Sept. 21, 2000
Responses and Rebuttals
The following are responses to the material contained in the JW Research Journal and this web site. If you would like to respond to the material on this site, email me (Ken Raines) at raines@premier1.net or write to:
JW Research
PO Box 5534
Everett, WA. 98206
USAAll responses may be posted here and/or in the JW Research Journal unless requested not to.
Ken Raines, editor
JW Research Journal
Letters/email:
Death Threat
Aluminum Poisoning
Hell
Phillip Johnson, Computer Evolution Simulations
Greber's Bible
Johannes Greber, God and Space-Time
Are You Ignorant, Lazy or Both?
You Could Run For Pope!
Bernarr Macfadden
Articles, page 2
Death Threat
From: ExE eXe, cepheus_psychopathic@hotmail.com
I will help you out of your cycle of ignorance;clod. Even now as your reading your daughter HEATHER is feeling quite STRANGE. As a matter of fact i think she's getting quite ILL inside of her fresh pasty skin. Speak out against me "Watcher" and you'll find that faith in bullshit offers you no divine protection from Cepheus. You have made a mistake. In the kindness that's left in my tattered frame i will give you the chance to learn from it. Your DAUGHTER will be the START. Attack Cthulu again and the plague of the jehovahs will be the FINISH. Poor little HEATHER....Doing so well in school too. To bad she's going to have an accident because of big, blubbering, daddies's FUCK-UPS. Stay content in the knowledge that as you read this, poor little HEATHER is starting to rot from the inside out. A rot so devastating Modern Medicine won't be able to intervene.
Response:
Get a life. I don't believe in divine protection. You can do whatever you want in life. Hope your treatment goes well.
Ken
Aluminum Poisoning
From: Lightworks123@aol.com
Hello,
My husband was doing some Internet research on aluminum poisoning, as two people in our family are suffering from this. Your article happened to come up on the search engine he was using. My interest is not all in debating theWatchtower itself, but instead to call to your attention the inaccurate information on your site.
My daughter and I have been and are still being treated for aluminum toxicity. In my case, the aluminum has caused neurological damage, which is being reversed. The primary source of the aluminum poisoning appears to have been the aluminum cookware that my parents' family used and that I also used later with my own family. There could be other sources as well, such as aluminum foil and TV dinner trays. I used to cover foods such as cornbread with aluminum foil overnight. The next day, there would be a film of grey dust on the cornbread (and pinprick holes in the foil!) We thought nothing of it and ate the cornbread anyway.
I did not read the article published on your website in detail, since that was not the type of information I was looking for. However, two paragraphs jumped out at me, so I wanted to respond to them. Here are the paragraphs and my own responses:
The fact that aluminum is so widely used in common products today such as anti-acids, antiperspirants and for purification as well as other uses indicates how wrong the Watchtower's crusade against aluminum was. Aluminum in sodium aluminum sulfate was also commonly found in baking powders called potash alum or just alum. Alum is used as a mordant for dyeing and in tanning and finishing leather goods. Betts claimed that it is used in baking powders as a cheap substitute for cream of tartar. If it was indeed a "powerful poison" as Betts (1929 p. 623) claims, it would be universally banned by now.
Yet, as many Watchtower articles lamented, alum baking powder as well as aluminum utensils are ubiquitous, and are found everywhere in hospitals, food processing plants, restaurants and private homes. Amazingly, the Watchtower published articles that concluded the solution to aluminum poisoning is to ingest more aluminum!
According to medical scientific procedure and results, the acute poisoning by a drug or plant in a non-lethal dose is counteracted and corrected by the high potency of that same drug or plant given internally...We all know about the aluminum baking powder; but we often forget this in buying bakery cakes, etc., made with that same baking powder. Colic of a breast-fed baby was directly traced to the mother's eating one piece of this cake; and several doses of aluminum nitrate 200x and higher being given, the mother quickly neutralized the toxemia. (Schmidt 1929 p.436)>>
Actually, according to standard homeopathy-- which is widely accepted in Europe-- giving more aluminum in a highly dilute dose is beneficial. An extremely dilute dose of aluminum is considered most potent. A solution of 200X would be very extremely dilute. Along with her doctor's medically-administered intravenous chelation, my daughter was given very dilute homeopathic doses of metals by her alternative practitioner to help her chelate. I, myself, was prescribed similar solutions, as well as a homeopathic aluminum. The aluminum I'm taking provides 1.2 milligrams of aluminum per 2-ounce bottle. I take a few dropperfuls of it a day. I was also treated homeopathically in Central America for another condition. Homeopathy was still a widely-used method of treatment in the U.S. eighty years ago. It lost favor as Allopathic (Western medical) doctors became more influential after antibiotics were discovered.
There are a couple of other points I would like to respond to: (1) the Watchtower article you quoted said that people who take laxatives were more susceptible to aluminum poisoning. That is true. Laxatives deplete the body of minerals and electrolytes. The body, as a result, will mistakenly absorb heavy metals instead as a substitute for the lost minerals. (2) Metal toxicity interferes with hydrochloric acid production in the stomach. My daughter needed to take hydrochloric acid to digest her food until she finshed chelating. She no longer needs to. I am currently chelating, and my stomach acid production has evidently fallen off from what was already a very low level. I now need to take even more medication to stimulate hydrochloric acid production than I did before.
Below is a smidgen of information I found on another website about aluminum toxicity. It is a REAL problem:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Aluminum and Alzheimer's Disease
If you have ever wondered why there is such an astounding increase in Alzheimer's disease, the answer may have finally been found. In the April 1995 issue of the international science journal, Neurotoxicology, a private Australian research group reported that the widespread use of aluminum salts to purify water may lead to brain damage and may account for the large scale loss of memory experienced by people suffering from Alzheimer's disease!
The Australia Institute of Biomedical Research, based in Sydney, reported that experiments with rats showed that tiny amounts of aluminum consumed in water found its way to their brains and accumulated there. It has been known for twenty years that if aluminum accumulated in the brain over a period of time, it could kill off neurons and cause memory loss. Institute researcher Judie Walton noted the worldwide massive increase in Alzheimer's disease over the past 70 years. She pointed out: "We are drinking it and eating it throughout our lifetimes, so by the time we are quite old we have had a lot of exposure to aluminum." Aluminum is also found in food emulsifiers, anti-perspirant deodorants, baking powder, some toothpastes, and many of the commonly used cooking utensils.
The research on rats found measurable amounts of aluminum in their brains after just one glass of aluminum treated water. Walton observed: "We really should look seriously at revisiting this possibility that aluminum addition to foods and drinking water is a health hazard." Due to the concerns about a link between aluminum and Alzheimer's disease, Sydney, Australia's largest city, is already gradually withdrawing aluminum treatment of water.
Using aluminum to purify water may be even more dangerous than the use of fluoride and chlorine in our water. It is believed that the problem is worsened by the action of fluoride in facilitating the absorption of aluminum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would also recommend that you read through the book Toxic Metal Syndrome: How Metal Poisonings Can Affect Your Brain, by Dr. H. Richard Casdorph and Dr. Morton Walker. This book delves into the aluminum problem quite thoroughly.
What upsets me is that articles in medical journals skim over the thought that ingesting aluminum is bad for you. However, I have read medical journal articles that definitely linked deposits of aluminum in the brain to Alheimer's disease. I had always wondered why none of these articles linked those deposits to the fact that we get aluminum in our food and drink. Your website article leads me to believe that perhaps there actually has been a deliberate cover-up, since to ban aluminum in food products would affect a tremendous number of large businesses and industries.
You do not need to respond to this email. I just wanted to call this information to your attention.
Sincerely,
Gloria Bredthauer
Hell
G'day Ken,
I have been out of the Watchtower for about two and a half years now. I was forced to learn some hard facts about the JW's while in the process of dissasociating myself from their organization.
But your web site (actually at the time, your JW RESEARCH magazines) was the final nail in the coffin, in terms of severing my ties with the Watchtower. You dug deeper than anyone else that I have been aware of. The articles about the ERA and Judge Rutherford's Angellic channeling, are cemented on my mind, not to mention your list of bloopers in Twaddle and Malarkey.
The real reason I have written is to ask if you can please help me on the doctrines of eternal hell and the immortal soul, I have struggled with these issues since leaving the JW's. If eternal torment in hell is true, I would be devistated at what a barbaric God we must have. If I had to bet my house on whether these two doctrines as tradionally taught by Christendom are true, I would say they are not. Having said that, I believe I base my decision on what my heart says, and not what the bible says. Can you help me please? what do you believe and why? You may enjoy certain chapters of my web site, www.emunet.com.au/~chiswick
Response:
Hi Shane,
Thanks for the email. Sorry about the delay in responding. I went on a vacation and am currently behind on everything again.
I visited your web site. I found your story and thoughts in the chapters interesting.
On hell and the soul, I do not have a clear-cut or dogmatic position. There are a couple reasons for this:
1. I haven't researched the issues in enough depth to reach a detailed explanation of the afterlife.
2. The Bible to me is a little unclear and doesn't go into detailed descriptions of "hell" but instead uses metaphors and word pictures like "the lake of fire," "outer darkness," etc. So maybe there isn't a detailed description to be had at the moment.
3. My view of God from creation and revelation (the Bible) is that God is at the very least much more intelligent and knowledgeable than I. Therefore, before even looking at the subject, whatever God has decided to do about evil (sin) is probably a better solution than I could come up with given my finite resources and knowledge as opposed to God's. I am cautious about concluding God has made a big blunder, is immoral or that I could have done things better. When I have the knowledge and abilities of God, I can be in a better position of passing judgment on God. What the Bible says and how to interpret it can be a separate issue. I say this to explain why I personally haven't invested a lot of time trying to figure out the general picture or the details.
In reading the Bible, it seems the Old Testament is pretty ambiguous about the afterlife. The New Testament seems to clearly teach that the human spirit is separate(able) from the body and believers go to heaven at death. The wicked go into "eternal punishment" which entails being eternally separated from God. The condition to me seems a conscious existence and thus the reason for the "they will be tormented" type statements. The problem here is the Watchtower and others view the suffering or torment of the wicked as being torture as in God Himself torturing people which is absurd. I haven't read anything in the Bible along the lines of the Watchtower's characterization of the doctrine of Hell. I think it's a straw man.
Randy Watters' comparison of the traditional conception of Hell vs. the Conditional Immortality position (the minority position within Christianity) may prove helpful. Its the best resource on the subject on the web.
Ken
Phillip Johnson, Computer Evolution Simulations
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your website. It's obviously well researched. My parents are JW's, hence the interest. As I was looking at your links on science and Christianity, I noticed the many references to articles by Phillip Johnson.I found this coincidental, as I have been reading up on his views lately. As I've read some of his stuff, I've taken issue with some of the things that he's asserted. One of the things he has asserted is that natural selection doesn't have any "creative" power, just trivial effects. I'm not convinced that natural selection is the main evolutionary mechanism, but I think it has plenty of "creative" power. I e-mailed links to the sites below to Johnson, but received no response. I'm assuming that you hold similar views to that of Johnson, and if so, would you be interested in a bit of debate? If so, I would ask what is your response to the articles below?
http://coldfusion.discover.com/output.cfm?ID=1455
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ascot/paper/paper.html
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/er97/paper.html
http://aics-research.com/research/notes.html
The first link is a popularization of one form of evolutionary electronics, and the next two are the actual research papers. The last one is a very in depth look at evolution in general, and especially in regards to simulating evolutionary processes. I don't know if you're very well read on evolution (I am), but this last link has been one of the most enlightening that I've read.
Tim
Response:
I don't see what is supposed to impress a skeptic of Darwinism in computer simulations of what True Believers already believe. I don't need just-so stories or computer simulations to believe in evolution of all living things by natural processes. As a skeptic, I need empirical evidence - from the real world - of the power of the natural processes to do the job.
A computer program only does what you tell it, what parameters you give it as an intelligent designer. If I'm skeptical of the truth of the premises or assumptions put into the system, why should I believe the outcome has something to do with the real world? "Garbage in, garbage out" is an old programmer's saying.
I've added a section of links with your links above and comments on such computer simulations by Dembski, etc.
If you have evidence from the fossil record, etc. for natural process evolution of any significance (from about the Order level and above), let me know.
Ken
Greber's Bible
From: Heinz Schmitz, hector1@planet.eon.ne
I see that you forgot to mention ALL the other scriptures in Grebers Bible that would support the renderings in the KJV or the NIV. I also see that you didn't mention the Gold Leaf Cross on the cover of the Greber Bible. By the reasoning of your web page, perhaps the CROSS should be included in your "inexhaustible pool of craziness".
Heinz
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com
Response:
Your comments no make sense. What are you talking about - what are you trying to say? You need to be more specific.
On Greber's vs. other translations, I certainly wasn't trying to "support" the KJV or the NIV with Greber's "translation." This would be a waste of time as Greber's "translation" is not a translation of any value. I never mentioned the NIV or KJV. The Watchtower Society though did try to "support" the NWT in two places with Greber's "translation" which was the focus of the article, "The Watchtower Society and Johannes Greber" (I assume this is what you are referring to). Your reference to Bergman's observation of the "inexhaustible pool of craziness" in Society literature could also include what they have said about the cross as well (he was referring mainly to my quoting of material by Rutherford and to material in The Golden Age and Consolation magazines and how this documents the Society's lack of scholarship).
Ken
Johannes Greber/ God and Space-Time
Dear Ken,
your Jehova Research Site is very interesting. I have visited it several times. It was first difficult to understand why it was build, but after a while I found "The Story so far". I always had rather compassion with Jehova Witnesses. To me this were and still are just poor people. You made it more clear, that and how religion can harm people, poison their lives and make them unhappy. But that may be true for most forms of religion. Mark Twain has painted a wonderfull and humorus picture of the religion and mankind in Letters form the earth and other related pieces.
I hope with you, that your "Jehova research Site" will help some people to become more free, less oppressed and lead a happier life.
I found your site by searching the web for "Johannes Greber". It was strange and astonishing to me, to find out that Johannes Greber was found in the web mostly in conjunction with the Jehova Witnesses and their Watchtower. To me J. Greber is still a distant and the only light in darkness of religion. At least the German editions are unsurpased in clarity of thought and argument, although I the Od/ERA capter is beyond my comprehension. But, if any religion, and exspecially Christiantiy is more than just wishfull thinking and more than just a nice tool, inventet by ancient chiefs, to oppress and discipline people, than there must be some truth in Grebers Od/Era-Chapter too. That is, because a God with the speed of light would take billions of years, to travell from one side of the universe to the other. It would take billions of years, even to make phone ring, if one calls from one side of the universe to the other. And then it would take another 20 or 40 billion of years, to get the message, that the phone on the other side is busy, or her just the first "Hello". So if there is a God, there must be forces beyond our comprehension of phyiscs. This statement to is true if the Bible is any more than a strange mixture of fiction and history. You can not escape that, and Johannes Greber is the only person I know, who at least argues in a logical and reasonable way. For example, his translation of the New Testament is the only one of all the many I looked for, which doesn't start in Math. 1, with the story that the holy Spirit made a miracle happen just to show that God does not keep his word and that the New Testament starts with real nonsens (It starts everywhere with the list of the ancestors of Jesus, to show that Gods has kept his word given to King David, just to say than in all Translations excepct Johannes Grebers, that the Holy Sprit came to break Gods word and assure, that the ancestors of Jesus are not realy his ancestors.)
Then in Matth 1.23, it is Johannes Greber who translates "young women", where the others, and especially the catholic church translated "virgin" and build a cult upon that. Interesting, that the latest German catholic translation of the Bible points with a small sidenote to Jesa 7,14 where in a footnote they (the offical German catholic Bible, with all the Vaticans sholarship behind it, writes now, that the hebrew word for virgin and young women is just the same. Johannes Greber has writen that in 1937, but that's not all.Take the sermon on the mountain: Matth. 5.17 says Jesus "Do not think that I have come to abolish that which you have been thaught by the Law of Moses and by the prophets. No, I have come not to abolish , but to fulfill. And I assure you most positively that until the moment when heaven and earth change .... not the smallest letter nor the smallest part of a letter int the Law shall be altered. .... And who ever abolishes as singel one of those commandments, even though it be the smallest, and teaches others to do so, will be ranked as the least in the beyond" That's there essentialley in virtually every translation of the New Testament. But than, in most translations, with all that honored sholarship behind it, this Jesus turns out to be an Idiot and liar, who didn't even know what he has told in his own speach some sentences before: For exampel Matth. 5,38: Though you have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye', I teach you not to resist as an enemy (him whom you have injured by the breaking of a promise; but is such a one) strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek toward him also. And if he sues you at law (for your pledged undergarment,) give him also the (promised) coat. And if he forces you to carry his belongings one mile (as agreed upon,) then rather accompany him two miles farther. .... The words in brackets are found only in Johannes Grebers translation, as far as I know. These words in brackets make a big difference. They give meaning to the sermon on the mountain, eleveate Jesus form an idiot to a wise man, who told the listeners something realy importend to help them realy keep the law. In fact, with a simple "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, one can make some one furious by not keeping ones word so that he loses control and injures his counterpart, who than had until the sermon on the mountain the formal right to strike back and cause a similar injury. So, with Johannes Greber, Jesus taught to keep the law better while most Bible Translation suggest not to resist even criminals like Hitler, Stalin and Milosevic, but instead give them even more chances to kill,torture and destroy. In this point, at last, I will mention another importand site of the New Testament: Romans 13,1: This is a highly dangerous part of the Bible, that has obiviously been used and can be used to empower People like Stalin, Hitler and Milosevic, and to make Christians obeying even the most cruel and criminal order. The Jehovas in Germany translate here even with "brutal force" ("die Gewalt"), while catholics in their newest German translation write "Federal Goverment" ("staatliche Gewalt"). Johannes Grebers Translation here is again very different and the only reasonble and acceptable one: "Render obedience to all the spirit-powers charged with your guidance, for there is no spirit-power placed over you that does not come from God, and those at hand have been appointed by God. Hence any one who resits such a power opposes the will of God and thereby incurs punishments. These rulers are therefore not to be feared by those who do good, but only by evil-doers. Rember, what you call sholarship, that is to say the established churches, have translated as "state Goverment" or "federal Goverment" what Johannes Greber translated as "spirit-power". Just words, but see the history of this century with all its curelty "in the name of the Goverment", and think again.
Have a question to the creation of the Universe. Yes, I know, that all reasonable explantions come to a point where it seems resonable that the universe has a creator and that it wasn't just there, as you explain in "The Story so far". But, this makes the creation just more complex since it rises the question how the creator was created, while we can assume, that the creation of the creator of the universe must be much more difficult and much less probable than the creation of the universe. So far, reason tells me, that it is much less probable that there is no creator and no God, than that there is one. In the end it comes down to the fact, that religion can only be based on stupdity or some kind of a religious experience. This may be the one you described in "The Story so far" or the one Johannes Greber has described. In fact the difference seems rather small and formal to me. The difference is only important in the way that people are diffent and so need differend tools and ways to reach the same target. But the questions remains, wether this religous experiences are real or wether they ar just another form of "Betrayal by the Brain" (That's the first part of the Titel of Jay A. Goldsteins Book on Fibromyalgia, I mention that, because I have seen something about that on your Jehova Research Site).
With the best wishes, and please keep going on with your Site, it is good, I kept a bookmark on it. It will shurely help one or the other
Christoph Becker
Response:
Thanks for the email.
I don't think it is "strange and surprising" that most of the material on Greber on the web is related to JWs. Greber wasn't a translator of any value. If it wasn't for the JWs quoting from his translation, Greber would have rightfully faded into obscurity. The job of a translator is to translate a text into another language faithfully. Greber didn't do a good job of this. As he stated, at times he was helped by "God's spirit world" to translate "difficult" passages. He relied on mediums for help when passages didn't make sense to him. The spirits told him the New Testament text was corrupted or altered, and Greber proceeded to change many texts back to what the spirits told him was the original. The problem was, the spirits never provided any evidence of the alleged changes. It was just their say-so.
The job of the translator is to translate what a text says, not what the translator thinks is the most sensible thing for someone to say according to the translator's own ideas, beliefs and biases. It is up to the readers of the translation to determine if they will accept or reject what the text says. This is ironic as Greber was told by his spirits that the text of the New Testament was "corrupted" by earlier copiers and translators. Greber's changes (corruptions) to the text can be documented by comparing them to the earliest known copies of the New Testament, there is no evidence to support such changes were corrections of earlier copiers' changes. So who really corrupted the text? Greber's changes to the New Testament texts can be quickly documented, the New Testament being changed in the first century without a complaint from the Christians at the time has not been (Greber's spirits also claimed that the first and second century Christians' writings which defended the NT as we have it were also changed by the same nasty culprits -- again no evidence for this was given).
You mentioned a few examples of Greber's translations that you apparently felt were better than others: Math. 1, 1:23, 5; and Rom. 13:1. Greber's "translation" has little to do with what the text says, thus it's not really a translation. Greber rewrote the New Testament in these and in others so it said something that was more reasonable to him (and to you apparently). This is not what a translator is supposed to do.
For example, in Math. 1:23, the known Greek texts have parqenos, virgin (Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon, Arndt and Gingerich, p. 627). This is apparently quoting the LXX 's Greek translation of the Old Testament (Isa. 7:14). The Hebrew of Isa. 7:14 can be translated maiden, young woman or even virgin, though the latter may be too specific or narrow. But Greber's job was to translate Math., not Isa. It doesn't say "young women" in the Greek text he was supposedly translating. It says virgin. If someone doesn't like the idea of a virgin birth (such a thing is now possible with humans), he would be irresponsible to rewrite a passage he is translating so it says something different. Perhaps the New Testament at Math 5 makes Jesus an "idiot." So? Maybe he was. For example, on Math 5:38 you said:
The words in brackets are found only in Johannes Grebers translation, as far as I know. These words in brackets make a big difference. They give meaning to the sermon on the mountain, elevate Jesus form an idiot to a wise man,...
The words added are only to be found in Greber's "translation," and no where else, because most translators translate what the text says and don't add words to change the text to make the speaker a wise man instead of an idiot in their eyes.
In Rom. 13:1, Greber again changed and added words to the text of the New Testament. Greber's "translation" so that it said "spirit-power" is entirely without justification, unless you accept the spirit's say-so that that is what was originally written there, the known Greek texts be literally damned.
Adding words to a text to explain and interpret for the reader what you are supposed to be simply translating to the extent that Greber did is irresponsible and worthy of him going into obscurity or infamy. The examples you gave were clearly changing, interpreting, or paraphrasing at best, not accurately translating the available texts.
God and Space/Time
You then addressed the subject of God and creation (the universe). You wrote:
because a God with the speed of light would take billions of years, to travell from one side of the universe to the other. It would take billions of years, even to make phone ring, if one calls from one side of the universe to the other. And then it would take another 20 or 40 billion of years, to get the message, that the phone on the other side is busy, or her just the first "Hello". So if there is a God, there must be forces beyond our comprehension of phyiscs….
What god with the speed of light? God created light and its speed, He isn't subject to it [God said, "Let there be light," it wasn't a case of Light saying, "Let there be God!"]. Believing God exists in and is subject to the space, time and physics of this universe is absurd and not taken seriously by most philosophers or theologians. You also basically asked if God created the universe who created God. You made a simple category mistake (assuming God had to be created, thus He is not the Creator of all things, but a thing that was created, a part of creation and subject to forces in nature -- subject to space, time and the speed of light for example). I don't know why people frequently make this mistake[mostly atheists] - it seems they don't understand the traditional God Hypothesis by theologians and philosophers (Cosmological argument, etc) to explain the existence of the universe.
Basically, in answering the question, "Where did everything come from?" you have two explanations:
1. Infinite Regression. Everything came from something before it. There is no ultimate source or origin to everything. Time itself is eternal so everything has an origin in what came before it, ad infinitum... The universe is infinite and eternal -- it is all that ever was, is, or will be. Or if this universe is finite, there are an infinite number of universes in some sense "parallel" to ours that go on forever, or one infinite eternal universe outside our universe that has the ability to create infinite numbers of universes.
2. An Infinite and Eternal (or space-less and time-less) God. In this view there is an ultimate source or origin to everything: the buck stops with God. God is the "uncaused cause, " not the universe(s). God is the "ultimate ground of being." There are ultimately two things in existence: God and His creation. The philosophical argument here (part of the Cosmological argument) is that you cannot cross an actual infinite amount of time --there cannot be an infinite amount of time behind us. There therefore must be an ultimate origin to time. Conjoined with this is the belief that, by definition, whatever is responsible for the creation of time, exists outside or apart from time and is not subject to the time it created. To make the God hypothesis work, God would need to be Eternal (or time-less), Infinite (or space-less), Transcendent (apart from or "over" everything -- time, space, the speed of light, thermodynamics), etc.
You could say as Richard Dawkins did recently, "why not get rid of God as an unnecessary complication and say the universe is infinite and eternal and be done with it?" This is basically what Hume and Kant did. All things are possible with an infinite universe given an infinite amount of time they said. We are here by accident or a series of chance occurrences and natural forces.
Most of the above is philosophy and I pointed out that this doesn't get one too far by itself. What it can do to a certain extent, is to analyze ideas and make them as clear and logical as possible, and to put them to logical scrutiny. What does the scientific evidence now point to? -- the Cosmological argument (and the Design argument), not the infinite universe/regression theory. As I thought I pointed out in The Story So Far, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the universe is not infinite or eternal. It was created by something outside (transcendent to) space and time, the speed of light, etc. which would make the creator space-less and time-less, not a part of and subject to space, time, the speed of light, etc. The universe also apparently was created on purpose by a mind (Intelligence) capable of "fine-tuning" the parameters of the universe so that we could exist.
You said about this conclusion:
But, this makes the creation just more complex since it rises the question how the creator was created, while we can assume, that the creation of the creator of the universe must be much more difficult and much less probable than the creation of the universe.
You again failed to come to grips with the apparent fact that the universe was created by something outside space and time. I understand the problem. I had a hard time comming to grips with it. The only solution that made sense to me was the God hypothesis. I didn't like that conclusion either. This is also ironic for atheists to me because if the universe is eternal and infinite, or there is a physical, natural something outside the universe that is infinite and eternal, then all things are possible within infinite time(s) and space(s), including the creation (evolution) of the type of god you referred to! You said that would be harder or much less probable, but this doesn't make it impossible. All things are possible, supposedly, given enough time. As Douglas Adams said, there are planets where the trees grow ratchet screwdrivers as fruit, 'cus in an infinite universe, an infinite amount of things coming into existence are possible. This would include the creation of a "god" subject to time, space, the speed of light, etc. Heck, maybe an infinite number that figure out a way not to be subject to time and space. It seems to me therefore, that atheists who believe the infinite universe(s) solution to the problem would have to believe in the kind of "god" you described(and the Mormon god from Kolob, the JW god from the Pleiades, etc.). In an infinite universe(s), many are bound to evolve through natural means. In fact, a infinite number of them.
Your comments also bring up one reason why I believe "everything" came into existence (matter, space, time, humans) by a creator with a mind of his own and not that in the beginning was matter and matter created minds (like God and humans). This is beyond the known capacities of matter. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is no hard evidence that matter acted on by mindless forces can and did create information (DNA) or minds such as ours. Let alone God's mind! We have direct experience though with minds such as ours creating things, especially complex, specified information, something matter hasn't been observed to do (See William Dembski's The Design Inference). I therefore believe on philosophical grounds that an eternal Mind came first, not eternal matter and forces came first and these thereafter created complex, specified information and minds. The scientific evidence leads IMO to the same conclusion: there is no infinite in the universe. The universe was created by something outside the space, time, thermodynamics and physics of this universe and thus not subject to them.
Let me try this one more time: The God Hypothesis doesn't make the creation more complex - God isn't part of any creation by definition. The universe was created by something outside of space and time and thus transcendent to itself. Why then does the creator have to be a creation of something else (the infinite regression theory again, not the God hypothesis) or to have come from somewhere in space or come into existence at some point in time?
If God exists, He doesn't exist in time (at least not the one dimentional timeline of this universe) and therefore does not require a beginning in time - He simply doesn't exist in it and is by definition time-less or eternal. You are basically saying or denying that God is eternal. Why? Is the thing that had to have created God then the real eternal, uncaused cause (i.e., the real God, though mindless) or was it too created by something else? You are back to an infinite regression or an eternal, infinite amount of matter that somehow creates universes and minds, which you apparently think as I do is much more absurd than minds creating matter, or things with matter.
Religious experiences
Religious or any other experiences (such as the experience of waking up in the morning) could be a betrayal of the brain. Maybe what we experience isn't really happening to us. This line of thought doesn't lead to much. Been there, done that. That was the "other epistemiological questions to ponder" that I mentioned. Again, this brings up why I believe theism(Mind came first and is different from matter) is preferable to Materialism(matter is all that is, was, or ever will be). If the human mind is "nothing but" a collection of neurons and their firings in the brain, why should any combination of those correspond to Reality or Truth, such as the thought that "religious experiences are a betrayal of the brain," but the thought (neural firings, etc.) in the brain about the validity of Materialism is true? Couldn't that belief be a betrayal of the brain? This gets into philosophy again, such as theories of knowledge (epistemiology, etc.).
I have included some links on the relationship between God and space/time by Christian philosophers (Craig) and astronomers (Ross), etc. in the links section of my site.
Ken Raines
Are You Ignorant, Lazy or Both?
From: jfgreber@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Raines,
Are the numerous typographical errors in this [Johannes Greber] article due to your laziness, ignorance, or a little of both?? A simple SPELL-CHECK function plus a global-search-and-delete for the spurious "&endash" would remedy most of it!! Bet none of your "readers" have noticed/complained!! Good luck.
You Could Run For Pope!
From: Joe Greber, jfgreber@yahoo.com
Does absolutely nobody read your "Johannes Greber" piece----including YOU??!!
I informed you of the numerous typographical errors in your otherwise "amusing" piece MANY MONTHS AGO!!
Lo and behold---THEY STILL EXIST TODAY!! With that sort of ONGOING disregard for accuracy---you could run for Pope!!
response
I have corrected the errors to the Greber piece but haven't uploaded it yet (I tried a couple times but had problems connecting to my server). I have printed out much of the older articles on the site (about 25) and I am going to proof read them and update some of them after attending to more important matters. [The first articles I put up on the site have several of the "&endash" errors caused by my software, some typo's, and other formatting glitches that appeared in the translation to HTML that I originally didn't notice.] Currently, I am about 1 month behind on everything.
I checked the dates of your emails. The first was 6-25-99 and the second was 8-7-99. That's a little more than one month, so I would not call your first email "MANY MONTHS AGO!!" Unless I missed an earlier one, your comments here are an exageration and thus a disregard for accuracy. :-) Your comments about the Pope are uncalled for and childish (I'm not a Catholic).
Ken
[Note: corrections have since been uploaded]
Bernarr Macfadden
Note: Bernarr Macfadden is an individual I am currently researching in connection with the Watchtower Society. He was mentioned favorably numerous times and called a "health expert" in The Golden Age magazine published by Bible Students (JWs). He promoted numerous quack cures and remedies since he promoted a basic Naturopathic perspective on health. He thus campaigned (as did the Golden Age )against vaccines and the AMA and their approaches to medical matters and promoted the Grape Cure, Water Cure, Zone Therapy and numerous other cures that were, at the time, at best untested and at worst known to be false and dangerous. I still haven't written an article on him and the Society's promotion of his ideas, but mentioned him under the heading "Quacks" in my article asking for reasearch help. I received the following response to this brief mention:
Dear Sir:
While it is usual in this era to call MacFadden a quack, I have spent the past few months reading several decade's worth of Physical Culture Magazine, which was his premier publication.
What do we generally find in it?
A focus on eating more fruit, fiber and vegetables on a regular basis.
The importance of playing outdoors, fast walking, strength training and development of physical coordination and flexibility as the keys to a long and healthy life.
An emphasis on being emotionally healthy, learning to laugh, and living the most moral and ethical life that one can.
Distrusting unneeded surgery or drugs.
True, he did advocate a milk diet (so does the Dairy Industry!) and occasional fasts.
On balance, calling him a quack seems a bit harsh, since you'd have to include ALL of the aerobics and physical fitness trainers and authors, currently living in the same category, since _everything_ that they teachderives (knowingly or not!) from MacFadden publications!
Respectfully,
Gordon Cooper
Seattle, WA
Response:
Hi Gordon,
Macfadden promoted exercise and a diet of fruits and vegetables, etc. (this was usually called "physical culture" at the turn of the century). This in itself is not quackery. As Morris Fishbein of the American Medical Association said about Macfadden in the 1920's and 1930's,
If Mr. Macfadden were to content himself purely with preaching a gospel of simple diet and adequate exercise, one could have no fault to find with him... (The New Medical Follies, 1927, p. 173; Fads and Quackery in Healing, 1932, pp. 157-158).
Even during this time, the AMA knew a "healthy" diet of fruits and vegetables and exercise were known to be good for your health. They promoted it themselves in their popular level magazine, Hygeia. The reason I, Fishbein, and others call[ed] him a quack is he promoted quackery: quack cures and remedies. The National Council on Health Fraud defines quackery in the following manner:
Quackery is the promotion of health schemes and remedies known to be false, unsafe, or unproven for financial gain.
This applies to Macfadden, despite his promotion of some good advice on exercise (some of it was bad advice even on this issue. See his Physical Culture for Babies, 1904). You seem unaware of his promotions beyond physical exercise and a healthy diet. Or are you overlooking his promotion of quackery? Perhaps the Physical Culture magazines you have read were from his later years when he promoted "false, unsafe and untested" cures less often? Martin Gardner said the following in the 1950's about Macfadden which is also true:
In fairness to Macfadden it should be said that in later years he has become less extreme in his medical opinions. But not much so. He is firmly convinced that cancer can be cured by a diet consisting of nothing but grapes...
This is called "the grape cure." He also promoted a diet (fast) of nothing but milk to cure diseases ("the milk diet". See his The Miracle of Milk,1923.) Again, there is nothing wrong with saying a diet which consists of fruits and vegetables, etc. is healthy. This was known in Macfadden's day. If you then claim that such a diet or fast will cure your diseases such as cancer, you are advocating quackery (unproved or false cures). Many people died trying to cure their cancer with a diet of nothing but grapes as Gardner also pointed out. The FDA and NCAHF would be interested in knowing the dairy industry today promotes the Milk Diet to cure diseases. Perhaps you should contact them with the documentation.
Also, the physical fitness movement (aerobics, etc.) and authors to my knowledge are not promoting the same quackery as Macfadden did (Zone Therapy, the Water Cure, Bio-Dynamo-Chromatic Diagnosis, etc.). Physical Culture (exercise programs, etc.) were around before Macfadden, though some today may have been influenced by him in this area (again that's not the concern of those who are calling attention to his promotion of quackery).
I haven't written anything on Macfadden yet (and the Watchtower Society's endorsement of him and his methods). In the mean time, the best one article overview on Macfadden to appear recently is, "Look at Me," Smithsonian, December, 1997, pp. 136-138, 143-151. It mentions not only his physical fitness programs but his promotion of quackery (which led to the death [of] at least one of his sons).
Ken Raines
Responses and Rebuttals, page 2