It’s this kind of thing that reminds me just how freakin’ small we are.


Interactive slide showing the scale of the universe

If you want to read the Genesis of the bible and believe that it literally describes the exact creation of the entire universe – all 14,000,000,000 light-years of it, every galaxy, nebula, black hole, red giant, neutrino, quark, and preon – then that’s totally your choice. Given the information that man has discovered since the time the bible was written, it might be beneficial if you take it with a slight grain of salt. It could be a vast metaphor. It could be completely made up. It could only pertain to our planet, not necessarily the whole universe because we didn’t need to know that at the time. Or let’s say God was transcending the knowledge of the universe into the meager minds of humans 4,000+ years ago – do you think there’s even a slight chance they might have missed 99% of the point, and just paraphrased the best they could?

Anyway, when you’re presented the whole of the known universe in a silly (yet impressive) little internet applet like this, I think it simultaneously brings two things to light:

One: we know for a fact that the universe is bigger and more complex than anything ever imagined by the guys who wrote the bible on dried tree bark. I mean these guys didn’t even have the vague concept of a celestial body, including the one called Planet Earth that they lived on. They had no concept of sub-atomic particles or ultra-violet light waves. So to think this simple explanation of the creation of the universe and all complex life on earth, which happens in just a few pages, can word-for-word accommodate for all that we know exists is kinda silly.

Two: I think by illustrating how much we know about the universe, it also illustrates how much we DON’T know about the universe. As I’ve discussed before, the human perception and comprehension of our reality is pretty limited. We only exist in 4 dimensions: length, height, width, and time. And we can’t even control anything about that last one, we’re just along for the ride. Yet we know there are countless other dimensions that are provable mathematically, that actually do exist, yet we will never be able to experience. At the smallest end of that “scale of the universe” chart is the theoretical quantum string. Who’s to say this isn’t exponentially more enormous than truly the smallest bit of matter, or that it doesn’t continue shrinking to infinity? And neutrinos… what the HELL are those things? They travel through matter at the speed of light and actually go back in time. All the time, everywhere, right now, as you’re reading this.

Who’s to say there isn’t something tying together every sub-atomic particle in the universe, perhaps even an intelligence that exists in every point and dimension simultaneously? If it all exists now, it had to have been created from somewhere, but who or what created it? God? Chaos?

Who. The. Fuck. Knows.

I think the concept of God goes beyond any scientific concept or theory human beings could ever dream about. And yet science has shown us innumerable things that every religion in existence fails to mention. It’s a toss-up, folks. So take your pick, and be very happy with it. But it’s not advisable to proclaim that your choice is the “truth”. It’s more like “the best conclusion you could come up with based on the evidence you were given.”

Creationist logic

There’s a lot I don’t care for about the logic process of creation scientists. I think the bible is a wonderful history book in so many ways, but on the surface, much of it seems very questionable and requires research to get your brain around. It also requires – get ready for the cliché – a leap of faith.

I’m reading the book of Genesis right now, and it’s really hard to take a lot of that stuff at face value. I’ve only gotten through about chapter 10 (the story of the Tower of Babel), and I had to stop reading and start doing some research. The general core of the story contradicts almost everything we know about the history of our planet as a celestial body and the fossil record of life on our planet. When reading about what different creationists have to say about the archeological evidence that supports these biblical stories, it seems they’re looking at the equation backward, and I can’t say I’m comfortable with that. Let me elaborate.

Let’s say you’re trying to determine where the origin of the human species came from. You would examine all available evidence that you’re capable of collecting (which is limited by the technology available to you), and that would help you determine the answer to your question. Evidence + More evidence = X.  Where “X” is the variable, the missing information that you don’t know, or in this case, the origin of the species. In other words, you look at all the things you know are true to help you answer the question that’s unknown.

The creationist logical process seems to be the reverse of this. They may have the same equation, Evidence + More evidence = X, but in this case, their answer is ALWAYS the same. X = God. So they work backward from their constant answer, only to look over the evidence to find the bits of information that best fit their already predetermined answer. Here’s an example of this:

The creationist answer to the origin of the human species is that God created two human beings: Adam and Eve. And the two of them were responsible for eventually creating every human being alive today. This act was pretty much repeated after the Flood, when Noah and his wife, three sons, and their wives were allegedly the only living humans. And they again were blessed with the task of kicking out babies and ancestoring everyone alive today. And since the bible MUST be the 100% infallible, perfect truth (otherwise the entire faith falls apart instantly) the answer to the question of the origin of the species must be God. And then the creationist must work backward over the evidence available and try to find pieces that fit this predetermined answer. However, innumerable glaring problems erupt from this equation immediately, incest being the most obvious. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters (only a handful of which are mentioned by name), which means if those children were to eventually reproduce they would have to do it with each other, or with their parents. Yes, that means you have sex with your brother, sister, mom, or dad, and bear their children. Offspring born from that close of a gene pool have almost inevitable chances of congenital deformity, and many would be instantly fatal. Let alone if this process were to be repeated for thousands of generations. We know this for a very certain fact.


There’s of course the question of the actual origin of life and the evolution of humans from more primitive forms of life. Unfortunately we don’t have evidence of the actual act of spontaneous creation and then reproduction of a single-celled organism, and the concept is actually quite theoretical. However we do have quite a bit of evidence of species development over time through the fossil record. So a bit of holes here, however the scientific version of the equation still has the unbiased “X” at the end, hoping to fit together any and all available evidence to answer the unknown. Where the creationist already has answered “X” as “God”, and then selectively chooses their evidence trying to make the answer fit.

Now I do honestly feel that so much of the bible is metaphoric in ways that we may never understand, or so much of history has been condensed into a few short sentences that, at face value, makes no sense. It would be like taking the last 100 years of history, and summarizing with the sentence “There were great wars, and man learned to speak words over thousands of miles without a sound.” Or it’s like waking up from a dream that could have lasted an hour, but you only remember one or two completely disparate details and find yourself incapable of making any sense of it. But the way I feel about the creationist way of pre-supposing God as the answer to every mystery of the bible just to have it make sense doesn’t make me that comfortable.

Noah is kind of a douche

Genesis spends several chapters talking about the heroic work of Noah with his whole ark-building business, collecting and housing every animal on the planet for several months while God washed the entire world away, then repopulating the earth full of humans with just him, his wife, and his sons and their wives. Sure there are innumerable logistical problems with this story – actually finding and keeping every species of animal in one place for that long, repopulating the earth with such a small gene pool (which means he had to get it on with his son's hot wives, go Noah), no fossil record of a true global-wide flood (though much evidence does exist of catastrophic floods in many parts of the world), etc. Nonetheless, the Bible spends a good amount of precious scripture telling us the noble tale of how Noah was single-handedly responsible for continuing life on earth.

However, ironically in the final chapter of Noah's bold life, he gets drunk on wine from grapes that he grew and passes out naked on the floor of his tent. And when his sons find him there, they are kind enough to cover him with a sheet, all the while keeping their back to him to respect their father and not gawk as his old wrinkly naked drunk ass on the floor. And what does he do in return? Gets pissed and curses his grandchild Canaan to be a slave to his sons for the rest of this life. Thanks Grandpa, I was in the yard shooting marbles during your happy hour and now I'm a slave to my dad and uncles forever.

And apparently nothing else worthy of mention happens in Noah's life for the next THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS until he finally dies.

Not quite sure why this last story was so important that Moses and his scribes included it in the holy scripture, and it was copied down meticulously hundreds of times by the highest of Hebrew scholars for 2000 years, so that we could read about Noah saving the world, then being a drunk old fart.

Still searching...

First I’d like to say that my lack of posts recently has been a bit of a downer to me, and I apologize to any who have been frequenting my site and reading my humble insights only to find the same posts staring at you for weeks on end. My newly forming art career has taken much of my time and mindshare, and it’s been hard to find the time and concentration to post regularly. That doesn’t imply however that my search is over, or there aren’t a thousand ideas in my head all day long about God and the universe. Just the opposite in fact. Anyway, rather than trying to put together perfectly organized, well-researched, and very time-consuming posts, I’ve decided to make it more of a stream of consciousness, a place for me to simply share my thoughts and feelings. And anyone wants to present some research to either back up or refute my thoughts, then please do.

I’ve lately been spending a lot of my driving time to and from work listening to podcasts or videos on the internets, thanks to the wonders of the iPhone 4. It’s an endless sea of arguments, discussions, debates, and seminars for and against Christianity, or any religion for that matter. And it’s great for stirring up fodder for some new blog posts. And saves time on my “research” for certain facts when talking about a topic. Hopefully this will allow me to post much faster, since I might be able to recall ideas or evidence from memory, rather than constantly researching while I’m writing. I also might take the liberty to spontaneously share an idea I’ve had, with no argument being made, something that I am sometimes hesitant to do.

Anyway, thank you for all for reading, and I hope to share more thoughts and insights more often.

Using the Bible to prove itself

I’d like to address an argument that I hear often about the credibility of the bible. Many people assert that the bible’s credibility about so many events (such as fulfilled prophesies, the life/death/resurrection of Jesus, etc) is non substantial because there exist few extra-biblical sources of these alleged supernatural events. Not to say that the historical events in the bible didn’t happen, i.e. the Jewish exile from Jerusalem. But to use the prophesies made in the bible to prove events recorded later in the same work is considered by many a circular argument. In other words, using the bible to prove itself is a weak argument.

However I would like to present this idea. The bible itself is not one book, but a collection of 66 different books, written by 44 different authors, over a period of 1500-2000 years. It is a compilation of volumes assembled into one book over a period of time, first the Old Testament as the standard Jewish bible before the birth of Jesus, and later the New Testament about 400 years later due to the efforts of the Roman emperor Constantine, the council of Nicaea, etc. I believe if one book asserts a certain bit of information, and a different book written by a different author in a different time period verifies that information, that is a valid comparison.

That would be like people claiming the same facts in different issues of Time Magazine, written by different authors decades apart, are not substantial because they both appeared in Time Magazine. Assembling the books into a compilation doesn’t discredit the information one bit.

And if you’re wondering about the variations of the text that could have taken place over time (mistranslations, deliberate editing, the game of telephone that changes as the story is re-told a thousand times), after studying much about the ancient Jewish culture, it seems this is considerably unlikely or virtually non-existent. The ancient Hebrews took their culture very seriously – and very meticulously. Before the texts were actually written down and were passed on by word of mouth, it was frowned upon to alter the core of the story in any way. Slight details and nuances were acceptable to change, depending on the characteristics of the storyteller, but the core work was always intentionally kept intact. And they had their entire population telling the same stories, so any variations would have been noted and corrected simply by the vast amounts of people who already knew the correct story.

And once the text was finally written down in the original Hebrew or Aramaic (Old testament) or original Greek (New testament), only the most educated scribes were tasked with meticulously transcribing every character. And the review process was exhaustive, so that there was a near 100% accuracy of each new text. Even if one character was found to be erroneous, the entire text was thrown out and destroyed. Not to mention that every time the endless oceans of Middle Eastern sand cough up an older version of any part of the bible, the accuracy compared to the previously older versions is near 100%.

So with all that, I think that it is a valid argument to use different books of the bible, written by different authors at different time periods, to prove facts or assertions also found within the bible.

Jesus apologetics

Regardless of my lack of posting on this blog, my religious search has far from ended. Even with my new and very time-consuming artwork endeavors that have used much of my time and mental resources, I am still always seeking out new information, trying out new experiences, and asking questions. One habit I’ve developed since getting an iPhone is finding interviews and lectures on youtube to listen to while driving to/from work. Fantastic way to spend a boring 30+ minute drive. Found a really good lecture the other day on proving the Jesus story, which gives insightful details into the Jewish culture, fleshes out much of the context of gospels themselves, and compares Christian beliefs to other religions. There are 7 parts, but they're pretty short. I found it was very worth time spent. Just FYI, the last video is a little worship-y (especially when the piano comes in), but I guess that’s to be expected from a Christian apologetics topic. Otherwise it’s very intelligently argued.

Jesus Apologetics: part 1, Why believe?


Part 2: Legend


Part 3: Story, lie


Part 4: Gospels contradict


Part 5: No corroborating evidence


Part 6: Miracles


Part 7: Ending

Eat or be eaten

I think about the food chain a lot. I know people who span the entire spectrum of vegan and carnivorous lifestyles. Among political and economic issues, a big concern for vegans and veggies seems to be that they don't want to take the life of an animal for their own eating pleasure. And some carnivores are quite proud of their position at the filet-mignon-eating end of the food chain. However there is still one thing they both have in common: they have to kill if they want to eat. In fact, the same goes for every living organism on the planet. In order for any form of life to survive, it must constantly end the life of other organisms and ingest their bodies.

Even a level-five vegan (you know, someone who doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow) still, at every meal, kills and consumes other living organisms. Theirs just happen to be plants that don't seem to care or fight back. However, ironically enough, plants themselves could technically be considered the most carnivorous of us all. Because what else is good black soil but the massive decomposing graveyard of billions of organisms. Plants could even be said to eat people, if one of them has access to our yummy body as we turn back into soil. They could also be considered cannibals, if you consider the fact that they absorb the remnants of their own fallen flowers and leaves.

I guess I'm not really arguing a point here, just throwing out a perspective on an unavoidable truth: death is an absolute necessity for life to survive. And it's a beautiful thing, because we are a part of that circle. And the tragedy of death is completely relative. If it's your father, you could be devastated. If it's a deer you killed in the woods so your family can eat and survive the freezing winter, you could rejoice. If it's a cute fluffy white bunny rabbit that got torn to pieces and eaten by a pack of ravenous wolves, you could feel sad. But hey, those wolves are rejoicing.

It's safe to say that we humans have more control over when and how we die than any other species of life on this planet, but it's still just cleverly delaying the inevitable of course. And all life is designed at its core to avoid death as long as possible, so let's face it - death is by far the most fearful experience we will ever endure or witness. Most of us are spared the terror of dying in the jaws of another animal, but that's how most of life on this planet gets to spend their last few moments, so we should consider ourselves lucky.

I think the only thing that makes death bearable for some people is the possibilities of where we could end up when we discorporate from this pile of ripe yummy meat. For some, it brings them hope and calm when none can be had. Whether it's true or not, none of us truly know for sure what happens after we die, so I say let people embrace their hope. Because who the hell are we to know death well enough to say they're wrong.

Anyway it's unavoidable. One day you will die. And then you will be eaten. So smile, order up another juicy prime rib, and enjoy your life. And praise Jesus if you want. Or don't.