"I wasn't trying to represent my beliefs, just to show you that the reasons for one believing that something was purposefully created aren't necessarily the same reasons for believing that one person in particular was its creator. Even with your twisting of my analogy, it still showed it. Even if one could prove that Kronzak didn't actually do the painting, it doesn't change the fact that it was purposefully created as opposed to being the result of an explosion in a paint factory. Theory #1 (that it was purposefully painted) isn't dependent upon, or in conflict with, theory #2 (that Kronzak was the painter). When it comes to creation, theory #1 (that it was purposefully created) isn't dependent upon, or in conflict with, theory #2 (that the Judeo-Christian God was the creator)."

Incorrect. When it comes to creation, theory #1 IS in conflict with theory #2, because we can see through evidence how it was purposefully created or manipulated. We see the painting used buckets of paint (a simplistic big-bang start) and primary colors (6 constants). However, theory #2 says it was created with a fine paintbrush (big bang + creation of plants/animals/humans) and used mixed colors (manipulation of earth activities over the past 6000 years). The evidence of the painting itself discredits theory #2 as reliable. And really, I have no desire to continue this debate, because I'm not quite sure how I can make it any clearer to you.

DAN:  "Your analogy ignored the fact that your idea of "creator-God" and your idea of "Jesus-God" are two very different things."

DAVID:  "One is more general and one is more specific, just as "a painter" is general and "Joseph Kronzak" is specific. But the "creator-God" could be "Jesus-God" just as "a painter" could be "Joseph Kronzak". There is nothing about the idea of the purposeful creator for the universe which conflicts with the idea of the Judeo-Christian God."

But "a painter" can NOT be Joseph Kronzak, because Joseph Kronzak claims to have painted it in a way that conflicts with observed evidence of the painting.

"The only thing I can see it possibly conflicting with is a very literal interpretation of Genesis, but many Christians (myself included) don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis."

As I said, I'm not going to be your personal atheist coach. If you really think the only conflicting stories in the Bible are literal interpretations of Genesis, your faith is leading you in this direction, nothing else. Don't claim your ideas are based in hard evidence when any history professor and any science professor can go through immense lists of conflicts they have with Biblical stories. I'm sure you're the type of Christian that immediately turns Biblical stories "figurative" as soon as they conflict with science or morality, just so you can claim the Bible doesn't really conflict with anything. You get an A+ for turning the story of creation figurative!

DAN: "I doubt you will though: your faith, and your fear of being wrong, prevents you from actually searching out new information from professional writers and scholars."

DAVID: "Yeah, that's why I'm always responding to mail from atheists, and debating with them in message boards, and visiting and responding to atheistic websites."

Yes, it is. You'd rather respond to people on the internet instead of actually read books by people who devote their life to the subject. Another A+.

Dan

"Incorrect. When it comes to creation, theory #1 IS in conflict with theory #2, because we can see through evidence how it was purposefully created or manipulated. We see the painting used buckets of paint (a simplistic big-bang start) and primary colors (6 constants). However, theory #2 says it was created with a fine paintbrush (big bang + creation of plants/animals/humans) and used mixed colors (manipulation of earth activities over the past 6000 years). The evidence of the painting itself discredits theory #2 as reliable."

Theory #1 is that it was purposefully painted. It says nothing about buckets of paints and primary colors. If the evidence shows that Kronzak couldn't have painted it, then theory #2 is false, but theory #1 still stands. You can argue theory #2 all you want, but that doesn't change the validity of theory #1.

"And really, I have no desire to continue this debate, because I'm not quite sure how I can make it any clearer to you."

Then feel free not to respond.

"But "a painter" can NOT be Joseph Kronzak, because Joseph Kronzak claims to have painted it in a way that conflicts with observed evidence of the painting."

Which would mean *either* that Kronzak wasn't the painter, or that he was lying about the way he painted it. So it could still be Kronzak. Either way, theory #1 hasn't been invalidated, since it doesn't depend on theory #2.

David 8/20/09

"Theory #1 is that it was purposefully painted. It says nothing about buckets of paints and primary colors. If the evidence shows that Kronzak couldn't have painted it, then theory #2 is false, but theory #1 still stands. You can argue theory #2 all you want, but that doesn't change the validity of theory #1.

Yes it does. Did you forget about your theory on Occam's razor, and how you tried to debunk my theory on democratic faeries? You claim democratic faeries couldn't have created the Universe due to Occam's razor, just as I say that your crazy Hebrew God couldn't have for the same reasons.

DAN: "But "a painter" can NOT be Joseph Kronzak, because Joseph Kronzak claims to have painted it in a way that conflicts with observed evidence of the painting."

DAVID: "Which would mean *either* that Kronzak wasn't the painter, or that he was lying about the way he painted it. So it could still be Kronzak. Either way, theory #1 hasn't been invalidated, since it doesn't depend on theory #2."

Let me say it again: if we remove theory #2, yes, you can still have theory #1. However you can't believe in both theory #1 and theory #2 due to your own beliefs on Occam's razor. My claim that democratic faeries are the painter is just as valid and less ridiculous then all the baggage of your Biblical God.

Dan 8/20/09

"Yes it does. Did you forget about your theory on Occam's razor, and how you tried to debunk my theory on democratic faeries? You claim democratic faeries couldn't have created the Universe due to Occam's razor, just as I say that your crazy Hebrew God couldn't have for the same reasons."

No, Occam's Razor doesn't say that a democracy of magical fairies couldn't have created the universe. It just says that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion without reason. For example, if a faerie appeared to you and said "I am the elected leader of a group of magical faeries, and we collectively created the universe" and you (for whatever reason) decided to believe him, then you would have reason to believe in the democracy of magical faeries without violating Occam's Razor, since you have a reason to believe in the democracy of magical faeries. But if you believed in them without any reason at all, then this would violate Occam's Razor. Theory #1 (that the universe was created) would not be in violation of theory #2 (that the faeries created it). Nothing about theory #1 says that faeries *couldn't* have created the universe, so there is no conflict.

"Let me say it again: if we remove theory #2, yes, you can still have theory #1. However you can't believe in both theory #1 and theory #2 due to your own beliefs on Occam's razor."

No, since I have reasons to now believe in theory #2, that reason being that I am convinced of Jesus' resurrection, which suggests to me that His God is the real God. Applying Occam's Razor on theory #1 doesn't mean that the universe's creator *can't* be the Biblical God, only that one shouldn't jump to that conclusion without reason. If you end up with a reason, there's nothing about theory #1 that says you aren't allowed to believe in it.

"My claim that democratic faeries are the painter is just as valid and less ridiculous then all the baggage of your Biblical God."

That depends on whether you have reason to believe in the democratic faeries or not. If you don't have any reason, but believe in them anyway, then it is ridiculous for you to believe in them (or at least it's a violation of Occam's Razor). If you have a reason, then it isn't (necessarily) ridiculous, and certainly isn't a violation of Occam's Razor.

David

"No, Occam's Razor doesn't say that a democracy of magical fairies couldn't have created the universe. It just says that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion without reason. For example, if a faerie appeared to you and said "I am the elected leader of a group of magical faeries, and we collectively created the universe" and you (for whatever reason) decided to believe him, then you would have reason to believe in the democracy of magical faeries without violating Occam's Razor, since you have a reason to believe in the democracy of magical faeries. But if you believed in them without any reason at all, then this would violate Occam's Razor. Theory #1 (that the universe was created) would not be in violation of theory #2 (that the faeries created it). Nothing about theory #1 says that faeries *couldn't* have created the universe, so there is no conflict."

Occam's razor has nothing to do with jumping to a conclusions ". According to Occam's Razor, theory #1 will always be superior to a more specific, more complex theory #2, regardless of the amount of unprovable evidence like visions or scripture that says so. The point of it is that simplest explanation is most likely the best. In the case of the Universe creation, both faeries and gods are more complex explanations then no faeries or gods, due to how fairies and gods violate laws of nature, and there's no amount of visions or scriptural words that change that fact, or that make it a "simpler" explanation than the no-god explanation.

In fact, to take it a step further, Jesus' resurrection has nothing to do with Universe creation, only Genesis 1-2 does. And the fact that you turn Genesis into a symbolic story when Jews over thousands of years took it literally means that you're being dishonest with the intent of the author and dishonest with the original message of the scripture. Genesis 1-2 contradicts how we know the Universe is made: it's the equivalent of making up excuses for your painter, saying "Oh, he really didn't mean to say that he used a paintbrush. and he didn't really mean to say that he uses mixed colors." By making the story of Genesis figurative you're discrediting thousands of years of the original Jewish belief system, just so you can justify your own faith in the Bible.

Dan

"Occam's razor has nothing to do with jumping to a conclusions ". According to Occam's Razor, theory #1 will always be superior to a more specific, more complex theory #2, regardless of the amount of unprovable evidence like visions or scripture that says so."

I don't disagree that the more general theory #1 is superior to the more specific and complex theory #2, but what I disagree with is your claim that one cannot believe in both theories simultaneously. One can believe that the universe was purposefully created and that the Biblical God created it, or that the universe was purposefully created and that faeries created it, or that the painting was purposefully painted and that Kronzak painted it. Just because the latter theory is more specific and includes things not mentioned in theory #1, that doesn't mean that the two theories are irreconcilable.

"In fact, to take it a step further, Jesus' resurrection has nothing to do with Universe creation, only Genesis 1-2 does."

As does John 1:1-17, which is primarily (though not exclusively) on what I base Jesus' association with the creator of the universe.

"And the fact that you turn Genesis into a symbolic story when Jews over thousands of years took it literally means that you're being dishonest with the intent of the author and dishonest with the original message of the scripture."

No, I believe that it was intended as allegory, and many Jewish and Christian people throughout history have taken it as such, including Philo of Alexandria (a 1st century Jewish scholar) as well as early Christians like Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine. In fact, some scholars have argued that "Biblical Literalism" is a relatively recent phenomena, having started with the Protestants (not that I agree - I think both camps have existed for a while).

An article here, if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

"By making the story of Genesis figurative you're discrediting thousands of years of the original Jewish belief system, just so you can justify your own faith in the Bible."

And if I took it literally, I'd be discrediting thousand of years of Jewish and Christian people who took it as metaphorical, wouldn't I?

David

"I don't disagree that the more general theory #1 is superior to the more specific and complex theory #2, but what I disagree with is your claim that one cannot believe in both theories simultaneously. One can believe that the universe was purposefully created and that the Biblical God created it, or that the universe was purposefully created and that faeries created it, or that the painting was purposefully painted and that Kronzak painted it. Just because the latter theory is more specific and includes things not mentioned in theory #1, that doesn't mean that the two theories are irreconcilable."

I'll play out the story again to make this clear. You find a painting that, through evidence, used buckets of paint and primary colors (what science tells us). A man named Kronzak comes along claiming to have done the painting, and says he used small paintbrushes and mixed colors (Gen 1-2). You believe that this man painted it for reasons completely unrelated to the painting, so you make excuses for his explanations, saying "he didn't really mean to say he used small paintbrushed and mixed colors" (claiming Gen 1-2 is figurative). This is dishonest. The question is: why do you change the meaning of the Kronzak's story? The ancient Jews believed this story was literal to the degree where they made the sabbath day the day of rest. The reason you take this story figurative isn't because the story itself alludes to it being figurative, it's because you know science contradicts it. Thus, you are making interpretations based on outside evidence instead of scriptural or historical evidence. This is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture.

Dan 8/21/09

"I'll play out the story again to make this clear. You find a painting that, through evidence, used buckets of paint and primary colors (what science tells us). A man named Kronzak comes along claiming to have done the painting, and says he used small paintbrushes and mixed colors (Gen 1-2)."

As I pointed out in my last letter, my reasons for believing in Jesus' association with the creator of the universe is John 1, not Genesis 1.

"You believe that this man painted it for reasons completely unrelated to the painting, so you make excuses for his explanations, saying "he didn't really mean to say he used small paintbrushed and mixed colors" (claiming Gen 1-2 is figurative). This is dishonest."

And how do you know that the writer of Genesis 1 & 2 wasn't intending to write allegory? Many early Jewish and Christian figures believed that he did.

"The question is: why do you change the meaning of the Kronzak's story? The ancient Jews believed this story was literal to the degree where they made the sabbath day the day of rest."

Some believed it was literal, and others didn't. Whether I take it literally or not, I'm going to end up disagreeing with someone.

"The reason you take this story figurative isn't because the story itself alludes to it being figurative, it's because you know science contradicts it. Thus, you are making interpretations based on outside evidence instead of scriptural or historical evidence. This is not an appropriate way to interpret scripture."

Why not? If science says that the story couldn't be literal, then the evidence says to me that I shouldn't believe the story is literal. Therefore I don't believe the story is literal. Is my doing so really that illogical? Many people have interpreted Genesis 1 as allegory for reasons having nothing to do with science.

David

"If science says that the story couldn't be literal, then the evidence says to me that I shouldn't believe the story is literal. Therefore I don't believe the story is literal. Is my doing so really that illogical? Many people have interpreted Genesis 1 as allegory for reasons having nothing to do with science."

Science doesn't tell you to change the interpretation; you're doing that all on your own. Science only says that the story of Genesis is highly inaccurate. Science would simply discard the story and say the Bible got it wrong. Instead, you turn it figurative for no other reason than to maintain your faith. Give me evidence that early ancient Jews took the story figuratively (and don't act like Jews living around Jesus' time were "ancient"). There was every reason for ancient Jews to understand this story as the literal story of creation, and the person who wrote it gave no scriptural evidence that it was to be taken figuratively. Science says this story was meant to be taken literally, and that you (and others) have turned in figurative to hide the errors in the stories and contradictions with science. Give me legitimate reasons why this story should be taken figuratively; historical and scriptural reasons. Both are required in order to make your case.

Dan 8/21/09

"Science doesn't tell you to change the interpretation; you're doing that all on your own. Science only says that the story of Genesis is highly inaccurate."

It also says that the stories of Br'er Rabbit are highly inaccurate, since science shows us that rabbits and bears don't speak a common language. But that doesn't mean that science says that we should "discard" those stories, but we are to take them as allegorical, which is exactly what they are.

"Science would simply discard the story and say the Bible got it wrong. Instead, you turn it figurative for no other reason than to maintain your faith."

It's got to be something. If it's not non-fiction, then it's fiction. Allegories are fictional stories with underlying significance, usually of a religious, social or moral nature, which the Genesis stories clearly have. Do you even disagree that the Genesis stories are fictional and have such significance, and therefore are allegory?

"Give me evidence that early ancient Jews took the story figuratively (and don't act like Jews living around Jesus' time were "ancient")."

Jewish philosopher and scholar Steven T. Katz says, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." Source: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/Bible_as_Allegory.shtml

"Science says this story was meant to be taken literally,"

How does science say this? Does science also say that the stories of Br'er Rabbit were meant to be taken literally? If not, then in what way does science conclude that Genesis was meant to be taken as literal and the Br'er Rabbit stories were meant to be taken as allegory? What methods does science use for determining the genre of a certain writing?

"Give me legitimate reasons why this story should be taken figuratively; historical and scriptural reasons. Both are required in order to make your case."

I'm not sure how to do that. Can you give me an example, showing how one could use historical and scriptural reasons to conclude that the Br'er Rabbit stories should be taken figuratively (remember, you need to use both)? If you give me an example of how to do this using the Br'er Rabbit stories, I'm pretty sure I can use the same methods to do it for Genesis.

David 8/22/09