RE: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

Gordon said:
"Do you have a very narrow definition of religion when you say that there is no evidence for anything in religion? Do you reject Biblical archeology? Are you saying that we don't know where numbers and math come from? Is there any mystery as to where tautologies come from?"

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't being precise about that, and you caught it. I meant that when it comes to evidence for God, it all comes down to the gaps (how did life arise? God did it). There is no scientific evidence for God at all, not one shred, that I can see. Yes, there is archeology to prove that things existed in the NT, and also that Joseph Smith was also a real person. But the existence of events and places doesn't equate to truth about their metaphysical musings.

Where do numbers and math come from? Where does love come from? Where do morals come from. If you don't know, then say the answer is God. Take two gasses, H and O, and combine them to make something new, a liguid, H2O. Where does the liquid or solid state of H2O come from? Must be from God, too. Yes, I know, everything comes from God.

As I said, I haven't seen one piece of scientific evidence for God. Maybe that is because God hides, so people MUST and ONLY come to him through faith. (If there was real evidence for God, then the smart people would see it and believe God for the evidence, then being saved may be a function of smartness, which doesn't seem fair to a lot of folks, esp. those that have loved ones with brain defects.) If so, my frustration with God is that He wants to be the supreme player of hide and seek. Why does He enjoy that game so much?

I think Dawkins has an awesome explanation as to why so many people believe in the supernatural (even if they hate 'organized religion'). It is because of the idea that we live in 'middle world' and don't comprehend small and large world (I explained this in more detail in a previous email). Spirituality is intuitive. Science is counter-intuitive. That's why it is so shocking for people to know that instead of living on a firm stationary Earth, we are actually spinning at 1,000 mph and flying around the sun at 68,000 mph.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 12:11 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

>
> Dawkins ?problem? is that he treats everything scientifically.  There is
> evidence for the basic facts in science, and there is no evidence for
> anything in religion.  Even the fundamentals of religion often times can?t
> be coherently explained (trinity, soul, image of God, etc.).  Dawkins has a
> posture of ?no BS allowed? so things based on faith-only are rejected.  Yes,
> science also proceeds based on faith, on the outer and leading edges, but it
> is based upon facts as a platform.  Not so with any religious creed.  All
> the so-called ?arguments for God? are really an appeal to ?god of the
> gaps.?  Where did it all come from? How did life evolve? Where did morals
> come from (or anything objective, such as numbers and math)?  No one knows-
> glory to ?god of the gaps!?

Bernie,

Do you have a very narrow definition of religion when you say that there
is no evidence for anything in religion? Do you reject Biblical
archeology?

Are you saying that we don't know where numbers and math come from? Is
there any mystery as to where tautologies come from?

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 27 12:55:42 2009