From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:08:26 EST




This thread is getting a little too far-flung to be useful, in my
opinion, so I'll just address some of the more egregious proclamations
of Richard Pitts' last post, and bypass some baggage.  It's still
pretty long, though.


rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard.Pitts) writes:

>Before, I respond let me let you in on my view point.  
>
>I live my life daily with the help of God through the Holy Spirit's
>power and motivation.  The Word of God, the Bible, is a source of
>strength and insight to me, for I do believe it is God's word to
>us and that it is profitable for study and daily living.

But of course, I know this, no need to point it out.  I'm happy for
you that you are happy with your belief system.  I mean that
sincerely.  However, surely you must realize, as I have tried to point
out repeatedly, that such a belief system is entirely closed and the
reasoning contained therein is circular.  In other words, the
reasoning is self-supported only.  I have summarized this belief
system previously by pointing out that all of the arguments amount to:

1. The Bible is true because it says it is true.

2. My beliefs are correct because I know they are correct
   (i.e., my personal "testimony" of faith).    

Now, this is perfectly fine if you want to live your life based on
such premises, however this is grossly insufficient evidence to
convince someone like me to forgo my own belief system, with which it
is incompatible.

>|Before I respond to Richard Pitts' response to me, let me reiterate
>|something that I said in the (hopeless) attempt to appeal to some sort
>|of reasoning system that would allow for a meaningful exchange:

>Here you seem to want to limit me to some predefined information
>set or something.  What if I said don't use anything your have ever
>read or heard that attacks the Bible or that supports your system
>of beliefs?  Would that be unfair?  Hmm.

Surely one of your goals, as is generally true of fundamentalist
Christians, is to evangelize non-believers such as myself.  Surely
this is the motivation behind your original post.  If you want to
convince me, we'll have to have meaningful exchange that breaches the
wall of your closed belief system, since my world view lies outside of
it.  Otherwise, our dialogue is totally separated, hence pointless.

By contrast, I'm not trying to change your beliefs, so there isn't
much motivation for me to step into your belief system (and thereby
shut out my own) to engage in dialogue.  You're trying to bring us in,
we aren't trying to bring you out.  Keep in mind who started the
thread in the first place, and who's doctrine encourages (requires?)
evangelization: yours!  By contrast, my world view encourages
tolerance for other world views.

[Some more circular reasoning deleted.]

[On childbirth:]

>|>|>Do you really think 
>|>|>that this event has nothing to do with the design of the Creator?  
>|>|
>|>|I really have no way of knowing, and neither do you.
>|>
>|>Oh, are you omnipotent?  Neither am I, but for you to say there is
>|>NO WAY to know seems to give or have some ability for yourself that you 
>|>don't allow for anyone else - namely God.
>|
>|Huh??  That's pretty hard to parse, but it sounds either like you are
>|saying that god would know if god exists, or that god has given you 
>|special knowledge that I don't have.
>
>It is not hard to parse.  

Well, maybe I'm dense, but I found the sentence hard to parse.

>Neither of us are omnipotent.  However,
>for you to use the term NO WAY puts a limit upon what can happen.
>and you have no way or power to be able to limit things accordingly.

I think you are playing semantics here.  The only way that I could
"know" that a creative God exists would be a direct communication from
that God to me.  You feel certain that you have received one (the
Bible), I feel certain that I have not.

I would argue that the Bible is not a direct communication from God.
Clearly it was written by human hands, indicating at the very least
one step of indirection, and of course we all know there have been
many, many more steps of indirection than that.  On top of this is the
baseless assumption that the original inspiration was God in the first
place.

If you are to claim otherwise and expect heathens like me to buy into
it, the burden of proof is on your side.  And again, saying that the
Bible is God's word because the Bible says so is not sufficient by a
long shot for heathens like me.  If your mission is to convert us, you
cannot succeed in this fashion.

>God has given us knowledge and it is available to all who believe.

"You must believe in order to believe" is merely a variant on the two
themes that I pointed out earlier.  It is circular and not even the
tiniest bit convincing to heathens like me.

>|The first possibility is certainly true, presuming the existence of
>|god, unless he is really stupid.  The second possibility would be
>|remarkable, except I already know where your special knowledge comes
>|from: your closed, circular belief system.  
> 
>Yes, I guess an All Powerful God telling one something is just and 
>argument from authority.  Because He JUST SAID something which 
>doesn't support one's own belief system, then one can throw it out, 
>even though he is the reason for our existence, correct?

If God "JUST SAID" something contrary to my beliefs, and said it to me
directly, I would certainly not "throw it out".  Of course, this has
not happened.

Is it possible for you to acknowledge the circular nature of your
argument?  Can you just admit: "yes, I acknowledge that my proof for
the veracity of the Bible as God's Word is the Bible itself, not from
a direct communication that I have with Him."

[Some more deleted.]

>Here I believe you misunderstand the power of God's Word in my life.

No, I have not.  I understand it perfectly.

>Why do you limit my use of the Bible and its written record of
>the Jesus who has seen God the Father and has revealed him to us?

I don't limit your use of it to make _you_ feel better, I only limit
your use of it as a means to convince me, a dirty old heathen, that
you know the One True Way.  

[Tangential discussion WRT eye-witnesses, deleted.]

[Dead-horse argument over conversion via childbirth, deleted.]

>Is this because you have decided before hand that a Creator God could not 
>exist??  

I have never, ever said this.  All I ever said was "I have no way of
knowing." (Short of direct communication.)  You are the one who claims
such knowledge.  Why am I more humble before God than a "good
Christian" such as yourself?

>How could you know this without being everywhere at the same
>time and so from your omnipresence or omnipotence be able to say God
>does not exit?

Sorry, never said it.

>|>I believe that the environment, in which we live, reveals God's eternal 
>|>power and divine nature to all men.
>|
>|Well, good for you.  Even if true, there is still the leap to Jesus
>|worship to be explained...
>
>Jesus is revealed to us as God made flesh - he was not a man made into
>a God, but he was God before hand.  He was the reason and force behind
>creation and by him all things hold together (some call this the 
>unified field theory, I think.)

Circular.  Using the Bible to support the Bible to support the Bible
to support the Bible... is convincing to me only if I accept the
premise that the Bible is the infallible word of God, which I do not.
Why spend time on such arguments when I will not accept them because I
find the foundation argument flawed?  You have to make that foundation
convincing before I'd even consider the trickle-down stuff.

[Banal discussion over Richard's motivations deleted.]

>|>|Is there something in the birth of my child that should
>|>|make me believe in the divine Jesus (and the accompanying biblical
>|>|dogma) as opposed to simply the possibility of an omnipotent creator?
>|>
>|>It points to a Creator God and Jesus is understood to be the Creator,
>|>God, Himself.  
>|
>|It may or may not point to a Creator God, as you say, but the second
>|part of your statement is pure conjecture.  Apparently, when my child
>
>It is one and the same, if Jesus is God, the Creator, and that is
>the way we know Him.
>
>|is born, I am supposed to drop my entire belief system, fall to my
>|knees, and say "Yes!  Jesus WAS born of a virgin!  Jesus WAS God in 
>|the flesh!  Jesus WAS crucified and WAS resurrected!  Jesus DID ascend
>|into heaven in corporeal form!!!  Now that the afterbirth is expelled,
>|I SEE THE LIGHT!!!"
>
>I didn't say that - you have the ownership of the conjecture here.

I am guilty only of a little bit of sarcasm, however you most
certainly did imply the connection of:

	childbirth ->
	wonderment of our existence ->
	designer, creator God ->
	Jesus = God

Let's review what you said up above:

"It [childbirth] points to a Creator God and Jesus is understood to be
the Creator, God, Himself."

"It is one and the same, if Jesus is God, the Creator, and that is
the way we know Him."

Surely I must conclude that if you are correct, it is necessary that I
buy into the Christian Jesus myth: born of a virgin, God in the flesh,
crucified, resurrected, corporeal ascention, etc., which is exactly
what my tongue-in-cheek statement was explicitly referring to.  Or are
you suggesting that I need not believe in all of these incredible
events?  If so, apparently I may pick and choose by arbitrary
standards which parts of the Book to believe.

Well, I have news for you: I have done so.  I find parts of the book
at least plausable, parts questionable, parts outright absurd.  I've
used my (presumably) God-given sense of reason to make personal
judgements on the matter, based on my own sense as well as on
scholarly and scientific evidence, and I'm at peace with the decisions
I've made.  If I'm to be toasted in the afterlife for using the brain
that God gave me, well, then I guess there's not much I can do about
that.

>|You haven't even begun to make the case for birth pointing to a
>|Creator God, much less the more remarkable jump to Jesus=God and
>|Bible=Truth. 
>
>The Jesus=God and Bible=Truth all are the same to me.  

It is refreshing to see such honesty, even when accompanied by the
failure to acknowledge the logical leaps involved.

>The point
>about the birth of a child is for one to look at the functioning
>of our bodies and look at what could have gotten us to this point.

Evolution?  

Whatever the actual answer, why should yours be the default?  Your
evidence is poor to non-existent, and entirely untestable.

>|Go back to that hint that I mentioned at the top of this post.
>
>Go back and understand what I believe.

No need, I understood it from the start.  In fact, I pointed it out
in my original response to your original post.

[A bit more deleted for brevity (hah!)]

>|There are many good reasons to discount (a given) scripture, but your
>|condescending assumption above is not one of them.  You have been
>|posting here long enough, and have been in heated debates here for
>|long enough, to know that circular references will convince not a
>|single person who is not yet indoctrinated.  I have found that, once
>
>Does this go for both sides?  Probably not, for some are apparently
>above the absolutes of God's will for our lives, as He has revealed
>them to us, correct?  

I am not above any absolutes that I am aware of.  The only absolutes
that God has revealed to me are those of physics, and we're not even
too sure of what all of those are yet.

>From what you are telling me I am to understand
>that all scripture has been disproven and you and all those who
>advocate this obviously KNOW this, for sure that this is the case.  

Of course, I never said that.  

     Unproven scripture !=  Disproven scripture

Try to keep in mind who is trying to convert whom, here, and thus, on
which side lies the burden of proof.

Although, in fairness, lots of scripture has been disproven to my
satisfaction, or explained in ways contrary to modern Christian
interpretations, which makes it easier for me to draw conclusions.

>Again,
>this seems to come smack in the face of being able to know all and
>so state that you are right and no one else can have such knowledge
>not even God, who could give information by authority, if He was
>believed to exist.

This is fairly asinine.  All we can do is use our intelligence and
reason to make the best decisions and conclusions that we can.  I
never claimed to have special knowledge.  You've come a lot closer to
claiming special knowledge than I ever have.

Let's be explicit: _my_ entire belief system is OPEN TO QUESTION.  If I
am confronted with information that is counter to my beliefs, I
examine them as best as I can, and either reject the new information,
drop my beliefs, or modify my beliefs to incorporate the new
information.  So far, frothing fundamentalism has failed to come to
any result other than the first (examined and discarded) because it
contains baseless assumptions, unsupported leaps of logic, and
extraordinary claims that assault the natural, observable environment
that God has presumably provided for us.  For me to alter my core
beliefs, I need either testable scientific evidence, hypotheses that
seem at least plausible, or direct communication with the Almighty.
Your personal testimony, or a flawed ancient text, just don't cut the
mustard.

In contrast, _your_ belief system is entirely CLOSED.  It is
self-sustaining and only self-supported (and not even that very well,
in my opinion).  Compare and contrast.


>|dissected, True Believers have only two arguments in favor of their
>|belief system:
>|
>|1. The Bible is true because it says it is true.
>
>The Bible is true as a collection of independent books assembled
>together over hundreds of years and as testified to by eye-witness
>accounts of Jesus acts and confirmations of what God has told us.
>Via signs and wonders God has shown us who he is and that he loves
>us.  Manuscripts with wide ranging dates have show that very little
>of what is recorded has varied and that primarily in naming conventions.
>None of the essence of the gospel and the Bible as a whole have
>been shown to be modern day works.  The Bible is seen by many
>as a great guide book to understanding the ancient mid-east history.

"The Bible is true because it says it is true."

The various claims you make above can and have been debated here
repeadtedly, but they are really tangential to this discussion.

>|2. My beliefs are correct because I know they are correct.
>
>Correctness of beliefs are based on what the Bible supports and
>not my desire.

This is merely a derivative, as I alluded to, below:

>|Or one of the derivatives, such as:
>|
>|"My belief that Jesus is God is true because Jesus said so in the
>|Bible and the Bible is true because the Bible says so and furthermore
>|because I feel in my heart it is right and you can't prove otherwise
>|and you must believe in order to believe and then you will see and
>|blah blah blah."


>|>If the Creator God revealed these scriptures to us, would it not be
>|>foolish to fight against them and so against Him?  
>|
>|(Paraphrase: The Bible is true because it says so.  My beliefs are
>|correct because I know they are correct.)
>
>Paraphrase: The Bible is false because I (or another) says so.  My
>beliefs are correct because I control my own life and there is no God.
>I know for I've been everywhere all at once and I know all.

Wrong.  I have never said these things.  You are being obtuse.

On the veracity of the Bible: the burden of proof is on you, since
you seek to convince others who do not already hold to its veracity.
I don't start threads by saying "The Bible is False!", or stand on
street corners passing out leaflets or shouting to that effect.  I'm
merely responding to your assertions.  Try to keep in mind who is
evangelizing here.

On the correctness of my beliefs: they are correct only for me, and I
am content with them.  I'm also happy for you that you are content
with yours.  I think Jesus would have encouraged such tolerance, don't
you?

On the existence of God: I expressed no opinion, for I have no direct
knowledge, and baseless conjecture is not the same as truth.  You are
the one who "knows", not I.  You are closer to omniscience than I am.

>|Indeed, it would be foolish to "fight against" the scriptures if an
>|omnipotent Creator God revealed them to us.  No such entity has done
>|so to me.
>
>We have them passed down from those he revealed them to.  The way
>God desires for us to share them is through the message of the cross.
>Jesus did all we needed to have done and He did it once and for all.

Circular.  Admit it.

I tried to tell you in advance (my "hint") that circular logic
(Biblical reference) would not work with me, so why do you continue to
rely it in our dialogue?

>|>Or do you know that God did not reveal them to us?
>|
>|I know that if the Bible is the best he can do in terms of revelation,
>|then he did a damn poor job.
>
>How so?

An entirely different thread, and I don't have the time to get into
it.  Besides, I'm just an amateur.  If you haven't been persuaded by
the more learned opinions alluded to on the net and widely available
in scholarly and lay works, why should I even try?  Besides, my
mission isn't to evangelize, yours is.  

>|In my view, if God reveals "himself" at all, it is in the natural laws
>|of the universe, which are self-evident and in effect without any need
>|for intermediary human scribes or translators.  The natural laws are
>
>I have no problem with you understanding that God is revealed in
>nature, for this is true.  However, the natural laws of the universe
>aren't the only things that matter are they?

I can only go by what I perceive to be real.  If God wishes to impose
new or different natural laws at some point in time, well, that would
be up to him.  So far as I know, he hasn't done that.  What's the use
in arbitrary speculation of what might be?  (Try to realize, for me,
the Bible = arbitrary speculation.  I realize that for you Bible =
Absolute Truth.  This is circular.)

>|regularly violated within your scriptures (euphemistically referred to
>|as "miracles"), which I would think would give you pause for thought
>|as to which set of "laws" you find more compelling, those arising
>|directly from God, or those handed to us by humans in God's name.
>
>I understand your point.  Yes, natural laws are straight forward as
>best we understand them - I use differential equations 
>to model a lot of them.  However, to say that God, who designed
>and revealed himself to us via nature, could not intervene and cause
>something else to happen seems to severely limit Him.  

I never said so, merely that I have seen no convincing evidence of it,
much less direct knowledge.

>If He created
>what we have, why could He not do something else, too????  That is
>unless we have presupposed that miracles CANNOT happen and so we
>limit what can happen before hand.  

I do not presuppose that miracles (God bypassing his own physical
laws) cannot happen, I am merely unimpressed with the claims that they
have.  Claims from humans are notoriously untrustworthy, and in
particular, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, at
least if you want me to believe them.

>If a miracle does happen one says
>"Oh that can't happen" and so one will deny or ignore it, for it 
>contradicts one's own assumptions.  Don't we rule out the Creator
>God's intervention into mankind by saying that miracles cannot occur?

No.  My belief system is open.  I never said miracles CANNOT occur,
hence your assumptions are invalid.  In contrast, you believe that
miracles DID happen, and on a regular basis.  The burden of proof is
on you, not me.

I presume your followup post will proceed to tell how the Bible
contains ample proof (i.e., testimony) that the miracles described
therein actually happened.  To which I will have to point out the
circularity of the argument, and thus the dance will continue...

--Dave Wood