“… that if Jesus existed, he wasn’t nearly as noteworthy in life as the later Christian community liked to think.”

Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

The problem is he is exactly the “right size”. He’s big enough to draw crowds to hear him lecture or salute his entry into Jerusalem or to curse him for some imagined crime, big enough to draw the attention of Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin – but so small he is unnoticed by all historians and scribes. Unfortunately this makes him multi dimensional since he is both bigger AND smaller than he really is at the same time.

This is telling of a fictional character.

What couple of years? The gospels were all written long after Paul died, probably about 100 years, and are moral tales, not accurate biographies.

Mythologising can be much quicker than that. Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall 

The truth was known within days of her murder, her myth grew long afterwards until it was finally quashed (and I imagine some still believe).

I look at it this way.

Is there evidence that a man names Jesus lived in Palestine at the time of the gospels? Yes.

Is there evidence that a God/Man, born of a virgin, crucified, rose again from the dead, walk on water, raise the dead, heal the sick Jesus live for 33 years in Palestine during the time of the gospels and then ascended to Heaven?

No, not outside of the Bible. Of course, if you accept the Bible as a eyewitness, historical account then the evidence for at least a man name Jesus existing is quite sufficient. However, if you don’t………then it requires faith to believe that the Jesus of the Bible really existed.

You said: ”
I was astonished to find that not only was there no evidence for Jesus but there was positive evidence that he is fully fictional.” 

I asked you to provide some of that evidence that he was fully fictional. You responded simply by stating that there is no evidence for a factual Jesus. Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. If we’re being rational, that leaves us in a Jesus-neutral position.

To swing us either way out of a Jesus-neutral position, we must start looking at other factors. It won’t give us enough to say with anything even resembling certainty, but at least we might make an educated guess.

From my studies in both religion and psychology, I’ve seen that very few cults are founded by groups. Instead, they tend to grow around a single charismatic individual. From this, I make the assumption that there was a Jesus. He was a man, not a god. He was just a preacher of the Honi the Circle Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa type, of which Israel was crawling in those days. He was a small fry, though, with few followers and very little impact. Then, he got caught up in the Passover sweep. The Roman army didn’t mess around during Passover (that whole “escape from foreign oppressors” theme was naturally unpalatable to foreign oppressors). When he died, a few key followers started spreading his message like mad and it was very quickly corrupted and embellished.

To me, that’s a far more credible story than the crazy “this collection of wisdom was not attributed to any person but then the believers forgot” story Doherty is trying to sell.

Where did I say that I had positive proof that these people didn’t exist?

You’re the kind of atheist I’m embarrassed to be associated with. You parrot arguments without any understanding of what they mean or when to use them. How disappointing…

No, Jim. You said you had proof of a negative and I asked you to provide it. 

“I was astonished to find that not only was there no evidence for Jesus but there was positive evidence that he is fully fictional.” 

 zzzz…  I’m sorry, I fell asleep from the dizzying circle of this debate.  Perhaps we can just agree to disagree so nice people (like me of course) can keep their inbox at a reasonable level.  I think we all get it – Jim, you think you’re right.  MrPopular, you think you’re right…  Cool  

So where’s the argument? I never said anything different than this. In fact, I explicitly stated that based on evidence alone, we must be Jesus-neutral. 

From there, we start looking at logic, and an understanding of human history and psychology to determine whether it’s more plausible for there to be a historical Jesus or not. In this case, I’d say that it’s more plausible for there to have been a charismatic founder. The religions that don’t have a charismatic founder (as far as we know) tend to operate on a much longer timeline than we have available for Christianity. 

I don’t know about the others, but Earl Doherty isn’t a scholar. He has a BA in history, isn’t associated with any universities, and lives in a guy’s basement down the street from my apartment. He’s really not the best foot for you to put forward.

Oh, I didn’t realize he had a website. That changes everything!

:/

I’ve read Jesus Puzzle, I just don’t see what this changes. Anyone can write a book and get it published through a vanity press. It still doesn’t make him a scholar.

Person B’s reading habits has no bearing on Person A’s credentials. You tried to represent Earl Doherty as a scholar. He is not a scholar.

You might call him an author, or a hobbyist. But scholar, he is not.

Jim Jones referred to Doherty as a scholar. Doherty is only a scholar if Giorgio Tsoukalos is a scholar. 

That’s not to say that he isn’t a worthy contributor to the discourse. My objection on this point was purely one of semantics, and that Jim Jones was misrepresenting Doherty’s qualifications and status within the academic community.

But even as an amateur enthusiast, Doherty is still quite problematic. As I said, I’ve read the Jesus Puzzle and he’s very good at wowing with discussions of linguistics and cherry picking Biblical passages. But he omits any evidence that contradicts his theory, and, frankly, his theory just isn’t all that plausible. Possible, sure, but not as plausible as the theory that there was a charismatic preacher who got the ball rolling. Enter Occam’s Razor. 

In addition, the Jesus Puzzle has all the red flags of Ancient Astronaut-style “scholarship.” Half the book is spent complaining about the vast conspiracy to stifle him and hide the truth with no plausible motive given. Even knowing nothing about the subject, this ought to be a huge warning to any decent skeptic.

That’d be silly of me, given that I’m weighing in myself! But yes, due diligence is appreciated.

It’s a problem that I’ve noticed in the atheist community – that despite how valued critical thought is, skepticism still gets turned off when we encounter something convenient. This is especially true here in Ottawa because Doherty is a local and both he and his friends have personally come out to our events and pushed the books on people. 

That’s actually how I came to read the Jesus Puzzle (Doherty’s flat mate, who helps run the vanity press that publishes the Jesus Puzzle, asked me to read it but wanted me to pay $20 for the privilege. I finally agreed to buy a water damaged copy for $6). The same little group helped to organize the recent AAI conference in Montreal where Doherty was invited to speak, and introduced as a “scholar,” and there was no opposing view presented. 

As the resident “religion expert” (I minored in Religious Studies, which goes to show you how lacking we are in “religion experts” up here in the great white North), I feel somewhat responsible for keeping my community’s critical thinking up, even when it comes to the satisfying area of religion bashing.

I
read somewhere (perhaps the FAQ) that this blog is not for theological
debate…  Do debates such as the ones going on in this post – origins, existence
of historical Jesus, not count?

Every school boy is a scholar. Crticize his books if you can, not his living arrangements or life style.

Hello Mr. PopularSentiment! (I must say, that’s a rather intriguing choice for a name in a blog like Bruce’s. )

I’m genuinely considering your arguments. Please give me a moment because its lunchtime here in the Philippines and I agree with your implied message that it would be foolish to think on an empty stomach.

Ach, please give me more time. Have some work I suddenly need to finish. Have a big meeting coming up tomorrow and I’m in charge of the main document for discussion.

I’ll get back to your reply both here and above as soon as I can. Hope you won’t think I’m copping out or anything.

“Sometimes, we are given good reasons to believe. Sometimes we just have to go on blind faith.”
I agree completely, Christopher. So we have a choice: To believe in something measurable, testable, and observable, or to believe in something some dudes said was said to them that contradicts everything that is measurable, testable, and observable?

Personally, I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible (to quote a Matt Dillahunty). So when I’m presented with a choice like the one above, I’m going to choose the latter. Now, I fully acknowledge that it may turn out to be wrong, but it’s by far the safer bet.

Do you care if what you think is true? Would you want to know if the beliefs you’ve built your life around were actually false? If so, the first step is to start demanding evidence and to stop simply accepting things on faith.

No problem!

On your first point, you seem to be searching for dichotomies where black/white thinking really isn’t applicable. Our choice is not between two worldviews that each have little evidence supporting them. Rather, we have one worldview with a lot of evidence and one with very little. But I get your point about pragmatism and the need to weigh in both truth and what gets us through the day.

I doubt, however, that your particular brand of faith is the answer to that, namely because the behaviour you’ve displayed in your post is the very opposite of the behaviour you claim to value. 

I am an atheist. Knowing this, and only this, about me, you have seen fit to call me selfish, a litterer, and hate-filled. You have said that to bring people like me (people who don’t share your beliefs) to the stars would be a “travesty.” Is this what Jesus meant when he said to love your neighbour?

“Ultimately, atheism (i.e. belief that God or gods do not exist) doen’t cut it for me. Because if we cannot be answerable and accountable to a just and loving God, then what makes us think we can be answerable and accountable to our selfish and hate-filled selves? I wouldn’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world, would you?”

You wrote that. I want you to take a moment to read it again, but this time pretend that you are me – an atheist who has been nothing but kind to you. Tell me if you can see just how dripping with hatred that statement is.

Consider that one of the most secular nations in the west is shutting down its prisons while the most religious nation in the west is building new ones. Clearly, your idea that the choice between religious and atheist is not so simple as the pragmatic choice between self-sacrifice and selfishness.

Now, obviously, one man’s hatred and bigotry for anyone who believes differently than he does is not proof that God doesn’t exist. But it is proof that belief in God does not have the “real-world applicability” that you claim it does. 

Did I miss something? I see no display of hurt feelings. Please do continue to try to slay Mr Popular Sentiment. He seems to to able to handle the sword just fine. I promise to step in If you give him a wound that might cause him to bleed to death. So far…….he seems quite OK.

I’m a ‘she.’ The name is ironic

Wow, thanks for that bit of info as well!

Okay, this is going to take a bit of your time, so please bear with me on this one.

First of all, my apology is sincere. I myself do not condone half-assed apologies. You were hurt by what I said, and I acknowledge that. It’s the hurt that I’m apologizing for.

Second, I’ve looked back at my post, and nowhere does it say that I’m singling out atheists, let alone yourself specifically, for the ills of humanity. As far as I’m concerned, ALL OF US are to blame. Yes, that includes those who believe in Christianity.

Any Christian who tells you he/she is going to heaven and you’re not is a BIGOT. As far as I understand Scripture, only God has the final say on that score, not any of us humans.

Finally, I never, EVER presumed to know you, apart from the arguments that you’ve posted. I believe Bruce’s warning about psychoanalyzing is clear: we do not presume to know anybody here, unless there is a clear disclosure on their part.

That being said, I have come to Bruce’s blog in good faith. That’s my real name in my sig (and I AM a “he”), and you are free to call the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila to verify my identity. I have had nothing to hide from anyone here, and I stand by the statements I make, unless somebody provides sufficient evidence to convince me that I am wrong.

And when I am wrong, I WILL FREELY admit that I am wrong. I’ve covered up for lies quite enough in my previous life that I know that it doesn’t work.

Oh, and one last thing:

“I hate to say this, but until you learn not to divide people into the groups worthy of survival and the groups holding back humanity – based solely on their religious beliefs, no less! – I truly hope that you will consider an alternative career path.”

THAT is clearly ad homienem. >:-(

Fortunately for you, I’ve been attacked many times by many different kinds of people for the job that I do, that I have the requisite maturity to let that one pass.

So, can we both agree to be decent human beings and drop the name calling, real or imagined? I really enjoy our exchange, and you’ve given me quite a number of arguments that I have never encountered before. Which is a good thing because it makes me think. And what makes us think, makes us stronger.

My hand is diplomatically raised towards you right now in offer of a peace handshake. Shalom?

Okay Ms.
Mr. Popular Sentiment (that sounded wierd, can I at least have the pleasure of
knowing your first name, purely for ease of reference?), I freely admit that my
arguments tend to show a dichotomy between belief and non-belief in a God. But
my answer to that is, SO WHAT IF THEY DO? That is the position from which I’m
putting forth my arguments! I think that would have been self-evident by now.

If you
want to start complaining about this aspect of my argumentation, I’ll be forced
to do a tu quoque and point out that your own argumentation points to the same
dichotomy: You clearly pointed out that you cannot see how God fits in the
picture of reality as you percieve it. Therefore, you are stating that you
currently believe there IS NO GOD right? One either has belief in a God, OR
NOT. You cannot believe in both at the same time. Is that not a dichotomy?
Following the logic of your complaint, shouldn’t I cry foul here as well?

I’m
afraid that we really are at an impasse if you insist on attacking my
argumentation in this manner.

“Actually,
that was the opposite of an ad hominem. An ad hominem is if I say that your job
means that your opinion has no worth. What I said was that your opinion makes
me seriously question your ability to do your job.”

If this
is the case, THEN WHAT HAS MY JOB HAVE TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION? Why question
my ability to do my job in the first place? What purpose does that questioning
serve? Clearly, your assumption that I’m not fit for my job has a diminishing
effect on the validity of my argumentation. Is that not the very description of
an ad hominem?

“When
you say that we cannot be accountable to ourselves or to anyone other than the
Christian God, you are saying that anyone who doesn’t believe or accept the
Christian God isn’t accountable to anyone.”

You’re
partly correct in the conclusion you’ve drawn here, though you’ve fallen a bit
short of the point I was trying to make.

Let me
use the following illustration:

In
international relations theory, the assumption is that all state actors are
co-equal, and therefore have an equal right to be sovereign. In reality, we know that
this is just wishful thinking. Your country’s sovereignty is largely dependent
on your state’s ability to enforce and defend that sovereignty.

In other
words, might determines right.

Unless
you have a supra-national actor who has the ability to arbitrate and mediate
between states competing over sovereignty claims, the stronger state will
ALWAYS try to get the bigger share of the sovereignty pie.

The
problem with the supra-national institutions (such as the UN, ICJ, EU, ASEAN
and other regional groupings) that we have now is that THEY CONSIST OF STATE
ACTORS THEMSELVES. In other words, you CANNOT dissociate them from the political problem
of stronger states trying to enforce their sovereignty claims over weaker
states WITHIN these institutions. (There’s a reason why the word “back
dealing” exists in diplomatic parlance.)

Now, take
that to the level of individual humans. Under a democracy, the assumption is
that we are all co-equal in our rights correct? But we cannot deny the reality
that some individuals want a bigger share of the resource pie than everyone
else. So, what happens when a stronger person wants a bigger share of the
resources?

Now, you
would say: “well, that’s what we have law enforcement institutions
for!”

Let me
ask you: WHO makes up those institutions? Aren’t they made up of fallible human
beings as well? What if a policeman suddenly decides to use his gun and
authority to try and get resources from others?

You would
say: “Surely there are internal mechanisms, safeguards to prevent such
things from happening!”

Correct.
But those same mechanisms are STILL run by fallible human beings who are
subject to making false or subjective judgements in favor of those who are
stronger, especially if the stronger ones have a means to influence those making
the decisions.

Unless an
individual has some form of inner accountability, a CONSCIENCE, that will
prevent him/her from abusing power, then we have no real guarantee that he/she
WON’T abuse that power.

Just look
at human history. Our wars are ALWAYS about resources: land, energy sources,
food, PEOPLE’s MINDS. Who do you think starts the war? Its always the one who
thinks he/she is stronger than the others. (This is the whole basis behind the
policy of DETERENCE. You want to deter nations from believing they are powerful
enough to start acquiring more resources from their neighbors. But deterence
works ONLY if you have the capability to project an image of superiority over
those states.).

This IS
human reality as it now stands. Despite all our scientific advances, we have
yet to figure out a way to stop wars from happening.

Because
our problem is not a scientific one. IT IS A MORAL ONE.

You’ve
asked “IS there a moral law?”

My friend, the fact that you got
offended means that there is a moral standard to which you internally hold to,
which you expect others to respect and abide by.

Moral Law
is unlike physical law, where the effects of trying to break it is immediate
and apparent. The effects of breaking Moral Law are much more long term and are
far more devastating.

Once
moral decay sets in a society, no amount of technological or military
capability is able to prevent its eventual disintegration. Again, I point to
human history as my evidence.

What does
all this have to do with God, you may ask?

I ask you
back, what is the purpose of religion? Are not religions an attempt to put a
face to Moral Law?

To put it
simply, Moral Law is how we OUGHT to behave.

“Love
thy neighbor as you love thyself.”

Did you
ever wonder why they called that the golden rule? Because every major religion
has a form of that rule. We know it instinctively in our hearts. Like gold, you
can take that anywhere and exchange it for real social currency.

Where did
that rule come from? Is that simply the result of the unconscious and mindless
process that naturalists claim spawned the universe? I find that difficult to
believe.

I
appreciate you telling me that it might not be as simple a choice between
having a God/Creator and pure random chaos. I am well aware that countless
other possibilities have been put forth by other thinkers. (I have tried to be
a Zen Buddhist after I left Christianity during my teen years).

I came
back to Christianity, not by choice, but because something within me told me to
take a second look. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I found Jesus and fell
in love with Him. It frustrates me to no end that I cannot find any other “rational” words
to describe what happened. Christianity just became personal to me. It
was no longer a second-hand belief. It became MY belief.

In Jesus,
I see the Moral Law perfected.

Please, PLEASE do not take that to mean that I HATE non-Christians. On the contrary, Christianity has taught me to value ALL human beings.

I have a lot of non-Christian friends. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, even atheists. I don’t go around calling them fools for believing as they do. I understand that the only way they can accept Christianity is when they have an intensely personal experience with God. And I am definitely NOT God.

I apologize if this took long. I thought long and hard about what I should do at this point. I engaged you because you sound like a really cool guy (gal it turns out). I was hoping to become your friend, despite our differences in opinion. You obviously love to debate, as I do. But at this point, I’m afraid the game just doesn’t feel fun anymore. I don’t debate to win, I debate so that I can engage and make friends.

I certainly hope we can still become friends, despite my having offended you. If you can’t see me as a friend, I won’t take that against you.

I wish you well in your endeavors. 

Christopher & Mr–Really-a-Gal…  My dad makes more money than both of your dads!  So…

I think it might be time to put down the weapons and agree to disagree.  This “debate” has become boring, personal, and contains nothing new.  I think we all get your positions on the issue – you both seem like very intelligent people; this debate is looking a little silly.  Full of silly silly-ness.  No need to continue you can simply find one of the hundreds of places this exact debate has played-out and pretend it is you guys.

Ok, I know I am being a jerk but seriously…  this is filling up my inbox and I keep getting excited that two people (with the intelligence you have shown) are going to take this tired debate in a cool new direction.  I can only handle so much blog disappointment!

“In fact, I cannot think of any moral tenet on which all (or even most) people agree.”

and

“I am offended because you are not treating me like a human being.”

I rest my case on the moral issue.

Ah, excellent question Mr. Jones!

I prefer to look at it this way: It’s because a moral law DOES exist. And like any natural law, even if we are not aware of it, we still submit to it. We cannot help it. It’s part of natural law!

You can choose to try and break moral law, but at the cost of reaping the consequences, just like if you try and break the laws of gravity by trying to fly unaided by jumping off a building, you’ll end up paying for the consequences in the form of ruptured skin, crushed flesh, broken bones and even death.

EVERYONE without exception, is subject to this moral law. There is no such thing as a person without morals. What we do have are people with varying degrees of morality. That is, we can and do have people who are more or less moral than others. You can distinguish between the two simply by observing how they interact and relate with other human beings (and by the physical and psychological scars they carry as a result of trying to break the moral law.)

Please, PLEASE do not misunderstand that by that last statement I mean that Christians in general are more moral than the rest of humanity. We are NOT. All of us, at varying degrees and at varying points in our lives have failed to adhere to the moral law. We couldn’t be justified sinners if we haven’t.

But rather, I hold that something ABOVE AND BEYOND the moral law has chosen to impart to us the ability to FULLY COMPLY with the moral law through a life of repentance (that is, the ability to learn from our mistakes). And learning from our mistakes won’t happen overnight, that much I can tell you.

“You choose to believe in naturalistic evolution.”

Fact: Almost every species on earth is divided into male and female.

Conclusion: Therefore evolution is proven.

(Without evolution, sexual reproduction is unnecessary. Without sexual reproduction, having two sexes is unnecessary. The conclusion comes from the fact.)

In every aspect evolution (and the universe) behave exactly as we would expect with no direction. There isn’t the slightest indication of any sort of direction – quite the reverse. Every life form on the planet evidences “close enough to work”. After all, if we were “god designed” why would we share 98.5% of DNA with chimpanzees? We’re literally nothing special!

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.The earth is not a closed system, because the sun is constantly feeding more energy into it. 

Back to evolution versus ID, we know how reproduction happens, we know how genetic drift happens, we know how adaptation happens… at no point is a god necessary. So if we follow Occam’s Razor, if we already have an explanation that makes perfect sense, why would we add the step of a supernatural agent? It just seems superfluous. 

“If the earth is NOT a closed system, then it logically follows that an external agent (besides the sun) CAN influence it.”
Open/closed system refers to energy and how it is used. It has nothing to do with “agents” (which implies will and deliberation). Think of it this way: A flashlight is a closed system. It has a battery and a lamp, and the battery will feed the lamp but slowly drain itself in the process. Eventually, the battery is depleted and the lamp is “dead.” If, on the other hand, you have a lamp that is plugged into the wall, it is now an open system because it is continually being pumped with energy from an external source. This has absolutely nothing to do with agents.

“But the question remains: WHERE DID IT ALL COME FROM?”
This is not an ID/evolution issue. This is called abiogenesis or, if you’re going further back in time, cosmology. And I’ll be the first to admit that we (humans generally, me specifically) don’t have any definitive answers in these areas.

But that doesn’t get us to God. 

There was a time when we didn’t know how or why lightening happened, and people thought it was caused by the gods. Then we found the answer and the gods got smaller. Then we didn’t know how the tides worked. Then we found the answer and the gods got smaller. Then we didn’t know why so many women were dying post-partum when doctors weren’t washing their hands. Then we found the answer and the gods got smaller.

Do you see a pattern? As long as we keep defining God as “that for which we currently have no answers,” we are doomed to shrink God with every new science experiment. Isn’t it better to simply withhold judgement until the evidence is in?

We also have to get away from thinking in dichotomies. Even if, say, the Big Bang theory is proven wrong, that doesn’t prove the God-creation theory true. It could be a third option that we haven’t even thought of yet. If you want to argue in favour of a God-creation hypothesis, it’s not enough to disprove the current scientific theories. You must first and foremost provide positive proof for the God-creation theory.

So yeah, I freely admit that I have no idea how abiogenesis happened. I’m reasonably sure that it had nothing to do with gods because past experience as taught me that all things have a natural explanation if you care enough to look for it. But maybe it was gods. If, someday, we discover that there really is a Holy Seed Planter, so be it. I’ll just be happy to have one more answer. I have no ideological dogs in this fight. I just don’t see it as particularly likely.

“Complexity denotes design. As does order.”
Prove it.

We have two examples of complexity: That which has been designed, and that which occurs naturally – painting versus tree. By simply observation, the only thing you can conclude from this is that any paintings you see were probably designed, while trees probably grew through the gradual interaction between their DNA and their environment. 

So when you enter the discussion to say that anything complex MUST have a designer, I have to ask you to prove that because that’s not what the evidence is showing us at all.

Same for order.

The trouble with logic is that everything depends on the premises. If your premises are faulty, all the rest comes tumbling down. So prove to me your premise first, and only then can we talk about your logic.

“But all our knowledge seems to point to the fact that a consciousness in and apart from physical reality determines the course of universal events.”
Yikes! That’s a very bold statement! All our knowledge points to the fact that consciousness determines the course of social events and certain localized physical events (such as topography), but beyond that? I’m going to need to see some proof! To make that task easier, you might start by proving that consciousness exists “apart from physical reality.”

“Occam’s Razor would dictate that we accept the simplest explanation, which would be that a God exists and that everything that we percieve in reality exists because of Him.”
I’m starting to regret bringing up Occam’s Razor. I grew up with the concept, so I use it pretty casually and I forget that it isn’t obvious to everyone that the simplest explanation isn’t necessarily the explanation that is easiest to understand or contains the fewest words.

But in good faith, I’ll try to explain the difference to you. In determining the complexity of an explanation, we have to look at how many dependent parts are contained, and how many of them need to be proved. I’ll illustrate with an example, because I often find that examples can make difficult concepts a lot easier to understand:

You wake up one morning and see that your lawn has been mowed. One of your children says that maybe your neighbour, Mr. Jefferson, mowed it with his new lawn mower. Your other child says that maybe a goat came to your house in the middle of the night and nibbled your lawn.

In this example, both explanations are superficially similar in complexity. Both involve one thing doing the mowing (mower versus goat). If anything, the Jefferson explanation may even seem more complex because it necessitates the addition of a second component – the person directing the mower. 

But you know that Mr. Jefferson has a new mower, and you’ve never heard of a goat anywhere near your neighbourhood. So for the Jefferson explanation, all you need is a motive – why did Mr. Jefferson mow your lawn? If, on the other hand, you want to argue for the goat theory, you must first establish the existence of the goat in question, why it was in your neighbourhood, and how it munched your entire lawn without leaving evidence of itself (such as poop). If we assume that these are the only two options we are considering, Occam’s Razor rules in favour of the Jefferson explanation.

Back to God, we know that there is life and that it self-replicates. We also know that there are “in between” things that don’t meet our qualifications for life but do still self replicate (such as certain simple protein strains). So while we don’t know the exact details, we know that it’s at least plausible given our existing understanding of evolution that what we currently recognize as life evolved out of the replication of simple proteins over a long period of time. Nearly all the processes are known, documented, and understood.

If, on the other hand, you want to say that God did it, you first have to define what God is, prove he/she/it exists (or existed), explain where God came from, etc. God is called “supernatural” for a reason – because God is separate from any natural laws. Therefore, you would have to start completely from scratch in our entire understanding of the universe and how we’ve interpreted our observations. It requires us to make too many assumptions before we can arrive at the desired conclusion.

So while “God did it” may be shorter to say and easier to imagine, it isn’t actually the simpler explanation.

As I said in my other post, I’m not offended by disagreement. The problem is with name-calling and with saying that people like me are a detriment to humanity. I don’t appreciate hate speech. But barring that, have at it!

Thank you for replying Mr. Sgl!

That is a very good first point you’ve raised, and is something that unfortunately I do not have the answer to currently. I’ve thought about it myself believe me.

I’ve chosen to take it on faith that God is who He says He is: the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. The first and the last. The universal solvent. The foundation of all things. The unifying theory that will destroy all theories. I know that these romantic statements serve no purpose in an argument. But that’s what I’ve chosen to believe.

I realize that as a finite human being, it is impossible for me to know everything. It is inevitable that I will come across things that I might have to remain agnostic to until my death. That’s perfectly fine by me since I’ve accepted that I’m not God.

To answer your second problem: I fully understand that accepting that a god exists doesn’t automatically make you a Christian, any more than it will make you a Muslim, Hindu, or any of the other Theistic/Polytheistic religious groupings.

But wouldn’t YOU want to know more about that god? Wouldn’t you want to know what kind of god he/she is? What is his/her purpose in creating the universe? What is his/her purpose in creating us? And what are his/her expectations of us?

Why did he/she create each one of us unique? Why is the universe ordered the way it is? Why is there death and suffering? Why is there happiness? Is he/she doing it all on a whim?

See, accepting that a God exists opens up a plethora of questions that would – through the process of elimination – exclude the gods of other religions simply because NOT ALL OF THEM CAN BE RIGHT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CONTRADICTING VIEWS OF GOD.

This is the situation most non-committed theists find themselves in right now: WHICH GOD IS REAL?

The decision is made even more frightening if you consider the consequences of NOT believing in the right God.

Let me ask you this question: which worldview, religious or otherwise, would best describe to you the origin of human suffering? Why do you think so?

We can continue our discussion from there if you like.