A god not bound by space and time

Most likely doesn’t exist!

It is my contention that this post is built on premises that cannot be demonstrated, outright lies and logical fallacies. It seeks to answer

If there is a God, why don’t we see, hear or touch Him?

They tell us

But the answer defies human logic, reasoning and experience.

In simple speak, they are saying the question is unanswerable. One would think they would stop there, but no, they have much more to say.

I argue, we cannot speak of anything that defies logic (it makes no sense qualifying logic as human for that’s all we know), reasoning and experience. For where would we start? We will be in the realm of absurdities where fronkeys are the queens of the jungle and where sense doesn’t rule.

The authors of the article claim, relying on two verses only that

The God of the Bible, however, dwells in a different dimension—the spirit realm—beyond the natural perception of our physical senses.

A statement contradicted by the very bible. For example, when it is written Moses saw the hind side of god, it was a physical behind for what else would he be speaking of? When Adam and Eve are said to be hiding from YHWH, it’s not from a spirit they are hiding and there are several examples one would find in the bible that would demonstrate my point. In passing, I can include the verse, I think, in John that says no one can see me and live. This is not, in my view, talking about something spiritual, whatever that means, but about something physical, material that has extension.

A lot has been written about the non-existence of Jesus that I need not rehash it here. The empty tomb was the subject of this blog. Those who talk about the existence of Jesus should tell us what he did at age 15, 25, or even 27. Or are we to believe he was born, was 12 years, then 30 years and committed suicide at 33?

Genesis that talks about the creation of the world doesn’t talk about a creation ex nihilo. The most we can get from Genesis 1 is that god created the earth. In all instances when humans talk about creating something, the only meaning we give to the word is modification of what already is. We have no conception of a “creation out of nothing”. It is empty of meaning.

The authors write

Many people reject the Bible, the Gospels in particular, because it describes many miraculous occurrences—dramatic healings, resurrections, fire from heaven and spectacular visions, to name a few. They believe these things are impossible because they defy human experience and the laws that govern our physical existence. They thus conclude that biblical accounts of such things cannot be true.

And one is tempted to ask, have they read the old testament where donkeys talk, trumpets bring down walls, one man kills 1000 with a jaw bone, lights fire to the tails of 200+ foxes that he has managed to tie their tails together, the people brought back to life by Elijah, to name just a few! I defer to Jean Messlier’s argument against miracles, but I prefer this by Mark Twain,

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.

One can also refer to Walter Cassel’s response to Dr. Lightfoot  on miracles which can be found here.

In the paragraph below,

Regrettably, they fail to consider that God the Father and Jesus Christ can operate beyond the bounds of the physical laws that govern the universe. A God who can bring the universe into existence can certainly perform miracles such as those found in the Scriptures!

the authors are again making things up. There is no where in scripture, unless in reference to so-called miraculous feats, which are in themselves doubtful, does the bible talk of god acting out of the laws of nature. It is worth noting also, that to the writers of the bible, they do not refer to the vast universe as we have come to regard it. They know only of the earth around them and it is for this reason, the earth was created when the Sumerians were already in existence. Most creationists believe the earth is 6000+ years old or thereabouts. To believe in an old earth, they have to eschew the bible’s teachings and adopt that which geology has shown.

To their final question,

Where does this leave us?

I will answer, contrary to their claim that

“Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”!

we must demand an answer from deity to believe. The theist has told us the price of disbelief, a grave a crime, is eternal damnation. This subject cannot be treated lightly. The theist has their work set out for them.

It is however important to note the following,

  1. the bible does not tell us what god is
  2. the bible doesn’t talk about a god existing out of time and space
  3. the bible doesn’t talk of creation ex nihilo

and finally, I agree with P. Shelley B, when he writes and I quote

 

god is a hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof; the onus probandi rests on the theist.

Advertisements

Could atheists be guilty 

Of caricaturing the worst of religion’s malpractices or its worst practioneers, such as the Phelps of this world or the self appointed Pat who has a direct channel to god, in their attempts to argue, as Hitchens did, that religion poisons everything? 

When atheists reference data showing the areas with most religiosity are also most dysfunctional, could it be that we don’t look at the entire data? Data that, according to D Myers, show that those most devoted live longer, smoke less, divorce less, donate more- to both religious and secular charities-, are much happier and much more?

Or when we concentrate on the god of the OT, we overlook the sermon on the Mount and all other peace messages that on the surface demonstrate a benevolent and loving god?

And finally, are experiments on intercessory prayer begun with the foreknowledge they will fail? Is the Christian justified in the case of negative or no confirmatory results to say god is not to be tested? Is it a valid response? 

For Sunday reflection.

who will say with

Tolstoi

And, above all, why should I contribute, whether in person or by paying for military service, to the enslavement and destruction of my brothers and parents? Why should I scourge myself? All this is of no use to me; on the contrary, it does me harm. It is altogether degrading, immoral, mean, and contemptible. Why, then, should I do all this? If I am told that I shall be made to suffer in any event, I reply that in the first place, there can be no possible suffering greater than that which would befall me were I to execute your commands. And in the second place, it is perfectly evident to me that if we refuse to scourge ourselves, no one else will do it for us. Governments are but sovereigns, statesmen, officials, who can no more force me against my will, than the stanovoy could force the peasants; I should be brought before the court, or thrown into prison, or executed, not by the sovereign, or the high officials, but by men in the same position as myself; and as it would be equally injurious and disagreeable for them to be scourged as for me, I should probably open their eyes, and they would not only refrain from injuring me, but would doubtless follow my example. And in the third place, though I were made to suffer for this, it would still be better for me to be exiled or imprisoned, doing battle in the cause of common sense and truth, which must eventually triumph, if not to-day, then to-morrow, or before many days, than to suffer in the cause of folly and evil. It would rather be to my advantage to risk being exiled, imprisoned, or even executed, than remain, through my own fault, a life-long slave of evil men, to be ruined by an invading enemy, or mutilated like an idiot, or killed while defending a cannon, a useless territory, or a senseless piece of cloth called a flag. I have no inclination to scourge myself, it would be of no use. You may do it yourselves if you choose—I refuse

and is there a chance that it is possible?

On war

Bear with me a little more. We are still on Tolstoi and we will be talking about his ideas or what he quotes for the next 2 weeks at least.

First he quotes Maupassant, and I will extract a part of the passage. He, Maupassant, writes

“War!… The fighting!… The murdering!… The slaughter of men!… And to-day, with all our wisdom, civilization, with the advancement of science, the degree of philosophy to which the human spirit has attained, we have schools where the art of murder, of aiming with deadly accuracy and killing large numbers of men at a distance, is actually taught, killing poor, harmless devils who have families to support, killing them without even the pretext of the law.

It is stupefying that the people do not rise up in arms against the governments. What difference is there between monarchies and republics? It is stupefying that society does not revolt as a unit at the very sound of the word war.

“Alas! we shall never be free from oppression of the hateful, hideous customs, the criminal prejudices, and the ferocious impulses of our barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts; and beasts we shall remain, moved by our instincts and susceptible of no improvement.

and then the views of Emile Zola on war

“I look upon war as a fatal necessity which seems to us indispensable because of its close connection with human nature and all creation. Would that it might be postponed as long as possible! Nevertheless a time will come when we shall be forced to fight. At this moment I am regarding the subject from the universal standpoint, and am not hinting at our unfriendly relations with Germany, which are but a trifling incident in the world’s history. I affirm that war is useful and necessary, since it is one of the conditions of human existence. The fighting instinct is to be found not only among the different tribes and peoples, but in domestic and private life as well. It is one of the chief elements of progress, and every advancing step taken by mankind up to the present time has been accompanied by bloodshed.

“Men have talked, and still do talk, of disarmament; and yet disarmament is utterly impossible, for even though it were possible, we should be compelled to renounce it. It is only an armed nation that can be powerful and great. I believe that a general disarmament would be followed by a moral degradation, assuming the form of a widespread effeminacy which would impede the progress of humanity. Warlike nations have always been vigorous. The military art has contributed to the development of other arts. History shows us this. In Athens and Rome, for instance, commerce, industry, and literature reached their highest development when these cities ruled the world by the force of arms. And nearer to our own time we found an example in the reign of Louis XIV. The wars of the great king, so far from impeding the advance of arts and sciences, seemed rather to promote and to favor their progress.”

Is the cause of peace so lost? Should those advocates of pacifism shut it and get something worthwhile, like selling ammunition, to do?

Can the christians stand up

Could only Christian tell us what Jesus meant with these words,

Matt. vi. 25-34.—25. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28. And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29. And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Were Christians expected to follow them or was this idle talk? The question I am trying to ask is has there been a Christian in our midst?

To all of us,

Is brotherhood of man a pipe dream. One of those illusions. Can we love one another without loving god? The Christian god no less?

Tolstoi argues thus

The Christian doctrine, and the doctrine of the Positivists, and of all advocates of the universal brotherhood of man, founded on the utility of such a brotherhood, have nothing in common, and especially do they differ in that the doctrine of Christianity has a solid and a clearly defined foundation in the human soul, whereas love of humanity is but a theoretical conclusion reached through analogy.

He writes

But the man who loves humanity, what is it that he loves? There is a State, there is a people, there is the abstract conception of man. But humanity as a concrete conception is impossible.

And concludes

The Christian doctrine teaches to man that the essence of his soul is love; that his well-being may be traced, not to the fact that he loves this object or that one, but to the fact that he loves the principle of all things—God, whom he recognizes in himself through love, and will by the love of God love all men and all things.

A few questions from the ongoing

  1. Assuming for the sake of argument Jesus was, how do we explain the contradiction between the lives of Christians and his teaching?
  2. Is it possible to love all humanity without loving god, the Christian god?
  3. Is the love of all humanity desirable and why?

on wealth

in the Map of Life, William E.H Lecky, writing about opulence writes

wealth which is expended in multiplying and elaborating real comforts, or even in pleasures which produce enjoyment at all proportionate to their cost, will never excite serious indignation. It is the colossal waste of the means of human happiness in the most selfish and most vulgar forms of social advertisement and competition that gives a force and almost a justification to anarchial passions which menace the whole future of our civilization. It is such things that stimulate class hatreds and deepen class divisions, and if the law of opinion does not interfere to check them, they will one day bring down upon the society that encourages them a signal and well merited retribution.

and while reading it, I thought about those who get rich in this country by embezzling public funds and then displaying their ill gotten wealth in opulence and splashing it everywhere to be seen that someday we will say no and do what others have done in similar circumstances.