Sketches on Atheism

THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED

Posted on by 676 Comments

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?

 

 

676 thoughts on “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”

  2. 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 3 people

    Reply

    • 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 3 people

      Reply

      • 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…

        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 3 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

  3. 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 8 people

    Reply

    • 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.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  4. 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 5 people

    Reply

    • 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 4 people

      Reply

      • 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 4 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 3 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.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • One of my recent interests in learning more about Islam is that very thought Argus. He may have pirated some Islam, used king James English and phraseology from a history book called The Late War by Gilbert Hunt. Statistically the Book of Mormon has too many coincidences to to be a coincidence http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/

        Liked by 2 people

  5. 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 6 people

    Reply

  6. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

  7. 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 7 people

    Reply

    • 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 3 people

      Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • “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

      Reply

      • 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

  8. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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 5 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

      Reply

    • But God knew (even before The Creation He knew, don’t forget) that he had booked the tower in for that time, place, and casualty list. Poor bugger, being omnipotent there was nothing He could do about it but watch and cheer on the survivors. And so He did—but then, being timeless and eternal Himself he’d been watching that scene play out for ever so knew when He could pop out for the popcorn and have a wee tinkle break (or did he hit ‘pause’ …?).

      No?

      Any Christians out there like to take that one up, and (hopefully) gainsay it?

      Like

      Reply

  9. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

    • “…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

      Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • Of course there’s a Grand Purpose! (If there weren’t there’d be no point, no?

        And I remember I had to sing “God is woooorking His purpose out” along with all the other internees at school; lyrics like this/these—

        God is working His purpose out
        As year succeeds to year;
        God is working his purpose out,
        And the time is drawing near;
        Nearer and nearer draws the time,
        The time that shall surely be,
        When the earth shall be filled
        With the glory of God
        As the waters cover the sea.

        So how much nearer has to draw near before we get to The Time? Or shall eternity be filled with the angelic voices of little ratbags lifting the rafters with such meaningless drivelings, until even God has finally had enough?

        If there weren’t a GP then we’d all be doing something less productive, surely?

        Or are you one of them heathen things … brrr, they warned me against your types at school~!

        Like

  10. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

  12. 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

    Reply

  14. 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

    Reply

  15. 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

    Reply

  16. 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

    Reply

  17. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

  18. 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 6 people

    Reply

  19. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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.

        Liked by 1 person

      • RAUT:

        re “getting there the first with the most” — it seemed to work for that guy. (Doubtlessly it was a throwaway answer for the reporters.)

        But in the field of religion it’s to be striven for.
        The new mind is a tabula rasa and first in is quids in, effectively a guaranteed home run without even swinging the bat.

        The Catholics know all about that—what was it the Jesuits infamously say? “Give me a boy until he’s age seven and after that he’ll be useless for anything else” (words to that effect).

        To hell with all the good fun arguments and discussions we keep having here in these blogs—mental masturbation, feels good at the time but achieves nothing.
        If we really want to dispel the darkness of the religious mindset we must give the young the tools of thinking and make damned sure they know how to (and can) use them—

        —then get out of their way.

        Like

  20. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

      Reply

      • 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

      Reply

  21. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  22. 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

    Reply

  23. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  25. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

  27. 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

    Reply

  29. 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

    Reply

  30. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  31. 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

    Reply

  36. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

  37. 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

    Reply

      • 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

      Reply

      • 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

      Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • @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

  40. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

      • 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

  41. 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

    Reply

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

  44. 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

    Reply

  45. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  46. 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

    Reply

  48. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  49. 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

    Reply

      • 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

  50. 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

    Reply

  54. 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

    Reply

    • 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

      Reply

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

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

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

        Like

  56. 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

    Reply

  57. 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

    Reply

  59. John, I overheard something quite interesting…Venter does not believe that the facts support a common evolutionary ancestor; he thinks there is more than 2 (Popper was right all along)… the “evolutionary” tree of life idea is a relic of the past; new evidence (I imagine he means the discovery by Carl Woese in the 80’s has moved along). He said it quietly…he did not want to over-egg it… suppose his scientific integrity got the better of him… still it was clear he was stating something very dodgy, i.e. fear that Dawkins will go after him just like he did Lovelock!

    Like

    Reply

  60. This is the question I have long put forward as being the only one that really matters when it comes to religion. Unless the meaning and purpose are known, however dimly, there is no way of telling whether the narratives and practices put forward by religionists are worth a row of beans. The view of some atheists that it all simply is, and happens the way it happens because that’s the way it happens, is not very satisfying. Particularly when a study of everything shows a certain direction or progress; not stasis.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • It is a critical question, I agree.

      The view of some atheists that it all simply is, and happens the way it happens because that’s the way it happens, is not very satisfying. Particularly when a study of everything shows a certain direction or progress; not stasis.

      There is an unmistakable tendency towards greater complexity, and that would indicate panpsychism, not theism.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Incorrect John…

        Complexity emerges purely on the basis of relations (empirically proven); this fact negates panpsychism.

        Like

      • Of course it arises from relations. John Fiske called these ‘affinities.’ If one wishes to posit panpsychism, then it is arguable that the universe rides on one question: What am I? Everything that happens—everything that comes into existence, growing in complexity and therefore capacity to address the question—is inspired by this single not-quite-conscious thought; the universe trying to understand itself. This is the absolute opposite of what theism proposes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John the one question: “What am I?”

        Defeats your pansychism thesis.

        Because changes in the configuration of the world, i.e. symmetry transformations have no empirical consequences (this is scientifically known).

        These transformations exchange the individual things that make up the world but leave their relations the same, i.e. relations don’t change -> Is-ness is God.

        And since relations do not change there is NOTHING for the universe to discover that it all ready doesn’t know, i.e. since relations do not change the structure of the universe does not change because the universe possesses full environmental information.

        You commented on this yourself with your error in the TOOAIN model itself, i.e. you initially believed TOOAIN could be surprised; you subsequently withdrew this assertion as being unworkable.

        This is why the answer to your question: “What am I?”
        IS THE BIBLICAL ANSWER: “I AM”.

        Like

      • Exactly, the relations—the affinities, the tendency—remain the same while continually producing evermore complex (evermore capable) entities.

        That supports the idea of panpsychism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John

        How can it support panpsychicism?

        In your response you have not even referred to consciousness, mind, etc… so how can it support panpsychicism?

        Ever more capable entities is impossible if relations are invariant; therefore complexity has no empirical consequences.

        Like

      • The movement is towards ever-greater complexity, never towards simplicity, and this becomes even more pronounced with memetic evolution. The predominant movement is in one direction, and never the other.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Interesting debate! I myself see a possible positive correlation between self-organization, complexity and sentience (= a kind of protoconsciousness).

        Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity.

        Here’s a quote from that Wikipedia article:

        Indeed, some computer models have suggested that the generation of complex organisms is an inescapable feature of evolution.[14][15] This is sometimes referred to as evolutionary self-organization. Self-organization is the spontaneous internal organization of a system. This process is accompanied by an increase in systemic complexity, resulting in an emergent property that is distinctly different from any of the constituent parts.

        However, the idea of increasing production of complexity in evolution can also be explained through a passive process.[13] Assuming unbiased random changes of complexity and the existence of a minimum complexity leads to an increase over time of the average complexity of the biosphere.[4] This involves an increase in variance, but the mode does not change. The trend towards the creation of some organisms with higher complexity over time exists, but it involves increasingly small percentages of living things.

        Also see https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/complexity-theory-and-the-nature-of-consciousness/ .

        And here is a quote from the beginning of that article:

        When it comes to understanding the nature of consciousness in the universe, there are two main philosophical approaches. One is panpsychism, in which consciousness pervades the universe at all levels. The other is emergentism, in which consciousness only appears once the universe has reached a certain level of complexity.

        Complexity theory has often been seen as supporting emergentism, largely because of its apparent similarity. In complexity theory, groups of interacting units self-organize into larger-scale structures. This can be seen with groups of cells forming tissues or entire animals, animals working together in colonies, and collections of animals giving rise to ecosystems. In all these cases, the properties and structures found at higher levels arise from the bottom up, rather than through top-down planning and design.

        In spite of its emergent tendencies, some scientists say that if you apply the principles of complexity theory to all levels of scale in the universe — from the quantum realm to cities and ecosystems —complexity theory may actually provide support for panpsychism.

        According to these articles it’s possible that evolutionary complexity and panpsychism in fact are two sides of the same coin. At least it’s a hypothesis worth exploring.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Great comment.

        There’s certainly more evidence for emergentism, but I’d argue it and panpsychism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Adrian Bejan’s Constructal Law of design and evolution in nature appears to marry both quite elegantly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BBNEWSAB & John

        OK….

        So, the both of you would agree with this statement:

        PANSYCHICISM: THE EMERGENT PROPERTY OF COMPLEXITY DICTATES THAT OF THOUGHT.

        Do you both agree?

        Like

      • I’ll defer to bbnewsab’s answer. Couldn’t have said it better. I see panpsychism, IIT, and Constructal law as overlapping fields of enquiry, circling the same thing. Is there some fourth way, some unifying theory that brings them all together into a coherent picture? Perhaps. Tegmark thinks there is, which is why he’s looking at consciousness as a fourth state of matter.

        Like

      • John

        I had a read of the Construal Law thingy, my statement:

        PANSYCHICISM: THE EMERGENT PROPERTY OF COMPLEXITY DICTATES THAT OF THOUGHT.

        Conforms to the Construal Law exactly…

        Like

      • @Philip Rand: No, that is a misinterpretation.

        Nothing says that panpsychism MUST follow. But it can’t be ruled out that (some sort of) panpsychism is a way of explaining the observed tendency to complexity in nature. But not the only way. Maybe not even the right or best way to explain complexity.

        Please read my first quote once more. Or even better: Read the whole Wikipedia article I linked to once more.

        In short: If there were a real and over-all tendency to more complexity in nature, why then are most living species still noncomplex?

        And remember, Philip Rand, it also depends on how you choose to define complexity and where you decide to look. Don’t forget the semantics.

        I’m sure you know about the Integrated Information Theory (IIT). Or else, have a look here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7089 .

        Here’s a quote from that paper’s abstract: The theory [IIT] vindicates some panpsychist intuitions – consciousness is an intrinsic, fundamental property, is graded, is common among biological organisms, and even some very simple systems have some. However, unlike [genuine] panpsychism, IIT implies that not everything is conscious…

        END OF QUOTE

        So the concept of panpsychism seems to be, in part, a semantic problem. And the same goes for the word complexity. Depending on how you define the concept(s) you can arrive at different conclusions.

        Please scroll upwarsds in this comment field. John Zande writes: 1) There is an unmistakable tendency towards greater complexity, and that would indicate panpsychism, not theism. And 2) That supports the idea of panpsychism.

        That is, John Zande NEVER says in his comments that the explanation MUST BE panpsychism. He’s just telling us that panpsychism MAY BE a POSSIBLE explanation (worth exploring). And I agree with him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BBNEWSAB

        Panpsychicism can be ruled out and so can John’s idea of increasing complexity.

        Why? Because panpsychicism together with the Constructal Law of Design are simply kineaesthetic constructs, i.e. they are physical. Which means Pansychicism when looked at correctly reduces to behaviourism.

        John is incorrect, there is NO TENDENCY towards greater complexity. The only property of complexity is stability. Stability has never emerged it is an invariant “relation”.

        Here is a simple piece of evidence.

        Before the Human Genome Project commenced, it was predicted that the human genome would have around 150,000 genes using evolution theory, i.e. as you ascend the evolutionary ladder in biological complexity the number of genes increase (this is what the theory says).
        .
        Scientists did a trial on the method. To do this they determined the genome size of a primitive worm (so small it is barely detectable by the human eye) and came up with 24,000 genes.
        .
        Next, they did the fruit-fly (more complex than the worm) and came up with 18,000 genes.
        .
        Next , they did the human (even more complex than a worm and fruit-fly) and came up with 25,000 genes.
        .
        Now, estimates of the human genome is between 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

        Like

      • John is incorrect, there is NO TENDENCY towards greater complexity.

        Hydrogen fuses into the heavier and more complex helium, helium fuses into the heavier and more complex carbon, helium and carbon combine to make the heavier and more complex oxygen. Single atoms come together to form simple compounds, simple compounds bind to produce double compounds, double compounds bond to fashion simple molecules, molecules marry to create amino acids, amino acids coalesce to model catalysing proteins and enzymes, and proteins and enzymes experiment to prototype self-replicating systems where, according to the accepted paradigm of evolutionary biology, there is a continuum from simple to more complex organisms.

        See Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Ethics of Research Involving Animals, May 2005.

        Like

      • The tendency to complexity was well recognised even in the 19th Century, as John Fiske wrote in his Miscellaneous Writings:

        “As soon as it became cool enough for oxygen and hydrogen to unite into a stable compound, they did unite to form vapour of water. As soon as it became cool enough for double salts to exist, then the mutual affinities of simple binary compounds and single salts, variously brought into juxtaposition sufficed to produce double salts. And so on throughout the inorganic world … Here we obtain a hint as to the origin of organic life upon the earth’s surface. In accordance with the modern dynamic theory of life, we are bound to admit that the higher and less stable aggregations of molecules which constitute protoplasm were built up in just the same way in which the lower and more stable aggregations of molecules which constitute a single or a double salt were built up. Dynamically, the only difference between carbonate of ammonia and protoplasm which can be called fundamental is the greater molecular complexity and consequent instability of the latter.”

        Indeed, on no less than 24 separate occasions the earth has witnessed the simplest of single-celled life leap from its primal state to that of multi-cellular activity, marking this transition to organic complexity as something fundamentally pedestrian (See The Amphimedon queenslandica genome and the evolution of animal complexity, Nature, 466:720-26).

        Like

      • John,

        You write: “Hydrogen fuses into the heavier and more complex helium”

        Why is helium more complex than hydrogen?

        Because it is heavier? What does heavier mean?

        You are gravely mistaken concerning “continuum” from simple to complex systems… this statement is non-sense.

        What you can say (and has been experimentally confirmed) is that an “information” continuum exists allowing information to flow from isolated systems to other isolated systems, unlike time (that is probabilistic and does not flow; so, this Constructal Law theory based on entropy is wrong right off the bat)… only information flows.

        So, what is the ONLY property that is manifested with your description of complexity:

        “Hydrogen fuses into the heavier and more complex helium, helium fuses into the heavier and more complex carbon, helium and carbon combine to make the heavier and more complex oxygen. Single atoms come together to form simple compounds, simple compounds bind to produce double compounds, double compounds bond to fashion simple molecules, molecules marry to create amino acids, amino acids coalesce to model catalysing proteins and enzymes, and proteins and enzymes experiment to prototype self-replicating systems where, according to the accepted paradigm of evolutionary biology, there is a continuum from simple to more complex organisms.”

        STABILITY!!!!!!!!

        Like

      • The amoeba proteus, a gelatinous, microscopic, single-celled blob of primitive organics boasts a staggering 670 billion base pairs in its genome.

        Care to talk about what actually matters, neurons?

        Like

      • John… this is even getting funnier…. and humans only have 3 billion base pairs…. so, it would then appear that rather than evolving from a sponge to an higher more complex form of organism… humans have devolved!!!!!!!

        Like

      • Roundworm: 550 million years old, 302 neurons

        Fruit fly: 400 million years old, 250,000 neurons

        Short-tailed shrew: 210 million years, 52 million neurons

        Human being: 200,000 years old, 100 billion neurons.

        Like

      • And John…. if you say, pansychicism is more likely…. then your argument concerning atomic structure is an equivocation…. on account according to pansychicism the ontological nature of particles has no existence.

        Therefore, atomic structure is all in the mind.

        Like

      • John

        You write:
        “Roundworm: 550 million years old, 302 neurons

        Fruit fly: 400 million years old, 250,000 neurons

        Short-tailed shrew: 210 million years, 52 million neurons

        Human being: 200,000 years old, 100 billion neurons.”

        What exactly does that prove John?

        I mean, out of that total of 100 billion neurons humans only use 45 million neurons for conscious perception.

        Like

  61. @Philip Rand: Don forget it’s a creationist argument, that theistic evolution – a concept that sounds like an oxymoron but I think it’s called so, the kind of evolution that can be accepted by some theists – leads to more and more complex species and that, therefore, the increase in complexity that seems to have occurred since life started to evolve here on earth reveals a cognitive supermind (= a divine “engineer”, creator).

    And you know of course that the crown of all divine creations is said to be us Homo sapiens, because our “kind” was created in the image of God (in imaginem Dei).

    What John Zande and I do is to agree that it SEEMS, at least under certain circumstances and with certain premises, as if evolution in fact strives to more complexity. But even if we accept that, ir’s not the same thing as saying that there is an intentionality to be found in (the course of) evolution.

    But IF there is an intentionality, maybe that intentionality can be explained by panpsychism or something like that.

    The MIT physicist Max Tegmark (actually born in Sweden like me) has launched a hypothesis that consciousness could be a new state of matter (which he calls perceptronium). Read more about Tegmark’s hypothesis here: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousness-is-a-new-state-of-matter

    As far as I know and understand it, the Constructal law can be used, if you find it appropriate, to place the concepts of life, design and evolution in the scientific domain of physics. I’m not the only one to reason in that way, see: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4798429 .

    So, in my view that conclusion looks like a naturalist’s view or a naturalist’s explanation. I think one could argue that It even tries to rule out the presence/existence of a theistic divinity in nature.

    If there is a divinity involved in nature, that god may be deistic, absolutely not theistic like the biblical god.

    I now have to ask you, Philip Rand: Did you really read the Wikipedia article I linked to yesterday? Then you must have missed the second paragraph of that article, which says:

    Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so-called “higher organisms,” despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of “progression” and “higher organisms” in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant. (The quote is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity .)

    In short: It is usually creationists who argue that the observed increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life is an irrefutable argument to prove that God must be the creator of this universe (including life and us humans).

    To develop and follow up your own argumentation in your comment above (about the size of different genomes) I recommend you to read this blog post by Rosa Rubicondior: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2014/07/christmas-tree-tease-for-creationists.html

    Rosa Rubisondior asks five questions to her creationist followers; I quote:

    So, creation pseudo-scientist are faced with several dilemma here:

    1) How do [creationists] explain a manifestly less complex organism like a Norwegian spruce having such a vastly more complex genome and almost twice as many functional genes as humans? If their parody of evolution was correct, humans would have the most complex genomes.

    2) If additional DNA means additional information, what new information is there in all the redundant DNA in Picea abies and why does a spruce need seven times the information that humans need?

    3) How do they explain a species which diversified from the last common ancestor shared with humans about 500 million years ago having a more complex genome than humans? If their parody of evolution was correct the human genome should be the largest because humans are the most highly evolved of all creatures.

    4) How do they explain such a huge genome with so much redundant DNA? Why would any intelligent designer create so much redundant DNA?

    5) How do they explain a faulty DNA replication mechanism which needs an error-correction method to prevent it running out of control in the first place, and why would an intelligent designer then break the correcting mechanism it designed to compensate for its earlier mistake?

    I myself find all these five questions worth contemplating. I hope you do it too, Philip Rand.

    Now over and out, I have to make myself ready to watch the Fifa World Cup soccer football match between Sweden and Switzerland.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Tegmark is incorrect (I know his work).

      Recent quantum experiments done in Cambridge prove that the information-physics approach to quantum physics is correct.

      This means observation of a measurement creates the reality of the measurement and the laws of the measurement at the moment of measurement.

      This proves that Quantum Darwinism (the method that underpins the MWI quantum model) is wrong.

      And since Quantum Darwinism is wrong; Universal Darwinism is wrong; and if Universal Darwinism is wrong… then all evolution theories are wrong.

      Like

      Reply

    • Your several dilemmas are not a problem… they can all be explained simply:

      The DNA replication mechanism is an efficient estimator. This answers questions 1-5.

      Like

      Reply

  62. I didn’t read all of the comments, so someone may have already said this. In “reformed theology” circles, we were taught that God created the world for his own glory. So that he could be worshiped, glorified by his creation, etc… Sounds a bit needy.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  63. John: Have you ever run across Philip at The Curmudgeon?

    Bad Theology

    Text for today: Matthew 6 i-iv

    During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus orders His disciples not to publicise their gifts to the needy, because their Father in Heaven will only reward them if their giving is done in secret and does not attract praise from other people.

    Although Jesus advocated healing the sick and casting out devils as a useful means of announcing the coming of His kingdom, He did not consider helping one’s fellow human beings a virtuous end in itself. His attitude towards the widow’s gift amply demonstrates His satisfaction at the idea that those with very little should to no earthly purpose give away even what they have; and in any case He famously regarded the vast majority of the human race as merely chaff to be burned and forgotten when the Father imposes His régime of religious cleansing.

    Human beings are essentially social and conformist: in a society where generosity was genuinely practised and praised, more generosity would probably be forthcoming, to the moral and practical benefit of everyone. However, Jesus had not the slightest interest in bettering conditions on earth, and arguably no real interest in bettering human behaviour. Given that those who are to be saved have been arbitrarily chosen by God, presumably since the beginning of time, there can hardly be much point in wasting time and energy trying to cure the tares of those faults which their Father has seen fit to bestow upon them.

    Rather, Jesus required dedication at all costs to Himself and to His Father. Almsgiving in His view was merely a convenient way in which to purify one’s life by divesting it of worldly wealth; in other words, giving to the poor was an act to be undertaken for the benefit of one’s own soul and not for the good of the recipient. Accordingly, in the interests of focusing His disciples’ attention on the things of God and not of humanity, where helping the poor is concerned Jesus forbids the elect to lead by example.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Is that to me, or Philip?

      Good study, makes sense. By it’s nature, religion celebrates social/scientific/economic conservatism. Cast that aside and it’s only natural that opportunities will abound.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • If one looks at the graphs of “satisfaction” it would appear that the relation has nothing whatsoever to do with religion….BUT rather how much a country owes the IMF.

      Most likely because the IMF is secular and therefore obtaining an IMF loan gives the IMF a carte blanche to interfere in a nations sovereignty, i.e. they lose it (like Brazil).

      Like

      Reply

      • Another interpretation is that in religious societies corruption and bribery thrive because in theocracies (a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God) it’s important to bribe both the priests and God himself. Religion, at least the abrahamic religions, is antidemocratic by nature, and that fact leads to an inefficient use of available economic resources.

        In other words, the Christian omniscient God seems to know nothing about economics. He doesn’t understand the relationship between supply and demand, i.e. how supply and demand interact with each other to bring prosperity to the people.

        BTW, here’s a good example taken from the Old Testament to highlight this divine ignorance: https://thepoisedatheist.wordpress.com/2018/07/20/1-kings-chapter-6-solomon-builds-the-temple/ .

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your main thrust appears to be:
        “Religion, at least the abrahamic religions, is antidemocratic by nature, and that fact leads to an inefficient use of available economic resources”

        I should point out to you that according to the Bible all debt owed by a person is revoked every seven years, even land was restored (as it was in the time of Solomon).

        Like

      • Let me pose this question to you & John

        We can summarise forms of government like this:

        1/ Monarchy
        2/ Aristocracy
        3/ Democracy
        4/ Oligarchy
        5/ Tyranny

        Now, where is the decision making power made in Sweden and Brazil?

        I would say that Sweden is under the Legal Tyranny of the EU and the IMF and Brazil is under the Legal Tyranny of the IMF.

        Like

      • Your article states that Saudi Arabi has a very high satisfaction value; this single anomaly in the theory scuppers it.

        You state that the DOCTRINE of a secular state is (as required by the IMF):

        Efficient use of available economic resources.

        Thus the DUTY of a secular state is this achievement. Which explains why secularism is anti-trade union.

        Like

      • @Philip Rand:

        The study I referred to the other day about the relationship between poverty (low GDP) and (high) religiosity is not the only one.

        I recommend you to google (for example) correlation + religion + poverty.

        Do you mean that all such studies are biased and easy to scupper?

        Anyway, here are two more studies (one from 2010 and the other from 2015) for you to deprecate:

        1) https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/a-correlation-between-poverty-and-religiosity/ ; and

        2) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/23/americans-are-in-the-middle-of-the-pack-globally-when-it-comes-to-importance-of-religion/ft_15-12-17_religioussaliencescatter/ .

        Let me put it like this: I urge you, Philip Rand, please submit a link to a scientific study that shows that high religiosity normally leads to prosperity for most (if not all) inhabitants in a society/country?

        Or just answer this simple question: Why do wealthier nations tend to be less religious? Is it the will of a loving and caring god – or what?

        Talking of a loving and caring divinity, Philip Rand, why not at the same time also explain how God might have thought when he created the murderous cuckoo. Have a look at: http://www.countryfile.com/countryside/secret-crimes-cuckoo .

        Here’s a quote from that artícle: The cuckoo’s egg has a head start, requiring half-a-day’s less incubation than the host’s clutch, possibly due to the fact that newly laid cuckoo eggs contain partly developed embryos. The chick’s homicidal tendencies are just as developed, and within hours of hatching the blind and naked infant pushes any remaining eggs from the nest. If any other chicks have had the misfortune to have already hatched, they’re also barged out to fall to their death.

        How can a creation like that be made by a loving and caring god (aseitic or not)? I don’t understand. But I hope you can explain it to me, Philip Rand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fantastic response!

        Your cuckoo analogy allows me to answer all your post in total, really easily (you will have to see the connections though… so some effort on your part)

        The cuckoo is secularism. The cuckoo egg IS the IMF in a nest (a nation). The egg hatches and…. well you know the rest….

        Wonderfully great analogy that answers ALL you questions!!!!

        So, the real question you must ask yourself is:

        Why does God allow Secularism to exist?

        You see, Secularism does have a purpose… can you see it?

        Like

  65. I’m trying to work through these questions right now through a series of articles entitled “The Meaning of Life” on my blog. I’m not very far in, and I don’t think I’m very close to an answer. If you’re interested and have the time though, you’re obviously welcome to take a look. I appreciate your critiquing abilities and would like to see what you have to say.

    Like

    Reply

      • John…

        That is the only possibility since reality is not like a weather map that shows the temperature in various cities. The construct of this weather map is quantum and the quantum version is like a weather map that does not show you “40 degrees ” but rather “√.”

        Like

  67. Hi John

    I have some information for you… that I am sure you will find very funny (I know I do)… What I shall do is list all the blogs I have been banned from:

    1. Stephen Law
    2. W L Craig
    3. Edward Feser
    4. Alex Pruss
    5. John Loftus
    6. Randall Rauser

    What do you think? Not bad going is it? Both Atheists & Theists ban me….

    Though, I am only on the other side of Oxford from Stephen Law…. I would never want to share a pint with him (it would be interminable)…. however, should I ever get down to Brazil again (perhaps a conference)…. I would like to share a pint with you…

    p.s.

    Your TOOAIN concept was very good…. unfortunately for Stephen Law, it proved the undoing of his Evil God Challenge…. weird how that worked out….

    Like

    Reply

    • My reply is awaiting moderation… meaning I am even banned by you!!!!!

      Fantastic…. my list is now 7

      1. Stephen Law
      2. W L Craig
      3. Edward Feser
      4. Alex Pruss
      5. John Loftus
      6. Randall Rauser
      7. John Zande

      Forget the pint…. no worries mate!

      Like

      Reply

      • Actually, I missed one… my list is 8

        1. Stephen Law
        2. W L Craig
        3. Edward Feser
        4. Alex Pruss
        5. John Loftus
        6. Randall Rauser
        7. John Zande
        8. Joshua Rasmussen

        I think that is pretty impressive… in physics the median is a good indicator that ones model is correct…. looks like my comments represent the median, i.e. they offend both theist & atheist…. good indicator of the quality of my comments, i.e. demonstrate that they are objective & fair….

        Like

      • Sorry, not sure why all these went through to moderation

        Yes John, a very good example of why I am banned from the sites:

        [(p & (p⇒q)) & ¬q] ⇒[negative feedback loop]

        You are beginning to understand the dynamics of how empirically the Evil God Challenge is defeated…

        Like

  68. Dear Kind John,

    I thought I might take a shot at your challenge.

    In order to understand why God created the universe we live in, we have to understand that there was another fall that happened long ago. Adam and Eve weren’t the first to fall. The Bible tells us of another of God’s creations, the angels, as having rebelled. They were led by Lucifer (which means “light-bearing one”) He lived in the presence of God. But Lucifer, impressed by his own beauty and abilities (he led the worship in heaven), became arrogant. He thought he could be like God. He convinced one-third of the angels to follow him. Sin, rooted in pride, was now introduced to the heavenly realm.

    But this left God in a difficult position with his creation. If there were no consequences for the actions of these rebellious angels, sin would spread. Like a virus out of control, it would move through heaven and infect everything. If this happened, there would no longer be any heaven. Instead, it would become like a “Mad Max” hell, where the strong and evil would run rampant over the weak. Pride, and rebellion against God’s will, would spread and permeate heaven, causing perpetual war, division, hatred, and injustice.

    On the other hand, if God were to destroy the rebellious angels, there would be fear in heaven. God would have a dictatorial relationship with his creation, rather than the love relationship he desired.

    What could he do? Ignore the fallen angels and let heaven become infected, or destroy them and have his creation live in fear of him?

    What would you do?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I’m not John, but I read your comment and my answer would be … both stories are fantasy so no matter which “solution” you come up with, it’s all make-believe anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Yes, but John asked the question. He didn’t inquire as to whether the creation story was true or not, but how people of religion answer the question of WHY the universe was created. I’m merely sharing my response to his challenge.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Diana, and thanks for the proposal. You’re right about Lucifer’s fall being before Adam, which has always baffled me as to why Christians insist it was man’s fault. The chronology of events is quite clear. Anyway, that point aside, it’s a curious plotline you’re suggesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you’re proposing is your god, Yhwh, created this evolving material world to isolate a disease—a cancer—that had sprouted in the first creation, ‘heaven.’ At face value that sounds perfectly reasonable, we quarantine sick people for good and sound reasons all the time, but if we’re to accept this explanation then we have to also accept that your god, Yhwh, then deliberately (consciously) released mankind into this diseased world, which seems to contradict the whole ‘goodness’ thesis. In fact, in this scenario, creating man is nothing but an act of deliberate evil.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Good point. Didn’t have any qualms about mass murder a little later on. Perhaps having TWO creations fail miserably pushed him into a mild but persuasive insanity.

        Like

  69. Hi John!

    Actually, that’s not what I’m saying.

    Would you not agree that love requires liberty? A person can’t be forced to love another. And yet, it appeared that the angels were forced to love God–or else. Lucifer had forced God’s hand. Through the life-or death-of the fallen angel, God would lose. Checkmate.

    Or so Lucifer thought. But God wasn’t trapped. He devised another way. It was a beautiful plan that included a display to the universe of his great love and wisdom. It would show his creation that he was a loving God and not a dictator, revealing his selflessness and humility. It would show them that they could trust his heart and that he was worthy of their allegiance and love. It would even inspire passion for him, not just lip-service and lifeless obedience.

    Like

    Reply

  70. The scriptures say that Jesus is like a bridegroom, so full of passion that he would even die for his bride. This is not a tyrant. (Jesus said, Greater love has no man than this: that he would lay down his life for a friend.)

    God created a new race called humans and put them in a perfect environment so that there would only be satisfaction and sufficiency. Like the angels, there had to be free will, but there would be no excuse for rebellion. He even provided a way to conquer death. All they had to do was eat of the Tree of Life which was provided for them.

    Like

    Reply

    • God created a new race called humans and put them in a perfect environment so that there would only be satisfaction and sufficiency.

      No, by your own account above, Yhwh put them in an already corrupted, diseased world. He flung man into Lucifer’s prison.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • It’s things like this that always make me wonder what on earth they actually study in theology/bible schools. The chronology is there in black and white, and Diana is right to bring it up. It explains one thing quite reasonably, but utterly destroys everything else.

        Like

      • The story has all the same elements of every other myth (Nan pointed it out in her comment); it simply amazes me that people believe it as truth. And then spend time formulating what they see as sensible conjecture to explain it as such. Grown adults, I might add. 😦

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lucifer’s prison? That’s an interesting concept since the Bible calls him the God of this world who roams about seeking whom he may devour. He is even allowed to go to heaven and make accusations. He isn’t limited. He can enter either realm. Physical or spiritual.

        Like

  71. But there also had to be another option. It would have the same temptation as that experienced by the angels–to “be like God” (Genesis 3:5) and the same consequence–separation from God–death.

    This would allow his creation to see the justice of his decisions. The angels could watch and see the results of Lucifer’s lies and the consequence of his rebellion.

    Lucifer may have watched as God set up this new creation. He watched as two trees were created and may have pondered what God was doing. He knew disobedience and rebellion had left God on the horns of a dilemma in the past, and perhaps thought God was banking on the fact that this different type of creation–a creation made in his own image–wouldn’t be as easily tempted. It’s difficult to say what led Lucifer into the Garden and begin his seduction. Nevertheless, Lucifer went in for the kill, hoping to have victory over the defeated God again!

    Like

    Reply

      • Concentrating on Lucifer doesn’t get you out of the actual problem in your proposal. Although it doesn’t explain why evolution, creating this world *for* Lucifer is a defendable suggestion. Isolate the disease, quarantine the cancer. Fine. Your entire thesis of a “good” god completely collapses, however, when we then have to confront that part in the narrative where your god flung man into this corrupted, diseased petri dish.

        And what would I do? As an aseitic being I would never have created anything in the first place as the act of creation itself would shatter what was already perfect. The very act of creation is, therefore, evil.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ha! My son says the same thing about having children. My daughter even wrote a column in her college newspaper asking why she should have to provide for herself–since she didn’t ask to be born.

        Unfortunately, my kids are stuck with their lives. And I’m not the creator, so I’m stuck with my existence.

        Your challenge to people of faith was to respond to why God created the physical universe. I say that it was because the Bible teaches that there was a pre-Adamic civilization that rebelled, and God had to respond to the insurrection.

        His solution was to show to his creation that he wasn’t a tyrant. He loved his creation so much that he was even willing to take the penalty for their sins upon himself.

        The Bible also says the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. In other words, the cross was planned before God created the world. This world was not an afterthought. It was part of a plan. This is why God created the physical universe: to display his love and justice, as revealed through the message of the Lamb.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Keep in mind that the BIble was written by MEN, Diana. MEN who wanted to control others. It worked like a charm. Many of us are comfortable with fantasies, it seems.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Your challenge to people of faith was to respond to why God created the physical universe. I say that it was because the Bible teaches that there was a pre-Adamic civilization that rebelled, and God had to respond to the insurrection.

        Absolutely, and you did give a reasonable answer. Quarantining the disease makes sense. It falls into all sorts of trouble however when we try to then superimpose it over the other parts of the Christian narrative, namely the qualities of said creator and the creation of mankind. If the story simply ended with Lucifer and his friends kicking back in this material scape, then great, we have a well-rounded explanation and a functional theodicy. That’s not, however, how the story ends though, is it. So, reasonable explanation until it collapses into untenable incoherency and contradiction.

        Like

      • I don’t think God was trying to quarantine Lucifer and the fallen angels. If that were the case, he could have put them into a heavenly prison immediately. And how would his creation have reacted? Would they think he was a cruel, demanding dictator? No. God’s plan was to reveal the difference between Lucifer and himself. How could his creation truly know and believe if they didn’t see it? Would they think it was just a mythological story? If so, would their disbelief allow it to happen again? The contrast between God and Satan would play out across the spiritual and physical universe. 1 Peter 1:12 says that the angels long to look into the gospel. They are fascinated by the plan of God.

        Like

      • I don’t think God was trying to quarantine Lucifer and the fallen angels.

        And yet basic Christian theology places “God” outside time and space, undetectable. By your own narrative, this is an artificial world, sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never experience but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

        God’s plan was to reveal the difference between Lucifer and himself.

        As Carmen has already pointed out, he performed quite differently a little later on when he murdered everyone and everything on earth.

        You see, the base of your explanation is good. It’s workable. Workable, that is, until the storyline progresses to the completely UNNEEDED creation of humans to occupy this created space (with Lucifer and his mates), and then it just becomes a contradictory mess.

        Liked by 1 person

  72. But this time, God would put Lucifer on the horns of a dilemma. No matter what choice humanity made, God would have the victory, not Lucifer. If they chose to eat of the Tree of Life, they would live in union with God forever, but if they chose the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, there would be provision for them to have life also. Lucifer would never understand this, though.

    How could he ever have anticipated the Lamb on the cross?

    Like

    Reply

  73. If you think about the Bible, it isn’t a set of incoherent ramblings. It has one unified message from Genesis to Revelation: the message of the Lamb. How could this be a message created by humans when the Bible was written over the course of 1500 years by people as diverse as kings, farmers, tax collectors, doctors, shepherds, generals, and fishermen. They were written on three different continents in places as diverse as dungeons, palaces, islands of exile, and tents, and included different types of writings such as history, law, poetry, parables, allegory, biography, letters, prophecies, and persuasive arguments. And yet every one of these writings points to Jesus, the Lamb, in some way.

    1. When Adam and Eve sinned, they covered themselves with fig leaves. God sacrificed an animal and covered them with furs. This was the first indication that there must be a blood offering.

    2. The message of blood sacrifice must have been conveyed to Adam and Eve because Cain and Abel made sacrifices and Cain’s vegetable sacrifice was unacceptable while Abel’s lamb sacrifice was acceptable.

    3. We see that Noah was accepted by God even though the rest of the world was evil. He took extra animals on the ark for sacrifice. The first thing he did when coming off the ark was to offer a blood sacrifice. He also sinned, but was accepted by God because of the lamb.

    4. Not very many generations after Noah’s flood, humanity tried to come together under the leadership of Nimrod to get to God through building a high tower. After they were scattered, they took the knowledge of the blood sacrifice with them, but they corrupted it and began to sacrifice humans.

    5. After the scattering of the nations, God would choose one person, Abraham, to bless all nations. Abraham was from Ur (Babel), and he was called out of there to a land that would become Israel. It was on Mount Moriah that God would ask him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. But God stopped the sacrifice and provided an animal caught in the thorn bushes to be the sacrifice. This was a symbol of Christ. The future temple of Jerusalem would be built on Mount Moriah where lambs would be sacrificed on the altar as an atonement.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • If the invisible, invincible hand of an omniscient being wrote the Bible (along with all those other wondrous events you’ve conjured up), why can’t it type and make contact on this thread? I mean, it moved in mysterious ways for 1500 years.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • Indeed, we have two instances where Yhwh physically writes, in human words:

        Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote. — Daniel 5:5

        The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.” — Exodus 34:1

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well….let’s say that God came down and stood in front of you…out of the blue…and claimed he was God. How could you trust that he was good? Several sci-fi series have been based on just such a premise. In the 1980’s TV series, “V,” alien beings come to earth and claim to be benevolent. They just want to help the earth with her problems. They seemed believable. But in reality, as the show continues, we find out that they’re really here to harvest humans as a food source for their planet. How could an alien civilization communicate to us in a way that we would understand and trust him?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Bible says that God communicated to humanity through his Spirit. He inspired men and women to write down different types of writings. These writings would point to Jesus as the Messiah/Saviour to humanity. After Jesus was raised from the dead, on the road to Emmaus, it says in Luke 24, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them (Cleopas and his friend) in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Later, they would reflect on this conversation with the risen Jesus and ask, “Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

        The scriptures are not imaginary, by the way. Their historical truth has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again. It would be a great mistake to dismiss them out of hand as some sort of mythology. If the truthfulness of something is confirmed by physical evidence, then there is a lot of evidence to confirm the veracity of the Bible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, it is your blog … maybe I’ll temporarily turn off comment notifications. 😐

        I’ll just focus on your recent contributions on Jim’s blog to offset her crap. They’re MUCH more fun! 😁

        Liked by 1 person

  75. Carmen,

    Jesus will return to earth one day. He will come in the clouds as they are rolled back as a scroll. It will be like an alien invasion! He gave us many prophecies to watch for so that believers would not be deceived about his identity.

    When he comes, his people will recognize and love him. He will come in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. This “alien” being can be trusted because he is our Lamb who was foretold to us in supernatural and miraculous ways.

    Just as the first coming of the Lamb was foretold in detail–and it happened–the second coming was foretold–and it will happen. I will know I can trust him because he was the passionate Bridegroom whose life was given for his bride. He only loved, healed, and fed people while he was here. I want to be at his marriage supper–along with Isaac Newton, William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, John Newton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie ten Boom, and all the other heroes of history who loved him.

    You may mock me and think that I’m in a fantasy world, but I’m happy to be standing with some of the most accomplished, compassionate, and heroic people in history.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  77. Oops, JZ. My comment at 3:08 referred to a thread I thought you were on. .. but you aren’t. . Just can’t keep my threads straight at all. . . As I’ve often said, my grandmother had dementia, my mother had it too. I’m standing in line. . . 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  78. It’s very difficult for me to communicate to you the ways in which God communicated to humanity, but there was no way that the message of the Lamb could have been communicated in the way it was through human ability. It took supernatural ability to weave that message into the law and the prophets.

    There is no book in the world like the Bible. NO sacred book has a record of more than one fulfilled prophecy, and that was self-fulfilling. (Muhammad “prophesied” that he would return to Mecca.) The Bible has HUNDREDS of fulfilled prophecies. The most recent major prophetic fulfillment is Ezekiel 36:24. In 1948 Israel became a nation. This was prophesied: “I will take you [Israel] from among the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.” There are entire chapters in the Bible written about this promise of God.

    Is it so far-fetched to believe that there is a greater narrative going on in this universe? Is it so difficult to believe that an entity from somewhere else in this universe has been trying to communicate with humanity?

    Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking didn’t seem to think that it was impossible. Neither does Richard Dawkins, since he believes a type of panspermia may be possible.

    The question is how it would try to communicate with us, and what it’s message might be. I believe the Bible’s supernatural nature is proof that an alien entity has tried to communicate with us, and that the message is that there is a universal justice system that WILL hold us accountable. (Isn’t this our hope when faced with criminals who have done great harm to others and have seemed to get away with it in this world?)

    From the tops of steeples in nearly every nation around the world are crosses declaring the need for a person to come to Jesus (the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world) so that their sins and crimes are covered by his blood.

    If a person seeks evidence for the existence of an alien entity that is trying to communicate with humanity–they need look no further than the Bible. You might ask: “Why doesn’t he just appear to us in the flesh? He HAS. And we killed him. But he will come again. What if another alien entity comes first? Will you know if you can trust it?

    How do I know I can trust my Jesus? Because those who loved him and his Word have been at the forefront of nearly EVERY compassionate movement in the world. They have cared for widows and orphans, redeemed slaves, advanced education, advanced science, stood for human dignity and freedom, led nearly every underground movement against tyranny, and produced the most prosperous nations in the world. Desperate people around the world clamor to get to the shores of those nations who have the greatest numbers of people who love Jesus and the truth of his Word.

    Why did God create the physical realm? I believe he did it to display to the universe why they should trust him and his Word. They would be able to see the great fruit that comes from loving, trusting, and obeying him–in contrast to the fruit that is produced by those who reject his ways and go the way of Lucifer and his followers.

    Blessings,

    Diana

    P.S. Israel Finkelstein isn’t the only archaeologist in the world. Dr. Nelson Glueck warned one of his students who was trashing the Bible to be careful, because “The Bible has a habit of being right after all.” This is because so many of the declarations of archaeologists had to be retracted over time. One of the most recent is the “Documentary Hypothesis,” concerning the writings of Moses.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  80. I’ve just read a quote on Jim’s blog. “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities” – Voltaire.

    For some reason, Diana popped into my mind. . .

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  81. Pingback: New Ways of Seeing – TheCommonAtheist

  82. Because humans love to ask why ; both religion and science evolved by the constant asking of that question.
    The difference is religion believes it has an answer science knows it does not. They are tense disturbing subjects unlike art and music which feed the pining soul.

    Like

    Reply

      • I’m not too sure about what you mean by ‘different planes ‘; the point I was trying to make is that religion is simply an early form of science , an attempt to explain life. Some religions have now adapted to incorporate science within their religious faith. As for proof or disproof they are just a good way of passing time with no end in view.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Science and religion are on two different planes and do not intersect.

        Absolutely! Believing in an invisible entity that resides somewhere “out there” has nothing to do with science because science is based on evidence and does not accept “beliefs.”

        Like

  83. Pingback: THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED – Vijayagiri views

  85. I don’t know if there is a “God,” but we’d better hope not, because if there is, the unspeakable pain, suffering and terror he has created for the abandoned billions in this life can’t bode well for what must await in any next life, given its unexplained deliberateness.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      • It certainly speaks to that possibility. But even if there is a God, that of course doesn’t mean there’s an afterlife for us, because how could a God with even an ounce of humanity (pardon the expression) live with himself in eternal harmony with the victims of the malice he hath wrought. So, God or no God, my guess is we’ll NEVER know. Damn it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • mistermuse et. al, I don’t know if you’ve heard one of John Prine’s last songs (When I Get to Heaven) but I like the line, “As my father used to say, when you’re dead you’re a dead peckerhead” 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  86. Sorry to say, I don’t know that song, Carmen….but that line makes me hope there are no woodpeckers in Heaven, because I don’t want no woodpeckers peckin’ on my head, even when I’m dead.

    Like

    Reply

  87. The greatest question never answered has been answered. You have simply decided to ignore it. You need to take ownership of that decision.

    Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
    Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
    Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    Like

    Reply

    • Does “pleasure” really answer the question? If you believe in an aseitic creator, then this artificial world broke what was perfect, and this construct was flawed from the very beginning. Diseased. Read the post if you want a broader explanation.

      To propose pleasure would then be to propose a wicked creator, and I’m not entirely sure that is what you wish to promote.

      Like

      Reply

      • Yes it fully answers the question. Aseity addresses causality of a being (in this case an infinite one) and nothing more. The ruin of the world by an ‘enemy’ is a separate subject and was foreseen and ordained prior to creation (not carried out by) the godhead in concert. It was a sting operation designed to bring another spiritual being to rightful justice. Satan took rightful ownership of Adam and Eve when they sold themselves and their freedom into bond-servitude and Satan was, therefore, guilty of nothing. According to the laws of slavery, the next free-man was Jesus who had no earthly father as a descendant to trace ownership. When Satan incited his property to murder a free man, he became guilty of murder and is now a prisoner awaiting execution.
        Paradise Lost and Regained is a package deal in God’s eternal purpose.

        Like

  88. Not creature figure. The God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus of Nazareth, your creator, the God of heaven and earth.
    And no, if you are making that connection your logic is faulty.

    Like

    Reply

    • Quite on the contrary. I am only using the explanation you provided: Pleasure. You then claimed your creator figure knew in advance the artificial world it created would be diseased. Now, we already know the world would be fatally flawed as it was separate from the aseitic being, which you claim is perfect. (Hence the original question: WHY create in the first place?)

      So, the corollary of this is, therefore: your creator figure must take pleasure in suffering.

      Like

      Reply

      • Not creator figure. That’s the second time you have made that mistake. Why would you use the explanation I provided and not also designate “the God of heaven and earth”, which I also provided, to be consistent?
        Second, I did not claim the world is artificial. That is your claim; not mine. It is a wrong assumption as is your assumption that creation is outside of God.

        Another incorrect assumption you are making is that a finite being has the capacity to comprehend and judge the actions of an infinite being. This is called a God-complex or extreme narcissism.

        Your question (why create) incorporates an action (special creation) that your preconception denies. It is, therefore, impossible for you to objectively assess anything about it. And so your argument, in the form of a question, is in vain because its the same as someone who points to the tens of thousands killed or maimed on the highways and concludes that all car manufacturers must take pleasure in suffering.

        Like

      • Yes, creator figure: the entity you believe responsible for this artificial world. There are many, many creator figures in human mythology.

        I don’t think you understand aseity. It’s also clear you haven’t read the post. Maybe you should. You’ll see a theologian confirming just that: the world is a “construct.” The same theologian said “God is NOT the universe.” That is basic Christian theology going all the way back to Augustine. A contingent world is an artificial world; a synthetic construct that was deliberately created some 13.8 billion years ago, entirely separate from the aseitic Creator.

        Of course, you’re free to argue God *is* the universe, but then you cannot also claim that god to be aseitic. To do so would be to assert that your creator figure is flawed and finite (having a beginning, a middle, and an end).

        So, when you said your creator figure created for “pleasure,” and did so with foreknowledge of the suffering that would permeate that creation, it leads to two possible conclusions: your creator figure either 1) finds pleasure in suffering, or 2) is unmoved by suffering.

        I’m sorry, but if you’re unhappy (or even disturbed) by this conclusion then you should recognise that the problem does not lie with the logic applied, rather with the supposed answer you proffered, and how it contradicts the various other claims made concerning the nature of your creator figure.

        So, while you did present a rather nebulous answer, it seems the consequences of that rather nebulous answer renders it unacceptable to you. That, I’m afraid, is an incoherency in your belief system that you will have to rectify.

        And so we’re still left with an unanswered question: Why create in the first place? What was the motivation for creating something that did not have to be created?

        Liked by 1 person

  89. No, you are still left with a question because you refuse the answer. Your incorrect assumptions dictate your conclusions. If you wish to continue in your ignorance, you are well within your right to do so.
    Not for pleasure, for His pleasure; the pleasure of an infinitely good and just Creator who wills not to do wrong and therefore cannot. As finite beings, it is impossible for us to judge otherwise.
    I cannot speak for the beliefs of “other theologians” who may/may not have a biblical worldview. The world is young, not old and Adam and Eve were the first humans, specially created. One cannot argue against the revelation of God unless the target of criticism is the revelation of God. Your conclusions about the God of the Bible are ported over from an argument you have formulated about a different kind of God that you have imagined.
    And I will not buy in to your incorrect semantics. They are simply a smoke screen.
    Incorrect logic is always driven by incorrect assumptions.

    Like

    Reply

    • I accepted your answer: pleasure. It’s you who doesn’t like the consequences of that answer.

      I cannot speak for the beliefs of “other theologians” who may/may not have a biblical worldview.

      Again, this is basic Christian theology dating back to Augustine. Don’t blame me for your ignorance of your own church’s teachings. And again, you don’t seem to understand what aseity means. You appear to have a vaporous, elastic, cartoon version of it.

      One cannot be a ‘little’ aseitic. An entity is either aseitic, or it isn’t.

      incorrect semantics

      No semantic games in play, just the basic Christian theological teaching. Granted, you may not have ever heard it presented this way, and on first reading the word ‘artificial’ might seem jarring to you, but I am simply articulating the core of Christian cosmogony. The universe is NOT God. That would be pantheism. The universe (the created world) is wholly separate from the aseitic being, and we know this because it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I strongly suspect you DON’T believe your god has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

      A contrivance, a construct, an artificial scape, a quarantined petri dish. The word used doesn’t change the underlying reality of a world created by an aseitic being. There is simply no escaping this.

      So, in light that this world DID NOT have to be created (the All was already perfect), why was this artificial contrivance created? What purpose does it serve?

      Like

      Reply

  90. No, you did not accept my answer. You think my answer was “pleasure” when, in fact, it is “for His pleasure”. I will leave you to learn that prior to continuing.

    Like

    Reply

    • I do not see the distinction, but if you believe there is one, then I’m happy to hear you out. By “for his pleasure” are you suggesting the act of consciously creating this artificial contrivance was for no other reason than just for the hell of it, no plan, no objective, no purpose, just because he could?

      Is that what you’re saying?

      Like

      Reply

  91. You are thinking of pleasure as you know it and applying that to an infinite being which is like the chances of an ant understanding nuclear physics. No! Actually its worse than that. 🙂
    His pleasure accepts, as a possibility, an objective, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being (designated by ‘his’) who can act according to His pleasure. That is something your conclusion can’t tolerate which is why you leave it out of your thinking. It is not included in your set of possible presuppositions because you know where it will lead.
    Thinkers – believers and unbelievers alike, begin with presuppositions. Without them knowledge of any kind is unattainable.
    I spent half my life with one set of presuppositions and it blocked all possibility of God in any form. So I was only ever able to see one side of the argument. When I accepted the possibility of God, I traded my set for a better one because I was now able to see that it was better. Now I can see both sides and I am continually reminded that I made the right choice.
    Genuine impartial thinking is impossible.

    Like

    Reply

    • Rather odd to see you accusing me of presuppositions when your entire worldview rides on the simply enormous presupposition that ours is a synthetic, artificial world. And on that note, your ‘worldview’ seems to be struggling to explain the ‘world.’

      Case in point:

      His pleasure accepts … a being who can act according to His pleasure.

      I can do that, too.

      And I’m sorry, but all you’re doing here is asserting a *capacity* (to do something), not the *reason* for doing it.

      Read that sentence multiple times if it helps. Seriously, read it over and over, as many times as it takes until you completely understand it.

      What was the reason, the motive, the purpose?

      If capacity (to do something) is all you can offer, then you seem to be implying there was no thought behind the act, that it was simply action for the sake of action. Essentially mindless, and nothing else. No objective, no goal, no plan, no purpose.

      Is this correct?

      Is this what you’re trying to say?

      Like

      Reply

  92. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
    No I am not saying no purpose or plan, only capacity – in fact, the opposite.

    I am making a distinction between the answer I gave and the answer you thought I gave.
    Simple “pleasure” is not the answer at all. The answer cannot be divorced from the God who acted according to His ability to do so. And it certainly cannot be analyzed or judged by His creatures.
    The answer is “for His pleasure”. It includes taking into consideration the One whose action it was to create. Whether one believes His attributes or not, it is futile to separate who and what He is from His actions. His actions flow from, and because of, His attributes. And He has revealed His attributes to us in His Word.
    God is love. Love does not take pleasure in suffering.
    So that conclusion must be in error.

    Like

    Reply

    • Capacity to act does not address the question: Why act?

      So, for the third time: What was the reason, the motive, the purpose?

      To repeat: If capacity (to do something) is all you can offer, then you seem to be implying there was no thought behind the act, that it was simply action for the sake of action. Essentially mindless, and nothing else. No objective, no goal, no plan, no purpose.

      If there was a purpose, what was it?

      Like

      Reply

  94. You Stated — “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”

    Then Posted the question: Why did the Creator create?

    My Response — Everyone who creates does so because they are creative.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • You Asked — “How can an aseitic being be creative”?

        My Second Answer — It would be easy for such a being to do so by not using creativity also.

        Math lacks creativity and yet provides all of creativity in the universe.

        We as human beings are basically just complex math built on layers of much simpler math structures.

        This is to say that nature is just math 1+1… but over time that simple math becomes more complex until you have sea shells or galaxies. But keep in mind all of this is just more of this 1+1

        Creativity is special from our perspective but in reality is just math.

        A aseitic being would have itself (1) and would be able to increase 1 by 1 and so on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A aseitic being would have itself (1) and would be able to increase 1 by 1 and so on.

        That would contradict aseity.

        By definition you cannot be creative if you *are* every set. That is to say, there is simply no room to create anything because you already are everything.

        Pantheists don’t have a problem here because they believe the universe is God. For everyone else who’s not a pantheist, then they have a serious problem. If you want to believe in an aseitic creator god, then the only way out, as far as I see it, is to concede that ours is an artificial world. Of course, the enormous contradictions still exist (how after all can an aseitic being even imagine something outside itself?), but if we ignore these contradictions for a moment and at least say it’s possible, then it leaves the question: Why?

        Why deliberately create an evolving artificial world?

        What possible purpose does this serve?

        Liked by 2 people

      • You Stated — “By definition you cannot be creative if you *are* every set. That is to say, there is simply no room to create anything because you already are everything.”

        My Response — Which is why I agreed and stated that you could do it with math. You think that “creativity” is something special but in reality there may not be any such thing… there may only be math.

        Math forms complexity through simplicity not creativity. You start with 1 and just add self. 1 plus 1. The more you do this, the more complex the math becomes, until self-aware substructures perceive themselves as existing (and subsequintly they also start to see creativity all around them and then jump to conclusions)

        You see a universe but in reality it’s just a repeating set of numbers based on simple addition.

        BUT

        To get back to your, “Never Answered Question”

        Why did the Creator create?

        Because the creator was creative.

        The question provides the answer because it’s such a simply structured question… one lacking creativity you might say… who couldn’t answer it. Just saying.

        If it were me I would go with something more complex like these:

        Why did God make viruses?
        Why did God make love?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Math is a result of the set. It is not independent of it. Infinity + Infinity = Infinity.

        To be clear, I’m granting the theist a pass by allowing a chance for the aseitic being to create something artificial, just as the theologian in the post claims. How this could even occur I have no idea, but still, a pass you have.

        “Because the creator was creative” answers nothing (and, of course, that simply runs up against the aseitic wall—it’s impossible).

        Given the Creator didn’t need to create (everything was perfect, after all), why did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—literally invent—evolution… that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?

        Lander, I’m asking you to account for evolution. Why does this synthetic world exist—in the manner that it exists—in the first place?

        If you can’t explain “why evolution” then you’re not in possession of an ontologically coherent explanatory model, rather a pantomime.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “Math is a result of the set. It is not independent of it.”

        My Response — Of course math is not a part of the set, because math does not exist. You do know that math is just a concept, right? The universe is just math, but math is not the universe.

        The universe has nothing in it but fundamental particles. No size, not time, no shape… no creativity. The entire universe is just point references (dots).

        This is why your great unanswered question is so easy. The universe is just math in all directions. 1’s repeating themselves endlessly. Or as some might say, just waveform waiting for addition.

        Everything you see around you is an interpretation of the math. The position of the dots. The dots have not changed (ever) but depending on how you position them you can get things like Spiral Galaxies or Ice Cream.

        God could easily create everything (all the dots) and the universe have no form whatsoever.

        You Stated — “I’m granting the theist a pass by allowing a chance for the aseitic being to create something artificial”

        My Response — There is nothing artificial. The concept has no basis in our reality. There are only fundamental particles in all directions.

        Example:
        A Photon is a massless potential moving at the speed of light. It is the smallest quantity (quantum) of energy which can be transported.

        Photons are emitted from electrons when they reduce orbital distance from an atom’s nucleus.

        Photons are described as the following:
        A state of being, Behave like (not “Are”), Potentiality, Real in some sense,
        Electrons don’t lose anything emitting photons, ergo the photon has no mass but It can be a wave or a particle and collide with other particles (can have mass)

        Photons (at certain states) violate the law of momentum and conservation of energy

        Photons are more real when they can’t be detected (direct interaction between charged particles), rather that when they can be detected (electromagnetic waves)

        You Asked — “Lander, I’m asking you to account for evolution. Why does this synthetic world exist—in the manner that it exists—in the first place?”

        That depends on what type of world we are talking about:

        Is it the world that could have been created 5 min ago with memories given to us to explore our reactions?

        Is it a virtual world where you and I are just NPC’s not having any real experience other than learning?

        Is it a world where we repeat everything over and over until we learn to be better?

        Is it a world where everyone is the same single one being experiencing existence from every possible perspective?

        At this point in time, we don’t yet understand the universe enough to know for a fact which world we are in. There are more scientific possibilities to explain our reality than pizza topping combinations. Several that make evolution irrelevant. This is to say it might be more important to focus on energy distribution (thermal dynamics) and our role in the support thereof.

        You Stated — “If you can’t explain “why evolution” then you’re not in possession of an ontologically coherent explanatory model, rather a pantomime.”

        My Response — Interesting, you see me as the jester performing for you the King as you sit in judgement of my performance.

        For me this is just a simple conversation. I have no thoughts of you personally, I just answered a simple question.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly—Math does not exist without the set, and if the set is everything, then your idea is self-evidently impossible. Again: Infinity + Infinity = Infinity.

        Or said another way: Aseity + Aseity = Aseity.

        There is nothing artificial

        The theologian above disagrees, and I have to agree with him.

        You don’t seem to understand the implications of aseity. You can’t just be a little aseitic. You either are, or you aren’t, and the Christian believes their god is indeed aseitic.

        You simply cannot escape the conclusion that our world is an artificial construct. It is not a part of the only (allegedly) natural thing—The aseitic creator.

        That depends on what type of world we are talking about

        The world that is, has been, and will be.

        You have to explain/account for 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history.

        I just answered a simple question.

        You tried to, but have so far failed.

        Why does this synthetic world exist—in the manner that it exists—in the first place?

        Why evolution?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “Exactly—Math does not exist without the set”

        My Response — Math does not exist with or without a set. It is only a theoretical construct. We use math to explain our surroundings not to define its existence.

        Math cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed. It has the same properties in existence as fundamental particles… with one exception… it has never existed whereas particles do exist if the wave function collapses into a particle.

        I thought that speaking of this fact would provide an understanding of the simplicity of the of the question presented but I think we are stuck in your use of the concept of math.

        This reminds me of the very strange conversations I have with believers when I talk about “Theories”. They seem to lack an ability to understand “Fact” in a scientific context because the word “Theory” has a separate meaning.

        Let me try this again without explicitly referencing the word “math”, by separating it into its three core pieces.

        First Recap:
        Your question relates to “An Everything” existing and being trapped in a “Nothing Else” can thus be created. This is a simple construct, nothing difficult to understand here and a fun logic exercise but it is not one of the better ones.

        Here is why:
        Let us start with the “Everything” that easily breaks because of the following:

        1 – Time:
        2 – Position:
        3 – Perspective:

        At the surface they seem somewhat harmless and at best only conversations starters for a party (a boring nerd party), but they all equal “Everything” and account for why most of it is “Missing”.

        This is to say we have a universe that has everything already made but no Butterflies in it.

        You can start with a Creator making everything or a Big bang releasing everything and you now have a full universe with everything in it. The universe will never have anything added and will never have anything removed (conservation).

        But where are the rabbits? There are no rabbits because of those three things I mentioned above.

        Time: The rabbits are only perceptual given a specific positioning of the “everything” at a specific point in time.

        Also keep in mind that the rabbits are never more than the everything that was already there and do not exist as rabbits but rather are only “point positions” of the parts of the everything itself.

        The “Everything” does not have “Anything” in it but can be “Created” all at once.

        We know this because we use math to backwards engineer it or rather, we use our perspective in relation to the position of fundamental particles to understand their form at any given time in the past.

        We prove it by making predictions on its form in the future. Evolution easily falls under this understanding but only as an object engine. If you want a functioning variance of species, then time is your best option to obtain every combination.

        A combination of dots that have never changed since day one and never will.

        Like

      • Again: Aseity + Aseity = Aseity.

        Now please forget the math nonsense… I’ve already let you out of the aseitic problem.

        Evolution is not adaptively directed, not goal-orientated. Mutations are random, while selection is dictated by environment.

        If you want a functioning variance of species, then time is your best option to obtain every combination.

        Finally, yes!

        “If you want…”

        Okay: WHY did the aseitic creator *want* varying species who could only come about (and go extinct) through thoroughly blind, appallingly bloody, slow, messy, painful, accident-prone evolutionary pressures?

        What purpose did this/does this serve?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “Again: Aseity + Aseity = Aseity”

        My Response — Agreed, which is why fundamental particles are the solution to the simple logic problem you presented. They make up the sum of all that exists, and they have never changed. They are everything and they make everything… Aseity.

        It is your challenge with time, position, and perspective, (absence of math), that cause your logic problem to show its age.

        Something as simple as the “Measurement Problem” reveals the huge hole in your “Aseity” opinion. There are a plethora of flaws in such a viewpoint, given what we know today in the field of quantum mechanics.

        You Stated — “Now please forget the math nonsense…”

        My Response — We cannot negate science simply because it’s a challenge to understand. You have an older way of looking at reality and the human condition, but science has provided a much more detailed picture of what the universe is and how it works.

        Quantum mechanics is answering questions thought to be unreachable, it’s even creating new more challenging questions.

        The “nonsense” isn’t math, it’s the never-ending philosophical banter of older generations repeating themselves in dead logic problems.

        Keep in mind that I was only here to answer one question, you know… “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”

        Why did the Creator create?

        I answered it and now it can only be called, “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION ANSWERED”

        You may not have, liked my answer (opinion noted), but it remains by definition… an answer.

        Just saying

        Liked by 1 person

      • A simple question: Does the aseitic creator evolve?

        Is Yhwh (an allegedly aseitic being) composed of baryonic matter and subject to the laws of interaction? Does Yhwh consume, grow, mature, evolve, decay, and die?

        I’m assuming your answer to all this is, No.

        All these things, however, denote our 13.8 years old universe… A world, self-evidently, that is not a part of an aseitic being. Self-evidently, it is separate—something artificial.

        That is why I’m telling you to forget the math. You’re going nowhere with it because you’re doing nothing but contradicting your own base theology.

        It seems to me that you really don’t understand aseity, which is fine–

        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. An aseitic being cannot “spill out,” and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with our world which is material, finite, and evolving.

        It’s really not complicated.

        You may not have, liked my answer (opinion noted), but it remains by definition… an answer.

        It’s not that I didn’t like your answer—It’s because your ‘answer’ answered nothing.

        In your last comment you said: If you want a functioning variance of species…

        That’s it: “If you want…”

        Lander, you are claiming Yhwh “wanted” it… I’m asking you to explain WHY?

        WHY did the aseitic creator “WANT” a functioning variance of species who could only come about (and go extinct) through thoroughly blind, appallingly bloody, slow, messy, painful, accident-prone evolutionary pressures?

        What purpose did this/does this serve?

        You made the claim—I hope you can now explain it… and actually answer the post’s question…

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Asked — “A simple question: Does the aseitic creator evolve?”

        My Response — A simple answer for a simple question.

        Yes, from a perspective of organic matter.

        No, from a perspective of fundamental particle conservation.

        If we are stuck in the late 20’s then an aseitic being has evolution within itself. That part of that being would obviously follow its design and evolve. Other parts would have a big bang and expansion (a sort of universe evolution).

        If we are talking about what we know today in science then we know for a fact that an aseitic creator would have super positioning, conservation, time dilation, and entanglement within the creation (just for starts). This alone indicates that an aseitic being would be the only being and exist in several places at once.

        “Factually” being one being, “Relationally” being several beings. This is something we know as a scientific fact now with fundamental particles, nature exists this way now. Just from something as simple as antimatter you would have two aseitic beings that are the same being.

        Via quantum mechanics you satisfy the two given natures of Aseity, absolute independence VS self-existence (Philosophy VS Revelation). This is because we have a God that never changes and a God that is everything that changes.

        This easily answers the questions you listed in your reply since I used the name of each scientific theory that I based the answer on. All of them are well documented facts and can easily be found online.

        You Stated — Lander, you are claiming Yhwh “wanted” it… I’m asking you to explain WHY?

        My Response — I didn’t make that claim and I challenge you to show me where I did.

        I am curious now if you are the type to apologize for making an assumption.

        Like

      • Lander, you said: If you want a functioning variance of species…

        Did Yhwh “want” a functioning variance of species?

        If no, then do please state that clearly.

        13.8 billion years of (ongoing) evolutionary history would say Yhwh “wanted” it.

        That is the world that is, has been, and will be. That is the world you are being asked to account for.

        WHY did/does Yhwh “want” a functioning variance of species?

        You said “want” so now please explain WHY he wanted it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “Lander, you said: If you want a functioning variance of species…”

        My Response — The “You” in our conversation is obviously you. It is just you and me talking to each other.

        The original question was:

        Why did the Creator create?

        You had not mentioned any religions so I’m not sure why you are steering the conversation to Christianity. That may be your preferred religion but there are many to choose from so you should be more specific in the beginning if you are trying to reference something in your own personal beliefs.

        I found the question entertaining as a logic puzzle. I’m not sure a religious debate would be of any use. We aren’t going to magically solve any differences in something we can’t disprove or prove.

        Since you had one question and it’s answered I think we can rest on our different opinions of how or why a creator would be creative.

        You see reality locked in a physical constraint and the thought of a creator tied to that constraint.

        I understand reality to be unchanging and pattern based in relation to fundamental particles, position, and direct interference via observation.

        In short old school VS new age

        Let’s agree to disagree and let the horse live

        Like

      • You have a Christian cross in your avatar, so I was tailoring the message to your specific theology. Are you not a Christian?

        No, the “you” was not obviously me as “I’m” not the alleged reason why the world exists in the manner that it exists. “I” did not invent evolution. “I” have not overseen 13.8 billion years of (ongoing) evolutionary history.

        You said:

        If you want a functioning variance of species, then time is your best option to obtain every combination.

        So, did Yhwh “want” a functioning variance of species, Yes or No?

        Please address the question directly.

        Yes, or No?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “You have a Christian cross in your avatar, so I was tailoring the message to your specific theology.”

        My Response – LOL, that’s an anime mask I copied from someone else’s account and began modifying it so he couldn’t complain I stole it. There are no anime references in the bible and that mask is not recognized as a religious symbol.

        Just in case you are making more assumptions:
        I added the split in color to represent the duality of the mind between the right and left hemisphere of the brain, Logic VS Feelings.

        My online name “Lander7”, means “where the land meets the sea”, a lander is a person who stands with one foot in two worlds.

        The number seven represents the 3 dimensions of space or the seven points of a sphere that equal 3 dimensions.

        The mark on the face can be seen as a battle scar or a cross like the sword is seen as a weapon or a cross. In Anime the protagonist often has a battle scar and it’s power or spirit reside in the sword. Either way is fine with me.

        If you are jumping off topic to focus on me then let’s see if you really care, I wrote this post about me:
        https://realitydecoded.blog/about-us/

        But to be honest I don’t think you have any interest in me as a person whatsoever. A person who jumps to conclusions rather than just asking is not very interested in what the other person feels or thinks. Just saying.

        Our conversation is still only about one thing “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”, “Why did the Creator create?”

        And there are still only two people in it so any statement made is still only directed to you so we can find some logical conclusions on how to perceive an answer to that question.

        If you want to see every type of working species (which seems to be important to you), then time is a great option and could explain why (sort of) but I would also argue that memory is a great option also. You could wake up with the memory of every species and wouldn’t know the difference. It’s not as big a challenge as you make it, to find solutions to these riddles. They are no longer that challenging.

        You Asked — “Are you not a Christian?”

        My personal beliefs aren’t important to this post since we are just talking about a creator and not any specific reference. I’m also not sure it would matter to the answer (but it’s possible).

        I wrote a post to answer this question, let’s see if you really want the answer:

        https://realitydecoded.blog/2020/10/28/how-to-know-who-is-a-christian/

        As for me knowing what deity’s want or don’t want, that seems nonsensical and a waste of time. I am only me and I am not someone else. I can analyze data and come to a conclusion but I’m not a mind reader.

        If you want to make this into a biblical discussion, then it’s your blog and you can but I don’t know what the benefit would be with us debating a topic that’s never been solved one way or the other.

        We would go from a logic puzzle to a biblical discussion and not one of the more interesting ones in my opinion.

        What is your claim so I can switch this to a biblical discussion?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The question was posed to people who believe in a creator spirit. It’s right there in the title.

        You engaged it.

        So, to paraphrase the non-answer to the Yes/No question put to you is: “I don’t know.”

        Despite your claim, you do not know if the creator “wanted” a functioning variance of species who could only come about (and go extinct) through thoroughly blind, appallingly bloody, slow, messy, painful, accident-prone evolutionary pressures… and yet that is the world that was (allegedly) created, and exists to this day.

        In short, you cannot reconcile your worldview (of a mindful creator) with the world that is, has been, and will be… which is to say, Reality.

        You cannot explain anything.

        [I like the explanation of Lander7. Very nice. And as an aside, it seems pantheism (with a dose of panpsychism) would be more your flavour… and bring you fewer headaches trying to defend an established theology which is, as this post has established, and you are demonstrating quite effectively, irredeemably flawed.

        Take care.]

        Like

      • T y6 6y6 4r the 6ym n

        On Sat, May 29, 2021, 6:54 AM thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com wrote:

        > john zande commented: “The question was posed to people who believe in a > creator spirit. It’s right there in the title. You engaged it. So, to > paraphrase the non-answer to the Yes/No question put to you is: “I don’t > know.” Despite your claim, you do not know if the creator” >

        Like

      • You Stated — “Despite your claim, you do not know if the creator “wanted”…”

        My Response — I haven’t put forth any claims and I challenge you to show me where I did.

        You Stated — “In short, you cannot reconcile your worldview.”

        My Response — I have not presented any world views and I challenge you to show me where I did.

        You Stated — “trying to defend an established theology”

        My Response — I haven’t defended any theologies and I challenge you to show me where I did.

        You are having a canned conversation with me as a place holder. I answered one question and did not state any theological position or make any claims.

        So far you just seem opposed to Quantum mechanics and find math to be nonsense (even though everything is based on it), you divert to Christianity to avoid my solution to your logic problem. You don’t want to admit it was a simple answer for a simple question.

        “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”
        Why did the Creator create?

        It is still answered and it’s still just a simple logic problem. Nothing challenging about it and surely not a great mystery to be solved.

        Like

      • The question asked is, “Why” did the creator create… Not “how.”

        It is a question to establish intent, purpose, want, and therefore finding a coherent explanation for why the world exists in the manner that it exists.

        In order for it to be coherent (to be believable and defendable) it has to account for the 13.8 billion years of messy, mistake-ridden evolutionary history we have to compare the answer to, and against.

        A coherent answer would be, for example, “as an experiment.”

        Provided your creator spirit is indifferent to suffering and just doesn’t give a fuck, then this would effectively explain all the mistakes (the abhorrent genetic mutations, lethal mutagenesis, bottlenecks, adverse genetic drift, environmental shifts, bolide impacts, mass extinctions, etc.).

        Is “as an experiment” what you would say?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “The question asked is, “Why” did the creator create… Not “how.””

        My Response — So you believe in a creator? or are you saying that you cannot believe in a creator but ask a question to establish logic? or are you saying that you don’t believe but anyone who answers must believe?

        That line of reasoning is nonsensical. It is just a logic problem not a call to belief.

        If you want to debate belief you would ask something more like this:

        Which god do you believe in?
        and then:
        Why do you believe your god did “X”?

        Anything else would-be catfishing at best, lol. I answer all kind of logic problems and some related to god and no one connects it to Christianity.

        Example: The one I debated before yours was — Can god make a box so heavy god can’t lift it?

        A simple question at best but still better than this one.

        You Stated — “It is a question to establish intent, purpose, want, and therefore finding a coherent explanation for why the world exists in the manner that it exists.”

        My Response — That’s just your opinion but not a fact. I didn’t see it that way but if you want to have that discussion, I’m open to it, I just didn’t know that was what we were talking about.

        I thought you were trying to disclaim my answer because you don’t want to take the time to work through the obvious solution presented in Quantum Mechanics. You seem to dislike math in general given your answers… but fine (I love Quantum Mechanics and I think it answers all questions).

        So to be clear: What you really want is a justification for Christianity in relation to evolution.

        I will present the real question so we can begin the conversation you thought we were having:

        “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”

        Why do Christians believe in a god that created evolution where people suffered for millions of years?

        Please confirm this is what you meant so we can proceed:

        Like

      • Let’s finish up where we were before branching off again.

        I find that theist and atheist debaters dodge to much and lack focus.

        So to be clear: What you really want is a justification for Christianity in relation to evolution.

        I will present the real question you (may have been asking) so we can begin the conversation you thought we were having:

        “THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED”

        Why do Christians believe in a god that created evolution where people suffered for millions of years?

        Please confirm this is what you meant so we can proceed:

        So I know that this is the actual question and I give you a direct answer to it.

        Then I will be happy to answer even more questions on what I think god thinks when making god level choices.

        Like

      • So we are going to branch, understood.

        Outside of my original answer for the question you want to know if your hypothetical is a logical alternative that I would accept as a possibility :

        To recap — the question is:
        Why would the creator create?

        Your hypothetical for me is:
        “as an experiment”

        I would not go with experimentation.

        With one possible exception, some say existence is the thoughts that god has. They postulate that, as a person speculates about things, so to (at a god level) “if god speculates” then we are a fleeting existence of such speculation.

        If one can call “thinking about something an experiment, then yes it is possible”

        BUT

        From my perspective I don’t think creation is an experiment. Not given the nature of what it’s made of. To me it seems more like a program, but I’m not talking about the holographic universe theory.

        Given the state of particles and their behavior and how we use a string of them to have the ability to think … it leads me to believe we are in a form of construct made of photonic energy reacting to intention.

        I’m not sure an experiment would hand over control to the subject of the experiment so that line of thinking seems limited and doesn’t fit.

        But since I think it’s a programmed construct, I must believe there is a programmer with intention.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Asked — “So, if not as a blind experiment, why did the creator create this world that exists in the manner that it exists?”

        My Answer — If we are backward engineering the world from our current understanding of how it is structured then we could take three of the more popular theories and hypothesize a possible intention by a creator.

        First (Fundamental Particles)
        Given the state of particles, it appears that they are the only thing that exist. Everything else is simply made of them and form patterns that express our reality. The combination of patterns is infinite, and the complexity can only be expressed in dimensions.

        If this is the case, then every possible outcome of every pattern is in play. There is no end to the combinations, this indicates that we live in a fully functional multiverse where every possible outcome happens.

        This could mean that creation exists as a byproduct of the creator’s perfection. Everything that can be is and there is no other way it can be. Every possible version of our world exists.

        The intention of a creator could be to have 100% creation of all that is possible.

        Second (Simulation Theory)
        We may be in a simulation created by mankind to study mankind. This is an extremely popular theory and was recently discussed by Elon Musk. Many scientists believe that it is unlikely that we are the original human race due to probability. It is most likely that we are data within a system that simulates what would have happened to humans if they went in a different direction.

        If this is the case then it is possible that the world human beings actually live in, is nothing like what they are simulating. There is significant evidence that indicates we very well may be in a simulation.

        The intention by a creator could be to allow mankind the ability to create.

        Third (Singularity)
        This theory is unavoidable, its almost prophetic in a way. It describes an event that cannot be avoided in the future that effects all of reality due to the growth of technology and/or understanding of the universe.

        Either an AI or enhanced human being will double its capabilities, resources and intelligence repeatedly over a period of time. Each revolution will reduce that time by half until the time is down to seconds. When this happens, the AI or person will have more knowledge and power than the universe can contain.

        It will do this by using quantum processing that will outperform all the computers on Earth combined. This may have already started and We are in the first phase of Roses Law now. Superposition and Entanglement allow this level of processing and quantum computers have already been built.

        The intention by a creator could be to make something that has knowledge on a scale exceeding our existence but rooted in the human condition.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for that.

        Okay, so you can only hypothesise why this world exists, in the manner that it exists.

        So, the question of the post remains unanswered.

        Just quickly—

        Your first hypothesis doesn’t even establish a creation separate from the creator—necessary if one wishes to posit an aseitic creator. You’ve simply described a flavour of pantheism. Which is fine. (And you’re wrong: waves, not particles, underpin reality… but I understand what you were trying to imply, and waves seem to fit your idea better, anyway)

        Your second hypothesis is… well… a human construct.

        Your third hypothesis is, like the second, also a baryonic thing.

        Thanks for your time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You Stated — “Okay, so you can only hypothesise why this world exists, in the manner that it exists.”

        My Response — Your statement is limiting in scope. Nothing said, done or that exists via observation from any observer can be determined by any means other than hypothesis.

        It is the only way outside of self-action to determine anything not done by an individual.

        With one exception: Fundamental Particles

        They exist in a constant state and cannot be destroyed nor created so they are the same from day one to the last day. It is easy to determine why they are the way they are because they are only one way, they are a position or point. Hypothesis has no relevance for the observer since they cannot be divided, destroyed, or changed in any way. They can only be described one way, “They Are” and they can only have one purpose, “Be Anything”.

        You Stated — “So, the question of the post remains unanswered.”

        My Response — Incorrect. The question was answered in its fullness.

        This is where we have the most contention because you think I am either being dishonest in my answer or possibly disrespectful and wasting your time. The reality is that I am stating that your question is “Simple” meaning that it lacks any form of nuance. You yourself stated that your question “Implied” more than I had accounted for in my answer but that was an assumption on your part. People who know you and think in a similar way can read between the lines. I don’t know anything about you and I move in different circles so my view of your question was restricted to only what was presented.

        This is your question:
        Why did the Creator create?

        Here is my answer:
        Everyone who creates does so because they are creative.

        It is a simple answer because the question was simply stated with no nuance or demand for detail.

        After having a conversation with you, I concluded that your question was meant to be more like this:

        Why do Christians believe in a god that created evolution where people suffered for millions of years?

        This is not a simple question, and it demands a far more nuanced answer. My original answer could not be applied to this because it would not fit and yet you believe your original question was complex enough to convey this message.

        You Stated — “Your first hypothesis doesn’t even establish a creation separate from the creator—necessary if one wishes to posit an aseitic creator.”

        My Response — Why would I want to establish anything separate or connected to an aseitic creator?

        The more logical approach to address the question you posted would be to look at creation and backwards engineer its design to find the meaning. You are stating what the creator should or should not be in advance and then requesting the answer fit that hypothesis.

        The first scientific theory (which I didn’t create) determines that everything is here now in every possible form. That theory supports an aseitic creator, but it also addresses much more than that within the understanding of a multiverse. It is a good answer to the question.

        You stated — “You’ve simply described a flavour of pantheism. Which is fine.”

        My Response – This is the farthest from being true. Connecting god to a scientific theory destroys pantheism because it eliminates all other doctrines and reduces everything to a set of equations. Pantheism relies heavily on differing forms of relationships between reality and divinity and cannot be locked down to a specific reason as to why. The closer you get to an answer of “Why” the more destructive it is to religion and beliefs. This is true no matter how you get the answer.

        If you had a chance to ask god directly and the response was broadcast to every human existing… it would instantly destroy all religions and beliefs that didn’t match… reducing them to one.

        This is what we have been talking about the entire time. Given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, some past discussions no longer make any sense and have become dated because we know the fact of that aspect of reality.

        Example:
        One argument used to be, “How can God be everywhere at once?”

        Super positioning, quantum entanglement and data compression provide that possibility.

        But at the same time they don’t state that a god exists.

        You Stated — “you’re wrong: waves, not particles, underpin reality…”

        My Response — Waves and Particles are the same thing. Waves are a function where as particles are an interaction. Wave function collapses into particle interaction.

        Example:
        An electron wave moves through the universe in all directions (just one electron wave), the wave is massive in diameter, spanning any length of distance. The moment the wave interacts it deposits its sum total energy at the point of interaction and the rest of the wave, no matter how far or wide, disappears, instantaneously. This is because of the fundamental nature of particles and why it has changed our full understanding of existence or creation.

        Time also allows that same one particle to exist everywhere in the universe.

        Photonic release also allows that one election to send data anywhere in time or space instantly.

        https://wordpress.com/post/realitydecoded.blog/9216

        Our old way of thinking does not make any sense with our new understandings of reality so simple questions can easily be answered and have been replaced with far harder versions.

        An understanding of a God from past generations is nonsensical just as our view of what the universe is no longer connects to past understandings.

        You Stated — “Your second hypothesis is… well… a human construct.”

        My Response — Not really. It’s less Christianity perhaps and more related to other religions in comparison but it is widely believed by the scientific community that we are actually in a simulation and there is a plethora of evidence to support this. This could easily mean that god wants man to be creators.

        The master architect makes the construct and the programmers after its own creative process. This theory (also one I did not create) does the best job in answering your initial question but admittingly passes the buck to humans for any suffering which can only be addressed in my re-created question that had more nuance. (the question you have yet to validate as a better question in respect to what you are trying to get an answer for)

        You Stated — “Your third hypothesis is, like the second, also a baryonic thing.”

        My Response — The third hypothesis is the one I study the most and personally believe is most likely happening. Stephen Hawking also made changes to his understanding of singularities that support this theory. My using the conservation of data in relation to your question is a philosophical conclusion, not scientific. The science believes the data is preserved but I was stating that it must be for a reason (intention).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Clearly the answer in fulness didn’t include any of the three since I posted the question and answer right next to each other.

        I provided the three scientific theories in relation to a separate question you asked (which I stated earlier) was branching away from the original question.

        That’s why I didn’t want to branch off because I knew it would cause conflation on your side within the conversation.

        Like

  96. “So logic follows there be a designer?”

    Certainly~!

    So—
    —so who designed that designer?

    (After all this time, still waitin’ … I’m a patient old poop, not going to live for ever (I leave that to the immortals, God/s know/s there’s enough of ’em.)

    Like

    Reply

  97. Just for fun I posed a similar question to a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist over at BNR on disqus.
    Why did your god, Yahweh, create humans?
    He replied ”for pleasure”
    I think he might soon be reduced to tears.
    🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  98. I am in debate with a Christian who is completely indoctrinated up the wazoo.
    His answer to the question is God created for his pleasure.
    Surely an aseitic being would have no need to create for pleasure?
    What say you Mister Z

    Like

    Reply

    • To suggest God created the world for His pleasure misses the entire Bibiblical purpose. We are not toys who are destined to entertain God. God does not create to tease us, or frustrate us or treat us in any dissmissive manner like the Greek tormenting gods, for instance. God creates the world and people so he can rain upon them His love and mercy and to provide an avenue of salvation through Jesus.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    • Being the set of all things, you’d imagine so. If there is room for pleasure, then it’s not aseitic. And if it’s not aseitic, it’s not the xtian god. This is why this world (in the eye of the apologist) must be artificial… which is fine, but the apologist then has to answer, “why evolution?”

      Like

      Reply

      • I continue to explain this but like most fundamentalists his ego and intransigence refuse to acknowledge this.
        I was going to write a blog in this but you express it so much more eloquently than I ever could. Perhaps I should link to your blog piece?

        Like

  99. ARK Certainly quote me. I don’t consider myself any great theologian but if one googles “why did God create people?” this would be a standard answer expressed in related ways congruent with mainstream Protestant thinking.We recently discussed this topic at adult Sunday School at my church. I can’t speak for Catholics but they probably ascribe to the same thinking. I do have a BA and MA in religious studies and was a high school social studies teacher for 34 years. However, my religious understanding has evolved mostly from a writing assignment I gave myself in 2016: I copied and hand wrote the entire New Testament on standard lined notebook paper.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment