The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[unspun]

If I had a serious and sincere question from you, B6, an indication from you that you are seriously and objectively interested in knowing God, I think I would follow along, to answer the question.

Othwise, I met your questions with questions for you.

[balrog666]

I have no interest in your opinions about your god or your religion. Most believers of (whatever religion/belief system you care to name) would say the same things about their own beliefs, their own special god, or their special affinity with the ineffable.

However, when you claim to have some anecdotal information about a possible mystical intervention in someone else's health (you know, a spontaneous remission of a tumor somewhere, somewhen) and how it only came about through the intervention of a specific god, after the right prayer, and only for those with the right beliefs in the one-true-religion, and whatever other special Doug-Henning-like hocus-pocus you want to spew, then I feel free to call you on your BS and scoff accordingly.

Live with it.

[unspun]

Because of your first paragraph, what good would it do, to answer your second paragraph (and since your second also has false premeses)?

I will live. I also pray that you come alive. (And even if it's not just the right prayer, it is to the God who revealed Himself and has proven Himself to those unworthy of knowing.)

Would you expect One True God not to reveal Himself to those He loves?

Would you expect One True God to be like Sybil, suffering from multiple personality disorder, just because various people believe various things?

[balrog666]

Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

I close my eyes
Only for a moment, then the moment's gone
All my dreams
Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

It's the same old song
We're just a drop of water, in an endless sea
All we do
Just crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

Life's too short brothers and sisters
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

Don't hang on
Nothing lasts forever, but the earth and sky
It's there always
And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust. . . all we are is dust in the wind
Life's too short brothers and sisters
Dust. . . all we are is dust in the wind

Open your eyes you've acquired quite a bit
Keep your balance don't you slip
It could all end instantly as you will see
Time waits for no one, it just moves on
There is a white one
Who won't accept the black one
Who won't accept the yellow one
Who can't accept the white. . .

When will we learn
That all we are is dust in the wind
Time for the healing to begin
All we is are dust in the wind
Time for the healing to begin
All we are is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind

[PatrickHenry]

Dusty placemarker.

[unspun]

Great song, b6! One of my favorites from the word "go." It was written by Kerry Livgren, it may have been just before or after he accepted Christ, as I recall. Kansas rocks.

Believe it or not, I have an impression (and sometimes I'm accurate in my imprssions and sometimes I'm not) that I am to give you this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+40&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

This is applicable too, but there may be something about the first, especially:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+22&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

[unspun]

Yes, I'm pretty sure, the first of those.

[js1138]

double dust placemarker.

[LogicWings]

You're just not the arbiter of such things, LW.

Science as defined is the arbiter, not me. You cast stones where there are none to be had.

spiritual does not equal unreal

Never said it did.

That is an illogical assumption.

It isn't enough in the statement to considered logical or illogical. It is merely an assumption. You demonstrate a poor understanding of logic. Don't worry, you have lots of company.

There is much evidence of the spiritual in our world and concomitantly, there is no way of disproving it.

So you say. I keep asking for such 'evidence' and all anybody ever does is make the assertion again. Fact is there is no such evidence, and what you consider evidence opens the door to other 'evidence' that would contradict it. I have already pointed out the power of 'believing' that is distinctly separate from evidence of 'spiritual' reality. If you believe it is true, nothing on earth can prove otherwise, no matter how far removed from reality that belief is.

[LogicWings]

LW, unspun wants to know if you could have faith in God if he lowered himself to explaining everything with lab demonstrations? (See the contradiction?)

Then why do they keep trying? When is ID except the very attempt to find that place of lowering?

See the contradiction?

[unspun]

LW: "This real world, and the spiritual world, are, by definition, separate."
"Why do you people want to keep making them one?"
"Don't you understand? They are not, and can never be?"

u: "spiritual does not equal unreal"

LW: "Never said it did."

[LogicWings]

LW: "This real world, and the spiritual world, are, by definition, separate."

BY DEFINITION, by the definition of the religion you follow. Get that? The 'Supernatural' and the 'natural' are separate BY DEFINITION. "The Kingdom is not of this world," meaning not in reality. I could go on all day.

You probably weren't reading my posts in previous discussions where I said that there is no such separation. So you might be confused here, (might be? aren't I so very kind?)

So when I said, LW: "Never said it did."

I was speaking literally. The spiritual isn't off in the Supernatural somewhere, so to say,

"spiritual does not equal unreal"

is, in fact, correct. The spiritual is real because there is no 'Supernatural' for it have a distinct source from reality. It is YOUR DEFINITION that is in error.

Not that you will ever admit that.

[unspun]

{a} is a subset of the set {a + b}.

{a + b} cannot be said to be of {a}.

But {a + b} while not being *of* {a} may be in {a} just as it is in {b}, since {a} is a subset of {a + b}.

[unspun]

Besides, when Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world," by what things he also said, He indicated that "this world" will undergo transformation, in order to be of Him.

[LogicWings]

But {a + b} while not being *of* {a} may be in {a} just as it is in {b}, since {a} is a subset of {a + b}.

No, this is wrong. {a + b} may NOT be in {a}. You are playing fast and loose with definitions here.

Water contains oxygen but no oxygen contains water just because water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen, which your lousy algebra says here. As I said, you need to go study logic for a good long while, you just don't get it.

[unspun]

Again with the personal dissing. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Sorry, I never claimed this to be a logical universal; I realized this would be a paradox. But it is a shorthand way for me of explaining this case.

Think of {A + B} as God's perfect Kingdom. (Let me reverse the letters, so it makes sense, since "A" should refer to the Creator & King.)

But think of the world {b} which Jesus came into as a fallen world separated from relationship with Him {A}.

Jesus brings himself {A} into the corrupt world {b} and also collects whatever correctly relates to Himself {B} out of it (those divinely enabled to worship Him in spirit and in truth). At this time, {A + B} are in the world {b} but not of it, as the Scripture relates. While Jesus ascended into Heaven, He also sent his Holy Spirit into the hearts of those who believe (and in another sense, God has always continuted to hold {b} together as One in the world but not of it).

When the Messiah comes again, He will replace {b} with {B} and then His Kingdom will be in Heaven and on Earth.

That's what my "dogma" stipulates. But you see, this does not mean that we cannot have contact with God, who is supernatural (as well as fallen angels, who are also supernatural). We can (and do) have a relational contact with one or the other because we are spiritual beings, created for communion with the God (who is supernatural) but bent out of shape relationally and dead. It is not that we don't have spirits, it is that our spirits are dead, if we are not by the intervention of Christ, given new ones. (Death here is the type of death consisting of separation from God, not separation from the body.)

That's what I believe. You are free to poo-poo it, but, well, you know what the problem is then.

Happy Easter, LW