Free speech


I am an advocate of free speech and at all times, I would allow dissent on this blog or anywhere else I write or even in comments. I am also open to correction.

But am impatient when it comes to dealing with trope. I think one guy is enough and for that position, I have granted Paarsurrey to be their un-elected representative. There is a fellow called SOM, you must know him. He comments on so many atheist blogs writing almost the same lines. On a recent post where I shared the Platinga interview, he wrote the following comment;

We know from science that we live in a universe governed by laws.

That means our universe is comprehensible, not chaotic.

The Bible is a collection of stories that match a rational, reasoning God with the comprehensible universe he created.

This is unique among the pagan religions who matched their capricious gods with an incomprehensible, chaotic universe.

Consequently, man would have to be a result of the laws of nature.

If God changed the laws of nature, man could not come into being.

It’s like a recipe.

Vanilla cannot be added to a recipe to produce a chocolate or raspberry taste.

Without suffering life as we know it would not exist.

All life, evolution and the development of man are the result of a universe where suffering is an integral part.

As a result, the atheist argument that God cannot exist because of suffering is ridiculous.

It’s like wishing for rescue by the tooth fairy or spaghetti monster.

There are a few things yours truly wants to point and if am wrong, please correct me.

I think in his first statement, there is a silent premise that these laws have a lawgiver. I on the other hand, understand that these laws are our ways of understanding the universe. And that they are part of the universe, not distinct from it, or having an author outside the universe.

The Bible is a collection of stories that match a rational, reasoning God with the comprehensible universe he created.

This statement can be shown to be false in as many instances as one has the time to dig through the bible. No rational being punishes others not responsible in the commission of crimes. For example, the son David had with Uriah’s wife dies because god is angry at David. Where is the rationality here?

This is unique among the pagan religions who matched their capricious gods with an incomprehensible, chaotic universe.

A reading of Greek or Roman mythology will dissuade you from this sort of ignorance. What is true is that the polytheists paid not so much attention to their gods. They participated in the state rituals as was required, but they were not as superstitious as the Christians. Their pantheon of gods consisted of gods that were amenable to man. Take Minnerva for example, there is no where this god is portrayed as a capricious god.

If God changed the laws of nature, man could not come into being

Which god?

Without suffering life as we know it would not exist.

No, you have no way of knowing this. Life as we have known it has been intertwined with suffering. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of a life without suffering. But it will not be life as we know it, that I grant.

As a result, the atheist argument that God cannot exist because of suffering is ridiculous.

You don’t seem to understand the problem of evil. The argument is not ridiculous. In its simplest form, all the proponents of the argument are saying is that the existence of evil in a world governed by an omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent overlord is not consistent. It is for the above reason, theists have written tracts to explain away this problem: others by making god less powerful, others arguing for freewill and yet others arguing for a god who has reasons for letting people suffer till a future date.

It’s like wishing for rescue by the tooth fairy or spaghetti monster.

This would be ridiculous if someone believed in the existence of the tooth fairy as you seem to do unless the implication here is you have come to the conclusion that evidence for the tooth fairy and for your god seem to match.

As I said at the beginning of the post, Paasurrey represents all the lazy believers who either repeat mantra from their Imam or do not offer anything new. Am going to engage with SOM only when I feel he is ready to have a mature discussion.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

96 thoughts on “Free speech

  1. Arkenaten says:

    BTW. I lay* a mean tambourine –

    *my emphasis
    I always had my suspicions that Arch was a sexual deviant and this confirms it.

    Like

  2. Mak – Ark got us thrown off of “Fluid Theology,” nearly got us thrown off of Nate’s site, I just hope you remember, when the time comes and your patience wears thin, that as the lady on Fluid Theology said, I’m the good one —

    Like

  3. He reminds me a lot of a younger “Unseen,” Mak – does that tell you anything?

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s