Comments on: If You Could Ask God a Question

By: Meagan Hines

Meagan Hines — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:14:03 +0000

Wow! I just stumbled across your blog and was excited to read about the work that is still going on in Jinja, Uganda. I was an intern in the summer of 2008 and was excited to see familiar faces on some of the links you posted. Thank you for all of the work you do with the Kibo group! I have experienced first hand the many people who are reached through this ministry. =)

By: Kendra Durrington

Kendra Durrington — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:00:39 +0000

We asked our kids this question years ago and Addie, who was about 5 at the time, said she would ask for his autograph. Didn’t see that one coming!

By: Prophet

Prophet — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:37:45 +0000

@qb: Oh my god! You are so full of it!

Get it? Full of god? Please excuse my word play… but it was just too easy to resist.

“Progressively shown as inadequate and presumptuous”?? By whom, pray tell? The fact that there is zero evidence of god’s existence, sans hyperbole and speculation by faith dwellers, is completely lost to you? “Knowing” without actually knowing is wishing… otherwise known as faith. As a child, absolute faith that Santa existed did not turn out so well, eh. Wishing it so does not make it so. (Uh-oh… another snarky quip… sorry.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m agnostic, not atheistic. I sincerely hope there is… something…, but I would be shocked if it resembles the god(s) of human imagination in the slightest. If there is a “god”, logic infers my ability to understand it would be akin to an infant understanding calculus… we simply do not have the comprehension skills. I refuse to buy the human version and instead prefer to remain blissfully ignorant.

…And your whole spin on “premise” is further evidence of your inability to understand that reason (or logic) without proof is STILL speculation. The choice to believe speculative premise is faith and nothing more. Such as my faith in my own logic.

BTW, I regard atheists as I do theists… they both are faith based religions, each “knowing” they are right. It’s the absolute I can not accept. I don’t know if you, they, or I am right. I simply don’t know… And I’m ok with that.

I’ve enjoyed our little conversation, but my time here is limited… literally, yes? You still believe in Santa? Why not? Didn’t you “know” he existed, at one time?

By: qb

qb — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:00:50 +0000

This just in: one ripe avocado, two teaspoons finely minced fresh garlic and white onion, a small squeeze of fresh lime, and some salt…United tortilla chips…heavenly alchemy. What else is really necessary? Certainly not MAYO. That’s what I mean, Geez-babes. qb

By: qb

qb — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:46:10 +0000

Geezy: emphatically YES. qb

By: Keith Brenton

Keith Brenton — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:30:52 +0000

And, if I may be permitted a second fudging question, why is it when bad things happen we blame You because you let them happen (as if they were all somehow worse than torturing Your Son to death) rather than blaming Satan who brought the temptation to sin into the world and all of the disastrous consequences of it, including death and destruction and damnation?

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:40:52 +0000

QB,
I am confused by your use of *retch.* Are you suggesting that only a wretch would extend guacamole with mayonnaise or that the substance would make one want to retch? Due to your choice of spelling I would assume the latter, but the former is also suggested by your comment.
At last, something beside politics we can agree on.
Peace,
Geezer

By: qb

qb — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:02:44 +0000

Here’s another: why would *anyone* adulterate guacamole with a disgusting “extender” like MAYONNAISE?

*retch*

By: qb

qb — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:55:28 +0000

The main piont here, Prophet, is that your conception of “knowing” is restricted to the Enlightenment’s empiricist paradigm. We know all kinds of things in other ways, and the subjective/objective dualism is being progressively shown as inadequate and presumptuous. It is quite possible, in fact, not to “know” something in the Enlightenment’s empirically verifiable sense and yet still know it.

The little “logic does not impress your god, I hear” snarkiness is a total misrepresentation, by the way. qb doesn’t know anyone who thinks God condemns or disparages or has contempt for logic per se. But reason – logic, for shorthand – has to start with premises, and the only way to solve the problem of infinite regress in establishing fundamental premises is to appeal to a form of knowledge outside of logic itself. The center of the controversies involving Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. is precisely on this piont: where do they get their most fundamental premises? If they get them from empirical observation, then their reasoning is circular and for that reason cannot justify the certitude that they derive from it.

And for the record, qb does loathe himself. Guilty as charged. Boy, am I glad that’s settled!

By: Kent Dickerson

Kent Dickerson — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:15:29 +0000

How can I find a way to make You a bigger part of my work, of having you work with me to accomplish my goal to make watches, of enviting You to be a more real part of my daily life? (By the way if any of you have thought on this, I would like to hear them)

Some of you guys seem to be fudging quite a bit on the “one question” part of this (:

By: Prophet

Prophet — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:14:30 +0000

@qb: Hmmm… I thought my comments were quite explicit and did not leave room for postulation of meaning. If your defensive post percieves insult from my comment, then it is self-loathing that prevails, not the content.

Why would one “choose belief” when they claim agnosticism? Hedging a bet? After all, to err on the side of possible grace is better than erring on the side of possible disgrace. I understand this… it is actually logical. However, logic does not impress your god, I hear.

You say, “Your post clearly implies that belief is just an hilarious exercise in denial and self-delusion.” That is not true… I don’t find it humorous at all.

Epistemologically, indeed,

By: qb

qb — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:01:48 +0000

Prophet: qb doesn’t know (in your self-evidently Enlightenment-framed sense), and qb’s not afraid to say it, either. Does your willingness to admit your ignorance make you a better person than lowly qb, who admits the same but chooses belief? Your post clearly implies that belief is just an hilarious exercise in denial and self-delusion.

Don’t be ‘fraid, hoss, lay it out there clearly. Are we believers a bunch of tragically simple idiots, or do you prefer to dance around it so as not to insult us? And if the latter, what moral code restrains you from insulting us, anyway?

Epistemologically,

By: Prophet

Prophet — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:45:08 +0000

Obviously, most of the questions posed so far are based in doubt of god's existence. Failure to admit as much to yourself is the ultimate lie. Bret's truely genius comment reflects undeniable logic that gods are human inspired omnipotents designed to comfort our failure to understand and accept our finite existence. My agnosticism stands, as I am unafraid to say, "I don't know".

By: Laci

Laci — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:02:39 +0000

Why don’t you intervene when tragedies occur? What is the purpose in allowing bad things to happen?

By: Shayla Herndon

Shayla Herndon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:56:16 +0000

Why do you wreak havoc on wonderful people? And why is there nothing I can do to help them?

Why do you take young families members away from their families? Especially when they could have furthered your Kingdom in ways that no one else could?

And last but not least, why cancer?