Chr

responses, page 8

This page consists of a single discussion with a Christian apologist. The topics discussed include biblical slavery, the Ten Commandments and the definition of the term "God."

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
responses 9
home

Subj: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/18/2001 1:14:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I would label myself as a free-thinking Christian with fundamentalist leanings. I have always prided myself in my undying efforts to always consider *both* sides of issues. However, I was hard-pressed to find a SINGLE instance in any of the information (propaganda) presented on your website where I could identify that you clearly evaluated *both* sides of an issue. Furthermore, the ultra-high level of anti-Christian bias (religious bigotry) displayed in your commentary destroys any possibility for objectivity. Honesty and objectivity are contingent on non-bias.

Even though I anticipate your closed-minded, anti-Christian agenda to force objectivity to take a back seat when considering my answers, I am confident that most (if not all) of your arguments can be either refuted (where proof is involved), or debunked (where alternative interpretations are possible). The biggest deception espoused by your material is the fact that you always assume that there is no alternative way to interpret the Bible, history, doctrine, theology, social issues, etc. other than the one you provide. (which aims to destroy Christianity). I ask you to assemble your best arguments against Christianity and/or Theism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them. Thanks.

Have a nice day.

Brandon

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/18/2001 11:05:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

####" However, I was hard-pressed to find a SINGLE instance in any of the information (propaganda) presented on your website where I could identify that you clearly evaluated *both* sides of an issue."####

I have considered both sides of the issue-I used to be a Christian. After a while I just couldn't buy into it anymore. On my site I offer my own views on Christianity and include articles from other people who share my viewpoint. On my site I also provide the opportunity for Christians to present their case-I have a guestbook for visitors, an open discussion board, and I post e-mails from Christians. Besides this, I have a page where I describe Christian arguments and then point out their failings.

####" I ask you to assemble your best arguments against Christianity and/or Theism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them.####

What has to be understood about this whole subject is that theists have the burden of evidence since they are making the positive claim that "God" exists. Atheism means without theism, without a belief in "God" or gods. It is the absence of a belief. Let me demonstrate why this point is important. Aleprechaunism means without a belief in leprechauns. I am certain that you are an aleprechaunist, you are without a belief in leprechauns. Certainly you can see that it is not your responsibility to do the impossible and "prove" a negative-that leprechauns do not exist-to persistent leprechaunists. Likewise, it is not my responsibility to prove the nonexistence of "God" to you. If it is your aim to convince me of a positive claim, that "God" exists, then it is your obligation to actually argue for your claim.

So I would be very interested in hearing your case. However, there is one thing that needs to be done before you argue for "God." The term "God" has never been adequately defined as far as I know, so before you go about demonstrating that "God" exists, you have to make clear what, exactly, you are talking about.

"The biggest deception espoused by your material is the fact that you always assume that there is no alternative way to interpret the Bible, history, doctrine, theology, social issues, etc"

Like everyone else, I interpret the Bible based on my own education, knowledge and life experience, all of which tell me that it is a human book, a fallible book, and one which promotes a primitive morality. Because that is my opinion of the Bible, that is what is presented on my web site. So where is the "deception"?

Brooks

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 8:54:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I have considered both sides of the issue-I used to be a Christian. After a while I just couldn't buy into it anymore. On my site I offer my own views on Christianity and include articles from other people who share my viewpoint. On my site I also provide the opportunity for Christians to present their case-I have a guestbook for visitors, an open discussion board, and I post e-mails from Christians. Besides this, I have a page where I describe Christian arguments and then point out their failings.

It should be noted that guestbooks, discussion boards, or emails from nebulous Christians do not constitute "presenting both sides of an issue", especially since my comment was referring to YOUR articles. Furthermore, the page you have that supposedly describes "Christian" arguments does no such thing. It describes your *interpretation* of Christian arguments. I would that you called it your "straw man page" since it contains nothing but straw man Christian arguments that you set up yourself, and then proceed to knock down, all the while ignorantly thinking you've accomplished or refuted something.

What has to be understood about this whole subject is that theists have the burden of evidence since they are making the positive claim that "God" exists.

This is all elementary. However, your statement overlooks the fact that there are different *types* of claims, and therefore different *types* of proofs. Some claims are philosophical, some are metaphysical, and some are scientific. The age-old error of atheism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of God is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.

Atheism means without theism, without a belief in "God" or gods. It is the absence of a belief. Let me demonstrate why this point is important.

While the definition of atheism is debatable (since atheists have changed it in the past few decades), I'll accept your definition. (Which is of recent vintage, by the way...)

Aleprechaunism means without a belief in leprechauns. I am certain that you are an aleprechaunist, you are without a belief in leprechauns. Certainly you can see that it is not your responsibility to do the impossible and "prove" a negative-that leprechauns do not exist-to persistent leprechaunists. Likewise, it is not my responsibility to prove the nonexistence of "God" to you. If it is your aim to convince me of a positive claim, that "God" exists, then it is your obligation to actually argue for your claim.

It should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of basic logic why your above argument is invalid. It is invalid for the following reasons: 1) It failed to define "Leprechaun" and "God". 2) Failed to define and describe what "proof" means, and what would constitute it, 3) Compares the two undefined entities using a singular, undefined standard of proof. (Falsely doing so since they are *different* claims for different *types* of entities, and therefore would necessitate *different* standards of proof).

So I would be very interested in hearing your case.

All claims that are held for a reason can be argued for. Therefore, I look forward to hearing your case for atheism, that is, unless you have no *reason* for your "lack of belief".

However, there is one thing that needs to be done before you argue for "God." The term "God" has never been adequately defined as far as I know,

That statement begs the question of what you consider "adequate" to mean, and how it is applied. Remember, the numerous satellite photographs of earth and even live video footage from orbit is not "adequate" to convince a member of the Flat Earth Society that the earth is round.

so before you go about demonstrating that "God" exists, you have to make clear what, exactly, you are talking about.

Of course. This is a no-brainer. How could someone argue for something they haven't even defined?

Like everyone else, I interpret the Bible based on my own education, knowledge and life experience, all of which tell me that it is a human book, a fallible book, and one which promotes a primitive morality. Because that is my opinion of the Bible, that is what is presented on my web site. So where is the "deception"?

You, *unlike* most objective people, gave their personal take on an issue but then failed to leave the door open for different interpretations. The deception rests in the fact that there *are* other interpretions, but all of your opinions on the material (as false, and unnecessary as they are) of the Bible NEVER acknowledged this fact. Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings, so I can only assume it is deceptive that you failed to acknowledge to do the same.

Lastly, I did challenge you to give me your "best" arguments against Christianity, which you failed to do. Perhaps you will provide them in your next message.

Brandon

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 10:12:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

"Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings..."

Whatever. I am just providing my understanding of the facts. Hopefully you can see that my web site is an expression of my views, and is not meant to be smorgasboard of views of every single belief system and religion.

Let's start with basics and have you describe what "God" is so we know what it is that you believe exists.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 3:08:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brandon,

"Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings..."

Whatever. I am just providing my understanding of the facts. Hopefully you can see that my web site is an expression of my views, and is not meant to be smorgasboard of views of every single belief system and religion.

Understood, however, there is no doubt that your "understanding" of facts (as presented on your website) have been totally tainted by extreme anti-Christian bias and prejudice. This is evidenced also by the fact that you've drawn all of your ideas from the same "well". (the secular web). That alone totally disqualifies your views from the arena of honest objectivity. So the question remains - why should any honest person accept your skewed views knowing that they are totally biased?

Let's start with basics and have you describe what "God" is so we know what it is that you believe exists.

(Not pending the fact that you neglected to respond the rest of my previous message), I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".

Perhaps in your NEXT message, you'll give me your best arguments against Christianity.

>Thank you.

Brandon

Subj: need more info
Date: 3/20/2001 11:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

You claim that it is a “fact” that I have gotten all my ideas from one source, the Secular Web. Even if I did, what difference would it make? Would that mean that all the information was false? In any case, the Secular Web is just one of many references I use on my site. Perhaps the most the most useful source of ideas is the Bible itself.

####I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".####

What do you mean by “supernatural”? What do you mean by “timeless”? Are we really aware of any “beings” that are “supernatural” and “timeless”? When you say “intelligent being,” are you referring to a carbon based, biological entity that resides on the planet earth, that breathes and eats and excretes? As far as I know, these are the only “beings” we are actually aware of. If you are not talking about a “being” such as these, then what, exactly, are you referring to, and how do you know that it exists?

As I said before, you are making the positive claim that this thing exists, so it is your responsibility to explain what it is and why you believe it exists. Once you have done this, then we can see whether there is any reason for anyone else to accept your claim.

I understand your desire to have me argue against Christianity so that you can “dismember” my arguments, but don't you agree that we have to understand what it is that Christianity, at its core, is claiming, before we can have an intelligible discussion on the topic?

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Re: need more info
Date: 3/20/2001 2:28:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

You claim that it is a "fact" that I have gotten all my ideas from one source, the Secular Web. Even if I did, what difference would it make? Would that mean that all the information was false?

You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.

In any case, the Secular Web is just one of many references I use on my site. Perhaps the most the most useful source of ideas is the Bible itself.

I clicked on almost every link, and they all led me to other sites on the Secular Web.

####I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".####

What do you mean by supernatural?

(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.

What do you mean by timeless?

Without time. Eternal.

Are we really aware of any beings that are supernatural and timeless?

"We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something. Besides, this question begs the definition of "aware". There are many forms of "awareness".

When you say "intelligent being," are you referring to a carbon based, biological entity that resides on the planet earth, that breathes and eats and excretes?

No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.

As far as I know, these are the only beings we are actually aware of.

"As far as we know" is not a problem at all since we know less than .0000000000001% of all possible knowledge of the universe. If you are basing categoric dismissals of theistic possibilities based on what we "are aware of", then you are sorely at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the divine creation of the universe was an ancient event that occurred ONCE. Ancient events (or any event) that occur only once is called a "singularity". These are, by definition, unobservable. Therefore, it should be no big "surprise" that we are unable to "observe" God creating the universe. There must be literally trillions of singularities that have occurred throughout the universe's 15 billion year history, and none of them are observable or repeatable. But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!

If you are not talking about a "being" such as these, then what, exactly, are you referring to, and how do you know that it exists?

I've already defined the being that I am referring to - an intelligent, supernatural, timeless being. This being was the first cause of the universe.

As I said before, you are making the positive claim that this thing exists, so it is your responsibility to explain what it is and why you believe it exists. Once you have done this, then we can see whether there is any reason for anyone else to accept your claim.

The "effect" that exists today is the universe. By studying the effect (the universe) we can deduce many things about it's cause. The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product. Therefore, since the universe contains these fundamental attribtutes of intelligent design, it is *more likely* that the cause of the universe was an intelligent designer, as opposed to some blind, natural phenomena.

I understand your desire to have me argue against Christianity so that you can "dismember" my arguments, but don't you agree that we have to understand what it is that Christianity, at its core, is claiming, before we can have an intelligible discussion on the topic?

You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.

Cheers,

Brandon

Subj: response
Date: 3/20/2001 4:03:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: mailto:XXXXXX

Brandon,

#### You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.#####

I do not base my rejection of Christianity simply on the Secular Web, and I do not use the Secular Web as my only source of references. So your claim is false. I critcize Christians for accepting the Bible for the very simple reason that the Bible is filled with patently false claims and highly questionable morality, to put it mildly.

####(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

This is an example of a negative attribute. It is telling me what “God” is NOT: It is NOT natural, it is “supernatural.” It is NOT biological, it is somehow above biology and natural laws. This is not telling me what God actually IS. Let’s say that I told that “blork” existed. Puzzled, you asked me to explain and define “blork.” I told you that “blork” was supernatural-above natural laws, and that it was eternal. You still wouldn’t know what I was talking about, would you?

####Without time. Eternal.####

You are giving me an unlimited attribute, which is meaningless. What is an eternal, supernatural “blork”?

Me: Are we really aware of any beings that are supernatural and timeless?

You: "We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people believe in something, so therefore it is true. It is a bogus form of argumentation. And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

####No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.####

Back up a minute: what is the “metaphysical” universe? You are bringing a new term that has not yet been defined. Even if you can show that it is likely that life exists on some other planets in THIS universe, these forms of life would be somewhat different than the form of life you are trying to argue for, correct?

####But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!####

I agree that we do base out knowledge only on what we see directly. We also base it on evidence and logic. The problem here is that you are attributing the creation of the universe to your god. This is simply an assumption, not something you can use as evidence for your god.

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product.####

This is another assumption, that the complexity we see in the universe is the result of intelligent design. There is no reason to attribute it to an intelligence. Furthermore, once one posits an intelligent designer, one has to explain what designed the designer. A designer would be more complex than it creation, and thus, if complexity requires intelligent designer, the designer of the universe would also require a creator.

###You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.####

When I was a youngster and went to church, I believed that there was a god, just like everyone told me. I believed that this god somehow heard my prayers. When I got older and put some thought into the subject, I discovered that I really did (not) know what this god was supposed to be. I further discovered that Christians could not explain what this thing actually was.

I am not beating around the bush. We cannot argue intelligibly about the claims of Christianity until such time as we understand what those claims are. If you really cannot contain your eagerness to “dismember” my arguments against Christianity, perhaps you can select some statement I make on my site which you think is false, and challenge it. If it is shown to be false, I will admit my error and amend it.

Brooks

Subj: Re: response
Date: 3/21/2001 8:27:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

#### You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.#####

I do not base my rejection of Christianity simply on the Secular Web, and I do not use the Secular Web as my only source of references. So your claim is false.

As I mentioned before, your website has a proponderance of references to sources on the Secular Web. The only neutral source of information I could find was the links to online Bibles. Therefore, it would be quite evident to anyone who analyzes your site that my claim is quite accurate.

I critcize Christians for accepting the Bible for the very simple reason that the Bible is filled with patently false claims and highly questionable morality, to put it mildly.

Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.

####(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

This is an example of a negative attribute. It is telling me what "God" is NOT: It is NOT natural, it is "supernatural." It is NOT biological, it is somehow above biology and natural laws. This is not telling me what God actually IS.

This is just a "flip-wilson" semantics tactic that can be turned on itself. For example, if we used your standard evenly, "natural" would have to be considered a negative attribute since it would mean: NOT supernatural, but "natural", NOT nonbiological, but "biological". "Natural" would be telling us what humanity *isn't*, not what it actually IS. What you described is a bad standard because it is based on word games and term-twisting.

Let's say that I told that "blork" existed. Puzzled, you asked me to explain and define "blork." I told you that "blork" was supernatural-above natural laws, and that it was eternal. You still wouldn't know what I was talking about, would you?

With only that info, I would assume that "blork" is what you call your god.

####Without time. Eternal.####

You are giving me an unlimited attribute, which is meaningless. What is an eternal, supernatural "blork"?

Time is a component of 4D spatial dimension. It had a beginning, as did the universe itself. If there was a point when "time" did not exist, then "timelessness" is real. Therefore, "without time" *does* have scientific meaning. (If you know anything about cosmology, that is).

You: "We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people believe in something, so therefore it is true. It is a bogus form of argumentation.

*laughs* I guess you like to jam false arguments into my mouth, and then quickly say "see, fallacy! Fallacy!" If you'll notice, I never said that because billions of people believe in God, it is therefore "TRUE". What I WAS implying is there is good reason to believe that all of these billions of people were aware of something in order to have a such a wide-spread common belief.

Furthermore, you should note that your charge of "argumentum ad populum" fallacy is severely limited since it overlooks an important form of evidence - legal evidence. For example, say there was a guy who killed a woman in broad view of 100 people. In court, the prosecuter brings in all 100 people who said they saw him kill the woman, and the killer's defense attorney brings in *1* witness who says the man *didn't* kill the woman. How far do you think the killer's defense would get in a court of law if he argued that the testimony of the 100 witnesses is invalid and should not be accepted over the testimony of his *one* witness because it would be an "argumentum ad populum"? The point is, in terms of legal evidence, the testimony of 100 people is far stronger than the testimony of one person. This is something that "argumentum ad populum" totally overlooks.

And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

Irrelevant. The existence of ANY god or gods falsifies atheism.

####No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.####

Back up a minute: what is the "metaphysical" universe? You are bringing a new term that has not yet been defined.

"Metaphysical" means immaterial, or incorporeal. Not all aspects of the universe are physical. Take "time" for example. It is an immaterial, incorporeal dimension of the universe. Furthermore, superstring theory posits the existence of *10 or more* active dimensions in the universe, only 3 of which are "physical". (width, height, and depth).

Even if you can show that it is likely that life exists on some other planets in THIS universe, these forms of life would be somewhat different than the form of life you are trying to argue for, correct?

Correct, but if I chose to argue for ET life, it would not be for the purpose of arguing FOR God. It would be only for the purpose of showing your previous claim (that "intelligent being" can ONLY apply to humans) is a hyper-presumptive claim at best, or false at worst.

####But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!####

I agree that we do base out knowledge only on what we see directly. We also base it on evidence and logic.

Agreed.

The problem here is that you are attributing the creation of the universe to your god.

That's not a problem at all. In fact, it's a quite plausible proposition.

This is simply an assumption, not something you can use as evidence for your god.

Since the creation of the universe is an ancient singularity, ANY theory, nor matter how many fancy scientific words it uses, would be based on unverifiable assumptions, and not used as "evidence". This is true of most origin theories, including evolution.

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product.####

This is another assumption, that the complexity we see in the universe is the result of intelligent design.

To assume the complexity we see in the universe is NOT intelligently designed, but the result of random incidence is an even GREATER assumption.

There is no reason to attribute it to an intelligence.

Yes there is - All "known-to-be" intelligently designed entities (such as the things created by humans) contain the SAME attributes as the universe - complexity, order, structure, and a conserving governance of laws. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe's creator was an intelligent designer, as opposed to a blind natural process.

Furthermore, once one posits an intelligent designer, one has to explain what designed the designer. A designer would be more complex than it creation, and thus, if complexity requires intelligent designer, the designer of the universe would also require a creator.

No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientfic basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

###You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.####

When I was a youngster and went to church, I believed that there was a god, just like everyone told me. I believed that this god somehow heard my prayers. When I got older and put some thought into the subject, I discovered that I really did know what this god was supposed to be. I further discovered that Christians could not explain what this thing actually was.

Do you have any idea how many theological discourses are available at your local bookstore or Christian bookstore? There are THOUSANDS of them dating all the way back to the second century AD! I find it hard to believe that you based all of your knowledge of Christian doctrine on what "sister Florence" at church said when you asked her a couple questions.

But this is a common thread - most atheists seemed to be pissed off ex-Christians that were forced to go to church by their patriarchal mommy and daddy, and now have a life-long mission to destroy Christianity. (Or at least bitch and moan about it until Jesus returns). I find it very interesting that SCARCELY can you find any atheist website that attacks Islam, or Buddhism, or Shinoism, etc, or sets out to show how the "Avesta" or the "Quran" holy books are false.

I am not beating around the bush. We cannot argue intelligibly about the claims of Christianity until such time as we understand what those claims are.

Anybody who has spent even 2 minutes looking at your website would know that you are being disingenuous by pretending that you don't know what Christianity claims.

If you really cannot contain your eagerness to "dismember" my arguments against Christianity, ...

There is no "eagerness" with me at all. The fact is, I have asked you to provide me with your *best* arguments against Christianity three different times. That request is still pending now after four email exchanges!

... perhaps you can select some statement I make on my site which you think is false, and challenge it. If it is shown to be false, I will admit my error and amend it.

That would be quite difficult to do since your website is a huge amalgamation of claims, interpretations, selective quotes, tasteless photos, links, lies, truths, and everything in between. I was hoping you would give me what you think are your *best* arguments against Christianity. We can take it from there.

Thanks,

Brandon

Subj: got your e-mail
Date: 3/22/2001 3:00:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I have received your latest e-mail, but I am getting ready for a trip this weekend so I will get back to you next week.

Talk to you later.

Brooks

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 3/23/2001 12:32:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I have found that these discussions often mushroom out very quickly and I end up talking about ten different subjects at the same time. That is what is happening here. I still want you to define "God" much better than you have, and I want to examine this word "supernatural" that you keep using in reference to "God." I would like to get back to all the subjects that have been brought up, but for right now I would like to focus on biblical morality and the historical reliability of the Bible:

####Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.####

But Christians claim that "God" (whatever it is) is morally perfect and above reproach-therfore it is quite justified to examine the morality of the biblical "god" to see whether it actually deserves such high praise. The biblical "god" supports slavery, it orders the murder of women and children, it murders women and children itself, and, of course, it subjects people to eternal torture for their opinions. Do you believe the morality of the biblical god is admirable and sets a good example for youngsters?

I would also like to know if you think the biblical flood is a real historical event or not.

Thank you.

Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 3/23/2001 11:46:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brandon,

I have found that these discussions often mushroom out very quickly and I end up talking about ten different subjects at the same time. That is what is happening here.

I understand. We can narrow it down to one or two topics at a time. However, the mushrooms still may occur unless we set a limit on the length of discussion for each topic.

I still want you to define "God" much better than you have, and I want to examine this word "supernatural" that you keep using in reference to "God."

I'm not sure what basis you have for asserting that my definitions are insufficient. Supernatural means "beyond, or transcendent to the natural order of things". I will define "God" once again - God: the Supernatural, timeless, intelligent being (consciousness) that has sufficient power to cause and conserve the existence of the physical universe.

Now, exactly *why* is that definition insufficient?

I would like to get back to all the subjects that have been brought up, but for right now I would like to focus on biblical morality and the historical reliability of the Bible:

Very well. Let's go....

####Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.####

But Christians claim that "God" (whatever it is) is morally perfect and above reproach-therfore it is quite justified to examine the morality of the biblical "god" to see whether it actually deserves such high praise.

Now that I have defined "God" twice, there should be no more need to put it in quotes.

The biblical "god" supports slavery,

Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive. Furthermore, food, shelter, clothing and other physical provisions can be considered "payment" for work performed, and all slaves receive such provisions. Those two facts alone cut into the validity of moral arguments made against *all* slavery.

it orders the murder of women and children, it murders women and children itself

This is an interesting argument because it gives special exception to a certain gender (women) and a certain age group (children). In order to properly answer this, you will first have to demonstrate exactly how and *why* the life of one gender and age-group is more valuable than others. If you can't support this, then you will be guilty of age-group and gender discriminations and your singling out of "women" and "children" will have to be considered prejudice.

Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If God gives all life, then all life belongs to God. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.

and, of course, it subjects people to eternal torture for their opinions.

No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws. Since there is no question that all of mankind is guilty of crimes against God's laws, and since God has even provided the means by which all mankind can be forgiven of these transgressions, there is nothing inherently unjust about Hell. Given these conditions, the only possible way people can end up in Hell is through choosing to reject God's provisions to avoid it. The situation is similar to this analogy -

Suppose all humanity is lined up in their cars on a mountain road. There was a major break in the road (Adam's fall) that left a huge hole that leads to the bottom of the mountain. God saw everyone heading for the break in the road so he appeared on the scene to redirect traffic and warn everyone about the break. As a solution he gives them an alternate route that goes around the massive hole in the road. As each car approaches the hole, God tries to redirect them to the alternate route and warns them of the hole. Each person has the choice to either listen to the warning, or say "the old man is nuts" or "you have no PROOF for this hole", and keep going down the original route.

Therefore, if the people who choose to ignore the warning end up driving through the break in the road, thus tumbling to their deaths, whose fault is it?

Do you believe the morality of the biblical god is admirable and sets a good example for youngsters?

None of the material in the Bible was written for children, so you are begging the question. The Bible suggests that parents teach their children about God in ways that are appropriate for their level of understanding. The Bible was not addressed to children. That's why there is no verse in the Bible called " 2 Children 1:1 ".

I would also like to know if you think the biblical flood is a real historical event or not.

Absolutely. The natural record of the earth reveals that many great catastrophies have occurred - including massive floods, earthquakes, ice ages, storms, and even life-terminating meteor impacts. The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood. The arguments on your website inadvertently assumed that the "worldwide" interpretation is the correct one. The biblical flood was a massive local flood that applied to the inhabited regions of the near east. (where Noah lived) This was a major fact that your entire diatribe against the flood completely overlooked.

Brandon

Subj: back from trip
Date: 3/27/2001 12:25:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I want to reiterate that you are asserting a positive, therefore it is your responsibility to explain exactly what you believe and why you believe it. The biggest hurdle to overcome here is to provide an understandable definition of “God.” Your current explanation of “God” is incoherent because it revolves around this term “supernatural.” The “supernatural” is, by definition, outside of our knowledge. Perhaps this “God” exists, but, based on your “explanation,” no one could say what it is. The following excerpt describes the problem in greater detail.

“Consider the nature of an explanation. An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one's knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one's conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension.”

“The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one's present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An expla- nation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one's conceptual frame of reference. While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible. Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man's consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowble, that which is beyond man's comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a ‘supernatural explanation’ is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable.”

(From Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, page 229.)

So, to be clear, calling “God” the “supernatural” creator of the universe is not an understandable description of what “God” actually is, and it never will be. Before you can show that this thing exists, you have explain what it is.

####Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive.#### etc.

So the there are different types of slavery? If so, what type of slavery would you find morally acceptable?

Here are two quotes from the Bible which touch on the subject of slavery:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a “possession forever.” Is this a good form of slavery?

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Christian god-Exodus 21:20

In this quote, the biblical god tells slave masters that they may beat their slaves to death and not get punished. This god describes slaves-human beings-as “money.” Is this a good form of slavery?

In other places in the Bible, a master may force a slave to become his wife, and women and children can be separated and sold off to others. This is condoned by the biblical god. Slaves are gathered during war raids on villages by the Christian god’s chosen people, with this god’s blessing.

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.###

What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be “perfect”? I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in “God.” Are there any Jews or Hindus in heaven? Please explain. (You can hold off on these questions because I see I am expanding the number of topics we are discussing. I just can’t let this claim go unquestioned.)

#### “Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.####

So if someone or something creates life, this thing or being is somehow above morality, just on principle? If “God” created endless generations of puppy dogs and kittens and (tortured) them to death for trillions of years, is it “logically impossible” to call “God” immoral?

You asked me to present examples of patently false biblical claims, so I offered the biblical flood as an example. You asserted that the biblical flood was a massive but natural local event.

####The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood.####

Really?

Genesis 6:13: “ I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them...”

Genesis 6:17 “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

Genesis 7:4; “For in seven days I will send rain upon upon the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Genesis 7:17-8:1 “The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.”

How do you reconcile your claim that this was a “local” flood with what is written in the Bible itself? How can a local flood cover all the mountains and kill everything on the earth?

Thank you and have a nice day.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Response
Date: 3/27/2001 4:54:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I want to reiterate that you are asserting a positive, therefore it is your responsibility to explain exactly what you believe and why you believe it.

Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding. If you can't, or won't, then I can only assume that you have no case or reason to hold your position.

The biggest hurdle to overcome here is to provide an understandable definition of "God." Your current explanation of "God" is incoherent because it revolves around this term "supernatural." The "supernatural" is, by definition, outside of our knowledge.

I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true. So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true. If you can't, then I can only dismiss your charge of incoherency as a result of purely philosophical prejudice or mere personal incredulity.

Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is. The following excerpt describes the problem in greater detail.

Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid. (See previous rebuttal).

"Consider the nature of an explanation. An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one's knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one's conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension."

"The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one's present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An expla- nation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one's conceptual frame of reference.

While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible. Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man's consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowble, that which is beyond man's comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a "supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable."

(From Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, page 229.)

That entire line of reasoning is based on two unsupported assertions: 1) If something is supernatural, it is "unknowable", and 2) Naturalism is true. - I have been given no reason to believe that either assertion is valid and therefore, I have no reason to believe the conclusion drawn from the assertions, is true.

So, to be clear, calling "God" the "supernatural" creator of the universe is not an understandable description of what "God" actually is, and it never will be. Before you can show that this thing exists, you have explain what it is.

Only if we accept the unsupported assertions. (See previous rebuttals).

####Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive.#### etc.

So the there are different types of slavery? If so, what type of slavery would you find morally acceptable?

As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". It still "technically" may be the case that someone can be labelled a "slave" if they are not paid a monetary wage, but I do not think the label would be worth much. In this context, I see nothing wrong with someone working for another as long as they are: 1) treated unabusively, 2) have all physical needs provided for, and 3) given reasonable work tasks.

Here are two quotes from the Bible which touch on the subject of slavery:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a "possession forever". Is this a good form of slavery?

Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Christian god-Exodus 21:20

In this quote, the biblical god tells slave masters that they may beat their slaves to death and not get punished.

I thinks it rather obvious that you convienently did not mention the fact that the Scripture does not *tell* masters to beat their slaves, nor does it say it is "moral" to do so. In fact, the exact opposite is said. Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context. For example, there was not a McDonald's on every corner or a grocery store on every block. The labor produced by slaves back in these ancient times enabled survival for not only the slaves themselves, but the families of the community as well. Of course, we wouldn't expect a hyper-modernist that lives in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (like yourself) to even comprehend what it was like to survive in ancient times or the amount of work that was necessary just to support a local community.

This god describes slaves-human beings-as "money." Is this a good form of slavery?

It is not an insult nor a put-down - it is a FACT that slaves function as money to the master. If the master had no slaves, he had no laborers. If he had no labors, he had no products (such as food, vegetables, textiles, etc.) If he had no products, he had nothing to sell or trade. If he had nothing to sell or trade, he had no money. It's as simple as that. To add a further thought on this which is relevant to our modern times - "employees" of ANY company can be considered "money" to the company. Without the employees' labor, the company would have no way of producing a product or service, and therefore, could not make money. It is in the context of this basic principle that God described slaves as "money".

In other places in the Bible, a master may force a slave to become his wife, and women and children can be separated and sold off to others. This is condoned by the biblical god. Slaves are gathered during war raids on villages by the Christian god's chosen people, with this god's blessing.

Without the specific scripture, I have no way of knowing whether or not it actually says that a master could "force" a slave to become his wife. If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned. There is no mention of God approving of "forced" labor. No where in the Bible did God give laws or instructions on how a master should "punish" a slave that escaped and was recaptured, or that was taking refuge. In fact, God instructed to do the opposite:

Deuteronomy 23:15,16: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. [16] Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."

But of course, I couldn't expect you do mention that verse now could I?

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.###

What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be "perfect"?

I am talking of God's fundamental moral laws - the 10 Commandments. They are "perfect" in terms of being "totally complete". I judge them to be so by observing the fact that every single one of them was designed for mankind's good. God's moral laws are not arbitrary because they all are conducive to mankind's survival as a family, society, and race. They serve practical purposes and create civil order in a community.

I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

Are there any Jews or Hindus in heaven? Please explain. (You can hold off on these questions because I see I am expanding the number of topics we are discussing. I just can't let this claim go unquestioned.)

It is not my ability or place to answer such questions. Only God could answer that question.

#### Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.####

So if someone or something creates life, this thing or being is somehow above morality, just on principle?

No, not unless that being is *GOD* to whom all life belongs.

If "God" created endless generations of puppy dogs and kittens and tortures them to death for trillions of years, is it "logically impossible" to call "God" immoral?

I do not understand this question at all, nor can I see how it could be considered relevant to anything we are talking about. It is meaningless to begin on a downward tirade into the depths of "what ifs". We could play around with "what if" hypotheticals for all eternity and resolve absolutely nothing.

####The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood.####

Really?

Yes.

Genesis 6:13: "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them..."

Genesis 6:17 "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die."

Genesis 7:4 "For in seven days I will send rain upon upon the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."

Genesis 7:17-8:1 "The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."

How do you reconcile your claim that this was a "local" flood with what is written in the Bible itself? How can a local flood cover all the mountains and kill everything on the earth?

The Hebrew word for "earth" used in all of those verses you just quoted is: "h'adamah", which means = ground. The Hebrew word for "earth" when applied to the actual "entire world" is always notated with a "polysyndeton" which is a repitition at the beginning of successive clauses. However, the same Hebrew word ("h'adamah") (earth) is used to speak of local regions but is notated with a "Asyndeton", which lacks the emphasized repitition.

When the Flood account in Genesis records that "all" perished, it was not referring to "all" on the "entire earth," (polysyndeton) but rather, all in that ground or that part of the "earth". (asyndeton). This is supported by the context of Genesis chapter 6, as well as other passages. For instance, in Luke 17:26-29, Jesus likens the "days of Noah" with the "days of Lot". In each case, the people experienced a catastrophe which "destroyed them *all*". Yet, everyone acknowledges that "in the days of Lot" *all* the people on earth were not destroyed, only "all" the people in Sodom were. Likewise, "all" the people in the Flood were destroyed, not all the people on the "entire earth". The usage of the word "earth" and it's respective meaning is contingient upon the notative context in which the word appears. There is no notative context for "earth" to mean the entire earth in Genesis 6, 7. Therefore, the biblical flood as described in the Bible can only be understood as a massive local flood. Acknowledging this fact nullifies all of the other problems that your webpage cited, such as Ark size, animals, etc. The only animals in need of preservation would have been the animals that were local to Noah's region (Which was to be affected by the Flood).

CHEERS,

BRANDON

Subj: need to confirm definition
Date: 3/28/2001 8:08:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

#### I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true. So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true. ####

I am going to respond in greater detail to your last e-mail, but first I need to confirm what your defintion of "supernatural" is. I looked through your previous e-mails, and the only definition that you provided for "supernatural" appears to be this:

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

If you have a more expansive definition for "supernatural" that you would like to provide or that I have somehow missed, please let me know what it is.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: need to confirm definition
Date: 3/28/2001 11:25:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I am going by the standard definition of supernatural. Here it is:

supernatural (s¡´per-nàch´er-el) adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this helps.

Brandon

Subj: comments and questions-minor correction
Date: 3/30/2001 3:09:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I initially wanted to focus on just one or two topics, but I wasn't successful. Maybe next time around.

####Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding.####

I am without a belief in a god or gods primarily because god-believers have not provided coherent descriptions of what such things are, nor have they been able to provide compelling reasons why I should believe in such things.

####So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true.####

It is obvious that the natural world exists. You accept that it exists. Are you asking me to prove that the supernatural does NOT exist? That is asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible in any case, but especially in this case since you have not adequately defined what the supernatural is.

####I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true.####

But how can anyone know about anything outside or beyond the natural universe?

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

And, therefore, beyond human understanding.

I agree that this “definition” does gives *some* linguistic meaning to the term “supernatural,” but it does not tell us what the supernatural actually IS. It tells us what it is NOT. You have criticised my objection to negative definitions, but your criticism only demonstrates my point----

####This is just a "flip-wilson" semantics tactic that can be turned on itself. For example, if we used your standard evenly, "natural" would have to be considered a negative attribute since it would mean: NOT supernatural, but "natural", NOT nonbiological, but "biological". "Natural" would be telling us what humanity *isn't*, not what it actually IS. What you described is a bad standard because it is based on word games and term-twisting.####

It should be clear that this is NOT how we define nature or biology-we can not “define” them that way-so your objection is a straw man. You are simply creating double-negatives and demonstrating my point, yet again, that negative definitions are useless. Stating that “natural” means “NOT supernatural” (NOT not-natural) is incoherent. Telling me that “biological” means “NOT nonbiological” is incomprehensible since it simply negates the word in question.

You provided a second definition of “supernatural” in response to my last e-mail, for which I thank you:

####1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.####

Once again, this is a negative definition-the supernatural is NOT natural. Does anything actually exist outside of the natural world? This is the whole matter under discussion, so using this as a definition is simply circular.

####2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.####

Same problem.

#### 3. Of or relating to a deity.####

Remember that the reason why we are trying to understand what “supernatural” means is because you have used it as a key word in your description of “God.” Therefore, this is simply circular.

ME: Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is.

YOU: Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid.

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about when you speak of the supernatural, so I stand by my statement.

~excerpt from book~

####That entire line of reasoning is based on two unsupported assertions: 1) If something is supernatural, it is "unknowable", and 2) Naturalism is true. - I have been given no reason to believe that either assertion is valid and therefore, I have no reason to believe the conclusion drawn from the assertions, is true.####

You have not explicitly defined the term “supernatural,” much less demonstrated that the supernatural exists, or that it is inherently “knowable.” Therefore, your objection is premature.

I know that you think I am just playing word games here, but I am not. This is a critically important point. We cannot argue about the existence or non-existence of something until such time as we know what it actually is. Theists have struggled with the issue of what “God” is for centuries and have still not come up with a good explanation of it. Some have admitted the obvious-that “God” is unknowable-while others have developed exceedingly esoteric and abstruse descriptions that seem designed only to confuse people. If theologians cannot explain what they believe in, why should anyone listen to them?

ME: In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a "possession forever". Is this a good form of slavery?

YOU: Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

So you think it is okay for people to be held against their will and forced to work without pay for their entire lives?

#### As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". ####

Slave owners who did not give their slaves food and shelter wouldn’t be able to get any work out of them because they would die. I don’t understand what your point it.

####Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context.####

I would say that you are failing to interpret the Bible in its cultural context.

#### For example, there was not a McDonald's on every corner or a grocery store on every block. The labor produced by slaves back in these ancient times enabled survival for not only the slaves themselves, but the families of the community as well. Of course, we wouldn't expect a hyper-modernist that lives in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (like yourself) to even comprehend what it was like to survive in ancient times or the amount of work that was necessary just to support a local community.####

What would you say to the Christian slave holders who, during the last 17 centuries, used exactly the same arguments to justify slavery in Europe and America?

####Without the employees' labor, the company would have no way of producing a product or service, and therefore, could not make money. It is in the context of this basic principle that God described slaves as "money".####

Please note the REAL context of this quote. “God” says that a man may beat his slave to death and not get punished for it. Why? “God” tells us it is specifically because “the slave is his money.” Regarding your analogy of slavery to employment in the modern world: How many companies in America allow managers to force captive people to work, without pay, and then to beat them to to death?

####If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned.####

If “God” really felt this way about slavery, then why did he tell the Israelites that they could own slaves “forever” by passing slaves down to their children?

Why does Jesus incorporate slavery into his parables and NEVER speak out against it?

ME: I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

YOU: Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

And, what, exactly, are the means by which one resolves one’s “condition of sin”? Is it possible for one to “resolve” one’s “condition of sin” without believing in “God”?

In response to my question about “God’s” murder of women and children in the Bible, you explained that the “giver (of) life has the right to be the taker of life as well.” Who gives “God” that right? Can “God” torture and murder anyone he/she/it wants to without anyone calling “God” immoral? How does that work? If parents toss their toddlers off cliffs, can we excuse their actions because “the giver of life has the right to be the taker of life”? If not, then why are things different with “God”?

I am a little confused about the idea of the biblical flood being a local event. The Bible says that “God” created the flood because “the earth (Middle East) was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth (Middle East) was filled with violence. And God saw the earth (Middle East), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Middle East).” (RSV, Genesis 6:11.) So things were only corrupt and violent in the Middle East? God wiped out only the people in the Middle East, but left the rest of the people on the planet to go about their lives because they had not become corrupt? Is that an accurate description? Also, please tell me when, exactly, this great Middle East flood took place. Thank you.

YOU: No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.

ME: What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be "perfect"?

YOU: I am talking of God's fundamental moral laws - the 10 Commandments. They are "perfect" in terms of being "totally complete". I judge them to be so by observing the fact that every single one of them was designed for mankind's good. God's moral laws are not arbitrary because they all are conducive to mankind's survival as a family, society, and race. They serve practical purposes and create civil order in a community.

I don’t think these laws are “perfect” and I will explain why:

“You shall have no other gods before me.”

This goes against the freedom of worship, something which we value in our society. In this country, people of differing faiths can all worship without the fear of being persecuted. If you study history, you can see how Christians who were trying to enforce this commandment persecuted and killed Jews, Muslims and other Christians.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”

Looks like all the churches with religious icons are in big trouble.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Same rule as first one, with a twist. God will hurt the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who don’t worship him. Where is the justice in that?

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”

What does this mean, anyway? If I strike my finger with a hammer and say “goddamn it!” have I committed a sin?

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”

Saturday, right? Do you keep Saturday holy? If we are to follow this Exodus rule then should we stone to death anyone who works on a Saturday? The following excerpt from another web page expands on this idea:

“What punishment do decalogue displayers recommend for those who do not keep the Sabbath day holy? Should everyone who works on the Sabbath be put to death, as the Lord commands (Exodus 31:12-17), even for kindling a fire (Exodus 35:1-3)? And how about death by stoning for anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? Will decalogue displayers cast the first stones?”

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.”

So are people who work on Saturday or Sunday violating a “perfect” moral rule? One good thing here, though, is that slaves get a rest.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

What if your parents are incestuous child abusers?

"You shall not murder.

What is murder? What is justified or unjustified killing? According to the OT, people who pick up sticks on Saturday or children who talk back to their parents must be killed. Is that murder? When is killing justified and when is it not justified?

From the same previously cited web page:

“Does this commandment mean ‘kill’ or ‘murder’? Since the Hebrew word used here means either to kill or to murder, how can we know which is meant? Does it apply to abortion? suicide? war? capital punishment? euthanasia? Does this commandment, like its counterpart in Buddhism, forbid the killing of animals? Whatever it may mean, it did not prevent Moses and the Levites from slaughtering about 3,000 of their own sons and brothers for worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28), even though the people did not yet know the law against idolatry on the tablets Moses was bringing down the mountain. Would decalogue displayers go so far as to punish people on the basis of laws not yet in effect? Would that be ‘a fair and just society’?”

"You shall not commit adultery.

Well, it is almost always a bad idea, but at least it is between two consenting adults. If this ranks as one of the ten big ones, where is the commandment against incest and rape? This commandment brings up the question of polygamy. All the OT heroes have dozens of concubines and wives. Apparently a married man can sleep with as many women as possible. In the "historical" context of multiple wives and concubines, what would actually constitute adultery?

"You shall not steal.

The Israelites stole from their neighbors. They also murdered them and forced them into slavery, all with “God’s” blessings. So this rule is hypocritical.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”

This is a good rule.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

How is it possible to prevent desires and feelings anyway? Also, it is quite interesting that we should not covet our neighbors slaves. Is this rule applicable today, in our hyper-modern society?

I know I have asked a lot of questions, but this is because your claims seem to be either unclear or contradictory. Feel free to ask me any questions if I seem to be unclear or contradictory.

Thank you for your time.

Brooks

Subj: Re: moving out west
Date: 4/2/2001 9:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi Brooks,

Just wanted to let you know that I will be offline for about a week becauseI am moving to Nevada this week. I will respond to your latest message onceI get set up at the new place.

Have a great week. Godspeed,

Brandon

Subj: back online
Date: 4/12/2001 11:27:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Brooks)

Brooks,

Just a note to let you know that I am finally back online. I am going to work on responding to your last message so you should have it within the next day or so. My new email address is: XXXXXX

Thanks,

Brandon

Subj: Fw: comments and questions-minor correction
Date: 4/14/2001 11:00:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Brooks)

Brooks,

I initially wanted to focus on just one or two topics, but I wasn't successful. Maybe next time around.

* No problem.

####Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding.####

I am without a belief in a god or gods primarily because god-believers have not provided coherent descriptions of what such things are, nor have they been able to provide compelling reasons why I should believe in such things.

*So your "reason" in essence is you feel that theists have not provided sufficient "reason" to believe. Theists do in fact have sufficient reason to believe in God and this is the very thing that I will present.

####So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true.####

It is obvious that the natural world exists. You accept that it exists. Are you asking me to prove that the supernatural does NOT exist?

*No. Naturalism is not simply the a belief that natural things exist.Naturalism is a philosophy which categorically assumes ALL events, actions, reactions, causes, effects, etc., are exclusively confined to, and explicable only within, the terms of purely natural laws. This is quite a grandiloquent position considering less than .000000000000000001% of all phenomena in the universe is observed.

That is asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible in any case,

*That's not what I am asking you.

... but especially in this case since you have not adequately defined what the supernatural is.

*I have now defined supernaturalism three times, including a direct excerpt from the dictionary. You only consider this to be inadequate because of your unrelenting insistence on writing the definition off as nondescriptive or confusing it with the word "unnatural".

####I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true.####

But how can anyone know about anything outside or beyond the natural universe?

*The definition of supernatural says nothing about "knowing" something. "Knowing" implies that something is 100% factual. There are very few things in the natural sciences that are 100% factual. When you get into the origin sciences, the percentages drop even further. We do not "know" that the universe came to be as the result of a violent Big Bang, but most of the residual evidence within the universe supports such a conclusion. Likewise, we do not "know" that God supernaturally created the universe, but the residual evidence within the universe supports such a conclusion.

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

And, therefore, beyond human understanding.

*You have yet to support this assumption.

I agree that this "definition" does gives *some* linguistic meaning to the term "supernatural," but it does not tell us what the supernatural actually IS.

*Yes it did. It seems that you are demanding that supernaturalism meet an objectist definition requirement. But Supernaturalism is not an object, like a pencil. Therefore, such an objectist requirement is false. Supernaturalism is a state of existence that transcends the physical realm, and it is positively defined accordingly.

It tells us what it is NOT. You have criticized my objection to negative definitions, but your criticism only demonstrates my point----

*Apparently, you don't understand the differences between the prefixes "un" and "super", since your entire argument is against the word "unnatural", not "supernatural".

[SNIP]

####1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.####

Once again, this is a negative definition-the supernatural is NOT natural.

*See previous response.

Does anything actually exist outside of the natural world? This is the whole matter under discussion, so using this as a definition is simply circular.

*Since whether or not anything exists outside the natural world is the whole matter under discussion, your support of naturalism would be equally circular, would it not?

Same problem.

*See previous rebuttals.

Remember that the reason why we are trying to understand what "supernatural" means is because you have used it as a key word in your description of "God". Therefore, this is simply circular.

*This is the dictionary's definition of supernatural, not mine. I given it three times because you've repeatedly asked for unnecessary clarifications.

ME: Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is.

YOU: Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid.

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about when you speak of the supernatural, so I stand by my statement.

*No, *you* have demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between the definitions "unnatural" and "supernatural". Therefore, it is safe to say that you do not know what you are criticizing or what word your arguments actually are against.

You have not explicitly defined the term "supernatural," much less demonstrated that the supernatural exists, or that it is inherently "knowable." Therefore, your objection is premature.

*One can only ponder what you consider to be "explicitly defined". I disagree that my objection is premature because I have "explicitly defined" supernaturalism three times for you, including a direct excerpt from the dictionary. You are voluntarily choosing to obfuscate the provided definition by fallaciously mangling it with the term "unnatural".

I know that you think I am just playing word games here, but I am not. This is a critically important point. We cannot argue about the existence or non-existence of something until such time as we know what it actually is.

*Agreed. However, there is nothing wrong with the definition of "supernatural" as I have supplied it.

Theists have struggled with the issue of what "God" is for centuries and have still not come up with a good explanation of it.

*This is your personal judgment based on your personal perception, not fact. I do not see theists "struggling" with the issue of theology. Certainly, many theist thinkers have pondered differing ideas as they relate to the incommunicable attributes of God, but that in no way means that *none* of their explanations were good. It seems that you have a naive "all or nothing" standard for theistic explanations.

Some have admitted the obvious-that "God" is unknowable-while others have developed exceedingly esoteric and abstruse descriptions that seem designed only to confuse people.

*It would be "obvious that God is unknowable" *only* if we first accept your ridiculous assumption that only natural things are "knowable". Indeed, you have no merits for such a sweeping assumption, but if you do, I ask you to present them in detail.

If theologians cannot explain what they believe in, why should anyone listen to them?

*Since theologians can explain what they believe in, and have done so countless times throughout the ages, people should listen to them.

YOU: Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

So you think it is okay for people to be held against their will and forced to work without pay for their entire lives?

*Nothing in that scripture states that anybody was held against their will. You are inserting your own words into the passage and then proceeding to criticize your own straw man. Try again.

#### As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". ####

Slave owners who did not give their slaves food and shelter wouldn't be able to get any work out of them because they would die. I don't understand what your point it.

*Not true. If a master did not give the slaves food or shelter, it is tenable that the slaves would fend for themselves. However, my point is that in ancient times (such as the Bronze age), food, clothing, and shelter were considered almost as valuable as money (coins). Since slaves received food, clothing, and shelter, it can be said that their labors were not without some form of payment.

####Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context.####

I would say that you are failing to interpret the Bible in its cultural context.

*No, you have it backwards. You are interpreting slavery in the context of our modern society (with the moral issues it would induce today) and applying it to three-thousand-year-old cultures as if they are comparable to our modern society. Obviously, that is a problematic approach.

What would you say to the Christian slave holders who, during the last 17 centuries, used exactly the same arguments to justify slavery in Europe and America?

*First of all, it is readily apparent that you are deliberately singling out "Christian" slave holders in order to create a stigma. However, it should be noted that slavery is a system that has existed in all parts of the world and has been employed by many different religious cultures. Also, there have been atheist slave holders in history as well. With that clarification enacted, I submit that *any* slave holder in the last 17 centuries who used the argument (observation) I presented would be painfully ignorant of how communities were supported in the Bronze, Copper, Iron, and Stone ages. Furthermore, since such individuals of the past 17 centuries did not live in such primitive times as did the ancient Israelites, they're appeal to the arguments would fail.

Please note the REAL context of this quote. "God" says that a man may beat his slave to death and not get punished for it. Why? "God" tells us it is specifically because "the slave is his money."

*This is almost a comical spectacle of gross misinterpretation and outright scripture mangling. I suggest you diversify your biblical readings to incorporate a variety of translational versions. Here is what the passage is saying. (NIV)

EXODUS 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, [21] but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

*According to the NIV (a better rendition), the passage does not say anything about the master killing a slave and getting away with it. It says the opposite (see verse 20). The passage says that the master should not be punished if the slave does not die and is healthy (gets up) after a day or two. Perhaps you'd care to recant your latest misinterpretation?

Regarding your analogy of slavery to employment in the modern world: How many companies in America allow managers to force captive people to work, without pay, and then to beat them to death?

*See previous rebuttals.

####If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned.####

If "God" really felt this way about slavery, then why did he tell the Israelites that they could own slaves "forever" by passing slaves down to their children?

*Slaves also had children, and their children had children. After a while, generations of the owners and slaves would continue to live together. It is feasible that the slaves became "part of the family" heritage, if you will. That is all this scripture is describing. This simple fact in no way negates the reality that slaves were free to come and go.

Why does Jesus incorporate slavery into his parables and NEVER speak out against it?

*Slavery was somewhat rare in the time of Christ as they were living in the pinnacle of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, a parable is simply a make-believe story that is contrived in order to illustrate a greater principle. Therefore, the subject matter of the parables is not to be taken literally, but only the principles they espouse.

ME: I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

YOU: Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

And, what, exactly, are the means by which one resolves one's "condition of sin"? Is it possible for one to "resolve" one's "condition of sin" without believing in "God"?

*God has offered the solution to sin through the atoning work of Jesus. This is what Christianity is all about. Also, it is not possible to accept the saving message (which resolves sin) if one does not believe in the messenger, now is it?

In response to my question about "God's" murder of women and children in the Bible,

*Actually, God cannot "murder" anyone. Murder is a legal definition that applies to a certain human-to-human societal relationship. For example, a tornado, a tree falling, or a meteor cannot "murder" a person, nor can an infinite God. (But you are free to beg your own questions if you'd like).

... you explained that the "giver (of) life has the right to be the taker of life as well." Who gives "God" that right?

*God, by definition (the supreme Creator) is not "given" "rights" in the first place. God as a perfect being already possesses all "rights" and therefore, is himself the giver and taker of all "rights".

Can "God" can torture and murder anyone he/she/it wants to without anyone calling "God" immoral? How does that work?

*See previous two responses.

If parents toss their toddlers off cliffs, can we excuse their actions because "the giver of life has the right to be the taker of life"? If not, then why are things different with "God"?

*It seems that you are committing the age-old atheist error of demoting God to the level of being just another finite creature (like humans) and proceeding to criticize him morally based on that false categorization. (Also, human parents can only procreate, not create life like God, so your analogy fails to apply to God. Since our capabilities to procreate have also come from God, God also owns all life that is produced from the reproductive systems he created).

I am a little confused about the idea of the biblical flood being a local event. The Bible says that "God" created the flood because "the earth (Middle East) was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth (Middle East) was filled with violence. And God saw the earth (Middle East), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Middle East)." (RSV, Genesis 6:11.) So things were only corrupt and violent in the Middle East?

*You are not reading the Genesis account accurately. The account does not state that God brought judgment because things were simply "corrupt" or "violent". The Genesis account states that the wickedness in Noah's land was "exceedingly wicked". Consider:

GENESIS 6:5 - The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

God wiped out only the people in the Middle East, but left the rest of the people on the planet to go about their lives because they had not become corrupt? Is that an accurate description?

*No, God judged the people in Noah's area because in that part of the earth, wickedness had grown to be "very great". This doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world were perfect or not corrupt. (Another example of your "all or nothing" mentality). It simply means that their corruptions were not severe enough to warrant such severe judgment.

Also, please tell me when, exactly, this great Middle East flood took place. Thank you.

*The date of the flood (based on the genealogies) was around 2550 B.C. There is geological evidence of a massive flood from that time which effected the entire Tarim Basin near India. (which is close to where Noah lived)

I don't think these laws are "perfect" and I will explain why:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

This goes against the freedom of worship, something which we value in our society. In this country, people of differing faiths can all worship without the fear of being persecuted. If you study history, you can see how Christians who were trying to enforce this commandment persecuted and killed Jews, Muslims and other Christians.

*Freedom to worship a God that is not the true God would freedom of idolatry. Assuming that Yahweh is the true God, (which you are for argument sake, right?) it would have been an act of permitting deception if God was to allow people to believe in false gods and worship them as if they were true. So your criticism does not damage the first commandment at all, but in fact illustrates its moral value. Secondly, Jews, Muslims, and atheists (Joseph Stalin) have killed millions of Christians, so your attempt at stigmatizing Christians *once again* fails miserably and can be rendered moot.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

Looks like all the churches with religious icons are in big trouble.

*There was no such thing as an "idol" that was not worshipped at the time that God gave this commandment. This commandment in principle is closely related to the first which says that false gods (idols) are not to be worshipped. I don't know of any churches that "worship" the symbol of the cross, but if they do, I would agree that they are violating this commandment.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Same rule as first one, with a twist. God will hurt the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who don't worship him. Where is the justice in that?

*Actually, this isn't one of the 10 commandments. It is additional detail for the second commandment. Furthermore, the punishments for breaking God's moral laws were implemented with a ripple effect. This was an attribute that was given as a deterrent to those who may have considered violating the law in Israel. This was a specific severity that applied to the Israelites of that time only because they were living under a theocracy with theocratic stipulations.

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

What does this mean, anyway? If I strike my finger with a hammer and say "goddamn it!" have I committed a sin?

*This commandment addressed the issue of respecting the name of God. A similar law exists in America today since it is illegal to burn the American flag. (showing disrespect) Nothing you've said challenges the validity or value of this law.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy."<P>

Saturday, right? Do you keep Saturday holy?

*It may or may not be Saturday, depending on whether you use the Georgian, Roman, or Jewish calendars going back through time. (The Jewish calendars do not correspond to ancient Israel's calendar of feasts, BTW)

If we are to follow this Exodus rule then should we stone to death anyone who works on a Saturday?

*No, you are once again mangling theocratic law with the 10 commandments, which are moral law. Do you even know that there are three different types of law given in the old testament? There is no commandment (in the 10 commandments) that says: "Thou shalt stone transgressors of the Sabbath". You are confusing two different laws that have two different contexts and two different applications.

The following excerpt from another web page expands on this idea:

"What punishment do decalogue displayers recommend for those who do not keep the Sabbath day holy? Should everyone who works on the Sabbath be put to death, as the Lord commands (Exodus 31:12-17), even for kindling a fire (Exodus 35:1-3)? And how about death by stoning for anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? Will decalogue displayers cast the first stones?"

*As would be expected, this skeptical chestnut bounces around in the bible, and isolates passages outside of their contexts while playing 5-minute bible scholar. Those passages quoted simply explain that under theocratic rule, there was capital punishment for Israelites who broke this commandment. Nothing you've said shows that God had no right to make this law, or that the Israelites had no ability to follow it. Therefore, there is nothing "imperfect" about this commandment.

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."

So are people who work on Saturday or Sunday violating a "perfect" moral rule?

*The 6th commandment had different applications throughout history, but the underlying principle of "resting" one day of the week should be followed. It is good for man to rest from work and people who don't are violating the principle of the Sabbath law.

One good thing here, though, is that slaves get a rest.

*In ancient times, the families who owned the slaves worked too, by the way. (Perhaps you have an exclusively southern, aristocratic, American, 19th-century-plantation view of slavery?)

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."

What if your parents are incestuous child abusers?

*What if the sky is green? Do we make laws based on the exceptions or the rules? Perhaps we should have no speed limits on our streets because on rare occasions a man may need to speed his laboring wife to the hospital? You see, your tact here is a worthless pursuit that leads to a logical dead-end. Do you really want to begin on a downward tirade into the depths of "what ifs"? I don't. But I do know that laws are based on the rule of society, not the exceptions.

"You shall not murder."

What is murder? What is justified or unjustified killing? According to the OT, people who pick up sticks on Saturday or children who talk back to their parents must be killed. Is that murder? When is killing justified and when is it not justified?

*Murder is when one human deliberately takes the life of another human for no reason. A tree cannot murder, a dog cannot murder, a flood cannot murder, nor can God.

From the same previously cited web page:

"Does this commandment mean "kill" or "murder"? Since the Hebrew word used here means either to kill or to murder, how can we know which is meant? Does it apply to abortion? suicide? war? capital punishment? euthanasia? Does this commandment, like its counterpart in Buddhism, forbid the killing of animals? Whatever it may mean, it did not prevent Moses and the Levites from slaughtering about 3,000 of their own sons and brothers for worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28), even though the people did not yet know the law against idolatry on the tablets Moses was bringing down the mountain. Would decalogue displayers go so far as to punish people on the basis of laws not yet in effect? Would that be "fair and just society?"

*God did not have to disclose any laws to anyone at any time in order to either give or take life. All life comes from God and all life belongs to God, regardless of anything else. God does not owe anybody anything. The laws God disclosed to Moses were an act of grace. Once again, this commentary falls prey to the ancient atheist error of miscategorizing God to the role and stature of a fallible human and proceeding to criticize his actions based on that demotion. Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning.

"You shall not commit adultery."

Well, it is almost always a bad idea,

*No, it is ALWAYS a bad idea.

... but at least it is between two consenting adults. If this ranks as one of the ten big ones, where is the commandment against incest and rape?

*Adultery is not defined strictly as marital unfaithfulness. Adultery was a fluid, all-inclusive term that applied to all acts of sexual misconduct, including incest and rape.

This commandment brings up the question of polygamy. All the OT heroes have dozens of concubines and wives. Apparently a married man can sleep with as many women as possible. In the "historical" context of multiple wives and concubines, what would actually constitute adultery?

*Polygamy is a form of marriage so cannot be considered sexual misconduct, nor is there evidence that every wife or concubine was slept with. The Bible did not approve or disapprove of polygamy but simply records that it occurred. But we do know that God did not design the family unit to be polygamous:

GENESIS 2:24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Therefore, polygamy is outside of God's will and should not be practiced.

"You shall not steal.

The Israelites stole from their neighbors. They also murdered them and forced them into slavery, all with "God's" blessings. So this rule is hypocritical.

*laughs* So you are basically claiming that this rule is wrong by appealing to it! Obviously, you are alluding that it was not right for the Israelites to have "stolen" from their neighbors, which only demonstrates that you support this commandment ! Furthermore, God is not bound by any human laws he has ordained, so there is nothing hypocritical about this rule.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

This is a good rule.

*So are all the others if we weed out all of your false criticisms.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

How is it possible to prevent desires and feelings anyway? Also, it is quite interesting that we should not covet our neighbors slaves. Is this rule applicable today, in our hyper-modern society?

*Covet means to "long after". This law is commanding that we should not long after other people's things. It is quite commonly known that thoughts lead to desires, desires lead to contemplations, and contemplations lead to actions. This command, if followed, eliminates the process that leads to sin early on, so in that regard, it is applicable to us in our hyper-modern society and we'd be far better off as a culture if more people did not covet things that do not belong to them. If everyone followed this law, there would be no such thing as adultery or theft!

I know I have asked a lot of questions, but this is because your claims seem to be either unclear or contradictory. Feel free to ask me any questions if I seem to be unclear or contradictory.

*I don't mind the questions at all, but like you, I want to try to keep this exchange from ballooning into a huge amalgamation of numerous subjects. We should try to narrow it down to just a few topics at a time if possible. But don't let this hinder you from responding to any of the points I've made so far.

Thank you for your time.

*You too.

*Brandon

Subj: two minor corrections
Date: 4/20/2001 2:39:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I am not going to reply to each and every statement you have made, but I will instead concentrate on two or three topics.

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.####

The very first one of these rules is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. So if someone was of the *opinion* that this god was not real and therefore did not worship it, this person would necessarily qualify as a “transgressor” against “God’s perfect moral laws” and would be sent to hell. Therefore one can indeed be sent to hell simply for one’s opinion.

It is unclear how it is possible to call these rules “perfect moral laws” Among the Ten Commandments there is a rule against swearing, along with a rule that one must honor one’s mother and father, and a rule against working on Saturday. I am unable to understand why violating these rules deserve eternal torture. If one does not honor one’s sexually abusive parents, (does this lack of respect deserve infinite punishment)? If a person says “goddamn it,” will that person go to hell? If a person works at a day care center or a hospital on a Saturday, does this warrant eternal torture? If you hedge and say these rules are not absolute, then how can they be “perfect”? How do we know when it is right to follow them or not to follow them? What if we have to work on a Saturday to feed our families? Will we be barbecued eternally for that? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call these "The Ten Suggestions” rather than "The Ten Commandments.”

ME: And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

YOU: Irrelevant. The existence of ANY god or gods falsifies atheism.

Your original appeal was the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Let’s read it again, shall we?

####We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.####

When I pointed this fallacy out, you attempted to deny that you were using it:

####If you'll notice, I never said that because billions of people believe in God, it is therefore "TRUE".####

You were clearly saying that the popularity of a belief in gods (plural) makes the existence of the Christian “God” (singular) more likely. This is, again, a fallacy. (Your appeal is invalid) for the following reasons:

1. The existence of ANY ONE of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in over the centuries would make Christianity false. It would, of course, “falsify” YOUR atheism in regards to this other god.

2. Most people do not believe in the Christian god and most people have NEVER believed in the Christian god. Your view of the Judeo-Christian god is a minority opinion, so even if the appeal to popular opinion was valid, it would go against your belief system.

3. The popularity appeal, of course, is NOT valid. Even if most people believe in the Christian god, which they do not, this in no way would make it more likely that it exists. At one time everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This, of course, was a mistaken belief.

Your analogy of the legal case where 100 people testify to witnessing a man murdering a woman is not applicable to the existence of the Christian god because you could not bring into court 100 people who have witnessed the Christian god on a soapbox in their town square. If you do want to appeal to “personal experience” as evidence for your “God,” you have to realize that personal experience can only have meaning to the person who has the experience. Furthermore, even if we were to accept claims about supernatural beings based on other people’s personal experience, whose experience would we accept? The Hindus? The Muslims? The Scientologists? Or the Mormons?

The main problem, in any case, is that you have not made clear what it is that you believe.

Throughout the past several e-mails, you have basically told me that there is some sort of entity that exists beyond the universe in some sort of metaphysical, supernatural universe or realm. You have consistently maintained that the supernatural is *beyond* or above nature-which essentially means that it is NOT natural, which means that it is UN-natural. I am still trying to figure out what this metaphysical or supernatural universe actually IS, however. Your statements on the subject are not making it any clearer.

####"Metaphysical" means immaterial, or incorporeal.####

This, again, is a negative definition. This is only telling me that the metaphysical is NOT matter, which is not terribly helpful. This term could also be applied to nothingness.

####Not all aspects of the universe are physical. Take "time" for example. It is an immaterial, incorporeal dimension of the universe.####

Yes, it is a “dimension” of the universe, a “dimension” of matter. Time and matter are inseparable, for time exists only insofar as it is a measure of the change in matter. Time cannot exist in a vacuum, nor can, say, the color “orange,” which is also immaterial. Earlier you said that “God” was timeless, besides being immaterial. These two terms also apply to nothingness, of course. My question now becomes this: How can “God” be distinguished from absolute nothingness? How can something “exist” outside of time and matter and still be said to exist in a way in which the term “exist” can be said to retain some measure of cognitive meaning? If “God” is NOT made out of atoms and molecules, then just what does he consist of?

####Furthermore, superstring theory posits the existence of *10 or more* active dimensions in the universe, only 3 of which are "physical". (width, height, and depth).####

This sure sounds impressive. Perhaps there are these other “dimensions” of the natural universe, maybe not. But what does this have to do with this mysterious, supernatural realm you keep referring to? By the way, does one have to earn a PhD in astrophysics to be a Christian?

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product. Therefore, since the universe contains these fundamental attribtutes of intelligent design, it is *more likely* that the cause of the universe was an intelligent designer, as opposed to some blind, natural phenomena.####

This is so generalized that it is hard to understand what, specifically, it is that you think manifests evidence of intelligent design. Snowflakes can be described as ordered, structured and complex, but does “God” individually craft all the snowflakes? Do you believe that “God” manufactures stars and planets and biological organisms? Or do you think that it is possible for these things to form through the operation of natural processes? Does “God” have to herd atoms and molecules around to somehow prevent them from acting outside the boundaries of their physical properties?

I must re-emphasize that positing some undefined, complex, ordered, structured “supernatural” entity as being responsible for the complexity, order and structure of the universe begs the question of who or what is responsible for the complexity, order and structure of this designer.

ME: Furthermore, once one posits an intelligent designer, one has to explain what designed the designer. A designer would be more complex than it creation, and thus, if complexity requires intelligent designer, the designer of the universe would also require a creator.

YOU: No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientfic basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

To being with, the premise of your argument-that complexity, order, and structure all require a designer-remains an assumption. You have not demonstrated that these somewhat generalized qualities actually require a conscious intelligent designer. Making an analogy between known-to-be designed objects and, say, planets, stars or people does not work because we do in fact understand how these natural entities can arise through natural molecular, chemical and biological processes. In any case, you end up discarding your undemonstrated premise once you have taken it as far as it will go and it becomes problematical. You disown it, saying that it just doesn’t apply to your “metaphysical” universe, a never never land where anything goes. This is very convenient, but once you resort to this, you leave the realm of rational discussion. ANYONE can appeal to the illogic of a “supernatural” realm to excuse any absolutely any absurd claim.

Furthermore, you unreasonably-and fallaciously-shift the burden of proof. You suddenly put the onus of responsibility on me to disprove some aspect of this mysterious, undefined, unsupported, supernatural, metaphysical realm you kept referring to. You have not yet described, in any coherent manner, what this strange universe actually IS, where it is, much less WHY you believe in it in the first place (except to appeal to the idea that "structure" and "complexity" require a designer-and then running away from this argument when it ends up biting its own tail). In any case, science does not deal with nebulous “metaphysical” universes. Science only deals with the natural, known universe, so your request is doubly pointless.

You have defined the supernatural in negations, and you have defined “God” in negations, calling it “timeless” and “immaterial.” I have repeatedly explained to you that defining “God” this way is useless. I do not understand why this is unclear to you. To demonstrate, let’s try to apply the terms you have used to define this mysterious “God” to everyday living entities. Let’s call a puppy “timeless” and “immaterial.” Can we, in any way, understand what a “timeless,” “immaterial” puppy would be? Can those terms, in principle, have any meaning when they are used in conjunction with any biological organism? No, the only puppies or living entities we are familiar with are physical entities that exist well within the boundaries of time and space. So how can these terms, which, again, are negations, represent the ENTIRE definition of some kind of unknown being that resides in some unfathomable realm? They can’t, and they never will. They are, again, negations and their use to somehow define “God” make “God” indistinguishable from nothingness. If you say that these terms can only have meaning in relation to “God” and the supernatural, then you have put “God” in a class of one, with nothing to compare it to and thus the terms remain empty of any meaning-and “God” remains one big question mark.

Many Christians, of course, accept that language cannot be used to describe “God” since language was developed in and specifically applies to the natural, known universe. Once language is removed from this context, it becomes unintelligible.

I hope that you would try and understand something here. I find this conversation with you interesting. However, it does not seem that there is any common ground that would allow us to actually have a rational discussion. Whenever I try to point out flaws or absurdities in your claims or definitions, you retreat into this bizarre, incomprehensible, supernatural realm and challenge me to disprove your assertions, shifting the burden of proof. When I point out that your claims do not make sense, you say, essentially, that with “God” anything is possible. “God” is metaphysical, you see. Reason, logic, and common sense just do not apply to “God.”

Nor does morality, apparently.

If I point out moral atrocities in the Bible that are consistent with the view that the biblical god is simply a war god of ancient barbarians, you say that this god is above morality and can do whatever he wants. You even go so far as to claim that slavery is really a wonderful institution. If Jesus uses a parable about a slave being whipped in order to teach people about their relationship with “God,” you would have me believe that this is a good thing, something to be accepted by decent, reasonable people.

So, finally, what is the point of all this? You want me to argue against the existence of some sort of metaphysical, amoral being that presumably lives in some sort of supernatural realm. I quite honestly don’t understand what you are talking about, and I cannot begin to imagine how I could ever make enough sense of your claims to talk intelligibly with you about them. I am at a disadvantage, you see. I only live in this universe and know of no other. Unlike you, I cannot understand what an “immaterial,” “timeless” being would be, or how such a thing could possibly “exist” beyond the laws of nature. (Perhaps you could draw a picture of “God” to help me out?) I try, as best I can, to base my understanding of this universe on logic and common sense, and am forced, by the need to be coherent, to use language developed in and relevant to the natural universe. In short, there doesn’t appear to be any way for us to communicate. If you can come up with some way to bridge the gap, however, please do so. If not, we might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Brooks

P.S. This not a critically important point, but earlier you stated that most of the links on my pages were to the Secular Web. Could you tell me what page or pages you used to make this determination?

Subj: Fw: comments and questions-minor correction
Date: 4/25/2001 1:34:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Brooks)

Brooks,

I am not going to reply to each and every statement you have made, but I will instead concentrate on two or three topics.

Okay.

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.###

The very first one of these rules is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. So if someone was of the *opinion* that this god was not real and therefore did not worship it, this person would necessarily qualify as a "transgressor" against "God's perfect moral laws" and would be sent to hell. Therefore one can indeed be sent to hell simply for one's opinion.

This logic does not follow because if someone is sent to hell at all it would be a consequence of God's actual existence, not the person's *opinion* about his existence. An opinion cannot send somebody to hell, but a God can. So it stands to reason that if someone is sent to hell, it would be not be the result of the person's opinion about God's existence, but a result of a person's *deception* regarding God's *non-existence*.

It is unclear how it is possible to call these rules "perfect moral laws". Among the Ten Commandments there is a rule against swearing, along with a rule that one must honor one's mother and father, and a rule against working on Saturday. I am unable to understand why violating these rules deserve eternal torture.

Again, eternal "torture" is an oversimplication of what Hell is. Hell is a state of the total spiritual isolation from God. In life, many have determined that they want to have nothing to do with God. Therefore, in death, God gives them the total separation from Himself that they require. That is in essence what Hell is. I am sorry if it is still unclear to you why God's moral laws are perfect. I went through each of your objections to the commandments and answered them accordingly. Without any further detail other than you stating that it is "unclear", I can only conclude that your nonacceptance of the 10 commandments is the result of a Personal Incredulity fallacy.

If one does not honor one's sexually abusive parents, should a person go to hell? If a person says "goddamn it," will that person go to hell? If a person works at a day care center or a hospital on a Saturday, does this warrant eternal torture? If you hedge and say these rules are not absolute, then how can they be "perfect"? How do we know when it is right to follow them or not to follow them? What if we have to work on a Saturday to feed our families? Will we be barbecued eternally for that? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call these "The Ten Suggestions" rather than "The Ten Commandments."

You are trying to associate Hell with a singular act or violation of the Law. There is no basis for this association. Christian theology has taught for centuries that Hell is the spiritual end-result of a person's constant, continual, life-long rejection God's means of salvation (Jesus Christ). Furthermore, you are making the classic fallacy of dredging up insignificant exceptions in an attempt to override a rule. I already addressed this fallacious reasoning by asking a rhetorical question - "Should we expunge all "Speed limits" from our highways because a man may need to speed is laboring wife to the hospital"?

(Perhaps the next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, you can tell the officer that you should not get a ticket because it was only a 45 mph "suggestion").

Your original appeal was the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Let's read it again, shall we?

No problem, and I'll point out where you stick words in my mouth in order to continue this charge of fallacy.

####We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.####

When I pointed this fallacy out, you attempted to deny that you were using it:

####If you'll notice, I never said that because billions of people believe in God, it is therefore "TRUE".####

You were clearly saying that the popularity of a belief in gods (plural) makes the existence of the Christian "God" (singular) more likely. This is, again, a fallacy.

First of all, I never used the term "gods" (plural) on this particular topic and I CERTAINLY never used it to support "belief in GOD" (singular). You are simply taking what I said out of context. The "argumentum ad populum fallacy" is when someone says: "Billions of people believe X, therefore X is TRUE". I never once stated any such thing.

It is a fallacy for the following reasons:

1. The existence of ANY ONE of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in over the centuries would make Christianity false. It would, of course, "falsify" YOUR atheism in regards to this other god.

Of course, however irrelevant, since such self-evident statements are not being disputed.

2. Most people do not believe in the Christian god and most people have NEVER believed in the Christian god. Your view of the Judeo-Christian god is a minority opinion, so even if the appeal to popular opinion was valid, it would go against your belief system.

I never said anything about popular belief making something TRUE. My entire appeal was to legal evidence. Personal testimony is a powerful legal evidence. The MAJORITY of people that have ever lived on this earth have believed in a God (singular) or GODS (plural). My point was simply to highlight the fact that such massive and categorical consensus suggests that all these billions of people most likely aware of something.

3. The popularity appeal, of course, is NOT valid. Even if most people believe in the Christian god, which they do not, this in no way would make it more likely that it exists.

This has already been addressed.

At one time everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This, of course, was a mistaken belief.

Not true. There were many people who did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. In fact, that belief didn't originate until the rise of the Grecian empire.

Your analogy of the legal case where 100 people testify to witnessing a man murdering a woman is not applicable to the existence of the Christian god....

I NEVER SAID IT WAS. That analogy was used to showcase the fact that "argumentum ad populum" does not apply to the validity or application of LEGAL evidences, which is exactly what my argument was supporting.

...because you could not bring into court 100 people who have witnessed the Christian god on a soapbox in their town square. If you do want to appeal to "personal experience" as evidence for your "God," you have to realize that personal experience can only have meaning to the person who has the experience.

Personal experience does not prove something to be true. However, corroborative experience when held at a sufficient consensus DOES strongly *suggest* that something is more likely TRUE. In fact, it is through the consensus of our experiences that determines all "truth".

Furthermore, even if we were to accept claims about supernatural beings based on other people's personal experience, whose experience would we accept? The Hindus? The Muslims? The Scientologists? Or the Mormons?

Irrelevant. The foundational component of my argument is that *some* type of supernatural, divine being(s) exists. The fundamental argument is not that a car is "blue" or "red", but whether or not ANY car exists at all! You are in essence stating that NO car (god or gods) exist at all. It makes no difference what color (theology) I choose to apply to the car if you are in disagreement that ANY car exists in the first place. My appeal to legal evidence (corroborative testimony of billions of people) was to highlight the fact that general theism (belief in *any* god(s)) is strongly supported by legal evidence.

The main problem, in any case, is that you have not made clear what it is that you believe.

Surely this is not the case any more.

Throughout the past several e-mails, you have basically told me that there is some sort of entity that exists beyond the universe in some sort of metaphysical, supernatural universe or realm. You have consistently maintained that the supernatural is *beyond* or above nature-which essentially means that it is NOT natural, which means that it is UN-natural.

No, it means *above* and *beyond* what is natural. That is precisely why the prefix is "super-". "UN" means that something is an antithesis (opposite) of something else. Supernatural is *different* than "natural", but is not an *opposite* of natural. This is precisely why your continual attempt to mislabel "supernatural" fails.

I am still trying to figure out what this metaphysical or supernatural universe actually IS, however. Your statements on the subject are not making it any clearer.

Yes, I know. You are still trying to attach an objectist definition to a non-objectist concept. As long as you insist on committing this error, you will never be clear on the definition of supernatural, or any other non-objectist word for that matter.

####"Metaphysical" means immaterial, or incorporeal.####

This, again, is a negative definition. This is only telling me that the metaphysical is NOT matter, which is not terribly helpful. This term could also be applied to nothingness.

Do you know what "time" is? Time is neither corporeal or material. Time is another example of a non-objectist dimension, but I hardly doubt that you will begin arguing that time has no "helpful" definition or application in the physical world.

####Not all aspects of the universe are physical. Take "time" for example. It is an immaterial, incorporeal dimension of the universe.####

Yes, it is a "dimension" of the universe, a "dimension" of matter.

Time is not a dimension of "matter". Time is only spatio-temporal in certain physical contexts.

Time and matter are inseparable, for time exists only insofar as it is a measure of the change in matter.

This is not true. Superstring theory poses the existence of three different definitions of time, including a form of time that is based on a "block universe" view as opposed to a spatio-temporal view. Furthermore, your above dogmatic statement makes a sweeping prediction that could never be proven in any conclusive way since 99.99999999999999999% of the universe is unobservable, not to mention untestable.

Time cannot exist in a vacuum, nor can, say, the color "orange," which is also immaterial. Earlier you said that "God" was timeless, besides being immaterial. These two terms also apply to nothingness, of course. My question now becomes this: How can "God" be distinguished from absolute nothingness? How can something "exist" outside of time and matter and still be said to exist in a way in which the term "exist" can be said to retain some measure of cognitive meaning? If "God" is NOT made out of atoms and molecules, then just what does he consist of?

Your questions are framed in the form of both a question and an underhanded argument which assumes that materialism true. Materialism is a philosophy that relegates all reality to only tangible, physical, material capacity. As such, it defines "existence" according to those terms. This exactly what your questions assume. Your questions can only be meaningfully answered once you have actually proven that the totality of ALL reality, throughout ALL time, throughout ALL the universe, exists *strictly* and *exclusively* in material form. Until you support your assumption of materialism's universal truth, I have no reason to accept your criteria for the definition of "exist" and therefore cannot meaningfully answer your questions.

####Furthermore, superstring theory posits the existence of *10 or more* active dimensions in the universe, only 3 of which are "physical". (width, height, and depth).####

This sure sounds impressive. Perhaps there are these other "dimensions" of the natural universe, maybe not. But what does this have to do with this mysterious, supernatural realm you keep referring to?

These multi-dimensions relate vaguely to the "supernatural", but their scientific plausibility cuts right into the heart of your fallacious attempts to cram the entire universe (and all reality) into a little 3-Dimensional, materialistic box.

By the way, does one have to earn a PhD in astrophysics to be a Christian?

Obviously not, but apparently skeptics need to have a PhD in astrophysics just to create arguments that even remotely "appear" to damage Christianity.

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product. Therefore, since the universe contains these fundamental attributes of intelligent design, it is *more likely* that the cause of the universe was an intelligent designer, as opposed to some blind, natural phenomena.####

This is so generalized that it is hard to understand what, specifically, it is that you think manifests evidence of intelligent design.

I could give you a laundry list of quotes from famous cosmologists where they RAVE about the complexity and order of the universe. That is hardly a "generalized" or elusive statement on my part.

Snowflakes can be described as ordered, structured and complex, but does "God" individually craft all the snowflakes?

No, but the complex structure of all the physical laws and entities that must exist to even allow the creation of snowflakes (not to mention the natural processes that create them) certainly boast of intelligent design. You are committing the age-old atheist error of confusing secondary-cause agents (such as natural processes) with singularities (one-time creation events).

Do you believe that "God" manufactures stars and planets and biological organisms? Or do you think that it is possible for these things to form through the operation of natural processes?

Both. God created complex natural processes as the tool to do his creating. There is no logical basis for concluding that any unguided process results the production of structure, complexity, and order. The missing "mechanisms" for the creation of the universe and the origin of life is, and always will be, God.

Does "God" have to herd atoms and molecules around to somehow prevent them from acting outside the boundaries of their physical properties?

What is the basis of this question? It stands to reason that if God is powerful enough to create the entire fabric of the universe; then controlling it's properties should be a breeze for him.

I must re-emphasize that positing some undefined, complex, ordered, structured "supernatural" entity as being responsible for the complexity, order and structure of the universe begs the question of who or what is responsible for the complexity, order and structure of this designer.

Not true, because God by definition, is not bound by the natural laws of causation that exist in the universe. The laws governing causation apply to the physical dimensions of the universe. If God was defined as a physical being existing within the universe, your question would be valid. However, such is not the case since God is not defined as a physical entity. This golden oldie, atheist illogic can be rightly demonstrated as false by this parallel question: How can an artist be defined as a "painter" unless the artist himself has been painted?

YOU: No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientific basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

To being with, the premise of your argument-that complexity, order, and structure all require a designer-remains an assumption.

This is true, however, it is the most probable assumption we could possibly make on this issue. We have no examples of blind, random first-cause agents (or processes) creating complexity and order out of nothing or by chance, but we do have *millions* of examples of intelligent beings (humans) creating complexity and order. Therefore, for any particular instance of order and complexity where we do not know the initial cause, the cause is more likely to be an intelligent cause than a random, blind cause.

You have not demonstrated that these somewhat generalized qualities actually require a conscious intelligent designer.

The *probability* of an intelligent designer's existence only needs to be demonstrated and is done so quite easily.

Making an analogy between known-to-be designed objects and, say, planets, stars or people does not work because we do in fact understand how these natural entities can arise through natural molecular, chemical and biological processes.

No we don't. A posse of materialistic scientists happening to concoct some advanced, speculative theories hardly constitutes a conclusive "understanding". Furthermore, the actual empirical evidence that is applicable to origins is so ridiculously scanty that is positively laughable that you would think your sweeping dismissals of theism are any where near firm ground.

In any case, you end up discarding your undemonstrated premise once you have taken it as far as it will go and it becomes problematical. You disown it, saying that it just doesn't apply to your "metaphysical" universe, a never never land where anything goes. This is very convenient, but once you resort to this, you leave the realm of rational discussion.

The reality of a metaphysical universe does necessarily exclude it from *all* laws, but simply the physical laws that are unique to our time-space continuum. Furthermore, the only way a discussion of metaphysics or supernaturalism would "leave the realm of rational discussion" is only if you first prove that "rational discussion" is exclusive reserved to materialism.

ANYONE can appeal to the illogic of a "supernatural" realm to excuse any absolutely any absurd claim.

This is true, but there are many other criterias that an idea must pass in order to be considered even possible, let alone tenable.

Furthermore, you unreasonably-and fallaciously-shift the burden of proof. You suddenly put the onus of responsibility on me to disprove some aspect of this mysterious, undefined, unsupported, supernatural, metaphysical realm you kept referring to.

Not true. You have made sweeping, dogmatic, and categorical statements about the universe being totally, and exclusively of a material nature. That is a positive claim and therefore carries with it it's own burden of proof.

You have not yet described, in any coherent manner, what this strange universe actually IS,

Yes I have. Three times in fact. Besides, I am not stating that the supernatural dimension is a separate "universe" from our physical one. I am simply saying that the two co-exist.

...where it is,

Locality is yet another attribute that is specific to 3-D space-time. You really need to shed your materialistic, 3-D tunnel-vision.

... much less WHY you believe in it in the first place (except to appeal to idea that "structure" and "complexity" require a designer-and then running away from this argument when it ends up biting it's own tail).

See previous rebuttals.

In any case, science does not deal with nebulous "metaphysical" universes. Science only deals with the natural, known universe, so your request is doubly pointless.

Now you are begging the question "What is the definition of "science" because what you just described above is the philosophy of naturalism, not science. Naturalism is the philosophy that assumes the universe is made up of exclusively natural elements, and can be explained only by natural laws. That's not science, that's philosophy. But you no doubtedly are also an adherent to Scientism which is a self-refuting world-view.

You have defined the supernatural in negations, and you have defined "God" in negations, calling it "timeless" and "immaterial." I have repeatedly explained to you that defining "God" this way is useless. I do not understand why this is unclear to you.

This has been addressed.

To demonstrate, let's try to apply the terms you have used to define this mysterious "God" to everyday living entities.

Sure, but your entire analogy will be based on a fallacy.

Let's call a puppy "timeless" and "immaterial." Can we, in any way, understand what a "timeless," "immaterial" puppy would be? Can those terms, in principle, have any meaning when they are used in conjunction with any biological organism? No, the only puppies or living entities we are familiar with are physical entities that exist well within the boundaries of time and space.

Exactly, because your initial act of calling puppies "immaterial" and "timeless" is an ontological AND definitional fallacy. It would be similar to me saying "Let's say that the color blue smells like peanuts". This is a definitional and ontological fallacy because peanuts are not blue, and colors do not smell.

So how can these terms, which, again, are negations, represent the ENTIRE definition of some kind of unknown being that resides in some unfathomable realm? hey can't, and they never will. They are, again, negations and their use to somehow define "God" make "God" indistinguishable from nothingness.

This question is still framed with the same error of mislabeling "supernatural". See previous rebuttals.

If you say that these terms can only have meaning in relation to "God" and the supernatural, then you have put "God" in a class of one, with nothing to compare it to....

Yes, God is in a class of one ontologically. However, there are some communicable attributes of God that we can compare with other things, including ourselves; such as personhood, creativity, love, volition, freedom, etc.

...and thus the terms remain empty of any meaning-and "God" remains one big question mark.

Not true. See above.

Many Christians, of course, accept that language cannot be used to describe "God" since language was developed in and specifically applies to the natural, known universe. Once language is removed from this context, it becomes unintelligible.

I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning or what it is based on.

I hope that you would try and understand something here. I find this conversation with you interesting. However, it does not seem that there is any common ground that would allow us to actually have a rational discussion.

If you define "rational" to be a term exclusive to materialistic atheism, then perhaps you could only have a rational discussion with other "materialistic atheists". If such is the case, then you'd be surrounding yourself with nothing but ideas that you already believe in. The lack of common ground is the stimulus of a vibrant exchange of ideas. It has been in my experience at any rate, and I personally find it boring to only fluster one's mind with ideas that one already believes in.

Whenever I try to point out flaws or absurdities in your claims or definitions, you retreat into this bizarre, incomprehensible, supernatural realm and challenge me to disprove your assertions, shifting the burden of proof.

I think this is a very unfair characterization. I have not retreated at all but have challenged you to support the materialistic assumptions that underline each of your challenges.

When I point out that your claims do not make sense, you say, essentially, that with "God" anything is possible. "God" is metaphysical, you see. Reason, logic, and common sense just do not apply to "God."

I never said that logic, reason, and common sense do not apply to God. I believe that the same actual lead to theistic conclusions.

Nor does morality, apparently.

How could human morality apply to an infinite God?

If I point out moral atrocities in the Bible that are consistent with the view that the biblical god is simply a war god of ancient barbarians,

Which is a view that begs the question of what a "war god" is, and what defines a "barbarian".

... you say that this god is above morality and can do whatever he wants.

If a God was bound by morality (which is his of his own making), then morality would be "God" since it would be greater in principle than God. In principle, If God created and controls the fabric of all reality (which morality exists in), how could he also be dictated by it?

You even go so far as to claim that slavery is really a wonderful institution.

I never said that. What I have implied is that slavery was a very pragmatic system that enabled survival for many thousands of years. But if you'd be content with cramming words in my mouth, be my guest.

If Jesus uses a parable about a slave being whipped in order to teach people about their relationship with "God," you would have me believe that this is a good thing, something to be accepted by decent, reasonable people.

You are also free to falsely interpret parables as literal events. I have simply advised you otherwise.

So, finally, what is the point of all this? You want me to argue against the existence of some sort of metaphysical, amoral being that presumably lives in some sort of supernatural realm.

No. I have asked you to argue for the universal truth of materialism, naturalism, and scientism which are all presumptive philosophies that you use as the basis for your sweeping dismissals of supernatural/theistic possibilities.

I quite honestly don't understand what you are talking about, and I cannot begin to imagine how I could ever make enough sense of your claims to talk intelligibly with you about them.

Certainly this is not the case.

I am at a disadvantage, you see. I only live in this universe and know of no other. Unlike you, I cannot understand what an "immaterial," "timeless" being would be, or how such a thing could possibly "exist" beyond the laws of nature.

If you study about singularities, black holes, the collapse of scalar fields and false vacuums, and the initial singularity (Big Bang), you'd see that reality is not dictated by material existence and that natural law is not immutable. We know that reality preceded the origin of the universe itself.

(Perhaps you could draw a picture of "God" to help me out?)

Perhaps your conceptual mind is confined to a three-dimensional box? I think if you were to study up on Superstring theory, you'd see how misguided and unnecessary your materialistic assumptions are.

I try, as best I can, to base my understanding of this universe on logic and common sense, and am forced, by the need to be coherent, to use language developed in and relevant to the natural universe. In short, there doesn't appear to be any way for us to communicate.

Perhaps you could explain to me "coherently" what this blind, unguided, universe-creating natural processes was and show how it works. If you can't, than the only "coherent" claim you can make is - "I don't know what created the universe", in which case we can safely conclude that your entire dismissal of theism is based on, and is the result of, nothing more than a state of total ignorance. (Which would make your dogmatic, anti-theistic claims all the more comical).

If you can come up with some way to bridge the gap, however, please do so. If not, we might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I can repeatively try to bridge the gap but you might continue to burn my bridge. Furthermore, what is an "angel", why do you say they "dance", and why would they exist on the head of a "pin"? And what would ANY of that have to do with a supernatural cause for the physical universe?

BRANDON

Subj: slight correction, AOL e-mail down
Date: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:08 AM
From: XXXXXX
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

####You are trying to associate Hell with a singular act or violation of the Law. There is no basis for this association.####

I based this on your statements, but perhaps I misinterpreted you. Let’s review the series of assertions, questions and answers that led us to this point:

ME: The biblical "god" supports slavery, it orders the murder of women and children, it murders women and children itself, and, of course, it subjects people to eternal torture for their opinions.

YOU: No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.

ME: What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be “perfect”? I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in “God.”

YOU: I am talking of God's fundamental moral laws - the 10 Commandments. They are "perfect" in terms of being "totally complete".

ME: The very first one of these rules is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. So if someone was of the *opinion* that this god was not real and therefore did not worship it, this person would necessarily qualify as a “transgressor” against “God’s perfect moral laws” and would be sent to hell. Therefore one can indeed be sent to hell simply for one’s opinion.

YOU: This logic does not follow because if someone is sent to hell at all it would be a consequence of God's actual existence, not the person's *opinion* about his existence. So it stands to reason that if someone is sent to hell, it would be not be the result of the person's opinion about God's existence, but a result of a person's *deception* regarding God's *non-existence*.

(Who is committing the deception? Whether “God” exists or does not exist, the BELIEF in “God” boils down to opinion and faith.)

####You are trying to associate Hell with a singular act or violation of the Law.####

You stated earlier that one is sent to hell for violating, for being a “transgressor” against, “God’s” “perfect” moral laws. You did not specify how many times one was able to violate these “perfect” laws before one earned a one-way ticket to hell. Since a single violation of a law qualifies one as a “transgressor” of the law in question, a single violation of “God’s” moral laws qualifies one as a transgressor of “God’s” moral laws, and therefore, based on the statements in (your) previous e-mails, this transgressor would go to hell. If it is NOT the case that a single violation of these “perfect” laws is punishable by eternal torment, then how many times may one violate these “perfect” laws before the penalty of eternal torture becomes applied, and how do you know?

####Christian theology has taught for centuries that Hell is the spiritual end-result of a person's constant, continual, life-long rejection God's means of salvation (Jesus Christ).####

What are these “means of salvation,” exactly? Do they involve something different than obeying the “perfect moral laws” of “God.”

####Perhaps the next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, you can tell the officer that you should not get a ticket because it was only a 45 mph "suggestion.####

We are not talking about speeding laws, which, as you pointed out, can be violated for perfectly legitimate reasons. What we are talking about are the supposedly “perfect” moral laws of some sort of perfect supernatural entity. As I have said, these “perfect moral laws” leave much to be desired since they are often not very clear, nor, it appears, very sensible. Is it, for example, immoral to work at a hospital on a Saturday? Is it morally wrong to treat criminally abusive parents with something less than honor and respect?

####I never said anything about popular belief making something TRUE. My entire appeal was to legal evidence. The MAJORITY of people that have ever lived on this earth have believed in a God (singular) or GODS (plural). My point was simply to highlight the fact that such massive and categorical consensus suggests that all these billions of people most likely aware of something. #####

No, they could all be mistaken. The NUMBER of people that believe in something has NO bearing on whether the belief is true or right, that is why the popularity of an idea cannot be used, in and of itself, to argue for the idea. In any case, there is no “consensus” about the supernatural as you claim. Indeed, you think that most people who believe in the supernatural are wrong.

####There were many people who did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun####

Exactly my point.

####That analogy was used to showcase the fact that "argumentum ad populum" does not apply to the validity or application of LEGAL evidences.####

But you don’t have a legal case. You are not talking about witnesses to a crime, but about people’s inner beliefs and faith.

####In fact, it is through the consensus of our experiences that determines all "truth".####

Even if this were true, it wouldn’t help your case since Christianity is not a consensus belief. Even within Christianity itself there is not a consensus about what is or is not true.

###My appeal to legal evidence (corroborative testimony of billions of people) was to highlight the fact that general theism (belief in *any* god(s)) is strongly supported by legal evidence.####

1. People’s belief in the supernatural does not qualify as “legal” evidence. No one is demonstrably an eyewitness to your “God” and faith is not admissible as evidence in court cases.

2. You think that most people are mistaken about the supernatural anyway, so you are being hypocritical by appealing to their beliefs.

3. Appealing to the popularity of an idea is fallacious.

Dan Barker is a former minister who left Christianity. This is what he had to say about the popularity of the belief in gods:

“There are millions of god-believers; but this is a statement about humanity, not about god. Truth is not something which is attained by vote. Religions arose to deal with death, weakness, dreams, and fear of the unknown. They are powerful mechanisms for giving meaning to life and personal/cultural identity. But religions differ radically, and appeals to inner experience only worsen the conflict.”

####Supernatural is *different* than "natural", but is not an *opposite* of natural. This is precisely why your continual attempt to mislabel "supernatural" fails.####

I do not believe that I have ever described the supernatural as the opposite of the natural. Instead, what I have done is point out that you are using negations to try and define the supernatural. You call the supernatural timeless, limitless and immaterial, which means that the supernatural is NOT subject to temporal succession, that it is NOT limited, and that it is NOT made up of atoms and molecules. These words do not in any way allow me to understand what the supernatural actually IS. If you say that this supernatural realm is different than the natural universe, then you need to explain exactly HOW it is different than the natural universe instead of just giving it umlimited attributes.

####Do you know what "time" is? Time is neither corporeal or material. Time is another example of a non-objectist dimension, but I hardly doubt that you will begin arguing that time has no "helpful" definition or application in the physical world.####

Of course not. I suppose time can be described as a measure of change in matter, just as length and height are measures of distance and size, or "orange" can be described as the color of a particular type of fruit. These words are not tangible in and of themselves, but rather they apply to objects in the physical universe.

In any case, I must reiterate the point. The words you are using to define “God” are simply negations and they do not allow anyone to build a conceptual framework for understanding what “God” IS.

Hopefully this quote will clarify the point:

‘To say that God is not this or that appears to provide a partial answer to the question, “What is God?'' But when the''this'' and ''that'' refer to the entire context of man's knowledge, negative theology pushes God into agnosticism, and our question remains unanswered.' ("Atheism: TheCase Against God" by George Smith, page 53)

#### Time is not a dimension of "matter". Time is only spatio-temporal in certain physical contexts. ####

Can time exist in a vacuum? Yes or no?

#### Your questions are framed in the form of both a question and an underhanded argument which assumes that materialism true. Materialism is a philosophy that relegates all reality to only tangible, physical, material capacity. As such, it defines "existence" according to those terms. This exactly what your questions assume. Your questions can only be meaningfully answered once you have actually proven that the totality of ALL reality, throughout ALL time, throughout ALL the universe, exists *strictly* and *exclusively* in material form. Until you support your assumption of materialism's universal truth, I have no reason to accept your criteria for the definition of "exist" and therefore cannot meaningfully answer your questions.####

You are using the argument from ignorance and shifting of the burden of proof. The existence of the natural universe is not in question here. Rather it is your claim that some sort of supernatural realm exists. As far as we know, the universe consists only of discrete bits of matter that interact according to fairly well understood physical laws. You can talk about quantum physics, Superstring theory and all these different dimensions, but ultimately these ideas are all based on the physical universe.

If you say that we don’t know everything there is to know, well, so what? This does not function as an argument for the supernatural.

You have not told me what God or the supernatural are except to say that they are timeless and immaterial. As I have stated several times, these terms can also be applied to nothingness. You are going to have be a bit more expansive at some point. I mean how can I distinguish “God” and the supernatural from absolute nothingness if I were to somehow stumble upon them?

#### I could give you a laundry list of quotes from famous cosmologists where they RAVE about the complexity and order of the universe. That is hardly a "generalized" or elusive statement on my part.####

I was possibly being unclear in my question. What I want to know is what, specifically, is it that you think requires a designer? Do planets and stars require a designer? Do living things like humans, bacteria and tapeworms need a designer?

#### There is no logical basis for concluding that any unguided process results the production of structure, complexity, and order.####

Stars, planets and living organisms appear to form and evolve through natural processes, without the benefit of intelligent guidance.

####We have no examples of blind, random first-cause agents (or processes) creating complexity and order out of nothing or by chance, but we do have *millions* of examples of intelligent beings (humans) creating complexity and order.####

Stars, planets, living things, and even snowflakes appear to be the result of non-random (but unguided) natural processes.

#### The reality of a metaphysical universe does necessarily exclude it from *all* laws, but simply the physical laws that are unique to our time-space continuum. Furthermore, the only way a discussion of metaphysics or supernaturalism would "leave the realm of rational discussion" is only if you first prove that "rational discussion" is exclusive reserved to materialism.####

Begging the questions, appealing to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof.

####Yes I have. Three times in fact.####

No, you have not defined God or the supernatural. You have only told me what they are NOT. Each and every time you repeat this mistake, I will request that you provide a coherent definition. My hope is that at some point this problem will become clear to you.

####Besides, I am not stating that the supernatural dimension is a separate "universe" from our physical one. I am simply saying that the two co-exist.####

HOW do they “co-exist”?

#### Locality is yet another attribute that is specific to 3-D space-time. You really need to shed your materialistic, 3-D tunnel-vision.####

If tunnel vision is defined as being skeptical of claims that appear unsupported and incoherent, then I am guilty as charged.

#### Now you are begging the question "What is the definition of "science" because what you just described above is the philosophy of naturalism, not science. ####

Science is “any domain of knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles.” You asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm by using science. Well, obviously I cannot do that because I don’t know what you are talking about in the first place. For the sake of argument though, if, as you have been implying, the supernatural does not adhere to natural laws and regularity, then it cannot be studied scientifically.

#### Exactly, because your initial act of calling puppies "immaterial" and "timeless" is an ontological AND definitional fallacy. It would be similar to me saying "Let's say that the color blue smells like peanuts". This is a definitional and ontological fallacy because peanuts are not blue, and colors do not smell.####

I compared “God” to puppies only to try and see if the terms you applied to “God” had some sort of meaning apart from “God.” My effort was not successful. As I have stated before, the terms “timeless” and “immaterial” also apply to absolute nothingness, so I don't know how to differentiate "God" from absolute nothingness.

#### God is in a class of one ontologically. However, there are some communicable attributes of God that we can compare with other things, including ourselves; such as personhood, creativity, love, volition, freedom####

What is “personhood”? Does “God” have creativity, love, volition, and freedom in the same way that humans have creativity, love, volition, and freedom? If so, how is “God” distinguishable from human beings? If not, then how are these words different when applied to “God”? Also, how did you acquire your knowledge that “God” possesses these qualities and attributes?

ME: Once language is removed from this context, it becomes unintelligible.

YOU: I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning or what it is based on.

You will shortly, I hope.

####I have not retreated at all but have challenged you to support the materialistic assumptions that underline each of your challenges.####

You claimed that the premise of your design argument does not apply to your supernatural universe, and then you challenged me to prove otherwise. This is an example of begging the question, arguing from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

ME: If Jesus uses a parable about a slave being whipped in order to teach people about their relationship with “God,” you would have me believe that this is a good thing, something to be accepted by decent, reasonable people.

YOU: You are also free to falsely interpret parables as literal events. I have simply advised you otherwise.

So do you have an explanation of why Jesus would use a parable about a slave being whipped to somehow educate people about their relationship with “God”?

#### Perhaps your conceptual mind is confined to a three-dimensional box? I think if you were to study up on Superstring theory, you'd see how misguided and unnecessary your materialistic assumptions are.####

Does Superstring theory propose the existence of a supernatural realm and “God”? Is Superstring theory based on the natural universe or not?

#### If you study about singularities, black holes, the collapse of scalar fields and false vacuums, and the initial singularity (Big Bang), you'd see that reality is not dictated by material existence and that natural law is not immutable. ####

I disagree. All these things are based on material existence, even false vacuums. They do not provide evidence of a supernatural realm.

Let’s review:

I have asked you to explain what this “God” thing is. You still have not provided a coherent description of it. You have told me that this thing is timeless and immaterial. I have explained to you that these terms are useless because they are negations. You have attributed creativity, love, freedom, volition and “personhood” to “God” but have not explained what these terms actually mean when they are applied to an “immaterial being” nor how these words allow us to understand what “God” actually IS, nor, for that matter, how you know that these words can be applied to “God” in the first place.

As an argument for the existence of “God,” you have pointed to the popularity of a belief in the supernatural. However, this appeal is not compelling, for the reasons stated. You have also used the design argument for an intelligent creator, but you have not shown that any specific object in the universe needed to have been designed, and I have pointed out to you that such things as stars, planets and living organisms have, by all appearances, arisen through natural processes. Furthermore, the premise of the design argument, this assumption that complexity requires a designer, would seem to apply to “God” itself.

The terminology and the rhetorical devices that you employ give you a great deal of flexibility with your assertions. It would be instructive, I think, if we were to turn the tables for a moment, and have you disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a timeless, immaterial being that exists in a supernatural realm. I would use your appeals for “God” to support the existence of IPU, and you could employ the full force of logic to demonstrate that IPU does not exist. Are you willing to give it a try? I think it would be quite fun.

Two other points:

#### *This commandment addressed the issue of respecting the name of God. A similar law exists in America today since it is illegal to burn the American flag.####

There is no such law. Maybe there are state laws against this, but there is not a federal law against burning an American flag.

Could you tell me what page or pages you used to make the determination that most of my links are to the Secular Web?

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Response
Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 9:10 PM
From: XXXXXX
To: XXXXXX

Brooks,

####You are trying to associate Hell with a singular act or violation of the Law.####

You stated earlier that one is sent to hell for violating, for being a “transgressor” against, “God’s” “perfect” moral laws. You did not specify how many times one was able to violate these “perfect” laws before one earned a one-way ticket to hell. Since a single violation of a law qualifies one as a “transgressor” of the law in question, a single violation of “God’s” moral laws qualifies one as a transgressor of “God’s” moral laws, and therefore, based on the statements in you previous e-mails, this transgressor would go to hell. If it is NOT the case that a single violation of these “perfect” laws is punishable by eternal torment, then how many times may one violate these “perfect” laws before the penalty of eternal torture becomes applied, and how do you know?

There is no such thing as a person who violates only one of God's laws one time. Every person ever born lives in a continuous state of sin where they repeatively ratify Adam's original choice to disobey God in one way or another. Since God has revealed himself to be perfectly holy, he cannot accept or associate with sinful entities. It is like mixing water and oil. There is an inherent chasm that sin produces which separates us from God. God is the only party that is capable of breaching this gap and has chosen a specific means of doing so. If a person ignores or rejects God's intervention, they remain in that state of separation from God until death. Hell is simply the spiritual continuation of that separation after a person dies.

####Christian theology has taught for centuries that Hell is the spiritual end-result of a person's constant, continual, life-long rejection God's means of salvation (Jesus Christ).####

What are these “means of salvation,” exactly? Do they involve something different than obeying the “perfect moral laws” of “God.”

It's amazing that I would have to explain to you what the "means of salvation" is if you are truthful when you said that you used to be a "Christian". Apparently you must have been sleeping through every church service you ever went to if you don't even know what Christianity teaches is the means of salvation. At any rate, trusting in Jesus Christ and his finished work of redemption is the means of salvation.

####Perhaps the next time you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, you can tell the officer that you should not get a ticket because it was only a 45 mph "suggestion.####

We are not talking about speeding laws, which, as you pointed out, can be violated for perfectly legitimate reasons.

I am talking about laws in general and by using that analogy, I exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. A person working at a hospital on Saturday makes the sabbath law no more flawed than would a man speeding his laboring wife to the hospital make "speed limit" laws flawed.

What we are talking about are the supposedly “perfect” moral laws of some sort of perfect supernatural entity. As I have said, these “perfect moral laws” leave much to be desired since they are often not very clear, nor, it appears, very sensible.

This is ridiculous. There is nothing "unclear" about the 10 commandments unless you are purposely trying to obfuscate them. They are so basic a child could understand them. Furthermore, I can only imagine what your idea of "sensible" would be if you think it is better to:

1) Worship false gods; self-deception is good!

2) Make idolatrous images of those false gods to be worshipped

3) You should blasphemously curse the name of the true God; show blatant disrespect to your Creator.

4) You should work 7 days without resting,

5) Curse your mother and father; do not honor them,

6) You should murder other people; life should not be respected,

7) You should commit adultery; cheat on your wife and break her heart while destroying your family unit in the process so your children can grow up in broken homes.

8) You should steal; take whatever you want especially if it belongs to someone else,

9) You should give false testimony; lie as much as you can to as many people as you can,

10) You should covet; covet you neighbors wife, his house, his belongings and everything he has. Long after it, lust after it, and then go and take it because stealing is good.

(see commandment 8!)

It would seem to follow that if you find the 10 commandments to be "not very sensible", you would find their inverse to be sensible. (As listed above) If this is the case, the only thing "left to be desired" would be your illogical ideas of what is moral.

Is it, for example, immoral to work at a hospital on a Saturday? Is it morally wrong to treat criminally abusive parents with something less than honor and respect?

I already exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. (See previous rebuttals)

####That analogy was used to showcase the fact that "argumentum ad populum" does not apply to the validity or application of LEGAL evidences.####

But you don’t have a legal case. You are not talking about witnesses to a crime, but about people’s inner beliefs and faith.

Actually, there is plenty of legal evidence to show that God most probably exists. People can testify of not only their "inner beliefs and faith", but their life and experiences also.

####In fact, it is through the consensus of our experiences that determines all "truth".####

Even if this were true, it wouldn’t help your case since Christianity is not a consensus belief. Even within Christianity itself there is not a consensus about what is or is not true.

I think you are confused about which "case" I'm making. At this particular juncture, my case is that the "supernatural" exists. Therefore, if there is a significant consensus within human experience of the supernatural, certain truths can be deduced. Furthermore, there *is* consensus within Christianity concerning the fundamental tenants of the historic Christian faith, contrary to your claim. The differences fall within fine points of doctrine.

###My appeal to legal evidence (corroborative testimony of billions of people) was to highlight the fact that general theism (belief in *any* god(s)) is strongly supported by legal evidence.####

1. People’s belief in the supernatural does not qualify as “legal” evidence.

People's personal testimony of their lives and experiences *does* constitute legal evidence.

No one is demonstrably an eyewitness to your “God” and faith is not admissible as evidence in court cases.

You are now confusing the notion of "demonstrating" an eyewitness account? That's as absurd as saying that an witness to a murder must have "demonstrable" evidence that he witnessed the murder, such as a video tape of himself observing the murder as it happened in order to be qualified to testify! Either you are purposefully being obscurantist or you truly do not understand what legal evidences are.

2. You think that most people are mistaken about the supernatural anyway, so you are being hypocritical by appealing to their beliefs.

No, you keep confusing my arguments for supernaturalism with other arguments I've made in support of Christianity. They are separate arguments.

3. Appealing to the popularity of an idea is fallacious.

I'm saying that the popularity of an idea many times is grounded in some type of experiential consensus. Therefore, if theism has had great testimonial popularity throughout human history, it is most likely because theism is grounded in some type of experiential consensus, and therefore, more likely true than false.

Dan Barker is a former minister who left Christianity. This is what he had to say about the popularity of the belief in gods:

“There are millions of god-believers; but this is a statement about humanity, not about god. Truth is not something which is attained by vote. Religions arose to deal with death, weakness, dreams, and fear of the unknown. They are powerful mechanisms for giving meaning to life and personal/cultural identity. But religions differ radically, and appeals to inner experience only worsen the conflict.”

Ah yes, FFRF. The neutrality of your sources is utterly shocking! (Please note sarcasm) Perhaps Dan Barker's arrogant, self-exalted position of thinking he can look over all humanity and making these sweeping statements about religionists gives *HIM* a means to deal with his own personal fear of "death, weakness, dreams, and fear of the unknown". At any rate, his above statements are nothing but inconclusive opinions that possess nothing but popular agnostic rhetoric and catch-phrases.

####Supernatural is *different* than "natural", but is not an *opposite* of natural. This is precisely why your continual attempt to mislabel "supernatural" fails.####

I do not believe that I have ever described the supernatural as the opposite of the natural.

Yes, you have. You've spent the last four exchanges detailing how you think that "supernatural" means the same thing as "UNnatural". "Unnatural" is the *opposite* of "natural". Therefore, you've been trying to frame the term "supernatural" as the *opposite* of natural. ("unnatural") Why do you deny this?

Instead, what I have done is point out that you are using negations to try and define the supernatural. You call the supernatural timeless, limitless and immaterial, which means that the supernatural is NOT subject to temporal succession, that it is NOT limited, and that it is NOT made up of atoms and molecules. These words do not in any way allow me to understand what the supernatural actually IS. If you say that this supernatural realm is different than the natural universe, then you need to explain exactly HOW it is different than the natural universe instead of just giving it unlimited attributes.

"Above, Beyond, Transcendent" are terms that describe supernatural and they are *not* negations or "opposites" as you suggest. You have simply decided that you wish to reject such terms as being descriptive even though you have no basis for doing so.

In any case, I must reiterate the point. The words you are using to define “God” are simply negations and they do not allow anyone to build a conceptual framework for understanding what “God” IS.

Hopefully this quote will clarify the point:

‘To say that God is not this or that appears to provide a partial answer to the question, “What is God?'' But when the ''this'' and ''that'' refer to the entire context of man's knowledge, negative theology pushes God into agnosticism, and our question remains unanswered.'

"Atheism: The Case Against God" by George Smith, page 53

There are communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. God is also defined as a creator, a person, a free will agent, volitional being, love, holy, just, moral agent, etc. All of these attributes pertain to the context of man's knowledge and therefore, George Smith's conclusion above can rightly be dismissed as false and laid to rest.

#### Time is not a dimension of "matter". Time is only spatio-temporal in certain physical contexts. ###

Can time exist in a vacuum? Yes or no?

We don't know for sure, but certain mathematical models derive evidence from false vacuums that show a "block-universe" dimension of time may exist.

#### Your questions are framed in the form of both a question and an underhanded argument which assumes that materialism true. Materialism is a philosophy that relegates all reality to only tangible, physical, material capacity. As such, it defines "existence" according to those terms. This exactly what your questions assume. Your questions can only be meaningfully answered once you have actually proven that the totality of ALL reality, throughout ALL time, throughout ALL the universe, exists *strictly* and *exclusively* in material form. Until you support your assumption of materialism's universal truth, I have no reason to accept your criteria for the definition of "exist" and therefore cannot meaningfully answer your questions.####

You are using the argument from ignorance and shifting of the burden of proof. The existence of the natural universe is not in question here. Rather it is your claim that some sort of supernatural realm exists.

No, what is in question here is your claim that the entire universe and all reality is exclusively of a material order. You are basing your arguments against supernaturalism on such an assumption even though you are ignorant of your assumption's actual truth.

As far as we know, the universe consists only of discrete bits of matter that interact according to fairly well understood physical laws. You can talk about quantum physics, Superstring theory and all these different dimensions, but ultimately these ideas are all based on the physical universe.

"As far as we know" is the operative part your statement because what we "think" we know today has not been what we actual "know" tomorrow. Not to mention the fact that "what we know" is an infinitesimally insignificant percentage of all knowledge that is available. Therefore, if your rejection of supernaturalism is based on what you "think" we know today, then your rejection of supernaturalism is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.

If you say that we don’t know everything there is to know, well, so what? This does not function as an argument for the supernatural.

Correct, but it does make your sweeping denials look foolish and shows that they are based on a great ignorance of all available truth.

You have not told me what God or the supernatural are except to say that they are timeless and immaterial. As I have stated several times, these terms can also be applied to nothingness. You are going to have be a bit more expansive at some point. I mean how can I distinguish “God” and the supernatural from absolute nothingness if I were to somehow stumble upon them?

Your use of the term "nothingness" only begs the question of what the definition of a "thing" is. You apparently are defining "thing" to mean *only* a physical thing. You are claiming that something cannot be a "thing" unless it is physical, material, and natural. I have no reason to accept this materialistic definition of "thing" and therefore I have no reason to believe that the terms "immaterial and timeless" can equally apply to "nothingness".

#### I could give you a laundry list of quotes from famous cosmologists where they RAVE about the complexity and order of the universe. That is hardly a "generalized" or elusive statement on my part.####

I was possibly being unclear in my question. What I want to know is what, specifically, is it that you think requires a designer? Do planets and stars require a designer? Do living things like humans, bacteria and tapeworms need a designer?

Yes, all of creation either directly or indirectly suggests intelligent design.

#### There is no logical basis for concluding that any unguided process results the production of structure, complexity, and order.####

Stars, planets and living organisms appear to form and evolve through natural processes, without the benefit of intelligent guidance.

No, this is *precisely* the point in question. Simply restating your personal belief does not advance your case.

####We have no examples of blind, random first-cause agents (or processes) creating complexity and order out of nothing or by chance, but we do have *millions* of examples of intelligent beings (humans) creating complexity and order.####

Stars, planets, living things, and even snowflakes appear to be the result of non-random (but unguided) natural processes.

None of those things are produced out of a vaccum. They all obtain within an extremely complex framework of physical laws that govern an already existent universe. Furthermore, on what basis do you claim that the production of snowflakes, humans, stars, and planets are non-random?

#### The reality of a metaphysical universe does necessarily exclude it from *all* laws, but simply the physical laws that are unique to our time-space continuum. Furthermore, the only way a discussion of metaphysics or supernaturalism would "leave the realm of rational discussion" is only if you first prove that "rational discussion" is exclusive reserved to materialism.####

Begging the questions, appealing to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof.

No, you are evading the challenge, brushing off the inherent burden, and eluding yet another opportunity to support your case.

####Besides, I am not stating that the supernatural dimension is a separate "universe" from our physical one. I am simply saying that the two co-exist.####

HOW do they “co-exist”?

I don't *specifically* know whether or not there even *is* a "how" to their relationship so I can't answer your question and wonder about it's basis. This inability on my part isn't a problem since there are many things about the universe that we *don't know* but have good reason to believe, such as the resident internal singularities within black holes, the big bang event, dark matter, false vacuum particle pairs, etc.

#### Locality is yet another attribute that is specific to 3-D space-time. You really need to shed your materialistic, 3-D tunnel-vision.####

If tunnel vision is defined as being skeptical of claims that appear unsupported and incoherent, then I am guilty as charged.

No, 3-D tunnel vision is defined as a person who demonstrates a complete inability to conceptualize the possibilities and considerations of the extra-dimensionality of our universe. Whether or not my claims appear "unsupported and incoherent" is *precisely* the point in contention and *precisely* what you have failed to demonstrate.

#### Now you are begging the question "What is the definition of "science" because what you just described above is the philosophy of naturalism, not science. ####

Science is “any domain of knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles.”

I would agree with that definition and submit that your materialistic claims do not fall into the category of "knowledge", but speculation; not systematic study, but competing hypotheses; not organized general principles, but scattered assumptions based only on currently existent principles.

You asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm by using science.

When did I ever ask this?

Well, obviously I cannot do that because I don’t know what you are talking about in the first place.

That's okay, since I've never asked such a thing in the first place. All I have asked is that you give me a positive case that supports your sweeping statements of materialism's universal presence and application to all reality. It is only natural that I ask you to support such a case since your atheism and categorical dismissal of theism is in large part based on these materialistic assumptions.

For the sake of argument though, if, as you have been implying, the supernatural does not adhere to natural laws and regularity, then it cannot be studied scientifically.

Theism/supernaturalism is not scientific per se, but it does involve some science. The same thing is true for naturalistic Origin theories - they are not science as any honest observer could see. They are the study of distant-past events that are neither directly observable, repeatable, or testable, and therefore incapable of conclusive verification.

#### Exactly, because your initial act of calling puppies "immaterial" and "timeless" is an ontological AND definitional fallacy. It would be similar to me saying "Let's say that the color blue smells like peanuts". This is a definitional and ontological fallacy because peanuts are not blue, and colors do not smell.####

I compared “God” to puppies only to try and see if the terms you applied to “God” had some sort of meaning apart from “God.”

That's like asking if the colors "blue, yellow, and red" having any meaning apart from the light spectrum. It sounds like you are trying to make a case that certain things cannot have exclusive attributes. I hope this isn't the case since nothing could be more easily refuted.

My effort was not successful. As I have stated before, the terms “timeless” and “immaterial” also apply to absolute nothingness, so I don't know how to differentiate "God" from absolute nothingness.

Your argument here only begs the question what the definition of "nothingness" is. Obviously, we'd have to agree on what the definition of a "thing" is before we could ever agree to what the definition of a "no-thing" (nothingness) is. Again, it appears that you are attaching an exclusively materialistic definition to "thing". If so, then your entire argument is circular.

#### God is in a class of one ontologically. However, there are some communicable attributes of God that we can compare with other things, including ourselves; such as personhood, creativity, love, volition, freedom####

What is “personhood”?

The quality or state of being a person.

Does “God” have creativity, love, volition, and freedom in the same way that humans have creativity, love, volition, and freedom? If so, how is “God” distinguishable from human beings?

Yes, according to most theologies. Those attributes may not be exactly the same as humans or in exist in the same capacities, but it is certainly comparable.

Also, how did you acquire your knowledge that “God” possesses these qualities and attributes?

You falsely call this "knowledge". The attributes I have ascribed are hypotheses of God and have come as the result of two lines of support - 1) The study of the inherent nature, structure, and order of the universe and physical laws; and 2) The Bible, which possesses evidence of divine revelation.

####I have not retreated at all but have challenged you to support the materialistic assumptions that underline each of your challenges.####

You claimed that the premise of your design argument does not apply to your supernatural universe, and then you challenged me to prove otherwise. This is an example of begging the question, arguing from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

I never challenged you to "prove" otherwise. Rather, I simply asked you to support your dogmatic assertion that naturalistic laws of causation MUST apply to the supernatural in the same way they apply to the natural. (Remember? Designer has to be designed?)

#### Perhaps your conceptual mind is confined to a three-dimensional box? I think if you were to study up on Superstring theory, you'd see how misguided and unnecessary your materialistic assumptions are.####

Does Superstring theory propose the existence of a supernatural realm and “God”? Is Superstring theory based on the natural universe or not?

Superstring theory calls into question our entire understanding of what is "natural" in the first place. Supersting theory does not specifically propose any theology. However, the numerous attributes of incorporeality that Supersting theory espouses causes the proposition of a "supernatural" realm to far more plausible than ever.

#### If you study about singularities, black holes, the collapse of scalar fields and false vacuums, and the initial singularity (Big Bang), you'd see that reality is not dictated by material existence and that natural law is not immutable. ####

I disagree. All these things are based on material existence, even false vacuums. They do not provide evidence of a supernatural realm.

I was not referring to those "things" but the theories that concern them. But we'll see if your disagreement has any bearings.....

Let’s review:

I have asked you to explain what this “God” thing is. You still have not provided a coherent description of it. You have told me that this thing is timeless and immaterial. I have explained to you that these terms are useless because they are negations. You have attributed creativity, love, freedom, volition and “personhood” to “God” but have not explained what these terms actually mean when they are applied to an “immaterial being” nor how these words allow us to understand what “God” actually IS, nor, for that matter, how you know that these words can be applied to “God” in the first place.

I have explained the basic description of God. I will do so again with little more detail. God is a supernatural, intelligent being that exists independently of the physical universe. The evidence found within the universe shows that the universe requires a cause that was independent of the effect it was producing (the universe). God created the universe out of free will and volition as evidenced by much unnecessary creative design found in the universe. The evidence found in the universe shows that the universe was most likely caused by an uncaused cause. Therefore, God was this First Cause of all successive causes. Since the Big Bang is the theory of cosmological origins that is supported by the most evidence, the Big Bang was most likely the event that resulted from God's first-cause action. This is further supported by the fact that there is no blind, unguided mechanism in the universe that has been observed to produce the numerous finely-tuned balances that exist in the universe - which is exactly what theism predicts. It is therefore most likely that God not only caused the first cause, but governed and conserved many of the universe-creating events that produced these calibrated balances. All of this and much more is incorporated into the definition of "God". Perhaps you will still brush this off as "negations", but if so, it is safe to conclude that you have already decided that *no* amount of explanation will ever be sufficient for you.

As an argument for the existence of “God,” you have pointed to the popularity of a belief in the supernatural. However, this appeal is not compelling, for the reasons stated.

That wasn't an argument for the existence of "God". That was an argument both for something and against something. It was an argument *for* the validity of LEGAL evidences, and an argument *against* your "argumentum ad populum" assertion. Nothing you've said has refuted the basic claim of my argument - that the testimony of 100 witnesses is stronger than the testimony of ONE witness. The only way out of this if you somehow want to muster up the gall to claim that people cannot be the witnesses to their OWN lives and experiences!

You have also used the design argument for an intelligent creator, but you have not shown that any specific object in the universe needed to have been designed, and I have pointed out to you that such things as stars, planets and living organisms have, by all appearances, arisen through natural processes.

We have many "specific" objects that we already KNOW are the products of intelligent design - they are all of the things artificially created by humans. We have huge resource of intelligently designed products that we can use to compare fundamental attributes of the universe with. If a Pentium computer and the human brain hold numerous fundamental, design-attributes in common, it is most likely that they *both* were intelligently designed. It is absolutely astonishing that you could see the ontological attributes of a computer that cause you to affirm it is designed but NOT be able see those same ontological attributes in the human brain, which is actually far more complex and integrated! Furthermore, you have only stated that stars, planets, and living organisms have appeared through natural process - but have not supported this.

Furthermore, the premise of the design argument, this assumption that complexity requires a designer, would seem to apply to “God” itself.

It is not simply the attribute of complexity that warrants "design". As I have already stated, intelligent design is the summation of complexity, integration, structure, balance, and purposeful function. The universe and biological life is positively teeming with such attributes. Therefore, it is most likely that their cause was an intelligent designer.

The terminology and the rhetorical devices that you employ give you a great deal of flexibility with your assertions. It would be instructive, I think, if we were to turn the tables for a moment, and have you disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a timeless, immaterial being that exists in a supernatural realm. I would use your appeals for “God” to support the existence of IPU, and you could employ the full force of logic to demonstrate that IPU does not exist. Are you willing to give it a try? I think it would be quite fun.

Sure. First of all, it should be noted that an IPU as you have defined as immaterial, and timeless is incoherent. "Invisible" is fine since things exist that are not visible, such as time, love, joy, etc. However, "pink" is a color that results from a certain combination of frequencies of the light spectrum. The light spectrum is natural, not supernatural. Also, if something is "invisible", how could it *receive* light become a certain color, and not be visible? Where would the light be coming from? Secondly, "unicorn" is an already-known-to-be mythological animal of folklore. So this further damages any possible similarities to "God" as I have defined. But even apart from being mythological and folklore, the fact that "unicorn" is already defined as a "physical" animal contradicts your previous fallacy of attributing it with immateriality, supernaturalism, timelessness, etc. So your rhetoric of INVISIBLE, PINK, UNICORN when combined are three terms that contradict eachother and therefore nullify their ability to be conceptually or definitionally possible.

(Also note: the fact that you personally do not really believe in this IPU functions as GOOD reason for me not to believe it either. If even the proponent of an idea does not believe in the truth of his own proposition, there is no reason for any one else to either.

Two other points:

#### *This commandment addressed the issue of respecting the name of God. A similar law exists in America today since it is illegal to burn the American flag.####

There is no such law. Maybe there are state laws against this, but there is not a federal law against burning an American flag.

Whether or not the law is adopted by all 50 states or only 49 of them is irrelevant. The point is that such a law does exist and exists with much consensus amount state governments. My point still stands.

Could you tell me what page or pages you used to make the determination that most of my links are to the Secular Web?

Sure, but you could you give me the link to your site? I've lost it since I've moved.

Cheers,

Brandon

Subj: slight correction to format
Date: 5/13/2001 3:47:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXX
File: Brandon3.htm (81859 bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute

Brandon,

Slightly corrected version, should be easier to read.

Brooks

------------

Brandon,

####At any rate, trusting in Jesus Christ and his finished work of redemption is the means of salvation.####

So if someone does not trust in Jesus, in other words, if someone does not have the opinion that Jesus is real, then that person goes to hell, correct?

#### I am talking about laws in general and by using that analogy, I exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. A person working at a hospital on Saturday makes the sabbath law no more flawed than would a man speeding his laboring wife to the hospital make "speed limit" laws flawed.####

The problem is this: These are not laws made by fallible humans. You called these laws “God’s perfect moral laws” and claimed that disobeying these perfect laws earned a person a one way ticket to hell. Therefore, it would seem to be of utmost importance to understand how to live one’s life without disobeying these laws. The first one of these laws is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. Therefore, if someone does not have the opinion that the Christian god is real and therefore does not worship it, that person would go to hell, correct? Similarly, if someone was forced to work each and every Saturday for a lifetime to support his or her children, this person would be violating one of these “perfect” laws and would be eternally tortured, correct? Clearly this would be a transgression against “God’s perfect moral laws.”

#### There is nothing "unclear" about the 10 commandments####

I beg to differ.

YOU: Worship false gods; self-deception is good!

How does one determine which of the thousands of gods is the correct god in order to worship it and avoid eternal torture?

YOU: Make idolatrous images of those false gods to be worshipped

How does one determine which are true and which are false gods? That is the question. No one makes idolatrous images of gods they believe to be false.

YOU: You should blasphemously curse the name of the true God; show blatant disrespect to your Creator.

How does one determine the correct god to show respect to? If one simply lacks belief in the one true god, does this qualify as disrespect?

YOU: You should work 7 days without resting,

If someone works seven days because he or she needs to feed a family, does he deserve eternal torture? Yes or no?

YOU: Curse your mother and father; do not honor them,

If they were abusive, I would argue that this would be the proper way to treat them.

YOU: You should murder other people; life should not be respected,

The Bible provides numerous examples of murder sanctioned by “God”:

"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16

"The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces."

2 Chronicles 25:12

"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5

"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you.”

Jeremiah 50:21

"Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21

"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33

"And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord."

Christian god-Ezekiel 35:8

YOU: You should commit adultery; cheat on your wife and break her heart while destroying your family unit in the process so your children can grow up in broken homes.

Family values, according to the OT:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses-Numbers 31:17

"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem...”

2 Samuel 5:13

"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."

Christian god-2 Samuel 12:11

YOU: You should steal; take whatever you want especially if it belongs to someone else,

The Bible certainly condones this:

"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

Christian god-Zechariah 14:1

"The men of Judah carried away very much booty. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them. And they smote the tents of those who had cattle, and carried away sheep in abundance and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem."

2 Chronicles 14:13

YOU: You should give false testimony; lie as much as you can to as many people as you can,

Just as “God” did?

"The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

I Kings 22:23

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

II Thessalonians 2:11

YOU: You should covet; covet you neighbors wife, his house, his belongings and everything he has. Long after it, lust after it, and then go and take it because stealing is good.

This commandment is not against stealing, just against coveting. I still do not know how one is able to master one’s inner thoughts and feelings to the extent of overcoming wants and desires.

YOU: (see commandment 8!)

As I made clear, the Bible condones stealing.

#### I already exposed your erroroneous tactic of appealing to special circumstances as a basis for showing a law to be flawed. ####

But no one claims that human laws are perfect, or that violating them requires and deserves eternal torture, as you have claimed is true with the Ten Commandments. So you need to clarify yourself. Does the violation of “God’s” laws require eternal torture or is it possible to violate these “perfect” laws and not go to hell? A clear answer is requested.

#### Actually, there is plenty of legal evidence to show that God most probably exists.####

I am still waiting to see what it is.

#### I think you are confused about which "case" I'm making. At this particular juncture, my case is that the "supernatural" exists. Therefore, if there is a significant consensus within human experience of the supernatural, certain truths can be deduced. ####

1) You still cannot say what the supernatural actually IS.

2) Appealing to he popularity of a belief is fallacious, despite your various efforts to talk your way around it.

3) You do not accept any other supernatural claims apart from those found within Christianity. Therefore your appeal to other people’s supernatural beliefs is disingenuous and hypocritical. I will not accept a blanket appeal to a belief in the supernatural as supportive of one very sectarian supernatural belief. Since this point doesn’t seem to be getting across for some reason, I will ask you to tell me whether several of the other supernatural beliefs besides Christianity are true or false:

Islam: True or false?
Hinduism: True or false?
Mormonism: True or false?
Scientology: True or false?
Mithraism: True or false?

If all of these supernatural beliefs are false, then it is invalid to appeal to them to support a belief in the supernatural in general. If this point is still unclear to you, do not hesitate to ask for clarification.

#### Furthermore, there *is* consensus within Christianity concerning the fundamental tenants of the historic Christian faith, contrary to your claim. The differences fall within fine points of doctrine.####

I agree that there is some consensus within Christianity. However, the fact remains that there are hundreds or thousands of different sects, many with exclusive means of salvation, that have been have been warring for centuries. Within these groups there are then liberals and fundamentalists that argue and fight. You would have thought that “God” would have done a better job of explaining itself.

#### People's personal testimony of their lives and experiences *does* constitute legal evidence.####

HOW does a person’s “personal testimony” and “experience” constitute “legal evidence” of “God”? Would you accept the “personal testimony” and “experiences” of Muslims as “legal evidence” of Allah? Would you similarly accept the personal testimony and experiences of Scientologists as “legal evidence” of Thetans? If not, then your appeal is hypocritical.

#### You are now confusing the notion of "demonstrating" an eyewitness account? ####

What I meant was this: if someone claimed to witness a car accident, we could establish that that person actually did witness the accident prior to accepting his or her testimony about the accident. However, if someone claimed to see Vishnu floating above his head, and blamed Vishnu for some crime, this could not be presented as “legal evidence” in a court case. Supernatural claims do not qualify as legal evidence. I am sorry if I was unclear in what I was trying to get across.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: You think that most people are mistaken about the supernatural anyway, so you are being hypocritical by appealing to their beliefs.

YOU: No, you keep confusing my arguments for supernaturalism with other arguments I've made in support of Christianity. They are separate arguments.

As a Christian, you reject each, every and all supernatural beliefs EXCEPT for Christianity. So, at the end of the day, ultimately, you are being hypocritical for appealing to ALL supernatural beliefs to somehow argue for Christianity. In any case, EVEN IF everyone on the planet believed in supernatural realms and gods, this would not mean that ANY supernatural realm or god actually existed. Understand? No matter how you phrase it, appealing to popular belief is a fallacy. I will reiterate also that this is not a legal case, these people are not eyewitnesses, and, again, even if they qualified as eyewitnesses the majority of them would contradict your version of events.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####Therefore, if theism has had great testimonial popularity throughout human history, it is most likely because theism is grounded in some type of experiential consensus, and therefore, more likely true than false.#####

No, a belief in the supernatural could simply be the result of ignorance. Indeed, you believe that most people are wrong about the supernatural.

#### The neutrality of your sources is utterly shocking! ####

Well of course I am going to quote people who support my position. I don’t understand what your point is.

####"Above, Beyond, Transcendent" are terms that describe supernatural and they are *not* negations or "opposites" as you suggest. ####

Those are NOT the words I was responding to, though. You specifically called the supernatural timeless and immaterial, and in response I described those words as negations, which they are. If I described “Above, Beyond, and Transcendent” as negations, it is only because they appear to make the supernatural something other than natural. In any case, if you say that the supernatural is "Above, Beyond, Transcendent" to the natural universe, what, exactly, do you mean by this? How is the supernatural above the natural universe? There is no up or down in space, is there? If I say there is a cloud above a mountain, this makes some sort of sense. If you say that the supernatural realm is above the natural universe, does the supernatural have the same spatial relation to the natural universe as the cloud to the mountain? Similarly, when you say that the supernatural universe is beyond the natural universe, does this mean that it is beyond the edges of the known universe, beyond the scope of our senses and our scientific instruments? Earlier you said that supernatural coexists with the natural universe. Could you clarify things a little better? How does the supernatural universe “transcend” the natural universe and also coexist with it? I am not following you.

#### God is also defined as a creator, a person, a free will agent, volitional being, love, holy, just, moral agent, etc. All of these attributes pertain to the context of man's knowledge and therefore, George Smith's conclusion above can rightly be dismissed as false and laid to rest. ####

These words do not tell us what “GOD” actually is, however. They are simply non-specific terms that you are applying to some nebulous, indefinite thing. Let’s say that I proposed that a “UNIE” exists. You asked me what this thing was. I said that it was a creator, a person, a free will agent, a volitional being, love, holy, just, a moral agent, etc. You still wouldn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about. A creator could be anything. It could be Allah or Vishnu, a bird making a nest, aliens on planet Beldar, atmospheric conditions and water droplets forming snowflakes, etc. A person? This could be anybody. Describing something, as love does not tell us what this thing is, since love is a feeling and emotion associated with the brains of human beings. It doesn’t make sense to call an entity “love.” Stating that “God” is a volitional being or a moral agent does not narrow things down any either. These words could apply to every person on the planet. Using the word holy is circular, since holy is defined as “belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power.” Claiming that “God” is “just” does not tell us what “God” is, anymore than it would tell us what a “UNIE” is. I consider myself “just.” Am I “God”?

I need to know what God is made out of, what it looks like, perhaps what color it is so that if I bump into this thing I can identify it and know what I am dealing with.

#### We don't know for sure, but certain mathematical models derive evidence from false vacuums that show a "block-universe" dimension of time may exist.####

Do YOU think that time can exist in a complete vacuum? If so, how would you know?

#### No, what is in question here is your claim that the entire universe and all reality is exclusively of a material order.####

All I am saying is that, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, reality only consists of discrete bits of matter that interact in fairly well understood ways. I don’t claim to be omniscient, but I don’t see any evidence that there is anything more to it than this. We both agree that the natural universe exists. You are the one making the positive claim, that something more than this exists. Therefore you have the burden of evidence.

#### Not to mention the fact that "what we know" is an infinitesimally insignificant percentage of all knowledge that is available. #####

This is the argument from ignorance. It is fallacious. We don’t know that there aren’t intergalactic 900-foot tall purple polka-dotted space monkeys, but our ignorance about these enormous simians does not form an argument for such entities. I hope this is clear to you. If you need further clarification, let me know.

####Therefore, if your rejection of supernaturalism is based on what you "think" we know today, then your rejection of supernaturalism is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.####

We only know of this universe. We do not know of a supernatural realm. A supernatural realm is a hypothesis of religious people. Arguing for this realm by appealing to ignorance is fallacious.

#### but it does make your sweeping denials look foolish####

Please describe my “sweeping denials.” I am not sure what you are talking about.

#### You are claiming that something cannot be a "thing" unless it is physical, material, and natural.####

You are asserting the positive, you are asserting that something exists, so it is up to you to demonstrate how it “exists.” To do this you have to explain what it is, what is made out of, etc. If you fail to do this, nobody has any reason to listen to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Do planets and stars require a designer? Do living things like humans, bacteria and tapeworms need a designer?

YOU: Yes, all of creation either directly or indirectly suggests intelligent design.

I disagree. Stars form as the result of gravity and nuclear fusion, and planets clump together because of gravity. Humans and other living things appear to have arisen naturally, forming from basic chemical processes and molecular interactions, then replicating, diversifying and becoming more specialized though biological evolution. There is no evidence that any of this was the result of some kind of intelligent design.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Furthermore, on what basis do you claim that the production of snowflakes, humans, stars, and planets are non-random?####

When I say that they these entities came about though non-random processes, what I mean is that the physical processes involved are not random but fairly well understood and predictable. If I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. That is not random, but the result of natural, predictable, understood physical forces. Hopefully this is clear to you.

#### The reality of a metaphysical universe does necessarily exclude it from *all* laws, but simply the physical laws that are unique to our time-space continuum. ####

How do you know? Have you ever been to the metaphysical universe? How did you acquire this amazing insight?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU: Furthermore, the only way a discussion of metaphysics or supernaturalism would "leave the realm of rational discussion" is only if you first prove that "rational discussion" is exclusive reserved to materialism.

ME: Begging the question, appealing to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof.

YOU: No, you are evading the challenge, brushing off the inherent burden, and eluding yet another opportunity to support your case.

You have got it backwards. You keep asking me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm. You seem to be forgetting that it is not the material universe that is being argued about, but your claim that some sort of supernatural realm exists and that it possesses all these bizarre magical properties you keep ascribing to it. I am rather surprised that you don’t understand who has the burden of proof in this argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU: Besides, I am not stating that the supernatural dimension is a separate "universe" from our physical one. I am simply saying that the two co-exist.

ME: HOW do they “co-exist”?

YOU: I don't *specifically* know whether or not there even *is* a "how" to their relationship so I can't answer your question and wonder about it's basis. This inability on my part isn't a problem since there are many things about the universe that we *don't know* but have good reason to believe, such as the resident internal singularities within black holes, the big bang event, dark matter, false vacuum particle pairs, etc.

But you claimed that they coexist, so presumably you know how they coexist otherwise you would not have claimed that they coexisted in the first place, correct? Please clarify your response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### No, 3-D tunnel vision is defined as a person who demonstrates a complete inability to conceptualize the possibilities and considerations of the extra-dimensionality of our universe. Whether or not my claims appear "unsupported and incoherent" is *precisely* the point in contention and *precisely* what you have failed to demonstrate. ####

I defined tunnel vision in a tongue-in-cheek way. I am sorry if the sarcasm was unclear. In any case, the different dimensions of the natural universe that are proposed by physicists, and Superstring theory, do not support this supernatural realm you keep referring to. These theories are based on the natural universe.

#### I would agree with that definition and submit that your materialistic claims do not fall into the category of "knowledge", but speculation; not systematic study, but competing hypotheses; not organized general principles, but scattered assumptions based only on currently existent principles.####

Care to be more specific? What “materialistic claims” are you referring to? Remember that you are the one who asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm using science. As should be clear, this simply is not possible since you have not explained what this supernatural realm is or how it could possibly be subjected to scientific study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: You asked me to disprove some aspect of your supernatural realm by using science.

YOU: When did I ever ask this?

You initially claimed that complexity requires a designer. When I pointed out that if this was the case, then “God” would require a designer, you replied with this:

####No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientific basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.####

You asked me to use science to “disprove” that this supernatural realm you keep referring operates outside “causal limitations.” In other words, you asked me to “disprove” your hypothesis that this supernatural realm operates on what for what all intents and purposes is magic. This is begging the question. In any case you already understood that this was a fool’s errand, because earlier you wrote this:

####The age-old error of atheism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of God is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.####

So you are just playing word games here. You are arguing in circles. Again, to be clear, you are the one proposing this magical realm so you are the one who is required to demonstrate that it exists and that it possesses these Alice-in Wonderland properties you ascribe to it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####The same thing is true for naturalistic Origin theories - they are not science as any honest observer could see. They are the study of distant-past events that are neither directly observable, repeatable, or testable, and therefore incapable of conclusive verification. ####

We can see the RESULTS of distant past events, and we can deduce what happened based on our observations of natural laws and biological processes, such as biochemistry, which is directly observable, and evolution, which is also directly observable. We can use this knowledge to make predictions, and test our predictions by, for example, studying what type of plants and animals are found in different sediment layers.

By the way, here is a more detailed definition of science, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

####That's like asking if the colors "blue, yellow, and red" having any meaning apart from the light spectrum. It sounds like you are trying to make a case that certain things cannot have exclusive attributes.####

So are “timelessness” and “immateriality” exclusive attributes of “God’? If these qualities are exclusive to “God” then they cannot be used to define God since they have no conceptual basis apart from God.

#### Your argument here only begs the question what the definition of "nothingness" is. Obviously, we'd have to agree on what the definition of a "thing" is before we could ever agree to what the definition of a "no-thing" (nothingness) is. Again, it appears that you are attaching an exclusively materialistic definition to "thing". If so, then your entire argument is circular.####

You are the one who says that some sort of living “thing” “exists” that is immaterial. Therefore, you have the responsibility of telling me WHAT this thing is made out of. You keep trying to switch the argument around, but this ploy just isn’t going to work. You cannot argue from ignorance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: What is “personhood”?

YOU: The quality or state of being a person.

So is “God” a human being? If not, what does it mean to be a person but not a human?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Does “God” have creativity, love, volition, and freedom in the same way that humans have creativity, love, volition, and freedom? If so, how is “God” distinguishable from human beings?

YOU: Yes, according to most theologies. Those attributes may not be exactly the same as humans or in exist in the same capacities, but it is certainly comparable.

How are they comparable? How can “God” be distinguished from human beings?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####The attributes I have ascribed are hypotheses of God and have come as the result of two lines of support - 1) The study of the inherent nature, structure, and order of the universe and physical laws; and 2) The Bible, which possesses evidence of divine revelation.####

I do not see intelligent design in the universe or in the physical laws. I really don’t understand why you think that the properties of atoms and molecules had to have been decreed by “God” and then need to somehow be controlled by ”God.” The Bible appears to simply be the creation of fallible human beings living in a particularly unscientific and superstitious era of human history. Please go here for more information:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/responses2c.htm#Since

#### I never challenged you to "prove" otherwise. Rather, I simply asked you to support your dogmatic assertion that naturalistic laws of causation MUST apply to the supernatural in the same way they apply to the natural. (Remember? Designer has to be designed?)####

I am afraid that you still do not understand the problem. You are asserting the existence of this supernatural realm and its bizarre properties. Therefore you are the one who has the responsibility of demonstrating that the logic you used to argue for your “God” (complexity requires a designer) does NOT apply to your supernatural realm. I am sorry if you cannot understand this basic tenet of rational argumentation.

Furthermore, if this supernatural realm is capable of producing “God,” why could it not also create the universe itself and leave out the middleman? If God was uncreated, then why can’t the universe be uncreated?

#### However, the numerous attributes of incorporeality that Supersting theory espouses causes the proposition of a "supernatural" realm to far more plausible than ever.#####

Does Superstring theory specifically propose that there is something beyond matter and energy? If so, could you be more specific about what it proposes, and how it support supernaturalism?

#### God is a supernatural, intelligent being that exists independently of the physical universe. ####

The term “supernatural” is still a problem. “Exists independently of the physical universe” appears to be another way of saying “God” is immaterial, which would be a negation.

#### The evidence found within the universe shows that the universe requires a cause that was independent of the effect it was producing (the universe). ####

This isn’t an argument for an intelligent creator.

#### God created the universe out of free will and volition as evidenced by much unnecessary creative design found in the universe. ####

What “unnecessary creative design” are you referring to, specifically?

#### The evidence found in the universe shows that the universe was most likely caused by an uncaused cause.####

What is an uncaused cause, and what is the evidence for it specifically? Have you ever seen an uncaused cause? Could a virtual particle qualify as an uncaused cause? If not, why not?

#### Therefore, God was this First Cause of all successive causes.####

Why can’t the universe be the result of a quantum vacuum fluctuation, something which has been observed?

#### Since the Big Bang is the theory of cosmological origins that is supported by the most evidence, the Big Bang was most likely the event that resulted from God's first-cause action. ####

The Big Bang theory does not say anything about a creator. Many scientists believe it was caused by a virtual particle.

#### This is further supported by the fact that there is no blind, unguided mechanism in the universe that has been observed to produce the numerous finely-tuned balances that exist in the universe-which is exactly what theism predicts. ####

Again: Stars, planets, and living organisms appear to have arisen simply through the operation of unguided but natural forces and processes.

#### It is therefore most likely that God not only caused the first cause, but governed and conserved many of the universe-creating events that produced these calibrated balances.####

The premises are not supported so the conclusion does not follow.

#### Nothing you've said has refuted the basic claim of my argument - that the testimony of 100 witnesses is stronger than the testimony of ONE witness. The only way out of this if you somehow want to muster up the gall to claim that people cannot be the witnesses to their OWN lives and experiences!####

But these are not WITNESSESS to an accident, but people professing faith or ascribing events in their lives to supernatural entities. Even if they were considered legal witnesses, the vast majority of these “witnesses” do not accept your version of events-most people are not Christians. You would disallow their testimony! This “argument” is just silly.

####If a Pentium computer and the human brain hold numerous fundamental, design-attributes in common, it is most likely that they *both* were intelligently designed.####

Pentium computers and human brains are not analogous and therefore they cannot be compared analogously. Human brains are organs attached to biological organisms. These organisms reproduce and populations of these organisms are subject to evolution over time. Pentium computers are clearly the result of a manufacturing process, while human brains are clearly the result of biological evolution. You are comparing apples and oranges.

#### Furthermore, you have only stated that stars, planets, and living organisms have appeared through natural process - but have not supported this.####

Read up on gravity, fusion and evolution. I am not your science teacher.

#### As I have already stated, intelligent design is the summation of complexity, integration, structure, balance, and purposeful function. The universe and biological life is positively teeming with such attributes.#####

These are pretty general terms. I mean a puddle of water has structure, integration, balance and purposeful function. A snowflake is complex, but it is not designed. If you apply these terms to stars, planets, and living organisms, I will just repeat that these all appear to have formed from natural forces and processes rather than through the actions of some intelligent creator.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: (It would be instructive,) I think, if we were to turn the tables for a moment, and have you disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a timeless, immaterial being that exists in a supernatural realm. I would use your appeals for “God” to support the existence of IPU, and you could employ the full force of logic to demonstrate that IPU does not exist. Are you willing to give it a try? I think it would be quite fun.

YOU: Sure. First of all, it should be noted that an IPU as you have defined as immaterial, and timeless is incoherent. "Invisible" is fine since things exist that are not visible, such as time, love, joy, etc. However, "pink" is a color that results from a certain combination of frequencies of the light spectrum.

Can you prove that pink can’t exist in the absence of the light spectrum? You are displaying your materialist assumptions. Lose the tunnel vision. Remember, this is a SUPERNATURAL pink. It exists above, beyond and transcends natural pink. The age-old error of aIPUism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of IPU is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.

#### The light spectrum is natural, not supernatural. ####

Exactly my point. The IPU is pink in the supernatural realm. It is comparable to but not the same as natural pink. It is a pink that transcends, is above and beyond the pink of the natural universe. Can you prove that pink cannot exist supernaturally? If you cannot, then we have no reason to listen to you.

#### Also, if something is "invisible", how could it *receive* light become a certain color, and not be visible? ####

You are once again displaying the pathetic limitations of your naturalistic assumptions. Superstring theory, quantum mechanics and other new theories of physics show that what we assume to be “true” about the matter and energy are not necessarily correct. Furthermore, you are falsely meshing natural laws into the metaphysical realm and trying to subjugate it to the same limitations. Unless you can prove that something cannot be both pink and invisible in the supernatural realm, we have no reason to believe you.

#### Where would the light be coming from? ####

Even if light were necessary for pink in the supernatural ream, could you prove that light cannot reach my metaphysical IPU? I think not. In any case, what scientific basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

#### Secondly, "unicorn" is an already-known-to-be mythological animal of folklore.####

Like those things called “gods’? You reject all those other gods as mythological yet you say that one god in particular is real. Likewise, I claim that while there are many mythological unicorns, my Invisible Pink Unicorn is real.

Furthermore, what we know about reality is merely .0000001 of all possible knowledge. To discount the existence of IPU when we possess so little of all possible knowledge is absolutely ridiculous. If your rejection of IPU is based on what you "think" we know today, then your rejection of IPU is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.

#### But even apart from being mythological and folklore, the fact that "unicorn" is already defined as a "physical" animal contradicts your previous fallacy of attributing it with immateriality, supernaturalism, timelessness, etc. ####

I did not define it as physical; I specifically called it “immaterial.” It is an immaterial, timeless, invisible pink Unicorn, a metaphysical, intelligent being with personhood, volition, freedom, and love. It is a creative and moral agent. The fact that people have believed in unicorns AND the supernatural throughout history gives us very good reason to believe in IPU. In fact most people believe in the supernatural, so this constitutes LEGAL EVIDENCE for IPU, which is a supernatural being.

#### So your rhetoric of INVISIBLE, PINK, UNICORN when combined are three terms that contradict each other and therefore nullify their ability to be conceptually or definitionally possible.####

You are forgetting that IPU transcends the natural universe. Therefore your objections, which are based on natural attributes that you have falsely applied to IPU, are not relevant. Before you can deny that IPU exists, you have to demonstrate that the laws of the physical universe, which you mistakenly applied to IPU, are applicable to ALL of reality. You have not done this-therefore you cannot deny IPU. Your rejection of IPU is indeed based on the most laughably thin ice imaginable.

#### (Also note: the fact that you personally do not really believe in this IPU functions as GOOD reason for me not to believe it either. If even the proponent of an idea does not believe in the truth of his own proposition, there is no reason for any one else to either.)####

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that anyone can use your rhetorical gymnastics to “argue” for any ludicrous falsehood, so your objection completely misses the point and is irrelevant.

In any case, can you prove that I don’t believe in IPU? If you cannot, then we have no reason to believe you. Furthermore, whether I believe or not, my opinion hardly has any impact on the overwhelming, unbearable and undeniable reality of IPU.

Finally, if you do not accept IPU, you are going to be flame broiled on a grill for all eternity. IPU offers you the means of salvation, so you will have no excuse on judgment day. Your efforts to disprove IPUism have so far failed, so I ask you to assemble your best arguments against IPUism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them.

Brooks

Subj: P.S.
Date: 5/13/2001 7:47:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

Oops-forgot the last two points.

####This commandment addressed the issue of respecting the name of God. A similar law exists in America today since it is illegal to burn the American flag. (showing disrespect)####

This implies a national law. There is no such national law.

####Whether or not the law is adopted by all 50 states or only 49 of them is irrelevant. The point is that such a law does exist and exists with much consensus amount state governments.####

Could you tell me which state(s) forbid the burning of the flag? I am asking out of curiosity more than anything else.

My website address is:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm#1

Brooks

Editor's note

Here are the rest of the e-mails. Right now I am linking to them rather than adding them into the page. Brandon May 14 (rich text format) Brandon May 14 PS Brooks May 18a Brandon May 18a Brandon May 18b Brooks May 18b In my last e-mail, I invited Brandon to post in a special forum on my discussion board. Our e-mail discussion was going in circles, and I figured that other people might be interested in trying to converse with him. Several atheists did converse with him, and I continued to converse with him, but of course no one's mind was changed. Nevertheless, Brandon was a good sport and his posts generated some interesting exchanges. Brandon eventually left the forum after several months of posting. That forum is located here: http://pub7.ezboard.com/fcbbbfrm11 Brandon's web page is located here: http://bdalby.freeyellow.com/home.html Brooks

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com Most recent update: 3/1/02