“Nothing
in modern physics need give Christians any intellectual
difficulties.”
atheist
and Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees in a speech disagreeing with the
concept that a multi-verse rules out Creator God.
This
is of course obvious since whether you go back one universe, or a
trillion universes, at some point, matter came into existence out of
literally nothing. As Vilenkin states, At one point matter had a
radius of zero.
He is right; no scientific advancement can ever disprove God.
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean that God is real! It means that the definition of God makes God impossible to disprove.
At the same time, no scientific advancement currently proves that God is real. The philosophical statement that either matter is eternal or the source of matter is eternal is false. It creates a false dichotomy.
Either matter is eternal, or not.
Either matter has a cause, or not.
If matter has a cause, the cause is either eternal, or not.
These are valid philosophical statements, all of which are impossible to prove right or wrong due to the nature of matter and the limitation of our observation capabilities.
And atheists choose to believe - CHOOSE TO BELIEVE - on faith - not science - NOT SCIENCE - that matter does not have a cause outside of itself.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I want, you know. For atheists to admit that we both have the same amount of evidence before us and both of us, on faith CHOOSE to go one way or the other, and we believe, either right or wrong, that "our side" has the greater preponderance of evidence or at least evidence that carries the most weight and is therefore the most compelling.
All I want is that you admit that not believing something does not equal believing the opposite.
ReplyDeleteDo you understand that?
You wrote:
atheists choose to believe [...] that matter does not have a cause outside of itself.
That is wrong. Atheists do not believe that, or at least, I certainly don't. I also do not believe that 'matter has a cause outside itself'.
Let me re-phrase:
- I don't believe matter has a cause
- I don't believe matter has no cause
- I do believe it's possible matter has a cause
- I do believe it's possible matter has no cause
However, you believe:
- Matter cannot not have a cause
- Matter has a cause
- That cause is God
Where is the evidence for that?
Correct me if I am wrong because I would not want to misrepresent your beliefs. However, you should be the one to write that sentence because you did misrepresent mine...
...but you don't care apparently.
Do you understand that?
ReplyDeleteSure, I understand that's a position you wish you could have for an option in this case. I think it makes you feel clever and open minded - or something. But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.
-----
“atheists choose to believe [...] that matter does not have a cause outside of itself. That is wrong.”
Well, Hugo, I don't think it is wrong. You can write all the gobbledigook you want but it all boils down to - We don't have a material answer yet, but I'm willing to pretend that I'm without judgement until we do have a material answer.
=====
However, you believe:
- Matter cannot not have a cause
- Matter has a cause
- That cause is God
That's exactly correct. You can include, Matter cannot create itself or pre exist itself.
For the sake of people like you, I would phrase the last line, That cause is Necessary, immaterial , eternal and omnipotent and is what most people refer to as God.
=-====
Where is the evidence for that?
Oh, only everything that humans have ever observed, tested and verified, as well as logic and rational thinking. Without an atheist bias to protect, it's the most logical, rational and scientific (based upon observation, testing and verification) conclusion to reach.
Not believing something exists is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Sometimes semantics do matter.
ReplyDeleteIf it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it doesn't, it probably isn't.
And if it doesn't walk at all, talk at all, nor act at all, it might not even be.
If the only evidence of that it walks, talks and acts at all, is someone saying that someone said someone, somewhere, at some moment in time saw it happen, and decided it was obviously this or that, even though no-one has ever seen this or that, not before, not after, and it's not certain one saw this or that then either...
in my mind it's quite reasonable to think this or that is just a fairytale.
Now, I have seen fairies in my backyard.
How do I know they were fairies? They looked like most fairies do in fairytale illustrations. Airy, light, beautiful human-like things that were not human.
I'm 100% sure that neither of you take my account of it as proof of that fairies exist. I would also dare to suggest that the idea of that I'm either lying or delusional isn't far away from your minds right now... :->
I'm neither.
And I can say that *I* don't take that as proof of that fairies exist :-D
It was probably just that I was tired, and the lights and shadows, reflections, movement of the leaves in the wind... everything just created an illusion of a group of fairies for a moment... and it was an evening late summer, in the Finnish countryside... solitude, forests, summertime... there are these legends and stories and fairytales, and I have always loved them... so my mind was preprogrammed to interpret what I saw as fairies.
But there ARE all these stories and tales... If one person says you're an ass, never mind, but if most people tell you you're an ass, it's time to start looking for your tail. And if a lot of people say they have seen fairies... and where and when did the stories of fairies began? And why? Who invented fairies?
What if the stories are NOT misinterpreted optical phenomenons, but true eye witness accounts of reality? What if fairies exist?
There is just as much evidence to back up the belief of that God exists as there is to back up the belief of that God doesn't exist. Both are irrational beliefs.
Then there are the people who don't believe God exists... or that God doesn't exist.
I suppose some atheists should be called agnostics instead.
Blink
ReplyDelete