago and last year this time newborn baby ( i on Dec 2) for the wonderful world of drugs. She has been an addict 20 years. Fortunately the lady and husband grew up with daughter and son so kids OK and she has 3 of her own. They are legal guardians now. They get some welfare but not enough to sustain family even with husband’s salary. I have sent them about 30% of my retirement income last 2 years. My son works hard but low wages and got him a car and help him too. I am the safety net . I give the foster parents the money and spiritual support for the whole crew would be homeless.

      Parents moved in with me 2002. Mother passed 2012 and dad still with me. He was 94 fifteen days ago.

      Now not related to Creation but I do feel I know who I am, why I am alive with adequate income and what my purpose is. Was this God’s plan for me? My Protestantism teaches me that each of us were an idea int the mind of God prior to creation . So is creation fulfillment and manifestation of those thoughts ? Perhaps. My life certainly fell into place where it is needed. I live a comparatively reclusive life but am content except for my daughter’s refusal for recovery and probable early death. I am the umbrella, the safety net and do have purpose. There is wisdom in the plan. It’s worked out satisfactorily and I am inclined to keep covenant, play my role and a possible member of elect or at a minimum being an effective and necessary participant. So still can’t answer why creation but am secure in feeling there exist The Plan and a part for each of us.

      Crislynd will be 15 Christmas Day. I named her and no one knows it stands for Christ’s Land. I took $20,000 from my retirement when she was born and prepaid her college education. Her father a deported felon when she was 6. Was I created to be in her life ? The lady who is foster mother is weakening due to Multiple Sclerosis . Am I here to pick up more slack ? Challenging times are coming. Was this why I am survivor open heart and cancer ?

      So big picture why Creation is not a matter of something to ponder for me. I know my part. I pray for strengthen and health to continue.

      Liked by 1 person

    • To worship God is an Old Testament way of thinking as all ancient cultures worshiped their gods in an effort to seek favor. But for Hebrews worship also entails much more than prostrating ourselves. In Old Testament it also means to be connected to God, to keep covenant and be the instrument of His purpose. The message of the New Testament calls us to service to our fellow human beings. When we do that it is part of the many dimensional word, worship and an avenue of giving testimony to our surrender to Christ and how we will live. .

      Like

      • @Carl
        To partake in this ”surrender ” to Christ surely it is incumbent on us to verify the historical veracity of this character.
        To this end I would ask two questions , Carl.

        1:What evidence do you have that would qualify?

        2: Should the evidence pan out why do you believe it is necessary to worship this ”Christ”, and why would he require worship in the first place?

        Liked by 1 person

  28. John,

    ” Destroying Christianity? I’m afraid Christianity isn’t that special, Alan. But I think a better articulation of myself would be promoting Humanism.

    Are we only here because of a long series of unlikely events beginning with the big bang?

    Does that bother you? ”

    You attack Christianity, I defend it. You are better read than I am. Undoubtedly you can out debate me. You seem to know far more about the Bible than I do.

    What I am trying to do is get you to defend your version of reality. Even though you have written a lot, I am still not clear as to what you believe. I know what you are against. I can’t figure out what you consider to be true.

    You attack God as this flawed being. Do you believe he exists or do you just enjoy the attack?

    Humanism is an atheist philosophy of living. It rejects all divine knowledge. Then as an Atheist, you must believe that we and all we know are only happy accidents. Implausible and unlikely collisions of atoms over Billions of years.

    Like

    • You attack Christianity

      I oppose lies and falsehoods while promoting historical truth. Doesn’t matter if it is Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, etc.

      Humanism is an atheist philosophy of living.

      No, it’s not. Theists can be humanists.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Then lay out what you believe to be true. Is there no God, no creator? If there isn’t, then how did we appear? What is our ultimate future? What reason is there to live?

        If I remember correctly in our previous conversations you believed in a creator. You just did not like him very much.

        Like

      • What reason is there to live?

        How about to just enjoy LIFE? Must there be “something else” other than finding joy and happiness in this wondrous moment of existence in space and time?

        Liked by 6 people

  29. I haven’t read through the comments yet—but did anyone mention that as per Mel’s own words, God is also a construct and such needs a designer?

    In the beginning, God made Man.
    Man, to be fair, returned the compliment …

    (Sadly not mine and I’ve forgotten the source …)

    Liked by 4 people

  30. Pingback: Just me being curious again | Just me being curious

  31. You like the bishops style zande? lol. Of course you do.

    You are a laff a minute. Patient bastard when speaking of God eh? Well, He is certainly patient with you, but you have the bastard at the wrong end.

    Like

  32. What is the purpose of this petri dish we call the universe?

    Why was this artificial world created?

    What function does it serve?

    Why are we here?

    ANSWER:
    Because in ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.(Ephesians 2:7)

    Like

      • Hi jz-

        Your ‘faith’ is astounding. You following the playbook of pure guesswork is hilarious, but hey, that’s cool, go for it, believing while not having seen.

        Sounds mighty biblical to me, except you have your facts wrong. You may want to consider though, how your modern scientists are lost as fog as to WHY entropy exists, and WHY it started…………. Please don’t embarrass yourself with the ‘big bang.’

        Unless……………you are invoking He who said: Let there be light…………

        ………and how a simple weather man cannot get right a three day forecast. After all, science is testable, provable, and repeatable eh? What a joke.

        And oh, here’s a bonus for you to chew on: why is there only ONE moon for the earth’s night…………and not two, or three, or a thousand…………….hmmmmmm.

        Here’s a clue: He made the lesser light to rule the night. 😉

        Enjoy.

        Like

      • And herein lies your grand illusion jz, from whence comes the great intellectual failing and falling.

        The stars are simply lights. Period. And surely you know there are varying degrees of darkness.

        The blackness of darkness being so thick it can be cut with a knife.

        But to add that the singular word of the greatest sublime is this:

        LET THERE BE LIGHT. And there was light.

        Like

      • So glad that you are beginning to realize that God and scripture are light years ahead of men’s science and learning.

        ‘the waters above………….and the waters below………..’ 😉

        But you forgot to answer, apart from intelligence, WHY is there only ONE moon? 😉 😉

        Like

      • John….

        If you get an opportunity… check out Robert Hazen (he is a mineralogist/astrobiologist)… he came up with an interesting theory concerning the origin of life… the interesting bit is that his experiment differs radically from the Miller-Urey experiment… in his experiment he uses high pressure and minerals to produce similar amino-acids…

        So, it would appear you chaps have two competing theories concerning the origin of life…

        Hazen’s theory is unique… when he first expounded his theory… it consisted of 6 epochs in earth history (sounding a bit like Genesis)…and the origin of life required minerals (i.e. dust, sounding even more like Genesis)… He must have got a lot of criticism as now he is muddying the waters concerning his 6 epochs…now, he has sort of retreated from that position… though the adjustments he has made are really ad hoc now…. it makes his theory more of a muddle….

        Like

      • Venter (in 2010) and Romesberg (in 2014) created synthetic life. Romesberg’s kept losing its base pairs (X and Y), though, after a number of generations, until late last year researchers simply created a new bacterium which would always retain the bases. Alien life created.

        Like

      • Not cheating, just using different base pairs, which is the halmark of life. Sutherland in 2009 successfully cooked up two of the four ribonucleotides found in both RNA and DNA molecules.

        Like

  33. Interesting comment John:

    “The age of the stars (first light) did not begin until some 400 million years after Inflation.”

    Did you know that if one removes the affect of “inflation” and simply used the present rate of expansion of our universe applied to a sphere with a Planck length diameter, you get a universe the size of the full-stop at the end of this sentence.

    Like

  34. I think God started creating stuff because He got bored. If it’s only you up there with Jesus siting next to ya (His right, our left) ya tend to run out of things to do. Eternity is a pretty long time after-all.

    Liked by 2 people

      • No John… it will not be ghastly at all!

        You see, because you have proved it will not be ghastly on account you have solved Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge” (logically & evidentially) with your own conclusion:

        Good is Evil.

        Just look at the logic & empistemic trajectory using the Law method and your conclusion:

        1/ God is Evil -> This statement is true. The previous statement is false.
        2/ God is Good -> This statement is false. The previous statement is true.

        CONCLUSION: God is Good.

        It is such a technically sweet solution (simple solutions always are).

        Like

      • OK John…

        Good and Evil do not exist.

        Therefore, following the trajectory of your thesis: “Pleasure is Suffering”, it makes no difference in your “On The Problem of Good” (on account your thesis is epistemological). God is Evil is the necessary logical conclusion of your thesis.

        Look at it like this:
        1/ Good is Evil -> empistemological
        2/ Evil God Challenge -> logical

        The empistemological is the grounding of the logical propositional Evil God Challenge.

        It is interesting that you write: “Good and Evil do not exist.”

        This is a case of not seeing “something” as “something”; this is called aspect–blindness.

        Aspect-blindness is a very difficult thing to cure (a bit like colour blindness). But, here is a quick attempt to show you what is going on.

        “Pleasure is suffering.”

        How you see the above statement is equivalent to: “And he died. But he lived.”

        You see the paradox, right?

        But, what is hidden from you is the solution: “Andy died. Buddy lived.”

        Just say the statements out loud and you will “hear” what I mean.

        This what I mean, when I state that your book should be titled:
        “On The Problem of Good: Why 1=2.”

        Like

      • God is Evil is the necessary logical conclusion of your thesis.

        No, it’s not. Evil is a disposition. TOOAIN may appear evil to us, but our opinion of his nature is not accurate. We find his tastes repulsive (and for good reason), but his taste, to him, is no different than our taste for oxygen, which is cyanobacteria faeces, hence the observation, Delicious excrement.

        Like

      • John…

        You have just provided the most perfect rejoinder to Stephen Law’s objections to Sceptical Theism with that comment!!!!!!!!

        So, not only have you defeated Law’s Evil God Challenge… you have also defeated his objections to Sceptical Theism!!!!!

        Like

      • Sorry John… I meant Stephen Law would be unable to see it… on account he believes in a Private Language…. but, that is just an illusion (a bit like your take on evil)… BUT an “illusion” Law believes in….

        Like

      • John… you state:

        ” Evil is a disposition. TOOAIN may appear evil to us, but our opinion of his nature is not accurate. We find his tastes repulsive (and for good reason), but his taste, to him, is no different than our taste for oxygen, which is cyanobacteria faeces, hence the observation, Delicious excrement.”

        Now, if Evil is a disposition (which I have no problem with by the way; but it does mean Stephen Law’s take on the mind and Private Language is completely egregious… which is one of the reasons I like your disposition comment), then I can identify clearly what you are saying with this oxygen analogy:

        Oxygen has a disposition to become Evil in a situation of photo-synthesis if it is such that were photo-synthesis to come about it would become Evil.

        The above technical description I have given of your paragraph is correct, right?

        Thing is, if it is correct then “Delicious excrement” does follow; but it simply follows the Biblical account of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

        Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (subjective) -> Delicious excrement

        Which is very interesting as it does tie in with Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument (which is scientifically correct by the way…. and funny enough dispositional)

        I’ll quote Wittgenstein for you (so, you see how his idea fits neatly with your own):

        “Always get rid of the idea of a private object in this way; assume that it constantly changes, but that you do not notice the change because your memory constantly deceives you.”

        So, acceptance of Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument MUST follow with all Evil God Theodicies; it is the a priori for all of them… has to be.

        But, paradoxically, TOOAIN also explains perfectly, the Biblical stance on the Fall:

        1/ Good and Evil are dispositional
        2/ Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (subjective) -> Delicious excrement (Fall)

        So, you are correct Evil is dispositional so it is illusory to suppose that there is something to be right or wrong about; but, it also naturally follows that “pleasure” and “suffering” must be dispositional in your thesis and NOT categorical as you suggest with your concept of “mind”… your concept of mind and disposition are conflations

        Like

      • ” Evil is a disposition. TOOAIN may appear evil to us, but our opinion of his nature is not accurate. We find his tastes repulsive (and for good reason), but his taste, to him, is no different than our taste for oxygen, which is cyanobacteria faeces, hence the observation, Delicious excrement.”

        Since: Good is Evil

        Then:

        1/ Oxygen has a disposition to become Evil in a situation of photo-synthesis if it is such that were photo-synthesis to come about it would become Evil.

        2/ Carbon dioxide has a disposition to become Evil in a situation of photo-synthesis if it is such that were photo-synthesis to come about it would become Evil.

        Therefore: Oxygen is Carbon dioxide.

        Now, John how would you analyse this?

        Would you use a Principle of Determinability or a Principle of Limitation?

        Are the terms “Oxygen” and “Carbon dioxide” formal or informal designations?

        Like

      • John Zande:
        1/ “Evil is a disposition. TOOAIN may appear evil to us, but our opinion of his nature is not accurate. We find his tastes repulsive (and for good reason), but his taste, to him, is no different than our taste for oxygen, which is cyanobacteria faeces, hence the observation, Delicious excrement.”

        Wittgenstein:
        2/ “Always get rid of the idea of a private object in this way; assume that it constantly changes, but that you do not notice the change because your memory constantly deceives you.”

        Using proposition 2/ means that your belief in proposition 1/ is immune to contradiction.

        It is not possible to contradict your belief in proposition 1/

        Why?

        Let’s use the mirror technique:

        1/ contradiction
        2/ no-contradiction

        Using proposition 2/ on the mirror gives:

        (contradiction) = (ideal contradiction) + (error/blur)

        Here: (ideal contradiction) > (contradiction)

        Therefore: (ideal contradiction – contradiction) = (error/blur)

        And (error/blur) = = (no-contradiction)

        So, your proposition is immune to contradiction.

        Like

      • John… I made a slight (but all important “error”…

        This “relation” should read:

        Using proposition 2/ on the mirror gives:

        (contradiction) = (ideal contradiction) – (error/blur)

        Here: (ideal contradiction) > (contradiction)

        Therefore: (ideal contradiction – contradiction) = (error/blur)

        And (error/blur) = = (no-contradiction)

        So, your proposition is immune to contradiction.

        Which means that Wittgenstein is stating that a philosophical argument is never ideal; consequently it cannot be contradicted.

        For example:

        2+2=4
        But, if I stated no I believe 2+2=5-1 it would be immune to contradiction.

        Like

      • John… this would be another example (perhaps more relevant on account it could be construed as a “religious” belief…

        If we define Hell is a bottomless; then would you be able to contradict this belief:

        Hell is bottomless and exists at the centre of the earth (where all directions are “up”, i.e. therefore bottomless).

        Like

  35. john-

    You ask:

    ‘Why did the Creator create? For what purpose was this artificial world intended?’

    To repeat, your disingenuous statement will never be answered to your satisfaction. You would be better served to just ask ‘Why did the Creator create.’

    Even tho you do not believe it, at least the question would have been better framed.

    Like

      • It’s easy john.

        ‘For His pleasure they ARE, and WERE created.’

        Have you ever enjoyed the pleasure of just looking awefully at the jeweled lights we come to know as stars?

        Can you then step outside of yourself and appreciate this from HIS perspective?

        Like

      • John, we have been through this countless times.

        Did you just completely ignore what I just told you about HIS creation?

        Is it YOUR fault when your son pulls your daughter’s hair until she screams?

        C/mon, engage the brain. Now reread my first answer to your question. tkx.

        Like

      • No, no, I heard you the first time, and I’ll even demonstrate it to you.

        In the earthly theatre alone, the very mechanisms necessary to physically experience something beginning to resemble ‘happiness’ (enkephalin and opioid receptors) would not even exist in the world before some 3.5 billion years of terrestrial evolution had passed and untold billions of generations of living things had suffered enormously without as much as the hope of corporeal relief.

        By history, if Yhwh created this world for his “pleasure,” then he must find pleasure in suffering.

        Like

      • Sorry john, you are not paying attention.

        Leave your 3,4,5,10, 29 whatever billion year guesswork off the table if you can.

        Try to focus on what I told you, not on what you want to hear. Don’t pretend that your answers are MY narrative.

        The stars. Period. HIS creation. For His pleasure. This answers your question completely and perfectly. Unless of course you can find where one star suffers from the punishment of another.

        Soooooooo, you are responsible for your son’s punishing ways to your daughter………..

        Yeah, try to blame that on God too.

        Like

      • C’mon jz, tell the truth and shame the devil. I have never told you my opinion on the age of earth/universe. Surely you must know this. But go ahead and knock yourself out looking where you can contradict this statement on my blog or anywhere else.

        Ever heard of the straining of the gnat and the camel swallowing………….

        It is irrelevant.

        Like

      • Surely you have seen this john:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

        But you may want to pay attention to ‘hypothesized,’ ‘accretion process not yet known,’ ‘difficult to determine,’ ‘age of earth difficult to determine………….’ etc etc.

        But what the heck, they are close enough eh? Yeah ok. Meanwhile God laughs at our pretended knowledge.

        A hundred years from today, your hero science friends will be tomorrows idiots.

        It appears my credibility of ‘not knowing’ becomes stronger by the minute. Also, you may have heard of c-14 hoaxing. Enjoy.

        Like

      • Well, it’s good then that C14 is not used for anything older than 50,000 years, isn’t it. For that, we use radiometric dating, meaning the breakdown of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). You should really try and learn what you’re talking about before spewing nonsense, CS.

        But do feel free to disprove the science.

        Until then, we know that the very mechanisms necessary to physically experience something beginning to resemble ‘happiness’ (enkephalin and opioid receptors) did not even exist in this particular world before some 3.5 billion years of terrestrial evolution had passed and untold billions of generations of living things had suffered enormously without as much as the hope of corporeal relief.

        Therefore, by your suggested “answer” to the question, we must assume that the creator you believe in, the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh, created because he finds pleasure in suffering.

        I’m fine with that answer, it works historically, it’s not self-contradicting, it’s teleologically accurate, but I suspect it might make you a little uncomfortable.

        So, are you still satisfied with your answer?

        Like

      • Disprove the ‘science?’ Ha. You mean your so-called science.

        I am truly sorry if the ease in which I put to shame your guesswork escapes you.

        In your world of illusion, water runs uphill. Date that.

        Like

      • CS, I’m pretty good with words, always have been. I love the flexibility and nimbleness of language to express all manner of things, be it worlds of the imagination, abstract concepts, or even something as banal as statistics, but even I don’t have the necessary lexicon to fully express just how boring I find you.

        Now, go away and learn about radiometric dating, and save yourself any future embarrassment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sure thing john. But b-4 I go, something to chew on since it obviously escaped your brilliance and vocabulary.

        If c-14 has been proven to be fraudulent with things a mere few weeks old (50k) how in God’s good name can your hero friends be trusted to calibrate things billions and billions of years old……………. Hilarious, when the modern scientists cannot get right a three day weather forecast with information staring them in the face.

        I planned a roof project once because of a ZERO percent chance of rain. ZERO. ZERO.
        It poured. Your god science is pure guesswork.

        Sorry zande to embarrass you on your own blog. And I would not want to bore you any further, so adios. lol

        Like

      • If one believes in the theory of Relativity; one could make a case for 4.5 billion years AND 13.8 billion years old, no problem…

        Atomic clocks on earth are accurate; and yet they all differ in time; what makes them differ is there elevation on the earth… however, relative to there position on earth they are all correct (though they all differ in time).

        Like

      • Equally (if one believes in Relativity Theory)… one could make the case that the universe is 6000 years old as well…. no problem….

        Like

  36. I have major problems trying to get past this sort of thing—

    “Our/Humanity’s very first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God “

    —my problems lie as always in God’s ‘omniscience’ and Satan; and God’s omniscience and them surprising Him by their doing of forbidden deeds, and even more of Him asking questions to which (in all respects) (all~!) He already knew the answers even before He created The Creation.

    Even before He created Himself, from nothing, in fact …

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Perhaps our monkish friend meant more along the lines of “expression” rather than “accident.” For example, if creativity is an attribute of God then the world as we know it is an expression of that; not necessarily an “accident” but definitely a fruition of that nature. God created the world because creating is one of the things he does; he created angels before this world and he’ll create a heavenly realm after it. Who knows – this is likely not the first world, not likely the last world, and he might even have other worlds going out there. How about that for parallel universe theory?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Technically, an aseitic being is incapable of being creative. Aseity might solve the problem of origin (although the universe itself being aseitic is far more logical), but it creates an ocean of god-awful problems for the apologist which can’t be resolved, such as your proposition. Ignoring the horrors (which indicate malice or incompetence more than benevolence or competence), it’s a nice idea—a godly artisan—but it doesn’t work.

      Liked by 2 people

      • John Zande: “Technically, an aseitic being is incapable of being creative”

        WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        CORRECT STATEMENT: Technically, an aseitic being is incapable of learning.

        Like

  38. First I come here to ask why you haven’t publish anything lately?

    Then after rereading the post wanted to make a comment, but after reading most of the answers, and last response a few days ago, I desisted, it’s useless, since the topic is basically inexhaustible, and in my opinion useless to take one approach, or another one, and why wiser individuals, rather remain silent, or call it a Mystery.
    And it all come to our personal views of the matter, that by themselves are proof of nothing, and based on language, rather than on facts, and why of lately Lexicologist are deconstructing all our arguments, even Science itself, and calling them just semantic tricks, since after all, they all require a discourse to prove their subjective validity, and language being the relative, imprecise, way to assign meanings as a value to a word, that may mean many different things, to many, in themselves are proof of nothing.

    Einstein, someone I dislike to quote, because he is such a darling of the many quotes ending an argument, said the fundamental question he wanted to know, and not knowing it asked: Why is there something rather than nothing?

    Nevertheless, we all hold our own opinion.

    Best regards, and keep writing. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  39. My whole point its than even the word Aseitic, it’s just that, a word with meanings, and concepts attached to it, that in itself is no proof of it’s validity, although personally, sympathize with what you say. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s