I generally try to frame conversations with the religious similarly. For example, when dealing with a creationist, I always start by saying “if any of these are arguments you’re planning on using, we’re not going further. If you feel these are valid arguments, then you are so ignorant of what evolutionary theory says, the predictions and claims it makes and the evidence behind it that I would need to spend a year teaching you basic biology before we could have the slightest incarnation of an intelligent conversation.” I then proceed to lay out things like the “it’s just a theory” or “if we evolved from chimps/apes/etc” type arguments. Just not interested in wasting my time with them. You cannot change the mind of the purposefully ignorant with facts.
Now, that being said, when I’m asked the initial question in this diagram as “is there anything that would make you believe in the existence of gods?” I would have to answer “I can’t think of any. First, that god would need to present themselves to me in person. Next, they would need to confirm that they were actually a god…not a delusion, not some kind of special effects or tricks. After that, they’d need to demonstrate their godly powers, again in such a way as to ensure it’s not a fake. After that, if they claim to be a creator god, they need to prove that they actually created the universe. Given the criteria, which I don’t think are excessive just difficult, I can’t envision one being able to do so to my skeptical satisfaction. But, then, I’m not a god, so they might have some tricks I’m not aware of.”
So, in a nutshell, I could come off as inflexible as one of the drooling masses. The difference? I’m skeptical, but willing to accept valid evidence. I just have a higher standard of what constitutes valid evidence than religious folks. :)
Ah, but God has revealed Himself through creation, His word the Bible and through the incarnation of His son Jesus of Nazareth.
First one has to know that atheism in its classical sense in self-defeating. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is akin to saying that I have infinite knowledge in order to say that there is no one with infinite knowledge. Therefore God’s non-existence is unprovable which means that atheism must have faith to believe that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is a belief system (as is a religion). Thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists. That being said there are innumerable proofs for the existence of a Creator God.
If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically, then the principle of verification itself would fail the test because of it’s own premise, “only those statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning,” cannot be empirically verified.
Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?
The irony of the atheistic position appears when we ask where our human faculty of reason comes from. It hold that our human cognitive faculties were produced by purely naturalistic mechanisms that were not concerned with truth but with survival. But if the thoughts in my mind are just the motions of atoms in my brain, a mechanism that has itself arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?
Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done. It undermines the very rationality that we need to construct an argument or understand an argument of any kind. However, theism does provide the necessary basis. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rational creator. And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.
“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. And they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” ~ C.S. Lewis
Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.
Science did not put the universe in place. I hope you have noticed that. Nor does science explain how it came to be.
To think that as the reach of our theories and instruments increases, the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished is to make a childish mistake of confusing law and mechanism on the one hand with agency on the other.
“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies
“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin
Well since I am happy to discuss this topic I’m not sure what you are referring to. Along with that we are both skeptics of each others position (and hopefully of our own) and we are both seekers of evidence for the corresponding positions that we hold. That being said we should then ask which position holds more evidence.
Genesis and science both state that the universe is not eternal (Out of nothing nothing comes 0+0=0); that there was a beginning to all space, matter and time (i.e. The Big Bang). In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities. Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist. And the theory of evolution, no matter how you look at it, is not and can never be a theory of origins.
“No matter how large the environment on considers, life could not have had a random beginning. There are about 2000 enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 (40,000 power), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” ~ Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. Astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy (both non-theists)
And that is only the beginning. It still remains for DNA to arise from proteins and for the complex machinery of the cell to arise. These issues are too complex to even set numbers too.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” ~ Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. Astronomy
Indeed in many cases not even stars and planets, not even chemistry, not even atomic matter itself, would exist, much less biological life. In fact, the universe appears to have been incomprehensibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception to permit the existence of intelligent life.
For example, changes in the gravitational force or the electromagnetic force by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th power would have precluded the existence of stars like our sun, making life impossible. A decrease or increase in the speed of the expansion by only 1 part in a million million when the temperature was 10 to the 10th degrees would have either resulted in the universes re-collapse long ago into a hot fireball or precluded galaxies from ever condensing, in both cases making life impossible. The so-called cosmological constant crucial to the development of our universe must be inexplicably fine-tuned to and accuracy of one part in 10 to the 53rd power in order for a life-permitting universe to exist.
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has stated that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10 to the 16th power, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th power and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe; the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
These are just some the many constants and quantities that must be fine-tuned if the universe is to be life permitting. And it’s not just each quantity that must be fine-tuned but their ratios to one another must also be finely tuned.
“If you examine the early relationship between expansion and contraction in the early picoseconds of the universe, you will see that the exactitude was so precise that the margin of error, and the precision required would be like taking aim at a one inch square object 20 billion light years away on the other end of the universe and hitting that object, bulls eye!” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
The present favored candidate for a GUT is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical evidence.
One may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.
“Ah, but God has revealed Himself through creation, His word the Bible and through the incarnation of His son Jesus of Nazareth.”
Then he has revealed himself as a petulant child who creates fallible toys and then punishes them mercilessly and eternally for those failings. BTW, you also invalidate your argument by proving that Jesus isn’t your messiah. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem as the prophecy required. Oh, sure, Ol’ Matt puts a lot of effort into creating a lie (Herod’s census) which is easily shown to be such just to get Jeesee-Chreesee into that little town, but that don’t make it true. He’s called Jesus of Nazareth, because that’s where he was from.
“One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute”
Which is absolutely correct, and why most atheists do not explicitly deny the existance of gods. Atheists simply state that there isn’t any evidence in all of the history of mankind to lend the slightest shred of credence to claims that they do exist. Therefore, we don’t allow their existance/non-existance to influence our lives in any way. Note, I said MOST atheists. There are some who vehemently deny the gods existence, and they do themselves as much a disservice as theists.
Now, all of that being said…are you suggesting you DO believe in Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc? You cannot prove they don’t exist, and so according to your logic, they MUST exist. Right? Similarly for unicorns, dragons, faeries, etc?
“Therefore God’s non-existence in unprovable thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists.”
Um, no. We’re not the ones making extraordinary claims. You are. You cannot prove the existance of gods. That doesn’t mean we have to prove their non-existence. Unless you want to prove Zeus doesn’t exist first?
“That being said there is innumerable evidence for the existence of God.”
Such as? You can’t make a claim like that without at least providing some.
“If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically”
Who says? The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way. The only statements, though, that should carry any weight are those that have some empirical value to them. Otherwise, you’re just listening to someone’s opinion.
“Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?”
Dictionary.com: faith, noun. Definition 2: “belief that is not based on proof”. As I was told repeatedly while attending catholic school: “faith is the acceptance of things without proof or evidence”. The “evidence” is that’s what the religious say faith is.
“why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?”
Why not? You’re using a computer which works similarly to how you describe the brains functions (keeping in mind that the description of emergent processes you describe is but one of the myriad theories of how the brain works, not to mention the existence of consciousness). Do you stop at red lights that are controlled by atoms moving through an electronic system? You have the illusion of consciousness, why do you need more? What does being created by one of the gods give you that the other doesn’t, and you still haven’t made mention of if you were created by a god and yet your consciousness is a result of moving atoms. You like to often point out how some scientists have mentioned that the stringency of natural laws indicates a creator…why couldn’t that creator have created you exactly as science says you operate? How would that make your world-view differ. You cannot dismiss how your brain works simply because you don’t like the answer. The universe isn’t obliged to operate to your likings or beliefs.
“Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
You haven’t proven this. Sorry. Your argument has no valid premises and you back it up with flawed assumptions. You’re going to have to do a lot better than simply regurgitating the flawed arguments of other theists.
“And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.”
Oh, well…if it was good enough 400 years ago, there’s no reason we should change now, right? Slavery was also considered rational and sanctioned by the gods, perhaps we should go back to that, too? You’re failing is you don’t acknowledge that we have grown as a people in both our knowledge and morality such that gods and other superstitions aren’t necessary. We have a fair grasp of how the world works, we don’t have to be scared of the dark anymore. Religion, is staid and inflexible. It operates at the same intellectual level of cavemen. I’m a bit smarter than my ancient anscestors.
“Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.”
So? Now it’s a desire to know and expand human knowledge.
“Nor does science explain how it came to be”
Neither does religion…oh, no, wait…there’s thousands of different stories spanning the breadth of human existance, most differing from each other. The difference between those and the current prevailing theory? Evidence. We have evidence of the big bang. You have no evidence of one of the gods farting out big blue turd and calling it “Earth”, or whatever particular silliness you believe.
“the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished”
Who says it is? There are a number of scientists who maintain their religion, a very small percentage mind you, but a number. Science has no interest in diminishing your little fairy tales, science is a way of thinking nothing more. The problem is, when you think critically, and therefore scientifically, your superstitions end up holding as much water as…homeopathy. See what I did there?
“Theoretical physicist Paul Davies”
Yes, Davies is one of those scientists who still believes in gods. That makes no bearing on your claims whatsoever. Why is it their science doesn’t invalidate religion? Answer: because that wouldn’t be very good to your argument.
“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.”
WHICH GIVE THE IMPRESSION
“you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.”
Polkingham is referring to the fact the universe, as defined by science, is rational, follows laws and is unchanging. This is in opposition to the universe populated by theists which is malleable and fluid based on the whims of gods and magic.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…”
Again, you fail to understand the meaning. Science teaches us that what we believe is irrelevant. The universe is not obliged to act as we would like it to. Quantum physics, for example. It’s a field riddled with an almost theist-like belief in things that cannot be tested. How could such a thing exist? The math works. We can understand the world through mathematics, and the math says that quantum physics represents how the universe operates at the sub-sub-sub-atomic level. It’s a field in which we can make predictions, but don’t have the ability to experiment and observe properly at this time. That doesn’t matter because it’s like a glidebeacon at an airport…it gives us a direction to move in, but it’s not enough to land a plane. And that direction is backed up by math that says we’re going the right way. Sure, we don’t understand it fully, but we might someday. Or, we might someday find we were going in the wrong direction. In either case, we have learned something. Religion, however, believes it already has all of the answers, and the seeking of knowledge is meaningless. Oh, how much better the world would be if that were true…the slaves would know their place and the kinds appointed by the gods could lord over us as they properly should.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Quikly on your second post:
“These are just some the many constants and quantities that must be fine-tuned if the universe is to be life permitting.”
We exist as we do because of the nature of the universe in which we live, the nature of the universe was not designed to make us be. There are conditions in which you can tweak the fundamental forces and still get the kinds of matter needed to create life. Again, you misunderstand the point.
“One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. […] Thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists.”
This argument persists no matter how many times it is shot down. It’s simple: you do not attempt to prove a negative, because it answers absolutely nothing.
For example: Prove that God does not exist.
You cannot, but this answers nothing at all. You’ve gained no ground. God still may or may not exist. You’re right where you were to begin with so you cannot progress any further in this line of thinking.
Prove that God exists.
Again, you cannot, but now you’ve actually answered something. No evidence for the positive question, shows the answer as a negative. You have answered the question and provided framework to move on. There is no evidence for God, therefor there is no God.
It’s called logic. Try it sometime.
“Therefore God’s non-existence is unprovable which means that atheism must have faith to believe that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is a belief system (as is a religion).”
This one is even more tired than the Proof of a Negative argument…
Lack of evidence that God(s) exist does not require faith, merely observation. No evidence equals no belief. It is not a matter of faith, no matter how many times you parrot the statement.
I, like many others, will happily believe in a Creator or God, the moment repeatable, measurable, empirical evidence comes along which has no other answer. It would have to be something within the very structure of reality itself, not some event or supposed miracle. It would have to be something that can be found by any intelligent being.
Carl Sagan had a beautiful example of such acceptable evidence in his work of fiction, “Contact”. In that novel, the Creator had signed his work in the far reaches of the calculation of PI.
The argument persists because it cannot be shot down. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. Once again, I never stated that this proves that God exists. Both you and spoonmans presuppositions are showing. This argument is only used to clear ones presuppositions to allow for the evidence to be considered.
I can prove that God exists using not just science but also philosophically and even empirically through the incarnation of Christ Jesus. Your logic is flawed in two ways. First, God can be proved and second, you are operating under the assumption that because we cannot see the inventor of the combustion engine he therefore never existed. What you and I both do is look for the evidence for the creator of the combustion engine and this logically should be applied to looking for the evidence of a creator of the universe. I have already provided scientific proof of a creator and would point you to my previous post.
And you are forgetting all of the faith required to be an atheist and to even perform science.
“The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it… it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“The belief that there are indeed dependable regularities [the sun will rise each day] of nature – is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies
“Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
And Einstein said that he could not image a physicist who did not posses “such faith”.
First, I have not invalidated my argument as anyone knows that where one grows up is where they are refereed to as being from. Second, it is actually both the gospels of Matthew and Luke that attest to the record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. And since Luke has proven himself to be one of the most accurate historians in antiquity we can rely on his testimony. Here are some examples:
Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One archeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error. “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as an historian,” said archeologist John McRay. The authorship of Matthew and Mark was affirmed by Papias in 125 A.D. Then Irenaeus confirmed this in 180 A.D.
As to your statement {Atheists simply state that there isn’t any evidence in all of the history of mankind to lend the slightest shred of credence to claims that they do exist} this is true of all other gods except the God of the Bible as I have stated before that He has revealed Himself through creation, His Word the Bible and through the incarnation of Jesus.
You are also jumping ahead in the logic being used to show that God exists. I never stated that because you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore He exists. That is only to clear the presuppositions so that with evidence (of which I have already provided some) the logical inference can be made that the God of the Bible exists.
You also stated {The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way} but this statement is self-defeating. To say that absolute truth does not exist or cannot be known is to posit an absolute truth claim and is therefore a self defeating statement.
noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power
The word faith comes from the Latin fides (fee-days) from which we get fidelity. It’s basic meaning is belief, trust; that which produces belief evidence. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. Thus the words faith, belief and trust mean essentially the same. Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith. There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible. Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist. To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.
Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.
You also stated {You have the illusion of consciousness, why do you need more?} and which contradicts your very idea of trying to diffuse my statement of:
“Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
{You haven’t proven this. Sorry. Your argument has no valid premises and you back it up with flawed assumptions.}
If consciousness is just an illusion, as you stated, then you have just proven my statement that atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.
As for your statements on morality; atheism gives no objective moral foundation as evolution does not tell you what is right and what is wrong.
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
– Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.
– The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.
– How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
– Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing?
– Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?
{Polkinghorn is referring to the fact the universe, as defined by science, is rational, follows laws and is unchanging. This is in opposition to the universe populated by theists which is malleable and fluid based on the whims of gods and magic.}
The first part of this statement is correct while the second is incorrect. Polkinghorn is a Christian and the creation of the universe has nothing to do with the whims and gods of magic, as it was created by the God of order and love.
In regards to quantum physics you stated {It’s a field in which we can make predictions, but don’t have the ability to experiment and observe properly at this time.} Why is it that you reserve the right to believe in something that you cannot experiment or observe at this time yet you try to take away the same rule for theists (though the observations overwhelmingly point to a creator)?
You also stated {Religion, however, believes it already has all of the answers, and the seeking of knowledge is meaningless.} Which is a cursory understanding of religion as I have given you ample evidence earlier. The Bible is replete with telling us to grow and increase in wisdom and knowledge.
“It has to be admitted that of course science grew out of a religious tradition.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
“Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion.” ~ Peter Atkins Professor of Chemistry at Oxford (atheist)
And you are completely wrong when you stated {We exist as we do because of the nature of the universe in which we live, the nature of the universe was not designed to make us be. There are conditions in which you can tweak the fundamental forces and still get the kinds of matter needed to create life. Again, you misunderstand the point.}
Life lives on a razors edge. You need to study more on the Anthropic Principle. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities. Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist.
There is no point to arguing with them. The only reason why most of our Muslim visitors run off after we expose their bullshit is that the majority of them have poor English (since this site is after all, an English-speaking site). I could see the same fate for the Xians if they came attacking Muslims at Arabic-speaking sites.
“First, I have not invalidated my argument as anyone knows that where one grows up is where they are refereed to as being from.”
Not “anyone”. I don’t know that. People were referred to by the location of their birth, not where they grew up. You can’t make things up and expect everyone to know them.
“Second, it is actually both the gospels of Matthew and Luke that attest to the record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem.”
Well, done. I was checking to see if you’d even read the book. That being said, Matthew, too, cannot be trusted as he conjours up falsehoods such as the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. Another thing we know never happened.
“And since Luke has proven himself to be one of the most accurate historians in antiquity we can rely on his testimony.”
Well, sure, if you want to take grand lies as proof of accuracy…sure.
“One archeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error.”
Excepting, again, the worldwide census that never existed. I’m not exactly sure what the rest of your statement is supposed to prove? He knew his geography, so that proves he was a historian? How is it knowing Bethlehem existed prove anything else about what he wrote supposedly happened there? Are you saying the Spiderman comic is true because New York actually exists? If not…prove Spiderman doesn’t exist.
“said archeologist John McRay”
John McRay is a christian educated person at a christian school teaching christian “history”. He’s hardly a valid source. I also can’t find any papers published by Mr. McRay in credible journals. Perhaps you know of some?
“The authorship of Matthew and Mark was affirmed by Papias in 125 A.D. Then Irenaeus confirmed this in 180 A.D.”
Oh, well, if you can’t trust a couple of bishops to confirm the snake oil they’re peddling to be accurate, who can you trust? I have unbridled faith in the leadership of BP that they never intended to destroy the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
“this is true of all other gods except the God of the Bible as I have stated before that He has revealed Himself through creation, His Word the Bible and through the incarnation of Jesus.”
So, your proof in the existence of your god is based on a document that says he exists, and you know that document is true because that god exists? Why is not true of the Runestones of Odin, then? Hell, they were at least carved in stone and aren’t subject to the numerous tamperings we KNOW happened with your bible.
“I never stated that because you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore He exists.”
Which is what they always say when you call them on it.
“That is only to clear the presuppositions so that with evidence (of which I have already provided some) the logical inference can be made that the God of the Bible exists.”
I’m sorry, your “evidence” must’ve been in another comment or forum. You haven’t provided a single thing that would count as evidence in any arena.
“You also stated {The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way} but this statement is self-defeating. To say that absolute truth does not exist or cannot be known is to posit an absolute truth claim and is therefore a self defeating statement.”
Whatever. Honestly, I always hated philosphy. Meaningless statements are just that.
“noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power”
Sorry:
faith
/fe??/ [feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
Again, number 2.
“Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.”
And, we’re still waiting on some.
“There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith.”
No, but the religions do. Bibles don’t kill, people kill in the name of the bible.
“There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible.”
And, yet, not in modern religions. Why is that?
“Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist.”
Wow…that’s just about the most “pulled right out of your arsehole” thing you’ve written.
“To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.”
And yet, you do.
“Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.”
That’s great…naturalism went away like 150 years ago. It’s really time you got caught up.
“If consciousness is just an illusion, as you stated, then you have just proven my statement that atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
Nor does it give logical justification in the existence of gods, either. What does give evidence of the effectiveness of science is things like, oh, I don’t know…you’re typing on a computer, connected to a global network of other computers all powered by electricity and so on and so on. I can SEE the products of science all around me. The building I’m in, the car I drive, the lights illuminating the darkness…all of it is proof that science works. Where’s your god hiding? Why is he hiding? He’s a bloody coward if he can’t be bothered to put as much effort into showing his existence as my computer does. Science can be done because it produces results that are tangible. It’s not a philosophical question. You can try to philosophize away science, while using the products of science, all you want. You just come off like a pomous dimwit with a tenuous grasp on reality.
“As for your statements on morality; atheism gives no objective moral foundation as evolution does not tell you what is right and what is wrong.”
And religon does? Child molestation, is it wrong? Slavery, is it wrong?
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
Thank you. I could never prove my point better than Dawkins.
“- Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.”
It hasn’t? Plenty of scientific evidence that other species have morality. Chimpanzees, for example, will risk life and limb to rescue a fallen comrade. Penguins mate for life. It’s interesting that you quote so much Dawkins….have you actually read any of his books? He gives an excellent treatise of the work of Frances Kamm’s ethics studies that have proven that human beings have a built-in cognitive wiring. Protecting loved ones is an evolutionary survival trait. Not attacking your tribe mates ensures they’ll be around to protect you…and ensure they won’t attack you. There is nothing “mystical” about morality.
“- The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.”
Correct. Evil is a subjective term invented by religions to give focus to the masses that follow it.
“- How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
– Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing?
– Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?”
Meaningless questions. You exist. There’s no reason for it. It’s that simple. And, yes, I offer no proof. It’s my opinion. It’s as valid as the gobbledy-gooked up opinions you’re spouting. Base your arguments in reality, not some esoteric thought experiments.
“The first part of this statement is correct while the second is incorrect. Polkinghorn is a Christian”
That doesn’t change what I said in any way unless….he’s specifically using it to decry the scientific method. If so, he really should choose a different profession if he feels that everything he does is stupid and pointless. In that case, he’s hardly a credible reference in the way you mean to use him. (to show that scientists don’t believe what they’re doing) If, however, he’s using it as ALL scientists use it (because the opinion is not unique to Polkingham) then, again, he’s not a good reference for you because he’s saying exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to use the quote to prove. ALL scientists understand the silliness of the results they sometimes get, not to mention how they seem to fly in the face of logic and beliefs. That’s part of the job and the point of the scientific method: to weed out our preconceptions and biases in order to get to the truth.
“and the creation of the universe has nothing to do with the whims and gods of magic, as it was created by the God of order and love.”
Who used magic to create the universe. Keep up here, will you? If not by magic, then how? Engineers with construction equiment and little yellow hard hats? If he didn’t use a hammer and nails, it was magic.
“Why is it that you reserve the right to believe in something that you cannot experiment or observe at this time yet you try to take away the same rule for theists (though the observations overwhelmingly point to a creator)?”
Because quantum physics has SOME level of evidence to its credence simply due to the fact that the math works. Beyond that, no one believes quantum physics to be an end-all-be-all proof of how the universe works. Just that evidence points to us being on the correct path. It might not be. It might lead us down a path that DOES lead to correct answers. We don’t know unless we try. Religion has all the answers figured out already. What’s the point? Might as well kill yourself now and get into the afterlife since you value it so much more than reality. Conversely, you have not a shred of evidence in the existence of your god other than a mistranslated book of stories written by bronze age goat herders trying to explaing the scary, scary thunder…and you think it constitutes an end-all-be-all guide to how the universe works and are willing to kill people to prove it (yes, I know, not you specifically. It’s never YOU. It’s always some other misguided cult that follows the exact same set of instructions and manage to derive dangerous philosophies out of it, right?)
“Which is a cursory understanding of religion as I have given you ample evidence earlier.”
You’re really going to have to begin the sections you believe to be “evidence” with some kind of marker to let me know. I’ve looked through your whole dissertation and can’t find it.
“The Bible is replete with telling us to grow and increase in wisdom and knowledge.”
Is that before or after we cut the babies from their mother’s wombs? Maybe it’s when we rape the daughters of our enemies and take them as our wives?
“You need to study more on the Anthropic Principle.”
No thanks, I’m familiar…it’s bunk. Disproven time and time again. The sun doesn’t go around the Earth, nor does the rest of the universe. It does not exist for us, we exist because of it.
“In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities.”
Yes, so? That’s proof we evolved to fit those constants and quantities, it is not proof they exist for us.
“Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist.”
I know, it’s amazing, right!? It’s one of the coolest things about science, learning these facts….it does nothing to bloster your belief in gods, though.
My turn for a quote:
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” – Carl Sagan.
I’ve looked through the telescope and seen the wonder and grandeur of the universe. I’ve studied the stars and the planets, the movements of the heavenly bodies. I’ve leared of how the universe began and where it might end. I’ve contemplated and contemplated the scale of the vastness of the universe we call home and remain in awe of it. All of that becomes meaningless and trivial if there were a god who simply snapped their fingers and said “there you go!” How defeating it is to look at the universe, to truly understand the immensity of it all and think…
Ah yes, name calling – the last refuge of the monosyllabic. – John Cleese
If you cannot argue with the multitude of evidence presented, call your opposition crazy.
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you
relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about,
why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your weblog when you could
be giving us something enlightening to read?
Hi would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re working with?
I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different internet browsers and I must say
this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a
good web hosting provider at a fair price? Cheers, I appreciate it!
Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely feel this web site
needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be back again to
see more, thanks for the advice!
Hi there! This blog post couldn’t be written any better!
Looking at this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
He always kept preaching about this. I most certainly will send
this post to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read.
Thanks for sharing!
maxi skirt pattern simplicity Nov 07, 2014 @ 03:23:24
Anywho, due to the speaking sheet and my love for both excessive-waisted
and maxi skirts, I used to be bound to provide you with this
idea. Measure how lengthy you need your skirt.
Dec 29, 2010 @ 12:19:42
Brilliant!!!
Dec 29, 2010 @ 16:32:59
I generally try to frame conversations with the religious similarly. For example, when dealing with a creationist, I always start by saying “if any of these are arguments you’re planning on using, we’re not going further. If you feel these are valid arguments, then you are so ignorant of what evolutionary theory says, the predictions and claims it makes and the evidence behind it that I would need to spend a year teaching you basic biology before we could have the slightest incarnation of an intelligent conversation.” I then proceed to lay out things like the “it’s just a theory” or “if we evolved from chimps/apes/etc” type arguments. Just not interested in wasting my time with them. You cannot change the mind of the purposefully ignorant with facts.
Now, that being said, when I’m asked the initial question in this diagram as “is there anything that would make you believe in the existence of gods?” I would have to answer “I can’t think of any. First, that god would need to present themselves to me in person. Next, they would need to confirm that they were actually a god…not a delusion, not some kind of special effects or tricks. After that, they’d need to demonstrate their godly powers, again in such a way as to ensure it’s not a fake. After that, if they claim to be a creator god, they need to prove that they actually created the universe. Given the criteria, which I don’t think are excessive just difficult, I can’t envision one being able to do so to my skeptical satisfaction. But, then, I’m not a god, so they might have some tricks I’m not aware of.”
So, in a nutshell, I could come off as inflexible as one of the drooling masses. The difference? I’m skeptical, but willing to accept valid evidence. I just have a higher standard of what constitutes valid evidence than religious folks. :)
Dec 29, 2010 @ 18:55:53
Ah, but God has revealed Himself through creation, His word the Bible and through the incarnation of His son Jesus of Nazareth.
First one has to know that atheism in its classical sense in self-defeating. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is akin to saying that I have infinite knowledge in order to say that there is no one with infinite knowledge. Therefore God’s non-existence is unprovable which means that atheism must have faith to believe that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is a belief system (as is a religion). Thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists. That being said there are innumerable proofs for the existence of a Creator God.
If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically, then the principle of verification itself would fail the test because of it’s own premise, “only those statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning,” cannot be empirically verified.
Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?
The irony of the atheistic position appears when we ask where our human faculty of reason comes from. It hold that our human cognitive faculties were produced by purely naturalistic mechanisms that were not concerned with truth but with survival. But if the thoughts in my mind are just the motions of atoms in my brain, a mechanism that has itself arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?
Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done. It undermines the very rationality that we need to construct an argument or understand an argument of any kind. However, theism does provide the necessary basis. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rational creator. And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.
“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. And they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” ~ C.S. Lewis
Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.
Science did not put the universe in place. I hope you have noticed that. Nor does science explain how it came to be.
To think that as the reach of our theories and instruments increases, the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished is to make a childish mistake of confusing law and mechanism on the one hand with agency on the other.
“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies
“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin
Dec 29, 2010 @ 20:10:26
I’m pretty sure this post is ironic.
Dec 29, 2010 @ 20:04:53
@eznight
For my response to you, please read the original post. Thank you.
Dec 29, 2010 @ 21:15:41
Well since I am happy to discuss this topic I’m not sure what you are referring to. Along with that we are both skeptics of each others position (and hopefully of our own) and we are both seekers of evidence for the corresponding positions that we hold. That being said we should then ask which position holds more evidence.
Genesis and science both state that the universe is not eternal (Out of nothing nothing comes 0+0=0); that there was a beginning to all space, matter and time (i.e. The Big Bang). In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities. Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist. And the theory of evolution, no matter how you look at it, is not and can never be a theory of origins.
“No matter how large the environment on considers, life could not have had a random beginning. There are about 2000 enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 (40,000 power), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” ~ Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. Astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy (both non-theists)
And that is only the beginning. It still remains for DNA to arise from proteins and for the complex machinery of the cell to arise. These issues are too complex to even set numbers too.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” ~ Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. Astronomy
Indeed in many cases not even stars and planets, not even chemistry, not even atomic matter itself, would exist, much less biological life. In fact, the universe appears to have been incomprehensibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception to permit the existence of intelligent life.
For example, changes in the gravitational force or the electromagnetic force by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th power would have precluded the existence of stars like our sun, making life impossible. A decrease or increase in the speed of the expansion by only 1 part in a million million when the temperature was 10 to the 10th degrees would have either resulted in the universes re-collapse long ago into a hot fireball or precluded galaxies from ever condensing, in both cases making life impossible. The so-called cosmological constant crucial to the development of our universe must be inexplicably fine-tuned to and accuracy of one part in 10 to the 53rd power in order for a life-permitting universe to exist.
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has stated that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10 to the 16th power, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only 1 part in 10 to the 40th power and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe; the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.
These are just some the many constants and quantities that must be fine-tuned if the universe is to be life permitting. And it’s not just each quantity that must be fine-tuned but their ratios to one another must also be finely tuned.
“If you examine the early relationship between expansion and contraction in the early picoseconds of the universe, you will see that the exactitude was so precise that the margin of error, and the precision required would be like taking aim at a one inch square object 20 billion light years away on the other end of the universe and hitting that object, bulls eye!” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
The present favored candidate for a GUT is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical evidence.
One may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.
Dec 30, 2010 @ 21:25:28
“Ah, but God has revealed Himself through creation, His word the Bible and through the incarnation of His son Jesus of Nazareth.”
Then he has revealed himself as a petulant child who creates fallible toys and then punishes them mercilessly and eternally for those failings. BTW, you also invalidate your argument by proving that Jesus isn’t your messiah. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem as the prophecy required. Oh, sure, Ol’ Matt puts a lot of effort into creating a lie (Herod’s census) which is easily shown to be such just to get Jeesee-Chreesee into that little town, but that don’t make it true. He’s called Jesus of Nazareth, because that’s where he was from.
“One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute”
Which is absolutely correct, and why most atheists do not explicitly deny the existance of gods. Atheists simply state that there isn’t any evidence in all of the history of mankind to lend the slightest shred of credence to claims that they do exist. Therefore, we don’t allow their existance/non-existance to influence our lives in any way. Note, I said MOST atheists. There are some who vehemently deny the gods existence, and they do themselves as much a disservice as theists.
Now, all of that being said…are you suggesting you DO believe in Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc? You cannot prove they don’t exist, and so according to your logic, they MUST exist. Right? Similarly for unicorns, dragons, faeries, etc?
“Therefore God’s non-existence in unprovable thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists.”
Um, no. We’re not the ones making extraordinary claims. You are. You cannot prove the existance of gods. That doesn’t mean we have to prove their non-existence. Unless you want to prove Zeus doesn’t exist first?
“That being said there is innumerable evidence for the existence of God.”
Such as? You can’t make a claim like that without at least providing some.
“If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically”
Who says? The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way. The only statements, though, that should carry any weight are those that have some empirical value to them. Otherwise, you’re just listening to someone’s opinion.
“Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?”
Dictionary.com: faith, noun. Definition 2: “belief that is not based on proof”. As I was told repeatedly while attending catholic school: “faith is the acceptance of things without proof or evidence”. The “evidence” is that’s what the religious say faith is.
“why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?”
Why not? You’re using a computer which works similarly to how you describe the brains functions (keeping in mind that the description of emergent processes you describe is but one of the myriad theories of how the brain works, not to mention the existence of consciousness). Do you stop at red lights that are controlled by atoms moving through an electronic system? You have the illusion of consciousness, why do you need more? What does being created by one of the gods give you that the other doesn’t, and you still haven’t made mention of if you were created by a god and yet your consciousness is a result of moving atoms. You like to often point out how some scientists have mentioned that the stringency of natural laws indicates a creator…why couldn’t that creator have created you exactly as science says you operate? How would that make your world-view differ. You cannot dismiss how your brain works simply because you don’t like the answer. The universe isn’t obliged to operate to your likings or beliefs.
“Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
You haven’t proven this. Sorry. Your argument has no valid premises and you back it up with flawed assumptions. You’re going to have to do a lot better than simply regurgitating the flawed arguments of other theists.
“And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.”
Oh, well…if it was good enough 400 years ago, there’s no reason we should change now, right? Slavery was also considered rational and sanctioned by the gods, perhaps we should go back to that, too? You’re failing is you don’t acknowledge that we have grown as a people in both our knowledge and morality such that gods and other superstitions aren’t necessary. We have a fair grasp of how the world works, we don’t have to be scared of the dark anymore. Religion, is staid and inflexible. It operates at the same intellectual level of cavemen. I’m a bit smarter than my ancient anscestors.
“Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.”
So? Now it’s a desire to know and expand human knowledge.
“Nor does science explain how it came to be”
Neither does religion…oh, no, wait…there’s thousands of different stories spanning the breadth of human existance, most differing from each other. The difference between those and the current prevailing theory? Evidence. We have evidence of the big bang. You have no evidence of one of the gods farting out big blue turd and calling it “Earth”, or whatever particular silliness you believe.
“the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished”
Who says it is? There are a number of scientists who maintain their religion, a very small percentage mind you, but a number. Science has no interest in diminishing your little fairy tales, science is a way of thinking nothing more. The problem is, when you think critically, and therefore scientifically, your superstitions end up holding as much water as…homeopathy. See what I did there?
“Theoretical physicist Paul Davies”
Yes, Davies is one of those scientists who still believes in gods. That makes no bearing on your claims whatsoever. Why is it their science doesn’t invalidate religion? Answer: because that wouldn’t be very good to your argument.
“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.”
WHICH GIVE THE IMPRESSION
“you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.”
Polkingham is referring to the fact the universe, as defined by science, is rational, follows laws and is unchanging. This is in opposition to the universe populated by theists which is malleable and fluid based on the whims of gods and magic.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…”
Again, you fail to understand the meaning. Science teaches us that what we believe is irrelevant. The universe is not obliged to act as we would like it to. Quantum physics, for example. It’s a field riddled with an almost theist-like belief in things that cannot be tested. How could such a thing exist? The math works. We can understand the world through mathematics, and the math says that quantum physics represents how the universe operates at the sub-sub-sub-atomic level. It’s a field in which we can make predictions, but don’t have the ability to experiment and observe properly at this time. That doesn’t matter because it’s like a glidebeacon at an airport…it gives us a direction to move in, but it’s not enough to land a plane. And that direction is backed up by math that says we’re going the right way. Sure, we don’t understand it fully, but we might someday. Or, we might someday find we were going in the wrong direction. In either case, we have learned something. Religion, however, believes it already has all of the answers, and the seeking of knowledge is meaningless. Oh, how much better the world would be if that were true…the slaves would know their place and the kinds appointed by the gods could lord over us as they properly should.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Quikly on your second post:
“These are just some the many constants and quantities that must be fine-tuned if the universe is to be life permitting.”
We exist as we do because of the nature of the universe in which we live, the nature of the universe was not designed to make us be. There are conditions in which you can tweak the fundamental forces and still get the kinds of matter needed to create life. Again, you misunderstand the point.
Jan 04, 2011 @ 10:56:04
“One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. […] Thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists.”
This argument persists no matter how many times it is shot down. It’s simple: you do not attempt to prove a negative, because it answers absolutely nothing.
For example: Prove that God does not exist.
You cannot, but this answers nothing at all. You’ve gained no ground. God still may or may not exist. You’re right where you were to begin with so you cannot progress any further in this line of thinking.
Prove that God exists.
Again, you cannot, but now you’ve actually answered something. No evidence for the positive question, shows the answer as a negative. You have answered the question and provided framework to move on. There is no evidence for God, therefor there is no God.
It’s called logic. Try it sometime.
“Therefore God’s non-existence is unprovable which means that atheism must have faith to believe that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is a belief system (as is a religion).”
This one is even more tired than the Proof of a Negative argument…
Lack of evidence that God(s) exist does not require faith, merely observation. No evidence equals no belief. It is not a matter of faith, no matter how many times you parrot the statement.
I, like many others, will happily believe in a Creator or God, the moment repeatable, measurable, empirical evidence comes along which has no other answer. It would have to be something within the very structure of reality itself, not some event or supposed miracle. It would have to be something that can be found by any intelligent being.
Carl Sagan had a beautiful example of such acceptable evidence in his work of fiction, “Contact”. In that novel, the Creator had signed his work in the far reaches of the calculation of PI.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:54:13
The argument persists because it cannot be shot down. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. Once again, I never stated that this proves that God exists. Both you and spoonmans presuppositions are showing. This argument is only used to clear ones presuppositions to allow for the evidence to be considered.
I can prove that God exists using not just science but also philosophically and even empirically through the incarnation of Christ Jesus. Your logic is flawed in two ways. First, God can be proved and second, you are operating under the assumption that because we cannot see the inventor of the combustion engine he therefore never existed. What you and I both do is look for the evidence for the creator of the combustion engine and this logically should be applied to looking for the evidence of a creator of the universe. I have already provided scientific proof of a creator and would point you to my previous post.
And you are forgetting all of the faith required to be an atheist and to even perform science.
“The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it… it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“The belief that there are indeed dependable regularities [the sun will rise each day] of nature – is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies
“Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge
And Einstein said that he could not image a physicist who did not posses “such faith”.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 16:04:35
True, we have faith — in ourselves.
Xians, on the other hand, believe in things with no proof.
Jan 04, 2011 @ 16:47:34
Wait, who is who in the flow chart?
Jan 07, 2011 @ 13:07:30
@Spoonman
First, I have not invalidated my argument as anyone knows that where one grows up is where they are refereed to as being from. Second, it is actually both the gospels of Matthew and Luke that attest to the record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. And since Luke has proven himself to be one of the most accurate historians in antiquity we can rely on his testimony. Here are some examples:
Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One archeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error. “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as an historian,” said archeologist John McRay. The authorship of Matthew and Mark was affirmed by Papias in 125 A.D. Then Irenaeus confirmed this in 180 A.D.
As to your statement {Atheists simply state that there isn’t any evidence in all of the history of mankind to lend the slightest shred of credence to claims that they do exist} this is true of all other gods except the God of the Bible as I have stated before that He has revealed Himself through creation, His Word the Bible and through the incarnation of Jesus.
You are also jumping ahead in the logic being used to show that God exists. I never stated that because you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore He exists. That is only to clear the presuppositions so that with evidence (of which I have already provided some) the logical inference can be made that the God of the Bible exists.
You also stated {The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way} but this statement is self-defeating. To say that absolute truth does not exist or cannot be known is to posit an absolute truth claim and is therefore a self defeating statement.
noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power
The word faith comes from the Latin fides (fee-days) from which we get fidelity. It’s basic meaning is belief, trust; that which produces belief evidence. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. Thus the words faith, belief and trust mean essentially the same. Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith. There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible. Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist. To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.
Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.
You also stated {You have the illusion of consciousness, why do you need more?} and which contradicts your very idea of trying to diffuse my statement of:
“Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
{You haven’t proven this. Sorry. Your argument has no valid premises and you back it up with flawed assumptions.}
If consciousness is just an illusion, as you stated, then you have just proven my statement that atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.
As for your statements on morality; atheism gives no objective moral foundation as evolution does not tell you what is right and what is wrong.
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
– Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.
– The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.
– How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
– Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing?
– Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?
{Polkinghorn is referring to the fact the universe, as defined by science, is rational, follows laws and is unchanging. This is in opposition to the universe populated by theists which is malleable and fluid based on the whims of gods and magic.}
The first part of this statement is correct while the second is incorrect. Polkinghorn is a Christian and the creation of the universe has nothing to do with the whims and gods of magic, as it was created by the God of order and love.
In regards to quantum physics you stated {It’s a field in which we can make predictions, but don’t have the ability to experiment and observe properly at this time.} Why is it that you reserve the right to believe in something that you cannot experiment or observe at this time yet you try to take away the same rule for theists (though the observations overwhelmingly point to a creator)?
You also stated {Religion, however, believes it already has all of the answers, and the seeking of knowledge is meaningless.} Which is a cursory understanding of religion as I have given you ample evidence earlier. The Bible is replete with telling us to grow and increase in wisdom and knowledge.
“It has to be admitted that of course science grew out of a religious tradition.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
“Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion.” ~ Peter Atkins Professor of Chemistry at Oxford (atheist)
And you are completely wrong when you stated {We exist as we do because of the nature of the universe in which we live, the nature of the universe was not designed to make us be. There are conditions in which you can tweak the fundamental forces and still get the kinds of matter needed to create life. Again, you misunderstand the point.}
Life lives on a razors edge. You need to study more on the Anthropic Principle. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities. Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 13:50:33
What a crock of shit. Seriously, why even bother?
Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:17:29
There is no point to arguing with them. The only reason why most of our Muslim visitors run off after we expose their bullshit is that the majority of them have poor English (since this site is after all, an English-speaking site). I could see the same fate for the Xians if they came attacking Muslims at Arabic-speaking sites.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:55:47
It is always amusing when people try to refute evidence with opinion.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 16:09:08
Speak for yourself.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 20:40:53
https://irreligion.org/2010/12/21/christian-responses-scientific-facts-in-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-31118
He/she thinks this argument is SO good that she/he used it twice.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 20:27:36
It’s more amusing when idiots refer to scripture as evidence.
Jan 07, 2011 @ 21:46:47
“First, I have not invalidated my argument as anyone knows that where one grows up is where they are refereed to as being from.”
Not “anyone”. I don’t know that. People were referred to by the location of their birth, not where they grew up. You can’t make things up and expect everyone to know them.
“Second, it is actually both the gospels of Matthew and Luke that attest to the record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem.”
Well, done. I was checking to see if you’d even read the book. That being said, Matthew, too, cannot be trusted as he conjours up falsehoods such as the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. Another thing we know never happened.
“And since Luke has proven himself to be one of the most accurate historians in antiquity we can rely on his testimony.”
Well, sure, if you want to take grand lies as proof of accuracy…sure.
“One archeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error.”
Excepting, again, the worldwide census that never existed. I’m not exactly sure what the rest of your statement is supposed to prove? He knew his geography, so that proves he was a historian? How is it knowing Bethlehem existed prove anything else about what he wrote supposedly happened there? Are you saying the Spiderman comic is true because New York actually exists? If not…prove Spiderman doesn’t exist.
“said archeologist John McRay”
John McRay is a christian educated person at a christian school teaching christian “history”. He’s hardly a valid source. I also can’t find any papers published by Mr. McRay in credible journals. Perhaps you know of some?
“The authorship of Matthew and Mark was affirmed by Papias in 125 A.D. Then Irenaeus confirmed this in 180 A.D.”
Oh, well, if you can’t trust a couple of bishops to confirm the snake oil they’re peddling to be accurate, who can you trust? I have unbridled faith in the leadership of BP that they never intended to destroy the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
“this is true of all other gods except the God of the Bible as I have stated before that He has revealed Himself through creation, His Word the Bible and through the incarnation of Jesus.”
So, your proof in the existence of your god is based on a document that says he exists, and you know that document is true because that god exists? Why is not true of the Runestones of Odin, then? Hell, they were at least carved in stone and aren’t subject to the numerous tamperings we KNOW happened with your bible.
“I never stated that because you cannot prove that God does not exist therefore He exists.”
Which is what they always say when you call them on it.
“That is only to clear the presuppositions so that with evidence (of which I have already provided some) the logical inference can be made that the God of the Bible exists.”
I’m sorry, your “evidence” must’ve been in another comment or forum. You haven’t provided a single thing that would count as evidence in any arena.
“You also stated {The reality is, truth is impossible to determine in any way} but this statement is self-defeating. To say that absolute truth does not exist or cannot be known is to posit an absolute truth claim and is therefore a self defeating statement.”
Whatever. Honestly, I always hated philosphy. Meaningless statements are just that.
“noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power”
Sorry:
faith
/fe??/ [feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
Again, number 2.
“Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.”
And, we’re still waiting on some.
“There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith.”
No, but the religions do. Bibles don’t kill, people kill in the name of the bible.
“There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible.”
And, yet, not in modern religions. Why is that?
“Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist.”
Wow…that’s just about the most “pulled right out of your arsehole” thing you’ve written.
“To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.”
And yet, you do.
“Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.”
That’s great…naturalism went away like 150 years ago. It’s really time you got caught up.
“If consciousness is just an illusion, as you stated, then you have just proven my statement that atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done.”
Nor does it give logical justification in the existence of gods, either. What does give evidence of the effectiveness of science is things like, oh, I don’t know…you’re typing on a computer, connected to a global network of other computers all powered by electricity and so on and so on. I can SEE the products of science all around me. The building I’m in, the car I drive, the lights illuminating the darkness…all of it is proof that science works. Where’s your god hiding? Why is he hiding? He’s a bloody coward if he can’t be bothered to put as much effort into showing his existence as my computer does. Science can be done because it produces results that are tangible. It’s not a philosophical question. You can try to philosophize away science, while using the products of science, all you want. You just come off like a pomous dimwit with a tenuous grasp on reality.
“As for your statements on morality; atheism gives no objective moral foundation as evolution does not tell you what is right and what is wrong.”
And religon does? Child molestation, is it wrong? Slavery, is it wrong?
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)
Thank you. I could never prove my point better than Dawkins.
“- Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.”
It hasn’t? Plenty of scientific evidence that other species have morality. Chimpanzees, for example, will risk life and limb to rescue a fallen comrade. Penguins mate for life. It’s interesting that you quote so much Dawkins….have you actually read any of his books? He gives an excellent treatise of the work of Frances Kamm’s ethics studies that have proven that human beings have a built-in cognitive wiring. Protecting loved ones is an evolutionary survival trait. Not attacking your tribe mates ensures they’ll be around to protect you…and ensure they won’t attack you. There is nothing “mystical” about morality.
“- The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.”
Correct. Evil is a subjective term invented by religions to give focus to the masses that follow it.
“- How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
– Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing?
– Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?”
Meaningless questions. You exist. There’s no reason for it. It’s that simple. And, yes, I offer no proof. It’s my opinion. It’s as valid as the gobbledy-gooked up opinions you’re spouting. Base your arguments in reality, not some esoteric thought experiments.
“The first part of this statement is correct while the second is incorrect. Polkinghorn is a Christian”
That doesn’t change what I said in any way unless….he’s specifically using it to decry the scientific method. If so, he really should choose a different profession if he feels that everything he does is stupid and pointless. In that case, he’s hardly a credible reference in the way you mean to use him. (to show that scientists don’t believe what they’re doing) If, however, he’s using it as ALL scientists use it (because the opinion is not unique to Polkingham) then, again, he’s not a good reference for you because he’s saying exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to use the quote to prove. ALL scientists understand the silliness of the results they sometimes get, not to mention how they seem to fly in the face of logic and beliefs. That’s part of the job and the point of the scientific method: to weed out our preconceptions and biases in order to get to the truth.
“and the creation of the universe has nothing to do with the whims and gods of magic, as it was created by the God of order and love.”
Who used magic to create the universe. Keep up here, will you? If not by magic, then how? Engineers with construction equiment and little yellow hard hats? If he didn’t use a hammer and nails, it was magic.
“Why is it that you reserve the right to believe in something that you cannot experiment or observe at this time yet you try to take away the same rule for theists (though the observations overwhelmingly point to a creator)?”
Because quantum physics has SOME level of evidence to its credence simply due to the fact that the math works. Beyond that, no one believes quantum physics to be an end-all-be-all proof of how the universe works. Just that evidence points to us being on the correct path. It might not be. It might lead us down a path that DOES lead to correct answers. We don’t know unless we try. Religion has all the answers figured out already. What’s the point? Might as well kill yourself now and get into the afterlife since you value it so much more than reality. Conversely, you have not a shred of evidence in the existence of your god other than a mistranslated book of stories written by bronze age goat herders trying to explaing the scary, scary thunder…and you think it constitutes an end-all-be-all guide to how the universe works and are willing to kill people to prove it (yes, I know, not you specifically. It’s never YOU. It’s always some other misguided cult that follows the exact same set of instructions and manage to derive dangerous philosophies out of it, right?)
“Which is a cursory understanding of religion as I have given you ample evidence earlier.”
You’re really going to have to begin the sections you believe to be “evidence” with some kind of marker to let me know. I’ve looked through your whole dissertation and can’t find it.
“The Bible is replete with telling us to grow and increase in wisdom and knowledge.”
Is that before or after we cut the babies from their mother’s wombs? Maybe it’s when we rape the daughters of our enemies and take them as our wives?
“You need to study more on the Anthropic Principle.”
No thanks, I’m familiar…it’s bunk. Disproven time and time again. The sun doesn’t go around the Earth, nor does the rest of the universe. It does not exist for us, we exist because of it.
“In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, the discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities.”
Yes, so? That’s proof we evolved to fit those constants and quantities, it is not proof they exist for us.
“Scientists have been stunned to find that in the first picoseconds of time that the ratios of the approximately 50 constants and physical quantities had to be so precise that if they were altered to even 1 part in 100 million million million that life would not exist.”
I know, it’s amazing, right!? It’s one of the coolest things about science, learning these facts….it does nothing to bloster your belief in gods, though.
My turn for a quote:
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” – Carl Sagan.
I’ve looked through the telescope and seen the wonder and grandeur of the universe. I’ve studied the stars and the planets, the movements of the heavenly bodies. I’ve leared of how the universe began and where it might end. I’ve contemplated and contemplated the scale of the vastness of the universe we call home and remain in awe of it. All of that becomes meaningless and trivial if there were a god who simply snapped their fingers and said “there you go!” How defeating it is to look at the universe, to truly understand the immensity of it all and think…
…is this all there is?
Jan 08, 2011 @ 01:47:47
Debate a Christian?
No as it would violate a primary rule of life:
– Never argue with crazy people! -
Jan 08, 2011 @ 03:07:46
QFT
Jun 18, 2014 @ 15:47:02
Debate a Christian?
No as it would violate a primary rule of life:
– Never argue with crazy people! –
Ah yes, name calling – the last refuge of the monosyllabic. – John Cleese
If you cannot argue with the multitude of evidence presented, call your opposition crazy.
Jun 02, 2013 @ 16:03:47
It’s very trouble-free to find out any matter on net as compared to textbooks, as I found this post at this website.
Jan 09, 2014 @ 15:56:03
If you discovered that Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?
Sep 08, 2014 @ 08:48:22
If you would like to take a good deal from this paragraph then you
have to apply these methods to your won weblog.
Sep 22, 2014 @ 18:53:45
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you
relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about,
why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your weblog when you could
be giving us something enlightening to read?
Sep 24, 2014 @ 02:11:53
Hi would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re working with?
I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different internet browsers and I must say
this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a
good web hosting provider at a fair price? Cheers, I appreciate it!
Oct 01, 2014 @ 02:07:52
Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely feel this web site
needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be back again to
see more, thanks for the advice!
Oct 01, 2014 @ 22:12:39
On June 9, 2014, Sony announced that GTA 5 will be coming to PS4 in fall of 2014.
Oct 08, 2014 @ 19:53:11
多多支持.
Oct 19, 2014 @ 00:56:39
Good article. I will be experiencing a few of these issues as well..
Oct 19, 2014 @ 14:14:29
Hi there! This blog post couldn’t be written any better!
Looking at this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
He always kept preaching about this. I most certainly will send
this post to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read.
Thanks for sharing!
Nov 07, 2014 @ 03:23:24
Anywho, due to the speaking sheet and my love for both excessive-waisted
and maxi skirts, I used to be bound to provide you with this
idea. Measure how lengthy you need your skirt.