Sunday, May 22, 2005


David says,
"If I gave you another narrative with tools like a burning bush, a sea that divided conviently so a race of people could run through it, a digestivly discriminatory whale, frequented by people who often lived many hundreds of years, wouldn't you get a little suspicious?"

Ironically, all of those things are probably more likely than our common ancestor being a puddle of mud. They even have more likely naturalistic explanations, as some scholars have tried to reconcile them with Naturalism. Why have they tried to reconcile the narratives with Naturalism? It's because the Bible has often proven to be historically accurate over time. Therefore, scholars think that the ancient writer must have been describing some natural event, given Naturalism.

I would note that you think such relatively small things are miracles which are too hard to accept as such, yet the unlikely nature of your own brain with its 100 billion neurons could cause one to "get a little suspicious." Yet it doesn't because we experience it, even though it is many orders of magnitude more difficult to explain naturalistically than a burning bush. I keep pointing out the miracle of thinking through the brain and the like to get a divine foot in the door. There is an oft quoted evolutionist who said, "...we cannot allow a divine foot in the door!" So I do the opposite and try to get it in. Naturalism must be all encompassing in a stifling and smothering way, lest there be one single alternative explanation that undermines the whole explanatory orthodoxy. One event will undermine it, as then perhaps there just might be more too. You never seemed to answer if what you write here is nothing more than an artifact of your brain events or if instead, "you" have set matter in motion through your neural nets as an act of your mind. If you have not thought through your brain, then what seems like an eventful day of your brain events may be rather meaningless. But feel free to leave as many of the artifacts of your brain events around as you want to.

The same text that records the intervention of the Mind of God through Nature in the "miracles" is interesting.

It's mathematical. Every 49 letters in Genesis and Exodus spell "The Law of God" while every 49 letters of Deuteronomy and Numbers spell "The Law of God" backwards, inbetween these books is the book of Leviticus in which every seven letters spells Yaweh, the Hebrew name for God. Seven is the number of completeness, the seventh day is a day of rest and so on. That is what it is used to symbolize. In contrast, 666 is a trinity of incompleteness and so on. There is a genealogy in the Bible in which the number of words is evenly divisible by seven, the number of letters is as well, as well as the vowels and consonants, as well as the number of words that begin with a vowel, as well as those that begin with a consonant, while the number of names in it is evenly divisible by seven, as well as the number of generations, and so on and so forth. It seems like a lot of sevens are written into the genealogy of Jesus. This makes me a "little suspicious." Of course, the Naturalist believes that the author who knew the ancient symbolism just wrote it in again. And I suppose we are back to the brain events of writers and the like.

As long as we are discussing things that make me suspicious, the basic pattern of the Christian mythos and the way it almost invariably matches the basic archetypes and patterns of narratives that people write to this day makes me a little suspicious. It is as if it is in their psyche. It also matches other ancient narratives.

The evolutionist perspective of orthodox Naturalism is almost impossibly myopic when it comes to origins scholarship. Yet they will tell you their mythological narratives of Naturalism, seriously enough. Apparently it is only natural for them to do so. Actually, they typically refuse to write their mythological narratives of Naturalism on free forums and the like where they well know what would happen. But then, there the mythological narratives of Naturalism are on PBS or in the National Geographic, based on the myopic mental incompetency of Naturalism.

To get at the truth, instead of getting the latest naturalistic explanation, one has to open their mind. You have argued that most people need God because they need a security blanket. Yet it is Naturalism that covers over all things. Do I need or want to believe that there is a just God, whose justice cannot sleep forever? Do I want to believe that things I think with my mind or choose to do may have Cosmic significance? Given my natural desires I would rather have believed in mommy Nature and a blanky of Naturalism to wrap myself in securely. I would live as I pleased, naturally enough, and then would just rest in oblivion. Contrasted with what you have said, I think that admitting to anything spiritual or allowing a "...divine foot in the door..." causes insecurity, not security.

No comments: