Religion can be fun so let's have some pun with monks. This is one of my favorites.
Lost on a rainy night, a nun stumbles across a monastery and requests shelter there. Fortunately, she's just in time for dinner and was treated to the best fish and chips she's ever had.
After dinner, she goes into the kitchen to thank the chefs.
She is met by two brothers, "Hello, I'm Brother Michael, and this is Brother Charles."
"I'm very pleased to meet you. I just wanted to thank you for a wonderful dinner. The fish and chips were the best I've ever tasted. Out of curiosity, who cooked what?"
Brother Charles replied, "Well, I'm the fish friar."
She turns the other brother and says, "Then you must be...?"
"Yes, I'm the chip monk."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Caterpillars
In the Toronto freebie daily 24 hours of July 15, 2008 it was reported that a lady tourist who was trekking in northeastern Peru on an organized tour in 2007 had “a freak encounter with tragic consequences”. Ten days after stepping on 5 caterpillars of the Lonomia genus she died. These caterpillars defend themselves from their perceived enemies by secreting a toxin that causes hemorrhaging in humans.
This, of course, is an example of how our universe has been fine tuned for our arrival by an intelligent and benevolent designer who loves us.
To address this bit of noxious mayhem scientists set about concocting an antivenin to counteract the effects of the toxin.
Humans realize that the world in which they find themselves is replete with unknown dangers inimical to their health and life. Life is not easy; it is precarious and can be wiped out in a flash from all manner of natural phenomena.
To say that the universe is designed for the appearance of human life is to say that the designer is a sick kid in love with booby traps. Is this done for the amusement of the creator?
Humans seek a better world than the one that was prepared for us. We do this through the investigation of our world and inventing improvements that make life more comfortable. Hence Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, subtitle makes sense: science as a candle in the dark. We have no operating guide for the universe. We must write our own as we go along. No God is more compatible with the indifferent world we find ourselves in than any deity proffered by religion.
Would we not expect to find an uncaring environment in a world without a benevolent designer?
I forget who said it but: “the universe did not know we were coming and now that we have arrived it doesn't give a s__t. “
This, of course, is an example of how our universe has been fine tuned for our arrival by an intelligent and benevolent designer who loves us.
To address this bit of noxious mayhem scientists set about concocting an antivenin to counteract the effects of the toxin.
Humans realize that the world in which they find themselves is replete with unknown dangers inimical to their health and life. Life is not easy; it is precarious and can be wiped out in a flash from all manner of natural phenomena.
To say that the universe is designed for the appearance of human life is to say that the designer is a sick kid in love with booby traps. Is this done for the amusement of the creator?
Humans seek a better world than the one that was prepared for us. We do this through the investigation of our world and inventing improvements that make life more comfortable. Hence Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, subtitle makes sense: science as a candle in the dark. We have no operating guide for the universe. We must write our own as we go along. No God is more compatible with the indifferent world we find ourselves in than any deity proffered by religion.
Would we not expect to find an uncaring environment in a world without a benevolent designer?
I forget who said it but: “the universe did not know we were coming and now that we have arrived it doesn't give a s__t. “
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Not Easily Answered
Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 341 and 270 BCE. He is credited with the following statement of the problem of evil.
From Wikipedia
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
From David Hume crediting Epicurus in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
As follows, a more formal presentation of the argument can be found in Wikipedia:
Logical problem of evil
1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
Of the options in 10 which is most likely?
The problem of evil calls into question the very definition of the word God that most of us were brought up to accept. That God cannot exist. So what definition should we now employ?
The field is open.
If we take up the challenge aren't we engaging in make believe?
From Wikipedia
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
From David Hume crediting Epicurus in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
As follows, a more formal presentation of the argument can be found in Wikipedia:
Logical problem of evil
1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
Of the options in 10 which is most likely?
The problem of evil calls into question the very definition of the word God that most of us were brought up to accept. That God cannot exist. So what definition should we now employ?
The field is open.
If we take up the challenge aren't we engaging in make believe?
Monday, July 14, 2008
How to prove the universe is eternal.
....................................................................................................
Either God is composed of something or God is composed of nothing.
If God is composed of something then what is that something and where did it come from?
If God is composed of nothing then what are we talking about?
God is often described in nots: not material, not physical, not visible, not natural, not perceivable, not comprehensible and not mortal. Amen! It appears that God is not much of anything and yet he/she/it is also described as perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, omni-present creator of the universe. How nothing can possess these latter characteristics and perform these great feats is no longer a mystery. Fictional characters can be anything we want. They don't even have to make sense.
Facetiously, a conclusion to the foregoing can be drawn: if God is nothing then nothing created the universe which would imply that the universe is eternal.
Perhaps in the matter of deities a Delos McKown quote is appropriate: the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Either God is composed of something or God is composed of nothing.
If God is composed of something then what is that something and where did it come from?
If God is composed of nothing then what are we talking about?
God is often described in nots: not material, not physical, not visible, not natural, not perceivable, not comprehensible and not mortal. Amen! It appears that God is not much of anything and yet he/she/it is also described as perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, omni-present creator of the universe. How nothing can possess these latter characteristics and perform these great feats is no longer a mystery. Fictional characters can be anything we want. They don't even have to make sense.
Facetiously, a conclusion to the foregoing can be drawn: if God is nothing then nothing created the universe which would imply that the universe is eternal.
Perhaps in the matter of deities a Delos McKown quote is appropriate: the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
