Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Were my remarks on the Resurrection helpful?

Well I read what you said carefully, so I understand your position at least, which helps. Or more to the point, your disinclination to actually take a definitive position. But then I have taken a very SPECIFIC stand on the resurrection, so your footing seems a little like standing on loose gravel with your feet concealed in mist to me. You have your reasons for doing that. And thank you for answering.

[cnorman18]

Were my remarks on the Resurrection helpful?

Well I read what you said carefully, so I understand your position at least, which helps. Or more to the point, your disinclination to actually take a definitive position. But then I have taken a very SPECIFIC stand on the resurrection, so your footing seems a little like standing on loose gravel with your feet concealed in mist to me. You have your reasons for doing that. And thank you for answering.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be slippery. What I meant was, I did not believe in the physical Resurrection even when I was a Christian and did not think the issue particularly important. Sorry; I thought I had said that pretty directly. This came from encountering modern Christian theology in seminary.

Here, for example, is a (lightly edited) quote from the Wikipedia entry on Rudolf Bultmann, which might help:

Bultmann believed [the project of "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation"] would make accessible to modern audiences - already immersed in science and technology - the reality of Jesus' teachings... Bultmann understood [this endeavor] as an evangelical task, clarifying the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, by stripping it of elements of the first-century "mythical world picture" that had potential to alienate modern people from Christian faith:

"It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work."

That's the very point that so many have brought up on these boards. How can belief in obvious mythology, in the 20th or 21st century, be other than an act of the will -- and how can that kind of "belief" be real belief at all?

To continue:

While Bultmann reinterpreted theological language in existential terms, he nonetheless maintained that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism.... Bultmann remained convinced the narratives of the life of Jesus were offering theology in story form. Lessons were taught in the familiar language of myth. They were not to be excluded, but given explanation so they could be understood for today. Bultmann thought faith should become a present day reality. To Bultmann, the people of the world appeared to be always in disappointment and turmoil. Faith must be a determined vital act of will, not a culling and extolling of "ancient proofs."

Try explaining "existential truth" and "metaphorical symbolism" to a first-century fisherman or shepherd. Those concepts did not yet exist. The NT taught abstruse ideas like these through story, just as the OT did. Authentic Christian faith is possible without a steely determination to believe in a Bronze Age picture of the Universe, and very many Christians believe in just that way.

Encountering Bultmann, and Tillich, and Schubert M. Ogden (under whom I studied directly), and other such thinkers is a transformational experience for many seminary students. Meeting the idea that the New Testament need not be read as literal history any more than is the Old Testament is traumatic for many, liberating for others. I went through both stages. The fact is, the problem that very many atheists have with theism -- that is, the unevidenced belief in supernatural or miraculous events, even in the past -- is not necessarily characteristic of modern Christianity, particularly among those familiar with developments in Christian theology since the 1920s or so, which would include most mainstream Christian clergymen.

Of course, as I've pointed out previously, Jews, by and large, have not read the Old Testament (aka the Hebrew Bible) literally for at least two thousand years. Young Earth Creationism? Please. A rabbi and kabbalist once calculated, from some esoteric teachings having to do with the Names of God in the Torah, that the Creation happened about 15.3 billion years before "Adam," which is about the same time that modern astrophysicists estimate for the Big Bang. His name was Nechunya Ben HaKanah, and he did it in the first century CE.

The point of that is not that Jewish mysticism is true; the similarity of the time frames is likely a coincidence. The point is that the superficial and literalistic reading of the Bible as objective historical fact had already been abandoned by that time.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be slippery. What I meant was, I did not believe in the physical Resurrection even when I was a Christian and did not think the issue particularly important. Sorry; I thought I had said that pretty directly. This came from encountering modern Christian theology in seminary.

I read a certain amount of equivocation into your earlier reply, but yes this does firm things up considerably.

That's the very point that so many have brought up on these boards. How can belief in obvious mythology, in the 20th or 21st century, be other than an act of the will -- and how can that kind of "belief" be real belief at all?

Now you sound like me. Oh yeah, and every other atheist on the board. But unless I am mistaken you are not exactly an atheist, are you? Or would you prefer not to be pinned down on that point?

The fact is, the problem that very many atheists have with theism -- that is, the unevidenced belief in supernatural or miraculous events, even in the past -- is not necessarily characteristic of modern Christianity, particularly among those familiar with developments in Christian theology since the 1920s or so, which would include most mainstream Christian clergymen.

Not the "mainstream Christianity" that I am familiar with. I was born into good old tongues talkin' Bible spouting Christianity. Those people are adamant and unwavering. But then so are the other Christian denominations I have become familiar with over the years. The unevidenced belief in supernatural or miraculous events are absolutely a necessary characteristic of their beliefs. Certainly among the laity. Jesus was either physically resurrected from the dead, or Christianity is a lie. No middle ground is given.

A rabbi and kabbalist once calculated, from some esoteric teachings having to do with the Names of God in the Torah, that the Creation happened about 15.3 billion years before "Adam," which is about the same time that modern astrophysicists estimate for the Big Bang. His name was Nechunya Ben HaKanah, and he did it in the first century CE.

This is a very interesting piece of information which I was unaware of. Wikipedia has a page on rabbi Nehunya ben HaKanah, but does not mention this fact. Same rabbi? If you could provide me with a source on the rabbi's estimation of the time of creation I would appreciate it. I am not challenging you on it's authenticity, but I might like to refer to it myself in the future.

[cnorman18]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be slippery. What I meant was, I did not believe in the physical Resurrection even when I was a Christian and did not think the issue particularly important. Sorry; I thought I had said that pretty directly. This came from encountering modern Christian theology in seminary.

I read a certain amount of equivocation into your earlier reply, but yes this does firm things up considerably.

That's the very point that so many have brought up on these boards. How can belief in obvious mythology, in the 20th or 21st century, be other than an act of the will -- and how can that kind of "belief" be real belief at all?

Now you sound like me. Oh yeah, and every other atheist on the board. But unless I am mistaken you are not exactly an atheist, are you? Or would you prefer not to be pinned down on that point?

LOL! No, pin me down as you like. As far as the "Bearded Sky Fairy" or cartoon God is concerned, yes, I am an atheist. But I think that that is a caricature and a fable for children that has little to do with God as I and many generations of Jews have understood Him -- or rather, not understood him. In Judaism, God is undefined. He is the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, nothing like anything in this Universe or anything that we know. Some Jews even believe that an attempt to enumerate the characteristics of God or to describe God is a form of idolatry. We don't claim to know what no one can know. And as I've said earlier, belief in God is not a requirement of following the Jewish religion anyway. There are several ways in which Judaism is qualitatively different from other faiths, and that is one of them. (Another is that we have no formal teachings on an Afterlife any more than we do on the nature of God.)

As Richard Dawkins put it, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." I would agree with that; and that, in fact, has been the Jewish position for many centuries.

The fact is, theism, aka "belief in God"; belief in an Afterlife; belief in the supernatural; and belief in Bronze Age mythology are four, count 'em, four separate subjects. The first requires none of the others and is in fact unrelated to all three.

The fact is, the problem that very many atheists have with theism -- that is, the unevidenced belief in supernatural or miraculous events, even in the past -- is not necessarily characteristic of modern Christianity, particularly among those familiar with developments in Christian theology since the 1920s or so, which would include most mainstream Christian clergymen.

Not the "mainstream Christianity" that I am familiar with. I was born into good old tongues talkin' Bible spouting Christianity.

That would be Pentecostalism, which is not "mainstream."

Those people are adamant and unwavering. But then so are the other Christian denominations I have become familiar with over the years. The unevidenced belief in supernatural or miraculous events are absolutely a necessary characteristic of their beliefs. Certainly among the laity. Jesus was either physically resurrected from the dead, or Christianity is a lie. No middle ground is given.

Read a little Bultmann and a little Tillich. Try for Ogden if you like, but he can be pretty opaque. If those guys had no following, their books would not still be in print and read in seminaries all over the world -- and by learned laymen, too.

A rabbi and kabbalist once calculated, from some esoteric teachings having to do with the Names of God in the Torah, that the Creation happened about 15.3 billion years before "Adam," which is about the same time that modern astrophysicists estimate for the Big Bang. His name was Nechunya Ben HaKanah, and he did it in the first century CE.

This is a very interesting piece of information which I was unaware of. Wikipedia has a page on rabbi Nehunya ben HaKanah, but does not mention this fact. Same rabbi? If you could provide me with a source on the rabbi's estimation of the time of creation I would appreciate it. I am not challenging you on it's authenticity, but I might like to refer to it myself in the future.

I first found it in an appendix to Cracking the Bible Code by Jeffery Satinover, MD (a marvelous book which is, in fact, noncommittal on the reality and meaning of the "Code"; it's merely an effort to describe the phenomenon as observed). Here's a review that mentions the reference. There are others available, mostly on fundamentalist Christian sites -- don't ask me why. It depends how you Google.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

LOL! No, pin me down as you like. As far as the "Bearded Sky Fairy" or cartoon God is concerned, yes, I am an atheist. But I think that that is a caricature and a fable for children that has little to do with God as I and many generations of Jews have understood Him -- or rather, not understood him. In Judaism, God is undefined. He is the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, nothing like anything in this Universe or anything that we know.

Do you find the concept of a creator Being whom is eternal more plausible then the concept of an eternal ever changing cosmos? Science has reduced the realm of what was once considered manifestly supernatural down to virtually nothing over the last 150 years. Is there still room for a bronze age type belief in the supernatural, or even a need for it here in the 21st century? Beyond an emotional need I mean?

I first found it in an appendix to Cracking the Bible Code by Jeffery Satinover, MD (a marvelous book which is, in fact, noncommittal on the reality and meaning of the "Code"; it's merely an effort to describe the phenomenon as observed). Here's a review that mentions the reference. There are others available, mostly on fundamentalist Christian sites -- don't ask me why. It depends how you Google.

I found the reference. Thanks. What's your take on the code itself? Credible... or just a numbers game? Right now, with nothing to argue over, I am content to pick your brain.

[East of Eden]

It's worth noting that I myself am a convert -- 30-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister -- and I converted for precisely the kind of reasons that Goat speaks of here. My conversion was intellectually based, not emotional.

This I find intensely interesting. Presumably as a Jewish convert you reached the conclusion that Jesus is not a deity. By process of elimination therefore you no longer believe in the resurrection. What led you, a former Christian minister, to reach such a conclusion? I only ask because I reached the same conclusion myself at about age 13. But I was never a minister.

My thinking was rather from the other direction. I had always been interested in the Jewish understanding of religious and other matters, even from childhood (I was told I had a "Jewish sense of humor" before I was twelve, and told that I had a "Talmudic mind" not long thereafter). It was clear to me pretty early on that Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah, and that Messiah and Christ were two very different offices -- just as Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions. We share a common historical heritage, in that Jesus and many early Christians were Jews; a largely common ethic; and of course we share a body of common literature, though we read it in very different and often mutually exclusive ways. But other than that, the two faiths have little in common. They have different goals, different priorities, and different attitudes and teachings about almost every matter of "religious concern" from the nature of God and the authority of Scripture to the nature (or existence) of an Afterlife.

I have embraced the Jewish community and the Jewish approach to life and religion. My opinion on the Resurrection is no longer of any particular importance, of course, but since you ask, it was not a factor in my leaving the Christian faith, and in fact has not changed. Very many liberal Christians, particularly those who have been seminary-educated and are familiar with modern Christian theology, no longer regard the Resurrection as necessarily an objectively factual and historical event. It is often said that the "Historical Jesus" if of minor importance to the Christian religion; it is the "Christ of faith" that matters. This is nothing new. Rudolf Bultmann spoke of "demythologizing" the New Testament in the 1920s. That's really pretty routine, among mainline Protestant ministers.

My conversion to Judaism, in short, did not entail a negation of Christianity; like most Jews, I do not regard Christianity (or Islam, or any other faith, for that matter) as a "false religion." I say that it is not MY religion, and that's about as far as I go.

Logically speaking, two conflicting ideas cannot both be true. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah, or He is not.

I have posted my personal opinion on this matter before. I personally think that Jesus may very well have been sent by God to be a "savior" for Gentiles; that is not my business, and I have no warrant to say that He did not. That is my opinion, and an offhand one at that in which I have no particular investment. I do not claim it to be fact.

But that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah is not up for discussion. That determination may only be made by the Jewish community, and it was, two thousand years ago, and has been reaffirmed in every generation since. That's the end of debate on that subject, as far as I and other Jews are concerned.

If you don't agree, that is YOUR business, but it has nothing whatever to do with us. (The fact that some Jews become Christians is as irrelevant as the fact that some Christians, e.g. me, become Jews.)

Bottom line: Non-Jews don't get a vote on matters that have to do only with the Jewish religion. Should Christians accept non-Christians making pronouncements about what they should and should not believe?

Whether or not Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is not something I will debate any further. He wasn't.

So you're position is that Jews are infallible on this subject? The people described as "stiff necked and obstinate" in the Bible were often apostate in the OT. See Jeremiah. If Jesus was not the Messiah you have to pick someone else who lived prior to AD 70, when the temple records on geneology were destroyed.

[cnorman18]

So you're position is that Jews are infallible on this subject? 

We have discussed this before, and you know better. 

My position is that the tenets of the Jewish religion are determined by Jews and not by non-Jews, just as the tenets of the Christian religion are determined by Christians and not by non-Christians. 

Among the tenets of the Jewish religion are the criteria by which the Jewish Messiah is to be identified.

According to those tenets, which, again, are to be determined by Jews and no one else, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. 

I have said, and very many times, that Jesus may very well have been Christ and Savior for Gentiles (which terms have different meanings than the Jewish term "Messiah"). That is not for me to say, but I have no argument with the beliefs that Christians hold, for Christians. 

I DO have an argument with Christians who claim the right to dictate the proper beliefs for Jews, and declare that Jews must hold the same beliefs as themselves. 

Is it YOUR position that Christians -- and specifically YOU -- are infallible when it comes to determining the tenets of the Jewish faith?

The people described as "stiff necked and obstinate" in the Bible were often apostate in the OT. See Jeremiah. 

Yes, that is true. Are you claiming to be a Prophet of God and declaring the Jews of today to be stiff-necked and apostate as well? Are you claiming that Christians, and again specifically YOU, have the right to dictate the proper beliefs of Jews, and to demand that we abandon our own beliefs and accept your own or else go to Hell? 

I am asking.  Say what you mean; don't hide behind cowardly hints and allusions and innuendo. Say it straight out. 

If Jesus was not the Messiah you have to pick someone else who lived prior to AD 70, when the temple records on geneology were destroyed.

We don't "have to" do anything of the kind.  Again; according to the tenets of the Jewish religion, the Messiah has not yet come.  Not just Jesus; any Messiah. And you have no right and no warrant to demand or even advise us that we "have to" do anything at all. 

If I told you that we Jews had the right to determine the tenets of the Christian religion, and to demand that you alter them in order to make them the same as ours, would you agree -- or would you claim that Christians are "infallible" on the subject of what Christians ought to believe, and that non-Christians have no right to demand that those beliefs be changed? 

And now the most important question of all: 

Will you actually ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO THESE POINTS, or will you delete and ignore them and resume your preaching? 

[East of Eden]

So you're position is that Jews are infallible on this subject? 

We have discussed this before, and you know better.

I don't recall it, and you seem a bit testy. This IS a religion forum. 

My position is that the tenets of the Jewish religion are determined by Jews and not by non-Jews, just as the tenets of the Christian religion are determined by Christians and not by non-Christians. 

Among the tenets of the Jewish religion are the criteria by which the Jewish Messiah is to be identified.

According to those tenets, which, again, are to be determined by Jews and no one else, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. 

I have said, and very many times, that Jesus may very well have been Christ and Savior for Gentiles (which terms have different meanings than the Jewish term "Messiah"). That is not for me to say, but I have no argument with the beliefs that Christians hold, for Christians. 

I DO have an argument with Christians who claim the right to dictate the proper beliefs for Jews, and declare that Jews must hold the same beliefs as themselves. 

Is it YOUR position that Christians -- and specifically YOU -- are infallible when it comes to determining the tenets of the Jewish faith?

I could be wrong, but when you've had a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ, it makes that doubtful.

Yes, that is true. Are you claiming to be a Prophet of God and declaring the Jews of today to be stiff-necked and apostate as well? Are you claiming that Christians, and again specifically YOU, have the right to dictate the proper beliefs of Jews, and to demand that we abandon our own beliefs and accept your own or else go to Hell? 

That is exactly what Jesus Christ said. It was to a very religious Jew, Nicodemus, that He said, "You must be born again." This makes your theory that He was savior of only gentiles nonsensical.

We don't "have to" do anything of the kind.  Again; according to the tenets of the Jewish religion, the Messiah has not yet come.  Not just Jesus; any Messiah. And you have no right and no warrant to demand or even advise us that we "have to" do anything at all. 

The Messiah will be of a certain tribe, yet today no Jew knows their tribe due to the destruction of the temple records. That is why I said the Messiah must be someone who lived prior to AD 70.

If I told you that we Jews had the right to determine the tenets of the Christian religion, and to demand that you alter them in order to make them the same as ours, would you agree -- or would you claim that Christians are "infallible" on the subject of what Christians ought to believe, and that non-Christians have no right to demand that those beliefs be changed? 

You would have a right to say whatever you want, I would reply Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." He was liar, lunatic or Lord.

And now the most important question of all: 

Will you actually ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO THESE POINTS, or will you delete and ignore them and resume your preaching? 

And you're not preaching on behalf of your beliefs?

[kayky]

I also do not believe in a literal resurrection, yet I have remained within the Christian faith. I see the death and resurrection of Christ to be a picture of the spiritual path: death to that which is false within us ( the flesh) and awakening (resurrection) to our true self (the spirit).

[cnorman18]

LOL! No, pin me down as you like. As far as the "Bearded Sky Fairy" or cartoon God is concerned, yes, I am an atheist. But I think that that is a caricature and a fable for children that has little to do with God as I and many generations of Jews have understood Him -- or rather, not understood him. In Judaism, God is undefined. He is the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, nothing like anything in this Universe or anything that we know.

Do you find the concept of a creator Being whom is eternal more plausible then the concept of an eternal ever changing cosmos?

A few points here:

(1) It is not a settled teaching in the Jewish religion that creation ex nihilo ever happened in the first place. Indeed, the Hebrew of the first verses of Genesis seems to indicate that what was happening there was bringing order out of chaos, not "creation." There is a lot of separating this from that in the beginning, but no indication that there was nothing. Therefore, no one has established that God "created" anything. Indeed, one strain of Jewish thought IS that the Universe is as eternal as God.

(If God is eternal. There are those who question that, too.)

(2) No one has established that God is a "being." Notice what I said above; "nothing like anything in this Universe or anything that we know." Beings, we know. So what is God? Who can say? Not me. God is undefined. In ordinary language, perhaps Intelligence itself; perhaps Rationality -- that which makes things make sense. Or, more likely, something of which no one has yet conceived, as Dawkins speculated. In the Jewish religion, there is no answer to that question -- and no need for one. Belief in God is not a claim of objective material fact, nor is such a claim a central -- or even a peripheral -- concern of the Jewish religion. This isn't my personal idiosyncratic goofy idea; look here.

(3) Yes, Jews do affirm that God "created the Universe"; but what that specifically means, in scientific terms, no one can say. That this undefined Something is somehow responsible for everything that is, in some way that cannot be known, is hardly a claim, again, of material objective fact.

Science has reduced the realm of what was once considered manifestly supernatural down to virtually nothing over the last 150 years. Is there still room for a bronze age type belief in the supernatural, or even a need for it here in the 21st century? Beyond an emotional need I mean?

Who said anything about supernatural beliefs? Again, one thread of Jewish thought here, and a broad one, is that God is the most "natural" thing there is. Too, no belief in the supernatural is required for Jews. In fact, it's rather rare. Most Jews -- in fact, the overwhelming majority of Jews -- believe in evolution without reservation, for instance (not to mention societal acceptance of gays, the absolute separation of Church and State, and many other such "liberal" issues). Further (and as I have said over and over), Jews have been more heavily overrepresented in the sciences, in proportion to their numbers, than any group on Earth. 27% of Nobel prizes in the sciences have been awarded to members of a group that makes up 0.5% of the world's population. And this has been true for centuries; Moses ben Maimon, aka Maimonides, was not only the greatest teacher and rabbi in our history -- he was also the premier physician of his day, in 12th-century Spain.

There are no Jewish "faith healers" or miracle peddlers or magic men or anything of the kind, peace to the ultra-Orthodox who have a few -- we have our nutty fundamentalists too. And our crooks and charlatans; there is also "pop Kabbalah," the ersatz Jewish mysticism peddled by the Berg family of red-string fame, but that has nothing to do with the Jewish religion and is taken seriously by no rabbi or scholar of whom I have ever heard.

I first found it in an appendix to Cracking the Bible Code by Jeffery Satinover, MD (a marvelous book which is, in fact, noncommittal on the reality and meaning of the "Code"; it's merely an effort to describe the phenomenon as observed). Here's a review that mentions the reference. There are others available, mostly on fundamentalist Christian sites -- don't ask me why. It depends how you Google.

I found the reference. Thanks. What's your take on the code itself? Credible... or just a numbers game? Right now, with nothing to argue over, I am content to pick your brain.

Too soon to tell, as Dr. Satinover himself says in the book. The phenomenon is a complex one, and not as simple as is sometimes presented. It may be, and probably is, a statistical accident. At this point, I regard it as no more than a curiosity, like that odd coincidence of Nechunya's calculations and the conclusions of modern astrophysics -- and a similar one that has to do with the average length of the lunar month which is discussed in that same appendix.

I personally don't think that there were ever any supernatural events in human history, or that God -- whatever or Whoever God is -- works that way. On the other hand, I don't claim to know for certain that He can't or won't, either.