tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4132512144004768568..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: A few nuggets from yesterday's showUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53826867818309128302007-01-11T13:10:00.000-06:002007-01-11T13:10:00.000-06:00I just finished listening to the show...it was hil...I just finished listening to the show...it was hilarious! I couldn't help laughing out loud to the best caller ever. He just didn't know what to do with himself when he answered his own questions :) <br /><br />Anyway, I have to say that I feel for you guys answering these same questions every week (and often in the same episode). This week really reminded me of conversations my husband and I have had with my in-laws. The callers really wanted to get their point across to you, but didn't want to listen to your point. That seems to be the way it goes most of the time. <br /><br />Thanks for the laugh best caller ever and thank you guys for a great show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70475576566496134572007-01-10T09:00:00.000-06:002007-01-10T09:00:00.000-06:00The Xian doctrine of "matter from nothing" is call...The Xian doctrine of "matter from nothing" is called "creation ex nihilo". It was not always accepted as the correct interpretation of Genesis. And, in fact, many early Xians--such as Clement and Origen--believed in "emination"--that the universe was a physical manifestation of god--not matter (separate stuff from god) from nothing. They understood the "problem" that "something" doesn't come from "nothing" and tried to address that--unlike modern Xians.<br /><br />Also, many regional creation myths in the area the Hebrews roamed, have similar stories that are clearly meant to imply that there was a primordial "something" and a god or gods came along and shaped it into all the familiar stuff we know and love.<br /><br />I believe it is an undeniable misinterpretation of the writing to say it intends to say that matter came from nothing. I believe it is clear that the story is just one of many "god came along and shaped all this stuff from the primordial soup" stories of creation that arose out of the Middle East and Persia. I think the more a person looks into the matter, the harder this is to deny.<br /><br />There are many pretty clear cues in Genesis itself, where it says that things were "formless"--"nothing" is generally not referred to as "formless"; formless is more of an attribute of a thing with a hard-to-discern shape. And the word that is translated as "created" in Genesis, also means "fashioned." Note, too, that god doesn't say "let there be man, and there was man"--he forms him out of clay. In the early god stories, the gods "formed" things--they didn't go around creating matter from nothing.<br /><br />Xians today put themselves at odds with conservation of matter by insisting their current interpretation of Genesis is correct--that matter came from nothing. But this is an interpretation that evolved over time and is not supported as the original idea of the story in any way I'm aware of. And was not even an original, comprehensively accepted Xian interpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50123229507161770462007-01-09T22:38:00.000-06:002007-01-09T22:38:00.000-06:00Hi, love the show. I'm a listener of the program a...Hi, love the show. I'm a listener of the program and reader of the blog from Puerto Rico. They are both great.<br /><br />I could not believe what i was hearing on the podcast. The "best caller ever" exchange was hilarious and highly illuminating.<br /><br />How come the believers do not see their blatant contradictions even when they are so clearly shown?<br /><br />If a "Best of the Atheist Experience" show were to be made, that exchange would be in my top 3...<br /><br />@ Tracie:<br />Thanks for the info. Never thought of using the law of conservation of matter and energy in that way.Brigshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413144884615614085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22836704930471824012007-01-08T21:15:00.000-06:002007-01-08T21:15:00.000-06:00Before you posted your note to the AE list e-mail ...Before you posted your note to the AE list e-mail writer about Matt's closing statement (RE: the cause of the universe), I responded to him privately with a somewhat parallel response that I'd like to share. I felt it was a fairly concise summary--and since that's rare for me, I'm sort of proud of it! ;-)<br /><br />"Xians assert that all things that exist had to have been created; however, matter and energy are not created or destroyed--they only change form. While matter as we know it--in the form we know it--came to be from some other form, there is not any reason to consider that there was a time when no form of matter or energy existed. There is--as far as I know--no reason to assume or assert that such a time ever was. Even proponents of the Big Bang don't say there was an explosion from nothing.<br /><br />"However, this is usually not the point that is directly being made when a nonbeliever argues that if god had no cause, then it's just as fair to say the universe had no cause. This is less a statement of science than of logic. The Xian claims all things have to have cause. Then, when asked 'What caused your god?' They say 'God has no cause.' The logical question to them then is: Why did you say all things need a cause, when you just gave me an example of a thing--god--that you believe exists, and yet has no cause? If you believe some things do not require a cause, then you're premise--that the universe requires a cause because all things require a cause--is not supported by your argument that you believe in a thing that has no cause. Either all things require cause or not all things require cause. If all things do require cause--then your god requires cause. If not all things require cause, then there is no reason to assert the universe requires cause."<br /><br />For what it's worth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com