The Must-Read Interview With Satan

Perhaps not, but I do care enough for my fellow man that, if I knew for a fact they WERE in danger of oblivion, hell-fire, et al, I’d like to have a sharper arrow other than “take my word for it” in my quiver…

What might the most logical and compelling reason be that we can offer to somebody who DOES want to understand…?

So factuality is subjective…?

Cool. So what’s the single most compelling non-subjective fact we might offer a neutral party in support of a God proposition…?

“…there are any number of powerful facts that could get the attention of someone with an open mind…”

What’s one of the most compelling…?

Information could not simply have existed in some form or another in perpetuity…?

So if we haven’t observed something, we shouldn’t consider it possible…?

Is everything information, in this context…?

Got it.

Have there always been organic, information containing organisms…?

So information can neither spontaneously begin nor exist in some form forever…?

I think I understand. Thanks for your patience.

Does it follow that, if it turned out that information could come about spontaneously, no intelligent author (ergo, God belief[s]) would be necessary…?

I’m not aware of any.

If we haven’t observed something, does that mean it doesn’t exist…?

And that intelligent source must itself contain information…?

Thus it too “requires an intelligent source (and every evidence points to that conclusion)”…?

But you certainly came from somewhere, again, requiring an intelligent source of your own…

“…don’t ask me to explain a set of universal laws from a plane of existnece totally unlike my own…”

Can I ask how we can assert as true that which is inexplicable…?

Love is a generic label for a number of different emotional states. I’d be happy to focus on any particular type but, absent specificity, we’d run the danger of conflating “I love that movie” with “I love my wife”. But I can explain how and why I “love” either one.

We can also map the brain activities, serotonin/endorphin levels associated by expressions of all sorts of emotions, if need be.

And gravity is explained by mass warping space-time and can be demonstrated by dropping an object again and again. I’m confident plenty of folks would welcome any similarly replicable, falsifiable demonstration of God[s].

If there is one, I’m eager to discover it. And again, I appreciate your guidance in my search…

We too often conflate the abstract with the physical,
resulting in this sort of confusion. As noted, we can observe physical
manifestations of love (an emotion), gravity (an effect), et al but are still left wanting for the same sorts of demonstrations of god[s].

I’ve been careful not to consider you pantheist, nor your version of “God” merely a label of abstraction, but I trust you’ll set me straight if I should.

= = =

“…there’s more that we DON’T know about all three than we DO know…”

When the ancient Greeks didn’t understand meteorology, were they justified in presuming that Zeus was hurling thunderbolts…?

“…he wants people to place their trust in him on faith alone.”

And that’s what you’ve done…?

Clear waters are boring. ?

So,
if it appeared that a Biblical claim did not seem to line up with what we’d
observed in the universe, should we suspect that the Bible is wrong, or
should we consider our interpretation OF it to be mistaken…?

It pretty much comes down to one or the other of those conclusions.

I’ve looked at a LOT of the truth claims of the Bible, in the realms of science, history, and moral claims, and I haven’t found a single one that’s been directly contradicted. I’ve found one or two where it appears there could be a contradiction, but when the record of veracity is otherwise near 100%, I consider it reasonable to assume that those one or two things that appear incongruous must appear so because of something not yet understood. Because a record of veracity as high as the Bible’s is, is frankly supernatural veracity.

That would be very fair.

If the Bible is a message to humanity from the person who created the universe and everything in it, then we would expect it to be inerrant. After all, a being intelligent enough and powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it (a) is intelligent enough to tell us everything he wants to without error, and (b) has no need to deceive humanity about those details, even if he might be inclined to do so.

There are a LOT of scientific, historical and moral/philosophical claims made by the Bible. Not all of those truth claims can be verified by humans today because some happened before any of us were alive to witness them, some have yet to transpire, and still others are beyond our experience.

Nevertheless, a great many of those truth claims CAN be tested and verified. The Bible made a number of statements about science that have only been confirmed in the last 100-200 years, and the same can be said of many historical claims that have been confirmed archaeologically in modern times. Many of the moral/philosophical claims have been born out experientially across the spectrum of humanity across the earth.

If a person has made a number of statements to you before, and you have had opportunity to verify that this person has never been wrong or untruthful to you, you can reasonably believe other unverified statements they make or have made to you.

So it is with the unparalleled record of veracity of the Bible. Put more simply, I can confidently trust in the parts of the Bible I can’t confirm (or that I don’t understand) because of the high degree of reliability on subjects that have been confirmed.

Given that record of accuracy, if there seems to be some disharmony between the facts and what I think the Bible says, odds are, there is some important fact that is missing, or my interpretation of what the Bible is trying to tell me is flawed. We’ve all made flawed assumptions about what a letter, a memo, an instruction, a manual, or other piece of communication was trying to tell us. Given the depth (in time, space, and complexity) covered by the Bible, coupled with our flawed and finite minds, the opportunity for mistaken assumption is even greater. (But so is the opportunity for greater understanding, when answers are pursued with diligence!)

It is true that there is room in some complex issues for good people to see some things differently.

However, the overwhelming majority of subjects in the Bible-especially the major ones-are very plain and can only be taken one way by the sincere student. What we see vastly too much of is people not liking what the Bible says about this or that (because it shoots a hole in their justification for what they want), so they think up “creative” ways to try to get the Bible to excuse the wrong that they want to embrace. Rather like the rapist who protests, “But she really wanted it.”

That’s easy…and difficult.

Recalling that there are two basic kinds of issues in the Bible (ones where what is stated is vague enough and not enlightened by other statements in the Bible that there is legitimate room for different interpretations, and others that are clearly stated and usually backed up by other statements in the Bible), different interpretations would be handled basically the same way with both.

First, you look at what the statement says in the most plain and obvious reading. Then take syntax and context (i.e. the sentences before and after, and perhaps even many paragraphs before and after) into consideration. Going back to the meanings of the original language can also be helpful; a word we translate one way today could have had varied meanings in the original language, and sentence structure or emphasis may affect meaning. Historical context also may be called for (i.e. how would the people of the era in which the statement was written have viewed that statement, and what historical or cultural factors were present at that time). Also look for what else the Bible may have said about this particular subject; frequently, one passage in one place will shed light on a passage in a different place.

It may even be helpful, too, to look for inherent biases in those making the interpretation. For example, the Bible is clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that homosexual behavior violates God’s design for human sexuality, and that God strongly condemns that behavior. Yet despite repeated statements in both Old and New Testaments to this effect, some people (who fervently want to engage in this practice, or excuse this practice) attempt to come up with elaborate ways to “excuse” something the Bible makes abundantly clear is inexcusable. If an “interpretation” is shaky to begin with, you can usually find out why when examining the motivations of the one who has come up with the shaky interpretation. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, but when all things are taken into consideration, it usually makes things pretty clear.

Most of the major doctrines of the Bible are pretty clear, just on their face. In other words, the language plainly only has one legitimate meaning when read by the average person, and is usually backed up with other statements in the Bible which further reinforce the obvious meaning. There are some doctrines of lesser importance which can be complicated and which leave room for legitimate disagreement, but none of them change the “big picture” truths of the Bible (i.e. who God is, why humanity is in the condition it is in, and the fix for that condition).

I hope this helps.

By the way, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the thoughtful way you’ve approached disagreement and questioning here over the past few days. Having discussed a variety of Biblical and scientific issues with atheists and evolutionists over the years, your approach is (very sadly) extremely rare. Most quickly become belligerent, often extremely snarky and nasty, and refuse to even consider reasonably presented facts and arguments. Thanks again!

If the subject was one of those that is pretty clear, then probably so.

If it’s one of the subjects that are more vague (i.e. the subject is complicated, and the Bible doesn’t go into much detail), then it could just come down to two good people who are doing their best to understand something complex, with little information to go on, and who bring different experiences and assumptions to the table that weight their analysis and bring them to different conclusions.

For example, many good people disagree on whether a person can lose their salvation, or whether a person always remains “saved” once they have placed their faith in Christ, even if they allow sin to regain more dominance in their life later. I have an opinion about this subject, but I know the argument for the other side pretty well, and understand why they believe what they believe, even though I disagree with the final analysis.

And in the end, that topic doesn’t change the major tenets and truths of the Bible (i.e. the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and how rebellious humans can be reconciled to their Creator).

It would only be unfair to demand any objective measurement of Biblical truth, if it were unfair to demand any objective measurement of the veracity of any claim.

In other words, the Bible should be held to no lesser or greater degree of accountability than any other claim in similar circumstances.

For example, an American law that was vaguely written might leave room for different interpretation (especially in this day and age where government attempts to regulate just about EVERYTHING), while a well-written law (especially one that is simple and clear) would naturally be expected to receive an objective reading by any reasonable person. For example, we don’t allow murderers to get away with murder because they might claim “Well, I interpreted that law against murder differently,” or allow violent people to get away with assault because they might claim, “Well, I interpreted that law against assault differently.”

As with any example of communication, if the communication is clear and most reasonable people can easily glean the obvious meaning, reasonable people don’t allow unreasonable people to show contempt for the plain meaning on the faux basis of a “different interpretation.”

You certainly know how to ask an incisive question. ?

I don’t know that there’s a directly objective measure for the veracity of Biblical truth-claims concerning God’s supernatural power. How do you measure something that has happened very seldom in our lifetime, at least in an arena public enough to lend itself to reliable mass-observation.

But as I mentioned in an earlier comment, we can make logical inferences that point to God’s supernatural power by measuring some of the truth claims of the Bible against what we know of the universe around us. As previously examined, the presence of DNA information in every living organism points to an intelligent source for that information-which lines up with the Biblical truth claim that God created all life on earth. The fact that we know from science that life does not spontaneously spring into existence from lifeless materials also lines up with the Biblical claim that God is responsible for the creation of all life on earth. Also, the fact that we know from science that matter does not come into existence from nothing lines up with the Biblical claim that God created the universe and everything in it.

We can also logically infer that, if the Bible has proven reliable on a great many things that we can verify (e.g. scientific claims, historical claims, etc.), and has done so on a consistent or even extraordinary level (as the Bible indeed has), then it is likely also reliable concerning truth claims that we lack the ability to verify objectively.

As a former cop, I’ve been led to the truth many times by drawing logical inferences, even when I had almost no evidence at the beginning to point to a suspect and the truth of a matter. The absence of objective facts makes it much harder to determine the truth about something, but with careful thought and reason using the information that IS available, it doesn’t have to be a show-stopper.

Likewise, the evidence available from the Bible and from the universe around us can eventually reach a level of what is sometimes known as “preponderance of evidence” and even proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Any time you’re asked to believe something you didn’t personally experience or witness, an element of faith is required. Most of us decide whether to believe such things based on weighing the reliability and track record of our sources, as well as what the available evidence seems to indicate, and then make that “leap of faith” over whether to believe it or not.

It’s really little different with the Bible. Of course, the stakes of believing something in error when it concerns your eternal destiny make it a much heavier decision…but missing the boat on such an important truth is at least as risky as believing the wrong thing. The good news is that a reasonable person who is humble of heart enough to set aside preconceived agendas (as best as any human can) CAN reach a reasonable conclusion about the Bible’s reliability…and as I and billions of other Christians illustrate, fully trust in it.</em.

Not merely because the Bible has non-supernatural statements of fact, but rather because it has a large number of scientific and historical statements of fact that have been verified as true. In fact, there hasn’t been a single statement made by the Bible that has been proven to be in error. Not even modern science textbooks can make that claim. That sort of unparalleled record of veracity should, in the rational mind, buy a whole lot of credit toward the believability of even the supernatural claims.

If you knew someone who had told you many things that had always, consistently and without fail proven to be true, and then they told you something that sounded incredible and you weren’t able to confirm it independently, wouldn’t you tend to believe this reliable friend until proven otherwise?

That’s a good point about your wife’s hypothetical Elvis experience.

However, when we consider certain scientific facts (e.g. matter doesn’t come from nothing, life doesn’t spontaneously occur from lifeless materials, etc.), the possibility of their being an intelligent designer and creator of the universe goes up considerably. And when you consider that the book this creator is alleged to have written contains a brief but very fitting description of how we came to see the world in the way it is, and the verifiable claims within that book have been confirmed in science and archaeology, the likelihood that those other unverified claims suddenly become quite credible to the reasonable mind. No, the skeptical mind will always have a hard time with those unverified and unverifiable claims, but the reasonable has to admit at least a compelling connection.

Elvis, well, we just don’t have much of a trail of scientific rationale to go on, there. ?

There’s a danger of myopia when it comes to positing that because a certain thing has never been observed, it doesn’t exist/never happens. Unfortunately it seems there’s a double-standard there for atheists/evolutionists. They will typically say on one hand that because God has never been observed, he doesn’t exit. Yet on the other hand, they’ll say that just because we’ve never seen matter come into existence from nothing or life spring from lifelessness, that isn’t to say it CAN’T happen.

If a person is going to argue from a purely scientific perspective, then to be consistent, the argument has to apply universally. Therefore, if you’re going to say that because God has never been observed means God doesn’t exist, then you also have to argue that because matter from nothing and life from lifelessness has never been observed, they don’t happen either. That follows a certain logic that is consistent.

Of course, while both can be said to have a high credibility threshold just based on experiential evidence, which seems more likely from a common sense “smell test” perspective: (1) that events in a materialistic universe will spontaneously behave in ways that violate every observation we’ve ever made about scientific law, or (b) that an intelligence and power beyond our experience and ability to fully comprehend might have created the universe and may occasionally intervene in that universe in a way that supersedes the natural laws which govern that universe?

If we’re going to engage in conjecture an an exercise of faith in the first place (which we ALL do, even atheists), it would seem more objective and rational to employ logic and reason, and pursue the highest degree of possibility and consistency.

For example, in a materialistic/naturalistic universe (i.e. one ruled by the laws of nature we can observe), those scientific laws have never demonstrated that matter can come from nothing or that life can come from lifeless material. Therefore, the universe we see today could not have come into existence according to those laws of nature, and therefore the assumption of a materialistic/naturalistic universe is illogical.

In a creationist universe scenario,. however (i.e. one created by a supernatural being who exists outside the universe we know and who is not subject to the laws governing this universe), a fundamental assumption in the framework is supernatural causation, as well as the occasional interjection of supernatural activity. Since the universe was designed by a logical and consistent being (which is how the Bible describes God to us), we would expect the universe to obey certain scientific laws consistently (and it does), and since that creator is not restricted by the same laws he set in place to govern his creation, he is able to super-sede the natural laws of the universe at will. According to the testimony of the Bible, this has been seen on a number of occasions in the past, as well (and probably still happens on a limited-i.e. not very public-basis even today).

To summarize, in the materialistic/naturalistic universe framework, we need supernatural (i.e. things that don’t conform to scientific laws) causes to make our non-supernatural (the definition of materialistic/naturalistic) universe possible at certain key points. This means the materialistic/naturalistic framework is logically inconsistent, and something that is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent can’t be true.

The creationist framework, on the other hand, has the elements it needs within its framework to be possible; further, the statements of the Bible comport with what we see in science and vice versa. This means the creationist framework for the universe is logically consistent, meaning it is a great deal more likely to be true than a framework that contradicts itself.

Neither framework can prove its assertions, so faith is required to believe in either one of them. The question then comes down to which one is the most logical and consistent…and doesn’t contradict itself?

Yes, I realize you haven’t made that assertion. I was just describing the typical atheist/evolutionist assertion.

Why does the materialist/naturalist need supernatural causation to make their non-supernatural universe possible? For the reasons I’ve mentioned, i.e. matter from nothing (something the BIblical framework says God did when he created the universe, but that the laws of science tell us doesn’t happen), life from lifeless material (something the Biblical framework says God did, but the laws of science tell us doesn’t happen). By all observed science, the materialistic/naturalistic universe can’t have come about through materialistic/naturalistic means, yet the typical atheist/evolutionist refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of supernatural causation. That’s where the contradiction comes in, making the materialistic/naturalistic framework illogical.

That’s pretty much the size of it. According to all scientific law that humanity has ever observed, matter cannot come into existence from nothing. Yet the universe (full of matter) DID (obviously) come into existence somehow. If scientific law says it is impossible for matter to come into existence from nothing, and all matter that we know IS in existence, then that points to some force outside the laws of nature. The Bible has an explanation for that force: God. It says God created the universe out of nothing.

Therefore, the materialist can’t explain the existence of the universe (at least not consistently with the framework of his own assertions), but the creationist can. A theory which contradicts itself cannot be true.

No, it would only mean that it would now be scientifically possible for the universe to have come into existence without God.

Of course, if we did see something come into existence from nothing, it could be that it was God who did it, as a fresh manifestation of his supernatural power. ?

While that is technically true, I don’t know if that’s the best way to put it, since to say something is “irrelevant” often implies no bearing or relationship.

There could still be a God even if matter could come into existence from nothing. However, God would be the obvious choice for matter to come into existence from nothing, primarily due to the fact that everything we know of science indicates that according to the laws of nature, matter doesn’t spontaneously come into existence from nothing. Therefore, for it to happen, the cause is virtually certain to be God.

We’re starting to split hairs on extreme possibilities-extreme possibilities that are outside both the parameters of a creationist framework and a materialist framework. Don’t let extreme what-ifs confuse the issue.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. However, since it has never been observed to happen, if it did, it’s likely such an event would be a manifestation of God’s super-natural power, not a spontaneous natural event. For example, when Jesus Christ fed at least 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish, and ended up with 12 baskets of leftovers after everyone was fed.

I didn’t say that supernatural events no longer happen, only that there haven’t been any really big ones-especially the kind witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people at one time-in a long time. Many would point to George Washington’s escape from New York in 1776 as a supernatural event; indeed, the circumstances are so extraordinary that they seem highly unlikely to be coincidence. There are stories from individuals around the world regularly of events that defy conventional explanation. And I myself (back when I was busy hating God and living a life most unpleasing to him) experienced a miracle: a friend fell through the ice on an ice fishing trip, and I I tried to get out to him to save him, but as I slid out toward him on my belly, the ice cracked underneath me and I felt the water splash up on my chest, yet I didn’t fall through, and was able to lay on that same spot for probably another 5 minutes or so as I tried in vain to reach him with various objects. I can’t swim, by the way, so I would have had not only the freezing temperatures against me, but my inability to swim. Yet somehow, even after the ice cracked and splashed water up onto me, I didn’t fall into the lake.

Anyway, when it comes to supernatural events, unless you are a witness to them, it’s pretty easy for someone to write them off. I believe they happen, and in a world where materialists/naturalists claim there can be no supernatural events (their claim, not mine), a supernatural happening can only be a manifestation of God’s supernatural power. In the real world, it’s as simple as that

Ultimately, believing in ANYTHING comes down to faith. Being a materialist/evolutionist requires more faith than being a creationist/Christian. In the Christian worldview, the framework is consistent with itself. In the materialist framework, it is self-contradictory because it requires events which, according to its own framework, cannot happen.

Everyone has to make up their own mind. I’m grateful you’ve entertained my comments, and grateful for the nearly unparalleled respect and thoughtfulness you’ve displayed. I hope you have a great weekend!

“you’re not going to see any bold physical manifestations of God’s supernatural power these days. God has done such things in the past, but for the most part (even in the past), he wants people to place their trust in him on faith alone”

While faith is always essential — everyone will always have faith in *something*, whether they admit it or not — I would submit that “bold physical manifestations” are virtually unnecessary in today’s world. We have so much opportunity, with today’s knowledge, to see the hand of God in creation and in history. Those who are willing to see will see, and they’ll never have to check their brains in at the door. And if someone is not willing to see, given what they have the opportunity to see, then a “bold physical manifestation” would be wasted on them anyway.

Do the words “Hellenists” and “Athens” likewise support the Zeus proposition…?

Yes. Athens is one of the oldest named cities in the world, having been continuously inhabited for at least 5000 years, and there are modern-day Hellenists…

Athenians still call themselves Athenians, and Hellenists still call themselves Hellenists…