Stephen Fry's rant against God!

Stephen Fry annihilates God

Stephen Fry famously had a good old rant against God recently - you can watch it here: http://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

Does Stephen manage in a few sentences, to annihilate the God of the Bible? unfortunately for him - no! Big fail Spephen. But then, if you rage against what is true, you are bound to failure.

 He annihilates a false God of his own making, one that I certainly don't believe in.

Stephen Fry's rant is an emotional (not intellectual) rant. That is not to say his emotive questions, accusations and objections are not important, they are - but they are, at core, emotional. 

GUESS WHAT?

Now, if someone is going to annihilate the God of the Bible, then guess what? You have to deal with ... THE GOD OF THE BIBLE! Surprise! Fry totally fails to do this. If he was arguing against the God of the Bible he would not say the things he says.

Either he has never read the first few pages of the Bible and so is arguing from total ignorance, or he has read the first few pages of the Bible and is conveniently ignoring it and instead creating a straw man to knock down. Whatever, it is unacceptable to do that and anti-intellectual. Anyone can do that. 

EXAMPLE - Stephen Fry rants against a God who created bone cancer in children and bugs that burrow into children's eyes. He claims he would give God a good telling off, he reckons he would say, and I quote: 

"How dare you create a world with such misery that is not our fault!"

Now, if that is what the Bible tells us about God, then I agree with Stephen! I too would hate such a wicked, cruel God - but that is not the God of the Bible. Any four year old who reads the first page of the Bible could tell you that! Read it. The story of creation appears on the first page of the Bible in Genesis 1. In just 31 verses it tells us about the creation of everything. In those 31 verses we are clearly told that creation was created good.

'IT WAS GOOD' appears four times and 'IT WAS VERY GOOD' once at the end. Now when God says something is GOOD, it means, it is good in every conceivable way. There is nothing at all remotely bad - not a shadow of it.

So, Stephen Fry needs to argue against a God who created a really Good world, a world GOOD in every way - otherwise, he is ranting up the wall and not dealing with the God of the Bible at all.

So, if on that great and glorious day when God judges the world, Stephen Fry does try to take the moral high ground with God and says to Him ... 

"How dare you create a world with such misery that is not our fault!"

God will reply, (hyperthetically) ...

 "Ermmm, I didn't create such a terrible world! I told you that on the first page of the Bible, what are you going on about? Didn't you read it!"

Big fail Stephen Fry!

But there are other problems too.

Stephen Fry's argument is purely emotional - as is so often the case, it is not an intellectual objection, it is not rational, it is not evidential, it is purely emotional. Stephen Fry is clearly very angry with God - that is obvious. Now that is very strange. It is not normal to get really angry with something you don't believe exists. How many people are really angry with fairies because they don't grant everyone's wishes, or Father Christmas because he does distribute gifts fairly and equally to everyone around the world? None! People get angry with people they believe are real!

Stephen Fry is a closet Christian!

Ok, that might be going a bit far - but I have a feeling, Stephen Fry like so many people, knows, deep down inside, that there is, or may well be a God - but Stephen's problem is that God doesn't do what Stephen wants Him to do so Stephen is angry and rejects God and throws all his toys out of the pram. Stephen may well be trying to provoke God to action of some kind - but God will not play Stephen Fry's game or anyone else's. God has revealed Himself to us through JESUS whom He authenticated by raising Him from the dead. JESUS is God's testimony to the world.

But, let's suppose for a moment that God did create the world evil, well then it just means God is evil, it does not mean he does not exist. Not liking him does not make him go away. Stephen knows this and refers to it in his rant when he refers to Thor etc. But his problem is, apparently, specifically with the christian God - all the more reason for Stephen to actual deal with the God of the Bible which he fails to do when he ignores the fact that the God of the Bible created a good world.  A fair question would be, '"Why would a Good God allow His Good world to be ruined?" - that is a good question - but it is not one Stephen asks.

An Intellectual does not equal an Authority

But there is another problem with Stephen Fry. He is an intellectual, but he is not a philosopher, he is not a scientist of any sort, he is not a theologian. Why on earth rely on him as an authority in these matters? He studied English literature! He is no authority on these things at all.

If you want to know about Shakespeare, sure, ask Stephen Fry, he knows about that stuff, but when it comes to cosmology, philosophy, theology (The queens of the sciences) - he is a laymen.

He is very intelligent, but it is not how much you know that counts, it is what you know.

I doubt he is "100 times more intelligent than most of us" as some reckon. He got an UPPER SECOND CLASS honours degree in English lit for goodness sake. My daughter got a FIRST CLASS honour degree in forensic biology - she is a lot more qualified than Stephen Fry. He is very articulate and certainly intelligent - so was Adolf hitter - doesn't make him an authority either. There are literally thousands and thousands of people in Brighton more highly qualified than Stephen Fry. Everyone who has a BA SECOND CLASS (hons) is as qualified as Stephen Fry. Anyone who holds a BA FIRST CLASS Honours, or a Bsc, a Masters or doctorate is more qualified than Stephen.

7) Ricky Gervais - Really??? Stephen Fry was bad enough but Ricky??? The man is a joker - literally. If he lived in medieval times he would have been a jester with a jester's hat and silly bells on his toes - are you seriously suggesting the jester Ricky is an authority? 

8) All the stuff about cancer etc is an argument for, not against the God of the Bible. The Bible explains that stuff. If the Bible is true, then we would expect to find that, plus a whole load of evil.

Like I said above, if people want to disprove THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, then they have to deal with THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

To Argue against the Christian God, you must argue against a good God who created the world GOOD. A world without death, disease, illness tragedy. One needs to deal with a human race that became corrupt and rejected the God who held the world together in harmony and destroyed the good world God created (and continues to do so).

Most importantly, it is easy to disprove God if he is not true. According to the Bible a protagonist only has to prove JESUS did not live, did not die on a cross or did not rise again. The bible tells us, the whole christian Faith stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus, and not on some monstrous God who created the world evil as Fry suggests.

This is what the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Nuff said.

Random Answers from Ria's Thread #3

4) "Evolution of life, You tube it and learn it."

The fact is, evolution does happen on a micro level. That is, WITHIN SPECIES. This is often called micro-evolution. We know this happens because we can observe it.

There are two elements to so-called Darwinian evolution.

1) Natural selection: we can see this in agriculture in the battle against pests that eat our crops. Scientists develop 'pesticides' to kill the pests. This works for a while, but after a time the pests become immune to the pesticide and become a problem. 

How do we explain this? Well, we are told they have evolved, which is true. How does this happen? 

Imagine we have 150 flies, flying around in a field eating our crops. Scientists develop a pesticide and test it on 10 of those flies, it kills the test flies. Now the scientists use it on the 140 flies left in the field. The problem is, two of the 140 flies already have a natural immunity to the pesticide. This means the 138 have died out but two survive. But nobody notices two flies and the problem appears to have been solved.

But those two survivors with the natural immunity breed, passing on their immunity to their children. As their numbers build, the pesticide doesn't work on them, it seems they have changed to become hardier - but in fact natural selection just killed off all the weaker flies (they were weaker because they didn't have the immunity) and selected the two and their descendents for survival. But they didn't change biologically - but more to the point they are still flies!

In the natural world it is not pesticides that causes natural selection but things like climate change that leads to other environmental changes which select or deselect various species.

2) Mutations: Mutations happen all the time and usually they are unhelpful. However, so the theory goes, the occasional mutation is helpful and gives the mutant an advantage. So for example, imagine a creature is naturally blind. But then it mutates a working eye! Now it can see. It has a massive advantage over the other creatures. Therefore it gets all the food and eats it, the others die out because they cannot compete for food against these mutants. Again, natural selection has done its work.

In fact, I am not aware that a mutation that is helpful has ever been observed. Neither do I know of a mutation that gets passed onto the descendants. Mutated creatures are usually sterile, or if they can breed, their mutant gene gets 'strained out' so that it is not passed on. But the theory certainly exists. 

Certainly natural selection happens, and perhaps there are beneficial mutations - let's assume there are and they have been observed (as might be the case) for arguments sake. 

The problem is, if beneficial mutations have been observed, still they remain within their species. They  do not become something else!

If a dog mutates, it is still a dog! Evolution has never and will never observe the evolution of one species to another. It cannot be observed because apparently it takes millions of years. There is no experiment we can do to.

So why do so many scientist make the claim that evolution is a fact? Well, because it is a fact WITHIN SPECIES, scientists take that fact of evolution within a species and totalises it to include the evolution of one species to another. This is not science.

For this reason evolution of that kind is not science at all. It cannot be tested of falsified (disproved) since the time scales are too great.

All that is to say, creatures can certainly evolve within their own species, so elephants can produce other types of elephant. But elephants cannot produce Rhinos or any other species. Only elephants. FACT.

Random Answers from Ria's thread #2

2) "Adam and Eve had three kids, them had kids, say no more ..."

Actually, Genesis mentions by name three of Adam and Eve's children (Cain, Abel and Seth) because they are the key people in the story. However, in Genesis 5:4 we are told that Adam and Eve "had other sons and daughters". So I'm afraid Chrissie is factually wrong. 

However, I imagine Chrissie is objecting to incest since they refer to it as "F***** up". So how do we answer this?

The truth is, so called "F***** up" things very often are true - that is a fact. This argument at best proves just that, it is "F***** up". Funnily enough, that is exactly what the Bible says man did in Genesis 3 - READ IT!  The argument has no bearing at all on if it is true or not - NONE!

But maybe Chrissie is saying, "But their children would be deformed etc". Two answers to that. 

The chances of some kind of genetic disorder due to incest, are about the same as a 40 year old woman having children. So yes, by current standards, there would naturally be a greater risk. But all this means is that there would have been more deformed people, not that it cannot be true. Our whole world is pretty much "F***** Up" but guess what, it is real!  

But anyway, not all would be deformed. This doesn't prove anything.

The reason incest today leads to genetic disorders is because a brother and a sister share the same DEFECTIVE genes. Two unrelated people will not share the same defective genes (at least not to the same extent) and so the good gene of one cancels out the defective gene of another. 

It is not until the Jewish law is given thousands of years after Adam and Eve that God outlawed incest. It is now a taboo subject. It is deeply and rightly ingrained in our thinking that incest is morally wrong. It is because God has commanded against it. 

Now we are dealing with the Bible so we have to deal with what the Bible actually tells us if it is to be disproven or defended. The Bible tells us that God created man 'GOOD'. That means everything about him was good, which in turn means Adam (and Eve) had no defective genes. The degeneration of genes would take generations. This means that brothers and sisters back then would not have had such defective genes and the risks would be much lower anyway. On that basis, as repulsive as it may sound to us, there would have been no physical dangers. But as the genetic pool of humanity deteriorated to the point of danger, it became plainly wrong to continue, hence, the Mosaic law against it.

Other pointers to the authenticity of Adam and Eve.

As scientists continue their research they have found (not surprisingly) that the human population gets smaller as you go back in time and bottlenecks to a total human population of just 2000 individuals. 

Now I don't want to mislead here. Scientists are not saying that the world population started with just 2000 people. Scientist reckon that the population was bigger, but some disaster meant that only 2000 people survived.

But the important point is this: Scientists do not know if there was such a disaster responsible for that small number. All they actually do know with certainty is that the whole human race is descended from no more than 2000 people! That is what they know! BUT the more scientists learn and the more they discover, the smaller the population pool gets - it is only heading in one direction - towards Adam and Eve!

Think about it, there are about 7 billion people in the world. In 1950 there was about 3 billion! The further back you go, the smaller the number. It keeps halving as you go further back. It doesn't take rocket science to see where it is leading. Here is a non-controversial article on the subject from wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck .  For an academic paper check out academia.com. 

Scientists have discovered that the whole human race shares one common mother - they call her 'Mitochondrial Eve'. That is a fact. 

Scientists have also discovered, the whole human race shares one common father, they call him 'Y-chromosomal Adam. 

You can read about Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve by clicking the link below. The article makes for interesting reading. Is claims on the one hand that Y-chromosomal Adam was one of many people alive at his time, but also makes it clear, we all descended from him. http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

Points 4 and 5 do not prove the biblical Adam and Eve, but the fact of Mitochondiral Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, combined with the ever shrinking pool for the origin of the human race makes Adam and Eve increasingly plausible. This is certainly not "comic book" stuff.

Random Answers to Ria's thread. #1

It is frustrating that so many people comment on what they do not know. If people are going to comment on the Christian God, which is the God of the Bible, they better get their facts straight or lose credibility. They should stick to what they do know. So, to answer Chrissie Stevens statements.

"If you wanna know how it all begun I suggest you watch some science documentarys and not read made up comics #justsaying"

Answer: Science cannot tell you how it all began. The vast majority of cosmologists (That is scientists who study the universe) reckon the evidence points to the universe starting with what they call 'the big bang'. But they admit, though it seems most likely - they do not know.

However, there is in fact good reason to believe the Big Bang did happen so far as I can tell. It is also consistent with the teaching of the Bible. READ IT.

In Genesis 1:1 we read 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.

With the words 'In the beginning' we have the beginning of time as we know it.

God created the heavens: The Hebrew word for 'heavens' is 'Shamayim' and is used in different ways. It is used to speak of outer space where the stars are, it is used for the sky where the birds fly. It is used to describe the space in a big hall etc.

Basically, it means 'space'.

And the earth: the Hebrew word for earth is 'aretz'. Like 'heaven',  it is used in different ways.mit means our planet, it means soil, mud, it means 'stuff', in fact, it has the same semantic range of meaning as our word 'matter'.

Therefore, in Genesis 1:1 you have God creating time, space and matter! He creates it out of nothing! 

In the Bible, the book of Hebrews puts it like this ...

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

So the Big Bang, if true as most scientists believe, testifies to the words of Genesis 1:1 - pretty amazing in my opinion!

For a long time scientists were divided over if the universe had a beginning or not. If they read the Bible which has been around for thousands of years, they would have known it does have a beginning. The Big Bang backs up the Bible!

However, cosmologists admit, THEY DO NOT KNOW! So they also reckon it could be that the universe has existed forever, that there was A BIG BOUNCE. Others reckon there is an almost infinite number of other universes, the multiverse theory. BUT THEY DO NOT KNOW!

But, it seems the Big Bang is the most likely. However, even it is was The Big Bang, scientists DO NOT KNOW how the Big Bang started.

The Bible tells us that God created it. 

Science studying the universe is a bit like people examining an early Ford car. People can go to a museum, observe a Ford car, learn by observation how it works. But all of their studying and observation will never, ever tell them 1) Who made it or 2) Why he made it.

But, Henry Ford made it, we know that because He told us! 

Science can similarly examine the universe, it can work out how it works, but it cannot tell us 1) who made it and 2) Why he made it. That requires a different approach.

All that I have said is true which means, science cannot tell you how it all started. All you get from science is human speculation on the very start.

But God was there, He did it and He has revealed it to us in the Bible.

So we can and should go on discovering how it works through scientific endeavour etc, that is great, but by our own effort, we will never know who or why!

Chrissie is wrong, science cannot answer how it all began - that is a big question mark for science.

Rastafarianism is a fake religion

Rastafarianism may be a pretty cool religion, after all, if you are a Rasta you can smoke ganja (marijuana, weed, skunk etc) and listen to reggae etc. So if a cool religion is what you are after, Rastafarianism is the one.

However, if you want truth, you should look elsewhere, namely to JESUS Himself. 

The problem with Rastafarianism is their main doctrine, which is that the late Emperor of Ethiopia, Haille Selassie, or Ras Tafari is or was, they claim, the second coming of Jesus. This is the reason they call themselves Rastas. They allegedly follow him (though it is highly doubtful he smoked marijuana!).

So, for Rastafarianism to be true, that claim needs to be true. However, the claim is balantantly false or mistaken, whatever, it is not true.

It is easy to falsify. JESUS Himself, according to the gospel of Matthew 25 said ...

22 “If those days [the last days] had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

So, according to JESUS Himself, people will try to tell us that JESUS has returned but that we must not believe them. Why? Because when He does return, we will not need anyone to tell us. His coming will not be missed by anyone! "As lightening that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Nobody will need to tell anyone when JESUS returns, when it happens, all will know, there will be no question, no doubt, all will know. In fact, if someone needs to tell you the messiah has bcome, then you know it is not true. This is how we know Rastafarianism is not true.