My Internet DEBATE With Dan Adams

Mr Lee writes...

"Mr. Adams says that if you believe in something strongly enough, then you in essence have created your own proof. Actually, I would not disagree with his remark. People can and often do talk themselves into believing things which are not based on rational thought, and there are many religious people in this country who have done this very thing. They go to church, they have the assorted do's and dont's in their life, and on the outside, they look as good and as religious as anyone else. However, this brand of outward religion is not what having a vibrant, living relationship with the God and Creator of this universe is all about. Those who come to the Lord do not do so because they simply need or want to be better people. They come to Him because of the need in their life for Him, and then, He meets that need."

I think that Mr Lee has perhaps unknowingly hit the nail firmly on the head. He has admitted that people believe in God because they "need to", rather than because there is any evidence for that belief. I would agree that there is a very strong need in humans to believe in a God. It is I imagine extremely comforting to know (or at least vehemently believe) that no matter what happens to you, "big brother" is watching out for you, and that no matter how bad things get in this life, they will be just fine in the next. I can understand the attractiveness of this belief, but I do not believe that in any way validates it as a belief. There are many different religions throughout the World, all very different, with the single common vein that there is a divine being or beings who watch over us. That this is a product of psychology rather than the existence of God is, I feel, shown by the fact that any similarities end here, and that the only common factor is the "belief" itself. By its very definition belief entails a lack of evidence. Surely if a God did exist, he would make his presence and nature known to every man, yet different cultures around the planet have very different views of "God", suggesting to me at least that God is a product of the human imagination. A child growing up in an undiscovered tribe would not be a Christian, or a Muslim, unless he were specifically indoctrinated at a later date with that religion. Nobody "finds their way to God", they are indoctrinated by others. The very variety of religious experience is, I feel, the greatest sign of its invalidity.

"I have never heard nor seen the very God about Whom I now speak, yet that sensation in my heart at that time in my life made me realize that I had a very real need for Him in my life." Religions are very quick to exploit vulnerable people because they are more likely to be susceptible to any belief that will help them cope with their situation. I do not wish in any way to deride Mr Lee's persona beliefs, and nor do I doubt the sincerity of his belief, but surely the fact that you found God just when you most needed to find him was just a bit too obvious. At times in your life when you are down, obviously you are going to be more susceptible to religious beliefs.

"Mr. Adams has suggested that the age of a particular creosote tree is a "basic, straightforward fact." He would do well to qualify his remark because the age of that tree is not a fact! The belief about it's age, just like any other belief, is an opinion based on some sort of evidence." Ok, of course this is true. But the evidence for the 12,000 -year old creosote tree is very strong. It has been reliably measured using radio carbon dating processes, which tells us that the tree is 12,000 years old. Why do we believe this? Well, the same equipment tells us that a tree, which is fifty years old, is fifty years old. The methodology is of course more precise than just this, and has been correlated with factors such as ice core samples. "He even said, "Every single bit of evidence points to the fact that the tree is 12,000 years old. Likewise, every single bit of evidence we have points to the fact that we are seeing light that was emitted from other stars millions of years ago." My response to these comments is that we may not have all the evidence."

I have trouble in believing that there could exist any evidence that could exist disproving the evidence that we already have. We know that other stars are billions of light years away. If they were not, we would be roasted alive on this planet. We are seeing the light from these stars every night. If a star is a billion light years away, and we are seeing light from that start, then that light must have been emitted a billion years ago. This leaves no room for the 6,000-year old Universe stated in the Bible.

"This argument also applies to things like the Doppler effect, the Big Bang Theory, and the age of the universe. Regardless of how zealous Mr. Adams might be, none of these products of science are done deals, and all credible, knowledgeable scientists would have to agree. When they do become done deals, then we will stop calling them theories." Well, the Doppler Effect for one is no theory, It is hard fact. I can if necessary publish page upon page of quotes from leading scientific figures to this effect. We have very simple data which shows the Doppler effect in the stars, that is all the stars are moving away from us. The only reasonable assumption is that they therefore shared a common point of origin in The Big Bang.

"The Lord has put Himself into every Christian, He has put those Christians in this world, and it is their responsibility to show the world that He is real." This simply does not add up, in my mind. If, as you suggest, God wishes to prove to us that he exists, there are many more effective ways he could have accomplished this. The fact that not everybody is a Christian surely suggests that either God has failed (an all-powerful being has failed??) or else God does not exist.

Daniel Adams, 12/13/97