A Leauki's Writings
Published on February 20, 2004 By Leauki In Religion
I believe in G-d.

I believe that G-d created the world, but I have seen no evidence that points to the job being done in six days, which means that I will have to work with other, more practical theories about what happened. Even if the world was created in these six days, the world would still look the same and the knowledge of the method of the creation wouldn't help anybody. The process could neither be repeated nor the knowledge of it used to work with the world as we see it.

Evolution is not a question of belief, the knowledge about it is a result of what we have seen, of what G-d, existed He, wanted us to see and work with, assuming this is our world to play with. Anybody who rejects evolution based on his belief has not understood the difference between belief and fact, and anybody who rejects evolution because "science has proven it wrong" has not understood the very idea of checking the facts first, which is a lot worse than reading a holy book and seeing that it doesn't mention evolution. (And why would it, presumably G-d had better things to do than to burden humanity with complicated science at that point in time.) Holy books are a good thing, if you know how to use them. They are not a replacement for science.

As for the difference between belief and fact, I know a "belief" is a statement that G-d might want us to believe or not, maybe to test us, while a fact is what G-d has given us knowledge about for free, via the world we live in. Believing in certain statements doesn't make the facts wrong, unless we want to go ahead and claim that G-d lied to us when he made the world and the information contained within it. Assuming that both the book and the world are creations of G-d, how can the information in the one possibly mean that the other is wrong? Wouldn't it rather be that both say the same thing and we have not yet learned how they do? In such cases, I have found, it is most often the written word that was misunderstood rather than the evidence we see around us wrong.

Did Moses part the Red Sea? How should I know? It is told, and the story does its job by defining the Jewish people. Thus Moses has done his job whether he existed or not.

Was the world created in six days? If it was, it has certainly been made to look like it wasn't. Is this a test for us? If it is, it is certainly a very easy test. All we have to do is learn nothing and ignore evidence and we pass. I do assume that if G-d wants to test us He can come up with rather more difficult demands (He did too).

Was there a Noah and an ark? Presumably there was, somewhere, possibly where the book says it happened. When, I do not know.

Is there a G-d? I believe there is. But G-d is not kidding with us when we find evidence for evolution and He is not specifically out to reward those among us too ignorant to understand the world and too arrogant to learn about it. The worst that can be said about G-d, I think, is that He expects us to live in this world without relying on his constant help and interference. And I think we should. And it turns out that those of us who attempt to do that have greater command over nature than those who rely on G-d to do their work for them. He is not our servant and should not be treated as such, not even by religious types.

Is there a heaven? There is hope. Without hope, life is a lot more difficult. "Heaven" is not a physical place, but it clearly does exist as hope.

Do miracles happen? They do indeed and every day too. But most miracles are less spectacular than the classic miracle (but usually a lot more helpful). Every day is a miracle. Who are we to expect more?

on Feb 20, 2004
You, my friend, are very wise.

on Feb 20, 2004
Interesting article. May I assume that by G hyphen D you mean God? If so, please read on.

You have developed a framework for belief which as new-age nomad points out is very wise. I will describe why I consider it wise later on, but first indulge me in the paradox which is described here. Paradoxes are cool aren't they, but a little weird.

The appealing aspect of your belief is that it cannot be disproven. I think what you are saying in essence is anything we can physically experience was created by God. Yet this physical evidence (as you call it) in some cases contradicts the stories of the Bible (six days creation example).

So we have a choice we must make, either :
a) The Bible is a parable written by humans which cannot be taken literally, and the physical world we experience is "real" (created by God)
The Bible is literally true (created by God), but the physical world has been created by God to make it look like it wasn't (I will call this a "false reality" - you call this a test of faith by God)

If a) reflects reality, then one must ask - if the Bible is a parable, then perhaps the entire content is not literally true, and there is literally no God.

If reflects reality, then one must ask - if God makes the world to appear as a "false reality", perhaps the Bible is a false reality, it is not in fact true, and therefore God doesn't exist.

The only way out is to believe that there is a God, but that the Bible is false. Weird huh? But in the end this puts God above any mortal concepts which is where I think you want him anyway. He exists, but as mortals we are ignorant of his existence. Here is a very long article which follows this line of reasoning. If you have a half-hour you might click it.

So as I said from the beginning this is a very wise frame of reference in that it is eternally believable, and irrefutable by logic. And this, finally, brings me back to my favorite paradox:

Eubulides Paradox (4th century BC):

This statement is false.

on Feb 21, 2004
Excellent comments.

I will return to the matter soon.

Now I have to go to a political conference. And on a Saturday too...
on Apr 11, 2004
Mr Poet, your paradox is not actually a paradox. It is perfectly reasonable to derive certainty from your own existence, and if you want to doubt your own existence, well that's reasonable too, just a little stupid. No one is going to stop you from sawing off the branch you are sitting on, and if you do, no one is going to stop you falling, and if you take the precaution of removing the ground the tree is rooted in first, you will fall for the rest of eternity. I just don't think that it is clever to do so.
on Jan 31, 2006
Ok leauki...I think most of our difference in theology is the difference between Jews and how they see God, some of them, and Christians.

See I look at Deuteronomy and I see that God is very specific about sin and life in general. He is so specific that whenever there may be an "exception" to the law He goes into GREAT length and detail about it, sometimes for pages. Since God does not "change" I know He is still a stickler for details.

And I know from the past that God takes His word seriously. And He expects us to do the same. To accept some of it as "from God" and the rest "of man" is to say God is not in control. And everything in the first 5 books of the Bible says different. Those books say He is a hands on God. He is in control. He will allow so much willfulness from His children before he reigns them in.

For example, He sent his prophets to David, Saul, and other kings when they were working against His will...breaking His laws. That's pretty hands on.

Zoom ahead to today. I have journals full of evidence in my life that God is still a very hands on God. That He wants to be involved in all the details of my life. Just as He was involved in providing manna in the desert, and making sure the people's clothes and shoes didn't wear out. Sounds like a real parent to me. Not a distant being who created the world and then said, "Ah, you're on your own."

but I have seen no evidence that points to the job being done in six days, which means that I will have to work with other, more practical theories about what happened.

Here is our biggest difference. You assume that since you have no evidence the earth was created in six days you are left with no alternative but to work with human theory.

I don't think that's logical.

To say you believe in a God powerful enough to create the world in 6 days, and then doubting that God when He doesn't answer your questions to satisfaction doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously people believe the earth is older. But I don't. Why? Because God cared enough to create it in the first place. He cared enough to create it and then say (or allow others speaking for Him) to say it was created in six days.

Even when man's wisdom points in the opposite direction of God, I ALWAYS give God the benefit of the doubt. Just because we haven't caught up in science and theory doesn't mean He is wrong.

unless we want to go ahead and claim that G-d lied to us when he made the world and the information contained within it.

That's just it. The information in a sinful world is not perfect information. Lets look at the facts. The Jews left Egypt and ended up in the desert, where the information that we have even today says they should have perished. Period. There was no water, no food, nothing that God did not directly provide. But if you operate on the information in a fallen world, discounting a hands on God, you are missing the biggest piece of the puzzle.

The information God gave us about Himself is the Bible. It is information contained in this world. Except it is something He directly provided.

What would happen if we found out tomorrow the WHOLE process for carbon dating was wrong? Just something like (and this is just me throwing something out there) a meteor shower coming so close to the world that it affected the polarity, the temperature, something like that, and therefore affected all carbon on the planet. Making all our carbon dating wrong.

You know what? It would only matter to the people who already believe God. Everyone else would just find other areas that God hadn't answered to their satisfaction.

I say, Who are we to question God? Who are we to sit in judgment of Him?