Mike82ARP

Lots of evidence. But if a priori you claim that anything explainable by means of purposive intelligent action is also just as easily explain (in principle) by means of physical matter, energy, and some combination of chance and deterministic law, then you are claiming that no argument for the existence of a Creator is even possible. You've simply closed yourself off to it. For the record, The biochemical evidence is overwhelming. The recently published results in the prestigious British journal Nature of the ENCODE project (which studied the functionality of the genome) shows that about 90% of DNA is functional, i.e., is transcribed onto RNA, and therefore has some kind of function within the cell. The researchers claimed that they expect 100% of DNA to be functional. It appears that only a small part of DNA actually codes for amino acids in the process of protein synthesis. The rest of the DNA strand does other stuff, apparently controlling much of the "formatting" (to use a term from desktop publishing) of the coding part. The significance of all this (aside from the fact that scientifically it's interesting in its own right) is that the notion of "junk DNA" — i.e., long, non-coding, NON-FUNCTIONAL, stretches of DNA apparently being preserved "errors" [the DNA equivalent of fossils] of random variation and natural selection over millions of years of genomic evolution — is out the window. None of it is junk. All of it is functional. It's quite funny to read many of the Darwinists backpeddle on this issue now: "Oh, we NEVER used the phrase 'junk DNA' in the first place! That was just the popular press exaggerating things!" Etc. Anyway, the ENCODE results have hammered the final nail in the coffin of junk DNA, an important element of the Darwinian scenario on evolution. Additionally, a company called "Agilent" has successfully used DNA as an actual storage medium for jpeg images and text (they encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets and some images on a few grains of DNA). The DNA was flown to their sister office in the U.S., which successfully decoded the data and read it off with near 100% fidelity. Sorry, but the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device, making use of a 4-symbol code (i.e., the nucleotide bases making up the rungs of the DNA helix) instead of a 2-symbol code like binary, which is what our man-made computers "understand." Hard-drives don't appear in nature by means of random processes and deterministic forces; they are the results of intention and purpose. Same with DNA, which is nothing but a very small hard-drive -- literally. By the way, the compression of DNA storage is fantastic, even given the rough state of today's technology: according to its inventors, 1 gram of DNA (about 1/3rd of a teaspoon) can easily store 1 petabyte of data. 1 petabyte is 1,000 terabytes. So envision 1,000 1-terabyte hard-drives stacked up in your office, completely filled with data. Then compare that to a teaspoon 1/3rd full of powdery specks of DNA. If the 1,000 hard-drives stacked up in your office couldn't appear by means of a Darwinian process, why would anyone choose to believe the teaspoon full of microscopic biochemical hard-drives were? And again: the only difference between DNA used to store information about JPEG images and text, and DNA actively functioning in your cells is the choice of data: the latter store data on amino acid selection, protein synthesis, and other cellular processes. Au contraire. Reason is a subcategory of faith. That's why Dante, in the "Purgatory", required the character of Virgil (the "shade" of the great Roman poet, who symbolically represented reason, and had acted as the benevolent guide for Dante while he was making his travels and discoveries in the "Inferno") to remain behind, unable to enter heaven with Dante as he made his final voyage in the "Paradiso". Since Virgil was a pre-Christian pagan, he could not have had the requisite faith to enter heaven with Dante and act as a guide. You should read Dante sometime. Good points here. Although Darwin in vilified in some circles, he was a man of science. The advances in cellular biology over the past 25 years have been astronomical compared to the post grad coursework in physiology I had about 30 years ago. I believe that had Darwin known what we know today about DNA and cellular biology, the Origin of the Species wold never have been written. The statistical odds against a living cell forming out of the process of "chance and time” are beyond miniscule. It would require a colossal amount of “faith” to believe in this. I hear that man has 99% of the DNA of a chimpanzee. It seems impressive, but when we consider there are 3 billion nucleotide pairs in the body, that means there are 30 million different nucleotide pairs difference. Not so impressive anymore.

Yes, faith in practice is an act of the will, but "faith” from a salvation perspective as an act of the will is not a universal belief within Christianity. From a salvation perspective, some view it as volitional while others are something bestowed upon one. Kirkegaard’s view was, in my opinion, irrational.

@MSK "Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you also agree that it is reasonable to speculate about a universe without a supreme being who created it. Am I correct?” Yes. "From my understanding of faith, it is not an automatic mental process like sensing something really hot and immediately learning you have to avoid it, but instead an act of will. It is an epistemological method you choose." That’s a tougher question to answer since different X-ns have different experiences related to the “faith” so I will give you my explanation based on years of studying denominational differences and theological trends in the church. I would say that X-ns have different epistemological methods they employ in the practice of their faith. Some are New Age, mystical types and claim to have a direct relationship to God and talk about God telling them this and that and their conversing with God on a regular basis. One even said she “smelled” Jesus. I might have thought this may be a different manifestation of God than I had, but the accompanying theology of these folks is so bizarre that I would doubt their possessing a rational faith, if they are X-ns at all. Yet others come to faith through emotional coercion like you might see at a BIlly Graham crusade or a tent meeting. Many of these abandon their profession of faith shortly afterward. Others claim faith as an escape from some bad part of their life and willingly subscribe to a legalistic, fundamentalist faith with a lot of dos and don’ts without ever bothering to examine whether what they are being taught is in fact biblical. These folks tend to be the anti-intellectuals of X-nity. For them, it’s easier to be a lemming. For some, church is a religious country club. Other churches focus on altruism and asceticism as a means of demonstrating spirituality. Many of these folks seek obtaining gold stars from God for their sacrifices. With myself, faith came in a gradual way through the use of reason, but not excluding the possibility of the “supernatural” in the process. I had spent much time studying and learning through various sources and discarded incorrect presuppositions I had about God. As I mentioned earlier, God reveals himself through the world/universe and his word, the Bible. There are no new prophets. We do not have an exhaustive knowledge of God. We can know only what he chose to reveal. As God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

Don’t feel bad, Maher does the same against Christianity. He presents caricatures as reality, then ridicules them all the while his brain dead audience laughs. I’d really like to see him do that with Islam, the religion that wants to wipe out what I will loosely call "his people”. He's got a face for radio. Sorry for the ad hominem, but it makes me feel good once in a while.

Brant, I actually view that as a legitimate objection. I would however disagree with your denial of the historicity of Jesus as he is documented by eye witnesses, namely gospel writers, Matthew and John, and maybe Mark. He is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius. While the latter four do nothing to establish his deity, etc., the evidence of the historicity is sufficient to establish that he existed. I’m not going to rehash the physical “evidence for a Supreme Being” argument.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with. I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'. From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets. I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma. In addition, eclectism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill. That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end. Well, we’re in full agreement here. I don’t think I ever claimed to be an Objectivist, per se. I’ve said I subscribe to much if not most of Rand’s philosophy with the exception of her atheism. Additionally, the arguments presented against Christianity thus far have been based on composition or straw men fallacies or fiat declarations (e.g. origin of the universe). I am not attempting to reconcile O’ism and X-nity, but am seeking to find the common ground they share. I continue to check my premises even where my “faith" is concerned and make changes when the situation arises.

Yesterday, in # 437, Jerry Biggers posted an interesting excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7060&page=22 Answered in #448. You obviously have a lot of faith in Branden....

Mike, Science always says we don't know what happened before the big bang, especially seeing as how time and space are not supposed to exist on the other side over yonder. And we have no evidence of that pre-state anyway. All we've got for now is the product (the universe), not the cause (what was before when there was no now and no place for it anyway). So between one speculation and another, if that is the standard, I find your bomb builder notion perfectly reasonable. Between not knowing what really happened and not knowing whether some supreme force made what we don't know happened happen, both are reasonable ideas. (Man, that sounded clunky. ) Neither are proven ideas, but within that context, both are reasonable. At least reasonable enough to merit exploration and not dismissal. Others disagree with me here, but that's the good we have here on OL. We can disagree with each other and bicker about it in peace. Michael I agree. Each system has some degree of speculation involved and are reasonable within the context of their given tenets. I would be “irrational" if I claimed to be a Christian yet denied the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. I would be irrational if i denied that things actually exist outside of my mind’s ability to perceive them. I would be irrational if I agreed that "A, therefore not A”.

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter. No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below). Nathaniel Branden - On the attempt to combine or reconcile faith in God with Objectivism: . Now, it is sometimes asked: what is wrong with believing in God, if a man holds the belief as a purely subjective matter, and always acts on the basis of reason? The answer is that it cannot be done. It is not possible psychologically. It would mean that a man attempts to hold two diametrically opposed views, two irreconcilable premises, and to sincerely believe them both—which means that he will not believe either, and that he will be certain of nothing, that all of his convictions will be reduced to the state of the approximate, the relative, the questionable, the "maybe." Any attempt to combine reason and faith will damage a man’s thinking processes and his self-esteem. At best, only his self-esteem will suffer. He will know that he is a hypocrite, who does not practice or take seriously that which he professes to believe. At worst, it will have a hampering, shrinking effect on his mind. The mere fact of accepting something on faith, without evidence, without proof, undercuts the absolutism of a man’s mind and his confidence in his own judgment. How can he trust his judgment, if he knows that he was willing to suspend it, and may do so again? Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them. In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political. In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them. The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality . It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but, you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here. (Excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) Italics added Branden makes the same mistake that Rand made. He construct a straw nan based on a false dichotomy between faith and reason. While I accept the conflict between "mysticism and reason", mysticism is by no means a universal tenet within Christianity. This misunderstanding is painfully obvious. The real enemy of Objectivism is post-modernism, yet outside of Stephen Hicks’ excellent, "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault”, little is written about this.

I think I can make a case as to whether it is "reasonable" to believe in a supreme being. Stipulating the current BIg Bang theory as the origin of the universe, I would simply ask whether it is reasonable to believe that someone "built the bomb”? I’m not proposing a “proof”, but just whether it is reasonable view. Then, could than someone by god? Given the scientific problems that exist regarding the nature of matter and time - eternally existing, big bang expansion/ contraction, energy/matter relationship, ex nihilo, nihil fit, etc., any other cosmology may be deemed irrational if one by fiat subscribes to one particular one.

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them. Does your church follow a literal interpretation of the Bible? Was the earth populated through incestual means, twice? If you mean literal in the sense of the common meaning of the word, then no. Since the BIble has several different literary styles and tools like metaphor, symbolism, etc are used, we interpret the Bible in the literary style and context in which it was written. Incest wasn’t prohibited until Leviticus 18.

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? " Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics. "And if church leaders had not been hungry for political power over the centuries, and if no emperor had ever decided to impose the Christian belief on his subjects - I don't think Christianity would have survived at all." "If" is a big word. I could posit that IF Rand had a different exposure to Christianity than she did (in Los Angeles with the like of Aimee Semple McPherson and the anti-intellectualism that was rampant at the time), she may have had a different view. in some ways a Christ-like figure, but that’s another discussion for another day.

@PDS. You wrote: "Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you. I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder. " Do you really think that over the last 27 years of reading the Bible and broadly studying theology that universalism somehow slipped under the radar. It would be nice if it were true, but it fails when measured up against what the Bible teaches. That’s why there's a very small minority of X-ns who teach it.

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them.

But it was you who linked laissez faire capitalism to Christianity (see your post # 359). Yes, it wasn’t around in biblical times. Its emergence can be traced to socio-economic changes occurring after the Reformation.

It’s been a long time since I took embryology, but here’s you answer. From www.menshealth.com "The answer is that as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!"

What, specifically, did the Bible say that would make you believe that? Especially given the prophetic references to his death. Nothing specific , just more the gist of an omnipotent creator whose will I would doubt could be described as determined. So you have no argument, just feelings?

Your edited comment obviously begs the question. Glad you caught on to that. I wasn't begging the question, I asked a rhetorical question. Being God, he did preordain those he wished to save. But he still had to adminster justice (Heb 9:22- without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness) and did so in a way that mankind could not.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction. Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born." The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody. Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently. I do not consider these satisfactory explanations as they are mere conjecture of individuals. As I previously wrote, God has revealed himself to us in two ways. Through the created universe and through his word in the Bible. We do not have a mystical, hearing God's voice, communication through chanting trances, etc. God has seen fit to limit our knowledge of Him. As Christians, we do not have the warrant to reinvent God to fit our impressions or desires of what we would want him to be. Therefore, you must show me from his own word, the Bible, that he either did not intend for Jesus to die, or that he has a plan of universal salvation. Additionally, you wrote, "Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event." True, but by what mechanism? Justice has to be served.

Your wish is my command. The answer is: if God had limited salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive the people he preordained to be saved in any event. In short, your question doesn't advance the ball in either direction. Jesting aside, there are two interesting answers to your question that I am aware of. The first was given by Carl Jung in his book Answer To Job: God actually pivoted, so to speak, after He had tested Job, and, "out of this astonishing self-reflection, induced in God by Job’s stubborn righteousness, He, the Almighty, is pushed into a process of transformation that leads eventually to His incarnation as Jesus. God develops empathy and love through his confrontation with Job, and out of it a new relationship between God and humankind is born." The second answer relates to God's history with the Jews, as expressed in Jack Miles's God: A Biography. Here (I am going from memory), Miles proposes that God's failure to keep his covenant with Israel led to his decision to come to earth and reset the covenant, not just with the Jews, but everybody. Let me anticipate your first objection to these ideas: God never changes, so how could, in effect, change his mind because of the result of events in history, and, specifically, his own involvement in those results? To that objection, my response would be: check your premises. Even a superficial reading of the Bible demonstrates that God does the divine equivalent of changing his mind fairly frequently. I do not consider these satisfactory explanations as they are mere conjecture of individuals. As I previously wrote, God has revealed himself to us in two ways. Through the created universe and through his word in the Bible. We do not have a mystical, hearing God's voice, communication through chanting trances, etc. God has seen fit to limit our knowledge of Him. As Christians, we do not have the warrant to reinvent God to fit our impressions or desires of what we would want him to be. Therefore, you must show me from his own word, the Bible, that he either did not intend for Jesus to die, or that he has a plan of universal salvation.

What, specifically, did the Bible say that would make you believe that? Especially given the prophetic references to his death.

But giving the context weakens your case even more: Luke 18;22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” I'm afraid Rand would have condemned the young ruler if he sold everything he had and gave it to the poor. Can you imagine John Galt doing that because someone promises him treasure in heaven? I know them. I'm an ex-Christian. But not to an Objectivst. On the contrary, a rich man deciding to keep his wealth (instead of giving it away to the poor to follow a guru who promises him 'treasure in heaven') would be considered as rational and therefore 'virtuous'. Jesus knew this person had no intention of joining him. He also knew that he was a mammonist. That is why he posed the questions he did, so my case is not weakened. He does this many times in the gospels. Treasures in heaven are a wrong motivator for Christians. Those who think they are amassing treasures by being altruistic here will be disappointed. FYI, there’s no such thing as an ex-Christian. There are Christians and there are never were’s.

@PDS You make some legitimate points. You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?" I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

I suppose the message is: "I want you to accept my preferred version of the many scriptural interpretations of that Biblical text passage ." Yes, that is correct... After studying theology, reading the Bible and taking seminary level courses over the last 27 years, I can take that stand.

If a Christian said to me what you wrote "that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us”, I would consider that person a “mystical, new age” Christian.Yep, that is a pretty fair description of the Anglican clergy. Apparently, Billy Graham is one of those nefarious "mystical, new age" Christians as well: "Hell is not the most popular of preaching topics. I don't like to preach on it. But I must if I am to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We must not avoid warning of it. The most outspoken messages on hell, and the most graphic references to it, came from Jesus Himself. ...Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!" (A Biblical Standard For Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47)." Sounds like the kingdom of heaven (and hell) may be within us after all. It's also good to see that Billy believes in universal salvation as well: "I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived." Mike: I really think you need to take a leap of faith and start giving God a little more credit when it comes to assessing the breadth of His love. Origen and Billy Graham have, why can't you and your brethren? Well, since I don’t believe in mystical powers to communicate with God directly, I have to rely on what is in his word rather then the ramblings of an individual. Even Graham isn’t sure of what the fire is. I’m not a fire and brimstone type. I didn’t bring the topic of hell up. Rev 20:10 mentions, "the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Doesn’t sound like yearning to me.Peruse Luke 16:19-31 and let me know what you think. Are you a universalist or just using the stolen concept for argument’s sake?