Written July 26, 2007.

A few days ago I listened to a free lecture that left me with the impression that the universe is so old and so humongous that there is literally no room for God. Fundamentalists will never accept this argument. They haven't accepted any of the very strong arguments that have been made by Darwin himself, and by scientists ever since his day. I guess the thing that hits me between the eyes is how very unfathonably huge the universe is. Waaayyyy beyond anything I learned in elementary school in the 1960s. The universe is a million times as big as I had been taught. And in the 1960s it was a million times larger than people thought when the Bible was being written.

The argument that people have been making for a century and a half is that there are other equally (if not more) plausible explanations for the origins of the universe than the biblical view. What I am seeing now is that THERE IS NO ROOM FOR GOD! Maybe people have been saying this for ages but I have never heard it. I think there is a difference. Not only are there better explanations but there is no room for god even if there were no other explanations!

Maybe the universe is God; some people say so. I won't argue with that though I do disagree. I live here on this planet for the time being and expect to spend my entire existence here. When I die I'll be gone forever. If there is a god and an afterlife I will deal with that when I get there. No moral god can deny heaven to anyone, esp. if the only other option is an eternity in a lake of fire. The combined facts that there is logically no room for god and that no moral god can cast any sentient being into a lake of fire for eternity strengthens my position. No one who grew up with these teachings can lightly dismiss the reality of an angry god and a lake of fire for disbelievers.

Even though faith is not logical and does not make sense, it should at least hang together by its own arguments. And it doesn't.

Someone is going to ask me how the faith does not hang together by its own arguments. I guess we should have a philosophy section on here but we don't. If anyone wants real philosophical debates, there's lots of them on the Internet Infidels Discussion Boards. The purpose here is to show how science is used or ignored based on circumstance, regardless of religious profession.

Fundamentalist religion accepts the material world that can be observed with the naked eye. Thus, the premise is that the material world exists and can be sensed with human perception. However, when sense perception and religious belief disagree, sense perception is compromised for religious belief. That negates the premise that matter matters.

However, if a motorist disregards a stop sign and heads into a busy intersection and thereby causes an accident, the charges will be laid according to the material evidence. The police will spend major amounts of time and energy to measure the material evidence. Skid marks and anything else that can possibly be measured will be measured. And in the case that a court case develops this evidence will be examined and cross-examined meticulously in every conceivable manner. In many cases the entire process is conducted by professing Christians. Apparently, matter matters very much after all.

But wait! There is more to it than matter. A person who runs into a busy intersection is judged as not being as moral as he/she probably should be. That verges on the religious. If a life is lost because of this action the negative moral judgments are even stronger. Thus, the religious premise is that matter matters on the deepest levels of human existence; it is revered very deeply. Yet Christians claim not to be of this world and that this life is secondary to the afterlife.

If they are not of this world and if this life is secondary to the afterlife, it makes little sense to put so much emphasis on lost vehicles and other material possesions, and especially on the loss of human life. If this life is secondary, they should rejoice that this individual was escorted into the afterlife earlier than expected. What a pleasant surprise! Everyone should rejoice for the victim's good fortune, right?

That being the case, the motorist who ran into the busy intersection was acting as an instrument in the hand of God and cannot be faulted for a lack of morals. Yet depending on the situation he/she is charged with manslaughter and will spend a major portion of life in jail.

Christians will argue that human life must be respected even though there is an afterlife. It seems they believe that this life must be lengthened out as far as possible. Obviously, this is based on human emotional feeling more than any moral or ethical values. Humans experience severe emotional pain when a loved one is taken away from them by death. If another human being was instrumental in that death, it is natural to feel strong negative emotions toward that person. Those negative emotions are somewhat diminished if the killer is punished and must pay a significant price for causing them this pain.

So here we are looking at two Christian claims. 1) They are not of this world and look forward to a better life after death, but they want revenge when a loved one is escorted to heaven by an untimely death caused by human agent. 2) Matter is of no importance compared to religious belief but at an accident where human life is lost police are obligated to retain law and order by examining all possible material evidence in order to determine guilt and punish the killer.

Conclusion: Matter matters sometimes but not always, depending on how it impacts human emotional feeling. This life is professedly secondary so long as no one is asked to surrender it. The faith does not hang together even in its own arguments.

Back to the argument of the opening post. The people whose beliefs don't hang together condemn me for my unbelief regarding god's existence. They also reject the findings of science that proves the vast and incomprehensible size and age of the universe.

What if there is a god? What if this god takes offense at people for burying their talents (not using the brains they were born with) and for scoffing at anything that does not support their chosen world view? If there is a divine creator of the universe I would guess this being would want to have his work acknowledged, rather than dismissed just because two and three thousand years ago humans did not have access to this information.

I have no problem if people who have never seen me don't believe in my existence. I do have a problem when people see my work and know it is my work, but they deny that it is as good as it really is. If god made the universe, he did an outstanding job. People (scientists) devote their entire lifetimes to discovering and meticulously proving via many experiments and tests the truth about this work of creation. Yet the professed followers of this god deny the extent of his work. Might not this god find such attitudes offensive?

I guess fundamentalists will claim that I am twisting things out of context to fit my own world view. I disagree with them but there's not much I can do about such attitudes. However, I can say this: If people profess to love God they should prove this love by at least acknowledging the extent of his work, and they should acknowledge that on the scale of the universe our planet is but a tiny speck of dust on the periphery of our galaxy.

Just now I came across a discussion by HanSolo on ExChristian about the size of the universe, and also some key words with which to do further research. I think it underscores my point that there is no room for God. The Bible does say God holds the universe in the palm of his hand. And the known universe is too big for that. Here it is:

I think it underscores my point that there is no room for God. The Bible does say God holds the universe in the palm of his hand. And the known universe is too big for that.

But this is metaphorical language, RSM. It’s the language of poetry.
One should not take this literally – that would be ridiculous.

Marti

Marti, please look up that thread and read the rest of HanSolo's discussion. He means it anything but metaphorical. This is scientific fact. It agrees with the facts presented by the astrophysicist whose lecture I attended and reported in the OP of this thread.

I realize that by accepting these facts you will challenge your faith but that does not make the facts go away. You can deny the facts but that will not change them. The facts remain regardless of what your religion tells you. A religion that denies concrete fact while proclaiming to possess ultimate truth only makes itself look stupid. A person claiming to be a scientist while denying the proven facts of science brings his own credentials into question.

Now I see what you mean. The quote from the Bible is metaphorical. Please provide your evidence for what part of the Bible should be read metaphorically and what part should be read literally. Explain why I should accept your evidence as trustworthy.

All that aside, the idea of a God outside the universe is simply ludicrous. Please read the rest of HanSolo's discussion on the topic as indicated above. If you disagree with his argument, please list the points of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

If you fail to answer these two requests I will conclude that Christians are unable to do so.

Now I see what you mean. The quote from the Bible is metaphorical.
Exactly. (Don’t worry, you’re not the only one who misreads – I do it often!)


Please provide your evidence for what part of the Bible should be read metaphorically and what part should be read literally.

I think that much of the evidence is of the common-sense variety. (When was the last time you saw a plank of wood in someone's eye? )
Another obvious one is Matthew 18:9
‘And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire’ 99.99% of people know that this is a metaphorical saying of Jesus – not a literal command. You are not going to gouge your eye out if you get a little piece of dust in it. (unless you’re crazy)

For less obvious examples, I think it's based on personal interpretation, within reason. However, you really have to look at the context of the passage in order to get a sense for what's really being said. Jesus used stories to clarify ideas for his followers because, culturally, the Hebrews responded better to illustrations than to pure philosophy.

Metaphorical language is able to convey spiritual truths more effectively than words that are read literally.
I think that the essence (but not the truth!) of many metaphors were lost in translation... the Jews living in Israel during Jesus' time probably had slang and colloquialisms just as we do, and certain metaphors were probably much clearer to them than to Christians of today.

A perfect example is the verse than no one wants in their wedding: Ephesians 5:22, where it says for wives to obey/submit to their husbands. In the original language, and taken in context, the chapter is much more about mutual respect than subservience. Not a metaphor, but a translation that doesn't really get the word charge right.

I think you have to read the books of the Bible (approx. 40 authors) in the style they were written. Psalms are songs and poems and must be read and interpreted in that light. The Gospels are historical narrative, including Jesus' teachings. You have to read and interpret these books in that light. Many of the writings of the Bible are allegorical, parables, comparison, symbolism, visions etc.


Explain why I should accept your evidence as trustworthy.
Lol! There is no reason at all why you should. But I hope you will think about it.


All that aside, the idea of a God outside the universe is simply ludicrous.
I disagree God doesn’t ’exist somewhere’ in the sense that our little finite think of the word ‘exist’. God just ~ ~ ~ IS ~ ~ ~
Omnipresent ~ . Everywhere, Anywhere, Anytime

Please read the rest of HanSolo's discussion on the topic as indicated above. If you disagree with his argument, please list the points of disagreement and explain why you disagree.
With respect, RSM, I am here on this forum, conversing with you, not HanSolo. If you wish to summarize his argument (assuming it’s ok with him, of course), I’ll give it my best shot.


If you fail to answer these two requests I will conclude that Christians are unable to do so.
RSM, there may be all sorts of perfectly valid reasons why I fail to answer your requests.
Can you perhaps see that your conclusion may, therefore, be an irrational one?
Also, to state the obvious, although I may not be able to provide answers, is it rational to suppose that no Christian is able to do so?
Can you explain why you think your statement:
If you fail to answer these two requests I will conclude that Christians are unable to do so.
holds together logically? There may be something I’m missing.

Thanks
Marti

Marti,

So you think common sense and personal interpretation are enough to guide the individual in interpreting the Bible? You explain away the "submission of wives to husbands" in Eph. 5:22. There are millions upon millions of Christians in the world today whose common sense and personal interpretation of the Bible tells them that you are preaching a false doctrine.

I read my post again. I see I asked for "your" evidence. You provided your personal guideline that works for you. Fair enough. I had meant something that applies universally. We have more than 30,000 different denominations of Christians world-wide, not to mention all those individuals who identify as Christian but cannot find a church they agree with. Obviously, there is no universal hermeneutic by which the Bible can be understood.

Other problems you would need to address before you could convince an atheist are:

• that Jesus was a historical figure
• the existence of spirit in order to define "spiritual truth"

Okay, I've thought about it and your evidence is so full of holes it is impossible to trust it.

You ask me to summarize HanSolo's discussion. First of all, that thread turns out to be very much longer than I anticipated. Secondly, it diverted to include more topics than I anticipated. Thirdly, I learned much and yet nothing new. The main contributors are HanSolo, Grandpa Harley, Sojourner, and myself, with HanSolo and Grandpa Harley being the "teachers" and Sojourner and me being the "students." SWIM also contributes as a "teacher." Sojourner is a Christian who seems to be desperately seeking reasons to hold onto God. At one time I was like that, too. However, I could not find evidence for God's existence, no matter how hard I looked. I posted about that in various places on here.

Two main ideas come out of that discussion for me:

1. The universe is incomprehensibly big. It is totally impossible for the human mind, no matter how well educated or how open-minded, to ever comprehend the size of the universe. If there is an "outer edge," humans cannot hope to find it.

2. For those of us who used to be Christians and no longer are, the grandeur and beauty and aw of the universe and nature in general is greatly increased since we can respond to it directly and no longer need to put God in there. For us, "God" spoils the picture.



I can tell you how that holds together logically and I can tell you what you are missing. I also predict that you will not reply to this post, because in the past when I have challenged you to the degree that this post challenges you, you have not responded. All the same, here goes:

First, my requests were simple and on a personal level so that you, as an educated and articulate Christian, should be able to meet them. You claim to be a scientist making a living as a scientist. That means you have an education. You demonstrate your ability of articulation on these forums.

Here are the requests: 1. That you list your points of disagreement. 2. That you explain why you disagree. (I forget exactly how I was numbering "requests" when I wrote that post. I suspect the first one referred to the Bible; you responded to that one. You indicated that the one regarding HanSolo's discussion was rather unreasonable and that I should summarize it for you. I accept your argument and have done so. We should be able to continue on that one now.)

Secondly, if you as an educated and articulate Christian cannot meet those requests, it logically follows that no Christian can do so.

I apologize if I come across as being rather aggressive in my challenges to you. My problem is that you tend to disappear right about when I feel we're set up for a real discussion. It leaves the impression that you can't answer the questions and that you do not consider me worthy of the acknowledgment. Also, it seems that in keeping with 1 Peter 3:15, Christians are obligated to understand what they believe and why, and to be prepared to answer questions about their faith. I try pretty hard to always be able to back up anything I do or say with a logical explanation. Is it wrong to expect as much of Christians?

So you think common sense and personal interpretation are enough to guide the individual in interpreting the Bible?

Both common sense and personal interpretation should be informed by the context in which the books which make up what we know as the Bible is
written. I tried, in my post, to explain the importance of context. I think it is vital for understanding.


You explain away the "submission of wives to husbands" in Eph. 5:22.

I don’t think I was trying to explain anything ‘away’, RSM. I was offering an interpretation which takes into account certain nuances which can be lost in
translation.
The following is from ‘The Message’ Bible (Eugene Petersen). I think it gives a better idea of what Paul was saying.

Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another.
Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ. The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands.
Husbands, go all out in your love for your wives, exactly as Christ did for the church—a love marked by giving, not getting. Christ's love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness. And that is how husbands ought to love their wives. They're really doing themselves a favour—since they're already "one" in marriage.
No one abuses his own body, does he? No, he feeds and pampers it. That's how Christ treats us, the church, since we are part of his body. And this is why a man leaves father and mother and cherishes his wife. No longer two, they become "one flesh." This is a huge mystery, and I don't pretend to understand it all. What is clearest to me is the way Christ treats the church. And this provides a good picture of how each husband is to treat his wife, loving himself in loving her, and how each wife is to honor her husband.


You say that millions of Christians will disagree with me, RSM, and you may be correct. Am I to stop using the mind God gave me in order to fit in with the beliefs of others?

Did you?



I have to stop here – I’m sorry.
Work beckons!

Marti

I understand.



Marti, I am asking--pleading--that you use your mind.

In my post I specified that I am talking about a universal meaning or interpretation or hermeneutic. Here's the quote, with emphasis added:



What do you do? You simply repeat your own personal interpretation.

Please, Marti, use your mind! The purpose of this thread is to prove that there is no reason or evidence to think that God exists. A God that was real could surely provide a Bible that everyone understood and interpreted the same way. A real Holy Ghost would make sure that all preachers and readers of the Bible would be inspired to interpret it the same way. Yet we have more than thirty thousand denominations world-wide. That is in and of itself evidence against God's existence. You disregard that evidence and provide yet another hermeneutic. Do you realize that you are playing into the hands of the opposition? You just proved that I am correct in thinking that God cannot inspire his followers to agree on what he wants them to do.

By the way, I agree that your hermeneutic is the most reasonable and humane known at this time with which to interpret the Bible. I learned about it in seminary. However, that hermeneutic comes from science and the human intellect--not from God. If it came from God, million of other Christians would use it too--and that is my whole point; they don't use it.

Also, we don't need the Bible to teach us how to conduct compassionate, respectful, and loving human relationships--marriage or otherwise. It is precisely because the traditional hermeneutic was causing so much grief especially in marriages--and simply not working--that scholars did so much work to come up with the new hermeneutic that you are using today. The social sciences informed the church that a new hermeneutic was imperative.

This is probably over your head but I'll let it stand. Maybe someone will get it.

Marti, I am asking--pleading--that you use your mind.

I ask the same of you, RSM.
You are, as I understand it, studying Theology. I am surprised that you have not realised that there is no ‘universal meaning or interpretation or hermeneutic’ of the many books which together we call the Bible. I have explained the reason for this in previous posts. You don’t seem to understand. Or perhaps you don’t want to understand. I don’t know ~


What do you do? You simply repeat your own personal interpretation.

RSM, you asked: ‘So you think common sense and personal interpretation are enough to guide the individual in interpreting the Bible’?
I answered. It’s hardly my fault that you don’t like my answer.


Please, Marti, use your mind! The purpose of this thread is to prove that there is no reason or evidence to think that God exists.

Nobody can prove that, RSM. If the greatest intellects ever known to man have been unable to prove it, then I doubt very much if this thread will prove it.


A God that was real could surely provide a Bible that everyone understood and interpreted the same way.

Can you see that you are still thinking ‘fundamentally’ when you say this? As I’ve said before, God did not ‘provide’ the many and various books of the Bible. Men did. There is, so far as I know, no book which everyone understands and interprets the same way (well, maybe silly romantic fiction, but certainly no book worth reading)


A real Holy Ghost would make sure that all preachers and readers of the Bible would be inspired to interpret it the same way.

I disagree. I believe that the Holy Spirit loves each of as individuals, and His inspiration guides each of us individually.


Yet we have more than thirty thousand denominations world-wide. That is in and of itself evidence against God's existence.

Why do you think so?


Do you realize that you are playing into the hands of the opposition?

Opposition’? Lol! I wasn’t even aware of a contest!


However, that hermeneutic comes from science and the human intellect--not from God.

Your ‘God’ is too small, RSM.
That’s the thing about God, you see – He’s actually the ‘Ground of all Being’ (which includes science, human intellect .. and everything else.)


If it came from God, million of other Christians would use it too.

How do you know how ‘millions of other Christians’ interpret the books of the Bible?


Also, we don't need the Bible to teach us how to conduct compassionate, respectful, and loving human relationships--marriage or otherwise.

Love comes from God, in my opinion, whether we realise it or not.


The social sciences informed the church that a new hermeneutic was imperative.
This is probably over your head but I'll let it stand. Maybe someone will get it.

Lol! No, it’s not over my head, RSM. I may not agree with all you say, but I can assure you I understand what you say.



Marti

Marti, would you respond to the question that I posted to you in this thread on Nov. 11, 2007?

Perhaps when we have established exactly how you see the Bible, and exactly what the word "hermeneutic" means, we can return to this thread. What you described, Marti, is your personal--or possibly your church's--hermeneutic. You suggest that perhaps I don't want to understand. I will describe the amount of formal effort I have in the past invested, and am in the present investing, to understand how and why people understand the Bible as they do. In one of my courses in theology I studied a lot of different trends in the 20th century alone. I am presently studying a batch of trends prior to the 20th century for my thesis (which is the equivilent of at least two courses).

In another course two years ago I studied the history of hermeneutics from the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek a good two thousand years ago, right up through the centuries--I forget how close to the present day I took it but into the 20th century. I was the only student so the course focused on my interests of the moment. That's a total of four graduate level courses and dozens of books I read in my efforts to understand where people are coming from, what they believe, and why. Not to mention all the online faith statements I have read and keep reading. I read the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Westminster Confession of Faith. Possibly also the Heidlburg, though not as recently.

If you do not think this constitutes interest and understanding then further discussion with you on the topic of the Bible is probably beside the point.

Regardng God's existence. We cannot prove that God exists. We can prove whether reason or evidence exists by which one would think that God exists. There's a pretty significant difference between those two statements.

Marti, would you respond to the question that I posted to you in this thread on Nov. 11, 2007?

Please post your question here, RSM. Posts keep being moved around from place to place, and I don't know which question you mean.
Thanks

Perhaps when we have established exactly how you see the Bible, and exactly what the word "hermeneutic" means, we can return to this thread.

Have you been reading my posts, RSM? I think if you re-read you will find that I have been quite clear about how I see the Bible.
Perhaps you could ask me specific questions about anything that is not clear to you?

PS Please don't concern yourself with my understanding of the word 'hermeneutics'.
I do know what the word means.

Marti

We can prove whether reason or evidence exists by which one would think that God exists.

How?

Marti