The {e}Atheist

The Prime Mover Debate: Conclusion

2013-03-03T20:55:00.000-05:00

Here is my conclusion to the Prime Mover debate that I have been enjoying with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com A complete dialog of the debate will be posted soon. But if you wish to be current please review these links in order.

Bushey's introduction

My introduction

Bushey's rebuttal

My rebuttal

Bushey's second rebuttal

My second rebuttal

Bushey's three questions

My three questions

Bushey's conclusion

My Conclusion

Mr. Bushey claims that “The infinite doesn't exist in nature” and he opts to verify this statement by using thought experiments. I have responded that nature is absurd and therefore a logical contradiction cannot disprove nature. I've supported this by showing how classical logic has no weight in the quantum realm. One need only Google the famous double slit experiment, quantum superposition or quantum tunneling to find that classical logic is not universal.

Bushey feels that I did not address his objection to my claim that contradictory statements can sometimes be simultaneously true. I find this frustrating since I did address this objection, twice. He simply doesn't acknowledge any of my responses; he doesn't admit that there is such a thing as quantum logic and that it is incompatible with classic logic. Instead he simply plows onward re-stating ad nauseam that the claim “two contradictory statements can be simultaneously true” is self defeating. He marvels endlessly at the nonsensical outcome of applying classical logical rules to the absurdity of quantum facts. Bushey is essentially claiming that quantum mechanics cannot be true since its principles are self defeating. I hope he reconsiders.

My 3 questions were designed to illustrate the inconsistency in Mr. Bushey’s logic. The 1^st question was meant to show that supernatural hypothesis’ are irrational since a supernatural event is essentially defined when something is explainable. Please note that transcendent and supernatural are synonymous. Bushey contends that his argument deductively arrives at the conclusion of a transcendent cause. My claim is that unless he has deductively eliminated all possible natural explanations, then his logic is flawed. He writes:

“I think there are many conceivable instances wherein it would be irrational to cast doubt upon the supernatural as an explanation, even when there are possible natural explanations”

……Like comets crashing into the moon spelling out "Jesus is lord"!? Note that Bushey couldn't provide an actual instance to illustrate this point.

The 2^nd question was meant to illustrate one simple truth: no one prefers a priori deductions over scientific conclusions. Deductive reasoning alone cannot produce technology, it has cured no diseases and we should be skeptical of its claims to know the origins of the universe. The 3^rd question Implies that a claim about the cause of the universe ought to make a prediction about that cause which could be empirically verified or falsified. One cannot apply this concept to itself because the statement “a good theory ought to be empirically provable” doesn't make any specific claims about nature. Bushey’s objection that this is self defeating arises from a sort of equivocation fallacy. I find it odd that he thinks a good theory shouldn't require empirical verification to succeed. I don’t find it odd that he could not propose an experiment to verify the necessity of a prime mover.

Bushey's argument failed to prove that infinity doesn't exist in nature, failed to prove how a mind can exist without a body, time or space, failed to eliminate all natural explanations in order to prove the necessity of a transcendent explanation and failed to show how a prime mover could be empirically verifiable through experimentation. Therefore, the argument for a prime mover fails.

The Prime Mover Debate: 3 Questions

2013-02-25T20:57:00.000-05:00

This is the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey of ThereForeGodExists.com. We are debating whether or not a "Prime Mover" is necessary and we are at the point in the debate where each of us gets the opportunity to pose 3 questions to our opponent. Mr. Bushey's turn was first. His questions and my responses are below. If you wish to make yourself current with the progression of the debate, please scroll down to the previous post which contains links to our discussion so far.

Question 1:
If time and space had a cause, would you agree that it follows that the cause must transcend time and space?

I think this is a meaningless question. As I have stated before, there can be no causes without space or time. To better illustrate this point I’ll quote every theist’s favorite physicist: Alexander Vilenkin, who believes that there was no ultimate cause of space and time. He has in fact produced a coherent theory of the birth of the universe tunneling into existence uncaused out of a literal nothing and then rapidly expanding due to inflation.

“If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all.”

IF the question was: Does the ultimate beginning of space and time at the very first instant of existence require a cause? Vilenkins answer would seem to be: No cause is required. And who am I to argue with a physicist? I would like to answer no to the 1st question, but I can’t, because as it worded it is meaningless; causes require space and time.

This is like asking: “IF something is north of the North Pole, does it transcend north?”

Question 2:

If two logical contradictions can be true simultaneously, could it be the case that it is also true that two logical contradictions could not be true simultaneously, since their explicit contradiction is irrelevant?

The idea that Mr. Bushey is presenting is that my rebuttal about the law of non-contradiction negates itself. He is taking my conclusion and applying to concepts where it does not belong. It is true that quantum particles can exist as logical contradictions. But that concept can only be applied where it works. Just because radioactive atoms decay randomly and uncaused, does not mean the principles of causality are destroyed. It just means there are empirical situations where causality does not apply. The same is true of the law of non-contradiction. Where a concept works, is what is important. If we run one experiment and disregard the law of non-contradiction and get accurate and repeatable results, then it works. Scientists have found that the classical logic which works on the large scale, doesn't work on the super small scale (quantum). The “explicit” contradiction occurs when Mr Bushey takes quantum “logic” and applies it to classic logic. Again there is a flaw in design of the question.

Question 3:

I argued that some of the best scientists make claims that it would be unreasonable to deny the finitude of the past. Do scientists typically make such bold claims if their evidence is as insufficient as you have argued?

I do not deny the finitude of the past. In my arguments and rebuttals I only denied the philosophical argument used by Bushey to draw that conclusion. So again, it was the method, not the conclusion. It’s a happy coincidence if science independently supports his conclusion that the past is finite. The “infinity doesn't exist in nature” argument is still wholly flawed. My objection was that this flawed point was the cornerstone of the logic used to deduce that the past must be finite.

I did acknowledge that there are several models competing to explain the existence of the universe and I am open to all scientific explanations but I've never argued that one particular scientific explanation of the universe was insufficient. I have however consistently argued that Mr. Bushey's logic was insufficient to draw his conclusions. We should all stand in awe of how much actual scientific evidence it takes to claim something is proven. In regard to physics, the evidence goes back thousands of years. From Pythagoras to Newton, from Einstein to Vilenkin, there is a chain of knowledge that is so immense and filled with millions of hours of verified experimentation performed under thousands of our greatest minds. Each proof builds off the former. A complete proof of the origin of the universe, starting from scratch, would contain volumes upon volumes upon volumes of scientifically verified theories and data going back thousands of years to the origin of mathematics. Compare what it takes to scientifically prove something, to what it takes to prove the same concept with philosophy: “All things which come into being have a cause, the universe came into being, and therefore the universe has a cause.” It’s absurd to believe that these two methods of problem solving hold equal weight.

No, good scientist do not make bold claims with insufficient evidence, that is more like what philosophers do; that is what the Kalam Cosmological argument does.

The Prime Mover Debate: Second Rebuttal

2013-02-15T16:29:00.001-05:00

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog, you may have noticed that I've been participating in a blog-debate with Richard Bushey of thereforegodexists.com. The purpose of this post will be to present my second rebuttal to his position that a “Prime Mover” is necessary to explain why the universe exists. To be current with the dialog that follows in this post you may wish to review the following links:

Bushey’s Introduction

My Introduction

Bushey’s First Rebuttal

My First Rebuttal

Bushey’s Second Rebuttal

My Second Rebuttal

During this debate, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain my objections to Mr. Bushey’s argument, specifically on the subject of contradictory statements and the existence of infinity in nature. To begin with let’s discuss a key point of contention between us. My position is based on observations in quantum mechanics which prove that it is possible for two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true. Based on this fact we can further conclude:

Logical contradictions exist in nature
Demonstrating a logical contradiction is not a reliable way to disprove natural phenomenon.
Classical logic is not the end-all to problem solving in nature, since, on a quantum level it doesn't apply

Bushey has disagreed in two separate replies, stating that to question the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is self defeating and I’ll allow the reader to review his exact statements. However to my great pleasure I would like to point out that I am not the first person to question the LNC. It is at very least open to debate and the line of thinking is like this: The laws of nature are just descriptions of what we consistently observe in nature. If scientists observe some new phenomenon, they don’t discredit it as a violation of law, they rewrite the law to fit what is observed. The rules of Logic should be open to the same revision.

There is a wonderful book called “The Law of Non-Contradiction”, in which my summary above is presented:

“….It is possible to revise logical principles or logical rules on the basis of extra-logical considerations-which include empirical considerations.”

Specifically, the authors outline an “Argument from Quantum Mechanics” which concludes:

“The main idea is that,…. classical logic simply provides the wrong results when applied to the quantum domain. The overall structure of the latter domain is not adequately represented by classical logic; but it is by quantum logic.”

The LNC is not as universally accepted as Bushey has presented it to be in his rebuttals. These objections are fatal to his argument, not just to his conclusion that the past cannot be infinite, but also to the entire methodology by which Bushey has arrived at ALL of his conclusions, that is: Philosophically without empirical support.

Science

I have had the pleasure of reading Alexander Vilenkin’s book called “Many Worlds in One” from which Bushey offered a quote. Unfortunately for theists, on the very next page Vilenkin writes:

“…The theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist…. Religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation.”

“…Scientists have been to rash to admit that the cosmic beginning cannot be described in purely scientific terms. True, it is hard to see how this can be done. But things that seem to be impossible often reflect only the limitation of our imagination.”

The very next chapter of his book is called “Creation of Universes from Nothing”, in which he explains in scientific terms exactly how the universe could have spontaneously come into being from a literal nothing. Another interesting feature of the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem is that while suggesting a finite past, it also suggests eternal inflation of our universe into the future. It also suggests the creation of an infinite amount of alternate universes in which everything that could possibly happen: does happen. According to Vilenkin, there is an alternate universe in which a Richard Bushey exists who is in total agreement with my argument.

Unanswered Objections

I discussed in my previous rebuttal that Bushey’s claim that a mind with causal authority can exist without space, time or a body; places a burden of proof upon him. This is also a fatal objection if unanswered.

Conclusion

Indeed the past may very well be finite, though as I mentioned before, such a claim if true, will be proven by science. So why not skip the logic and paradoxes and just go straight to science to support a finite past? The answer is because the Kalam is totally dependent upon a philosophical conclusion, and its proponents must distance themselves from science because empirical evidence disagrees with the concept of timeless, spaceless, bodiless, universe-creating minds with causal authority. Again, I haven’t argued at such length because I believe the past is infinite. I argue because I disagree with the way in which Bushey makes his conclusions, and the same flawed methodology is employed to make additional conclusions which I absolutely DO NOT agree with, specifically the claim that a prime mover is necessary.

On Choosing Atheism over Agnosticism

2013-02-10T11:24:00.001-05:00

There is a misconception in American culture that unless you are 100% certain of God's existence, then one ought to self-identify as an agnostic. This is inaccurate, and what is worse is that the mislabeling provides shelter to bad religious ideas. Once the title of agnostic is worn, one feels they are in a non-position to comment or disagree with religious ideology. "Who knows the real truth? Who am I to disagree?" As a former agnostic, I found myself defending religion, not because I believed in it, but because I felt atheists were guilty of the same logic-crimes as a religious person: claiming to know the unknowable. It wasn't until a few years ago that I realized I had mislabeled myself as an agnostic. As it turns out, my mistake was purely in the definition of the terms.

Richard Dawkins describes a scale of 1 to 7 where a 7 is a religious person who has no doubt whatsoever in the existence of their God and believes it to be a factual as 2+2=4. A person who is a 1 on the scale would be the atheist version of the 7; having no doubt whatsoever in god’s non-existence, believing there is 0% chance that a god could exist. Obviously, an agnostic is a 4 on this scale.
Now what was eye opening to me was the realization that most atheists, including Dawkins, identify themselves as a 2 or a 1.1 at best. Very few atheist believe that God is impossible; most just believe it is highly improbable. This is a key distinction, and a logically safe position. It does not require claiming to know the impossible. Upon learning this I immediately began reevaluating my position on god. I thought about the lack of supernatural proof and how my daily life had gone by with no evidence or any hint of god’s presence; no matter how I had looked or prayed. Upon honest reflection, I realized that the whole notion of god had seemed improbable to me for a long time. More importantly I realized that no one requires a certificate of 100% confidence in order hold and act on beliefs in any of our daily activities or decisions - so why should not believing in god be any different?

No one needs to prove a belief within .00001% to hold strong convictions. The realm of agnosticism ought to stay in the ballpark of 50/50 probabilities. If a scientist can predict the outcome of an experiment with 98% accuracy, he/she should not feel obligated to say "I'm agnostic about what will happen if I run the experiment once more."

Agnosticism is an unattractive position because it has little utility in the real world. All of us make committed decisions with regard to our beliefs, which almost never have a certainty of the outcome. Rather, we make choices based on beliefs that have a high probability of being true. "Should i quit my job if I buy a lotto ticket?" -probably not. "Will I still have a job next week, when I've had steady work for 10 years?" -probably. "Should I home school my kids just to avoid a school shooting?"- probably not. “Should I avoid driving because there is a chance I will get killed in an auto accident?” –no.

Beliefs with a high probability of truth have utility. Agnosticism doesn't acknowledge that utility because there’s a chance of being wrong. It's inconsistent with what we use our beliefs to do every day.

Atheism finds consistency not only in science, but also in our daily life. The notion of God has no utility in offering testable explanations about the real world. Is there an experiment which uses God to yield higher results? On the contrary, it's a concept that simply isn't needed to explain our universe and its many phenomenons. Agnosticism, on the other hand, leads us to logical inconsistencies. Take a belief in garden fairies for an example: Technically they have just as much of a claim to agnosticism as a belief in a god, since neither can be disproved. Fortunately, we can avoid opening the Pandora’s box of beliefs that is agnosticism and eliminate the irrational ones by their examining their utility; by asking ourselves "does this belief increase my success in making predictions about nature, life and the workings of the universe?" Garden fairies may exist, but if no one can utilize that belief in any way, then what good is holding the belief? This is how one arrives at atheism. Not by making a conclusion with .00001% accuracy about god’s non-existence, but by acknowledging that the concept of god is unnecessary and without utility. The world is explained and functions perfectly well without it. For those who identify with the idea that "it's impossible to know what's true", I encourage you to cast off the label of agnostic and take a minute to consider what is probable.

If theism is true, there are certain conclusions that follow.

To be a theist you must accept or somehow explain away these facts: The birth of the cosmos was roughly 14 billion years ago. 11 billion years go by with galaxies forming and stars blowing apart. Eventually, one tiny planet becomes host to single cell organisms. Then, evolution by natural selection creates a massive diversity of life over the next 3 billion years. 99% of all species that ever existed are presently extinct. Some 200,000 years ago a type of primate called Homo Sapien emerges. Many die at birth or shortly thereafter, few live past 25. This suffering goes on for 196,000 years until roughly 4 thousand years ago; some 8,000 years after the agricultural revolution, a monotheistic god makes its first appearance to one man in all of humanity, in an illiterate civilization in the desert. This god does not acknowledge the extreme waste over the past 14 billion years; rather it is very concerned with who humans have sex with and in what positions. It is concerned with how slaves are taken and how food is prepared. It is concerned with the manner in which it is worshiped and whether or not work is performed on specific rotations of the earth on its axis. To a specific species of primates known as Homo Sapiens, on one specific planet, in one galaxy out of a trillion, in an infinite universe; God offers the choice between eternity by its side in heaven, or an eternity of fire and conscious torture for failure to comply with its revealed law.

According to David Barrett of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."

I'd like to point out that the majority religions of hold mutually exclusive beliefs, that is: they are incompatible. Most believe they are the one true interpretation of god and reality, while all the others are bound for hell-fire. Which means only a small group out of all the religious people in this world could actually make it to heaven, hell must be very crowded. Which begs the question: Why go through all the effort of universe creation, of 11 billion years of creating and blowing up stars, of the emergence and extinction of 99% of all species just to get to this small point in human history and then to send the majority of humans to torment for eternity. If that thought doesn't seem improbable, it certainly ought to seem sadistic.

If the theists worldview summarized above seems unrealistic, and if you do not participate in any of the 34,000+ variations of the 19 major religions of the world, and if you find that none of these religious beliefs seem compatible with what is scientifically provable/known about our world and universe, and if you base all of your important life choices on probability rather than possibility....... Then it is likely that you are already an atheist. Welcome.

Recommended reading: Morality Does Not Come From God

The Prime Mover Debate: First Rebuttal

2013-02-06T16:31:00.001-05:00

This is a continuation of the "prime mover" debate I am participating in with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com If you wish to be current on our dialog so far, please read the following links.

His introduction

My introduction

His first rebuttal

My first rebuttal

In my response to Mr. Bushey’s debate introduction and argument for the existence of a “prime mover” I raised a several objections. To my objections, Mr. Bushey’s has kindly responded in his rebuttal. Yet, despite his response, my objections remain unsatisfied.

To Be and Not To Be

My first objection was in regard to the paradoxes offered as proof that the infinite cannot exist in reality. Bushey insists that the mathematical notion of infinity, when applied to real-life thought experiments, will produce logical absurdities and therefore prove the non-existence of infinity. My response was that a mathematic paradox which produces logical absurdity does not prove non-existence. I offered a well known example of quantum mechanics, a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat, in which it can be simultaneously true that a cat exist in a living and dead state. Bushey correctly identified the effect which produces the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as quantum superposition. Unfortunately, that was the end of his correctness on the subject. His interpretation of quantum superposition was that it implies contradictory states

“… are possible, but not actual. Schrödinger’s Cat is not both alive and dead, but both are possible.”

This is false and I can only encourage Mr. Bushey to read further on the subject. Quantum mechanics proves that an object can exist in contradictory states simultaneously until observed. I understand that this is a very counter-intuitive idea. Regardless of that, quantum superposition is a real phenomenon in which objects can exist in "actual" states that can be simultaneously contradictory . Quantum superposition is a factual, experimentally verified description of subatomic activity. Now, the superposition of Schrödinger's Cat is an extrapolation of that concept; where the question is asked "what if the state of a macroscopic object (a cat) depended solely on a particle in a state of superposition?" Theoretically it follows that the object would also be in a state of superposition. This has been verified to be true in recent experiments. Not with anything as complex as a cat, but still with macroscopic objects. There is no way around it. If a particle can be both decaying, and not decaying, then contradictory statements can be true and paradoxes do not disprove the infinite.

Furthermore, just because some things can exist in contradictory states, does not mean that all contradictory statements are true. It only proves some can be true, and that's all that's required to defeat Bushey's argument.

Why science?

In my intro, I referenced widely accepted scientific descriptions of reality which are based on models of infinity. The point of bringing science into the debate was NOT to make a counter-claim that the past is infinite. I was trying to show that there is some consensus amongst scientist and cosmologist that the concept of infinity is coherent and is very likely a real description of space. Bushey's only response to the scientific side of this debate was that it is unappealing to take this route, because one can find varying answers. He states:

"That is why I typically do not appeal to science anymore to make my case, because it can be far from demonstrated one way or the other and we can find scientists with many varying opinions."

Which implies: I don't like to get into a science discussion because i want a definitive conclusion and science doesn't offer us one. It’s okay that there is not enough evidence available for cosmologists to reach a consensus about the origin of our universe. We should take note when those who have the most current understanding and best knowledge about the subject are ambivalent. Yet somehow, without an equivalent understanding of cosmology, Mr. Bushey is convinced that he has succeeded where cosmologists have failed by making a definitive conclusion using a philosophical deduction.

Perhaps my opponent believes that because I argue against him, I must believe the past is infinite. That is not true: I accept that the past might very well be finite. If that turns out to be so, it will be likely proven to be so through a naturalistic explanation using scientific methodology. Also, if the past is ever proven to be finite, scientifically or otherwise, Bushey's arguments will still not be sufficient prove that there is a personal transient being or "primary mover" "before" the initial state of finitude. This brings me to my next unsatisfied objection....

What is timeless? What is spaceless?

Like a fish living “in” water and imagining what it means to be “out” of water, theists imagine a pre-universe state of timeless-ness and spaceless –ness. It just doesn’t work though. Everything about thoughts are linear, everything about the minds that support these thoughts require space, matter and the forward flow of time (not to mention a body). There is no point of reference to imagine timeless-ness or existence without space. Yet, somehow Bushey’s argument bypasses that notion and presupposes that timeless-ness and spaceless-ness is possible before he draws the conclusion which is contingent upon it being true. That is circular reasoning. This hypothetical state of existence is not supported by empirical evidence, experience, reality, science, imagination, logic or honesty. It exists solely because the human mind can play the opposites game: I say with and you say without. I can say time and you can say without time. Space, spaceless…etc.

Further Objections

By describing timeless and spaceless personal objects which are capable of free will, I presume that Mr. Bushey means a conscious thing, being or mind. Regardless, he is making at least 1 or 3 of these additional positive claims in his argument which I feel; evoke an enormous burden of proof. Namely:

1. A thing can exist outside of space and time.

2. A mind can exist without a body.

3. A mind can exist without space and time.

In Response to Bushey’s Conclusion

If the cause of the universe is explained by natural means, then there is no reason to “add” god into the equation. It would be completely redundant. See Occam’s Razor

The Prime Mover Debate

2013-01-31T19:26:00.000-05:00

I recently exchanged a few tweets with an Christian apologist on twitter. As it turns out: we couldn't agree on very much. So I suggested that the topic was too big for a 140 character limit. He then politely referred me to his blog which contains an excellent pre-fabricated debate format. I chose the topic of "first cause", a popular point of contention between atheists and theists. The debate format is as follows:

1 Introduction (1500 words or less) per debater.
1 long rebuttal (1000 words or less) per debater.
1 short rebuttal (750 words or less) per debater.
(This dialogue is temporarily suspended after short rebuttal)
3 questions posed for the other debater to answer (the answer to the 3 questions will be in 750 total words or less) per debater.
1 closing statement to end the debate (500 words or less) per debater.

The person who is making the affirmative case (depending on the topic) will make the first introduction while the other will make the last conclusion.

I think this is a fantastic idea. My Co-debater is Mr. Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com and he was kind enough to send a link to his debate introduction which was posted on his blog. A link is provided in my introduction below. We shall continue the debate, posting our responses on our own blogs until the debate is complete. With Mr. Busheys permission, I shall post the debate in its entirety after it is complete.

So without further ado.

I recommend reading Mr. Bushey's 1500 introduction first and it can be viewed here: http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/is-a-prime-mover-necessary/

.... mine is posted below.

Introduction

For centuries, without empirical data, philosophers and theologians have pondered the origin of the universe. Theists claim that certain philosophical arguments like the Kalam Cosmological are philosophical proof of a supernatural primary mover, that is: an uncaused-cause which exists necessarily, outside of space-time, and initiated the causal chain of our universe. Most even take it a step further to provide philosophical proof that this primary mover must be a personal being.
Proponents of this logic, like Mr. Bushey of Thereforegodexists.com use several tactics to solidify the premises similar to that of the Kalam. All of which can be found here at his blog post containing his debate introduction. In typical Kalam form he begins by demonstrating logical absurdities to prove that the infinite doesn't exist in reality, therefore it would follow, that past events, since they are real, must be finite. Bushey leads the reader to his conclusion that the universe must be caused by something transcendental. This is accomplished by giving the false dilemma that the only two solutions which could have caused the universe are a transcendental personal being or a spontaneous origin of time, space and matter from nothingness. Claiming that spontaneous creation from nothingness is not logical, Bushey states that the only other option for a conclusion follows necessarily.

Despite the arguments put forward by Mr. Bushey, It is my firm position that the logic behind behind his primary mover argument is flawed. Furthermore I claim that it is far more likely that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe than a personal being who is transcendental or supernatural, known here as the "Primary Mover".

Objections

My first of contention with Bushey's argument is the conclusion that the infinite doesn't exist in reality. Admittedly I’m not qualified to disprove the math behind the Hilbert Hotel Paradox, nor do i have a reason to doubt the math behind it. However, it could be argued that math behind the statements "there are vacancies" and "there are no vacancies" could actually be true in terms of the infinite. This is not as preposterous as it may seem. If the math works in both cases, and the conclusion is true in the context of numbers. I have no reason to doubt that it would be true in reality. There are many examples of quantum phenomenon that defy logic in a very similar way by possessing a completely counter intuitive, illogical nature, yet remain fully verified by math and experimentation. Based on that fact, it does seem that empirical data and mathematics hold more weight than philosophical arguments. Imagine if we disregarded the most accurate mathematics known to man (quantum mechanics) because it produced philosophical absurdities! Please check out Schrodinger’s Cat if you are not familiar with the philosophical absurdities produced by quantum mechanics. Note that I am not claiming that everything which is mathematically possible is possible in reality. Nor am I claiming that philosophy alone cannot arrive at truths. I am claiming that if something is mathematically possible and simultaneously illogical, it can still exist in reality. It then follows that the arguments presented by Bushey against the existence of infinity in reality are not sufficient to support his conclusion and therefore: it has not been proven that the universe must have a finite past.

What Does Science Say About A Finite Past?

The Big Bang Singularity is the primary empirical path chosen by many theists to give scientific proof of a finite past. The whole theory of big bang singularity depends on matter at a state of infinite heat, infinite pressure, infinite mass etc. Ironically, if Bushey's philosophical arguments against infinity were true, they would disprove the one empirical theory that supports his claims. Perhaps it would be helpful to shed light on some of the confusion about the Big Bang and its implications. Since this confusion is where I believe a lot of theistic ideas find refuge.

There are two Big Bang theories: The Big Bang Phase and The Big Bang Singularity.

Which is which?

The Big Bang Phase Theory is supported by a ton of evidence and there is good reason to believe that yes, the universe went through a period of rapid, accelerated expansion called inflation, which began as early as 10^-43 seconds after what is called The Big Bang Singularity. The Singularity however is completely theoretical. Before 10^-43 seconds the math involved in general relativity which gives us the Big Bang Phase begins to break down and the models produce seemingly nonsensical numbers. This is why most cosmologists would be very surprised if the singularity took place.

The scientific layperson often has misconceptions about what really took place during "the big bang." Many people think the theory claims that all of the universe, space and matter was compressed to a finite point and exploded outward like a bomb. This article in Scientific American thoroughly explains away that misconception. Here are some excerpts

“The big bang was not an explosion in space; it was more like an explosion of space. It did not go off at a particular location and spread out from there into some imagined preexisting void. It occurred everywhere at once.”

Continuing to explain…..

“This ubiquity of the big bang holds no matter how big the universe is or even whether it is finite or infinite in size. Cosmologists sometimes state that the universe used to be the size of a grapefruit, but what they mean is that the part of the universe we can now see--our observable universe--used to be the size of a grapefruit. Observers living in the Andromeda galaxy and beyond have their own observable universes that are different from but overlap with ours. ……….Their observable universe also used to be the size of a grapefruit. Thus, we can conceive of the early universe as a pile of overlapping grapefruits that stretches infinitely in all directions. Correspondingly, the idea that the big bang was "small" is misleading. The totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite.”

I hope that this clarifies two specific points:

1. The concept of infinity is widely accepted by cosmologist as a reality.

2. Neither big bang theory says anything about where matter, space and time came from. They certainly do not imply spontaneously popping into existence out of nothingness.

More objections

Even if it were clear from Bushey’s argument that the past is finite, there is no reason to conclude that origin of the universe occurred precisely before the big bang. Conceivably there could be many events and causes prior to the big bang phase.

But what did cause the big bang? On that note Bushey states: “Being the cause of literal space, and time, it must be beyond space, and time. It must be timeless and spaceless.” We then are given the false dilemma that the only two conceivable options fitting those characteristics are “abstract objects, and personal objects.” The limited choice seems to be more the result of poor creativity rather than logical necessity but let’s explore these anyway. Abstract objects I will concede have no causal authority. Bushey describes a personal object as a transcending being that causes with intention, makes choices and acts of free will. I feel this is a poor solution; intentions, choice, will and actions depend upon space and time for their meaning. A choice implies a consideration of options. What does it mean to consider and act without time? And it acts from where without space? Intentions, considerations, choices and actions are being extrapolated onto a scenario where words lose meaning. There can be no “before” time. It’s like stating something is north of the North Pole. Similarly there can be no state of spaceless-ness, as if there is some void outside of space-time from which a thing can exist. This notion exists due to a flaw in language. Simply because one can write the words time-less and space-less in a coherent sentence does not mean the concepts exist any reality.

Conclusion

Many cosmologists propose the existence of multiple universes. Others propose a type of cyclic universe. Seperate universes and cyclic universes have their own space and time and therefore: causal authority, making them far more tangible candidates for the title of cause-of-our-universe, unlike supernatural entities, which are obligated to choose, act and create a universe mysteriously without time and space. Even if we gave ourselves a new false dilemma of “multiverse” or “primary mover” as the only choice for truth, we should find it exceedingly more likely that the natural explanation is true. Our human minds have solved 13.7 billion years worth of riddles by natural means. Not ONE established fact of the natural world depends on a transcendent being or a supernatural explanation. Indeed, it would be folly to entertain a supernatural idea now, in the face of this enormous trend of natural explanation.

The concept of God and evil are incompatible

2010-03-22T19:57:00.000-05:00

The age old question: Is the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God compatible with evil? It has been debated amongst theists and atheists for centuries. I have been participating in a little debate on the subject myself recently. Despite my repeated attempts to reach some type of consensus, my opponent repeatedly dodged my questions, and when one issue was addressed another sprung up, until, he finally directed me to the author of his beliefs: William Lane Craig. Craig is a philosopher who is also a Christian who argues in favor of Gods existence. The essay i was directed to was called The Problem Of Evil, and is a Theist response to the "age old question". I would recommend that you read through the seemingly convincing argument put forth by Craig, before reading my reply. However, i have set up this post as a imaginary dialog between myself and Craig, so the basics are here. Anyone who disagrees with my representation of William Craig's position, can check the essay, and offer a correction in the comment section at the bottom of this rebuttal.

The point of Craig's essay was to address the apparent inconsistency between the nature of God and the amount of evil in the world. He argues that there is no inconsistency. The first point of my rebuttal posted here is to show that William Craig's arguments are flawed. The second is to show nature of the "intellectual wall" between the theist and the atheist. Some of you may be familiar with the concept of this "wall", it springs up every time one side makes a valid point, and the other seems to continue debating in circles as if nothing worthwhile was said. The points that are so compelling for the atheist, seem like trivial rhetoric to the theist, and visa versa. I have spent a significant amount of time studying Craig's position, which seems to encapsulate the theist position very well. I think i have pin-pointed the cause of this intellectual barrier between us. I have tried to addressed it throughout my rebuttal, and is summarized in my conclusion.

Craig breaks the issue of God and Evil into two separate arguments: The logical argument and the probabilistic argument

1. Logical argument

The logical argument is one put forward by the atheist stating that God and evil are so contrary to each other that there is not one conceivable scenario where the two are compatible. Therefore, in order to defeat the Logical Argument the theist need only present one valid scenario where the two concepts are consistent with each other.

Here are the premises:

1. An omnipotent , omnibenevolent God exist

2. Evil exist

Statement (2) is agreed by both theist and atheist

Statement (1) is the statement being tested for consistency and is implying:

1a. If God is omnipotent then he can create any world which He desires.

1b. If God is omnibenevolent, then, He prefers a world without evil over a world with evil.

It is further implied by the atheist that because evil does exist, God must have chose to create a world with evil in it over other options where evil did not exist, and therefore He is not omnibenevolent

Theist defense of the logical argument

Argument 1a is assumed true for the sake of argument, pointing out that God cannot create logical impossibilities such as creating an irresistible force as well as an immovable object. Such things are logically impossible and God is not required to have the ability to ‘create’ said impossibilities in order to retain his omnipotent nature. For the sake of argument this is granted. The theist will then proceed to invoke the Free Will Defense.

“Thus, if God grants people genuine freedom to choose as they like, then it is impossible for Him to guarantee what their choices will be. All He can do is create the circumstances in which a person is able to make a free choice and then, so to speak, stand back and let him make that choice. Now what that implies is that there are worlds which are possible in and of themselves, but which God is incapable of creating. ………..Suppose, then, that in every feasible world where God creates free creatures some of those creatures freely choose to do evil. In such a case, it is the creatures themselves who bring about evil, and God can do nothing to prevent their doing so, apart from refusing to actualize any such worlds. Thus it is possible that every world feasible for God which contains free creatures is a world with sin and evil.”

This is usually granted as a consistent explanation for evil resulting from free will. I have admitted this in our discussion. Evil resulting from free will is not an issue for me and so I have no reply to this argument.

Justification for the existence of natural evils #1

William Lane Craig’s explanation for natural evil is demonic activity, citing that God could not exclude free will from demons due to reasons stated in the Free Will Defense. Craig is stating that demons could be out there tampering with reality, thus it is possible that they are cause of natural evil.

Here is my reply to demonic activity as an explanation of natural evil:

The argument that evil and God are inconsistent ideas are based on two premises:

1. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exist

2. Evil exist.

The argument does NOT allow for:

1. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exist

2. Evil exist

3. Free will demons exist and can manipulate matter and influence reality

However, if you would like to suggest that such a hypothetical demon concept is valid for defeating the logical argument. (REMEMBER that one must only offer one valid scenario to defeat the argument even if it is as far-fetched as demons. Craig reminds us not to confuse the Logical Argument with the Probabilistic Argument.) Then I will offer a far-fetched counter premise:

4. Whenever a demon is present, there is a different mythological creature of my choice, which exists and continually defuses demons by preventing their activity.

But what is this ad hoc type of reasoning? It is ridiculous at best, you may try and appeal to an authority like the Bible and say “look it says here that demons exist.” I would first respond by pointing out that we have not established the validity of the Bible. Second, the premises were established as a guideline for the debate. They were made clear by Craig at the beginning of his essay. If the premises were 1, 2, and 3, we would have a whole different can of worms to discuss. I will allow premise #1 for a philosophical discussion, it is arguable. I will allow that #2: evil does exist in this world. I think that can be agreed without a doubt by both sides of this debate. However, I will not allow #3 without an entirely separate discussion. I think this is a fatal error on the side of Craig, because if we are free to introduce new premises, we could continually counter each other with unproven concepts infinitely, like some elementary kids playing pretend super-heroes: “Ya well my hero has freeze powers, ya well mine has anti-freeze….” and so on. I think that at this point (without invoking some far-fetched concept) the Logical Argument has demonstrated that the idea of Gods omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with the natural evil in this world.

Justification for the existence of natural evil #2

Craig suggests the same argument which Dr. Geisler illustrated in his interview. The argument is: what might seem like evil, could possibly turn out as good after a series of subsequent cause and effect results. If God has a good purpose for wiping out Haitians or some other group, that purpose may not be actualized for a hundred years. Since we are finite beings, we cannot prove otherwise. One would have to be omniscient to know what God knows. Disproving such a claim would involve disproving every possible cause and effect scenario that results from a natural evil, and demonstrate that the resulting ‘good’ never surpassed the resulting ‘evil’…..ever. On this note we are again injecting an additional premise that states God is omniscient. I will accept it, since the concept is often associated with the nature of God.

Here is my reply to Gods omniscience as an explanation of natural evil:

Here I will concede. I have no way to disprove such a claim. I will admit that I see no way show that an event is evil if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Thus the Logical argument is defeated if Gods omniscience is allowed. However don’t get too excited, defeating the logical argument only shows that a single scenario is possible with the existence of evil. Such a ‘win’ states nothing about the probability of it being true. One can make several claims about reality that are ultimately irrefutable, yet at the same time are highly improbable to be true. We do not establish beliefs based on a possibility, we establish them based on probability. This brings us to the next argument.

2. Probabilistic argument

The probabilistic argument is one that states that even if God + Evil are shown to be possible, they are still improbable. In William Craig’s own words:

“When we consider the probabilistic problem of evil, however, things are not so easy. For even though the account of evil given above is possible, still it seems wildly improbable. Explaining all natural evil as the result of demonic activity, for example, seems ridiculous. And could not God reduce the evil in the world without reducing the good? The world is filled with so many seemingly pointless or unnecessary evils that it seems doubtful that God could have any sort of morally sufficient reason for permitting them. Accordingly, it might be argued

that given the evil in the world, it is improbable, even if not impossible, that God exists.”

Craig then goes on to lay out four separate ways to account for the apparent improbability that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God could exist. I will address them as arguments A, B, C, and D.

A. Evil is relative to the background information of the objector

1. “Thus, with a probability argument, we have to ask: probable with respect to what? To give an illustration: suppose that Joe is a college student. Suppose, further, that 90 percent of college students drink beer. With respect to that information, it is highly probable that Joe drinks beer. But suppose we find out that Joe is a Biola University student and that 90 percent of Biola students do not drink beer. Suddenly the probability of Joe's being a beer drinker has changed dramatically! The point is that probabilities are relative to the background information one considers.”

My Reply:

The background information is not relevant here; we are all members of the same existence on planet earth. Everyone’s background is the same. The evil in this world is the same for all. If Craig were to ask me: probable with respect to what? I would reply: probable when compared to the amount of evil on planet earth. He implies that there are other places, where the evil might be less, and thus, such a place might show a probability in favor of God’s omnibenevolence. We only have one place to gather our background information, and it is with respect to everyone on planet earth.

2. “Now apply this principle to the probabilistic problem of evil. The objector claims to prove that God's existence is improbable. But with respect to what? To the evil in the world? If that is all the background information one considers, then it is hardly surprising if God's existence should appear improbable relative to that alone. Indeed, it would be a major philosophical achievement if theists could demonstrate that relative to the evil in the world alone, God's existence is not improbable. But the Christian theist need not be committed to such an arduous task. He will insist that we consider, not just the evil in the world, but all the evidence relevant to God's existence, including the cosmological argument for a Creator of the universe, the teleological argument for an intelligent Designer of the cosmos”….etc….etc

My Reply:

Here we have a discussion based on a premise, specifically: Is the nature of God probable based on the amount of evil that we observe. To my astonishment Craig concedes the whole argument to the atheist by saying basically this:

If we test God’s omnibenevolence and omnipotence against the concept of evil, then, of course God’s existence seems improbable

Even though the concept has passed the test of the logical argument, by simply showing that such a thing is possible, upon having to further prove that it is probable, William Craig concedes that it seems improbable. Now you may think that I am quoting out of context here, but honestly Craig’s only defense is the inclusion of several other arguments that are not established. Again he can only get out of a terrible inconsistency by including additional premises. He IS stating that based on the Probabilistic Argument alone the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God seems improbable.

My Response:

I agree.

Craig Responds:

“Relative to the background information of human reproductive biology, one's own personal existence is astronomically improbable. Yet there is nothing irrational about believing both the facts of human reproductive biology and that one exists. Similarly, if one is warranted in believing that God exists, then there is no problem occasioned by the fact that this belief is improbable relative to the evil in the world.”

My Reply:

This is a poor analogy. First off, the discussion has not led us to a warranted belief in God. In fact, this discussion has shown the concept to be improbable. Second, given the facts of human reproduction, it is certainly probable that someone will exist. Yet if I were to claim that anyone specific person was going to be born, based on the incalculable factors of millions of sperm, each with different genetic information, I would be irrational. In this analogy the theist is claiming that despite incalculable odds against; a specific type of person will be born.

An omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, that is compatible with the amount of evil in this world, has been admitted to be improbable. The only defense to justify believing in an improbable concept is a poor analogy where the variables are misplaced.

B. Humans have a poor vantage point for assessing Gods actions or judgment.

“As finite persons, we are limited in space and time, in intelligence and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end of history from its beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends God may well have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless or unnecessary to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted from within God's wider framework.”

This is the same concept that defeated the logical argument. We are finite, and do not know the full scope of God’s plan. He sees the end from the beginning…etc. We are not omniscient and cannot know the end results of some apparent evil, which may manifest into a great good in the future. Craig uses a bit of science to demonstrate the validity of such a concept:

“To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. “

My Reply:

If I go around town squashing butterflies with the belief that I am preventing hurricanes, I am likely to be locked up in a rubber room. Though this concept is possible, it is not rational, and low probability concepts are not useful for forming educated belief systems. By believing that an earthquake which kills thousands will manifest into some tremendous good that surpasses the evil contribution, you are essentially squashing butterflies. It is possible that God used a disaster for some greater good that is unseen by our finite minds, but it is not probable. Nor is it likely that the butterfly I squashed yesterday was going to spawn an air current that would have destroyed a city. Craig has offered no argument to show such a concept is anything other than possible yet highly improbable.

This is a central theme in the intellectual barrier between theist and atheist. In every aspect of life we require more than just a possibility for supporting a belief, we require probability. Yet with regard to religious beliefs, just the possibility of a thing will suffice; it is an inconsistency that I cannot understand.

C. Christian theism entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil

Arguing that bare bones theism is too easy to refute and Christian theism has some extra claims or truths which make the concept of God+evil more probable.

My reply:

I find it pointless to even establish a discussion based on premises, if those involved in the discussion will constantly invoke additional premises when the original two are shown to be inconsistent or improbable. If the bible or demons or Gods omniscience are required to argue in favor of a world where God and Evil are compatible, such things need to be established prior to the discussion. Otherwise if one is asked: “Is the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God compatible with evil? The reply should be: “No it is not compatible……..unless of course one can first establish that the bible is true, and demons exist and God is omniscient.”

Craig’s Response: (in my own words)

'But if I factor in Christianity I can show a correlation between horrible events and conversion to Christianity, which would be a good thing because if more people are saved by accepting Christ than are killed in the horrible event, we have a “net good”. So a horrible event like the Chinese Cultural Revolution which killed 20 million, and spurred the largest conversion to Christianity maybe in history of 35-70 million converts; God has actually saved 15-50 million by allowing or causing this event to happen. Therefore, demonstrating how a seemingly bad thing can really be good if Christianity is factored in.'

My Reply:

We have already established the premises of the discussion, yet here again is the requirement of an addition. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, even though it’s off topic, that death for a minority of people which allows the majority to prosper is a good thing. Is this concept acceptable in society? Could Barack Obama propose that we kill all the welfare recipients and criminals so that the majority of society could prosper? Small price to pay to increase the “overall good” of society. I hope that you find this suggestion appalling. It’s ridiculous and immoral in every regard, yet, for some reason unknown to me; an appalling concept applied to the Christian God mutates into omnibenevolence.

D. God is unimaginable good

“………….imagines, as it were, a scale, in which all the suffering of this life is placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. And the weight of glory is so great that it is beyond comparison with the suffering. For to know God, the locus of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still truly say, 'God is good to me!', simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good.”

My Reply:

If I were to kill a child, then, stand in front of a Pastor and claim: “I have sent this child to the lord; I have done a good thing.” Would you stand by me? Would you or any other Christian say: “Though the child suffered greatly, it is with the lord now, and the death was more good than bad, we ought to thank this man.” If good and evil were only assessed by a net total; Imagine how different would our morals and laws would be. Even with regard to Christianity: If I accepted the lord as my savior and led a good life in the eyes of God, for the first 90% of my life, then in the final 10% I denounced him and rejected him as my savior. Upon my death, would God judge and say: “well the net sum of your life was good, therefore you may pass into the gates of heaven” The Bible tells us no, I would burn. This addition and subtraction ofGood and Evil is irrational when compared to real life scenarios, even when compared to hypothetical religious ones. In all other areas of life we accept an evil deed at face value, and serve justice accordingly. Only when the notion of God, is evoked do we disregard all standards.

I understand the arguments that are put forward by William Craig; I simply find them inconsistent with logic and/or incompatible with beliefs in all other areas of life.Theist fail to explain why moral explanations have a double standard when God is involved, and the only comfort or rationalization from a theist is to go squash butterflies marvel at our ability to prevent hurricanes.

(Just in case that last analogy sounded ridiculous or a bit Reductio ad absurdum, imagine witnessing a disaster and marveling at the depth and complexity of God’s good plan.)

In conclusion

God has been shown to be possible, though time and time again, He has been shown to be improbable. The theist puts too much emphasis on possibility, the atheist emphasizes probability. The only outs appear to be through the unproven claims of scripture, invoking of mythological deities and demons, in conjunction with ad hoc premises. Yet even these with these crutches and back up plans, the good nature of god stands in stark contradiction with beliefs that we accept and hold as valid in all other areas of life. Why does the theist find so much validity in a possibility? An argument seems to be valid only if the possibility shines a faint light on ones existing beliefs. There is an intellectual wall between the Theist and the Atheist, its bricks are theistic possibilities, and its mortar is mixed with moral double standards.

Response to Rae

2010-02-11T12:56:00.006-05:00

I recently received a comment from a Christian reader named Rae. The comment was in response to my creationism refuted post. Rae's comments seem summarize a very typical response to scientist's explanations for the origin of the universe. I thought i would post his comment together with my response for you all to read. Please feel free to reference the original post about creationism if you like, though it is not necessary to follow the debate. Comments are welcome and encouraged. :)

Rae's comment:
I am a believer in God. Here are my thoughts: We are both making basic foundational assumptions. Mine, of course, is that no matter how it was made, the universe was created by a more supreme being. Science, then, would attempt to continually discover more about what was made and how it works. Your basic assumption is that all can be explained through naturalistic means. The problem is that no matter how many naturalistic theories are formed to explain the existence of our universe, something exists - which shouldn't if there is no outside influence. What I mean is this: Okay, what if there is a parent universe, or something outside this universe that spawned it? And maybe there is something beyond that which spawned it. Even if at the very beginning of the chain that "something" which eventually caused this universe is found to be infinite, that "something" contains ingredients. Whether that is matter or some unknown substance is irrelevant. Those ingredients exist. How? Why? Science can never answer how or why at that point. (Not that science usually answers the question "why?") So I am going to conclude that it is logical to believe that a Supreme Being who humans can't fully understand and who is outside of that which contains these "ingredients", outside of nature, caused this universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God created parent universes and so on, but that is because I, for now, have no reason to believe he did. It sounds like those theories are not scientific but instead are purely philosophical, and absolutely based on the assumption that all can be explained through naturalistic means. You may believe I am filling in the gaps with "God" (I disagree), but I believe you are just filling in the gaps with "We'll know later." I also need to add that there seems to be much more evidence outside of this topic that points to a Creator, and when all is put together and considered, belief in God is, I think, quite plausible. For example: the Bible is by far the most historically sound document in existence. To reject the events that occurred, specifically the events surrounding Christ and the resurrection, you must reject it on means other than the historicity of the Bible, which is being confirmed more and more as we learn and discover new information about the past. And I know that is not what this debate is about, but my point is if the resurrection can't be refuted, than it is absolutely logical to start with the basic assumption that God created the universe. With that, I respect your views and thank you for taking the time to read mine! My Response:

Ok Rae, I don't think that I will be able to persuade you into thinking that a natural explanation is more plausible than supernatural. BUT I will try.

I will start with this, which has already been addressed to Barry. Belief with justification by evidence is not the same as belief without justification or evidence. I believe that unanswered questions will have natural explanations because that is what has happened over and over and over throughout the history of human understanding. I believe events have natural causes, because the evidence supports that idea.

Please remember Rae, that any understanding of cause and effect in our world is founded completely on natural, explainable hypotheses supported with observation and evidence. Imagine the massive wealth of understanding about the observed events in this universe: ALL accepted explanations are entirely naturally based. Humanity has observed the confirmation of that fact over and over throughout the history of science. Yet here you are, suddenly reaching the next frontier of knowledge and expecting a different result? How is that logical at all? It cannot be. Furthermore, I do not think it is logical for you to conclude that a supernatural force must exist outside of nature which is the cause of any event. Over and over we have learned that things have natural causes, why would it be logical to expect a different result that conflicts with the past observations? It is not a valid conclusion because science has never observed a supernatural cause and scientists have no data or evidence to suggest such an existence is even possible.

Granted, I know that I cannot prove that god does not exist, but hopefully at this point I have clarified why “God did it” is not a logical alternative hypothesis to explain issues that “Scientist cannot yet explain”.
It is acceptable to believe that all problems have a solution. It is acceptable to say: “I do not know the answer to this problem.” It is not acceptable to say: “The solution to this problem is a supernatural concept, which I have no evidence to support.” It conclusion, I say history, observable and documented evidence compiled by over two hundred years of research lends credibility to the concept that these problems have natural solutions. There is no data, research and or observable evidence which supports the notion of a supernatural anything. Rae, you are more than welcome to try and prove the existence the supernatural if you like, I will gladly comment on your thoughts.

The old question: “If god created the universe, then what created god?” is usually answered in a similar fashion to your comment “God does not need a creator, because he “has no ingredients”, or “God exists outside time and existence”. But these are simply word play answers and have no real meaning. Both of those concepts are unjustified notions which are not supported by evidence. To make such a claim valid one must prove that a thing can exist outside of time, or that a thing can exist with no ingredients. I could very well propose the concept of a non-thinking, indifferent super-force, with no ingredients, which exist outside of time. I could also say that this force caused of all the matter in our universe to exist. This super-force caused our matter and universe in a way that was accidental, like a by-product of its existence outside of time. I could suggest that when the by-product of this super-force (matter) was created, it was actually the big bang. This super-force, being non-intelligent, was not aware of what it has caused and had no further influence, so after the big gang all of matter ran a natural course which can be explained through natural processes which are documented and observed by science.

WOW! What an interesting concept, seems to have the all same “clutch” arguments as your god argument. Yet, I’m willing to bet it sounded ridiculous. It should, its totally unjustified word play, yet you and everyone on the planet cannot prove my theory false. Should we be inclined to accept it a plausible explanation for the origin of matter? My position is that we should not.

It can’t be proven wrong so…..“That means there’s a chance!” (A chance it’s true)
Your right Rae, but that is not how humans decide what to believe in any other area of life.

For ex: You cannot possibly prove that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden, but you can prove that the PROBABILITY of that being true is slim, and that is based on the observations and evidence, which give no reason to conclude that fairies are real.
A satellite could fall from the sky and crush you as you leave for work. It’s possible, but so unlikely to happen, so based on the probability that it won’t, you don’t think twice about it when you step outside. When someone IS afraid to go outside because they are scared of falling satellites or garden fairies, we call them crazy or neurotic. Because unjustified beliefs are a characteristic of an irrational person.

So Rae, with all due respect, do you still feel your beliefs in god are justified by some evidence or observable data, or any testable concept? Because before we talk about the bible or resurrection we must first establish whether or not the notion of GOD is a plausible concept. I look forward to your reply.

Morality does not come from God

2009-04-30T11:28:00.005-05:00

I've ran into this debate so many times recently, or rather I've ran into the wrong answer to this important question several times in debate. My opponents state that morals come from God, scripture and holy books. Which are basically the supernaturally inspired writings of men. I have heard time and time again that without these holy guidelines in society, man will become his own god and choose his own individual interpretation of morality. The religious feel that without holy books to follow, people will do whatever they desire with no regard to anyone else including stealing, murdering, committing adultery etc....

NOTHING could be further from the truth. Our moral compass, has no origin in scripture. I will attempt throughout this post to intellectually destroy the concept of morality derived from religion. I will also try to present a logical alternative to the origin of our human morals. The purpose of this post is to provide a source for atheist to reference when confronted with similar religious arguments as those mentioned above, as well as for religious persons to perhaps reevaluate the credibility of their beliefs. The proof of this argument is longer than what is usually considered courteous for a comment reply in the blogosphere, so whenever the issue comes up please feel free to reference a link to this post to drive your point home. This post shall be divided into a two separate arguments.

Arguments against moral origin from holy bible

All one need do is look through the old testament and there you will find countless examples of deplorable moral instruction. In Deuteronomy we are instructed to take our disobedient children and bring them forth to the elders of our community to be publicly stoned to death. 21:18-21
If a man is found lying with a married woman they shall both be put to death. 22:22
If your community worships another god than that of Christianity, God will instruct his people to proceed with a thorough extermination of all inhabitants of your community, including your children. 2:33-36, and 3:3-6. (there are many more examples of Gods love of genocide.) One need only look to the story of Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis to find some wonderful accounts of morality. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."-God

I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32 Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

Many Christians today feel that Jesus did away with all this barbaric morality in the New Testament, However Jesus himself can be found to show his complete support for old laws on several occasions throughout the New Testament. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."-Jesus from Matthew 5:17 Also see Matthew 5:18-19 and Timothy 3:15-17. Christians will argue that these statements reflect Jesus' comments on how he will change the law after his Crucifixion is complete, pointing out his last words on the cross to reflect this notion. Yet if such reworking of old laws was coming why wouldn't God allude to this at all in the Old Testament? God, being omniscient and knowing the future could have specifically said- " Someday I will send my son who is also me, to the earth in human form, and whatever he speaks of law shall be the new law, and if it contradicts my word, you shall take his and follow his there after." Why did he speak so adamantly about preserving his word, and offer so much warning to changing his laws, if he knew he would someday undo it all through Jesus? Take for example passages in Deuteronomy 12:32 -"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. " and 12:28-"Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. " The part For ever, stands out the most to me, clearly this god had no intention of changing his mind at any point in time.

Some will point out that Jesus was a large advocate of the Golden Rule, which is a wonderful advancement from the old testament brutality. Christianity, like most religions, repeatedly claim to be the only way of morality and most all ironically claim to be written under the authority of the true creator of the universe. Yet advocates of the Golden Rule, can be found in all religions, some dating to much earlier times than that of Jesus. Check out this list of religions advocating "the rule" Such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism. So how does one decide which moral doctrine to follow?

This leads us to a very important question: By what criteria do you decide which passages in the bible to follow? What criteria did you use to decide that your religion is the best representation of morality? All religions have their own claims to superiority, so one cannot logically, refer to the bible for guidance on which religion to choose. The statement "I used the bible for moral guidance in determining that the bible is the best source of moral guidance.", is circular reasoning, and totally irrational. Even if the previous statement was accurate and a humans moral compass can only follow Gods words in the form of ancient text , then all passages would have the same credibility. God certainly made it very clear that not one passage is to be neglected. It is obvious to me that we have moral intuition contained within ourselves that allows us to decide (without gods help), what is right and wrong. The fact that you choose one doctrine over another proves that you are using your own moral intuition to determine what you feel is the best doctrine of morality. You are also using your own justification to support your choices. Moral intuition cannot be connected to scripture by any reasonable arguments. It is noteworthy to point out that there is no correlative data to suggest in any way, that atheism is linked to bad morality. However, since over 80% of America identifies themselves as a Christian, and with our high ratio of criminals per capt, it is quite easy to find correlative data to suggest that religious affiliation has nothing to do with morality. Of course that is not the basis of this argument since correlative data can be easily misused. (One might even try and argue against my moral intuition argument by stating that our high rate of crime is proof that we are inherently immoral. I will show that this is untrue later in this post.)

It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the teachings of Christianity are so muddled with moral contradictions, that ideas like slavery, burning of heretics, torture of heretics, oppression of women and child abuse have been happily endorsed by the Church for the past twenty centuries. Today's Christians feel that all these past atrocities represented a skewed version of their faith. Yet Sam Harris points out how strange it is that today's Christian feel that they finally got it right in the last 50 years, despite the fact that all the saints and most predominate figures in their religion somehow got it wrong for 2,000 years. It seems either very arrogant, or more likely that their present moral opinions have nothing to do with the words of religious doctrine. Scripture is fixed, and yet morality has advanced in a slow upward trend. The only way to explain this upward trend is to look outside of religion. And so we shall.

Argument for a natural cause of morality.

I am convinced that like all dead gods and deities explained away by science, society will ultimately come to the conclusion that all things have natural causes, science has already disregarded the supernatural hypothesis, now it is time for the masses to toss aside the mythology that is crippling our minds. I will do my part by trying to spread some of the ideas that i have read about, ideas that could offer natural explanations for our moral intuition. Unlike the morality from religion theory these explanations are consistent with the progress of our moral development throughout our history.

The most convincing explanation is the theory that morality evolved from altruistic behavior in our ancestors. Before i begin this argument i would like to acquaint you with some terminology. Altruistic behaviour can be defined as- 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. Examples of altruism are found in a broad variety of species on this planet. I will only list a few to illustrate the point that it does exist in nature. Worker bees, which sting potential honey robbers, and do so at the expense of their own lives. Their vital organs are torn out, and they die soon after from the damage. Why would an organism give its life to save a food supply that it will not be around to enjoy? Why do many species of birds sound an alarm to warn the flock when danger is spotted, when making sounds puts them at a higher risk of danger than the bird who flies off silently. At first glance the concept of survival of the fittest seems to have gone backwards. This is just an illusion, once we consider the knowledge we have about genes, the picture becomes clearer.

The truth is that every bee in the colony carries the same genes. The selfish worker bee could fly away, and leave his colony to be pillaged, while saving its own life. If it did, the potential for its selfish survival traits to be passed on has been almost completely ruined, since most of its genetic descendants have just been squashed in a honey raid. By contrast, the altruistic bee who self sacrifices, and gives his life for his colony, has averted the destruction of his genetic decedents. The altruist gene prevails in almost all scenarios. The same holds true in humans. I am not implying that we evolved from bees, i am simply saying that natural selection favors altruistic behavior. This is most certainly so in humans. Early humans lived in small tribes, members of which, are likely to be carriers the same genes. The survival of my genes are not entirely based on my own survival. If i live and have two children, i have replicated some of my genes twice. If i die protecting my tribe of 20 humans, and those humans go on to have have 40 children. By giving my life to save my tribe i have ensured the replication of some of my genes by 40 times. Odds are that many of the tribe members would have similar altruistic tendencies. Thus the altruist multiplies even in death. The concept is of course, more complicated than is being presented here on this blog. Yet the idea remains the same, basic math shows the self motivated gene to have replicated twice, while the altruistic gene has replicated forty times. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to envision our ancestors slowly building our internal moral compass, through evolution. Morality can be explained by this type of altruistic evolution down to the smallest concepts like trust. Individuals who are trusted have an advantage in survival compared to the deceiver. Deceivers, thieves, murders, are all outcasts in tribal communities. If they are expelled from their group, their survival is hindered. While those who help, tell the truth, defend family and tribe members, are favored by the group, and for obvious reasons, their genes are more likely to be passed on. Once this concept is understood, there is little about human psychology that cannot be explained by evolution.

I would like to take a second to point out something about evolution. This next point is an obligatory response to my creationist opponents who might say something like: "YA, well i think evolution is just a bunch of lies, so i don't believe any of this altruistic evolution crap explains our morality." Unfortunately, there are two kinds of evolution. Micro and Macro. Macro evolution is the development of new species through a series of mutations. The theory that men evolved from monkeys is an example of macroevolution. Microevolution explains variations of adaptations within a species. For example dogs that adapted to colder environment by developing thicker coats of fur. Microevolution explains every variation that occurs within a specific species of animal, just before the point in becomes so distorted that is no longer the same species. Creationist acknowledge that micro occurs all through nature, but hold the view that no species has ever become so distorted that it became a new species. In other words, creationist think macroevolution is false, but micro is true. With this in mind, the concept of morality derived from altruistic evolution is still compatible with microevolution, and even a creationist will have to entertain this possibility. Morality could have evolved entirely in the human species, and does not have to originate in monkeys in order to make sense. That is not the opinion that i hold, but for the sake of argument, simply disregarding evolution, is not an option. ( I would like to point out that chimpanzees have a moral code that is more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. Of all the animals in the world they behave in a way that is most similar to human social behavior. I am quite sure it is not by coincidence.)

Explaining our upward trend in morality

The upward trend in morality can be described as a bad ideas repeatedly being embraced by the public as acceptable, only to be disregarded as immoral after a period of time. Often in our history, humanity has taken many centuries to recognize the errors of our ways. Though it seems to be a repeating pattern that all bad ideas will be righted in time. Slavery, justified by biblical passages, took centuries to fix. Heretics are no longer burnt, at least by western cultures. Women rights, have made much progress in the west as well. The western cultures have repeatedly overcome bad ideas, or rather immoral ideas, time and time again.

This trend shows that we have an natural desire to create and live in a moral society, but it also poises a larger question that must be answered to truly understand our moral origins: Why does an organism with an internal moral compass developed through evolution, repeatedly embrace bad morals? I could take the route of many atheist and simply right it off as the fault of the worlds many religions and their conflicting agendas. This is very tempting to do since most atrocities in human history have some religious origins, but that argument only hits the tip of the iceberg. The question still remains: why would we follow an immoral scripture, if it goes against our altruistic intuition?

The answer is found in another of our evolutionary traits. Our desire to follow a leader. Natural selection favors a desire to follow someone whom we perceive is more intelligent than ourselves. This trait would be beneficial to any group of early humans. Our genetic information would be more likely passed on, if we trust and follow a human that we perceive as more intelligent than ourselves. Based on the likely possibility that an intelligent human will lead us a safer direction than could be obtained by following our own perceived lesser intelligence. No doubt the "leader role" can be found in many species that live in groups throughout our world. In most lower mammals the leader is chosen based on a show of strength. In the case of humans, our survival was not based entirely on our strength. Intelligence played the larger role as our brains became more useful than our muscles. The end result of this process is an instinctive desire to follow an intelligent leader.

What this means for our moral development is that an individual, or group of individuals could easily lead the masses in an immoral direction. Our desire to follow the smarter fellow, temporally blinds our judgement. The more people that embrace an idea, the more desirable it becomes. Our ability to stray from the pack, also goes against our evolutionary hardware. When the group runs, you don't question why, you just start running. This served a function at a point in our evolutionary history, but today the function manifest itself by not allowing the individual in society to honestly question ideas that are commonly held.

There have been many leaders in human history and sure many of them were good, but on more that several occasions our leaders have lead us in an immoral direction. One might ask in a very similar way: " Why are we so easily lead in immoral direction if our instincts are to create a moral society?" Good question, it seems that humanities altruism and good morality toward strangers is almost certainly an afterthought in every case of our history. This phenomenon could be explained by another evolutionary trait called the hierarchy of needs. Self-preservation makes up the 1st level of needs, the foundation. (altruism for genetic descendants is a form of self-preservation). However altruism toward strangers only occurs after the physiological needs to self-preserve have been met. And so on and so on. When one priority of needs is met, we try to meet the next level filled with less priority needs. All the way up until people start worrying about irrelevant ideas like "is my dog depressed" or "is my cat happy."

I strongly believe that most leaders who have lead humanity in an immoral direction did so based on some aspect of our needs not being met. When our needs are not met, our ideas about morality are often bypassed. To illustrate this point one need only look at the high crime rates in impoverished communities. This does not mean we are immoral by nature, it means we self-preserve at the expense of morality. Moral ideas only occur in times when our lower level needs are met, at that time our altuistic nature kicks in and we re-evoluate our actions and the immoral ideas are rejected. It is no suprise that as our technology advances and our basic phisiological needs are quite easily obtained, our society rockets to a moral standard never seen before in human history.

The upward trend in our morality is summarized like this: At some point in history an event or change took place which made our basic needs appear to be threatened. We identified a leader, whom we felt was intellegent and trustworthy. This person might have had ideas which were immoral, but would help us obtain our needs. Our evolutionary hardware told us to follow. Immoral behavior may have taken place, and would be embraced by the masses as a justified means to and end. At some point another change or event takes place, sometimes centuries later maybe its an invention or discovery of a new resource. Our physiological needs become fufilled and our altruistic hardware kicks in. Whenever our physilogical needs are met, our altruistic hardware trumps our desire to follow and we "re-group" in a positive direction. This does not mean that ones need must be met for our altruistic side to shine. The above summary is just the more frequent route of moral advancement.

We are internally good, so long as our needs are met. Humanity in our modern form takes this concept one step further by creating precautions to preserve good morality even if the future brings an era of hardship. Morality is enforced by police. It is worth noting that police are representatives of laws that are inspired by our societies good intentions. Many laws are voted on by public, because we live in a democracy designed by the very altruistic instincts that make moral preservation desireable. We take the precautions to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have a safe and moral environment with abundant resources. Our moral origins are not the result of ancient scriptures instructing us. Morality has only existed because it was benifitial to our species survival. It certainly exist today only because it has been programmed into us by natural selection through many generations of altruistic behavior.

Religion in Politics

2009-04-21T16:23:00.005-05:00

I used to find comfort in knowing that my political representatives were on an invisible religious leash. What i mean by that is this: I thought that a believing person, who had the fear of Gods judgement would be more honest in a position power. However, i no longer support the position in favor of religions ability to control a persons morality. I have found no correlative data to support the idea that religion has control over the individual to self-govern. Sure there are probably people out there who genuinely feel afraid that god is watching and judging their every action and thought, and behave solely because of that fear. To those people i would like to ask this: If you knew there where no God, would you turn to a life of crime? Would you suddenly disregard the feelings, rights and suffering of your fellow humans. Hopefully the answer is no, and I would bet, that even ones feelings of pride when helping someone in need aren't diminished just because there is no subsequent reward by God.

Back to my original point, i was examining the requirements for holding a position of political office. For the most part, the only restrictions were put on age, and time spent as a citizen. You can even be a convicted felon and still be a U.S Representative. This is very scary to me. My daughters teacher in kindergarten needs at least a bachelors degree and a clean record. Aside from the specific requirements noted in the constitution, there are several requirements that are not written, but useful to persons with an interest in a political career. Professed affiliation with certain religious groups, such a Christianity, is certainly important in a country with a population that is over 80% Christian. It is a well known fact that in most areas of this country, if a potential candidate were to identify themselves as an atheist, the public mass disapproval would be the equivalent to political suicide. In order to be a member of government in a modern superpower, one is not required to be a student of political science, economics, law, civil engineering, military history or international relations. One need only be an expert fund raiser, look good and carry his or herself well on television, and profess a belief in the popular mythology. In our present political setup, a well spoken actor with knowledge of the bible, would defeat a quiet genius with a Nobel peace prize, who doesn't accept supernatural doctrines.

This brings me to my point, and my rather recent change of heart. I would support an Atheist candidate just on the idea that he is likely to be more honest than a religious one. While it is true, that we can never know the true motivation of any politician, any man or woman can claim to be religious to gain the upper hand in an election by supporting a popular idea. But only an honest person would claim to be an Atheist knowing that releasing such information would only hinder his or her campaign.

On a final note, i would also like to point out that any politician who claims to act on the authority of God, is the most terrifying person that i can imagine to be in control of a modern superpower. If you consider the strong possibility that God does not exist, you have to wonder, where did that voice that our leaders mistook for God come from? When someone prays for guidance, and then imagines that they heard an answer, they hold that answer to much higher degree of validity than that of their own opinion. They may disregard all reason, and act on whatever advice they imagined came from god. A religious person would certainly feel that the divine advice they received should not be subject to the same scrutiny as advice from a friend. Maybe it was the wind, maybe it was someone in the next room, maybe it was their own internal monologue, maybe it was an imaginary man whom they feel is infallible. Whatever the possibility, it is a truly frightening notion.

The Concept of Self

2009-04-15T17:52:00.006-05:00

I am currently working on a thorough and complete argument against religious claims to humans moral dependency on God. It is an important piece of writing for me, because as I've said before, Religion can only attempt to claim jurisdiction in a few areas of understanding, morality and creation. My up coming post is my best effort to put the nail in the coffin on the subject of morality. In the mean time please enjoy an interesting perspective on the human soul that i came across a few years back while visiting The Agnostic Mom. Great debate has been made in the past about possibility of the souls existence. However, science has made such enormous progress in mapping the human mind and is close to a full understanding of how our mind works, the debate is over as far as I'm concerned. We have matured intellectually, and allowed science to eliminate all supernatural hypothesis to describe our world. The concept of the soul has washed away with the rain of science and understanding, but for some reason, a circular debate amongst believers will continue. On the atheist side of the coin, here is a fantastic analogy from Dale McGowan, taken from an interview on http://www.agnosticmom.com/ on the subject of what happens to our "self" when we die....

"Whatever sense of self and personal identity we have springs entirely from the constantly recomposed electrochemical symphony playing in our heads. Some find that horrifying; I find it utterly amazing. And asking where our “self” goes when that electrochemical symphony stops playing is just like asking where the music goes when an orchestra stops playing."
- Dale McGowan

The Easter Story

2009-04-12T09:03:00.008-05:00

Sir Lionel Luckhoo is the Guinness book of world records "Most Successful Lawyer", with over 245 successive acquittals for persons charged with murder. He is also a Evangelical author of several famous christian propaganda booklets. In one of these booklets Sir Lionel uses his persuasive lawyer skills to "prove" that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, and such a fact would hold up in a court of law. Quite an impressive feat no doubt, and yet doubt is my speciality! The reason is am posting this is for two reasons:

1. Today is Easter.

2. I have recently been reassured by a friend that the evidence proving Jesus' Resurrection is very compelling because the most successful lawyer ever is says it would hold up in a court of law.

The first thing that comes to my mind when i hear about a man helping people to be acquitted in over 245 straight murder cases, is this: Statistically some of these people were guilty, and were set free by this alleged pious man. This only goes to show that this mans orator strength is not found in his ability to tell the truth, but rather, his skill is to persuade ones opinion in spite of what is truth. Not a very noble man, in my opinion. Ultimately the claim that "Because a really famous lawyer says the Resurrection story is true, it must be true." does not prove anything. A trial has been famously summarized as 12 people trying to decide who has the best lawyer.

Here is an excerpt from a book called: Losing Faith in Faith, by Dan barker. In this excerpt, Dan shows some of the discrepancies in the gospels accounts of Jesus' Resurrection. I will ask you a jury of my peers, a similar question that has been asked by Dan Barker: Try to decipher some type of story, that would hold up in a court of law, based on the bible.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Special thanks to The Atheist Revolution for the link to Dan Barkers fantastic website.

Obama Speaks To The Muslim World

2009-04-06T16:11:00.008-05:00

A few days ago president Barack Obama addressed Turkey with promises of peace, declaring that "The U.S. is not at war with Islam." What a wonderful concept: a Christian nation and a Muslim nation working together for a common good. I wonder if anyone in Muslim audience at the press conference regrets that Barack Obama will burn in hell. That is the accepted belief in Turkey, not about Obama specifically but about all Christians. IF true how unfortunate for the 81% of Americans that feel that 86% Of Turkey will also burn in hell. Apparently our political representatives feel this is a minor obstacle.

While noting this insane viewpoint, its even stranger to watch politicians tip-toe around each others religious viewpoints, both sides feigning respect for each others dogma. I have to question the political sincerity of our efforts. American political policy is riddled with disdain for apparent sin agendas of the pro-choice and homosexuals. I wonder what is considered worse in the Christian mind: Aborting your unborn child, or raising your child Muslim? It would seem that from a Christian perspective, an unborn child would at least have a chance at heaven. Yet from that same perspective, raising a child to worship a false god would seem to be far worse, considering that instilling a child with Muslim beliefs is the christian equivalent of a ticket straight to hell . Why don't Christians openly fight Muslim parents who are sentencing their children to hell?

I wonder..... if turkey was a homosexual nation, would Obama fall under heavy criticism from the right-wing Christians my for his show of diplomacy? I could almost certainly say yes. Would America even attempt diplomacy with a homosexual nation? Probably not, such is the warped perspective of religious logic. Obviously "a homosexual nation" is just a made up concept to illustrate a point. The Christian political agenda, should put more effort into fighting false idol worship, since going to hell is the worst possible thing that could happen to a person. Yet this is not the case, and only further illustrates the inconsistencies of religious views in America. As much as i detest Islamic extremist (or religious extremism in general), at least they are logically consistent in their warped moral beliefs.

I only hope that before the "perceived" end of the world comes, we can overcome these pointless obstacles. I fear that if something were to happen, which humanity thought was the start of the end, Christians certainly wouldn't aid the damned, for fear of damnation themselves, and Muslim nations certainly won't offer any support to infidels. I know Christians won't wanna be caught showing support for the apparent Muslim anti-Christ and his nation if they strongly believe that God is about to make an appearance and reign down fire on the sinners. The same is probably true for Muslims

This whole scenario is not a long shot so long as religion is the primary guide of our action, yet it is so pointless that it makes me disgusted. Perhaps someday people from two different nations can meet and unite together with no imaginary boundaries to lead us to hate or disagree in policy. Disagreements which are based on two incompatible pretend ideas, that shouldn't even be a consideration in matters of great importance.

Great atheistic accomplishments

2009-04-04T14:06:00.006-05:00

Recently i was challenged by a friend and fellow blogger, to take a different approach to my debate tactics. Instead of pointing out problems with religion and diminishing its value to mankind, (which is not what i was doing anyway) why not write a piece pointing out all the wonderful things atheism has given humans. I suspect that this fellows request was based on the assumption that i would be hard pressed to find accomplishment that could be directly attributed to atheism. Though he is quite wrong, i feel his comments represent a common misconception about atheism. A misconception that atheist don't carry or possibly even recognize. Maybe this is why atheist don't feel a need to write about this topic very often. The religious or perhaps even agnostics however, do not see what atheism has contributed to society, or why we so proudly promote atheism. I shall do my part to put this concept to rest, and explain why proving atheism's importance is not always the focus of our atheist vs. theist debates, as it is truly common sense, yet unrecognized by mainstream society.

Before i offer some examples of atheistic accomplishments. I must try to define what an atheist is and what an atheistic accomplishment would be.

Atheist- One who believes that there are no supernatural entities.

An atheist looks at all things, as having natural causes. Now having said that, it is possible that many people who believe in a god may still take an atheistic approach to life. Will god help me win the game? Or will practice, hard work and dedication help me? If you feel that practice is more important, then you've taken an atheistic approach to winning. Will god maintain my health? Or will proven things like diet and exercise? If you feel the latter is the correct way, then you've taken an atheistic approach to health. To summarize: An atheistic accomplishment is an accomplishment that can be directly attributed to not-believing in supernatural entities. Now all of a sudden atheism doesn't seem so uncommon does it?

Lets start with all of science: I would like to remind you that everything unexplained was once attributed to God. Learning that hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes are not the result of Gods wrath and truly have natural causes, has allowed humans to make very accurate predictions about the "how and when", which I'm sure has chalked up a few saved lives. Then of course there is all of modern medicine. I would like to remind you again, that for thousands of years demons or angry gods made people ill, not viruses. Prior to medicine only religious rituals could aid the ill.

I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis. I feel its safe to say that all breakthrough advances in science would be left in the dust if mankind had persist down the religious path and clung to theistic hypothesis to explain our world. In matters of science, atheistic accomplishments are the only accomplishments.

So isn't everyone by that definition kind-of an atheist?

Sure, but not totally, this is what i mean: Today's definition of atheist states that all hypothesis' have a natural origin or explanation. Here's where the total atheist of today and the scientific atheist in practice deviate. While many scientists might take an atheistic approach to solving a problem in biology they still go home and thank god for their life and and many blessings. This is the only difference. Atheism is predominate in all of modern society, it is directly responsible for all advances in science, and yet is completely unrecognized for its contributions by the religious and religious supporters.

Today the domain of the supernatural clings only to morality and creation. That is the difference, when someone today says 'I'm an atheist' they are really only atheistic about two extra subjects than most religious. So why should modern atheist be identified as radical for trying to put a natural hypothesis to explain morality and creation? Great scientist throughout history who refused to accepted the god hypothesis have been viewed as radical. The best example of atheism is our society was pointed out by Richard Dawkins who said: "We are all atheist about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Perhaps if the atheism in all of us was recognized, those of us who push atheism one step further wouldn't seem so radical.

With regard to my thoughts on the atheistic approach I have been told to "Remember, Secular (atheist) scientists fought hard to keep the Big Bang Theory out of the classrooms because they dismissed it as religiously based." This comment was supposed to show how the atheistic approach could hinder science.

I would like to remind everyone that all new idea's in science are dismissed at first, not because of credibility or context, but rather, because the old ideas have so many supporters. Scientist have dedicated there lives to supporting theories, written books, based subsequent theories upon said theories, and are not so quick to have their pride and life's work tossed out. Further, the big bang theory is still in direct contradiction with the genesis version of creation, which states that all of existence was created in six days. Trust me there are a lot of people who still hold this view. The fact that the big bang theory was put forth by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître only proves that the religious often take an atheistic approach to science. Had he represented the theistic approach he would have directed his efforts to proving how the universe was created in a day, which took place only 6,000 years ago as the holy bible clearly states.

Atheism is an approach to problem solving, its not anything other than that. Those who try and state that atheism is new kind of religion are way off. Such a statement could be compared to calling the scientific method a religion. For truly that's all atheism is; It's just an unrecognized step in the scientific method that rules out supernatural explanations. I'm grateful for atheism, and so should anyone who appreciates the level of knowledge and understanding that we have today.

Biblical Giant Ears.

2009-03-29T15:36:00.014-05:00

While listening to Christian radio as i often do, i was fascinated by a discussion about the extreme ages of biblical figures like Noah. I don't feel the need to try and refute these claims of extreme longevity in this post (but maybe in future post) because a ridiculous idea has me completely distracted. It is a well documented fact that the human ears and nose never stop growing. When this fact is applied to a biblical figure like Methuselah who was supposed to have lived 969 years, i started to wonder just how large the human ears might grow if given such a life span. Here is a list of a few biblical figures and their ages according to the bible:

Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5)
Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8)
Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27)
And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29)

I did a bit of Internet research to try and determine if there was a documented growth rate for the human ear, and as i turns out there was not at least in the form that i was looking for. However, i did find a site that posted a documented average of ear sizes for different points in human life. Unfortunately the website i found only dealt with metric but i will do the conversion for the end results. The male ears yielded larger results in all ages of life, and since the bible mostly deals with the ages of males i will post only the male results to illustrate my point.

The average male ear size at birth was 52mm at birth, 65mm at adulthood (20 yrs old) and 78mm at 70 yrs. By taking this information i have created my own formula by assuming that after reaching full physical development at the age of 20, within the next 50 years our ears grow an average of 13mm per fifty years of adult life. I would like to point out that i feel this is at least mildly accurate for this concept and would not even bother trying to defend my formula since it is scientifically irrelevant.

If we take the formula: Age at death minus 20years of pre-adulthood divided by 50 with the result multiplied by the known growth rate of 13mm plus 65mm (average ear size at 20yrs) it should yield a number that we can determine how large these biblical figures ears were. Here is the formula if you don't like story problems.

[(Age-20)/50] x Growth rate} + 65mm = ear size

And here are the results:

Adam's ear size at 930 years old: 301.6mm or 11.87 inches

Seth's ear size at 912 years old: 296.9mm or 11.86 inches

Methuselah's ear size at 969 years old: 311.74mm or 12.27 inches

Noah's ear size at 950 years old: 306.8mm or 12.07 inches

The results of this research are completely circumstantial and irrelevant, yet still totally hilarious! To imagine these biblical figure and their giant ears makes me chuckle every time. Yet still it brings a larger question to mind: Did these giant ears, enable these religious icons to better hear the voice of God? While this is certainly a preposterous notion, it could explain why my prayers were never answered, by suggesting that my ears were simply too tiny to hear Gods voice! If it were true this problem would be of no concern to famous televangelist Pat Robertson and his tremendous ears, and would definitely confirm the means by which he stays in direct communication with God.

Creationism Refuted....Again: Star Distances

2009-03-23T16:53:00.006-05:00

As i have mentioned before i am making it my personal mission to combat the pseudo science of creationism. Though creationism is not an excepted theory in the scientific community, it is widely excepted in society amongst the religious. While i would not try to dictate what an individual chooses to believe, i would like to help keep information available to atheist and agnostics who might encounter similar twisted logic in in their daily lives and conversations. I would like to repeat that i do not wish do dictate what one should believe. However when such beliefs as creationism try to "move in" on what my children are taught in school i draw the line.

Christians who employ Christian science to justify their beliefs cross over to a slightly different plain of argument then someone who simply chooses belief based on blind faith. Blind faith, does not need justification to the believer, Christian science on the other hand attempts uses the sciences to prove that events in scripture are true and provable, thus they feel they have justified their belief in Christianity. If your not familiar, with creationism or creation theory, I'll give you a short summary.

Everything in the bible, including genesis is a literal account of history. God created the earth in six days, the great flood, Noah's ark, the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old,etc.. What creation theory really creates is a whole list of inconsistency's with accepted ideas about our world. For example when did the dinosaurs live? must have been with humans if the earth is only 6000 years old, what about the rock dating that goes back billions of years? Christian science attempts to answer these questions by reevaluating the evidence.

My refutation of creationism for this post (there are many others!!) is a concept that occurred to me after watching a show about astronomy. It is an example of evidence for the true age of the universe that cannot be viewed in any other manor than a solid contradiction of the young earth theory (another name for creation theory).

The proof about the age of our universe is found in star distances. The basic concept is that we have identified that certain stars have a known distance of billions of light years away. All light, including light emitted from stars has a fixed speed that it can travel. That speed is 299,792,458 meters per second. For many practical purposes, the speed of light is so great that it can be regarded to travel instantaneously. However, the finite speed of light becomes noticeable when applied to very long distances. Like in the case of distant stars. When a star is said to be a million miles away, that means that light from that star will take one million of our earth years to reach our eye. When you look at the night sky, you are basically looking deep into history. To drive the point home image this: If a star that is known to be a million light years away, burned out at the exact second you read this, it would take one million years for that star to vanish from our perspective on earth.

I will not go into the exact means of how a star distance is determined, but the accuracy of determining star distances is very reliable. It has yet to be discredited and even if the math was slightly wrong it would still put the creation theory out of commission. For creation theory to hold true all stars must be located within 6000 light years from earth, or their light would not have even reached us yet! This dilemma is so damming (pun intended) to creationism that while researching this topic i found it was even addressed in a post at GodAndScience.org of all sites!! The article points out what a debate stopper this concept is for creationist. The article is very well worded so i will not attempt to summarize, and i will end my argument with the words from that very post.

It is extremely evident from astronomy that our Universe is billions of light-years across, and thus that light from distant stars has taken billions of years to reach us. One method of accurately determining star distances uses Cepheid variable stars, which have a known relationship between brightness and pulse rate. This relationship is explained by physics, and verified (calibrated) by measuring all Cepheid variable stars whose distances are close enough to confirm by parallax. Therefore, the actual brightness of a Cepheid variable star can be determined by its pulse rate, regardless of how far away it is. And, of course, if a star's actual brightness and measured (apparent) brightness are known, its distance can be calculated from a simple equation (apparent brightness decreases as one over the distance squared). This and many other methods verify Hubble's law describing the expansion of the Universe, with the beginning between 10 and 20 billion years ago. Attempts by young-Earth proponents to explain these facts have been unavailing. Norman and Setterfield's proposal of decay in the speed of light is easily shown to be invalid (Roberts, Ross, and Stoner all deal with this), as is Humphreys' attempt at a young-Earth cosmology (see Conner and Ross (1999)). Another explanation, that the Universe was created with "appearance of age" is both un-scientific at its core (if all the evidence that we see for age is fabricated, then why even have this debate?), as well as having theological problems with the truthfulness of God, since in that case we are constantly observing events in the cosmos which in fact never occurred (see Brain Teaser: SN1987a for an illustrative example of this point).

The eAtheist

2009-03-22T11:39:00.005-05:00

Well, The Revolution is no more. I have changed the name of this blog to represent the new direction in life that i have taken. As i have mentioned before in my post about atheist charities, i feel that we must undergo a bit of a public makeover order to really gain mainstream acceptance. I am committed to doing my part and is reflected in the name change of this blog. I have already begun to encourage atheist bloggers and readers to put word atheist directly in the name of whatever topic they represent, for example: If you have a blog about cooking and you are a passionate atheist, then how about the atheist chef. Whatever your focus, if you consider yourself atheist, then represent your position. The atheist carpenter, The atheist mechanic, etc.

Why is that important you ask? What the hell does cooking have to do with Atheism? Well it is a simple part of our public acceptance. Maybe your not aware, but there is a huge stigma attached to the atheist label. Maybe you've noticed that there aren't a lot of politicians out there who openly state "I am an atheist and I represent and support the idea of an atheist society." That is partly because atheist aren't viewed as moral or normal by mainstream society. (It is getting better though.) The more frequently we identify ourselves as atheist, the more organized we seem and the more we will hear people saying "Hey, atheist are everywhere, they're just regular people like you and me." This is a notion is a small but important step in getting representation by public officials, and acceptance in society. I'm not saying its the best idea ever put forth, but its the best idea i have so far. I just want to do my part.

An opposite effect applies to negativity. If the best thing you can think to do is ridicule the religious for their beliefs, then please disassociate yourself from the atheist who are actually trying to make a positive change. Unwarranted negativity, and insulting behaviour, only fuel our negative public image and force this movement to take steps backward. No one ought to call a religious person a moron for the beliefs they hold. Odds are that if you were indoctrinated and raised in their shoes you would think and believe very similar ideas. Please swallow your pride, and be civil, your not just representing yourself, your representing all of us.

Now, as far as this blog is concerned, all future post will have a focus on topics relating to atheism, religious debate, educating readers about the lies in christian science, and equipping the everyday atheist with facts that will help disprove religious fallacy. That is the new mission and direction of this blog. The primary audience that for my future posts will be the everyday atheist or {e}Atheist.

Atheist Charity

2009-03-19T16:23:00.007-05:00

It always make me wonder when i hear an atheist call for total removal of religion in America as if there are no good side effects. Its not that i disagree with the former statement, i agree religion has lost its practical purpose in society (if it ever had one), irrational religious beliefs have formed intellectual barriers for thousands of years and all of science and humanity has to deal with it. Ultimately i feel that religion is not intellectually necessary any more, the mechanics of the world can be explained, morality can be defined without scripture.

So it is not that rally cry of fellow atheist that bothers me, it is simply the lack of a plan for phasing out religion. When i ask and atheist "well how do you propose we do that?" I usually get a reply that shows not much thought has been put into it.

The truth is atheist must organize and provide a substitute for religion on several different levels that aren't intellectual. Its not enough to just say "see i told you religious belief was irrational, here is the proof, now quit going to church".

It will not work that way. What we need to do is organize and help people to find a way to satisfy those human needs without religion. Let me offer an example and i bit of personal insight.

I was raised with a loose Christian background. I grew up, read a little bit and became Agnostic, read a bit more and.....drum roll please....now I'm an atheist. Despite the different opinions about religion that I've embraced in my life, one thing has remained the same: My respect for the overwhelming amount of public service that Christian charities and organizations do. Lets face it, Christians donate billions of dollars to charity each year, that money does a lot of good.

So in order to contribute to society i want to start an atheist charitable organization. The idea is new to me and to be honest I've still got a lot of research to do. The main reason for starting an atheist charity (other than obvious reasons) is to help combat the public view about atheists and to offer an alternative to religion for some of that human desire to contribute to society. If atheist are serious about helping the world ween itself off religion, we need to convince society that the world can continue in every aspect through non-religious avenues. Proving religious beliefs to be false and irrational isn't enough. Atheist must show the religious that they don't need to go to church to contribute to mankind or to feel good about themselves. With enough positive organizations and positive media attention, the general public could embrace atheism with i bit more confidence. I hope you see what I'm getting at here:

I imagine a world where people can boast about being part of an atheist organization with the same pride that church goers flaunt as a badge of morality.

I realize that every charity that is non-religious affiliated is essentially an "atheist" organization. That in itself is not good enough for the atheist movement. I really feel we (atheist) need to build organizations with the word atheist right in the title. Like i said, besides obvious reasons to start a charity, building atheist charities and public service organizations will have a strong psychological benefits toward athiests public image and public acceptance, while providing religious alternatives to feel good about oneself.

My initial thoughts, are to have the organization set up for the purpose of charity, helping underprivileged kids perhaps. Unlike the christian organizations, (here's your bible and here's your donated food) i don't wish to distribute atheist literature. (proofs of gods non-existence, etc..) I would strongly caution anyone who wishes to to start an atheist public service organization to use the same approach. I feel that would only cause objections and public opposition that would distract from the cause. Besides there are a ton of atheist websites, books, and just plain 'Ole science for that purpose. I just want to provide a feel-good public service, under the atheist banner.

If you have any suggestion for a specific cause, or name, please comment :)

Creationism proofs refuted

2009-03-17T20:44:00.007-05:00

I have been following the pseudo science of creationism lately. More specifically i have been listening to a Christian talk radio show host by the name of Bob Dutko. Bob is the former Press Secretary for the Christian Coalition of America, who also happens to be the epitome of a fundamental Christian. Another of Bobs claim to fame is his CD collection called Top Ten Proofs. His CD called "Top Ten Proofs of Gods Existence" represent the foundation on which "creation science" is built. In this Series of post i will be refuting each and every one of his proofs. I would like to point out that am not a scientist of any sort, however in the realm of creation science i feel i can hold my ground with just some simple logic and common sense.

Before you read Bobs proof, we need to learn a bit about physics, as it will be referenced in a few paragraphs. If you refer to this link of the 2nd law of thermodynamics you will see something about entropy. If you don't want to link out, here is the just of it. The 2nd law implies simply that the energy in the universe will eventually disperse evenly and be used up. Basically the universe metaphorically is like a spring wound watch. You wind the spring, and it holds energy. When the spring unwinds the energy is used up and the watch eventually comes to a rest. We know the universe is currently full of energy so we obviously haven't reached that point. Also the 2nd law proves that the universe as we know it has could not have always been in existence or it would have run out of energy by now and become dead. This is an excepted theory and proves there was in fact a beginning in which all of the energy in the universe was created. Real scientist would call this: The Big Bang.

Here is Bobs first attempt where he invokes the Laws of Thermodynamics to show proof of God.

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".
In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.
Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Here is my refutation of his Proof

Bobs proof seems to me like a bit of a word game, and is not the first time such a word game is been employed to persuade people of a flawed concept. It reminds me of one of Zeno's paradoxes, which states that:

Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

This is as obvious misrepresentation of basic physics, but though its worded cleverly it is very deceiving. If the same tactic is applied to a concept that is not familiar (like thermodynamics) it is even more effective.

So here is my take on the big bang: We know that our universe is a closed system, no energy in, no energy out. We know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that energy in our universe had an initial starting point when it was at its peak energy and is slowly being dispersed through entropy. Bob states that this starting point is where all of the universes energy began. But was it? The truth is that when the universe was formed a closed system was created, however we know nothing about how that energy was trapped into the system. I say trapped, because we don't know, and have no reason to believe that it was created when our "closed system" was formed. This is the root of Bobs word game.

Bob draws his conclusion from three unknown facts.

One: there was no existence prior to the formation of our universe.

Two: energy was created initially in the formation of our universe.

Three: God is the default answer where science has a gap.

In reality these first two concepts are still unknown, and the third is just a short cut to any thought at all. Again the only conclusion we can draw for certain, based on laws of thermodynamics, is that when the universe was created a "closed system" was formed. We know nothing about where that energy came from. (The default answer is not God or fairies or any supernatural entity.) There are still many theories being worked out that could explain how both a "closed system" universe is formed and where it could get its energy. One of such theories is known unofficially as The Parent Universe Theory. Which states the possibility of a parent universe which could spawn smaller daughter universes through black holes. It is also theorised that there is a megaverse out there which sections off smaller "closed systems" stacked with energy. Like air passing through a giant tub of soapy water, and releasing bubbles of trapped air.

If you look at how much is still unknown about the physics of our universe the possibilities for an event that would lead to natural occurring universe could be endless, however a supernatural explanation will more likely be Option #1,000,000,000 and not Option C

And so, Bob Dutko, the creationist, looks at his tiny bubble and says this is all that there is, and god is the cause. The energy in this bubble could not have been created due to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and so on.....

Science however will continue to look outside our tiny bubble and continue to give logical and natural occurring explanations for our reality.

Morality without Religion

2009-03-15T09:54:00.001-05:00

For thousands of years the nature of ethics and morality has been a argued by philosophers, theologists, and everyone in between. Theologists would credit religion and God for laying the guidelines for good and bad behavior, while philosophers would take an alternative road and investigate the fundamental characteristics that define moral behavior. I would not like to be excluded from the enormous list of people who find interest in this topic, so I will take the uncommon road and offer my take on the basic principles of morality.

While moral codes vary throughout the world, they can be divided into two categories:

1.Morals with regard to religion.
2.Morals with regard to society.

It is possible for both types of morality to exist in the same environments, for example: In America the majority of citizens have religious guidelines for their actions and behavior, but they are not necessarily laws or mandatory behavior. Conversely, an example of a single morality would be a Muslim nation, were religious guidelines dictate law and social behavior.

I will not discuss morality in relation to religion, due to its obvious origin in religious text. The concept here is to imagine that there were no religious text to provide moral guidelines and we were left with determining the nature of morality.

The morality of society:
In society, the concept of good morality can be defined as an absence of bad morality. This is due to the fact that one is not obligated to do good, or in other words it is not enforced, demanded, required, in any aspect of society, however a lack of bad behavior is required. Bad behavior in many forms is prohibited.
Also, the principles of good morals are subjective to the individual, and are not as universal as bad morality, and thus harder to define. If you wish to offer your definition, feel free to comment in that regard.

The four basic principles of immoral behavior.
These are the defining principles that an action or behavior must have in order to qualify as immoral.

1. One rational person
2. The action (or not acting with regard to obligation)of the rational person must, in some manner affect another.
3. The rational person must act intentionally
4. The affected must dislike the manner in which it was affected.
These four principles are then, influenced by two variables.

Two moral variables:
1. Consideration for the circumstances surrounding the action.
2. A common agreement on the dislike, like or indifference felt in regard to action and circumstances.

I am sure this sounds vague, lets clarify each principle so that there is no misunderstanding of what i mean.

Principle 1: One rational person.
I recently discussed this topic with a fellow blogger, who pointed out that if a tree falls on a person, the tree is not considered immoral. Therefore the two entities must be rational, able to think and understand their surroundings. Why do i keep saying entities instead of people?
Principle 2: The action of one rational person must, in some manner affect another.
For the most part its redundant to state this as a principle, due to the fact that almost everything you can physically "do" will affect someone. Yet it must be noted for the sake of eliminating exceptions: If your actions do not affect anyone surrounding you in any way, they cannot be immoral. (Religious morals are different, if you are by yourself and no one is affected, a divine entity is still aware of your action.) In the case of society, someone must be affected, this includes when they are affected by not acting when one has an obligation to another.

Principle 3: Did the rational person act intentionally?
An unintentional act needs some definition. It is the obligation of the individual to know or to try and learn how his or her actions will affect his or her surroundings. If such obligations are fulfilled, and the action still affects another in a way unintended, the action cannot be immoral.

Principle 4:Did the affected dislike the manner in which it was affected.
This principle is important. While many would state that morality has a direct or indirect correlation with harm or suffering. I do not agree. I would say that harm is a one factor that determines moral behavior, yet it is not a fundamental requirement. For example lying, nudity, using curse words: these are actions that do not always correlate with harm. I feel that immoral behavior is always disliked, yet the causes for dislike are subjective and hard (if not impossible) to define. Here are some examples of vague immorality: A behavior could be disliked because it might generate, or perpetuate a different immoral act.
A behavior might be disliked because it hinders the development of society.

Now the two variables:
Variable 1. Circumstance is very essential in determining bad behavior. To state that murder is always wrong would be incorrect. It is acceptable for self defense, national security, as well as many other possible scenarios. One must determine the circumstances surrounding the action in order to judge correctly.

Variable 1. This is the key to determining all that is right and wrong. There have been many who would say that an action is only good or bad when you perceive it that way. Its the "glass is half full" philosophy. I say the glass is half full only when the majority of society agrees that it is half full.

Every action must be weighed from the eyes of the doer and receiver. If my actions affect someone and i am pleased, i must ask would i be equally pleased if everyone acted in this manner? The answer to this question will give the action its moral definition.
In a way its a similar concept to the "golden rule". (do on to others as you would have done to yourself.)

I spoke with someone who had an objection this concept and offered this scenario to illustrate the contradictions of the golden rule:

If you walk into a shoe store, the store owner wants you to by a pair of shoes, he will be displeased if you leave empty handed. Yet you don't buy anything because his shoes are too expensive. If you where a store owner you would be displeased if he did not buy your shoes, yet if the owner was shopping he would want a deal too. What the customer wants and what the store owner wants conflict. In this case it is impossible to "do on to others as as you would have done to yourself." So which behavior is immoral not buying shoes or not lowering his prices?

The answer can be found in the second of the four principles.
Suppose the customer never went into the shoe store, financially this is the same for the owner as someone shopping and not buying, in either case he is not affected by the customer. The customer was simply not acting and there was no obligation to buy. Therefore not buying his shoes does not meet all four requirements found in immoral behavior. In fact neither position meets all of the required principles, and therefore cannot even be judged as moral or immoral.

If you apply anything labeled immoral in our society, i think you'll find that it meets my requirements. If you do find some error, please comment accordingly. The goal here is not to prove that I'm right, but to find a formula for determining morality.

For other interesting discussions on morality please visit http://www.wayofthemind.org/

Born again Atheist

2009-03-11T21:22:00.006-05:00

I have always considered myself a straight forward, "hard core" (pun intended) Agnostic. I was the epitome of fence sitting. I have thought to myself 'This is the only correct logical position to hold with regard to supernatural entities', due to, what i felt was a lack of evidence on both parts. In fact i have gone out of my way to support this position throughout this blog. I have made it clear that i feel the existence of god(s) is unknowable. However recently I've read a few fantastic books, one of which is "The God Delusion" by famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins. Richard classified Agnostics by two categories:

TAP
Temporary Agnostic in practice

This means: only agnostic about a hypothesis until the verdict is in and the evidence confirms its truth or fallacy.

PAP
Permanent Agnostic in Principle

This means: Permanently Agnostic due to the belief that the hypothesis in question will always remain unanswerable.

Upon recent reflection and "soul searching" i have realized that my position as a PAP is a paradox. I have decided (logically i hope) that claiming that a thing is unknowable is in essence making a claim about the unknown outcome of future knowledge. Summarize in less philosophical mumbo jumbo:

If-

One claims that gods existence or non-existence will forever be a question without an answer.

That sentence in itself is a statement of knowledge.

I cannot know that it will forever be an unanswered question.

Thus to be a Permanent Agnostic in Principle is a paradox.

So....I changed my position to that of the TAP, a wise position to hold if uneducated about matters of religion. For most who are uninformed, this is the only "safe" or logical position to hold. However in light of my recent education via Richard Dawkins, i can use the shading of probability to determine whether or not there is a high, low or neutral probability of god(s) existence. I can safely say that i now share the atheist point of view on matters of the supernatural, due to what i have found is a high probability of god(s) non-existence.

Here is an example of what i mean by the shading of probability and how it changes our perception of what is reality:

One could say that i should not go outside because i might be killed by a satellite falling out of orbit and smashing me to a pulp. I know that the probability of that event happening to me is very, very, slim to none (for the record i feel the existence of god is less probable than this example) though i cannot with 100% certainty say that such an event is impossible, no one would hold the opinion that this as a real danger. Nor should one logically base any bit of their life on this possibility.

If you claim there is a god, i cannot prove that you are wrong with 100% certainty, However with the shading of probability i feel confident that you are almost certainly wrong.

I will be updating The Revolution with many new blogs on the subject of Atheism and the logic behind this position. I will also be updating past posts, where i feel i was holding an incorrect position. Please keep that in mind while reading any post prior to this date. Hopefully readers will continue to add there wonderful comments, and we can continue to debate and discuss the subject.

Re-wire your brain

2007-05-05T17:50:00.002-05:00

Have you ever wondered why the suicide rate in Ethiopia is almost zero? How bizarre. I recently stumbled on to this statistic and it just blew my mind. (No pun intended.) I can't help but wonder why it is that here, in America, the land of opportunity; people are killing themselves by the tens-of-thousands. Meanwhile on the other side of the world in a hopelessly desolate, hunger-stricken, 3rd world nation, manic-depressives do not exist.

Maybe it's not so surprising though. According to The National Institute of Mental Health's official website, an estimated 1 out of every 5 people in America have some type of diagnosable mental illness, ranging from manic-depressives to binge-eating to social anxiety disorder. An astonishing 2 million children in the U.S. are prescribed Ritalin for A.D.D or A.D.H.D. perhaps you know a few of these kids, I know several in my small town alone. So one must ask: Why are we so screwed up? Is it necessary for us to drug ourselves to solve this problem?

I believe that we are not born with mental illnesses like bulimia, depression, anorexia, binge-eating, or social anxiety. These illnesses develop over time as a result of specific behavior and thought patterns. These patterns may or may not be the direct result of environmental stimuli. Current research is implying that we have the power to heal our own mental afflictions. With a bit of self-control one could alter their behavior and thought patterns. We know this is within everyone's capabilities. The real surprise is what results from this could be a complete change in the chemical balance of neurons in the brain.

Here is a quick lesson in what we know about the human mind. More specifically, a brief explanation of how our thought patterns are formed and personality traits solidified.
After birth, the human brain is a fury of neural connections and brain cells migrating and repositioning. This occurs when our early minds respond to environmental stimuli or input. Neural pathways then become established throughout the brain. These neural pathways are the communication lines that our brains depend on for signaling responses to stimuli. Here is an example of that process: Our brains shift in response to environmental input, then further shift in response to the results from our own response. Each time we respond a specific neural pathway is used for that response. Each time we respond in the same manor, or the more frequently we use that neural pathway, the more engrained it becomes and the more easily that response can be triggered. Sometimes neural pathways can become so engrained that they can almost block higher level, more logical thought processes. The opposite effect occurs when neural pathways go unused for extended periods of time: a Darwinian process of elimination takes place where those unused connections are subsequently destroyed. This engraining and neural pruning is most active between the ages of two and ten. The result is a human brain whose wiring is for better or worse, completely unique.

Current research supports the idea that our neural pathways are not fixed or locked in. They can be altered even into adulthood. So why not try and rewire our own hardware? For example: Suppose you suffer from depression. Try to smile more often. This may sound like a stupid solution but those neural pathways that signal your facial muscles to smile are wired-in with the same neural pathways that signal feelings of happiness. A more effective solution is to force yourself into thinking positive thoughts in every situation, even if it's insincere. This positive thinking if consistently applied, will create a thought pattern that is more easily triggered. Eventually your pessimistic and negative thought patterns will subside.

Here of an example of an experience I've had with altering my own "wiring". A few years back, I struggled with a short attention span and a bad memory. It affected me mostly when I was reading. I would read a few pages and upon reflection, find that I had retained almost no information about what I had read. In order to correct this problem I decided to try this: I would only read a few sentences, maybe a small paragraph. I then would summarize to myself what I had just read. I would repeat this process for a few weeks gradually increasing the amount of material that I would read in-between my summaries. By the time that I finished my book, there was no need to summarize. The material I was reading, I was remembering. This is what happened: By pausing to reflect on my reading every few seconds, I forced those neural pathways associated with short-term memory to become more engrained and consequently, short-term memory was more easily triggered.

But why not just call the ol'doctor and pick up a prescription. I could have been easily diagnosed with A.D.D. But would Ritalin really fix the problem? Let me give you a little allegory:

One morning you wake up to find that your battery in your car is dead. You try to jump-start it several times unsuccessfully. Finally you conclude that the battery is no good and must be replaced. Problem solved right? The following week you awake to the same problem, dead battery, won't hold a charge. Once again you replace it with a new one. The following week the same problem occurs, so you decide to investigate. You discover that a ground wire under the hood has come loose. This is causing the batteries to short out. What would you do? Keep buying batteries every week? Or fix the root of the problem: the loose ground wire.

To you and I this seems like a no-brainer. You should fix the ground. However in the real world a similar situation is going on with anti-depressants, social anxiety medication, Ritalin and other prescription drugs. If I am depressed and prescribed some happy pill, then I'm only going to treat the symptoms of the real issue. Or in other words I'll just keep on buying a new battery every week.

Unlike my car scenario, the repercussions of taking medication are more severe. Dependency is likely. A sense of helplessness without medication is almost certain. Today's society would love to have you believing that you can't cure these problems or that depression is some disease and it's out of your hands. Bullshit! This type of psychiatric propaganda is what is wrong with our society! This is why 30,000 Americans kill themselves each year. Our society and culture puts way too much emphasis on happiness. The seemingly harmless idea that every individual has the right to pursue happiness has been twisted into a cultural obsession. Every day the prescription drug industry pushes insecurity on the general population. You've seen the ads on T.V. They want you to question your stability. They want you to question yourselves until you feel like something's wrong. Don't let your children grow up thinking they're helpless victims of there own emotions.

The truth is, we all feel sad, insecure, bad, negative, angry, but how you manage your emotions is your responsibility and not some pills. PARENTS! Teach you children how to control their emotions and feelings. When I see some 10-year-old kid on Ritalin looking like a zombie, I can't help but feel like this is just the by-product of parental laziness. How can we ever expect a young child to learn to cope with his emotional roller coaster, or his learning differences, if his issues are avoided? What a message to send your kid, 'hey son take this pill because something is wrong with your mind', and we then expect this kid to grow up feeling like he's normal. Granted there are some individual who do need medication for mental illness, but I believe the overwhelming majority of people need to stop treating symptoms with pills, and go after the cause of their problems.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then is not an act, but a habit."-Aristotle

The Hippie Conservative

2007-04-24T19:35:00.000-05:00

I have taken the time to post a Recommended Web Browsing column here on The Revolution. The sites selected are the blogs that I feel deviate and exceed the norm' from the typical writing you might find on your average blog search. Yet somehow, simply "posting a link" does not quite do justice for the bloggers behind these fantastic sites. So from time to time i may try and entice you to sample some of the scrumptious tid-bits of writing that is being written by these men and women. This one is a must see

The Hippie Conservative

A website review doesn't really compare to The H.C.'s ability to present a new and exiting view on politics and human psychology. The best complement i can offer might still fall short of this uncanny ability to dismantle an issue and serve it up in a new flavor. If objective information was like calories, then The H.C.'s style would be like cheesecake. (Mmmmm.... food metaphors.....). Every post is packed full of links to his resources. There is always a broad selection of links that favor sides of the argument at hand. Ahhh objective writing, its like a drug to me.... and on that note please consider me a blog dealer and take a drag of this site.

The Hippie Conservatives current posts are a three part series entitled How they control us, which is all about how media and government use information and terminology to manipulate the masses. Very eye-opening. Other favs' of mine include The H.C.'s Analogies, which are stories from his past in which The H.C's draws a life lesson from the strangest experiences, ultimately making his readers appreciate the little stuff in life. The H.C.'s also makes some guest appearances on the web television show Studio 1714, (Clips are available on his blog.)

Like I said before in the beginning of this post i could go on, but it really isn't the same as just reading for yourself. So once again i will encourage you to visit http://www.thehippieconservative.com/, maybe subscribe to his RSS feed if you like what you see, maybe you'll find a new way to look at the world, that most of us take for granted.

Mind over matter

2007-04-12T17:08:00.000-05:00

Discovery Magazine just published its 100 greatest discoveries of the year, and as far as I'm concerned number #11 should have taken the cake.

A neuroscientist named John Donoghue of Brown University has managed to implant a tiny 100-electrode array into a paralyzed man's primary motor cortex. This is the part of the brain that controls voluntary movement. What this little implant does is interpret the brains electrical impulses, then convert and send them into a series of high-tech signal processors and computers. The computers then translate the mans thoughts into movement of external devices.

According to the article, after the first day of fiddling with this implant, the paralyzed man was able to master this technique. He could "...move a computer cursor, play a video game, open e-mails, draw a crude circle, operate a television remote control, and even move a prosthetic hand and arm....using nothing other than his will."

The potential for this technology is endless, perhaps someday a man with no legs could operate prosthetics just like they were his own. Then there is the way this tech could apply to operating equipment, robotics, with no external movement, driving, flying you name it. The time is coming, and I'm sure I'll see it in my lifetime.

The scary thing is neural pathways can be thought of like a two-way street, and if a computer can receive and translate your electrode impulses into motion, it could potentially send information in. If a computer can translate thoughts that means it can speak the language of the brain. Maybe the time will come (cue dramatic music) when implants prevent us from doing certain behaviors, filtering out impulse patterns that represent bad behavior, (rape murder). Or on a worse case scenario, controlling an individuals like a puppets. If this is part of the package that comes with this technology, I doubt you and I will ever read about it in any public print.

The Brain

2007-04-10T21:10:00.001-05:00

The human mind is an amazing organ, by far the most complex organ in the known universe, yet so user friendly, any idiot can utilize it. The mind can be programed to preform the most complicated external task, while still maintaining, the complete organization of your entire bodily function. This post will dive into some of the human brains wonderful features as well as some of the unusual.

I am quite sure that there are many people who just drift through life and never question anything, going through the daily motions. Maybe that's fine for some, but I am not content to be a passenger on this voyage called life. I cannot just placidly look out the window as my chauffeur takes me on my way. I must ask, how is it that this car moves, how does the engine work, how does my driver manipulate the controls to get the desired results, how can I manipulate the controls. How can i drive this vessel. Good news for me, because it is within every one's ability to grasp the wheel and steer. Yet before we start out on the road, lets take a quick drivers training course and familiarize ourselves with some of the controls.

Reason and Automation
The automation portion of the brain handles basic functions that your not even aware of, signaling the heart to beat, breathing, digesting, and the like. Fortunately for us, automation handles these bodily duties without every consulting higher reason. Since the automation portion of the brain controls all the bodily function, this leaving you free to focus on whatever you want. I'm sure that if the opposite was true, most of us would forget to do breathe several times a day.

Automation contains many learned things as well, language, memory, motor skills. Maybe you've taken for granted the complex symphony of muscle movement that is necessary to walk. This is due to the fact that few of us can remember far back enough to reflect on what is was like to learn this daily task. Learning to play a musical instrument is a perfect example of how higher reason delegates its responsibility to automation in regard learned behaviors. Initially the muscle movements are slow, and one struggles, every motion must be calculated. Then with time after the correct movements are repeated enough, the automation portion of the brain is programed and takes over, and thus one can preform a complex task without any conscious effort.

The automation portion can also be reprogrammed. Sometimes automation is programmed poorly with bad habits. Memory is a good example of this, as well as speech impediments. (that are not the result of physical issues) Go take a look at any memory builder book, (you can find them at almost any book store.) Thought patterns that are typically handled by automation can be reprogrammed as well. Depression, Obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders. Generally these are thoughts patterns that have been programed in a manner that is not beneficial. For more information on this type of "Re-wiring", check out my post on the subject look up cognitive behavior therapy

The mind has a safety mechanism in regard to automation. For example one cannot make your heart stop beating with thought alone. Perhaps this is not only practical, but due to the fact that it is automation that was never learned. To summarize, if it was learned, it can be relearned.

Consciousness
Who are you? What part of the Brain is the "YOU"?
The concept of self is one of the most fascinating features of the brain. I like to define the concept of self as: An organism's with an awareness that has evolved to the point of being aware of itself.

Yet there is a more precise definition. I suspect that you are like me, in the sense that most likely you feel that there is an "I" that is control of your decision making; pushing buttons evaluating incoming information from your senses. This is not true, as science learns more, they are discovering that this notion of an "I" is an illusion. The concept of self is really a storm of neurons strung about the brain all competing for immediate attention. When one neuron shouts louder that the others, the sensory data is evaluated the brain concocts the single self impression. (-time magazine, Jan 27, 2007).

Maybe its hard to grasp this concept, yet if we think about it in simpler terms that we can relate to, this concept becomes a bit more clear. If i asked you: What is it that you drive to work?, you would say "A car". You would not say "I drive a gasoline fueled automobile that uses combustion to convert kinetic energy into torque." If i asked you; "What is that creates the illusion of control? You would not say " I am the result of a billion neurons constantly competing priority to be recognized." If the concept of self was compared to a car, the car itself would be our body, the neurons would drive the car, yet a different neuron or group of neurons would be in control every second. The concept of self is how the passenger of the car relates to the driver, no matter which neuron is driving, you feel as if it is your driver. (maybe that doesn't simplify anything, lol! but what the hell, its worth a try.)

Sometimes the brain is to complex for it's own good, so next time i will discuss some of the anomalies that arise from such fancy engineering. Addiction, egomania, mass hysteria, schizophrenia and many, more stay tuned!