>>> Part 1 of 3...
>
>Relatif Tuinn wrote to Mark Bloss about Creationism [1/2]
 RT> Mark Bloss on "Creationism [1/2]"
 RT> with me...
 
 RT>>> On what do you base this belief?
 MB>>  Faith.
 RT>> On what do you base your faith?
 MB>  I cannot accept a universe without a God.  That is what my faith is
 MB>  about.  
 RT> Why can't you accept it?
 
 Because it is illogical to do so, since true faith has always brought
 people happiness in their lives, and I don't believe anyone without faith
 can understand what true happiness is, until they have experienced it,
 just as I, and many others of true faith, have.  This is apparently a
 vast generalization; but narrows the scope radically as those who 
 throughout history, only those whose faith has made them happy 
 (eudomonial), have managed to adjust to the physical circumstances of 
 an ardous fight for survival, and drive an evolution from microbe to 
 Reflecters of Meaning; a symbol not just of Man, but of all conscious
 entities in the universe, whether we an see them with our eyes, or not.
 and that even our eyes we have learned are deceptive and tell
 lies.  Even science requires such a strenous Philosophy of Meaning, itself,
 that it has learned not to trust men's eyes.  Peer review.  Repeatable
 experiementation, deductive reasoning, avoidance of circular argument.
 Some have learned not even to trust mens' words.  They burn bibles, or
 other people's words in other "holy" books - not because they are holy,
 but because they are dangerous.  The holy books are all dangerous,
 because they can be handled improperly; and because of that, dogma's take
 shape.  Not because the Life that is Not Dust wanted it to happen; but
 that the Life that _is_ Dust must have it that way.  Because it is dust,
 and is withering away.  But the life that goes on and on, that is not
 Dust, that is the way to eternal life, because that _is_ eternal life.
 
 One of the one hand there is Death, on the other hand, there is Life.
 My favorite quote from the Bible is simple : "The letter kills, but
 the Spirit is Life, and Peace."  Where there is no Peace, there is
 death because there is not Spirit of Life present in war or disease
 or famine or hatred.  It is as obvious as the nose on one's face.  All
 one has to do, is leave off re-interpreting what Paul meant by the
 word "Peace", and just use it as it's supposed to be used by a 
 fairly decent dictionary.  And the meaning is clear.  Life and Peace
 are partners - you don't have one without the other.
 
 So, this becomes written down somewhere, and people notice it's for
 real.  Oh, say maybe one-thousand fifty or so years ago.  And guess
 what happens?  People start copying it down.  They like it.  They
 think it's true.  Sometimes something someone writes down, they
 don't think it's true - so they leave that out.  They put in something
 else they think is true instead.  And on and on for 3 or 4 hundred
 years they do this.  Each generation adding this bit, and taking out
 that bit.  Molding it according to their perceptions and understandings.
 But over time this happens.  Some parts of it never changed at all.
 Everyone left it in.  No one took it out.  It was "eternal".  
 To me, that which is divine in all of us, is that part of the Life that
 is not Dust, so I must not think of my Life of Dust in a physical body
 anymore, as being all that I am, that there must be something of the
 imperishable in me.  It is a part of my "spiritual" DNA.  A most 
 unfortunately miserable analogy, since it has nothing at all to do
 with DNA, except that DNA is another symbol which means for us, the
 passing down of attributes, attributes which make up the us of me.
 It is therefore meaningless to debate points about "why" I have,
 or he, or she, or they have, "faith", for to each it is according to 
 their DNA, _and_ through their "spiritual" twin DNA; of which their
 faith has been got by the power in the words of men.  Because these
 men spoke of the Life that is Not Dust, and of course there is such
 a life, else we have no history, no meaning, no purpose, and no
 future, and we know as a matter of fact, that we DO have a history,
 and a meaning, and a purpose, and a future, therefore there is a life
 that is not Dust, and that Is God.  And the only thing I know about
 God is, that there's more to just these simple double-helixes which
 make us, because we are an improvment over apes.  Time is of no
 consequence.  Man is passing away.  What do we do now?  We find out
 as much as we can about the Life that is Not Dust, before it is
 too late.  And we will always have time, so long as we have people
 of faith.  
 
 RT>> The reason I ask is because I don't believe that this Universe was
 RT>> created by god, or that a god of any shape or form exists. So, I'm
 RT>> interested to hear why you hold this belief and what the basis for this
 RT>> belief is. 
 
 And that pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.
 MB>  I hold this belief because the absence of a creator in a universe as
 MB>  well put together as this one, is unacceptable to me.  
 RT> Why is it unacceptable to you?
 
 And I think I've pretty much summed this up too.
 
 MB>>>  I don't believe he _lies_ about the age of the earth, anymore than He
 MB>>>  would lie about whether or not it's raining outside.  If you see it 
 MB>>>  raining, then it is raining - and if you see fossilized dinosaur
 MB>>> bones, then the earth is several billion years old.
 MB>  
 RT>>> Indeed. If as you say your god is so honest then why is it so elusive
 RT>>> and totally unevidenced? 
 
 Maybe He is not so unevidenced as you may think.  Maybe we are trusting
 our eyes too much, to think the obvious is unevidenced.
 { EditSnip Robot, v9*1000^10 }
 
 RT>> This is what someone else said. I didn't agree with him either. The
 RT>> reason I don't agree is because, as you state, one can only have a
 RT>> belief in something that does not have evidence to support it. 
 
 MB>  Not at all.  One can believe something that does have evidence, rather
 MB>  no concrete evidence.  There are two kinds of evidence.  For example -
 MB>  Paul wrote in his famous definition of faith:  'faith is the evidence
 MB>  of things unseen [ie: unevidenced].'
 RT> Paul, quite frankly, hasn't a clue what evidence is.
 
 I've skipped over some of the above for room's sake.  I, quite frankly,
 don't believe that you know what kind of evidence _I_ have been
 convinced by.  And think, perhaps, that my evidence is without merit.
 But I have difficulty understanding how something which is so obviously
 evident, not in the things that are made, but in the manner of 
 administration which is the driving force of what we think of as
 evolution (not that it necessarily _is_ entirely evolution in the
 strictest sense), but rather the symbol of evolution, the improvement
 of species - not in greater physical abilities (though its importance
 is not undermined) - but in greater comprehension and reflection of
 meaning; this is the driving force of what we are, what all life is.
 In time Men learn, what their millions of years of evolution have been
 trying to teach them all along.  You can't see it because your eyes
 are alive too, but you are ALIVE.  How much more evidence is needed? 
 MB>  faith - and that is enough  - that phenomenal evidence is secondary
 MB>  to it.
 RT> ie. faith has no physical basis. No evidence.
 
 MB>  In the context of what Paul wrote - he might have written
 MB>  'faith is the nuomenal evidence of that which is phenomenally 
 MB>  unevidenced.'
 RT> And he, frankly, is talking utter rubbish. This is based on the belief
 RT> that the numenal evidence (literally the spirit world) is evidence for
 RT> the unevidenced. There is no evidence for the spirit world either. 
 
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------