Secularists are fond of claiming the mantle of science in their discussions with believers. One can often hear derision dripping from their words, the frustration felt over dealing with such “primitive” beliefs. Science and progress go hand in hand, they assure us, toward a future in which the “evils” of religion will be replaced by an age of enlightenment and reason. If only it were that easy. A spirited exchange to a recent post included a variety of such challenges. For instance, in arguing against the possibility of miracles, the challenger claimed:
By definition, if these laws of physics or physical constants are broken, then they are no longer constants, they are no longer laws.
If it were possible for God to interfere with any event in the physical universe, it would imply that God was in fact physical and in that universe. Otherwise, laws of physics would be broken. Thus, God cannot affect the physical world.
This is sloppy thinking, which a moment’s reflection will easily demonstrate. God - if he exists at all - is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. There is no power he lacks, no knowledge he fails to possess, no ability that eludes him. Yet, the challenger assumes that, after setting in motion rules for his creation, he would be bound by them; unable to affect them. But upon what is this assumption based?
Consider: a computer programmer can write a program in which he embeds various laws or rules. Those rules will apply consistently – unless of course he allows for the rules to be suspended. What this means in essence is that the primary rule – the one that we usually observe – is subject to a greater law or rule – the one that overrides the general or usual rule. What would stop the programmer from doing this? Could the subject of his rules challenge him for being inconsistent? Even if this fictitious programmer created artificially intelligent beings, they would not even become aware of his existence unless he wanted them to be; and then, only to the extent that he wanted them to become aware. He could do what he wanted with his rules and no one would ever know.
The challenger, in claiming that violations of laws such as gravity are not possible, is simply conceding that he has not yet fully grasped the conception of God. For if he were truly considering, through the use of reason and experience, a being capable of willing into existence a universe of this size, power and complexity – simply by thinking it – then creating exceptions to his rules would not pose a challenge.
To this the challenger will cry foul. You can't, he may claim, depart from the observed rules by invoking other "god of the gaps" rules. This would make a mockery of science. But if there is no God to provide order - to ground the rules - why should I believe that science has anything to teach? Science is simply measuring observations; I must first believe that a rule of consistency applies, so that making observations is worth the effort. The challenger's unstated assumption- "there can be no exceptions to the rules I observe" - has no weight unless something lies behind the rules, ready to enforce them or give them consistency. If atheism is true, then we could have no confidence in even our thoughts about rules.
The challenger went on, referring to the Bible:
This is a book that makes people believe that the laws of physics can be broken, that people can walk on water, turn water into wine, build an Ark to house every animal, rise from the dead, the existence of ghosts, souls, an afterlife, etc, etc.? How can you have an intellectual discussion with someone who uses a rule book that's so disprovable?
Disprovable? Really? And how would one go about disproving that someone could walk on water? Is this not based on a presupposition that observed laws of nature always apply? But why should someone believe that? Well, if the universe were designed that way, that would be a sufficient reason. But the atheist rejects the possibility of such a designer. Does he not have to concede, then, that he has no basis for believing that the laws we observe are uniform? What has he done to examine every instance - past, present and future - in which any particular law operates.
The challenger is correct, of course, in concluding that proof of God’s existence does not prove that the God of the Bible is he. That much is true. But recognizing the existence of God is a better starting point than by beginning with the conclusion that God is not even possible.
Posts
103 comments:
How much of this is based on definition of terms? When I say that I do not believe in evolution, I get accused of not believing in "science". In the purest form, evolution is not science because it is not repeatable, observable, testable, measurable and so forth. It is philosophy that is based on science.
So often, alleging that "science" disproves the Bible or the existence of God requires a boatload of presuppositions and philosophy. Claims about God, the origin of the universe &c take science into a realm of philosophy where it is not comfortable.
Copies of this lecture can be obtained by sending 5 USD to...
How do you test & measure God or love or hate? Litmus paper & beakers? Some truth doesn't fit in a lab.
I believe you misunderstand the definition of atheism. "Theism" is a belief god/gods. "A-theism" is simply a LACK of belief in god/gods. Atheists give many reasons for their lack of belief, and science is just one of many tools that are used to back up a skeptical worldview. Science does not have to prove atheism. It is YOU who must prove the extraordinary claims. And sir, you do not, nor have any of your compatriots.
Wrong, Christie. You shift the burden of proof for the illogical universal negative. Worse, you select the LATEST definition of atheism. I've encountered atheist agnostics, atheists who believe that there is no God (the classic definition), your definition. No good.
Did your own 'lack of belief' cause you to post your attempt to correct people?
"In the purest form, evolution is not science because it is not repeatable, observable, testable, measurable and so forth."
Not true. Evolution has been observed, measured and tested. It is a well-established scientific principle, just like gravity and photosynthesis.
Atheism is a logical conclusion based on the complete lack of evidence for the existence of deities.
"Not true. Evolution has been observed, measured and tested. It is a well-established scientific principle, just like gravity and photosynthesis."
I have yet to see any of that. If this were so, then it would be a fact, not a bad hypothesis.
"Atheism is a logical conclusion based on the complete lack of evidence for the existence of deities."
So, you're smarter than millions of people who believe in a higher power, and the Christians who have been scientists, past and present?
You have made two assertions based entirely on opinion and faith, not fact.
Excuse me, I have to go bury a few bone fragments and then "discover" them. Right after I get done gluing some Peppered Moths down to "prove" the "fact" of evolution, even though a "fact" does not need help through fraud.
It's not a matter of faith vs science. It's a matter of which worldview, Christianity or Atheism, fits the reality of the world around us. Christianity doesn't reject science at all and Christians should always look first for a natural explaination and then to a supernatural explanation not vice versa. God created nature so to seek natural solutions first is perfectly within the Christian worldview. However, it's when natural explanations don't fit the reality that supernatural explanations should be sought.
For example we don't observe anything in nature being created from nothing, therefore it's perfectly rational and reasonable to seek a supernatural explanation. In the case of evolution the best explanation for the evidence we observe is design and creation not chance and random mutation. Micro-evolution we observe, macro-evolution we do not.
HotHerdBoy - What specifically has been observed, tested, and measured with regard to evolution? I'm not aware of any macro-evolution that has been observed. Please explain as I may not be aware of all the evidence.
Sorry, I misspelled HotNerdBoy's id.
What I see here is whole bunch of opinion about not about science, but people's belief systems. You can take just about any subject and find 2 people who will draw different conclusions from the same evidence. I have no trouble with science and it doesn't contradict my faith. As a Christian do I have all the answers - no. Does science have all the answers - no. The Atheist will say don't worry Science will eventually figure it all out and th Christian will say don't worry God will explain it all eventually. The Atheist riducles the Christian for their simplist belief's and the Christians can't beleive the Atheists are so blind.
This is not science - this is opinion and it is my expeience that most people are only interested in that which supports their own position. This is the same for Christian and Atheist alike. This creates the standard my your an idoit type of posts that prove nothing but serve to entrench each person more firmly in their worldview.
To truly want to to seek the truth you must be willing to do more that simple support your own current position.
apologies for so many typo's must be late. ;)
Ok, I'm going to address several points but I'm not going to take the time to block quote. I'm speaking to all of the Christians here about general themes that seem present in your arguments.
1) Burden of proof - I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here. Claiming that there is no good evidence for a god is a negative claim. It doesn't make any positive statements about the world other than the admission to being ignorant of any good reason to think otherwise.
As evidence is presented, it is evaluated, and it's always found lacking; at least in my 20 years of investigation. I'm under no more obligation to prove there's no god than I am to prove there's no leprechauns.
2) The argument of Mass Appeal / Antiquity - It doesn't matter how many people believe something and for how long. If it did, Christianity would be among the least likely of world religions to be true because it can't even count a full third of the world's population as believers. As far as age is concerned, The Jews, Hindus and Buhhdists got you covered there too. Christianity is the 2nd youngest of the worlds major religions next to Islam.
Before Copernicus, the vast majority of the world believed that the sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth. It was a reasonable assumption given what they knew about the world; they thought they lived on a fixed plane and that it was obviously the center of everything since all other heavenly bodies appeared to move. It was a belief born of ignorance that took 100's of years to mostly shatter and disabuse people of. The same could just as easily be true of the belief in deities.
So stop responding that common belief is evidence of anything, because it's not. cont...
cont...
3) Citing the bible as evidence or using biblical passages in a debate about the existence of god is equally useless. It was a book written by people generations removed from the actual historical events they wrote about, nothing more. There is no doubt it's a powerful book with a lot of history, but so is Homer's Illiad. The eloquence or wisdom contained within is counterbalanced by the ugliness it exudes. If anything, it's an interesting insight in to the minds of 1800 year old sheep herders, but it's no guide for modern living. It certainly doesn't contain any deeper truth about the true nature of the universe.
4) When I say I want evidence, I want to see a documented, studied instance where the natural laws of the universe, as science understands them, have clearly been suspended. If there's a natural explanation that fits the evidence equally well, I'm sorry but it has to win out until something comes along to disprove it as a working hypothesis.
This is what Christians can not provide. They try and make scientific arguments and fail, and inevitably have to reduce it down to faith. Well like Mark Twain said, "faith is believin what ya know aint so"
Atheism is not a faith position; it's the position of one who's yet to be convinced and who is still entertaining evidence from all quarters. Show me convincing evidence and I will change my mind, and this holds true for all miraculous claims. I'll believe people are being kidnapped by aliens when I see some convincing evidence of it, same with big foot and the lochness monster. I'll change my mind about quantum physics when someone performs an experiment that is replicated and confirmed that disproves the standard model.
I stopped believing in string theory several years ago, because there's no evidence for it. I don't believe in any of the leading cosmological theories, but I think some of them are more likely to be true than others.
I accept evolution because of the mountain of empirical data and the amazing predictions that only it could have made, like the inheritable mechanism that later came to be known as DNA. The fact that mitochondrial studies alone confirm evolution should put the debate to rest until evolution by natural selection is falsified.
5) Please learn what the difference between a theory and a hypotheses is. A theory is a framework for understanding, not a guess or a conjecture. Theories put evidence in to perspective and give us new avenues to pursue experimentally.
Some thoeries are more explanatory than others. Some explain nothing, predict nothing and are not testable. Those theories don't get much attention, but the major theories that have amazing explanatory power, that fit all of the evidence and that make confirmable predictions over and over again while withstanding never ending attempts at falsification, those are theories that science rests it's hat on, and will until the day they are falsified.
Erik:
1) There is no good reason to suspect that leprachuans exist. By contrast, there is ample reason to conclude that God must necessarily exist. There are over 15 such proofs, all relying on observations from our senses and reason, which in combination meet our burden of proof. Your appeal to the leprachaun may be clever, but it has no relevance to the issue we're discussing.
2) You are right that Mass Appeal is not highly probative for most things. But does it not strike you as odd that the vast majority of all who have ever lived, including some of the finest scientific minds, have concluded that some Creator must necessarily exist? Do you think that just maybe your conclusions are being driven by something other than logic and reason?
3) You are correct that the Bible cannot be used to "prove" that God exists. But then, it's not needed to do so, as the other proofs are more than adequate. You are mistaken in suggesting that people wrote it several generations later, as if it were a myth. There is abundant corroboration that whatever happened 2000 years ago had a profound effect on a powerless, small group of followers who, somehow, managed to change the entire course of history. We even number the years from his birth. You may choose to disbelieve, but to pretend that Christianity is some "ancient myth" is simply not accurate factually or historically. Like your leprachaun analogy, it seeks simply to mislead.
4)Your "faith" in evolution is puzzling. Where did the information in DNA come from? the laws of nature which caused it to assemble? What caused it to organize in the way it did? How did life emerge from nonlife? Consciousness from emptiness? Unimaginable complexity from simplicity? Sexually reproducing warm blooded mammals from protozoans? I wish I could have that much faith in a theory.
Al,
1. "There are 15 such proofs..." I don't believe there are, show me one.
2. No it doesn't strike me as odd. I see it as the psychology of the fear of death and the will to survive. We're evolutionary creatures after all, avoiding death is something all living things strive to do as a prerequisite, consciousness brings that innate desire to continue to live, breed and prosper to new levels where the psychological ramifications should be profound, even profound enough to cause "the vast majority of people including science's brightest minds" to cling to the comforting belief in eternal life.
I may not get to responding to 3 and 4 tonight. There's a lot wrapped up in there and I need a certain amount mental acuity (not present at the moment) to be sure I am clear and thorough in my responses.
Erik
What is one of most convincing pieces of data from the mountains of empirical data for evolution?
@Eric,
The fossil record, the discovery and further study of DNA, experiments with bacteria, the fact that it's never been falsified despite clear and easy ways to do so, the fact that we see great variation between geographically isolated areas...
Any of the above would be enough, taken together it's undeniable.
@ Al
3. The earliest estimates for when the first books of the NT were beginning to be written is some 70 years after the death of Jesus.
While there is some legitimate debate about whether Jesus was one man or a collection of stories about several men roaming the middle east at the time, I tend to take it on face value that the man actually existed. The supernatural claims made related to his existence are a wholly different matter.
Again though "We even number the years from his birth...", so what? Another argument from mass appeal. So we're left with the relics of the extreme power of religion from 1600 years ago, I don't see how that's relevant.
"There is abundant corroboration..." ummm, no there isn't. As compared to other contemporary historical figures there is actually very little written outside the bible about Jesus. The bible makes reference to historical events that happen to be true in some cases, but there is almost nothing written about Jesus outside of that context.
There are other individuals from about the same time in history for which there are thousands of independent sources of confirmation.
4. Accepting something provisionally based on strong evidence of it's veracity is the exact opposite of faith, which requires one to believe despite the existence of evidence.
I accept evolution because that's where all of the evidence points at this time.
"Where did the information in DNA come from? the laws of nature which caused it to assemble? " Simply put, yes.
"How did life emerge from nonlife?" Not a question the theory of evolution can or tries to answer. That's a different problem in science known as abiogenesis. We don't know the exact mechanisms right now for how the first replicators got started, but we're making headway.
"Consciousness from emptiness? Unimaginable complexity from simplicity?" The emergence of complex systems from simple mechanisms is an entire field of study unto it's self. It involves a lot of mathematics and a deep understanding of physics. It lies at the very edges of our scientific understanding.
Science not having certain answers is no reason to suppose a supernatural explanation. There is a huge leap from "We don't know exactly what kick started life" to "God did it, and I'm going to live forever in his kingdom"
Erik
Can we just start with the first one, the fossil record? What specificially in the fossil record shows evolution is true? There is an amazing lack of transitionary fossils and the cambrian explosion certainly doesn't support a slow transitionary phase of life development. Most life forms appear in the fossil record as complete and fully formed.
I won't touch DNA yet or the others on your list just yet but will certainly be willing to work through those as well one at a time after the we discuss the fossil record.
I do have one more question for you though. What evidence would it take for you to believe in the existence God?
Erik:
1) There are proofs from causation, design, the existence of morality, the existence of anything, the ontological proof, etc. They have been discussed for centuries. Here is a link that outlines them:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#13
You are free, of course, to dismiss them. But taking the position that there is no basis to conclude that God must admit is more of an admission that you really haven’t considered the arguments. I suspect nothing short of a personal revelation from God to you would satisfy you.
2) That we all seek to continue living is no answer at all. Why should that be so? “Evolution” cannot provide an answer; it simply describes what is observed – that a drive to continue living exists and that the fit tend to survive better than the unfit. The point here is that intelligent beings use their senses to gather information about what is around them. From that, they use innate reason to draw inferences to the best explanation. Science can tell you a lot about how things develop; it will never explain origins because it has no mechanism for probing that far. When the vast majority of all who ever lived recognize intuitively the need for a Creator to make sense of creation (note here I speak only of the existence of “a” God), you would be wise to reconsider whether your position is as solidly grounded as you suggest.
3) Numbering the years from his birth is shorthand for realizing the profound impact this belief system had on its followers. Many groups claimed to have had god in their midst. They died out. Christians persisted and eventually changed the world. This doesn’t prove that Christianity is true; I’m not using it for that. I’m responding to your assertion that Christianity is some compilation of prior myths. One example: who do you think Nero was persecuting in 64 AD if Christianity wasn’t “invented” until 100 AD (by your count)?
4) “Accepting something provisionally based on strong evidence of it's veracity is the exact opposite of faith, which requires one to believe despite the existence of evidence.” This is simply false. One example: when I fly on an airplane, I have faith that it will perform as advertised. I don’t “believe despite the existence of evidence.” In fact, quite the opposite is true: the more I learn about the physics of flight and the construction of the airplane, the stronger my faith will be that it is capable of performing its mission. With this view of faith, it is no wonder that you reject the evidence supporting the existence of God and of the resurrection.
No one is making “headway” on abiogenesis. At best, theories will be offered as to how the observed physical laws may have guided the process. But that leaves still the question of who created and set in motion these exquisitely fine-tuned laws. Your argument that science will someday have these answers is an example of the very faith that you decry – science doesn’t have the kind of answers that are needed, because science can only observe what is. It can’t explain the origin of ideas or information. For that, a preceding intelligence is required. There must be an adequate cause for these ideas and information because reason tells us that information comes from an intelligent source. You're hoping that science will explain how non-intelligence -nothingness - created intelligence. Do you not see that the scientific method presupposes that an intelligenct and ordered cause is at work? Otherwise, there would be no point in trying to understand why things are so.
“Science not having certain answers is no reason to suppose a supernatural explanation. There is a huge leap from ‘We don't know exactly what kick started life" to "God did it, and I'm going to live forever in his kingdom’”
Actually, it is every reason to suppose a supernatural explanation. Here’s why: science can’t explain what precedes the physical universe. Science is simply a tool for acquiring knowledge. That’s like asking science to explain science. Or to justify science. Why have “faith” that science can lead to answers. You “trust” that science works because you have certain presuppositions about the orderly nature of the universe and the validity of reason. If you didn’t have those things, you would never conduct experiments and seek to test hypotheses. This realization doesn’t translate into “I’m going to live forever in his kingdom.” It’s not meant to. It translates into realizing that to get answers, we have to ask the right questions.
Wow this is just so much wrong with what both Al and Eric said that I can't even begin to get in to it today. I'm off to a party this afternoon, but I have this bookmarked and I'm sure I'll be plenty bored enough to get back to it tomorrow.
Erik,
My questions were pretty straightforward and I'm just trying to understand your support of evolution based on the actual fossil record.
There is nothing wrong with asking for your self proclaimed "mountations of empirical data". You gave a very general statement that the fossil record supports evolution but then gave no actual evidence from the fossil record. I've studied it some myself and have not found any evidence of transitionary fossils that have been uncovered. If evolution were true we'd expect to find thousands upon thousands of transitionary fossils from one species to another.
The cambrian explosion is something else that evolution can't explain. Millions of fossils and species appear all at once in the fossil history complete and fully formed.
I'm asking to walk through each piece of data that you have starting with one thing, fossil evidence. Which has not proved evolution and is actually a big embarassment to evolution. More and more non-theistic scientists are rejecting evolution as bad science not just theistic scientists. It's because evolution does not explain the empirical evidence. If I'm wrong please present your smoking gun in favor of evolution via the fossil record.
After that I'd be happy to move on to DNA, bacteria (which is micro-evolution within a small range of change not a proof for macro-evolution between species), and anything you have that's heaped on your mountains of empirical data.
Instead of giving me the mountains of empirical data you claim to hold (because there is none, macro-evolution has never been observed)on fossil evidence you've pulled a very typical atheist/naturalist response out and said in effect, "I don't have time for this. I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to provide any evidence or rational arguments to back it up. I'm smarter than you so when I get bored and want to show you how dumb you are I'll come back." Well, that's just not a very solid position in my opinion. It's just poor reasoning and philosophy. Not because I disagree with evolution specifically and atheism in general because disagreeing is fine. It's the attitude that atheists don't have to provide any evidence or good argumentation for their position. And no, I don't expect you to come back with mountains of evidence from the fossil record because it doesn't exist.
@Erik
"3. The earliest estimates for when "the first books of the NT were beginning to be written is some 70 years after the death of Jesus"
That's actually false. Many scholars believe that several of the NT books were written prior to 70 AD. One of the main factors (among others) is because there is no mention of the temple being destroyed and that happened in 70AD 70. This was a major event in Jewish culture and would have been mentioned in at least some of the books had they been written after 70 AD. That puts at least some of the gospels and letters prior to that event. There are other arguments for early datings that you can find on this website should you choose to find more facts.
Why Science Does Not Prove Atheism
Hmmm... A better title might be Why science proves theism. The more we learn about the universe the more well ordered & complex we see that it is. From the cells in our bodies to observing our night sky and all its wonders... it all has the hallmarks of great intelligence and power in its design or in other words God is revealing Himself through His Creation... it’s seems one must close his eyes to all this if he wants to deny God and say” no it’s all just the product of well... were not really sure, but it just can’t be God!”
Science is a great tool for knowledge and the betterment of mankind if used properly. It is a gift from God.. How sad that many try to use it to deny the One who gave us minds to explore and learn.
It’s amazing though how we have minds and intellect to be able to comprehend so much in the first place... it seems even stranger or unbelievable to think it’s all the product of a mindless process called evolution.
Eric,
Your supreme arrogance in demanding that I answer you right this second not with standing, I have a life. I had a very busy weekend but now I have some time to sit down and explain to you how very wrong you are on almost every point you make, so give me about an hour or two to break it down, and yes, I will provide several examples of fossils that are transitional, from among thousands, as I point out your faulty logic.
Oh you know what, screw it, go to a museum. Take a class on evolutionary biology. If you're the type that would deny the evidence for evolution but yet claim to be educated on it, then I already know you're beyond any hope of having a reasonable discussion and I really just don't feel like going down this road again right now.
Hi Erik (trying to remember if I have the right Eric/k!), I know there are a handful of disputable transitional fossils, but where can you direct me to the thousands if not millions of transitional forms there should be if evolution occured.. what museums have them?
I live here in Dublin Ireland and have visited the Natural History Museum and didn't see any transitional fossils.
How many transitional fossils are in your local museum?
@Stormbringer:
Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis. No amount of your trying to frame it otherwise changes that.
It's not that I'm smarter than Christians; it's that I don't rely on faith. There is no evidence that gods exist; therefore, atheism is a logical conclusion. All religious people have faith, which is not logical (since it is not based on evidence).
@Eric: There is a wealth of support for evolution in the scientific literature. A reference Librarian at your local library can connect you with articles.
Biologists make no distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution; those terms were made up by creationists to confuse people. They are the same process. "Micro-" evolution + time = "macro-" evolution.
Re: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Fascinating and flawed arguments. As I have time, I'll refute each one of them.
1) All things change. Outside forces are needed to cause change. The universe is changing. The outside force causing this change is God.
Flaw: The outside forces required for each thing in nature to change are themselves found in nature. The example given is the acorn. It requires time, water and sunlight to change; God is not needed.
So yes, the universe is changing. But the agents of that change are other things in the universe.
2) This is the classic First Cause argument. However, it is logically inconsisent. If everything must have a cause, what caused God? If God can be uncaused, so can the universe.
3) The phrase "from nothing comes nothing" undermines this whole argument. Where did God come from if not nothing? Wherever God came from, the universe can too.
4) This argument relies on "good" to be objective. It isn't; it's subjective. Therefore this argument does not hold water. There is an attempt to address this objection, but it does not make sense.
5) Just because something doesn't happen "by design" doesn't mean it happens "by chance." Things in nature happen through the processes of nature. Some of these processes are random but most are not. This argument is invalid because of this false assumption.
6) We don't know if the universe had a beginning; even Big Bang Cosmology allows for the possibility that the universe has been expanding and contracting in a series of bang/crunches. The fact, we don't know enough about the universe to say if it has a beginning.
Further, if God is infinite, the universe can be too.
7) As with the first argument, all things that cause other things are part of the universe. God is not needed.
8) Complex systems can generate and sustain themselves; there is an emerging field of science dealing with this. So the simple fact that the universe is complex is not an argument for the existence of something supernatural.
Also, this is interesting:
"Nor can the system as a whole explain its own existence, since it is made up of the component parts and is not a separate being, on its own, independent of them"
Two of the previous arguments only work if you take the universe as "a separate being" (as opposed to being made up of component parts). So this argument is actually mutually exclusive with two other ones.
You know, there's a bigger issue here... Even if these arguments pointed to something outside of the universe existing, why would it be the god that the Bible describes? In other words, even if these arguments were all valid, they don't say anything about such a being's attributes; only that it exists. So why should we believe it's Yahweh and not Allah?
"3) The phrase "from nothing comes nothing" undermines this whole argument. Where did God come from if not nothing? Wherever God came from, the universe can too."
God never began to exist he has always existed, he's eternal. He's outside of nature. The universe has not always existed, it had a beginning.
All of your other arguments have been answered time and time again. These are not new points and have been answered by many very good Christian apologists including on this site.
@HotNerdBoy
"You know, there's a bigger issue here... Even if these arguments pointed to something outside of the universe existing, why would it be the god that the Bible describes?"
One step at a time. Saying that God created the universe says nothing about this being the God of the Bible or Quran. If you don't agree that God exists why would anyone want to move into which God we're talking about?
@HotNerdBoy
"There is a wealth of support for evolution in the scientific literature."
Ok, well if you don't have anything specific and talk about one specific piece then I can't know where to begin to discuss it. The fossil record was one place to start and lacking in support of empirical evidence for evolution. I've read a lot and have not seen any transitionary fossils or a plausible explaination for the cambrian explosion and apparently you don't know one either.
"Biologists make no distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution; those terms were made up by creationists to confuse people."
That's simply not true. Any biologist will understand the meaning of micro vs macro. Micro is change within species and macro is change across species. In either case please show where change from one species to another has been observed. The claim was made for mountains of empirical evidence for this and it simply doesn't exist.
@Erik,
"Oh you know what, screw it, go to a museum. Take a class on evolutionary biology. If you're the type that would deny the evidence for evolution but yet claim to be educated on it, then I already know you're beyond any hope of having a reasonable discussion and I really just don't feel like going down this road again right now."
I asked for what specific fossil evidence you had for transitionary fossil and a naturalist explanation for the cambrian explosion. That's not arrogance that's trying to understand your position saying that the fossil evidence proves evolution. You either don't know it or it doesn't exist. But you can't make an extraordinary claim about 'mountains of empirical data' without at least giving some. If you have then give it and we'll discuss it. I'm not the one being unreasonable here.
@Eric:
A search in the Academic Search Complete database using the subject term EVOLUTION (Biology) pulls up over 7000 results. Why would there be that many studies if this wasn't a well-established scientific principle?
"God never began to exist he has always existed, he's eternal. He's outside of nature. The universe has not always existed, it had a beginning."
Actually, we don't know that. Why couldn't the universe be eternal, without the need for gods?
@Eric:
re: which god?
Actually, that's a very relevant question, because you accept one god and reject the rest. If you want me to consider the possibilty that your god exists, shouldn't you be open to the idea that other peoples' gods exist as well?
@Eric:
re: apologetics
Yes, apologietics have answered the objections I raise. None have done so satisfactorily. So if you have nothing new to contribute, I remain unmoved by the "20 arguments."
@Eric:
You seem to be a bit confused on the idea of transitional forms. The fossil record contains lots of them. Here's a search for documents on the topic, published by educational institutions:
http://www.google.com/search?q=transitional+forms+site%3A.edu&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
Erik wrote: "When I say I want evidence, I want to see a documented, studied instance where the natural laws of the universe, as science understands them, have clearly been suspended."
Years ago, I had severe stomach problems. An endoscope revealed that its lining was raw and bleeding and infected with bacteria. Being allergic to antibiotics, I was unable to take anything to rid myself of the infestation and could only suffer. And suffer I did -- until I went to a pastor with a healing ministry. He prayed for me. Instantly, the symptoms of pain, indigestion, etc., were gone.
I had to go for another endoscope a few days later. It showed that the walls of my stomach were healthy and pink. A biopsy found NO bacteria. I asked the doctor how the problem could have cleared up on its own. He said he had no idea.
In terms of the "natural law" re: the bacteria, it would continue to reproduce and plague me without medical intervention. Therefore, the natural law, as science understands it, was suspended -- and I had the lab reports, the pictures, and the doctor's testimony documenting it.
I can give you other examples of medical miracles where science was superseded and where there are MRIs, mammograms, etc. that showed the before and after. I have no trouble believing that we don't live in a closed system with nothing and no one outside of it intervening in our lives. God is there and he's most active in this world.
Mary,
Praise God for His wonderful work in your life. Unfortunately Erik probably still won't believe as very often it’s not a matter of evidence, but the atheist worldview itself. The pre-suppositions of the unbeliever do not allow for God's existence and therefore miracles are out of the question.
Much like the account of the Rich man and Lazarus....
But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.’ Then the rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
@Mary: Are you suggesting that answered prayers are evidence of God's existence? I would be happy to accept that if we could study it scientifically. How would you suggest we design a repeatable, testable hypothesis?
@Eddie:
If there was an all-powerful god, I'm sure he would know exactly what to do to convince me he exists. It's not a matter of rejecting evidence; it's that there is no evidence to begin with. The best believers have is anecdotes like Mary's.
@ HotNerdBoy,
God does not have to show anyone that He exists, but in His goodness He already has already made Himself known and that in many ways. But if you got the “evidence” you are looking for would you really believe? and furthermore would you really put your trust in Him?
@Eddie:
Yes. Absolutely. If you could show me objective, compelling, irrefutable evidence that gods exist, I would be happy to believe in them.
So if your god wants people to believe in him, why doesn't he show himself? Or at least provide some shred of evidence that he exists? Why would he not want to do that?
Oh, and by "God has made Himself known," are you referring to the Bible? I assume you believe in Zeus as well, since He made Himself known through the works of the ancient Greeks?
Dave,
Just look at the obvious brilliant ingenuity of the inner workings of a blood cell. Marvel at the exquisite fine tuning of the universe. Ask yourself... if you believe in naturalism how a mindless process of evolution brought forth your mind and intelligence.
The evidence is all around you for a Creator.
But who is this Creator?, Jesus Christ confirmed His Deity by rising from the dead confirmed by many eye witnesses... and further confirmed through the rapid expansion of Christianity even though a persecuted minority to begin with. He is the Creator and known to them who have made Him their Lord and Saviour.
It’s not the evidence that’s the problem it’s your pre-suppositions bound up in a worldview that excludes the supernatural.
I admire your” faith...”! For to me to believe the universe and the human race came about from nothing is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
If you can’t explain why everything exists and why life itself is so incredibly irreducibly complex... why rule out God? When you look at a car, a building etc you know there is a designer behind it, but why do rule out a Designer for things that are so much more complex?
BTW. Zeus didn’t rise from the dead confirmed by eye witness testimony.
Yes, the natural world is beautiful, complex and impressive. How is that evidence for the existence of gods?
Are you suggesting that the writers of the Gospels were there to see Jesus rise from the dead? I'm interested in exploring this, if it's the "evidence" you're providing.
No, the problem is not presupposition, it's lack of evidence; you still haven't provided any.
Where I did claim to know where the universe came from? The fact that I didn't undermines your claim that my worldview relies on faith; it does not.
When I look at a car, I can see that a human being designed it, because we have seen human beings design cars. No one has ever seen a being create a universe from nothing, so your analogy doesn't work.
I rule out gods for the same reason I rule out unicorns; there's no evidence to support their existence.
Oh, I'm sorry for the confusion; I must have been signed in to multiple Google accounts. Dave and HotNerdBoy are the same person.
Hi NotNerdBoy,
Tell me then what caused the universe to begin? And how do you get life from non-life?
When you say the problem is not presupposition... I think you’re wrong. For when you look at life or the universe you pre-suppose it came about by naturalistic means even though you haven’t seen this or can prove it. And you say it’s not presuppositions!
Whether you know it or not you really do have your pre-suppositions and your pre-suppositions make up your worldview,
Think of it this way it’s like wearing mental glasses and depending on which glasses you look through you will evaluate the evidence... I have a Christian worldview and I evaluate evidence in light of my Christian worldview. But a worldview isn’t necessarily wrong as long as one can rationally account for it.
I think you take morality, knowledge, reason, beauty for granted. But according to an atheistic worldview these things cannot be accounted for.
Some examples... You said the world is beautiful, but is anything inherently beautiful in your worldview... or is it the neurons firing in your brain making you think something is beautiful.
Therefore to say the world is beautiful is according to your worldview irrational.
I mean you pre-suppose things or people can be beautiful but you can’t account for it, for what makes anything beautiful.... for something to be recognised as been inherently or objectively beautiful it must have transcendent value that makes it beautiful in and of itself.
Is Mozart’s music objective beautiful and if so what makes it so... I hope you get my point!
You believe you evolved from pond scum I assume, and this happened through a mindless process... so how do you know your mind can process information properly... you have already pre-supposed this, but you can’t account for it.
The worldview with God (not gods) as Creator is the only worldview that can account for things most of us take for granted. Your worldview as I’ve said cannot account for so much in our everyday experiences.
The historical evidence for the truth of Christianity is excellent, and made sure when one receives Christ as Saviour as He reveals Himself to them through the Holy Spirit.
But if you pre-suppose naturalism you will straight away evaluate the evidence for Christianity in light of this and therefore dismiss the miracles that are intrinsic and at the heart of the Christian message... especially the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.
So it’s no wonder you say there’s no evidence for God and I think there is ample great evidence for God and Jesus Christ as been raised from the dead.
But whose worldview can account for reason, knowledge and ultimately for ascertaining the truth... It is the worldview that has the biblical God as Creator of the Universe.
"Tell me then what caused the universe to begin?"
We don't know the universe had a beginning.
"And how do you get life from non-life?"
I'm afraid I am not familiar with the processes of abiogenesis (I'm not a biologist). I'm sure if you did a search of the scientific literature using that term, there would be lots of information for you.
"For when you look at life or the universe you pre-suppose it came about by naturalistic means"
Right, because naturalistic means are the only means. There is no evidence that anything supernatural exists.
"I think you take morality, knowledge, reason, beauty for granted. But according to an atheistic worldview these things cannot be accounted for."
I have no idea what you mean by this, and your explanation doesn't make sense. You seem to be suggesting that atheists don't experience these things in the same way you do, and I'm not sure how you're arriving at that.
I am glad you asked about Mozart though, since music is my field of expertise. His music is considered beautiful to our ears because of his pleasing and inventive uses of melody and harmony. However, it probably would not be beautiful to someone raised in another country who has no experience with Western music. Beauty in music is culturally relative, not objective.
"You believe you evolved from pond scum I assume, and this happened through a mindless process"
Why do you assume that? I made no such claim.
"The worldview with God (not gods) as Creator..."
Why not gods? If you're asking me to be open to the possibility that your god exists, shouldn't I keep an open mind about the rest of them?
"The historical evidence for the truth of Christianity is excellent"
Let's see it, then. You didn't answer my question about whether you think the Gospel writers witnessed Jesus rising from the dead.
"So it’s no wonder you say there’s no evidence for God and I think there is ample great evidence for God and Jesus Christ as been raised from the dead."
I'm still waiting for you to provide this evidence. Evidence is something that can be shared with others. So let's see it, if it's that overwhelming.
HotNerdboy,
There is more than enough evidence on the PCM web-site alone for the truth of Christianity.
I also to my mind don’t think there is any biologist who can explain or give proof of how life originated, but again you are ruling out any supernatural activity due to your naturalistic pre-suppositions.
You said... I have no idea what you mean by this, and your explanation doesn't make sense. You seem to be suggesting that atheists don't experience these things in the same way you do, and I'm not sure how you're arriving at that.
No I never said atheist don’t experience these things the way Christians do... what I said was how do you account for them according to your worldview.
Here’s another example... How do you account for absolute morality or do you even believe in absolute morality? Is it always right or wrong to do certain things? One prominent atheist Richard Dawkins says there is no good or evil just blind pitiless indifference... I think he is consistent with his worldview, but many atheists believe that certain behaviours are good or evil and nearly everyone acts as if there is. But if God does not exist how can this be? It’s just one person’s arbitrary feelings over another person’s feelings and likes or dislikes... so how can an atheist say there is good and evil? Many atheists pre-suppose these things. but cannot account for them.
You said... “His music is considered beautiful to our ears because of his pleasing and inventive uses of melody and harmony...” So are you saying Mozart music cannot be beautiful in and of itself...? Does it only depend on the processes of our evolved brains making sense of sound waves?
Or if hypothetically speaking everyone in the world where to disappear right now would Mozart’s music cease to be beautiful...?
You said in an earlier comment that the world is beautiful without any qualifiers, but if your brain is evolved from a mindless process and your brain is the judge of what’s beautiful why do you make an absolute statement that the world is beautiful? Again you pre-suppose beauty, but cannot account for it.
You also said..."You believe you evolved from pond scum I assume, and this happened through a mindless process"
Why do you assume that? I made no such claim.
You do believe in evolution don’t you... or if not where do we come from...? I don’t wish to miss-represent you, but the majority of atheists do believe along the lines we came from primordial soup or in other words pond scum. .. but where do you say we came from?
Is the PCM website the one for which I was rebutting each of the points one by one? It should be clear that I am not convinced by that. But, if there's one in particular you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to.
I rule out a supernatural origin for life because there are natural explanations. Again, it's called abiogenesis, and I've told you how you can obtain information on it.
I'm afraid I still don't understand what you mean when you ask me how I "account for" knowledge.
I do not believe in absolutely morality, so arguing from it that God exists is not meaningful to me.
RE: Mozart: I meant exactly what I said, that music is culturally relative; what is beautiful to someone in China may not be to someone in Norway. I can point to objective things that make Mozart's music beautiful in the Western context, but it is not necessarily beautiful in the context of other cultures.
I find the world beautiful; other people may not. It's subjective, not absolute.
Of course I believe in evolution; it is a fact. But evolution doesn't describe how life began, only how it diversified. Again, the term you are looking for is abiogenesis. As much as I love to provide you with all the information you'd like on it, I'm not qualified to do so. Wikipedia's entry on it is probably pretty good; biology encyclopedia would be even better.
In this discussion the question has been raised, "couldn't the universe have existed forever and not had a point of creation, such as the big bang?"
There are several reasons why this cannot be true.
1 - Thermodynamics. Heat flows from warm bodies to cold bodies over time. If the universe had an infinite amount of time measured backwards, then the entire universe would be an even temperature in all places. It is not. Therefore time does not extend infinitely backwards.
2 – The night sky is dark. Assume the following. The universe is infinitely old and infinite in its dimensions. It would follow then that the process of star creation would have gone on forever as well. If that is the case then there must be stars in every direction. Light from these starts has had an infinite amount of time to travel to the earth. Why then is the night sky dark? Even if there were clouds of gas and dust blocking the starlight of distant stars over an infinite amount of time, the light from all these stars would heat the clouds to a point where they would start to give off light themselves. Just as a bar of iron, if heated sufficiently, would glow. Given an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of starts, there is nothing that could prevent it. If the universe had a beginning then there may not have been sufficient time for this to have happened.
3 – Entropy. Order in a closed system tends to chaos. In the closed system of the entire universe we still can differentiate order. If there had been an infinite amount of time then one must either acknowledge a force outside of the universe providing input to order the universe or deny the existence of infinite existence. This outside orderer of the universe might be called … I don’t know… how about “God”?
I also saw some discussion on “all things change”. Really? Let’s discuss some things that don’t change. The speed of light? The gravitational constant? Plank’s constant? The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its radius? Are prime numbers variable?
I’m always intrigued by those that argue that they have an insurmountable mountain of evidence absolutely proving any theory. But when pressed, they cannot show a single example. “I don’t have time for this, you go look for it.” is not a very good argument. If I claimed a mountain of evidence that president Lincoln was killed while spear fishing in the Bahamas by a group of arab linguists, you would say prove it. Show me the evidence. And if I told you to go look it up yourself, I’m too busy, you would rightly conclude that such evidence does not exist. If you make a claim, be prepared to state you evidence for your claim. Assertion is not proof.
HotNerdBoy
You made assertions that you not convinced by certain arguments or that certain things are not meaningful to you.
You are in essence saying that you are able to determine truth. Yet you call evolution a fact and you know your brain is just matter evolved over millions of years through a mindless process... so how do you know your evolved brain can properly make sense of evidence? How do you know your memory is reliable?
If your brain had of evolved differently perhaps your perception of reality would be different right now... so how do you know?
In reality, you say nothing is of inherent beauty... but I truly believe the vast majority of people including atheist would believe their children or wife’s are inherently beautiful... can you picture them telling their wife’s or children you’re not really beautiful, but it’s just the neurons in my brain making me think your beautiful.
Also in your worldview there is no objective right or wrong, no justice, reward or punishment after this short life, no ultimate meaning, just evolved beings through a mindless process who are the ones who determine truth, but then again how can you ever arrive at the truth if this is so?
Furthermore when a parent looks into the smile of their child, do they think it’s this is beautiful only because it’s just a chemical thing in their brain or do they including the atheist conclude there is something objectively beautiful about this apart from the activity of their brain.
Just because someone doesn’t recognise something as objectively beautiful doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
There is real objective beauty in this universe ... but sadly you can’t recognise this as this is irrational according to your worldview.
@Theophilous: What happened prior to the Big Bang?
"There is real objective beauty in this universe ... but sadly you can’t recognise this as this is irrational according to your worldview."
That isn't the reason. I don't recognize objective beauty because it doesn't exist. Yes, a parent no doubt thinks his or her child is beautiful; I might think the child is ugly, though. So your example is still subjective, not objective.
"so how do you know your evolved brain can properly make sense of evidence? How do you know your memory is reliable? "
Because it has shown itself to be reliable on many occasions. I have also determined that I am good at evaluating information. I know these things from experience and empirical observation.
"Also in your worldview there is no objective right or wrong, no justice, reward or punishment after this short life, no ultimate meaning"
Correct
"just evolved beings through a mindless process who are the ones who determine truth, but then again how can you ever arrive at the truth if this is so?"
We are the ones who determine truth? When did I claim that?
Hotnerdboy,
I think you’ve contradicted yourself here and you have also engaged in circular reasoning.
How do you know your memory is reliable? But you said “Because it has shown itself to be reliable on many occasions.” But how do you know if you’re remembering properly as you believe your brain is just a random chemical accident evolved by through a mindless process... to reply in the same way again results in more vicious circular reasoning.
I said "Also in your worldview there is no objective right or wrong, no justice, reward or punishment after this short life, no ultimate meaning"
You said “Correct”.
You paraphrased me in saying “We are the ones who determine truth?”And then said “When did I claim that?” Well just look at the above comment, for you in saying “Correct” you are making a truth claim, you also said in an earlier comment that evolution is a fact. These are truth claims... so in the space of a few comments you are actually contradicting yourself.
In relation to beauty... I would say most atheists feel there is real objective beauty even if they won’t admit it, for I have heard atheists speak on beauty with the sense of objectivity, but it really doesn’t matter what an atheist thinks in regards to this for if his brain is just matter evolved through a random mindless process how does he know if beauty is objective or subjective.
"But how do you know if you’re remembering properly as you believe your brain is just a random chemical accident evolved by through a mindless process"
When did I say my brain was a random chemical accident? I think you're mischaracterizing evolution.
I know from experience that my memory is reliable. How is that circular reasoning?
"These are truth claims... so in the space of a few comments you are actually contradicting yourself."
What did I say that I am supposedly contradicting?
"I would say most atheists feel there is real objective beauty even if they won’t admit it"
I'm not most atheists.
"if his brain is just matter evolved through a random mindless process how does he know if beauty is objective or subjective."
Because my brain works, however it evolved.
You keep using words like "random" and "accident." This shows some confusion about evolution. It's not a "random" process. Genetic mutations occur randomly, but whether or not they survive within a species is not random at all. If they provide an evolutionary advantage, they typically survive; this is natural selection. Mutations that provide no advantage typically die out. So to say that evolution is "random," or to use the word "accident," is to misunderstand how evolution works.
"As much as I love to provide you with all the information you'd like on it, I'm not qualified to do so. Wikipedia's entry on it is probably pretty good; biology encyclopedia would be even better."
I am not aware of any explanation of abiogenesis other then speculation on how it "might" have occured. Some are still based on the Urey-Miller experiment, which is suspect as there is still no consensus on what the atmospheric composition actually was.
I've just started Hugh Ross's More than a Theory. Not sure what his explanation is, yet.
Theories are only good if you can show that it is likely that it is accurate, not just that they are plausibly possible, which is what most abiogenesis explanations I have seen so far appear to be.
@Trent: I assume you would agree that the Christian explanation for how life began would also have to be shown to be likely accurate, rather than just plausibly possible?
Yes, but currently the materialist explanations appear to me little more than a weak effort to say there are other explanations (and to publish papers to get research grants).
To follow the standard materialist position, since they are often contridictory and none can be absolutely proven, they should all be rejected.
You seem to be rubbishing the idea of science.
No. I am very pro science.
All I am saying is that I am applying the same criteria to the competing abiogenesis claims as many materialist apply to religious claims. There is such a proliferation of straw grasping, I think it is more of an effort to prove their worth to their faulty by publishing, than a serious claim to know what really happened.
Publish or perish. The natural selection of the academic world.
I meant faculty, not faulty.
For someone who's pro-science, you certainly seem to be downplaying the value of scholarly publishing.
Your comparison of how science and religion look at each other shows a lack of understanding of science. If there's an internal inconsistence in science, you design new hypotheses and experiments to find out why it's there. You can't do that with religion; since it's teachings are set in stone, you can't test or experiment with them. So if a religion has an internal inconsistency, you can only rationalize it.
Religion, unlike science, collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Sorry, I meant internal inconsistencY
Sorry, the various theories are not refinements based on new evidence.
They are, im my opinion, often based more on proving that you have something new to research worth being funded.
Again, if I follow the materialist logic, the obvious conclusion is that no one has a clue and they are just firing stuff out without anything other than conjecture. Therefore they should all be rejected until there is some thing that is based in scientific consensus that a proper theory can be built on.
Until there is some proof, I consider them in the same range of believability as theories on Alien visitation and Perpetual Motion machines.
To clarify, I do believe in peer review and scholarly publication. However, I feel that the climate to publish, and to seek funding to keep you job, does not always lead to theories that best describe what even the researcher believes.
Once you add money into the mix, the stage changes from the historical gentleman scientist to the capitalistic entrepeneur scientist.
No one has been able to produce a scientific theory that has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community as a genuine theory that appears to answer the outstanding questions. It may be sensational enough to get into
Scientific American and publish a few papers to give the author a bit of street cred. But, if it can't be backed up with experimental evidence, I consider it on par with philosophical musing.
IMHO, too many people can't tell the difference between science and scintific related philosophy. Just because you can talk philosophically about scientific things, doesn't mean that you are doing actual science.
You're entitled to your obvious skepticism about the scientific process. I'm still more willing to trust it than a bunch of ancient writings.
I have no issue with the scientific process. My education was in the science and engineering fields.
I find abiogenesis as an area that is so open that you can make any claim that you want, and unless someone can show a flaw as to why you are definitely wrong, no one can positively prove that you aren't right.
That's how science works. A hypothesis prevails until a better one comes along.
Actually, it isn't.
It only works that way of there is an entrenched model that everyone agrees if most likely the correct option. For example, General Reltivity is the de facto explanation of gravity and is in no danger of losing it's position unless there is another theory that explains more things and includes everything General Relativity explains. The same with Quantum Theory.
Abiogenesis is not like that. What it is is a series of suppositions that haven't been proven false yet, each with a backer who is hoping that if there is ever proof of their idea they might get a Nobel Prize.
Abiogenesis is the biological equivalent of cold fusion in physics. No one knows how it would work, but if you ever figure it out you'll be remembered for centuries.
I guess with your view, it isn't science. I view it as science themed philosophy.
When the only alternative is folktales, I'll take "science-themed philosophy."
Without evidence it is just a modern creation myth, with no more validity than the older ones. Just sounds more sciencey and may be on par with a belief that Battlestar Galactica may have really happened.
I still stand by my assertion that if I accept the materialist view then with multiple competing theories, that are mutually exclusive, all of them should be discounted until there is proof.
Do you accept that view? If not, why do you keep bringing it up?
I stand by my assertion that you seem pretty anti-science for someone who claims to support it.
Abiogenesis isn't science. It is philosophy.
It is an extraordinary claim, being made. I'll consider it when I see extraordinary proof. So far, all I have ever seen is speculation.
Then you're not looking. I have a list of studies in front of me on various concepts related to the origin of life on Earth, including prebiotics and self-replicating polymers. I found them in the Academic Search Complete database, a well-respected source for peer-reviewed material. So I'm afraid your claim that it isn't science is false; I'm looking at the proof.
I don't think you were trained in science. I think you're a creationist troll. Creationists want to get into science classrooms (using nonsense like "intelligent design") so that they can discredit science. This is due to the fact that the scientific process would have to be completely wrong for their worldview to be right. In short, they want to take science and replace it with non-science.
I think that's what you're up to. Why else would you keep framing science using religious terminology?
You can think whatever you want about my background but I suspect that what you have is descriptions of the possibility of various pieces of the puzzle.
If someone could actually show that they could demonstrate the actual process, the competing hypotheses would be rendered obsolete and there would be a Nobel in the offing and it would be heralded in every magazine that had the least connection with science reporting.
Are the articles you are looking at referring to the Miller experiment, clay, or just random organic molecules bumping together until they obtain an emergent selfreplicating property?
If you had read my earlier posts, I told you that you would find all kinds of papers and many ofthem would be would not be shown flawed yet. I can't see how you refute me by pointing out something I pointed out to you first.
I simply lack faith in the fact that biologists have more than a series of musings that try to explain parts of the process. It is like saying you understand automotive engineering because you can explain the braking system. I am all for science. I just don't see that this particular area is advances far enough that it isn't just poking at things to see if something gets accepted as a reasonable supposition. I'm from a physics/computer engineering background. I like things that I can test and demonstrate and not just sit around saying " You know, if a self replicating strand of RNA were to collide with a bubble of permeable lipids, that would make an interesting thought experiment to write a paper on". I prefer "Let's see what happens if you expose a silicon substrate to an Argon/Nitorgen mixture at 17.2PSI at 300 Kelvin during the etching process"
But to each his own. I just don't think that there is enough extraordinary proof to justify the extraordinary claim that it just happened on it's own.
So how do you think it happened? What is your extraordinary proof?
I never claimed to know what happened.
I don't I don't believe anyone else knows either. I think that help produce papers, because as long as your idea is plausible you are unlikely to be proven wrong.
So you're only here to shoot down ideas, not offer any of your own?
No.
I just want to point out that if people are not supposed to believe a "religious" idea that can't be proved, they should not believe in a "sciency sounding" idea that can't be proved.
Spoken like a true creationist.
Once again, you show complete ignorance of science. Science does not "prove" things; hypotheses are either supported or unsupported by a study's findings.
If you do have a science background, then you know that. And if you know that, then you're being dishonest.
Like a troll would.
You also don't understand atheists. It's not lack of proof that convinces an atheist that there are no gods; it's the lack of the merest shred of evidence.
So regardless of what you think of the current hypotheses regarding the origins of life, if they have even the tiniest iota of evidence, then they are better supported than any idea religion can come up with.
Again, I suspect you know this. If I'm right, then you're engaging the same kind of misrepresentation and dishonesty that I would expect from the "intelligent design" movement.
OK, fine. Your presuppositional bias is clear.
I'm not sure why you posted to an article called "Why Science Does Not Prove Atheism" on this site if you are going to get all upset over someone being skeptical about one thing when you a priori reject the main point of this web site.
Have you actually read the material on the site? If you wish I can point you to scientists who are of the opinion that there is reason to believe, or at least not reject. Or do you reject them out of hand because they disagree with you?
Again, it's evidence-based, not a presupposition.
No, I haven't read the whole site because this is the post I was interested in responding to.
I don't find a scientist telling me it's ok to believe in a god very compelling anyway. Show me the evidence, and I'll consider it.
Perhaps you should read the rest of the site.
You might find the iota of evidence that you don't believe exists.
If you'd provide me with a link, I'll check it out.
The link is on the page with the article you resdponded to, where it says link to homepage.
pleaseconvinceme.com
The podcasts can be found on itunes.
(If you are sciencey you may also want to consider reasons.org and the podcast I didn't know that.
and if you prefer discussions between christians and nonchristians I'd look at the podcast Unbeleivable! , particularly their Grill a Christian episodes
Others are good like str.org)
I was hoping for something a bit more specific; I'm not interested in finding an iota somewhere in a sizable collection of web pages.
Learning requires work, and different sources provide information in different ways.
The appropriate source for one person may not be the appropriate one for anyone.
Look, or don't. Either way, it is you're choice.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought when you claimed that you had an iota of evidence that you would be showing it to me. I don't see how something like that would be appropriate for one person and inappropriate for another.
@hotnerdboy
Check out, "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" on youtube and report back.
Post a Comment