Reverse Engineering - Science vs Bible

Reverse engineering is a term you hear quite often in the world of Information Technology. It is usually undertaken to figure out how something works, specifically without knowing the techniques or technologies used to produce the product or software in question. See Wikipedia for more detail on Reverse Engineering.

Science uses this style of technique quite frequently. Nature, in all of it's beauty, is observed and pulled apart in an effort to understand how it works. In many cases, astounding advances in understanding are made. Bio-mimicry in particular uses these observations from nature to produce technological advances by trying to replicate nature.

With this in mind, science only knows what it knows. Highly educated hypotheses may be formed but science doesn't pretend to know the answers.

On the other hand, the reverse engineering techniques employed by the writers of the bible are the polar opposite of science. They observe a particular phenomena and write it up as an act or sign from god. In itself this is no big deal as many works of fiction describe fantastical scenarios and phenomena. The problem here is that the bible and the purveyors of the bible, present this as fact.

When a rainbow forms in the sky, apparently it is the sign of the covenant from God (Genesis 9:8-16).
Maybe it is a sign from God, but the verifiable and reproducible facts are that it is light passing through raindrops. No need to invoke the supernatural, unlike the scientifically ignorant writers of the bible.

Science, rather than jumping to fantastical conclusions and unsubstantiated statements of fact, will reverse engineer nature through observation and experiment to find the real truth. In the face of the real truth, believing the fantastical stories and unsubstantiated statements made in the bible is just absurd.

Quote by Robert G. Ingersoll

Quote by Robert G. Ingersoll


"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll

The Christian Bible - Undeserved Privilege

The Christian Bible - Undeserved Privilege


It seems only fair that I should try and understand the religious point of view, so what better way than to read the Christian Bible. I've chosen the Christian Bible as many people confidently explain that Australian society is based on Christian values and I've grown up in Australia.

Staring at the cover, you must admit, the Bible is loaded with hype. Psychological, historical and societal hype. Psychological hype, as apparently it is the one true word and nobody can deny it. Historical hype, as apparently all of the stories are true, without a doubt. Societal hype, as apparently our morals and society are built on it's teachings, without question.

If you ignore all of the hype, the Bible is just another work of literature. Under a modern barometer the stories are interesting in a curious kind of way, just like any other literature from the numerous religions and cults that are now defunct, or the latest incarnation of the Harry Potter series.

Literature throughout history has attempted to express truths, stories and teachings through imagery of magicians, fairies, dragons, vampires and rainbow serpents, among others. Any reasonable person easily accepts this literature as fiction, accepts the fantasy, enjoys the story, and moves on.

Turning our gaze again towards the Bible, the truths, stories and teachings using imagery of virgin births, talking snakes, a man living inside a whale, zombies and unicorns, among others, are routinely accepted as fact by Christians even after they reject other fantastical literature as fiction. The Bible is divinely inspired they explain with confidence, dishonesty and self delusion.

John W. Loftus of Debunking Christianity is world famous for his Outsider Test for Faith. The OTF applies in the context of literature just as well as any other. A Christian effortlessly rejects the fantastical truths, stories and teachings in other non-Bible literature, but easily accepts similar fantastical claims within the Bible. This same effortless rejection seems to apply to other religious texts such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon and Greek Mythology stories.

Accepting the Bible, while rejecting other literature with the same flaws, is hypocritical, absurd and intellectually dishonest. Apply the Outsider Test for Faith, embrace honesty and understand that the Christian Bible receives undeserved privilege.

End Note: 

To further quote John Loftus, "There isn't a trace of a divine author behind the pages in the Bible. Everything in it is more credibly understood as the musings of ancient pre-scientific superstitious barbaric agency detectors."

Einstein and God

Einstein and God

There seems an endless fascination among the religious to quote Einstein and cite his references to God. They quote Einstein to leverage his scientific brilliance and by extension, justify the existence of a God and justify why people of lesser intelligence should believe. They insinuate that If Einstein believed there to be a God, surely he is smart enough to know better, therefore God exists and so everyone should believe. This assumes that Einstein, when using the word God, meant exactly the same definition of God that a believer has in their mind. Even believers can't agree on the true definition of God, so what are the chances of it matching what Einstein meant. Probably low to none.

If we take a look back over the history of science and scientists who believed in God, we could find many such examples. Brilliant minds, observing and discovering brilliance in science, nature, mathematics and physics to name just a few. For each observation and/or discovery, they formed an extensive hypothesis, which turned into a theory and is eventually accepted as fact through application of scientific method. This theory is peer reviewed, critically analysed, verifiable and backed up by evidence. The discoveries, hypothesis and theories put forward by Einstein are continually challenged and are proven correct on a daily basis via their real world application and experiment.

Now turn your gaze towards Einstein in regards to the idea of God. It is essentially irrelevant who or what posits the existence of God. A layman, a builder, a computer programmer or a brilliant scientist can all state their belief in God but, as certain as the passing of time, the idea and existence of God has failed peer review, has not survived critical analysis, cannot be verified and is not backup up by evidence. Ignore this at your peril. God is not even a theory in the eyes of the scientific method. At most it is a highly unsubstantiated and unverifiable hypothesis and as such, Einstein, as with all others before him, have come no closer to proving God, even if that is what he meant.

The scientific method is consistent. It continues to provide evidence beyond doubt that a majority of the Bible stories didn't happen and easily dismisses poorly presented, inconsistent and unverifiable claims that God exists. Through all of the hard work, it continues the confirm the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of special relativity, theory of general relativity, mathematics, general physics and quantum physics, to name a few. The gaps for God to sit in are constantly being removed by the scientific method to such an extent that theists now move God outside of the physical world, to other realms not observable or available for analysis.

This puts a theist in a very difficult position. Place confidence in Einstein to prove and justify the existence of a God but on the other hand, deny the scientific method that continually invalidates and dismisses the foundation documents, stories within the Bible and, of course, God.

Using Einstein to justify a God, or your belief in God, is absurd.

Who created the Creator?

Who created the Creator?

When discussing matters of the existence of the universe, a theist might be compelled to state “God created the Universe”. They easily accept this as fact and shut down their brain having satisfied their requirements for an answer. Others may ask, “Who created the Creator?”. It is such an obvious question to ask and is just like a child asking “Why?”.

I’ve asked this question and could ask the same question into infinity and never have an answer. Even if we are living in a computer simulation, the creator of the computer simulation would have to come from somewhere as well. Up until this point, we have no answers for how the Universe got here and pretending that a book has the only answer is narrow minded and short sighted.

Even well substantiated theories like the Big Bang, are generally outside of my understanding. I can’t grasp true nothingness. Sure, I can understand the idea of a black void or a vacuum, but these concepts represent something. A black void exists and so does a vacuum. However, given the evidence, a Big Bang most likely did happen and is a theory based on what we can and have observed. Does anyone know what came before, or existed before the Big Bang? No. Scientists constantly hypothesis and discuss possibilities but no-one truly knows. There are no absolutes.

Those, who reject the Big Bang theory explain that something can’t come from nothing. It does sound implausible but what is more implausible, the idea that God has always existed and he (?) created the Universe or that the Universe just came into existence? A theist expects the evidence to be presented to back up the Big Bang theory but requires no such evidence for their own position. Apparently they just know that God created the Universe.

It is absurd to suggest that a God, who is all powerful and all knowing, is sufficiently complex to create a universe and everything within it, listens to prayers and meddles with physical reality as needs be, just exists and has always existed. How about coming down from your theistic high horse and saying “I don’t know”.

You don’t know, I don’t know, the best minds in the world don’t know. If you think you know, you are deluded or are wrong.

Atheists - illogical and not supported by evidence?

Atheists - illogical and not supported by evidence?

Comment on post by Billy Graham.

The opinion of the Atheist is "illogical - and not supported by the evidence". Please apply this same criteria to the existence of "God". You will find that your opinions are just as "illogical - and not supported by the evidence".

In perspective, a single opinion about a single topic, is just an opinion. This is not a big deal. However, when an entire institution is setup to spread lies and fleece people out of their money in the name of "God", I also must agree with the Atheist.

Of course, you are not interested in this opinion because it doesn't align with "your" opinion. Keep travelling through life surrounding yourself by people that don't challenge your opinion, otherwise you might learn something yourself.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on good deeds or the truth. It is interesting that religious people can be just as bad and dishonest as any Atheist with an opinion. I suppose, at least a bad and dishonest religious person has "God" on their side to justify their illogical and unsupported opinions. Also, a copy of the Bible is always handy to quote a line out of context to justify their actions.

Shame on those poor Atheists with an opinion that isn't supported by the same poor logic and unsupported evidence as those of a religious person.

You Are Not An Expert

You Are Not An Expert

Comment on post by Eric McDonald of Choice In Dying

I have encountered the “you are not an expert” argument quite a few times when discussing theology with Christians. They say I wasn't an expert or qualified to comment because I hadn’t read the Bible or I hadn’t read a particular obscure text confirming Jesus’ existence and also that of God. I thought it best that I start my education and have subsequently read Hitchens, Dawkins, Loftus and am about to embark on reading the Bible. Internet blogs and YouTube videos are also a fairly common staple in my religious education diet at the moment.

I am told that the “truth” can be found in the Bible. I could draw the conclusion that I don’t need to read any books written by Christian “experts”. There seems little point in reading books that interpret the true meaning of the Bible. Interpretations lead to inconsistencies and inconsistencies are strewn across the spectrum of Christian “experts” around the world. In my mind, this damages the credibility of the experts and the writings of their truth book.

I do know that I will continue my education and never become an expert in the minds of Christians. I feel this is because I haven’t handed the reins of my life over to a God or over to Jesus.

I will also continue to encounter Christians who tell me I am not am expert because I haven’t read an obscure religious text or apparent eye witness accounts of Jesus such as those by Flavius Josephus. Every encounter will add another book to the pile I have read, and still they will deny me, and ride in the gaps, just like their God.

In contrast, there are many Christians and many Christian experts that haven’t even bothered with furthering their own education. Apparently they already have all of the knowledge they need and it’s in the form of a sermon or the Bible, of which they haven’t full read. At least Dawkins, as a scientist, actually bothered to educate himself on topics outside his area of expertise. This is far more than I can say about any number of Christians who regularly demonstrate their ignorance of the field of science but feel qualified to comment on it.