REPLY TO COMMENT

Tony, I appreciate your patience, but I want to word my reply as carefully as possible. First, thank you for sharing your views. I’ve been trying here not to show evidence against the existence of God so much as to show that by the preponderance of logic, the Bible cannot be right. Your faith is sweet, and I don’t wish to be unkind. That said, please allow me to answer a few of your remarks.

Atheists and Evolutionists do NOT (necessarily) believe that if you put a chimp in a room with a typewriter it will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. I believe you’re referring to the “Infinite Monkey Theorem,” which states that an INFINITE number of chimpanzees typing for an infinite amount of time would produce a work of Shakespeare by chance. A vast difference from one monkey and “eventually.” And the whole metaphor is an attempt to illustrate just how infinite infinity is, and demonstrate probabilities and statistical mechanics. If you are referring to Thomas Huxley’s supposed use of this metaphor in a debate on evolution, please note that the typewriter had not been invented at the time of the debate in 1860, and that story is therefore insupportable. This example is often used by outraged Christians, who (due to their faith) never seem inclined to actually track down the facts.

You say “It couldn't have created itself since that is against the laws of physics,” and I’m having a hard time figuring out what you’re trying to say there. But if you’re willing to concede that a thing cannot create itself, then by your own logic I must ask, who, then, created God?

The problem with your circumstantial evidence is that (from Wikipedia): “… the [circumstantial] evidence only supports indirectly the truth of the assertion. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any intervening inference.” (Inference meaning interpretation.) In any major city one may, for a fee, see for themselves the remains of astonishing dinosaurs which, for some reason are never given the slightest mention in the Bible. To accuse scientists of being “blinkered” to circumstantial evidence only serves to throw into sharp relief the fact that Christians are “blinkered” to DIRECT EVIDENCE.

You’ve got me on the Napoleonic quote; I’m relying there on something someone heard long ago and isn’t alive at the moment to question. JUST LIKE THE ENTIRE BIBLE. I don’t find it at all surprising that he may have converted on his deathbed. This graphically illustrates the old saying “I swear there ain’t no heaven, and I pray there ain’t no hell.” It’s just human nature facing the unknown.

I grant you that, as Arthur C. Clark said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I just don’t see the bearing on this subject. I can only see that it can be used against your argument that intelligent scientists are “blinkered.” If scientists weren’t able to change their theories in the light of direct evidence, we would still believe a human would die if they traveled at over 35 miles per hour.

I agree with your assessment of how the world looks to fish. Imagine the fish in my aquarium trying to figure out the feeding schedule, or why a giant brush descends occasionally to scrape the algae away. It doesn’t mean they’ve done anything right to earn food or anything wrong to be punished by the appearance of the scary brush. For them to try to figure it out is a worthy thing, I think. But to credit or blame themselves for either is foolish and megalomaniacal.

I ‘explain’ the miracles of Jesus as related in the New Testament by noting that not a single one was original or unique. Read this blog under the heading “VIRGIN BIRTH, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, SACRIFICIAL DEATH/RESURRECTION.“ Or do some of your own studying. I suggest “The Golden Bough” by Sir James George Frazer, “The Unauthorized Version; Truth and Fiction in the Bible” by Robin Lane Fox, and perhaps “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard E. Friedman. Unless you are “blinkered,” there are at least a hundred books by respected authors of these subjects. For you I especially recommend “The Virus of Faith” by Richard Dawkins. My particular favorite is by Barbara Thiering’s video: “Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls” I think you’ll find that it is you who is being selective about historical evidence. I don’t necessarily believe all the things these authors have written; I’ve always been more concerned with whether the Bible can stand against itself. And I think it can’t. Just the fact (right at the beginning of the whole saga) that Cain’s forehead was marked so that other men would not kill him strains credibility beyond belief; surely his parents Adam and Eve would know him on sight, as would his brothers and sisters. So WHO WERE THESE “OTHER MEN”?

I would, indeed, be willing to be eaten by lions for a cause I believed in. And the cause I believe in is logic, reason, rationality, and clear thinking. I grant you that it’s very rewarding to sit down with a bunch of people, say things in unison, sing in unison, dance in unison (if you’re lucky) and so forth. But the fact that we’re saying things in unison (and that people have been doing so for centuries) does NOT make them true.

Thank you for commenting, Tony, please feel free to comment again, and meanwhile, may your faith be rewarding.