E-MAIL AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED

Somewhere around letter eight on the previous page, Francis Thomas D Ocoma actually sent me something resembling an argument. He modified some of the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas from his writing Summa Theologica and sent them to me in five long, separate parts. (Yawn.) Anyway, I decided, on a boring Saturday afternoon in October, to reply to each one of the parts.

My email address is estle46224@yahoo.com



Red indicates Mr. Ocoma's writing.
Blue indicates my writing; editorial comments are in italics.
QUICK LINKS TO THESE LETTERS:

Mr. Ocoma's Letters: [1][2][3][4][5]
Read my Replies: [1][2][3][4][5]

Mr. Ocoma's two replies to my five counters
My reply to that
His eighth and ninth letters.
My reply to that
His tenth, eleventh and twelfth letters
My reply to those
The next page of letters. Ugh.

 Letter 1 of 5:

Dear Nathan,

I agree with you that we have quite swayed from our real topic. But since I do have to answer your arguments, I am going to send another e-mail for that. But now, let's get to the important part of the debate: the existence of God...

1. The Pascal's Wager

Is this the most logical proof of God's existence? Or did it just so happen that it was the only proof you could at least understand? No, this proof is too lacking, though still valid, for my type.

Why is it lacking? Because it only proves that a God must exist... but it never gives any hint of what that god should be. This leads to the supposedly "destructive" question: how do we know which god exists? A good proof (like the ones I'll show later) for God's existence shows, not just the necessity, but also the description of that God so that we could narrow down the search for the real god.

You never answered (at least in a fair manner) any of the arguments in the Wager. You never proved that atheists could gain anything. You tried to prove that believers do lose something if God did not exist: the chance to do more fun things in their life. Hmmm... are all these religious hoopla of any use? Or is just "useless garbage." Let us cite some non-spiritual benefits, since you'd reject anything otherwise:

Health. Studies have shown that people attending religious activities (prayers, church, etc.) regularly have a lower chance of contracting certain diseases (I did not memorize the details, but I'm sure you could search the web for that).

Happiness. People who pray regularly tend to be less depressed. They have lesser chances to commit suicide. They live happier lives.

Sociability. Prayerful people tend to be more respectful of others. They do not get angry at people easily. In other words, they are more fun to be with.

There are more where this came from. In fact, if you think about it, believers gain many things whatever the chances are, especially if they believe in the real god (which we shall discuss in other proofs). Plus, this also proves that atheists lose on all grounds.

Yes. The Wager does imply a 50/50 chance. But is statistics the only factor when deciding on this matter? No. The Wager clearly states that it is much better to choose God than atheism. Where's the insult in that? The Wager never implied that we could choose one over the other, since it explicitly warns anyone who chooses atheism of damnation.

Did Pascal do the wrong thing? Through that accident, he realized that his mortal life could disappear at any moment, making all his potential genius useless. Isn't it just logical to stay safe, making sure that you'd gain something whatever happens? All before Death suddenly decides to stop playing around and swing the scythe at you, isn't that what any intelligent person would do?

My Response:

This is the first real argument you have actually made, and you decide to start it off with an insult. Lovely.

Are you actually trying to argue that Pascal's Wager is valid? I only argued against it because I am tired of hearing simpletons use it (not that they know its official name or anything). And you actually say, almost casually, "Because it only proves that a God must exist... but it never gives any hint of what that god should be." What? It proves God must exist? This is a startling discovery made today. Actual proof! First of all, no proof will ever come to a conclusion one way or another about God's existence (and certainly not your pathetic little attempt).

Second, and in a hilariously ironic result, you credit Pascal with proving God's existence here when he wasn't even trying to. Pascal was trying to prove it is wiser to believe than to not believe, which has nothing to do with God's existence. Somehow, according to you, he accidentally answered the eternal question of the universe. What luck!

After that, all Part 1 here contains is childish, irrelevant points or complete misunderstandings. For example: "The Wager clearly states that it is much better to choose God than atheism. Where's the insult in that?" The insult I clearly pointed out was this: People like you and me have strong opinions on the question of deities, life, etc. We did not decide these things arbitrarily or without a great deal of thought. Pascal would have people change their beliefs, not because of evidence or experience or any of the things that led them to their beliefs in the first place, but out of fear and/or greed. To even imply that your deeply held beliefs are so arbitrary or loosely held is an insult.

I'll not sell my thought-out conclusions to hedge my bets. If you would, then shame on you.

Letter 2 of 5:

2. The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas

You onced told me that you have read the Summa Theologica. So, I expect you to be able to answer this initially. I'll be waiting for an interesting reply. I am going to revise the proofs, though. I realized that the five proofs could actually be combined into two. Note that these proofs do not show how many the Divine must be. I will deal on that in my third argument. I think that Aquinas' proofs would be most ideal to you. Why? Because you yourself have stated that you do not care about the "fuzzy feeling" of compassion that is seen throughout most religions. In fact, Aquinas' proofs were criticized by some in his time because of their quality of being very non-religious, almost completely philosophical, as if it weren't fit for theology. This loss of that "religious-feeling" is, I think, the best weapon against atheists like you.

Hope you enjoy!

a. Change/Cause/Necessity/Perfection argument

Every singular system that changes must have been changed by something else, for a system cannot change itself (the internal of the system cannot move the system). Why? Because if a system is potentially x, it cannot also be actually x, for that would be a contradiction of the given. In a more scientific analogy, potential energy cannot move an object.

We see, then, that anything in this material world were once only potential, for everything in this material world was simply made actual by something else. Now, if once, nothing was actual, there would still be nothing until now! Because only actual things could make anything potential into actual. There must have been some thing/s that never was simply potential, but always was actual. This is necessary for anything to be actual. This actual thing (maybe plural), since it has no potentiality, must be all-perfect, the perfection of everything, since perfection is the manifestation of actuality. It/they must be the cause of everything else actual, since it is it/they that caused anything else to become actual.

This is what we call the Divine.

b. Order argument (also called "Intelligence argument")

We see in Nature that it is ruled by Laws. This can be seen by the fact that something must always have consequences. These Laws are what we commonly call "Natural/Physical Laws."

Now, Law is an aspect exclusively attributed to intelligence. For non-intelligent beings, having at most existence, growth, and reproduction, have no sense, including the sense of order, from which laws originate. Non-intelligent beings therefore cannot have brought forth any of the physical laws that we observe today.

There must have been an Intelligent Being/s that formulated these laws to the Natural Universe. laws that we clearly see and observe. This Intelligence, being the sole author of the Universal Orchestra, must at least be universally intelligent (knowing everything knowable about the universe).

This is what we call the Divine.

My Response:

Argument A is shaky at best, and nothing I haven't heard a million times. Your argument has many holes.

First, it cannot be proven or disproven how the universe came into existence some time in the past. It cannot be proven or disproven that it could not have come about naturally, on its own, or that it has always existed.

Second, it is not necessary for a perfect deity to have created it all. It could have all been made by some intelligent being, who was made by a more intelligent being, and so on. Since I doubt you can debate quantum physics, singularities or other cosmological issues, you are in over your head and out of your element.

Argument A can be tossed aside as assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and as the writing of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Argument B is also an old classic. Natural laws, like constants and limits in the universe are part of the very nature of the universe itself. They could easily be intrinsic properties set by real, measurable conditions, or they could be a random set that took hold here, or any number of things. Deriving laws and rules may require human intelligence, but universal rules are only boundaries, no different than the edge of the universe itself.

Strikeout and strikeout.

 Letter 3 of 5:

3. The Oneness of God (from the Summa)

Here is a simple way of proving that there is only one God:

Every being has something that makes it what it is. This asset of the being does not exist in anyone who is not that being. Also, that asset is something that existed as long as that being existed. In other words, without that asset, the being would cease to be. And if another being owns that asset, the two beings become actually one being.

Here is an example: Socrates is a being. Now, Socrates could share his knowledge, wisdom, clothes, food, and many other things. He can give these things without making the recipient exactly one with him. In other words, he could share what Socrates is. But, could he share what makes Socrates Socrates? No, he can't. If he was ever able to share what makes him himself to anybody, say Plato, that being will become Socrates himself... a singular being. The being that is Plato would cease to exist, Socrates would replace it.

Let's apply this to a divine being. In proving that divinity exists, we have seen the attributes that divinity must have. Now, since, as we have seen, a divine being never had potentiality, every divine attribute has always been a part of a divine being. According to our observations, anything that existed as an asset of a being ever since that being existed is the thing that makes it what it is. Then, we conclude, everything that a divine being is are actually the things that makes him a god.

We can now conclude that what God is must belong to a single being, for if something else owns any of these assets, he would become that same Being that is God.

God, then, cannot be many.

My Response:

While I am not exactly sure what attributes we have agreed upon for this deity, the deity certainly would not have to be one.

There could be several deities who act in concert and who, all together, make one perfect total. Or, you might say, there could never be perfection from such a group...what if there were an infinite number of them, all in agreement? Ooops! Now I'm just throwing out random theories.

That's more your area of expertise.

Letter 4 of 5:

4. The Holy Trinity (my own proof; Aquinas' proof is too long)

As we look at the things that God must be, we see that all of these attributes could be categorized as pruducts of three functions: the mind, the thought, the action.

Now, we observe these functions. We observe them and remember that all of them are eternally integrated with the Being of God. And since this is the case, these functions are not just parts of God, they're actually modes of God's Being, for only the being of God could be eternal. In other words, these three functions become three separate persons of the singular Being of God.

The mind of God, being the originator of everything that comes out from God, is properly called the Father.

The thought of God, being the expression of the mind, preceding from the mind, is properly called the Son, since the Son precedes from the Father.

The action of God, being the eternal realization of the thought, the eternal actualization of the thought, it must be the nature of God's being. And since the material nature is imperfect, and since God is perfect, His nature must not be material but spiritual. This function is then properly called the Spirit.

Three persons in one God: PATER SANCTUM, FILIUM SANCTUM, SPIRITUS SANCTUM. God thrice holy. The Holy Trinity.

My Response:

Now this part is actually pretty interesting. These ideas would be consistent with the Church's world view and theology. I think you are forgetting one important part though: the Body, the earthly Church, by which the Action operates.

Yes, I see all this perfectly, and your explanation fits exactly with the Church.

Just one problem...this assertion: "As we look at the things that God must be, we see that all of these attributes could be categorized as pruducts of three functions: the mind, the thought, the action." This is arbitrarily chosen to intentionally fit with the Church view; it was not self-evident and then adopted by the Church as you would argue.

How do you know God works this way? How do you know it is not something completely different? How do you know that nothing else is required, or that all of these things are truly necessary? These are flat-out, unsubstantiated assertions.

Finally, and I don't know if this is a Church thing or just you, but FILIUM SANCTUM is bad grammar. Use FILIUS SANCTUS, the masculine, instead of the meaningless neuter FILIUM (this word does not exist). I'm not too happy about PATER or SPIRITUS taking a neuter adjective either, but I get the theological part.

Letter 5 of 5:

Now that we have seen the things that God must be, we ask: Which religion contains that God?

There are two ways of knowing. The first is the most obvious and can be introduced by this analogy:

Aristotle is a student of Plato. Now, if Aristotle, using the teachings of Plato, came up with accurate conclusions about the world, we then can assume that Plato's teachings are correct.

Now, we know that Aquinas was taught by the Catholic Church. Everything that he wrote in his works came from his study of Catholic theology. Now, we have proved that Aquinas' proof that God exists is successful. Where then can we find Aquinas' God but from where he learned it: the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church then, the only true Christian religion, is where we find the true existing God.

The second way is by finding the religion that came up with the same conclusions as Aquinas' have. Which religion came up with a singular God? There were many, but every polytheistic religion are now removed from the list. Which religion came up with the Trinity? Most Christian religions believe in the Trinity. But only one religion ever defined it and made it an integral part of its theology: the Catholic Church.

Now, then, we can conclude that the true religion is what is properly called as the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" Church, the Church founded on Peter by the one called Christ.

I will wait for your response.

- Francis Ocoma

My Response:

Now this is just plain sloppy. Or, as I am beginning to think, simple logic is beyond your grasp.

Let me ask you this: If Aquinas used awful logic and was completely wrong, would that mean the Catholic Church was wrong? No. If Aquinas was right, would that mean the Catholic Church was right? No.

You think Aquinas is right. That could be in spite of the Catholic Church, not because of it. I think he is wrong. That could be because of him alone, not his schooling.

What happened to personal responsibility--each man supremely responsible for his own actions?

And now, for the real shocker. I was saving this for a really good opportunity, but now seems good enough: If, for some reason, I rejoined the religion of Christianity, then I would start confirmation proceedings with the Roman Catholic Church. That has been my opinion for a long time.

But, even after the spectacular failure that was your proof, and to your surprise I bet, I remain an atheist. Maybe the Church should retitle it as Falsa Theologica.

Nathan

 His replies to my five counters:

Dear Nathan,

I hope I could fit all the issues here in this single e-mail. But in case I don't, I'll send another one.

Quote: "Argument A can be tossed aside as assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and as the writing of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about."

What if we turn that around? I say that your statement can be tossed aside as an assertion, a unsubstantiated conclusion, and as the writing of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about!

See? Your statement was completely ad hoc. You condemn unproved conclusions, and you rightly do so. But you then made another unproved conclusion by "tossing aside" my argument without proving its "unsubstantiatability". You also made an ad homini statement by practically calling me stupid (crazy, even). I'd rather see the REAL logical fault in my argument, if ever it has one. I say it doesn't. In fact, I will repeat the reasons for my argument that you apparently did not see:

- Assuming there is no God, then everythiing there is was once only potential.

You might say that energy, according to the Law of Thermodynamics, couldn't be created nor destroyed. I agree to that (I wouldn't be studying in the Philippine Science High School if I did not believe in Science). But then, look at the nature of energy (and matter, for that matter [no pun intended!]). Energy and matter exists within time. Outside time, nothing material in nature could exist (i.e. leptons, quarks, gauge bosons). Now time MUST have been created. I can explain this scientifically (though, this implies that I'm only going to use a scientific THEORY).

There is a question that baffles scientists until now: what happened before the Big Bang? Now, there is only as single popular theory about this: that before our Big Bang, there were other Big Bangs that preceded a Big Crunch, which then preceded our Big Bang. In other words, after every Big Crunch, there comes another Big Bang. And the cycle repeats itself to infinity...

I don't believe in that theory. Now, I'm not going to introduce any alternative to that. I am just going to re-disprove that (it has already been disproved) so that I could then prove that time was created.

For a "Big Crunch" to occur, the mass of the universe must reach a certain amount (I forgot what that amount is) so that gravitational force will eventually lead to that Big Crunch. As of now, physicists' calculations have not yet supported this Big Crunch thing. And so, as of now, we can assume that the Big Crunch is false. Yeah, if physicists finally prove the blackbody theory, they might prove the Big Crunch. But I'm not finished yet. I say that even if there will be a Big Crunch, the "Big Cycle" will still not happen. I prove this using an existing mini-version of the Big Crunch: the black hole. According to physicists, a gravitational collapse will cause the Big Crunch. That's the same thing that happens in a black hole.

Does a black hole produce a "mini-Big Bang?" No!

In other words, a universal gravitational collapse is too strong to support another Big Bang!

This just implies that the Big Bang was the very first event that ever happened in the Universe. Nothing in time preceded it.

Now what? We know that before the Big Bang, all the leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons in the Universe were "squished" into a small space. Now, if the "Big Cycle" does not exist, and if time was not created, that would mean that this small mass of the Universe has been that way since infinity (negative infinity, to be exact). Now if that "small clump of everything" has always been there since negative infinity, why the heck did the Big Bang happen? The stuff has been that way since infinity, then somehow it exploded? That can't be! We then conclude that this Big Clump of Everything did not always exist.

But that cannot be! Because that would clearly contradict the Law of Thermodynamics!

The only way to solve this problem is to assume that time, wherein the Universe exists, must have been created. This will not contradict the Law of Thermodynamics, since the idea that energy and matter was not created within time, wherein they exist, still holds.

Time then was created. This justifies Thomas' first four arguments.

Whoops! I don't want to bore you any longer. I'll just continue this in my next e-mail. Thank you for your time. :)

- Francis

Note to reader: I didn't respond to this last letter for some time, and was chastised for not doing so. Do I really need to explain why? Would you rush to respond to all this tripe?

Dear Nathan,

I was hoping you'd respond to my last e-mail message. Apparently, you need a little following-up. I would like to take this chance to continue my little "retort of your retort." This time, it's about your response to my arguments for monotheism.

"There could be several deities who act in concert and who, all together, make one perfect total. Or, you might say, there could never be perfection from such a group...what if there were an infinite number of them, all in agreement? Ooops! Now I'm just throwing out random theories. That's more your area of expertise."

Ha! So much for logic. First, "throwing out random theories," or what I'd rather call "philosophical train of thought," would only be INVALID of you will be able to REFUTE that certain theory. (Oh, by the way, I took the "expertise" part as a compliment. Thanks. ^_^)

Hmmm... it would be difficult for a set of many of gods to be perfect. Correct! So, by increasing the number of gods to infinity, we finally come up with the perfect polytheism. huh? Wrong! What a laugh. It's like saying since a hard stone isn't brittle, making it infinitely harder would make it brittle! Now THAT's what I call an invalid random theory!

Sorry if I was a little harsh. I was just giving you a little feel of the ad homini you were giving me in your past messages. Don't tell me I didn't warn you about insulting your opponent...

You know what? You remind me of one of G.K. Chesterton's works "the Everlasting Man." Chesterton was talking about how atheists and agnostics cannot be impartial (in other words, they cannot be fair) in judging Christianity. He used a little parable to elaborate this:

Once there was a kid who lived with his father in a valley. They lived in the farm, and the son grew up getting bored of the farm life. He often heard about a giant statue that was supposedly positioned somewhere in the valley. Wanting to seek adventure, he left their farm in search of the statue. Then, when he has traveled miles and still has not found the statue, he turned back. And lo! He saw that their farmland was actually on top of the statue!

What was Chesterton trying to say? He was saying that the best way to know a certain religion is to actually become a member of it. But, sometimes, one could be too near something that he could not see it clearly enough. And so, the SECOND best way is to be far enough from that religion so that one could see it in its fullest. But when one is between both of those ways, not being in the religion and not far enough from it to see it in its entirety, he can never be so sure that he knows anything about that religion.

Your refusal to learn anything more about Catholicism, because "you *think* it's just the same as the rest of the Christian denominations," is just another hit on the nail for the thesis of your unfair partiality.

I'll be waiting for your response.

- Francis

My Response:

Aarghh. It's ad hominem. ADHOMINEM. The Latin preposition "ad" in this sense takes an accusative noun. For a third declension noun like homo/hominis, the accusative ending "-em" is added to the stem "homin" leaving us with "hominem". Or for a plural (to the men) it would be ad homines.

I hate bad Latin. All that aside, just one question remains: Are you about done? Are you finished yet? You told me very early on that some other people (notable ones, in fact) had stopped responding to you. I now understand why, and would like to enlighten you.

You are ignorant. You send pages and pages of garbage, going over the same points again and again. When one of your more ridiculous arguments is completely annihilated, you don't understand, and make it again. You offer very little in the way of real arguments, but instead only put out a watered-down, slow-moving, boring version of the standard Christian sales pitch.

You speak about topics in complete ignorance, like, oh I don't know, Cosmology. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, receiving a letter from you does not cause excitement at the prospect of intellectual stimulation, but dread. Every time I get a letter from you I feel like I just got a big, pointless homework assignment.

As to your last two masterpieces, I think I can sum it up: You can't prove any of it. Any of it. And just a tip: Saying you've proved something doesn't necessarily make it so.

No one can be sure about the beginning of the universe before Plank Time. Do you even know what that is? Did you know that time does not move forward constantly, but that it jumps forward in bursts of Plank Time?

Your expert analysis of Big Bangs and Crunches is just childish. You know, on that topic, did you ever consider that the beginning is just another irrelevant point in time that we attach meaning to? Just like the North Pole is a plain point on the globe, no different, really, than any other. At least, that's Stephen Hawking's current story.

Now here's the big picture, which I think will serve you well in future debates. You attempt to prove quite a bit implicitly, that is, by showing that the alternative(s) is not possible. In the five points modified from the Summa, you did this almost exclusively. The only problem is, you were not very thorough.

I'll I have to do to prove you wrong is cite one example that can be. It doesn't matter if I think it's stupid. If it is at all possible, I win, and you lose. And that's about all I did. You didn't actually prove anything. You just tried to disprove everything else. And that is one big task.

So, are you about done? Can we finish this now? It is going nowhere and I lost interest two months ago.

Sincerely,

Nathan

 His next reply:

Dear Nathan,

Okay. I was a little bad. I think. Apparently, I did not satisfy your thirst for "intellectual stimulation." (Not to mention your thirst for good spelling and grammar.) I understand that. Since I myself don't get very excited about people who contradict my opinions (i.e. my half-American classmate).

But should you be so rude? It would have been okay if you justified your rants with good reasonable facts. But, nooo. You're too sick of me that you would even call me "ignorant" and "childish" without proper explanation. What in the world would make me wrong if I call YOU ignorant (you would be ignorant in something, somehow). And what in the world would make me wrong if I call YOU childish? It wouldn't matter at all, except you being childish would be stranger since I'm only 15 years old. Why don't we stop all this rants, both of us, and start talking like real intellectuals?

Okay, I'm sorry about that. Let's just continue this debate. Except, of course, if you're giving up already (because of the mundane reason that I'm too ignorant and childish). Please, if you think I'm too ignorant, then-- by all means-- teach me (be forewarned, though, I'm not that stupid)! David Mills didn't think I'm ignorant, at least, not as ignorant as other "Christians" he has debated with (just ask him).

Well then, let's make a deal: I promise to start "actually disproving" any of your works (though, I still think I already tackled "Dear Theist" completely). If I don't satisfy you then, you may place me in your "junk mail" list (or, whatever your e-mail system calls that list of banned e-mail addresses). Of course, you'll have to notify me before you do that.

Deal?

I will re-start this debate in my next e-mail message.

- Francis

P.S.

Maybe I'll send you some interesting things that I find that might not directly be about our debate. Tell me if you would rather me not.

Note to reader: He did send me some cut and paste junk that I not only don't wish to respond to, but do not wish to post here. I don't like giving all this web space to this dense kid in the first place, much less his favorite lame writings.

Yet Another Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Hey! How're ya doin'? Fine? Ditto.

Okay. I decided that I must now analyze your works (found in your website). Yeah! At long last! I know. Well, I decided to start with your, er, deconversion story. Nice story. Nothing to do with suffering, pure hatred, or any of those things that fill some atheists' stories. To simply put, it was a "positive story."

Stop with the flattery...

I'll begin by summarizing your story as I understood it (please, correct me if I'm wrong):

You were a Southern Baptist (ergo, a member of the largest Protestant denomination, according to the 2001 World Almanac). Your very first problem with "Christianity" is the dinosaurs. "Why didn't the Bible seem to agree with the concept of dinosaurs?" you thought. You also had problems with the Flood, and basically, all "irrational" "supposedly historic" events recorded in the Bible. Since, as you believed, all the early Christians took these things literally, one could not save any of it by using other, non-literal interpretations. As you said, the shattered Humpty-Dumpty that is Scriptural credibility cannot be restored again. After "realizing" this, you never went to church again. And the rest was history...

Since your initial problem was simply about the credibility of the Bible, that is what I will tackle...

Oh! Let me guess what you're thinking: "This guy's just gonna blabber about the Bible not being a history textbook and such. What a waste! Can't he see that literal Bible interpretation was all the rage even before the earliest Christian times? Surely one cannot justify his religion by changing what has been an integral part of it. can he?" Yeah, nice try...

The Bible is not a history textbook. It's main purpose is to teach people about God and His relationship with us. Any historical reference, wether accurate or not, is only a useful surplus for the increasing of one's faith (kinda like how parables are used).

Did the earliest Christians interpret the Book of Genesis as literal. Oh, yes. Most of them did. Does that mean that these interpretations were an integral part of Christianity? No, it doesn't neccessarily mean so.

If ever you've studied your Christian History (note, not just the Protestant Reformation history), you'll know that the earliest non-biblical records on Christianity already witness to the existence of popes (Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc.) and councils, and other stuff that only the Catholic Church is still applying to this day. This must mean that original Christianity, at least in terms of religious authority, was entirely Catholic. Now, how does a Catholic Christian know which teachings are actually infallible, inherent teachings of Christianity? Through the Church dogmas! These dogmas were formulated by the popes and bishops in order for the Church to be certain of what She really teaches.

Now the question is: Was there any dogma, or at least, any papal decree, saying that any Book of the Bible must be taken ONLY literally? Eeeeengk! Nope. In fact, we see countless of decrees saying that the words of the Bible must only be interpreted as to witness spiritual, absolute truths (not physical, relative truths), and as to further strengthen our faith in the dogmas.

And one more thing (maybe you'll understand this more): what use for it to the Jewish clergy to place history textbooks in their house of worship? Let the scholars of natural laws nourish minds, and let the priests nourish spirits.

It's a pity you never had a chance to experience any form of Christianity other than that of the Protestant Reformation. I hardly know any Protestant who know pre-Constantinopolean Christian history. You could have had at least enough faith to investigate Christianity with better lenses. But, noooo. You were too absorbed in your new discovery: that the Christianity YOU knew, poor 'ol Humpty-Dumpty, was shattered in irreparable pieces.

You never thought that the wall from which Humpty-Dumpty fell because of his idiocy is actually the REAL Christianity. You did not look at that wall, because you did not want to look for it in the first place. You were already too exited, too convinced, about that little discovery of yours. In other words, your faith was lost, way before you could already justify losing it. You were already an atheist from the very start of your initial doubt.

Not because you were intelligent.

Atheos, ergo atheos sum.

So much for a positive story, huh?

- Francis

My Response:

First things first. I don't frown at the arrival of one of your letters because you contradict my opinion. I like contradiction. What I don't like is pathetic and lengthy tripe. I feel like I'm answering the pestering rants of an annoying child.

So, I called you ignorant and called your ramblings childish. I didn't explain the childish remark, because I consider it self-evident. I don't think anyone with a basic understanding of the current theories for the beginning of the universe could read what you wrote without laughing or groaning. Childish.

The ignorance part, well, you went ahead and proved that for me. I gave you a complete explanation for why I consider you ignorant. One of the reasons, and the one that fits the definition of "ignorant", was this: "When one of your more ridiculous arguments is completely annihilated, you don't understand, and make it again." Rather than reading what I wrote, you ignored it/didn't understand, and claimed I offered no explanation. You did exactly what I said you do. You responded to my charge of ignorance with...ignorance.

Is that a good enough explanation? I bet you didn't get it, and will claim I didn't make my point. To be honest, I couldn't give less of a crap about your standards anymore. If I continue this conversation, it will be for my own amusement, not to try and get you to see anything.

And ignorance came into play once more with the article you decided to comment on. You said: "I'll begin by summarizing your story as I understood it (please, correct me if I'm wrong):" Well, you were wrong. And about the basic points. What is quite clear from my story, and what seems to have gone right over your head, is that the Genesis story was the moment when I first entertained the possibility that my religion could be wrong. Before that, being only a child, I had assumed that my religion was completely true. Every bit of it.

Stop right there. That does not mean I left because Genesis says Eve came from Adam's rib. It was only an awakening to the possiblity of something else. All that crap you took so long to write was stuff I came to believe (well, not the papal junk, but the spiritual guide stuff). It was just a stepping stone, as a child, that led me to be able to think critically about things when I first became able to. It was the beginning, but very unimportant in my final deconversion. (It was, however, one of the few vivid details I can recall.)

Now I have tried to be as clear as possible with this. If you don't get this explanation, then this conversation is over. I simply don't have the time for this.

Nathan

His next reply:

Dear Estle,

First of all, I want you to look very closely at some little thing you said in your last letter:

"To be honest, I couldn't give less of a crap about your standards anymore. If I continue this conversation, it will be for my own amusement, not to try and get you to see anything."

Well then, my friend, I wish you all the amusement you'll find here...

Your justification for calling me ignorant was sick. Let me show this your way: you responded to my charge of baselessness with... baselessness. Oh! So you THINK I repeated arguments that you THINK you already "annihalated." In this case, I don't care about your baseless opinions, since it could be very well true that you have misunderstood my arguments. Or to put it your way, they went way over your head. (I will prove your baselessness in a later e-mail.)

I must confess that, although I have read it somewhere before, I still haven't studied about "Plank time" in school. Now, I am aware of the theory that time does not "move forward constantly." I am also aware of the multitude other alternative theories (e.g. time does not exist at all). Though, I cannot in this life of mine see how these thories could remove the possibility of a Creator (maybe you could tell me how... good luck).

Still, I cannot see how you could be so positive about these theories when most physicists themselves do not rule out the possibility that all of these theories are wrong. In fact, avid supporters of the quantum theory would even say that this theory might be proven wrong someday. Oh! And do you know that there is evidence that two of the most celebrated laws of physics (conservation of energy and the constancy of c [speed of light in a vacuum]) are wrong?

And you have the nerve to say that you "know" this little theory about time is true. Not that I don't want to believe them (I plan to be a physicist someday). It's just that we could never be too sure of ANY laws of nature. That is why I giggle at the sight of atheists trying to prove that God does not exist using the laws of physics.

About that, I must say that I was wrong in trying to prove God's existence using black holes, though, I must say that I am not as ridiculous as some more bizarre atheists who would use the good name of Evolution to disprove God, all in vain. I now maintain my original belief that the existence of God is purely a philosophical problem. This means that your original rebuttal on the five ways of Aquinas was invalid, for you used physical laws to do so (I didn't notice that till I realized that your "rebuttal" was a non sequitur). Please make another rebuttal (if you can) of that said letter, this time using pure philosophy. Good luck.

To shorten this letter, I'll just continue this in another one. I hope you don't mind another set of e-mails plunging in your inbox all at the same time.

- Francis

P.S.

Do you believ that Jesus is actually a historical person?

Next Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Okay, I did get your point: your deconversion story wasn't very important. I was only a stepping stone. You did not leave Christianity just because of "biblical inaccuracy." That was just the start of your realization that your religion "might be wrong." Yeah, I got it all.

But, my friend, though that was all fine and dandy, you missed a very important point: I did not write that stuff solely just to tell you "Hey man, your deconversion story was all crap!" I also wrote that letter to refute your allegations against biblical incredibility. Okay, so maybe my attack on your most beloved memories was ill-placed, but you still failed to disprove my retort. And so it stays, that you have failed to show the inaccuracy of the Bible in terms of its own forte.

By the way, it did not take me long to make that letter. It's just that I was too busy to write it as soon as possible. I guess it only took me about half an hour to create it. Just the same with this set of letters which you are reading right now. It was delayed because I was studying for the exams.

Another thing: you said you liked contradiction. I guess, by the tone of your response, that you only like contradictions that you can contradict. Besides, you yourself has said quite confidently that you won't change being an atheist. How then can you take unbeatable contradictions against atheism? And you call ME childish.

In my next letter, I will refute your article on the Free Will and Omnipotence issue.

- Francis

Next Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Let me give you the classic Protestant explanation of Free Will:

"[I]n order for love to exist, so must free will. Without the freedom to refuse, love cannot exist (it is impossible to force someone to love). Therefore, God's omniscience does not make Him responsible for our refusal of him. Freedom must exist or love cannot. The Bible says that even though God knows who will accept Him and who will reject Him, He does not force us to make one decision or another."

Now let me show you your own retort on this explanation:

"This is ludicrous. I posit that under the Judeo-Christian and Islamic philosophy, love of this kind cannot exist. If I could sum up, using some of this Christian's paragraph: God made everything, he knows exactly who will accept him and who will reject him, and being omnipotent he could have made things differently, right? Couldn't he have made a universe where I was never born at all, but everything else is the same? Couldn't he have made one where all people "freely" choose to believe and love him? So I ask again: Why did this deity create a universe where billions are condemned to eternal, horrible suffering? God may not "make" people love him, whatever that means, but he knew when he set it up exactly who would love him, and could have set it all up differently so that a different group of people would love him."

What? God knows who will already reject him and who will love him? Whoa! That's some big discovery. And, this came from the paragraphs of Mr. Perry? Figures. Protestants invent many bizarre doctrines in desparate attempts to understand theology, especially omniscience.

No. God's omniscience is not an impossible omniscience. What I mean is that it is not possible to know what does not exist yet, except if there is some relieable evidence for its possible existence. God, though he does know that someone, somewhere, will become an atheist (since it is completely possible and very, very probable), he cannot know who that is. A God with an impossible omniscience is an impossible God.

Here then comes God's omnipotence. You say that God could have made a universe where all humans freely love him. You even stress the word "freely" to show that God does not need to remove free will. I will then remind you of the parable of the good wheat and the weeds.

The weeds in that parable is the strange plant called the darnel. This weed, before it completely matures, looks exactly like wheat. That is why the Master in the parable refused to cut the weeds immediately, for fear of destroying the wheats, too.

If God was to create a universe of saints, he must have to do some form of guesswork. Because he cannot know who exactly would be the darnels and who would be wheat. Evil men don't exactly walk around with a big sign across their heads saying "Hey God! I'm your enemy!" Besides, most evil people start out as good ones. Maybe the good that they would do before being evil is too important for God to destroy them all completely. And not all generally evil people do evil every moment of their lives. Most of of them do some good even if they're self-professed enemies of God, maybe they do it unconsciously.

Also, many saints started off as evil people. Who would recognize that someone who called the Catholic Church a "religion of dreamers" would end up defending it some years later? Who would have thought that a woman who called Christ a false-prophet would end up dying for Him?

What then if we let God do some guesswork before he created the universe? He could have mistakenly destroyed some actual saints, and He could have mistakenly left some demons unscathed. Right! He could have looked at the abstract idea that is Nathan Estle and have said: "Hmmm... this form of uncreated human flesh doesn't look so menacing. Let's leave it be."

We then conclude that a possible God could have only created the "ideal" universe by doing away with Free Will itself and creating a race of robots!

Now who's ludicrous?

- Francis

My Response:

Here goes.

Planck Time (please forgive my previous misspelling) is equal to 10^-43 seconds, and is the amount of time it takes for a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to Planck Length, the distance at which classical ideas about gravity and physics break down and quantum physics dominate (about 1.6x10^-35 meters). Why is this important? Because this is the smallest unit of time that has any meaning whatsoever. Before the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe (if it even had a beginning), nothing in physics can describe what went on. So you see, nothing you said, in reference to non-quantum physics, is relevant in a discussion about the beginning. If you want to know more about this, I suggest you take some University physics courses.

Letters 2 and 3 of your Summa arguments are the only ones I can imagine you construing to be about physics. In the first, I corrected a misunderstanding about Pascal, and in the fourth and fifth letters I applied logic and/or pointed out some unsubstantiated assertions. Now in 2 and 3 all I did was throw out some possibilities. As I have already mentioned before, you argued implicitly. Your arguments took the form of: We know this can't be true because...therefore the only option left is.... I threw out some possibilities (some quite ridiculous) that you had not disproven. You cannot prove something by default until you have disproved all other possibilities. That is logic, not science. Was I arguing Newtonian physics with my Infinite Mini-gods Hypothesis?

To answer your post scriptum, I have no idea if Jesus was a real person or not, and I will not take a position until I am convinced with evidence. Right now the only tangible records of his existence are four books written 30 to 70 years after his supposed death by people who never knew him in a language he didn't speak. That's not enough for me to say he definitely existed. So I will withold judgment.

And you have missed the point again. Biblical inaccuracy caused my very first doubts, but was irrelevant. The theology is what I came to find incoherent. You will notice I only argue against Biblical literalism in the sense of Creationism and the Flood on this site. These articles are intended for Young-Earth Creationists or anyone who wishes to laugh at them. The only Bible specific articles deal with what I consider to be big problems, for theological reasons: The Immanuel Prophecy, Christian Requirements/Commandments from Jesus and Paul, and the conflicted Easter story.

On the bright side, and least we both agree that Mr. Perry's subpar apologism was ludicrous.

And I must say, your take on this issue is a unique one, but I don't think it has a solid foundation. You only hint around the actual interaction between God and the universe as you see it, but no matter how it works out, your worldview cannot be.

Consider:

Possibility One (characteristic of some of Mr. Perry's opinions):
-God exists outside of time--the Alpha and the Omega. Past, present, future...they are all the same to this deity. Just as he knows all that has happened, he knows all that will happen. There is no distinction between the two.
-I argued, and I think successfully, that this deity could not create a universe of free will, because he knows all that will happen. With every change and sculpture of his creation, he sees how it will all work out. His creation cannot surprise him. It is, as you put it, a world of robots.

Possibility Two (which I think you are hinting at):
-God exists within time, guiding his creation towards an overall plan, but unsure about the exact future. His wisdom and experience give him insight as to what will happen, but the future is not set.
-This means that God has restricted himself with his own creation--time. He could be outside it, but instead he chooses to by chained by it. He has denied himself access to his own knowledge. How can any prophecy, like a king coming to power in the future, be of any value? God doesn't have any more foresight than I. Or does he temporarily remove the free will of the people involved? Were humans a creation or an accident? Did he expect us, or, not knowing the future, did we just arise and he decided to watch over us and play the role of deity?

I'm glad I responded. I find this new direction in the conversation to be delightful.

Nathan

The next page of letters. Ugh.

Return to previous page.
Return to first Feedback page.
Go to second Feedback page.
Return to main page.