Between My Son and John R. Houk
April 28, 2011
There has been an ongoing dialogue between my son Steven and I. Below is latest that I have responded. The discussion has been ongoing on my Facebook page that was highlighting the SlantRight post of “Go See ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the Movie”.
On Facebook others have been involved in the conversation. Some of those conversant on the Facebook discussion have had insight that I agree with and disagree with. Since Steven is my son I will focus on him.
I should note that Steven is very adamant in his atheism and has a difficult time letting loose of a dialogue which I sense is due to a desire to be right and everyone else wrong. When things get repetitive I will simply and unilaterally quit responding.
My Son SAYS: “You're saying that god transcends evidence, science, reason, critical thinking, etc. The list goes on. I can understand that you have faith that god exists but let's not put god in a conversation involving the things I just mentioned.”
JOHN SAYS: Why? God is existence.
My Son SAYS: “The only reason you aren't locked up in a mad house for your beliefs is that a lot of people are delusional.”
JOHN SAYS: LOL Steven you are dipping a little into the old ad hominem well are you not? God says the delusion is on the part of those who can see the marvel of creation and yet deny God’s involvement. Romans 1: 18-25 NKJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:%2018-25&version=NKJV)
My Son SAYS: “God is not involved in this reality at all.”
JOHN SAYS: Reality is more than the five senses of observation. It is delusional not to know so.
My Son SAYS: “Can you provide one shred of evidence for his existence? If not, keep fairy tales in conversations about fairy tales and stop inter tangling god with pseudo science.”
JOHN SAYS: Can you provide one shred of evidence that God does not exist objectively? I can prove pages of evidence God exists subjectively via faith. Even in objectivity there is the admission of an existence that cannot be observed or measured and yet utilizing theorems in logic it is stipulated that such and such must exist. It is all a matter of faith in assumptions in such science. Still that which is speculated objectively under your thinking would thus be a fairy tale. Ergo the Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale. The quantum minutias that logically declare that there exists some sort of particles that even have been named exist because logic is the evidence and yet said particles that are unobservable and immeasurable are said to exist. Under your thought that which is said to exist but cannot be observed or measured is a fairy tale.
Hmm … Delusion is a matter of opinion whether objectivity or subjectivity is used.
My Son SAYS: "First of all, god didn't say that in Romans, Paul did."
JOHN SAYS: Steven that is your delusion. The reality is Paul spoke under the inspiration that immeasurable person who is the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit inspired then God said it.
My Son SAYS: "Second, I don't have to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. I'm not making the absurd claim he/she/it does, you are."
JOHN SAYS: Silly Steven, you are saying that God doesn’t exist and it is absurd to stipulate that God does exist; ergo I have to prove God exists because I believe God exists but you don’t have to prove God does not exist because I believe God does exist. You have to know that is a bunch of hypocritical hyperbole attempting to tell me you don’t have to prove what you know but I have to prove what I know. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot deem I have to follow parameters just because you say so and not apply the same parameters to yourself. That is just despotic idiocy.
My Son SAYS: "Tertiary, Faith does not equate to evidence in any way and you know that's not an equitable way to provide for such evidence."
JOHN SAYS: You say faith “does not equate to evidence”. That statement is only true if subjectivity has no value as evidence. You know that cannot be true for as I mentioned, objective logic conjectures a subjective answer based on the belief that a supposition viewed as fact built on another supposition hence believed as fact and so on until subjectively an answer must be true because somewhere along the supposition trail an objective observation is assumed but not actually observed built upon a subjective fact ergo subjective conjecture is miraculously translated into an objective conclusion (e.g. theory of evolution or quantum theories of existence).
So no, I do not know that is not an equitable way to provide for such evidence.
My Son SAYS: "Doesn't it strike you as strange that you don't often see a Muslim saying he say (sic) Vishnu appear in his dreams and told him to convert. And you never see a Christian have a near death experience and Zeus has appeared before [to] them encouraging their worship. That's because belief is local to the brain, physical location and culture. Faith and personal experiences, therefore, cannot be used as proof for existence."
JOHN SAYS: Now the psychology of the brain is actually a decent anthropological argument. Nonetheless physical location and culture is miraculously ignored by Hindus and Muslims when there is freedom to listen to the Good News of Christ’s Redemption and Hinduism, Islam or Animism is abandoned for a life of Christ. The continent in which Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds demonstrate the fallibility of location and culture is Africa (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/02/christian-number-crunching).
I am going to guess My Son’s intransience will continue with another rebuttal. I am not going to promise continued posting updates but it could happen.