Comments by LeeC
151. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #64425 by LeeC on August 20, 2007 at 3:30 am
Warning… another rant coming…
A few questions came to me while typing the previous post - stupid I know, slow on the up take and all that but remember I was not raised religiously and my biology is rubbish.
My questioning? – (All I believe are valid questions whether you believe in God or not.)
Did Jesus look like his mum (Mary)? I mean, most babies have half the genes of their father and mother right? Or was Mary just "carrying" Jesus, (a "surrogate mum" for god? – why didn't the bible say this?) and so Jesus' genes would be 100% from God.
WOW - you know what, I would have thought some Jesus DNA would be really, really useful evidence in proving Jesus was the Son of God (Billy, would this sway you?) - you would think that God would leave some Jesus DNA knocking around as evidence wouldn't you - anyway, sorry – I will wash my mouth out - Evidence? What was I thinking? That is what faith is for.
Anyway, along these same lines, why did God need Mary at all? I mean, couldn't God just pick up some mud or something and create Jesus (himself) in adult form? Why wait 30 years or so. "BANG" - and here's Jesus? Why did God want to experience 30 years of life on Earth? If God wanted to experience 30 years of human life, why isn't the reasoning explained in the bible? Did God learn anything from his experience of living as a man for 30 years?
Why did God need Jesus at all? I mean, Jesus is to die for our sins right? What sins were these? Eating a fruit from a tree God placed in a garden and told Adam and Eve not to eat it... I mean, it was not the biggest sin in the world was it? The result of the "sin" gave Adam and Eve knowledge, instead of ignorance didn't it? - Is that such a bad thing? Even if it was a really evil deed (God can be fussy), couldn't God just forgive us – just like that? Instead of coming down to Earth as a baby (which resulted in King Herod killing all babies under 2 years of age - nice, loving God? He knew this would happen, but did it anyway – the price to forgive the fruit eater eh?) God having to wait 30 years growing (a bit of a delay then) and then arrange it so God's "former" chosen people (the Jews) get the blame for executing Jesus (God) in a rather brutal and painful way? What actually was the point in all that? One click of the magic fingers and all could have been forgiven… and we could all be in heaven now too – why do we have to wait another 2,000 years? (All God's will and all that – don't see why I should worship Him though if this is all true?)
Also, why is it the Jews get the blame when it was the Romans who actually did the deed of killing Jesus (God) - the Romans get away "blame and guilt free" - why? Bit of a political thing eh? And since it was God's plan in the first place, the Jews were only following "orders", so should not get the blame for anything anyway - yet they do? (And continuing this logic - it was all God's plan for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit so God could justify coming down in 4,000 years time and get nailed to a cross to prove what a loving God he is? - WOW, when you think about it, it all makes sense?)
I hate my way of thinking, the more I think about the bible, and the worst it gets for me... I do not even think that hard about it, honestly, questions just keep "popping up".
I'm sure if I just thought a little more on the subject, I could think of more "strangeness" with God's logic – the bible just doesn't make sense. Do you think this was the reason it was suppressed for so long in the middle ages – the church would kill you if you had a copy in your own language, I mean, you might read it or something and start asking question or thinking for yourself. Of course, doesn't happen today – the church never wants to suppress information now (Erm – the teaching of evolution and science in schools? Surely this isn't suppression?)
It seems to happen whenever I read a chapter in the bible… is it just me?
Anyway - I will stop now, another bloody rant from me - we were looking for evidence from the bible, not if the bible makes sense – who are we to know the mind of God eh?
Should go to prove just a little bit though, that I can read the bible thinking that God exists... but it makes more sense if God didn't exist - at least you could just blame the ignorance of a tribe of men living in the desert 2 to 4 thousand years ago. If God actually wrote the bible, He has a lot to explain...
I'll calm down now and have a nice hot cup of tea …
Lee
152. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #64424 by LeeC on August 20, 2007 at 3:28 am
Hi Mark,
Thanks to Lee for taking the time to look at the context of Matthew 16:28.
A pleasure – I actually enjoyed it... I always like to question the question - even if it was me who raised the question (???)
I'll start talking to myself next... (but the little voices in my head tell me I shouldn't.)
understanding the Bible is a matter of repeated looking and thinking, including being willing to leave behind one's previous view on some point, on seeing a new detail that shows it cannot have been quite right.
I'll agree to this... (More than you probably thought I would when you first typed it maybe?)
Substitute the phrase "the Bible" with "life" or "the universe" or "anything" and you have my philosophy on life.
On the subject matter of the bible though, there is a lot in the bible that "cannot be quite right"... this long thread highlights a lot of those issues.
Please take my next comment as it is meant, in a kind way, I think you should try and "practice what you preach" (Sorry, it still sounds rude).
Please re-read the bible (focus on the chapters and verses that have been discussed in the past on this thread), but try and do it a little differently this time. Do not (as you have in the past) start with the assumption "God exists" and then read the bible.
Read the bible next time with only the known facts, and without making unproven assumptions - think - "this book was written by man over 2,000 years ago who believed in god, they believed they were right, and want to make me believe their ideas too, but I will not believe there is a god until proven otherwise" - once you have your mind "set" to this way of thinking, then read the passages...
If the bible is the true word of god, it will prove itself. If the bible was written by man and man alone 2,000 years ago - it might just might start showing a few illogical holes. Maybe some things quoted in the bible should be backed up by evidence outside the bible, before we start believing them blindly.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to read it this way, could you honestly do that?
If you read the bible "knowing" it was written by God and do not question everything you read, then you are in danger of only proving to yourself what you already "knew".
I could (and have) read the bible with the assumption "God exists" (it is easy to do) but then I still find questions - why did God do things this way, why didn't God do this - if this really happened should I see evidence outside the bible?
As you said, one should be "willing to leave behind one's previous view on some point"
You do seem to jump to certain conclusions rather readily (because of your general attitude that doubts the validity of the Bible)
I jump to conclusions fast? Maybe - this could be debated, but I will change them faster once presented evidence that I am wrong. Or if no evidence is presented, I will NOT jump to conclusions of the "positive", that is, I will NOT jump to conclusions there IS a god. Quite the reverse - this isn't really "jumping to conclusions", it's not "jumping" to anything really.
My "general attitude" is to doubt (and question), why is that so wrong? (it worked for Thomas remember? I keep reminding myself of that)
I try and follow the "scientific method" for my "belief system" (as you probably know). The reason for this is that the mind, the eye and "common sense" can all be tricked and fooled. Our prejudices in wanting to prove what we believe true can taint our observations.
and sometimes without obvious reason from the context
Not sure what you mean by this... I admitted that I have sometimes read passages "out of context", but I only question what I read - I doubt the text, play "devil's advocate" (if you like) - "truth will prevail" and all that.
Nontheless you are doing what anyone who wants to be clear as to the truth (or falsehood) of the Bible is obliged to do: read the text and think about it. I commend you, quite genuinely, for doing that (and reporting back here).
Thank you.
I report back here, because I want to check that I am right (or wrong) - if I only think about this alone then of course I will agree with myself.
If I have made a mistake in my logic (or reasoning) I would like to know.
If I do meet St Peter at the Pearly gates and was asked "So why didn't you believe and follow God", I want to be able to say that I tried looking, but like Bertrand Russell "Not enough evidence" would be my reply (if I have to of course)
Your questions about Jesus as "son of God" or "son of man" can be answered by looking at the (many!) occurrences of those phrases elsewhere in the Bible....
... The New Testament repeatedly speaks of Jesus as the son of God. The reason can be seen from Luke 1:35 and context, which shows how Jesus was born of a human mother, but had no human father, because God was his father.
Can it?
(Thanks for the bible references BTW, I will read them shortly)
OK - tell me where I go wrong with my next piece of thinking.
According to the bible...
Jesus was "born to Mary" - So Jesus could be described as "son of woman" - possibly.
Jesus' dad was God (or God was Jesus, or Jesus was God - I get confused here) - anyway, so on this basis Jesus could be described as "Son of God" - I think.
Jesus did not have a "human" father (Joseph says it was nothing to do with him but very kindly does not ask for Mary to be stoned to death for having a child out of wed-lock - that was lucky, it would ruin the Christmas Nativity story) - so we have the "virgin birth" and all that - so Jesus cannot be described as "son of man". No "man" was involved at all – only god and a woman.
Conclusion?
Jesus should not be described as "son of man" - Jesus claims he was "son of god", born of "virgin birth" – no human father (actually – does Jesus ever make such a claim about his virgin birth?)
I guess this is really not that important, probably similar to the phrase "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" - this doesn't make sense either. It needs the important "a".All lost in translation somewhere and all that?
Or do you think "son of man" be translated as son of mankind?
Anyway, thanks again.
Lee
153. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!
Comment #64104 by LeeC on August 17, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Good to see the fight continues...
154. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63992 by LeeC on August 17, 2007 at 6:57 am
WOW... this thread is nearly at 2,000
Who will win the prize?
Good luck you guys...
Lee
155. A Defense of Atheism
Comment #63988 by LeeC on August 17, 2007 at 6:52 am
"Note: How does one put quotations in that nice box seen in other comments?"
On the forums the method is [quote] text [/quote]
Here, on the message boards it is
< blockquote > text < /blockquote >
(Just remote the spaces... I needed to do this so you could see what I typed - makes sense?)
Hope it helps.
Lee
156. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #63955 by LeeC on August 17, 2007 at 2:33 am
Hi Ash,
I realise I never got back to your post (121. Comment #62545) as promised although many have responded for me which saves me the trouble on many points.
Do you write professionally?
Nope - I write all this rubbish for free.
I write (too much) here merely because I like questioning my beliefs - no other reason really. I hope to learn from others to, maybe some will learn from me (not sure what?), but I would to have the fun of the debate either way.
By posting what I "believe" I am testing if it is correct – I know someone will point out when I am wrong (Maybe this is why the theists get "hit" with some many posts?) and hopefully I will put straight.
Always a good read but my answer to all of your points will be dissapointingly simple
Nothing wrong with simple answers, these are normally the best ones. (Remember Occam's razor?)
Be careful though - try and make the explanation too simple with NO requirement for the injection of unnecessary and unproven complex entities into the process and you might start to sound like me.
I had some Christian friends & loved debating the questions with them. One day, after I had been holding forth in the pub about how almost all Biblical phenomena could be explained by science
First part – done; Pub, beer, talk rubbish - this used to happen all the time.
The last part however – never done that, have I?
I think so much of the bible cannot be explained... that is its problem, events within it have no proof that they happened – so I am tempted to reject these as "myth". Of course, provide me evidence for the points I have already made against the bible and I will rethink my position.
in much the same way you have in your last postings
Ooorrrrr... maybe I have, I do type a lot of rubbish. Didn't mean to give that impression though. I guess I need to re-read what I have written - but I go on so long, it will take ages to read all the crap I type?
All I have asked for is evidence for what is written in the bible – I do not state that science can answer what is in the bible. (I question and doubt that much of what is described in the bible actually happened – a subtle difference, but an important one.)
I do claim it will be science that will answer most about what we observe within the universe (given time). Religion has too many questions it has no desire to answer.
(You could ask me what came before the universe or what started the universe – science cannot answer this (to my knowledge) since none of the current theories can be tested. Science can use the knowledge it has gained to speculate (or "guess" if you like) but I would require "faith" to "believe" any of these theories, which I do not have.
So with such theories, being outside science, is when I invoke "Occam's razor".
It may have been God, but such God would be more complex than the universe, so I "believe" a universe without a God is more likely – this does not mean I am right, but you have to prove me wrong with evidence)
I state also that within the universe there are no signs of any "miracles".
Show me one if you like.
(And to be clear, even though I have defined this before, I will repeat myself - again.)
A "miracle" is an event that breaks the current known and accepted laws of physics (All science to me is physics really – Physics leaves the boring stuff to the Chemists and Biologists once it has shown them how to get started).
I have already given examples of such possible "miracles"
(Note: An "unknown" is still an "unknown", these are not miracles just something that needs explanation – if we could "transport" a medieval monk (or medieval "scientist" for that matter) into today's modern world, much of what they would see would be explain by themselves as "miracles". The "unknown" is like that – this is how magicians make their trade.)
another atheist -playing Devil's ad'- said to me, "How do you know that the very natural, scientific phenomena you describe was not created by God for these purposes?"
We cannot ever know this. (Bit of a bugger that.)
If God is as powerful as the bible describes actually existed, he can do whatever he wants. Nothing needs to be real, the universe could have just come into existence 2 weeks ago - but God gave everyone a memory of the historical events. Made the universe "appear" 14 billion years old, and write a version in His bible the Earth is 6,000 years old - Hey, we could be in a computer game just like the Matrix...
But it does not help to think this way… (Although many philosophers have, this is why I do not do philosophy.)
The question, if you went the way I just described, should be Why would God do that? Why would God do anything? The "God solution" provides so many questions... hence I do not think about a god unless God can be proven. God is too complex - generates too many questions. I go the simple path instead.
Science only answers what it can measure, we have "the razor" to decide how "likely" an event is once it is outside science. (Doesn't mean it is correct as I have said)
I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees.
I still want to read this book... I will ask Father Christmas for it, and if I am good…
I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is. If a hygrogen atom at the opposite end of the universe was 1 iota bigger or smaller, no Earth, no humanity. The fine ballance of the moon in relation to Earth's delicate orbit, etc.
I think steve99 touched on this very nicely (Post 134. Comment #62607)
I do not worry about this "too much". It may seem amazing, but some of these numbers might be able to vary quite a bit and we still see the universe we do today - some of the numbers we may find, with new equations and theories could only ever be the particular value - they are what they are because they are in balance with other constants and constraints.
And of course (the answer you expect me to say?) If the numbers were set to some other values that could not form suns, planets, life etc - we would not be here asking the questions. However unlikely an event maybe - someone has to win the lottery. Maybe many universe went before this one (we will never know), maybe this universe was born/split out of another universe taking similar constants values to it's parents (we will never know)
We know we are here - so let's work out the best solution and see where it takes us. As I said - the God solution invokes so many questions, I would rather say "I do not know" then introduce more questions.
If I am to choose a god - I need evidence for that god.
It was then that I took my first "leap of faith" & prayed. I cannot prove God to any one. Asking someone to do so is fruitless. You will find Him inside your heart or not at all. And the knowledge of what you find there, if you find God, will be constantly under attack, which is why faith is required to defend it.
I do not have faith - I am weak, and need evidence, hard evidence – just like Thomas in the bible stories.
I do not ask you to prove God (although it may sound like I do at times); I think God should do that for you and every "believer"; God should make proving His existence easy for all his "believers" and so not require "faith" at all.
As I said, to introduce a god into the equations only means more questions need to be answered.
Let see…
(Now Ash, you do not need to try and answer any of these questions on this thread - just think about them, and I have done with your post.)
We can jump the "obvious" questions if you like, such as Who made God?, What was there before God? What is there after God?
These have been answered with circular logic for years by religion.
So how about some of these:-
Why does God hide his existence?
Why does God require faith?
Why does God test our faith?
Why does God not provide evidence?
Why does God require worship from man?
Why does God allow suffering?
Why does God allow evil?
Why did God create a universe so large that man (the most important race in it?) can never explore it (only with telescopes built in space do we get the "tease" of what we can never explore)?
Why did God wait so long before sending Jesus to "save us"?
Why has there been 2,000 years of more suffering since this time?
Why cannot God write a good biography for himself instead of the poorly written bible?
Why does God make His message so unclear that millions have fought and died over the misunderstanding of "His Word"?
Do I really need to go on?
I am sure many people could add to this list - I personally would welcome it, since it highlights the problem with the "God Solution". I find it funny that religion state they "have the answers", and science does not, I find it funny that religion says "Well, science can only answer the how, but only religion can answer why?"
Well, I have given just a few "Why" questions that I do not have to answer being an atheist. I admit though there is "why" questions I do not know the answer too, but they are simpler questions. If a theist chooses to invoke God - they introduce so many more "why" questions merely to answer just the one problem. To answer a complex question, a theist introduces a more complex God – it just doesn't make sense and makes the problem more difficult to solve (OK – the theist ignores the problem, but it is still there)
I will give a better & more direct and considered answer to your questions Lee, but please consider what I have said here seriously.
Thanks... look forward to it of course.
I have taken your responses seriously, I've responded seriously - I hope you do the same with my "thoughts".
Think, question.... this is what I do. I hope to find an answer.
However, the response "Look inside your heart" doesn't work for me - sorry.
I do not trust me (hell, I know me, why should I trust me?) I certainly do not trust my heart over my head.
This is why we have the "scientific method" to take out any "personal" influences on the outcome of the results.
The eyes can be tricked, the mind can be fooled... it does not matter if I think the scientific theories are correct or not, my personal opinion does not matter. They are correct because they have been tested; they offered falsifiable predictions and did not fail. Quantum Mechanics does not make sense to the heart or brain, it goes against "common sense" - we humans cannot handle it (only some can do the maths) if I followed my "heart" I would need to discount it... the fact is though that the theories match experimental results - like it or not. This is how the universe works, and Quantum Mechanics is the best way we have to describe it.
I believe only what can be tested - how wrong I am? You tell me.
I am interested in the debate about why it is ok to treat Christians like dirt in some places
It isn't - it is wrong to attack the person.
However some of these "rude" people have been theists for a long time before "throwing it away" and are "kicking back", this does not make it right, but I think I can understand it a little - I rather they didn't do it though.
I just think that a lot of people just cannot understand why religion should be given any more respect than someone's political views, or football they may follow?
I respect the person, the best I can, but their ideas? I should be allowed to question that with being told I am "treating them like dirt".
I think people following Manchester United need their "head examining" – but this is just football, I would still buy them a pint if I liked the person. (My brother-in-law is one such an example)
It has been the defence of religion for too long that we should not "question", it is "wrong" or "evil" to do so (I'm sure that is written in the Bible somewhere)
So do not take any attacks on religion as "treating Christians like dirt" – if however they attack the person and not the religion – well, it is embarrassing… it is childish and it is wrong,
& what do atheists really believe?
Don't know.
I have outlined a lot in this post alone - I believe in the scientific method, of course, and then Occam's razor once the limits have been hit. After that? I believe we should be nice to one another, not kill, not hate etc etc... (Give me time and wine - I'll get back to you with more dribble).
Cheers
Lee
157. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63885 by LeeC on August 16, 2007 at 2:05 pm
JC
Good to see you BTW - you look so much younger now.
I am too ashamed to show my real face.
Lee
158. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63883 by LeeC on August 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hi JC,
I will respond to Mark in later, since he is on his holiday now – I am sure this will wait. I will use your response as a "springboard" for a rant. (Hope you do not mind)
The biggest problem for Christians who argue in favour of divine authorship is that there is no evidence of any divine author. It is as many of us have said repeatedly: Bible <===> God.
In fact, this is what lays at the root of the prophecy debate.
Yep… we keep repeating it – but it always seems to get missed somewhere. I guess because the "divine authorship" cannot be questioned? A theist will always read the bible "knowing" god wrote it, and therefore cannot really question. An "atheist" does not know if God wrote it, or just man on his own – he is free to look at the evidence and take it to whatever conclusions it leads – I would be happy if it led me to God… if this was the truth, but I've not seen good evidence anywhere in the bible.
So using the bible as evidence for God is fine with me. How worthwhile this is, being "science trained", depends on how well the bible stands up to the "test".
This maybe the problem, some theist's doesn't seem to understand that is worthless, meaningless, and unreliable and erm, not very good – if you cannot prove the bible is a worthwhile, meaningful, reliable and is good source of evidence. The bible is certainly a good source of "words", but it is without foundations – Shakespeare is a great source of "words" so what is the difference? The bible requires evidence for its validity; evidence that it has been proven correct many times before, and so could be used with "confidence" on other matters. Mark understands this, and hence the debates on prophecy. Shame the evidence offered is so vague as you have mentioned, and things that can be tested in the bible have failed upon examination.
There are other events mentioned in the bible that are not so vague, so we could test these first. Test for other evidence that should have been observed by others (outside the bible) if the bible was true. (e.g. Has anyone read, other than the bible, of earthquakes and dead saints raising at the time of the "so called" resurrection? (in Matthew 27: 51-54) Surely someone would have noticed this and wrote it down – I questioned this in "another" thread if anyone is interested, its a long one and no answers are given of course from the theist)
On this thread (which for me started here – then I do go on a bit as I usually do) a theist asked me for what I meant by evidence (for a god). The theist (we shall call him Ash) used the bible as his single source of evidence for god and focused in particular on the "eye witness" accounts mentioned in the bible of Jesus and his miracles. (We have not gone down the prophecy route yet, if so I will re-direct him here, no point in repeating myself more than I have to)
When I questioned the validity of the statements in the bible, and compared them with modern writings and beliefs on alien landings and adductions, Ash (the theist) could not see or understand the comparison. (Maybe just my poor argument skills at work again?) It is a slow moving debate and I assume of some point Ash will just wander off and not return – happens a lot with some theists. I'm glad Mark sticks around though and puts up with us all)
So my point is that it should be possible to verify many of the observations/statements made in the bible with other written sources at the time. If many of the statements turn out true – then GREAT, we can use the bible with a little confidence. If however most turn out false, or have not been verified with other source when "common sense" say that they should have (the absence of evidence can condemn the bible as well) – then the whole bible should be questioned (and rejected as a source of evidence.)
The problem is that even though the list of possible opportunities God has to provide evidence for his existence is almost limitless – we observe nothing that cannot be explained rather well by science, (or will probably turn out are not that surprising once we learn more of physics and biology). The "miracle" factor is very possible for God, events that break currently held "beliefs" in science, but none are seen (Why is that?).
It must be stressed here that there is a huge difference in pointing out "Look your science cannot explain this" and point to the first instance of life, or consciousness, what came before the Big Bang (whatever). These are all "unknowns" to science today that we freely admit to (some we may answer, some we may never answer with science - one in particular). However, has a theist or any religion EVER pointed to an observation/event (observed under scientific conditions) that science "knows" how it works or should behave and yet - by some "miracle" of god - it breaks the laws of physics? No never… and hey, James Randi has $1,000,000 for anyone who can - but no church or person has come and claimed the prize - this is rather telling evidence for me.
I've talked enough… I do go on a bit.
Cheers
Lee
159. Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #63598 by LeeC on August 15, 2007 at 3:43 am
I've not had chance to listen to the show yet, but it seems it doesn't matter because we have darwin2.
So has this turned into a science Vs god debate again?
Always good for a laugh.
Have I missed anything new? Any theist given evidence for god yet?
Darwin2 wrote:
God created the laws of physics and does not interfere. God knows exactly how the laws of physics will react in every occurrence both with intelligent and non-intelligent life in our universe and all universes. This is how God is omniscient and knows all about the future.
I am glad to hear God does not interfere... so what you are saying then is in the first 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of the universe after the big bang God fixed all the laws of physics and rested after a job will done.
Excellent - this god of yours is much better than the god of the bible - he took 6 days.
Oh, and that little bit about the uncertainty principle God created in his laws, obviously doesn't apply to your god right? He omniscient and knows the future as you say.
Interesting.
Lee
160. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #63492 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Hi Nails,
but if you guys really are god's people, why did he wait so long to tell you?
why didn't he tell anyone else?
Good question, this is a question that should be aimed at "all god's people".
Man has be walking the Earth for thousands of years, certainly they have been in Australia for around 40,000 years, some feel we have evidence for 100,000 years of man walking the Earth (maybe someone can fine-tune this date a little – I'm in a rush to get to work)
So the question then is, why did God let us all "suffer" for 98,000 years before sending down his saviour?
Lee
161. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63374 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 3:26 am
Thanks Billy,
I'll drink to that...
Lee
162. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63371 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 3:21 am
OK, a long reply…
I will take onboard Mark's valid point against me that I read passages out of context sometimes. (However this will always be the case until I read the book from cover to cover – and then I probably read it on the wrong day or something)
So I will expand a little before and after the originally quoted verse - Matthew 16:28.
All from quotes from the King James Bible, in God's own English (Sorry Billy, Scottish doesn't sound right here – but I know James was a Scottish king so I hope you forgive me)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19
So Jesus at this point is "handing over" control to Peter – Jesus clearly does not state who should take control "after Peter" because there will be no need – Peter will not "taste death" before Jesus returns to "take up" his kingdom. Although, Jesus hasn't said when he will hand the "keys" over, but he is clear Peter's actions on earth will be important – so I am still a little unsure on this part.
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matthew 16:21
"Prophesying" Jesus' death and "resurrection" - if you believe that sort of thing. (Lets not go there)
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:22-23
Nice – the person Jesus has just handed over control and the given "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is seen very quickly by Jesus as "Satan". Seems a bit strange to me – maybe I should think about this more?
So onto the "big build-up"
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16:24-27
All good Christian stuff right? – rally the troops and all that.
After this of course comes the passage I am questioning, and trying to understand.
The "build-up" so far seems to be Jesus handing over control to Peter, to look after the "matters" of the church on Earth – until his Jesus' return I assume. It does not mention who should take over control from Peter. Which I now think puts the following passage into context?
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:28
No one is "taking over" from Peter – Peter will not "taste death" before (till/until) the crowd present "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom".
Seems pretty clear to me?
I guess now it all comes down what is meant by "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"? – I cannot get away from that. (Help anyone?)
So does this means "us" i.e. when "man", "all of us" comes into "His"(God's?) kingdom? - I think so.
It is not talking about Jesus is it? Jesus is the "Son of God"…
Actually, on second reading of this passage has to be talking about Jesus. Since in the verse Matthew 17: 9 Jesus refers to himself as "Son of man" (Quoted later). Weird, I did not know Jesus was a son of man…. Can someone explain this to me?
Anyway, where was I, oh yeah…
so the people in present will not "taste death" (die) until they see man/Jesus? "coming in"/entering the Kingdom of God… seems a pretty BIG prophecy this one.
(And as Billy pointed out in post 1415 – at the battle of Agincourt – many people of the time of the bible were a little upset that the end of the world hasn't come yet, and they were not all in the Kingdom of heaven as promised – Thanks for that Billy, I think it reinforces my point on this verse)
Anyway, let's see if it is the "vision" that immediately follows this passage helps Mark's response?
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. Matthew 17:1-4
No mention of anyone "tasting death"… so no reason to believe the prophecy has been fulfilled with this passage. No clues here that Matthew 16:28 has been fulfilled at all. It doesn't even mention the "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" It is not described at all.
But let's just read on a little bit more to be sure…
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. Matthew 17:5-6
I guess we have to assume the "well pleased" voice behind the cloud was God?
So this is not the "son of man coming into his Kingdom", merely "evidence" (if you are a believer) that Jesus is the Son of God. That is all – and if a cloud were to tell me that someone was a son of god, I would believe the cloud right?
So this is the "first identification" of Jesus as the son of god (right? – not the son of man?) – not what was describe in the verse, Matthew 16:28, as it mentions NOTHING about what has just been described, no death, no "kingdom of heaven" – no man/Jesus entering the kingdom of heaven… it is lacking a lot of "evidence" really as "fulfilment" to a prophecy.
Matthew is describing a "historical event" remember, so if he wanted to "prove" his earlier prophecy surely Matthew would have highlighted people "tasting death" and write a claim that what was seen was "the kingdom of heaven" and "someone" entering it and stuff.
I stand by what I have said – nothing here has changed my mind.
And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. Matthew 17:7-9
This last bit puts the nail in the coffin so to speak – it would have been a great place to add "Tell the vision of the Son of man coming in his kingdom to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
The absence of such an entry makes me to "believe" this is talking about something completely different.
And so here I rest my case, and present my evidence to the court!
Since I am still new on this bible reading "lark", I welcome input from you all – have I "missed the point" or "misunderstood" the passage (I think I have, I am really confused about it to tell you the truth). And since Mark might not being commenting anytime soon – off on his holiday instead. - I think my argument rests and falls on the understanding of "Son of man coming in his kingdom" and what this actually means.
Mark of course already thinks I am wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me, whatever the verse Matthew 16:28 is talking about, it is NOT describing the passage that followed it. It also seems "clear" to be describing the "Son of man coming in his kingdom" which I am taking to be the after the "End of days" bit.
It all interesting stuff though.
Lee
163. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63358 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 2:52 am
Hi JC
I agree that thanks must go to Lee for giving a summary of the questions unanswered
Cheers (or how they say down here - "No Worries" - Very soon they will be removing all knowledge of history and culture from my brain so I can be a "True Blue Aussie" - I will also be learning the "philosophers' sketch"for good measure.)
I also keep remembering more topics of discussion that are still "open" - your single paragraph summarises nicely one of these. (Which is great, since it means I do not have to write another summary post – hooray, we can just link to this.)
The simple fact that so-called holy men are depicted as speaking in vague terms allows us to impose whatever interpretation we find most pleasing on their words. And we do. Christians do not all agree on which is the proper interpretation either, with each arguing that the others have done so incorrectly. This is the same problem we've discussed before, and still begs the question as to why a perfect author could not be more explicit.
I would also add to this that before any passage can be said to be prophecy, evidence of its authorship for when it was written and last modified, has to be proven first. If not, it is just story telling.
Some passages maybe more an exercise in "historical writing" to "read like" prophecy – "meaningless" on the prophecy debate (and do not make the bible "look-good" in my opinion).
I think the passage we are discussing from Matthew is an example of "true" prophecy - shame it is not true (actually, no - if it was true, the "end of the world" would have already happened and I would not be here discussing it as I would never have been born)
Cheers
Lee
164. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63357 by LeeC on August 14, 2007 at 2:48 am
Quetzalcoatl wrote:-
Lee, as an accountant I don't have much use for a Bible in my day-to-day routine!
and for me that meant only one response was possible..
I could think of a use for it!!! The book of Numbers perhaps may be handy?
Looks like the early reviews are in...
JC wrote:-
that joke was just awful
Quetzalcoatl wrote:-
That is a terrible joke.
Followed with…
Hang your head in shame, Lee.
and now I seem to have a "gained" a reputation
As Billy wrote:-
was that as bad as Lee's effort?
I will have to stand by my critics - it doesn't look like the life on the comedy road will be a fruitful one for me.
As least JC wrote some encouraging words:-
… to all may today and every day bring you closer to being who and where you want to be!
I wanted to be comedian, but with more critics born every minute I will retire now from the stage - oh well... I will just keep typing code in a dark windowless room with just the glow of the LCD screen for light and warmth…
No more jokes from me… I will have to stick to sarcasm, it may be low, but it is clear it is all that I have.
Maybe I should learn to play the guitar – then I could be a Rockstar or something, but with my musical skills I have more chance being a Roadie – I can move heavy things from one place to another.
Lee
165. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63090 by LeeC on August 13, 2007 at 5:11 am
Hi Q
Lee, as an accountant I don't have much use for a Bible in my day-to-day routine
I could think of a use for it!!!
Erm… the book of Numbers perhaps may be handy?
On that… I have to go.
See ya
Lee
166. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63084 by LeeC on August 13, 2007 at 4:41 am
Damn, My post is wasted now... oh well.
It is here anyway.
Hi Q,
It all seems the same whichever version I look at...
Matthew 16:28
New International Version (NIV)
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
King James Version (KJV)
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
New King James Version (NKJV)
Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Taken from www.biblegateway.com (for those who do not take their bibles to work? What were you thinking of this morning – going to work without your bible?)
Its all a lot of "tasting of death" however you translate it... maybe Jesus knew his crowd was hungry and just wanted a bite to eat of something, kill a calf and taste death and all that before they watched the big movie (sorry vision) 6 days later - strange way of saying it though, but it is the bible?
I would be interested on others people take on this. After all, the medieval folk invented the "wandering Jew" to resolve this paradox. This is how I came across the passage.
See ya
Lee
167. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #63052 by LeeC on August 13, 2007 at 3:06 am
Hi Mark,
First, please accept my condolences for your mother.
And thanks for the response; I am glad you like the summary. I thought it would be useful during this "quiet time" on the thread since we have had so many topics "rush by" and I think they are all interesting and we should not "lose them". It means we can come back to them later, and have a few references to where we were to "trigger the memory". Of course it is not complete, but I only know the questions that are important to me (and I have noticed I missed some, I should refer to the debate with Theo and "SG", but I doubt he is coming back anytime soon – I could be wrong).
It also was also meant for any "late comers" to show a summary of the last 1400 comments… if anyone asks.
However, now to your response to one of my questions – a bible question, I remember when I would never try and debate on the bible directly; You see what happens? And I admit that I only dip in and out of the book so I do accept that sometimes I will read a passage "out of context".
Is that so important in this case?
I have taken onboard all that you said, but I will jump to the end for my "quote"…
What he is predicting is not his coming itself, but their seeing it in the prophetic vision. And Matthew shows the fulfilment of the prediction by recording the three disciples' experience, exactly as Jesus had described.
This doesn't feel right to me… and seems like a "get out", so I am with Billy as usual on this.
You have to admit it is a bit of a rubbish prophecy just to say "You will not be dead in 6 days when you will see a vision of something that will happen in over 2,000 years or so in the future" which I think is a summary of what you have just claimed?
(Actually, if Jesus added the "2,000 years" bit and the "vision" bit it would be a much better prophecy – since he doesn't say any of that in the bible and maybe also if he said the "6 days" bit as well would be useful… erm, come to think of – what was the prophecy again?– you describe something I did not read in the passage at all?)
So this is "obviously" not what was meant by the prophecy. Why would the bible make such a weak prophecy of something that would be considered "important" by some?
You describe a "prophecy of a prophecy" and say this is what is meant by this passage - that Jesus is just giving a prophecy that his followers will see another prophecy very soon of an event that will take place in over 2,000 years into the future. If this is the case, why didn't Jesus say just that? "In 6 days you will see…" Why all this rubbish about "tasting death"? I say rubbish in the sense that no one was reported dead within these 6 days, no one in crowd died (no names are given at any rate) so "There be some standing here" is meaningless.
Are you saying that prophecies in the bible can sometimes be meaningless, misleading and unclear?
(I thought that was my job – I will get the Atheist Union onto this if you are not careful?)
So I will take the bible at its word here in this passage. Matthew is writing that Jesus is preaching to his followers and the crowd of his return and that the "end of the world" will come within the lifetime of those in the crowd. It is that simple (doesn't every religious generation preach that they are in the end of days?). To try and claim anything else with this prophecy seems "dishonest". Of course, not to twist the prophecy as you have means it is plain wrong, so you have to find a "get-out", so I do not blame you for trying.
To me, this is just one of many problems with the bible, and my list increases the more I read – when do the alarms bells start ringing for a believer? The bells are deafening for me – it is almost enough to wake the dead. (Which leads me to another "issue" I "found" the other day in the bible… but I will hold this back for now, since I am asking the question to another theist on a different thread – no response yet of course.)
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Enjoy Israel, and please don't start any wars – this wouldn't be fair and I would have to accuse you of try to self-fulfil prophecies from the bible.
Lee
168. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist
Comment #62864 by LeeC on August 12, 2007 at 3:52 am
Hi Ole
Last nigh over here in Norway, princess Martha Louise was interviewed (she has contact with angels). Sad to listen to. In one section of the interview, she mention quantum physics. That is a trend among new agers. Do they know anything about it? No, not a "quanta" ;-)
I do not know her, but I think she may know 1 quanta of truth about QM, since it is the smallest possible known measurement, however I am a little uncertain about it.
Sorry – bad joke.
I always love it when people say things like it was a "Quantum Leap" – what? The smallest possible jump possible? Not really worth writing about then?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the article, so I should get off.
Lee
169. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62842 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Hi Nails,
The forum link you gave me has disappeared? It was comment 82.
I guess "they" have removed it.
I've found a copy of it... so I will still be there.
Lee
Update:
I'm in on the forum now... straight in at the deep end on a thread at
Creation & Evolution :
Evolution goes against the laws of physics!
Not sure how long I will last, it depends on the responses.
The first rely
170. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62834 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Question: Why are there so many questions and interpretations on the bible prophesies
The questions on this subject matter have been many and varied... almost from the start of this thread, and certainly since Mark joined the debate in December. Debates covered many of the books from the bible, but I have tried not to enter too many of these due to my personal lack of knowledge on the subject area, but one in particular I was "pulled" into by Mark (thanks – I feel part of the group now).
Ezekiel 26:1-14
I think my first response was this.
However, my main "attack" was in this comment.
This was back in May... I do not remember a reply, but I know Mark has promised one, so I will wait.
171. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62833 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Continuing from comment above..
Quetzalcoatl response to Theo is here
and my reply here.
The debate did go on for a little while, but I do not remember any answer to resolve on how the Earth was actually 6,000 years old but appeared with many different and independent scientific measurements to be 4.5 billions years old. Add to this the additional problem of the age of the universe, which is around 13.7 billion years old.
I am a dog with a bone on this one - sorry.
172. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62832 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Question: How old is the Earth and the Universe? Is the Earth 4.5 Billion years old or only 6,000 years?
Another question that has been "danced" around a bit.
I think I really brought it into the debate in comment 859.
This is when I stated it as a clear and direct question.
A response was given by Mark here in which Mark answered the Earth and the in universe was 6,000 years old.
My response was with a question, asking why does science give an age of 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and why, if the Earth truly was only 6,000 years old, did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?
Theo responded here.
To be continued...
173. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62831 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Continuing from comment above..
But probably my best summary(?) against Noah and the flood plus the age of the universe can be found here.
(My debates sometimes overlap a bit - oh well)
Mark's response to this Noah argument was incomplete in my opinion, but is here.
The argument rested however that I believed in God first – which does not seem a good argument – if I believed in God, I will believe I the bible, and so my belief in the bible will prove God… no this is a good argument for me.
Mark wrote:
"As I keep saying, the first thing to do is to establish that the God of the Bible is real. After that, accepting the flood account (or any other of the Biblical records that include super-natural events) is no particular problem"
So - of course I am waiting for this evidence of god, and a more complete answer.
174. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62830 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Question: How can Noah and the flood be understood to have happened as described in the bible?
To me this story has so many problems with it for anyone who takes the bible literally.
First raised back in November 2006 ?? in comment 15.
JC touched on the subject in comment 582.
I raised the question to Theo, (But he has not returned to continue the debate) in comment 1081.
And followed this up with the following comment
Mark touched on my question in within this comment, but the response was more focussed on asking me a question regarding the bible and to respond to a bible prophesy which we will return to later.
To be continued...
175. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #62828 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hi all,
Do we think Mark will be coming back soon? Hope so, since I have many unanswered questions.
I thought it might be a good idea (i.e. something to do) in our quiet time to group some of the unanswered questions together for easy reference.
I welcome others to do the same for Mark's return if you feel it is a good idea.
Summaries such as this could be used for anyone joining the debate late – should the debate continue of course.
These summary posts will be split up, since too many links are considered Spam by the web site.
I will start with a simple one from quite recent.
Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?
Raised by myself in post 1283.
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" Matthew 16:28
176. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62730 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 3:43 am
Yaweh,
You could be the first Muslin I have debated, we will see.
To you I will ask the same question as I did to Ash – Evidence!
Have you any evidence for your god or the writings in your holy book (Qur'an or Koran?).
I will also ask you further questions.
Is the god of the Qur'an a good and merciful god, or an evil bugger just like in the bible?
Also, I thought everyone who was not muslin was deemed as evil and should not be spoken to in case they "turn you away from god"? Am I wrong in thinking this?
You quote:
Unlike the Bible which has many authors and has been corrupted and mistranslated, the Holy Qur'an is the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as Allah promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind.
So I am wrong in thinking that more than one person actually wrote down the "holy" words into a book. I mean, Muhammad didn't actually write down the whole book himself did he?
So is it not a collection of "memories" of what Muhammad may have recited to his followers. And not all the followers agreed precisly on the words and so a selection committee was required to choose which were indeed the "true" words of Muhammad?
So corruption is more than possible, as for translation – well, you tell me, is the language used in the original Qur'an still use today, or is it a little like Latin – people may understand it, but it is not in use today?
These are just questions, since I do not know the Qur'an very well – however, the problem with any god still the lack of evidence.
Can you please provide some?
I am sure I will be back with more questions.
Thanks
Lee
177. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62577 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 7:14 am
Hi Ash,
It late again here, but hey – it is Friday night, no school tomorrow!!!
In reverse order… since your first post is more serious I will tackle it later…
Quick note to LeeC: I will get back to with a full response, promise. But please stop worrying about offending me!
Phew… I don't have to be on my best behaviour any more…
Thank F..k for that.
Oops… it was the wine that made me say it.
Glad we are now on the same wavelength.
I do worry about my sense of humour though – sarcasm is my main source of humour, and sometimes people take life too seriously.
It saddens me when some people try to be offensive
It frustrates me too when they do.
People may come to this site curious how an atheist may think… and what they could take away with them is that "many" are just abusive idiots, and act no better than children. I've been around this site and the forums for some time now and this is unfortunately what I see. Thankfully they are really in the minority. (I suspect many are mere children though, but this is just me getting old I guess. You know, I'm am sure I saw a policeman the other day who was not old enough to shave!!!)
It saddens me when some people try to be offensive, perhaps because my remarks get too close to the bone, but I too have no intention of causing offence;
I say don't worry about it (Even though I personally do worry about it – funny really)
Atheists are 10 a penny over here – plenty more were they came from.
so now I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive, which makes things a bit quicker for me anyway.
There are plenty of polite people around here, and not many theists willing to discuss their views – so you will be busy just talking to the "nice" people.
You strike me as very interesting & polite.
I try to be… but watch out for my sarcasm, it can cut to the bone.
I promise to let you know if I am offended, but I am pretty thick skinned, so relax, you silly git! ;-)
I will now not hold back on my views or humour… but you are to tell me if I offend in anyway. Some people take religion seriously, and I do not know what it means or what could offend since I have always been an atheist.
As for me, you will find it hard to offend me…
OK… the honeymoon is over; the gloves are off – let's debate.
Lee
178. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62576 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 7:08 am
Hello again Newatheist,
I believe people believe what they want to believe. It is funny really.
On similar lines, I have a mother-in-law who believes the dead have spoken to her. (OK not very Christian, but along the same lines). No matter how many times I ask her to really think about the experience, and actually think about it she still believes in the experience and other clairvoyants' nonsense… so I am polite, and try and understand her. Thankfully the wife is on my wavelength – just.
Things happen, and people try and explain what happened. This is natural.
Unfortunately, sometimes something happens and a person cannot explain it – so some say, "god did it", some say, "It is the mind playing tricks again", a few can actually explain it with science.
Religion/faith plays on ignorance… at least this is my only explanation.
So people, like myself, can live life knowing that we do not know all. I do not know all the reasons, I do not know all the answers, and may never know.
Some people do not like the unknown, have a "fear of the dark", and so need an answer where none is known… enter God, the all knowing, all-powerful Lord… who has an afterlife guarantee. Heaven for eternity…
It is an easy answer… all too easy, and I understand why people follow the path.
I should be off to bed… but wine tastes so good.
Just one more.
Lee
179. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62571 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 6:43 am
Hi PopeStig,
what do atheists really believe?
That there is no god. Think that's probably the only thing all atheists have in common and will not disagree on.
I disagree… (so we cannot even agree on that? Sorry)
I believe a god is very, very unlikely and without evidence I will not believe in a god.
However I do not want to call myself an agnostic since this may seem I am just 50/50.
God is of course able to make the universe look how every he or she wants, if God does not want to give any evidence for his existence, he could do that. God could make the universe fully understandable and within the grasp of humans to place into mathematical equations on how the universe works… God could do anything if you believe that stuff, even hide his very existence from our view.
But then, what would be the point of god? I may as well believe in the fairies at the bottom of my garden. I have no evidence for them either.
So, for me – with no evidence means I believe in no god. I cannot state however there is no god, since this is impossible to prove.
Does this make me a strong agnostic or a weak atheist? These are merely words for me.
I think am with Richard D on this though. In science (especial quantum mechanics) we can never be 100% certain on anything. We only know what is probably and what is unlikely. I think I am 99.99% certain there is no god. Of course, God could prove me wrong at anytime.
May God strike me down if I am wrong….
What was that… Phew, just a thunderbolt – happens all the time on a clear, cloudless night?
Cheers
Lee
180. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62566 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 6:20 am
Hi Newatheist
As it turns out I am being embarrassed by the polite folks on this thread, and I have to concede I've been a shit.
Don't worry - a good Christian will turn the other cheek.
And I will forgive you also… if you need forgiveness from an atheist. Doubt it.
Fight the good fight!
Lee
181. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62541 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 4:08 am
Hi Ash,
"Anybody interested in a debate between equals"
Yes, of course - I have always maintained this.
Some atheists do have a chip on their shoulders, but that is their problem - some theists have a chip on their shoulder too. People are people.
But I have to go now... I have written enough.
Look forward to your reply
See ya
Lee
182. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62539 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 4:03 am
Hi Nails,
Yes LeeC, evidence.
We require evidence.
Simple really.
Like evidence of the star of bethlehem.
Funny how the chinese, who 2000 years ago were recording everything that moved in the heavens, failed to spot this mighty cellestial arrow pointing towards bethlehem..
It is really that simple - evidence.
It is all we atheists ask for, a little evidence - our "faith" is not as strong as the theist's, and so we do not believe just because we are told to believe.
We question...
If doubt is good enough for Thomas, who supposedly knew Jesus and only believed JC came back from the dead when he actually met Jesus "again", in the flesh, and touched his wounds. Why then are we criticised when 2,000 years later we need a little more evidence than a book written by the faithful?
As for the "star of Bethlehem", it is one of many mysteries of the bible, however it is probably not the worst. The problem we have in the modern day is knowing what the hell was being discussed in the bible, and since we have no firm dates, we can only speculate.
Interestingly though, there are a few possibilities to what the "star of Bethlehem" could have been (hope you do not mind the lecture - I like astronomy and it is not often I can quote it in religious discussions, so I do it whenever I can).
The Chinese I think did notice a nova around the time of Jesus' "birth", but didn't think much of it, it was not that "great" and it was at the wrong time (a few years after the ascribed "birth" of Jesus. (A nova or "new star" is actually matter falling in on a white dwarf and then having nuclear fusion kicking for a brief moment - these are not as bright as supernovae and leave no "trace", unlike a supernova)
Halley 's Comet did also make an appearance at around the time of the "birth" - but comets were considered a bad sign, death, flood etc were supposed to follow the sign of a comet - so not a comet. Besides, people knew that a comet was different and probably would have called it a "hairy" star or something to differentiate.
The "smart" money is on the conjunction of the planets - using computer programs the path of the planets can be calculated quite easily now for any location and point in time, so this is what people have done.
I cannot remember the precise dates, but I think Venus and Jupiter (the brightest of "wandering" stars) did do a merry dance at around the "birth" of Christ.
So maybe the "wise men" noticed these? I doubt it though, what proof do we have of any "wise men" oh yeah, the bible of course, so this story in the bible has a few problems for me.
Firstly, if it was the "wandering" planets - big deal, this event is rare, but not impossible (I think this type of event happens every 500 to 1000 years or something) so with this reckoning we are missing a few messiahs since one or two conjunctions have happened since?
However, lets face it, any sign would have done for the writers of the bible, if not this, then something else... the conjunction of planets does not mean the birth of a Messiah since we are obviously short of a few in written history.
Also, the stories are written after the event. Not just after Jesus' birth, but way after his "death on the cross". So it is more likely any such events were used to "fit" the Jesus myth, and the memory of such events used to make Jesus seem more important than he really was. A lot of people would have been born around the time of this astronomical event, and since, according to the bible, King Herod killed all babies under the age of 2, then the astronomical event and Jesus' birth were not close events. And let's not forget, the event could have been used for ANYBODY in their 30's.
Now of course, God could have "created" a new wandering star "just for the birth" - science could not answer that one - but then again, it doesn't have to, since we have no written record of such an event apart from the bible. The Chinese certainly would have noticed a "wandering star" just "coming and going" -(I guess Nails it is probably to this you made your reference to the Chinese).
To me though, a lot about the story of Jesus' birth seems a little "made up"; the writers had to invent a story why Jesus was born in Bethlehem for a start - why? To fulfil some old bible prophecy. Besides, I thought the Jesus of the bible is known as Jesus of Nazareth and not Bethlehem? And let's not forget the Virgin birth... just don't get me started. Mary would have been stoned to death if she was lucky, if she was pregnant outside of marriage - no it's OK - Joseph has a dream, that's right. And why is the star of Bethlehem only in the Book of Matthew and not Luke if it is that important? Luke does give a detailed account of the birth - minus "wisemen" and miracle stars. I could go on, the list of issues is great.
However, my point against Ash is that I am still interested to know more why no Romans or Greeks outside of the bible wrote of the "great deeds" Jesus is supposed to have performed. It all sounds a little strange to me.
Then there's all that business of "All the dead rising up out of the graves" and "earthquakes"
And just in guess someone is thinking I am mad, because I didn't "believe it" until I read it, but this is what the bible has to say happen after the crucifixion:-
" At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top
to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open
and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went
into the holy city and appeared to many people.
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the
earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and
exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" " Matthew 27: 51-54
You would have thought this would get written down by a Roman soldier writing to his mum or something – wouldn't you?
"Dear mum,
Please send me some new sandals the old ones have got a hole, and oh yeah, all the city dead rose up today because some Jewish bloke came back from the dead.
The earthquakes are getting better though, so don't you worry.
Lots of love, your son Bigusdickus"
The more I learn about the bible, the more problems it creates itself. The more questions it has to answer. It fails to provide any evidence for its claims.
It makes a lot of statements, but I am expected to believe on faith, and not with reasoning.
Sorry, 600 years ago maybe - but not today, we have better answers.
You must admit that, as biblical stories were written so long after the event, possibly being handed down by word of mouth a few times (or few hundred) that some things have been exagerted a little?
My granddad could remember precisely every detail of his days in World War II you know. Over 50 years after the event. He never got confused, or mixed up details he saw in films, documentaries or added anything just to "spice it up a bit". It was a true historical record of the events. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong!
And have you any evidence whatsoever of humans EVER exaggerating a story, adding bits to make the story more interesting? Newspapers and News channels never do this at all.
How about humans who lie to try and convince you their ideas are better than someone else's - politicians have never, ever done to this for their own personal gain.
Have you any evidence of a human writing a story with bias? Whenever I read a football report of a game, the opinions, details of the action and observations are ALWAYS the same - even in the local newspapers from the different town teams involved in the game. Not only do they agree who was playing, the players, the location, when goals were score, they even agree on the referrees' decisions. Every one of them.
Erm, I think I am mistaken on everything I just said.
Your point has been proven to me.
See ya
Lee
183. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62383 by LeeC on August 9, 2007 at 2:08 pm
My bicycle pump is very cynical. I ask it many questions, and all it ever says is "Pfft".
All praise Quetzalcoatl,
Maybe you should buy a new pump?
But your response shows me why a pump is not the best machine to ask questions when it comes to love… they are just full of air with nothing much to say.
Must go.
Lee
Hi Flagellant,
When it comes to God or god, being an atheist I do not care. If I want to debate with someone and it is important to them I will try and follow their rules for the debate. It is not difficult. It does not mean I believe in God or a god.
It is only an extra press of the SHIFT key and costs no extra money.
Maybe I'm wrong, but what the hell. If you do not want to debate, and merely wish to offend, why stop at the letter G?
Lee
184. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #62246 by LeeC on August 9, 2007 at 4:30 am
Hi Ash,
As promised, a lengthier and detailed response from me. I had to be short (and fast) last night but I still got into trouble for being over my 10 mins from the wife.
Oh well.
I only briefly read your first couple of responses, but felt I needed to reply quickly due to the fear I may had offended you with my earlier comments - which was never my intension.
If my words are misunderstood and they offend then I am truly sorry. I do not write 2,000 words to offend someone, I could offend in one sentence (a lot more efficient), but what is the point of that in a debate?
Let's move on and not get too stuck on this.
The term "God", whether you believe in Him or not, is a proper noun;
Already answered - my offence is merely to grammar and my old English teacher (she never liked me). I do move in my debates from talking about a god or gods (in general) and God (specifically the Christian God) depending on whom I am debating with. However, I do not merely debate against God, I debate against ALL gods and I move from thread to thread so I will make mistakes.
I am apologising a lot here... not a great way to enter into a debate.
In either case, surely, people can see that refusing to obay simple rules of grammar does not alter any of the arguments in any way? It simply reveals something about the writers. I wander who will have the character to take this argument on board?
I "wander" a lot about my grammar sometimes, but mistakes happen - I do it a lot I know, I am always typing the wrong word. This is why I will never dare to correct anyone on their English - I am not in a position to do so, mine is rubbish I know, I took more interest in Maths and Science at school, not English. I just hope people can understand my arguments.
Let's move - again.
I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site
I do that all the time, sarcasm maybe the lowest form of humour, but if it is funny and doesn't hurt anyone - you have to laugh haven't you?
to get to the heart of the questions you raised:
Excellent - we have been dancing around the debate so far - lets get to it!
Though I feel you are attempting to tie my hands with your definitions of what you see as "scientific" or "evidence" I will do my best to address your points.
No, as I said before. You asked me what I meant by evidence - you asked, I answered - I am not trying to tie your hands. You could look up the definition of scientific evidence if you like, or "evidence" in particular. I would be interested to learn how wrong I am about what is considered evidence by the wider audience.
Anyway - I am sure you could debate me with one arm tied behind you back, you have said you have God on your side right?
If I told you that the Lord God would move the sun from its position or make the moon disapear and reapear on the other side of the planet tomorrow; & then we saw that this had happenned on the following day,
If you told me the Lord God would, could and he did - I would be very, very impressed.
surely your response would simply be to say that there was a scientific explanation for this phenomenon & explain it in these terms?
You have put your own words into my mouth - this would not be my precise words.
Firstly, the sun does move from it's position in space, I think at a couple of hundred kms per second around the Galactic Centre, so just movement alone would not be good enough. However this is not, I think, what you are suggesting.
If God could move the sun to twice the distance from the Earth, and in doing so the Earth is "unaffected" (i.e. the temperature does not suddenly drop but is maintained by God's powers) then this would be amazing, and I could not answer the two observations (the sun suddenly moving 150 million kms and the Earth unchanged)
As for the moon, again I stated this would be precisely the type of evidence I would be looking for proof of a god (this is the correct use of the word "god" I hope - I did not specify which god).
With such observations, I would believe that a god intervened. The problem though is not convincing me this was an act of god, but to convince all the religious people which god it was that performed the act? The Jews, Muslins and Christians will all claim it was their God(?) and that this is proof that His message in their holy book is correct.
This however is not my problem - with such evidence, if it could not be explained by known physics (which it couldn't as we described and we have a good understand the motion of the stars, planets etc) then it would be proof of god for me.
I will no longer be an atheist - I will be converted to believe in this god.
God's hands are tied by your arguments as he is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science?
No they are not... (and how could I do that do God?)
Actually - this may be a rather deep observation, I will pause.
Are you saying that your Lord God is constrained by His own physical laws that He created?
Your argument is that God created Life, the universe and everything - All the physical laws so surely he could bend them a little?
So God should be able to move the moon out of it's orbit, and place it on the other side of the Earth in just one second. Or maybe start spinning the moon so it is not longer tidally locked and so we can see the whole moon as it rotates? None of these should be a problem for God. My method of observation and measurement will not be affected by the action. i.e. I will lookup, the photons from the moon will be coming from location B and not A (it has been moved to the other side of the Earth remember) The photons will not be changing the outcome of the experiment - so I do not understand your argument. Of course, God may have chosen an "easier" method, and just gave the illusion that the moon had move (it would still be a nice trick for the whole 6 billion people on planet Earth to observe so I would still be impressed) so I do not see why you can belittle such an observation.
But back to your statement "by your arguments as he is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science?" Yes I would use science to try and explain it, and science would fail, so God has proved himself unto me and the world.
I am really confused about your argument - am I missing your point?
Ash, you asked me what I meant by evidence, and what evidence I would require for the proof of the existence a god - and I stated it.
You then state, "If God did as you asked (see above), you would say it was not God who did it, but science"?
I'm sorry here, but if I didn't know better I would think you are calling me a liar?
You have not made a case against my argument, you just said that if god did as I asked for proof of His existence, I would not believe it - and this is after I said it is precisely what I am looking for. So your argument against me is to merely called me a lair and not given an argument to where I am wrong, just attacked my creditability?
Don't worry, I do not take it personally - just disappointed that this is the best rely you can respond with to my lack of evidence argument.
Very poor, Very poor.
You say you don't want to use philosophy in looking at these questions, yet both rules of thumb which you apply to the test are philosophical ones, conceived by philosophers. That is to say, Popper's "disprovability" & Ockham's "razor".
Look back at what I said originally, and my last posting in response to this point also.
I merely say, "I do not do philosophy". It has it place next to painting and music – it may sound and look pretty but most of it just does not work for me. This is my personal opinion.
I have said enough already - I will wait for your response. (This is not holding back information I may add - another point we will address later - merely that this is enough information to say at this stage in a debate. I have further opinions on the topic, but they may not be relevant and so, as I have said, I will wait for your response.)
So are we allowed to talk about philosophy
Of course... we can, I will even talk about football as well if you like? I think Liverpool will put up a stronger challenge this year, but will not win the title. Chelsea seem to have problems with injuries, and so I believe Manchester United will win the title again this year. Oh, and Leeds United will get relegated another division - Bye Bye.
By you talking about philosophy, does mean I will have much to add, this means that the debate might not last long - you could try though.
I like to learn.
I want a word with the ref' cos you're not playin' fair
Yellow card... that's a Yellow card. Complaining to the ref - just play the game.
He He He
I seem to have made myself unclear with my referrence to the work of professor Simon Greenleaf. I was not evangelising on the basis that a one-time atheist came to Christ through his studies of history and, what he called, "witness testimonies". And I would challenge your comments with regard to his age and motives as somewhat cynical perhaps?
Challenge away - my argument had nothing to do with his age - more on the age in which he lived (This is a historic statement, his birth and death are recorded so you will not challenge this wil you?).
You have stated he was an atheist, so you must have evidence that this was the case?
If so I will retract my early statement - if not, you cannot "assume" this was the case and you will have to retract your statement with regards to his faith.
If anything, if we are to "assume" anybody's faith at that time, it is more likely to me that the most people were religious and not atheists (as is still true today I am told?).
However, we will leave Simon's faith as neutral unless proven otherwise - I could of course try and find evidence he went to church or had a association with a church, until you have evidence proving otherwise then please do not assert he was an atheist, and I will not claim he was religious.
Since if we have no evidence either way, then I could ask, at the time of Simon's life, what was the percentage of religious, agnostic and atheist. It would not mean anything about Simon per say, but it would highlight the time in which he lived and was educate and speculate his likely religious opinion.
I think your challenge is weak, and it missing the point. One persons view does not mean the bible is any more correct than say, the Koran.
I was suggesting that you look at his ACTUAL WORK in this regard.
And I said tried to find links on the internet, but found none.
I requested you provide me links to summaries of his "ACTUAL WORK" so I could read and learn more about your argument. Until you can provide them, please stop attacking me for not reading something I actually requested for.
At the moment, your line of argument seems rest on attacking me as a person, I guess you had a bad day at work or something... no worries - I merely ask you start to work on attacking my arguments and not me, the person.
After all, legal testing is one of the most "scientific"
Since you placed the word in quotes, you have answered this point yourself.
I think the most "scientific" testing is that done in say, science? I am sure we will agree to this obvious statement, but you say it is "one of the most", so could you tell me any legal court case that actually asked for the crime to be repeated so they could confirm how it was done?
Science repeats it measurements... legal testing does not. I do not see the comparison you make between the two.
The legal system may use science as evidence, but you cannot use this fact to conclude the legal system is therefore scientific.
(if admittedly flawed in some ways) processes for examining people's behaviour, motives and truthfulness. It's not about what you think of him. Look at his work and decide on the credibility of it after that.
I was not attacking the person, I know nothing about him - I merely stated that showing me a person who converted to Christianity as you claim, does not prove Christianity itself - surely even the worse legal system could understand this logic?
Anyway, the point here is show me the evidence, show me links to his work and I will read it for my education.
You have ignored, so far, my original point against this type of argument. I gave the example of Alien landings, which seems to me like a rather good example in the modern day to the type of argument you are making for the miracles of Jesus based on only the bible.
So you gave me Simon Greenleaf as your evidence for the bible, I give you John E Mack, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Psychiatrist and Professor at Harvard Medical School. He believed that aliens have landed on Earth and have adducted many of his patients.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Do you now believe in Alien landings and adductions – I mean, I have now given you a leading scholar also from Harvard? Surely this makes it all true?
Or do you still question the evidence I put before you? You should, as I have of yours.
Are you able to question the quality of one source of evidence, but not the other?
I was intrigued by various comments you have made to others which seem to imply that you are witholding certain elements of your arguments, depending on the responses you elicit from me. Is there some reason as to why you should not feel entirely confident in your stance? Or is this just a tactical exercise for you?
I have already addressed this. I believe we are having a debate, and not a lecture. I cannot type everything I know onto this thread, it would take to long, not make sense, and probably much of it has nothing to do with the debate (i.e. like my side comment earlier with regards to football earlier)
Do I feel "entirely confident" in my stance? I do not think this statement applies to me in this context and so does not make sense. I am not arrogant enough to say I am right and I know everything, but no one has yet proved me wrong, highlighted the errors in my logic or provided evidence for a god that "did it". Could someone or something prove me wrong - of course, this is way I am here debating, to check that I am on the right path. So I am not "confident" I am right, but no one has shown me wrong by showing me evidence for a god.
It also does not matter to me if I am shown to be wrong - it happens a lot, this is how we learn and improve. If I am wrong, I am wrong, I will change my mind and worldview - easy. This is not so easy to say for a devoutly religious person though is it?
So is it a "tactical exercise"? - well this is a debate we are having isn't it, so any debater has a tactic don't they? This is nothing deep or evil, it is just a debate so the only "tactical exercise" I am having is really with myself to question my beliefs and check that I am right (or not) - if I am wrong, then I will reject my original ideas, but then I have to question any new solution to check that also, if the new solution seems correct, then I will change opinions to the new.
I am not out to "trick you", just interested in your argument - I do not want to "put answers into your mouth" and hence I pause, and state I will wait for your response.
Otherwise, I am just debating with myself, and what will I learn from that?
Go on, spill the beans
I leave the mess making to my son, he is very good at spilling beans, rice, custard - anything really.
If you want to learn my views, just keep debating with me, I will not "hold anything back" if you ask me a question - but I do not want to answer my own questions.
Your comments about the Christian stories not turning up in any books other than the Bible was amusing to me
Now we get interesting, the debate now really continues...
because you seemed to overlook an obvious point The Bible IS lots of different books, compiled together into one volume. They were written at different times and in different languages and locations. They corroborate (I hope that's the right spelling?) each other.
The Christian stories only seem to appear in the bible. It may be a collection of books (I did know that - this is one of it's problems - too many cooks spoil the broth and all that but lets not get off the debate) however I would expect to see accounts not written just by the followers... since not everyone followed Jesus at the time, we should have more eye witness accounts.
You mention that the books were compiled together (I knew this also) but how did the men choose which books were in, and which were not? Men will choose the books that are in line with their own views and reject the others. However, this is not my problem, it is the problem for those who follow the bible, which of course I do not. Lets not open the debate down this path until we resolve the evidence issue that the bible, in its current form, gives to us.
And why is it that all of you appear to be such conspiricy theorists? Why do you assume that because X volume does not make it into the final Bible, it has been "SUPRESSED"? Check your definitions guys! If the other volumes of which you speak HAD been supressed, then they would have been destroyed; or, at the very least, we would be aware of historical accounts of the attempts to distroy them, since they still exist for all to see.
As I have just stated, the point of my argument is not how the books came together to the form we have today, but it is what is in the bible that I am debating, the sole source of evidence you are using for Jesus. I am looking for work outside of the bible to back up your claims you made and are written within the bible.
If you want to debate with me later about "conspiracy" theories, then I will - but you are using the bible as the source of your evidence. I will accept it in its current form for our debate.
So, you are merely avoiding the question, and diverting the debate as where.
Lets stay on track... what is the evidence for Jesus and his miracles outside of the bible? What other Non-Christian sources do we have?
You like the legal argument don't you?
If two people are found in a room by police standing over a dead body and person A said person B killed person C. Would you believe person A merely on this statement alone? One eye witness?
No of course not. And so, I cannot accept one source of eye witness accounts you give from the bible on its own. In the same way I would not believe person A on his statement alone.
I gave you an example remember similar to yours with regards to Alien landings and their eye witness accounts.
Do you believe in Alien landings as well as God?
Why?
It does not seem to occur to anybody that there may be perfectly legitmate and obvious reasons for not including certain (inacurate or bogus) books from a compilation. Oh no, of course, all Christians are evil, and therefore their motivation must also be evil?
Ash, this whole post is not answering my question. I do not have such opinions, and you are just changing the debate, I am happy to debate down those lines once you have responded to my original reply – the one you ask to me first.
Please respond to my Alien landing argument before trying to change the debate - is my argument so weak you can just dismiss it out of hand, if so, could you explain why - and I will try harder next time.
you comment specifically that we do not get accounts of scriptural events in Latin or Greek
Did I? I think you are making a "straw man" of me from somewhere.
At what point did I discuss the language (Latin, Greek or Welsh?) as the basis of my argument?
I could provide you with two books, both written in English that have very different opinions (Dawkins/Behe perhaps?) the language used is not important, but what is written with that language. So you are way off target with your response.
I am happy that Latin and Greek writings entered into the bible – but so what? - I am asking for writings by other Greeks or Romans who are not Christians who observed some of these great acts of Jesus.
To try and highlight my point further in case I was just misunderstood. At a different time and place of course, we have writings of Roman soldiers based at Hadrian's wall (the "Vindolanda" letters) - in them they discuss their dirty washing, the weather, the poor food - PEOPLE that they have met, seen or will see – their daily lives.
None of these letters are "interesting" enough to put into a book on their own so I would not expect them in the bible - but I would expect such writings to exist discussing Jesus if he really did what he did.
So this is the evidence that I am looking for... not "missing" books from the bible that would have been written by believers, even if they did not have the Christian view and so were rejected.
The only people who were not Roman and get mentioned in their best historical records are those who either went to war with the Romans or who profoundly impacted Roman politics.
Is that really true? I have better re-read the letters
"Please send me 20 chickens, 100 apples (if you can find nice ones), 100 or 200 eggs (if they are for sale at a fair price.)"
Of course, these were "Scottish" chickens that of course that profoundly impacted their Roman politics at the time at the Wall, and since they were at "war" with the chickens this is why they were mentioned in these "Top Secret" dispatches to their generals...
I need to read further, when you put it like that, it is very interesting...
Of course, these letters are dated around 90 and 125AD so maybe at the time of Jesus they did not write such things. 100 years is a long time after all for the Roman Empire?
Source: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/arl_vindolanda_tablets.htm
You have narrowed your search for truth down to two or three fields of enquiry: physics, law & history, but primarily physics.
Physics first, the "razor" second. I stated this very early on.
I have an interest in history as I stated, but this does not enter into my belief system.
So is their any other way to describe the universe that is backed up with as much evidence?
Tell me, do you think first of physics when dealing with your relationships? Is physical proof all upon which you can rely when falling in love?
You will have to ask the wife.
At the moment Physics cannot fully resolve biology, biology cannot fully answer the brain. Although I suspect the most complete answers will be found using science, there will still be much that cannot be explained. I doubt though I will find any answers asking my "invisible best friend"?
why is it so ludicrous to look into ones own heart and see what dwells therein.
Because the heart is a muscle evolved to pump blood around the body - we have learnt this from biology. I do not ask my bicycle pump if I should fall in love with someone.
However, I doubt you are really talking about the physical heart.
I will just answer these, and many other questions with - "I just do not know". Me not knowing an answer to a question does not prove God, it does not provide evidence for God in itself. Unless you want the "god of the gaps"?
So, for the record, I will now freely admit to a few things I cannot answer.
consciousness .
The first "instance" of life in the universe.
What came BEFORE the Big Bang.<