Evoloution gives at least an answer.

Why must i put my “Faith” into something untangable and something that dements repsepect and does not earn it?

Why do i need to go to church and be baptised to go to heaven, could religion not go and be replaced by a more personal relation with such a powerfull being?

This is evidenced through our finiteness and inability to grasp things, no matter how much time is given (ceiling to our abilities).

Now, all man are born into sin, due to our inherent sinful nature. Sinfulness is chiefly expressed as the departure from God, in actions, inactions. Our individual centeredness stemmed from our common forefather Adam, and therefore all human beings do not have God centeredness in their lives but individual centeredness. A baby born cries because it wants food, comfort, etc. A child tells white lies to manipulate the parent and so forth. Worst is our inaction… not doing things we ought to according to God’s Will.

Which comes to punishment for sin. Why death eternal? Firstly, God is the Creator. When a potter makes a pot from a mold of clay, it belongs to him. Whatever happens to the mold of clay/pot is up to him. No one can rightfully tell the person to ‘do this’ or ‘do that’ for the significant fact that the potter owns his creation. In our legal environment this is true. You have the right of ownership to do anything and it is your right. God therefore has all right and He is not wrong in anyways to do anything, since it is His universe.

Second, God declares that the people that are not fulfilling their purposes as creatures (sin) cannot be with Him, since His holiness cannot be marred by imperfection. It is not possible for a sheet of white cloth be stained by a dot of black… if it is, it is no longer considered clean. Therefore, such sin must be punished with eternal separation from God (hell). That is why God embodies the concept of Justice. Just in vindicating the right, and punishing the wrong. With God and in His presence, all things are controlled for His purposes (Creator Mandate and Privilege). Apart from Him, things are not sustained and sin will compound on itself (eternal suffering).

thirdly, ALL human beings are flawed and are incapable of achieving any measure of righteousness (as oppose to sin, aka. being right with God). One sinful action (breaking of His Word or not following His Word) is sufficient for that punishment. e.g. A bit of salt added into water will make it salty. Does not matter whether there is much or little; it’s salty already.

fourthly, therefore, salvation cannot come from human actions or intentions for all are sinful. (If you want me to elaborate on the origin of sin I would, but later). This is in contrast to ALL other religions that insist that you can be saved if you do this or this. God says, no… flawed creatures can never save themselves or make themselves alright again. It’s like saying can salt water be made unsalty by itself? Struggling in a quicksand is more accurate in description. Therefore, it does not matter whether you are in the most remote areas of indonesia, or antartica or whatever. All are destined for the same end. That is why even if a person were to declare himself or herself to be a Christian and

fifthly, whether or not one is privileged to listen, or have the interest is not a defence point. Ignorance of the law is in many ways never a defence in any country, what more to the originator of all spiritual and physical laws? In fact, history has shown that man are called into salvation out of the abundance of grace and pleasure of God (it is His Creator privilege that allows that) even from background that is devoid of any exposure to the Scriptures (Bible). Of course, if any man or woman were given such privilege we would have a problem, because the person is no better than us! How can a mere man or woman have the right to save and leave for condemnation as he chooses? That is unfair indeed since man are flawed and thus do not have any right to do so. God is Creator. He is perfect, infinite and has the right to do so. Sovereign will. Out of His pleasure He created all things, and therefore no one has any right to say that He is unfair if He chooses to punish the condemned.

Lastly, we live in an era and place where much of the world is connected. If one really is curious about God and is really seeking salvation that is absolute and not relative, the truth is never hidden from them. Even for yourself, you have the privilege now. To escape such a condemnation is impossible for humans. Therefore, how can a God be both Just and Merciful? Isn’t it contradicting? To be Just is to punish the sinful (everyone). To be merciful is to pardon although they do not deserve it. The God of the bible accomplishes this (only Him) through the sending of God in the form of man, Jesus Christ who is sinless, to die on behalf of His chosen people. That is where Justice and Mercy is fully met.

The Christian is thus relying not on himself, but on an act of Divine Intervention. By repenting (acknowledging his/her sinfulness) and submission to God’s rule. This can ONLY be done through God’s work in the person’s heart.

Scare tactic will not make a person faithful. Unless God’s power is working in you, no matter what is given to scare you, nothing will change you. Christians are those who know that their change is not wrought by fear of death, but a reverence for God’s Being and thankfulness in God’s mercy upon their life. You can be scared all the way and still end up in hell, unless God saves you.

Ascribing a Sovereign view of God will reveal such things to anyone who seeks Him and are truly looking.

If a person will be condemned by God for not believing in him, then isn’t it unfair for the people who lives in countries which have little exposure to One-God religion (Christianity/Islam/Judaism) such as Buddhism countries like Thailand, Japan, China, Korea and Sri Lanka? (Buddhism do not believe in God .. and i think i will consider myself a Buddhist … i think). Or how about in some hardcore poor countries where most people are illiterate to read? And also i came across many individuals (especially common among malaysians) that do not care and bother about religion. They are not evil or sinful, but they just do not care or aren’t curious about how this world came by. (lazy to know) Why should they deserve the eternal condemnation when nobody alert them of the importance of acknowledging God?

Forgive me if i had asked some silly questions above, because this piece of thought came to me instantaneously after i read your reply. But at the present moment, i think the whole concept of eternal condemnation is just a scare-tactic created to make people more faithful and adhere to the religion. (i had this thought 2-3 years ago when i read about Buddhism’s concept of Nirvana and Reincarnation). I always believe fear is the easiest way to control people.

Anyway, thanks for the various replies you have given, mr erlern. I definitely have learned quite some things from this discussion.

Facts are the fundamental block of our belief. From the simplest thing to the most complicated thing in the world, we believe that something is to be true only when sufficient facts are given to support its validity. If such facts are able to convince us out of our current belief system, we would then choose to abandon the former way of thinking and engage into this new one. Otherwise, we would be all the more, convinced that ours are the correct one.

For this discussion, insufficient facts shouldn’t be an issue (just look at the length of each comment *wow*, if not there are plenty more elsewhere), the issue here is rather “which one now?”

Sooner or later, we would have to deal with this individually.

I agree with zy on ‘human nature’, where he/she said “we are all bias towards our own ideology and tend to discredit opposing views regardless how strong the argument is”. Were it not so, the “ideology” itself cannot stand (without supportive facts). This weakness which lies in the very nature of ours i.e. bias, selective retention or whatsoever it is; THIS, we must be reeaally careful.

Can we really see fact as it is, see truth as it is? We must really ask ourselves.

What is the point of having vast collection of knowledge if all we ever do with it is to engage into vain discussion with no absolute solutions at the end of the day (though I understand some may very well enjoy it). Worse, and then, die.

The nature of the facts plays a vital role. I could agree no more to erlern. The facts are right here. No one bothers to find out. If only one would spare time to seek the Truth, check out its validity in a most non-bias way… If.

If God so gives us our life which we never ask for it, He would also very well show us the very purpose of living.

There must be one among all. The only one.

Wisdom is absolute. Truth is absolute. All these helps to point us to the solution. The Way. Before infinity. Right in this life.

Was it mere delusion? Or solid absolute facts? It is for all of us to find out…

And it takes faith to believe, convinced and convicted, which God alone can give.

God bless

I AM seriously intrigued with your insight, because it reminded me so much about myself when I was in my middle-late teens era. Relativism and a fixed mind-set of futility in the knowledge of being.

That was until I found some friends who showed me that truth is real, and is reachable, and is revealed to us. If you have noted my skepticism in lecturing and my perchance for questioning and asking for proofs (evidencing)… that’s just me. It is not easy to convince me of an absolute truth that is knowable within our life time.

Someone pointed out to me about lightning (remember, during those times, we don’t have wikipedia and google to help out in finding things out… I had to go to Sunway library and search them out from the encyclopedia myself!)… it had a purpose. It was to create ozone, which we know protects us from the effects of the sun. Yes… that’s why recently, the big gap in the ozone layer has closed (still there but smaller). Lightning does that. And that line of thought brought me to acknowledge that everything has a purpose. Even when humans (now) think there is none, there will come a time when it will be known. Like our appendix (at the moment, it is all hyphothesised only… ok… i’m guilty of not knowing much in terms of its advancement at the moment ).

And that lead me to the predictment that, if everything that is created has a function, then who made that function? A computer friend of mine (I was in accounts remember?) told me that you only create a function (in programming) and declare it to achieve the objective which you as the author have set. And that is just so true, if truth is already set.

———————————————–

Quote: “This is human – we want to know and we want answers. And instinctively, human fear for things which are beyond our comprehension. Hence, Gods and Deities associated with lightning were created…”

The case exemplified is exactly my point. Curiosity drives a person to find out! Fear drives them away from the truth. Which is why the pagans opted to come out with their own gods to avoid the painstaking approach of truth finding.

That is why the person who ‘discovered’ (more like researched) lightning was Benjamin Franklin (the contemporary of the famous 18th century preacher, George Whitefield). Truth drives us find out. False pretenses of truth drives us away from finding out. Franklin believed in a god (although he was not a christian), and wanted to find out the purpose and nature of lightning.

—————————————-

Coming back to the earlier line of thought, I found that the concept of the whole universe and life having a design necessitates that there is an author. If things are just there because it is just there and have no purpose, then you are right… we all can just sit where we are and just theorize and banter to and fro and nothing would be changed.

But thank God there’s a God who designed purposes for everything. Which is why even with a Big Bang theory, you have the question of ‘who created the bang’… what was the mass before the bang, etc. It comes down to ‘Purpose’.

“…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Quote from Sherlock Holmes to Watson.

If Bang theory does not postulate a purpose before the bang, then I concluded that the God theory is more probable, since if God is infinite, then He has been there even before anything was created. Infinity is infinity. You just cannot see it as ‘before infinity’. Unless you can prove to me where the mass came (there has been none… I checked) from before the bang without having to divulge back to more why’s, I am still holding on to the God theory!

Logic you see held sway in my decision.

I cannot put all my research into this comment, but basically, I had to face to the fact that if God is real, and is infinite, then He must be omnipotent to the extent that all matter is held within His control (that all laws are subject to Him and He can choose to break them whenever He wants since He is the creator). And then I concluded that there is just no way, we can ‘find’ Him since we are finite beings UNLESS He reveals Himself to us.

That is why I was intrigue with your final statement… truth can ONLY be known for us (let’s put us as an ant and God as a giant… there is only so much we can know from what we see… unless He tells us so) if God revealed Himself to us. Which brought me into the area of ‘revelation’.

Historical research on revelations of God is limited to only a few. Chinese one was interesting in that we used to believe in One God during the old dynasties. But due to politics that has been broken down into deities. The Biblical account gave the most evidence of an inspired Word from a single God being. (Deitism never worked because God must be infinite and yet not separated or shared… most deities have the concept of gods and demi-gods which fight each other, things which logically cannot work… cannot be split personality).

After so much testing and learning of historical evidencing, I concluded that the God of the Bible has revealed Himself His purpose for His creatures (us). We are called to worship Him not because He needs it (since He is all-powerful and self-sufficient) but because He IS the Creator. And salvation (the fulfillment of our purpose for which we were created) is GIVEN by Him based on His own pleasure. This clearly separates the God of the Bible from ALL other religions on this earth (another convincing point for me, on uniqueness of the revelation) which requires humans to do something for God in order to be granted salvation.

Metaphysical questions you see, have to be answered using right approaches and based on evidences. That is why, because of my curiousity, I found the Truth… and the best part of all, the Truth has profoundly changed my life (it has to be real, not only in the head knowledge, but also in practice).

I do not believe in an answer that just sufficiently gives me enough to know the now. I want answers that reveals the questions of the past, the present and the future. Surprisingly, it is there in this lifetime. If you are right in your assumption of truth not being reachable, then I have nothing lost except my time on earth being contented with my ‘answers’. But if I am right in my ‘logical assumption’ (which I have pleaded on), then you have ALL to lose in an infinite condemnation.

Will curiosity drive you to fear and create things to allay the fear? Or will it drive you to find out the truth on matters that really matter?

I pray it is for the latter.

*Long post… might as well post this on the main blog! hahahahaha

During the ancient times, lightning is the most fearsome entity in our human’s world. The terrifying flash accompanied by a deafening thunder scared the crap out of everyone. Nobody knew what the heck it was all about, the purpose of it, why and how it happened. However, human wanted an answer for it regardless. This is human – we want to know and we want answers. And instinctively, human fear for things which are beyond our comprehension.

Hence, Gods and Deities associated with lightning were created all around the world – such as Zeus (Greek), Thor (Scandinavian), Tien-Mu (Chinese), Indra (Indian/Hinduism), Ptah (Egyptian), Yaluk (Mayan – South America), Sango (African), Perkusan (Baltic) and etc. People took these Gods/Deities as answers and people were comforted that it was divine power after all who summoned the lightning and thunder. Divine power is the only convincing answer they could get at the time.

Today, we know lightning is just a natural process and we no longer associate it with God/Deities anymore. There’s no purpose for lighting, it is just a natural phenomenon. You may say that I’m comparing apple with oranges but I have this same belief, not only for evolution, but also for life …… and Death.

I’m always convinced that the truth lies with the way of how nature on earth and universe work. It might take up to hundred or thousand of years to discover the answers and i may not have the life long enough to witness the truth – but I believe time will tell the answer …. for our next generations.

You see, you’re using Dawkin’s approach that science actually teaches that it is all about the rejection of old theories and the use of new ones that are better. Surely that is true if you view the history of science. You can google up a whole list of discredited theories from the Net. My premise is not that science is wrong of itself… if you read the lines carefully, science is good for physics and areas in which are currently moving within the scope of our existence. But even in the physical realms there are challenges in validation. Challenges, mind you, does not mean that it is impossible. This is why scientific research always limits the scope of its experimentation, in order to ‘manage downwards’ the challenges (I won’t elaborate on the challenges since this was mentioned earlier).

Now, Newton/Einstein is miles away in its scope from the realms of ‘metaphysics’… which is what evolution falls under. Relativity can be tested now… and the effects are still close enough to our being that the experimentation falls under the same locus. But not for evolution. The time factor is it’s biggest problem. And this is not like CSI, where you can check on the evidences of a few days, weeks or years. We are dealing with centuries of ‘evidences’ that you will never be able to look or experiment on. The locus of cause and effect is not strong at all. And this is where evolution falls under, a branch of assumptions that can clearly be applied to our days (e.g. we can still see microevolution in our day), but becomes unclear as the years are stretched backwards. So, although I am happy with your bringing up of Newton and Einstein, you are talking oranges and apples with Darwin.

The evolutionist believes that science is a changing science (post modern approach… where truth is not absolute, but we’re getting there). That is a fact. It get’s better but it cannot be perfect. Truth in effect is relative.

Evangelical Christians (not the ones that are called fundamentalist in USA though they are in other places) belief that truth is absolute and that truth must belong to a being who created all things. That’s the premise. You can either fall on the former or the latter. There’s no possibility for a middle ground there.

Let me go off tangent to address something else quickly (going for evening service soon)…

Dawkins. That’s my point, Dawkins is not putting any scientific methodology on his approach to the bible. ‘Moral fable’ shows his ignorance in the way of historical science. And this is what PhD professors ought not to do: use their presuppositions as a case without learning anything.

Let me back up what I am saying with some basic historical science evaluations: The earliest scripts of the New Testaments were within the first generation of Jesus’ ministry on earth (i.e. within the first century AD). Fables can only occur after at least 2 centuries. That is why, we are able to apply the same concept with the holocaust and the rape of Nanking and etc. because if we do not document the findings now, what will happen after 2 centuries is that history will pervert facts (fables). However, Dawkins doesnt want to take the trouble of learning how the historical science works… in fact most people are guilty of this… they have a pre-supposition that is built within them from their profficiency in one area of research and form their whole world view aspect based on that premise. That is at best called laziness, and at worst call hypocrisy.

There are in fact oppositions that would never take the lazy approach of Dawkins, that to me are stronger arguments (text criticisms are one such).

Sigh…

Truth is absolute (as Mulder told Scully once in the X-files). If it is not, relativity in post modernism will only discount the simple truth in life which we all have in front of us. I really pray that you will see in life, there is only 1 thing that is proveable and are guaranteed. Only 1. Most scientific theories you can say that you will not stake your life on it, and I won’t blame you. I will not also guarantee you whether I will be doing what I am currently doing in 2 years time. But there is 1 real thing that I can guarantee in your life and mine and everyone else.

Death.

That is the only certainty you will ever have in life. You can say everything and predict and theorize anything… but one thing I will guarantee is that you (as well as all human beings) will die one day.

The life you had is not yours to ask (no one asked to be born nor paid for their own life)… this would already be troubling to the soul.

But what more about death? If that is the only guaranteed thing in life, I would want to make sure that I have the answers to it and to understand what it is… instead of just believing that there is no absolute answer for it. Eventually, you will have to deal with it… Dawkins, myself and yourself.

Death is just you blinking out? How would that feel? You cannot even know how it was like before being born… and it scares the crap out of everyone to try to envision the time before birth… what more about death?

Truth is absolute. It has to be if death has a meaning.

God bless.

Putting Dawkins aside, the New Testament has also a little interesting conspiracy theory about it of plagiarizing the Buddhist Gospels (read it in wikipedia before). I only treat it as an interesting read though, nothing more.

I do not agree with your view on the scientific experiment methods pertaining evolution because I believe scientific theory is more than that. I think it will be hard to articulate this point out on evolution context, so i will give an example on astronomy context instead.

Isaac Newton was the first person to explain gravity, both on the earth and space. He attempted to explain on how gravity works in space in his work Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. 200 years later, when Einstein studied the theory along with other astronomy studies, he realized Newton’s theory did not explain certain questions in space. One of them is the non-constant orbit movement of planet Mercury around the Sun. And that’s when Einstein realized perhaps the space is not flat as what assumed by Newton but rather the space is curved. Hence, Einstein introduced General Theory of Relativity to better explain about the space (that all matters – space, time, light, gravity, inertial masses, etc. are relative to each other).

Therefore, what we can learn about science from the scenario above was:

1. Although Newton made wrong assumptions when introducing the law of universal gravitation by assuming that the space is flat, credits should still be given to him for attempting to explain gravity on space. He needed to make assumptions for a simple reason – he was the ‘pioneer’ in the gravitation research and nobody before him done it before. Due to the limited existing scientific knowledge, resources and technology at that time, he has no choice but to make assumptions in order to proceed with his theory. And that’s what all scientist-thinkers do to create a breakthrough in discoveries. They need to keep exploring possibilities by making assumptions. Hence, if this assumption is wrong, then they will move on and create another assumption. As what a famous quote said, “If you are not making any mistakes, you are not trying hard enough.” Even Michael Porter himself based on certain assumptions in coming out with the 5 Forces of Analysis. Few years after that, he refined the theory again to fit in better with the existing environment. Whether it is business theory, scientific theory, engineering theory, or even cooking theory, every theory has its own assumptions. But I never believe these assumptions are as wild or as random as rolling a dice. They are all built through meticulous research and observations.

2. Scientific discovery is built on each other. Newton’s theory has laid a very strong foundation for Einstein’s theory of relativity and this is what science is all about. Science build on each and other and it is progressive.

In his book the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin has noted that his theory of evolution is ‘provisional’ (that the idea is the best truth at the present moment). He urged scientist not to take his idea as the truth but rather as a foundation for future scientific research works. He also said should there be better theory to explain lives in planet, then throw away the theory of evolution. I think he should be well respected for saying those words, but why was he being hated so much by certain quarters is beyond me. Extreme religious sentiment or over-exaggeration/boasting by evolutionist (atheist)? I think it is the ignorance from both sides.

At the end of the day, I’m not really interested in the creation vs evolution discussion because I feel it’s a never ending spiral of argument. Besides that, I never view people who practice religion is someone who has blind faith. To me, regardless whether God do really exist or not, religion will always have its goods and merits. And to me, that’s what Dawkins lacked off in his arguments, he discredited the positive side of religion.

But I think afterall, this is what human being is all about. We are all bias towards our own ideology and tend to discredit opposing views regardless how strong the argument is. Human nature, eh …