Why I'm Not An Atheist
OR
Scientific
evidence for the existence of Creator God:
I
can say that except for epistemic, experiential, logical, coherent
and reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I could be an
atheist.
My belief in God begins with the following observations:
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning from outside of itself.
Even if you want to go down the rabbit trail of “Nothing begins. It only changes from matter to energy or energy to matter,” this transition from one to the other always, always, always has a cause. That we consistently observe this to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists demand that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification. Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth. Therefore, atheists have the highest motivation to accept this premise.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. The universe began to exist. This was not a transfer of energy to matter or matter to energy. The material universe began to exist out of literally nothing. Because these two premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true: The beginning of the universe had a cause. Something that is non-material brought everything material into existence out of nothing material.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
The reason that matter and energy cannot precede themselves is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential an objective feature of time. Time did not exist until the Big Bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics did not become relevant or applicable until Big Bang.Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that: . Matter and energy does not have the ability to create itself or bring itself into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
An infinite regress is not an acceptable or workable solution to the existence of the universe. Therefore, whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed in an eternal, immaterial state outside of and transcendent to these entities.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or in a cause that was / is external to itself.
. If the universe (which is not necessary) has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe.
My belief in God begins with the following observations:
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning from outside of itself.
Even if you want to go down the rabbit trail of “Nothing begins. It only changes from matter to energy or energy to matter,” this transition from one to the other always, always, always has a cause. That we consistently observe this to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists demand that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification. Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth. Therefore, atheists have the highest motivation to accept this premise.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. The universe began to exist. This was not a transfer of energy to matter or matter to energy. The material universe began to exist out of literally nothing. Because these two premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true: The beginning of the universe had a cause. Something that is non-material brought everything material into existence out of nothing material.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
The reason that matter and energy cannot precede themselves is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential an objective feature of time. Time did not exist until the Big Bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics did not become relevant or applicable until Big Bang.Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that: . Matter and energy does not have the ability to create itself or bring itself into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
An infinite regress is not an acceptable or workable solution to the existence of the universe. Therefore, whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed in an eternal, immaterial state outside of and transcendent to these entities.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or in a cause that was / is external to itself.
. If the universe (which is not necessary) has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe.
Because
that is true:
. Existing outside of time, the Cause of the universe is infinite or Eternal,
. Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
. Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
. The Cause cannot be material / natural because neither matter / energy existed until Big Bang, nor did the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), have anything material to act upon or govern until Big Bang.
. Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal. The Cause chose to bring the universe into existence.
. The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
. That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made from what is unseen so that people are without excuse.” Paul in his letter to the Romans.
. Existing outside of time, the Cause of the universe is infinite or Eternal,
. Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
. Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
. The Cause cannot be material / natural because neither matter / energy existed until Big Bang, nor did the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), have anything material to act upon or govern until Big Bang.
. Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal. The Cause chose to bring the universe into existence.
. The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
. That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made from what is unseen so that people are without excuse.” Paul in his letter to the Romans.
Because
of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is what we call God.
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is what we call God.
.
According to atheism the universe doesn’t have an explanation of
its existence. Atheists say that “It just happened. From nothing by
nothing” Over a dozen theories and over a dozen more variations on
those theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God
as the Cause of a beginning universe. Despite the current scientific
knowledge described above, atheists persist in stating that either
matter has always existed (impossible) or that matter created itself
(also impossible).
Why do they do
this? Because, if there is an non material explanation of
the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true.
And that is because the only explanation that fits the evidence of
how and why the universe came into being is a non material Cause or
what we call, Creator God.
Actually, I believe that some day there won’t be any atheists. There will be people for God and people against God but there won’t be anyone so foolish and so closed minded as to believe that Creator God doesn’t exist. And, irony of ironies it will be science that will confirm the existence of God.
Actually, I believe that some day there won’t be any atheists. There will be people for God and people against God but there won’t be anyone so foolish and so closed minded as to believe that Creator God doesn’t exist. And, irony of ironies it will be science that will confirm the existence of God.
Because of
overwhelming scientific evidence, most
atheists do grudgingly admit that the universe did indeed have a
beginning. Unfortunately for atheists, it can be said with absolute
confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that: .
. The universe cannot be infinite. The Borde-Guth-Vilinkin Theorem proves that any expanding universe must have a definitive space / time boundary, a point of beginning, a Singularity, a point of Creation. The expansion property of Dark Matter ensures that the universe will never, nor has ever contracted and oscillated. It will always expand faster and faster. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past. Background radiation, as well as known levels of entropy as well as the expanding universe confirm the truth of the 2nd Law > The universe had a beginning.
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that: .
. The universe cannot be infinite. The Borde-Guth-Vilinkin Theorem proves that any expanding universe must have a definitive space / time boundary, a point of beginning, a Singularity, a point of Creation. The expansion property of Dark Matter ensures that the universe will never, nor has ever contracted and oscillated. It will always expand faster and faster. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past. Background radiation, as well as known levels of entropy as well as the expanding universe confirm the truth of the 2nd Law > The universe had a beginning.
Now in keeping
with the absurdity and incoherence of their belief system, atheists
correctly say on the one hand that an Infinite Regress of Cause is
not workable, while on the other hand they also insist than an
infinite regress of cause is what's happened to allow for the
existence of our universe. While it's not logical, this kind of
thinking is required to maintain the world-view of atheism. On that
note -
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Series of Things or Events or even moments of Time preceding our today. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite Collection by adding Things or Events or moments of Time one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that it hasn't always existed.
To further explain, imagine units of time as individual books filling a book shelf that stretches infinitely into the past. You could imagine an infinitely long street or an infinitely long rope or whatever, but for this example I’ll use a shelf of books.
While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary shelf of books stretching infinitely into the past - sort of - reality holds no such possibility for us.
. Time is not imaginary.
. Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
. Time is real.
. Time is measured in real units.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Series of Things or Events or even moments of Time preceding our today. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite Collection by adding Things or Events or moments of Time one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that it hasn't always existed.
To further explain, imagine units of time as individual books filling a book shelf that stretches infinitely into the past. You could imagine an infinitely long street or an infinitely long rope or whatever, but for this example I’ll use a shelf of books.
While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary shelf of books stretching infinitely into the past - sort of - reality holds no such possibility for us.
. Time is not imaginary.
. Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
. Time is real.
. Time is measured in real units.
That’s why
we hear things like, “The universe is 14.5 billion years
(measurement of time) old.
In a scenario
like this, with the shelf of books (units of time) stretching
infinitely into the past you could never actually arrive at today.
Here’s why. In order to reach the last book (what we call today),
you had to have the second to last book or yesterday. In order to
have the second to last book you had to have the third to last book.
In order to have the third to last book you had to have the fourth to
last book and so on and so on. In the case of “no beginning,” you
could never reach today because you could never reach the “first”
day (book) that made possible the second day which made possible the
third day . . . . Since the past is made up of units of real time, in
the case of a beginningless past we would have had to pass through or
travel through infinite time in order to reach today and that is
physically impossible. To reach today, we have to have had a starting
point, a push point, a point of beginning, a point of first cause. If
the past were actually infinite, we could never reach today because
the past would simply extend infinitely into the past. Neither can
we, as some desperate atheists have tried to do, arbitrarily pick a
set or group or point in real time and begin counting from there. Of
course you can do
that, but it proves nothing regarding the beginning of the universe.
The fact is, we have reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching today, neither can there be an infinite regress of causes of the universe (eg. previous universes). That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe. So great a problem is this for atheists that people like Stephen Hawking simply ignore the origin of “previous” universes and tries to shore up his atheism by saying that we didn’t need God to have “this” universe. He might fool others and make himself a lot of money selling books, but don't allow him to make a fool of you.. The fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist in material realty.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect intelligent beings such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values.
In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.
Let’s conceptualized this number as represented by a dartboard (analogy from Astrophysicist Michael Turner: “Life In The Universe,” in Scientific American). The distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side extends across our entire Milky Way Galaxy. With that in mind, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.
It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and quantities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at 10^-43 second after expansion began. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. They are almost totally independent of each other. However, they do share one thing in common. In fact the only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them is independently needed to be exactly as is, in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. If a person will not entertain the idea that a Creator knew what was required, and brought about the exact conditions for our kind of life, then the reason that these constants have these exact values is simply not known. We can measure these constants to find their values, but beyond that – nothing. What is becoming more and more clear the longer and deeper that science investigates the cosmos is the fact that for intelligent beings like us to exist, we needed a universe this big, this old, with these exact constants, quantities and values and we needed to be in exactly this galaxy, in this solar system at this precise location. The more that science investigates, the less our existence looks like an accident and the more it looks like a deliberate plan. While individual scientists may disagree, the facts of science are not ruling out, but rather ruling in Creator God as cause of the universe. The Anthropic Principle which comes out of the discovery of Fine Tuning is a theory that is falsifiable. Predictions can be made based upon this theory. In fact astrophysicist Fred Hoyle has done exactly that to discover the properties of carbon. He states, “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” Creatures like us who possess free-will choice, reason and morality would not have arisen without our universe being exactly the way it is. Jesus has not only gone to prepare a place for us, He is right now at this very moment, in the midst of suffering, loss and pain, making us into the kind of people who are fit to be in that place. Once God has made us the kind of people He wants us to be, He will remove the conditions that produce suffering, loss and pain (earthquakes, moral evil, floods and such – things that are created by the universe as it is). God is not going to remove these things because of the petulant demands of atheists. He will do this because these conditions are no longer required. Now, the following will mean nothing to atheists but let me take some time to give you some details of what I'm talking about regarding fine tuning.
The fact is, we have reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching today, neither can there be an infinite regress of causes of the universe (eg. previous universes). That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe. So great a problem is this for atheists that people like Stephen Hawking simply ignore the origin of “previous” universes and tries to shore up his atheism by saying that we didn’t need God to have “this” universe. He might fool others and make himself a lot of money selling books, but don't allow him to make a fool of you.. The fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist in material realty.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect intelligent beings such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values.
In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.
Let’s conceptualized this number as represented by a dartboard (analogy from Astrophysicist Michael Turner: “Life In The Universe,” in Scientific American). The distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side extends across our entire Milky Way Galaxy. With that in mind, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.
It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and quantities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at 10^-43 second after expansion began. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. They are almost totally independent of each other. However, they do share one thing in common. In fact the only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them is independently needed to be exactly as is, in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. If a person will not entertain the idea that a Creator knew what was required, and brought about the exact conditions for our kind of life, then the reason that these constants have these exact values is simply not known. We can measure these constants to find their values, but beyond that – nothing. What is becoming more and more clear the longer and deeper that science investigates the cosmos is the fact that for intelligent beings like us to exist, we needed a universe this big, this old, with these exact constants, quantities and values and we needed to be in exactly this galaxy, in this solar system at this precise location. The more that science investigates, the less our existence looks like an accident and the more it looks like a deliberate plan. While individual scientists may disagree, the facts of science are not ruling out, but rather ruling in Creator God as cause of the universe. The Anthropic Principle which comes out of the discovery of Fine Tuning is a theory that is falsifiable. Predictions can be made based upon this theory. In fact astrophysicist Fred Hoyle has done exactly that to discover the properties of carbon. He states, “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” Creatures like us who possess free-will choice, reason and morality would not have arisen without our universe being exactly the way it is. Jesus has not only gone to prepare a place for us, He is right now at this very moment, in the midst of suffering, loss and pain, making us into the kind of people who are fit to be in that place. Once God has made us the kind of people He wants us to be, He will remove the conditions that produce suffering, loss and pain (earthquakes, moral evil, floods and such – things that are created by the universe as it is). God is not going to remove these things because of the petulant demands of atheists. He will do this because these conditions are no longer required. Now, the following will mean nothing to atheists but let me take some time to give you some details of what I'm talking about regarding fine tuning.
While there
are several dozen constants and qualities that are known, the most
fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the
Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the
ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.
.
What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing
coincidence” is the fact that at the Big Bang, the ratio of the
strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was
or else at 10 to -17 seconds after the start of the expansion, the
necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not
have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared. .
The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the
beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate
would have prohibited the formation of our universe.
Think about that!
. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
Think about that!
. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
.
If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or
gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between
protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either
instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked
together forming a black hole.
Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance?
. If what we now call the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.
. If what we call the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.
. The gravitational constant must be exactly 10 ^ 40 weaker than the strong nuclear force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force - exactly!
Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way - at Planck time.
. A change of only 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing.
. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life. Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10^-43 seconds after the start of the expansion.
. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe. Folks, we humans discover these facts and we feel pretty good about ourselves for being able to do so. But a Being exists who not only knew these elements and the necessity for these exact parameters, He brought these elements into existence in the only way possible to produce intelligent, rational, moral creatures.
Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. This expansion rate equation gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times (to borrow a theme from Robert Munch) and then randomly throwing the dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk.
Sadly and amazingly, if you’ve made a philosophical commitment to atheism, this won’t be enough to convince you of anything Super Natural going on so let me use a different example.. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 1,230 zeros. If that hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang our life supporting universe would not exist. This requires an extraordinarily precise arrangement of mass and energy. To hit this exactly right by accident (as atheists tell us is the case), we would put on our blindfold, spin around ten times, and according to atheists, throw a dart randomly at a UNIVERSE sized dart board and hit the exact CORRECT PROTON.
Atheists will sometimes scoff at this by throwing out the term, “the magic of large numbers.” It’s a meaningless phrase regarding what’s being discussed here, but it makes them feel secure in their ignorance. Let me however describe the above equation in yet a different manner. Scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 it could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of a single ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize. Richard Dawkins allows that the universe is “more or less finely tuned.”
Are you getting this?
Do you still think it accidental?
. One more example. It is estimated that the total number atomic particles in the entire universe is 10 ^ 80. Got that? Good. The odds of our universe, even according to atheist scientists, coming into being by chance or by accident is 10 ^ 1240.
In any other context, anything greater than 10^50 is accepted, even by atheist scientists, as impossible. Confront atheists with a universe that had a beginning however, and impossible no longer matter. Impossible can't matter because if, on atheism, the Supernatural does not exist, then “It had to have happened naturally because here we are.”
If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and demand that atheists get out of the education business. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he stops demanding the right to drive the car?
Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance?
. If what we now call the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.
. If what we call the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.
. The gravitational constant must be exactly 10 ^ 40 weaker than the strong nuclear force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force - exactly!
Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way - at Planck time.
. A change of only 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing.
. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life. Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10^-43 seconds after the start of the expansion.
. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe. Folks, we humans discover these facts and we feel pretty good about ourselves for being able to do so. But a Being exists who not only knew these elements and the necessity for these exact parameters, He brought these elements into existence in the only way possible to produce intelligent, rational, moral creatures.
Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. This expansion rate equation gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times (to borrow a theme from Robert Munch) and then randomly throwing the dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk.
Sadly and amazingly, if you’ve made a philosophical commitment to atheism, this won’t be enough to convince you of anything Super Natural going on so let me use a different example.. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 1,230 zeros. If that hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang our life supporting universe would not exist. This requires an extraordinarily precise arrangement of mass and energy. To hit this exactly right by accident (as atheists tell us is the case), we would put on our blindfold, spin around ten times, and according to atheists, throw a dart randomly at a UNIVERSE sized dart board and hit the exact CORRECT PROTON.
Atheists will sometimes scoff at this by throwing out the term, “the magic of large numbers.” It’s a meaningless phrase regarding what’s being discussed here, but it makes them feel secure in their ignorance. Let me however describe the above equation in yet a different manner. Scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 it could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of a single ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize. Richard Dawkins allows that the universe is “more or less finely tuned.”
Are you getting this?
Do you still think it accidental?
. One more example. It is estimated that the total number atomic particles in the entire universe is 10 ^ 80. Got that? Good. The odds of our universe, even according to atheist scientists, coming into being by chance or by accident is 10 ^ 1240.
In any other context, anything greater than 10^50 is accepted, even by atheist scientists, as impossible. Confront atheists with a universe that had a beginning however, and impossible no longer matter. Impossible can't matter because if, on atheism, the Supernatural does not exist, then “It had to have happened naturally because here we are.”
If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and demand that atheists get out of the education business. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he stops demanding the right to drive the car?
This is not a
joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this
information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias
against a Creator is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s
embarrassing. It’s shameful for them to teach “The Universe As An
Accident” to your children. Because these constants and qualities
are independent of and unrelated to each other, as astronomical the
odds of any one of them
being just right, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same
universe, by accident is beyond comprehension.
To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, add to that . . . and so on for ALL the constants and quantities.
No wonder atheist scientists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, We know that the fine tuning of the universe is due to one of the following:. Physical necessity (it had to be this way and no other way),
. Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
. It’s the design of an Intelligence beyond anything we have ever experienced.
We know it’s not due to physical necessity. In a secular or natural reality there is no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe has to exist, let alone a life supporting universe.
Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As just shown, the required fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. As shown above, the odds against this happening by chance are insurmountable.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe this happened by chance. He thinks it will be discovered that the constants and quantities have to be exactly the way they are because of their relationship to Dark Matter. So, on the one hand he’s admitting that it’s absurd to think the fine tuning of our universe is accidental. On the other hand, he has no explanation why Dark Matter would have THAT property, why it would exist at all, or how it would come to begin to exist out of nothing by nothing.
Some gullible people have been led to think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Floating fanciful theories and hoping that they snag a believer here and there is not by any means good science. “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention a planet where life might exist. The fact is, there is not any other way that the laws of matter / energy could be arranged to produce the kind of life that we see on planet earth. And if these laws were any different there would not be any life at all. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of supporting life.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
We do not experience just the appearance of design.
The design we experience is apparent and real.
The design that we experience is from a Designer.
I also believe in the existence of God because:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist.
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does something “wrong” to us. We don’t have to wonder for one second what our community or society thinks about what the person did to us. When we've been wronged our mind immediately appeals to a moral law that both the victim and the offender know transcends both of them. So why does that point to God being the source of objective morals?
Immanuel Kant showed that just as physical laws can be fully known by examining the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realized in Jesus and Father God. Objective moral obligations are as much a part of our real world as are the laws of physics, mathematics or logic. But if objective morality is real, then so too is freewill. If we “should” do something, then it stands to reason that I am able to do that thing. We tell our children to not lie because we fully expect that they are able to choose to not lie. Our governments set before us laws of behaviour because they and we fully expect that we have the ability to choose to obey those laws. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligations are based on God’s character. God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inevitable expression of His Just and Loving nature. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands that come out of His Divine character, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God. Since it's the very character of God that is the basis of morality, it is only those things that are consistent with His character that can be considered objectively moral and good.. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. Therefore examining what is truly good and right gives us a glimmer of the very character of Creator God. This may sound like an overconfident statement but this is our reality. The best explanation of what we experience, especially regarding morality is not atheism but theism, specifically, Christian theism.
This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy. It is not based upon that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is it based on the ebb and flow of the community’s likes / dislikes etc.. Objective morality flows from God's very nature. It is not an arbitrary or capricious decision of His that constitutes the standard of morality. The only things that are “good” are those things that cohere with Creator God's character. The laws of logic, the laws of mathematics and objective moral realities, which exist independent of humans, do not exist independent of Creator God. For that reason, to examine these laws and to examine objective morality is to examine God Himself.
To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, add to that . . . and so on for ALL the constants and quantities.
No wonder atheist scientists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, We know that the fine tuning of the universe is due to one of the following:. Physical necessity (it had to be this way and no other way),
. Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
. It’s the design of an Intelligence beyond anything we have ever experienced.
We know it’s not due to physical necessity. In a secular or natural reality there is no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe has to exist, let alone a life supporting universe.
Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As just shown, the required fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. As shown above, the odds against this happening by chance are insurmountable.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe this happened by chance. He thinks it will be discovered that the constants and quantities have to be exactly the way they are because of their relationship to Dark Matter. So, on the one hand he’s admitting that it’s absurd to think the fine tuning of our universe is accidental. On the other hand, he has no explanation why Dark Matter would have THAT property, why it would exist at all, or how it would come to begin to exist out of nothing by nothing.
Some gullible people have been led to think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Floating fanciful theories and hoping that they snag a believer here and there is not by any means good science. “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention a planet where life might exist. The fact is, there is not any other way that the laws of matter / energy could be arranged to produce the kind of life that we see on planet earth. And if these laws were any different there would not be any life at all. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of supporting life.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
We do not experience just the appearance of design.
The design we experience is apparent and real.
The design that we experience is from a Designer.
I also believe in the existence of God because:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist.
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does something “wrong” to us. We don’t have to wonder for one second what our community or society thinks about what the person did to us. When we've been wronged our mind immediately appeals to a moral law that both the victim and the offender know transcends both of them. So why does that point to God being the source of objective morals?
Immanuel Kant showed that just as physical laws can be fully known by examining the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realized in Jesus and Father God. Objective moral obligations are as much a part of our real world as are the laws of physics, mathematics or logic. But if objective morality is real, then so too is freewill. If we “should” do something, then it stands to reason that I am able to do that thing. We tell our children to not lie because we fully expect that they are able to choose to not lie. Our governments set before us laws of behaviour because they and we fully expect that we have the ability to choose to obey those laws. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligations are based on God’s character. God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inevitable expression of His Just and Loving nature. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands that come out of His Divine character, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God. Since it's the very character of God that is the basis of morality, it is only those things that are consistent with His character that can be considered objectively moral and good.. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. Therefore examining what is truly good and right gives us a glimmer of the very character of Creator God. This may sound like an overconfident statement but this is our reality. The best explanation of what we experience, especially regarding morality is not atheism but theism, specifically, Christian theism.
This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy. It is not based upon that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is it based on the ebb and flow of the community’s likes / dislikes etc.. Objective morality flows from God's very nature. It is not an arbitrary or capricious decision of His that constitutes the standard of morality. The only things that are “good” are those things that cohere with Creator God's character. The laws of logic, the laws of mathematics and objective moral realities, which exist independent of humans, do not exist independent of Creator God. For that reason, to examine these laws and to examine objective morality is to examine God Himself.
Why choose
God as the source of morality as opposed to you or me or Hitler?
God by definition is the least arbitrary stopping point, the least arbitrary point of final authority. That too is what it means for morals to be objective. They have a grounding in a final and ultimate authority. And why should Creator God be the final authority? Because Creator God is the Greatest Conceivable Being. There is nothing beyond Him. He is the ultimate power. What He says is what goes. He has the knowledge to establish moral authority. Creator God is omniscient. There is nothing that He doesn't know about morality or about how we humans were created to work best.
God by definition is the least arbitrary stopping point, the least arbitrary point of final authority. That too is what it means for morals to be objective. They have a grounding in a final and ultimate authority. And why should Creator God be the final authority? Because Creator God is the Greatest Conceivable Being. There is nothing beyond Him. He is the ultimate power. What He says is what goes. He has the knowledge to establish moral authority. Creator God is omniscient. There is nothing that He doesn't know about morality or about how we humans were created to work best.
Creator God's
character is impeccable, without fault.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
God doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
God doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.
Creator God has
the moral authority to hold us accountable for the moral obligations
that we obey or disobey. Almost everyone is willing to recognize
an ultimate standard of goodness. Choosing another person as the
ultimate standard of good and bad, right and wrong sets up obvious
and irreconcilable issues of conflict. Any moral construct (don’t
rape, don’t discriminate etc.) that is "invented" or
adopted by mankind and that is truly good for society, will BE good
for society because it coheres with an objective moral principle that
exists independently of humans. Objective means it is right and true
regardless of whether you agree with it or obey it or even know that
it exists. Again, “objective” (not arbitrary, relative or even
absolute) because it comes from the Ultimate source of Truth,
Goodness, Justice and Love - our Creator.
If “man-made” moral constructs work across time and culture:
. They will work because they are objectively and ultimately right.
. They will work because they are based upon standards that are objectively and ultimately sound.
. They are objectively and ultimately sound because they originate from the character and command of our Creator who is the ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love.
The Christian base for objective morality is based on Truth. In our interaction with others, when wronged, you and I know in an instant that it's based upon Truth. Because it's based upon Truth it helps in the survival of the collective.
The atheist base for morality is based upon it's “perceived” ability to aid survival. It may or may not work over time. It is something that will change with the ebb and flow human desire, likes and dislikes, current ideology and the ability to meet our immediate need. As such, at any given time, atheist morality may or may not entail truth.
If “man-made” moral constructs work across time and culture:
. They will work because they are objectively and ultimately right.
. They will work because they are based upon standards that are objectively and ultimately sound.
. They are objectively and ultimately sound because they originate from the character and command of our Creator who is the ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love.
The Christian base for objective morality is based on Truth. In our interaction with others, when wronged, you and I know in an instant that it's based upon Truth. Because it's based upon Truth it helps in the survival of the collective.
The atheist base for morality is based upon it's “perceived” ability to aid survival. It may or may not work over time. It is something that will change with the ebb and flow human desire, likes and dislikes, current ideology and the ability to meet our immediate need. As such, at any given time, atheist morality may or may not entail truth.
Now, if a
moral personal Creator God does exist, then we could expect to find
clues of His existence within our relationships. If a moral personal
Creator God exists we could expect to find that objective morality
makes sense. We could expect to find within ourselves the sense of
powerful moral obligations: guilt for not obeying these obligations
and feelings of fulfilment when we do obey these demands. And because
a moral, personal Creator God does exist, this is exactly what we do
find to be true deep within our being and in our relationships with
others.
I believe in God because of the following philosophical and metaphysical evidence.
. Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Even David Hume once wrote, “It is an established maxim in metaphysics, that whatever the mind clearly conceives includes the idea of possible existence, or in other words, nothing we imagine is absolutely impossible. We can form the idea of a golden mountain, and from there conclude that such a mountain may actually exist. We can form no idea of a mountain without a valley, and therefore regard it as impossible.” Descates agreed. Alvin Plantinga has refined Anselm’s argument as follows. He asks, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other "great" human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” If we could think of something greater than God, then that is what would be called God. We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist. Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
I believe in God because of the following philosophical and metaphysical evidence.
. Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Even David Hume once wrote, “It is an established maxim in metaphysics, that whatever the mind clearly conceives includes the idea of possible existence, or in other words, nothing we imagine is absolutely impossible. We can form the idea of a golden mountain, and from there conclude that such a mountain may actually exist. We can form no idea of a mountain without a valley, and therefore regard it as impossible.” Descates agreed. Alvin Plantinga has refined Anselm’s argument as follows. He asks, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other "great" human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” If we could think of something greater than God, then that is what would be called God. We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist. Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest
Conceivable Being exists in actual reality, then a Greatest
Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.
While all of
these scientific and philosophical arguments point toward a Creator
and away from materialism, there are a several points of evidence
that specifically point away from materialism.
1. The most important point for me is the atheist claim that life arose from non-life unaided. Like everything else that atheists say in regard to origins, this claim flies in the face of all known experience, testing and evidence. The level and degree of specified, formulated, coded information that is required for life to begin and to exist has and always will only come from an Intelligent Source. As Dawkins himself has said, The study of genetics is pure information technology. There are no known exceptions to this known fact. So certain is this fact that atheists are reduced to saying something no less preposterous than “Everything came from nothing by nothing.” How sad is that? And as preposterous as that claim is, they also say, “Inanimate and inorganic gases evolved into life.” That is such an incredibly sad and pathetic statement, but what else are atheists to do. While he would never recognize it as applying to himself and his own world-view, Richard Dawkins has said, “Our minds are prime environments for parasitic, self-replicating ideas,” and that “Minds are typically massively infected.” Sir Richard can't imagine that his and other atheist minds are susceptible to infection. Yet, how else can we explain their whole belief system that rests upon an absurd, incoherent and ridiculous unsubstantiated hypothesis.
1. The most important point for me is the atheist claim that life arose from non-life unaided. Like everything else that atheists say in regard to origins, this claim flies in the face of all known experience, testing and evidence. The level and degree of specified, formulated, coded information that is required for life to begin and to exist has and always will only come from an Intelligent Source. As Dawkins himself has said, The study of genetics is pure information technology. There are no known exceptions to this known fact. So certain is this fact that atheists are reduced to saying something no less preposterous than “Everything came from nothing by nothing.” How sad is that? And as preposterous as that claim is, they also say, “Inanimate and inorganic gases evolved into life.” That is such an incredibly sad and pathetic statement, but what else are atheists to do. While he would never recognize it as applying to himself and his own world-view, Richard Dawkins has said, “Our minds are prime environments for parasitic, self-replicating ideas,” and that “Minds are typically massively infected.” Sir Richard can't imagine that his and other atheist minds are susceptible to infection. Yet, how else can we explain their whole belief system that rests upon an absurd, incoherent and ridiculous unsubstantiated hypothesis.
2. Most
materialists truly believe that, “Only science is rational. Science
is the only begetter of truth.” Richard Lewontin.
Ya - very
rational - “Everything came from nothing by nothing.” “Inanimate
gases evolved into life.” The statement “Science is the only
source of truth” is not only a philosophical statement and NOT a
scientific statement, it is a poor and ignorant philosophical
statement because the statement itself cannot be tested by the
scientific method. These self-professed intelligent people are making
statements that are self-contradictory. When someone is forced to
make self-contradictory statements it means their bias and prejudice
is so strong that they are willing to operate from a profoundly weak
and unsupported base.
3. Molecular machines in our bodies are impossible to explain from a Darwinian perspective. They are huge proofs that Darwin and his followers are wrong. “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Microbiologist James Shapiro - University of Chicago. These biological mechanisms (Eg. The highly choreographed cascade of ten steps that used twenty different molecular components to clot blood at the site of a wound; Bacterial Flagellum; Cilium; The intra cellular transport system and dozens more mechanisms in our bodies) need all of their various parts in place in order to function. If one part is missing, there IS no mechanism. In reality, you would never arrive at such an irreducibly complex system by a Darwinian process of natural selection acting on random variation. Natural selection only preserves mutations that perform a function that aides the survival of the entity. A partial mechanism would simply not survive nor be retained for long periods of time. Irreducibly complex systems do not perform any function until all the parts are present and working together in combination with one another. Natural selection would not build such an unworkable system. So exquisite are these molecular machines that one atheist genetic scientist has commented, “We must constantly remind ourselves that what we are seeing was not designed.” Like the first point in this section, when you hear such irrational comments you know you are dealing with someone who is working with an absence of evidence and an unsupportable case.
4. Another point that absolutely points away from material evolution and toward design is the Biological Big Bang, better known as The Cambrian Explosion. In this time period we find completely novel body plans that appear in a geological instant. We find a huge jump in complexity of life forms with zero transitional life forms in the fossil record. Massive amounts of new biological information suddenly appears beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce, again in a geological moment in time. As one evolutionary sceptic has said, “Just how fast does this evolution have to happen before they stop calling it evolution?” Darwin himself said that natural selection never takes sudden leaps yet we have proponents of such a system trying to tell us that not only has irreducible complexity arisen suddenly and spontaneously, they say that it’s happened spontaneously in many species at the same time in many places around the world. And since there hasn't been a fleck of evidence of body plan evolution in any species for the last 100 million years, some atheists are suggesting that the Cambrian explosion must also be an illusion. They're saying that life must have arisen from non-life, not once but tens of thousands of times in thousands of places. You can go along with that if you want, but as for me and my house? Mmm, nope. Unlike atheism, my world-view actually does demand evidence for belief.5. Finally human consciousness is such a problem for a materialist that they go to one of two extremes. The first is believing that consciousness is a "natural" result of increased thinking capacity - i.e. one day computers, rather than shuffling information, will “evolve” a consciousness and even a sense of spirituality.
I'm not joking!
Atheists are that foolish and more! Or, and this is more common, they are reduced to saying that the “I” that we all know exists, is just an illusion; that it does not exist.
3. Molecular machines in our bodies are impossible to explain from a Darwinian perspective. They are huge proofs that Darwin and his followers are wrong. “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Microbiologist James Shapiro - University of Chicago. These biological mechanisms (Eg. The highly choreographed cascade of ten steps that used twenty different molecular components to clot blood at the site of a wound; Bacterial Flagellum; Cilium; The intra cellular transport system and dozens more mechanisms in our bodies) need all of their various parts in place in order to function. If one part is missing, there IS no mechanism. In reality, you would never arrive at such an irreducibly complex system by a Darwinian process of natural selection acting on random variation. Natural selection only preserves mutations that perform a function that aides the survival of the entity. A partial mechanism would simply not survive nor be retained for long periods of time. Irreducibly complex systems do not perform any function until all the parts are present and working together in combination with one another. Natural selection would not build such an unworkable system. So exquisite are these molecular machines that one atheist genetic scientist has commented, “We must constantly remind ourselves that what we are seeing was not designed.” Like the first point in this section, when you hear such irrational comments you know you are dealing with someone who is working with an absence of evidence and an unsupportable case.
4. Another point that absolutely points away from material evolution and toward design is the Biological Big Bang, better known as The Cambrian Explosion. In this time period we find completely novel body plans that appear in a geological instant. We find a huge jump in complexity of life forms with zero transitional life forms in the fossil record. Massive amounts of new biological information suddenly appears beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce, again in a geological moment in time. As one evolutionary sceptic has said, “Just how fast does this evolution have to happen before they stop calling it evolution?” Darwin himself said that natural selection never takes sudden leaps yet we have proponents of such a system trying to tell us that not only has irreducible complexity arisen suddenly and spontaneously, they say that it’s happened spontaneously in many species at the same time in many places around the world. And since there hasn't been a fleck of evidence of body plan evolution in any species for the last 100 million years, some atheists are suggesting that the Cambrian explosion must also be an illusion. They're saying that life must have arisen from non-life, not once but tens of thousands of times in thousands of places. You can go along with that if you want, but as for me and my house? Mmm, nope. Unlike atheism, my world-view actually does demand evidence for belief.5. Finally human consciousness is such a problem for a materialist that they go to one of two extremes. The first is believing that consciousness is a "natural" result of increased thinking capacity - i.e. one day computers, rather than shuffling information, will “evolve” a consciousness and even a sense of spirituality.
I'm not joking!
Atheists are that foolish and more! Or, and this is more common, they are reduced to saying that the “I” that we all know exists, is just an illusion; that it does not exist.
Regardless of
either option, Darwinists plead with us to believe that we are
nothing more than a mass of chemical exchanges and firing neurons
even as they display a whole range of personal thoughts, emotions and
pseudo arguments when their beliefs in this area are challenged.
These people look at the human abilities of self-reflection, art,
medicine, the enjoyment of music and say it comes from an illusory
direction of will. In fact, they say that self-will or freewill
choice are also an illusion. Even though the development of our
vocabulary is enormous, our grammar complex and our conversations
deep and meaningful, it all comes, say materialists, without purpose
or meaning. These atheists look at the human ability to codify
language, our unbounded creativity, selflessness, love, the
exercising of our rational faculties, our ability to develop an
argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame
hypotheses and call it the simple, random and unguided firing of
neurons. Our strong spirit of enquiry, our research in the fields of
astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics while noteworthy for
some, is nothing of lasting consequence to an atheist, for all will,
according to atheists comes to an absurd and meaningless end. Yearn
for meaning in life? It too is of no lasting import. It’s the same
illusion that causes us to devote so much of our time to philosophy,
theology and ethics. Or so the materialist world-view claims.
Atheists say that our religious sentiments and practices and our
intense and endless quest for meaning can be traced to some random
mutation eons ago.
The concept of atheism forces us to say that it’s only the illusion of the “I” that questions not only our origin but also our destiny. It’s only the illusion of the “I” that has a refined aesthetic sense that admires beauty and longs to be surrounded with it. When we cultivate a garden, put flowers in a vase, or hang up a painting, it’s the illusion of the “I” that is expressing a love of beauty and a strong creative impulse. Our poetry, painting, dance, drama and music, our weekly craft groups where baskets are woven, wool is spun, shawls are knit, and photo albums are covered, all this, says the ardent materialist, is carried out for no particular reason save to follow the command of chemical exchanges.
Reason, language, enquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour, to such intangible but fundamental qualities, atheists like Bertrand Russel can only respond, and in the total absence of proofs or evidence, yet driven by a desperate desire to be free from all accountability to one’s Creator, they hope that you will agree, “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction . . . that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
The atheist’s philosophical and powerful emotional reaction to the fact of a universe with a beginning and to the impossibility of life arising unaided from non life shows that we are far, far more than a mass of chemical exchanges, more than mere thinking machines.
And that is why I say:
. Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, and
. Because the cosmological argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of reality as we know it, and
. Because the teleological argument shows more than just the appearance of design, and
. Because of the Kalam argument that shows that whatever begins to exist has a cause and an explanation for its beginning to exist, and
. Because the moral argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of all objective morals, values, obligations and Truth,
. I believe that Creator God exists and that Christianity is the best explanation for the type of world / environment and the cosmos in which we live.
While any or all the above may or may not give you pause for thought, the most important basis for my belief in God lies in a different category. The palpable presence of God in my life, His counsel, His comfort, His correction and guidance, His love and mercy and grace, all of these things are so very real in my innermost being that they compel me to acknowledge the truth of His existence.
I am so very grateful that I have been granted the gift of what I call, "Wide-Band Awareness." This is a Gift / ability that is shared and immediately recognized by believers from around the world regardless of race, social stature, gender or intellectual ability. Roughly 95% of the people in the world know at some level that there is more to life, that there is much more going on around us than what meets the eye. There are thin places in life where we can almost but not quite reach through and touch the other side of things.
For some reason atheists lack this perceptive ability and they live out their existence on earth within a very Narrow Band of Awareness. This condemns them to examining only a very narrow band of evidence as they, like all of us, struggle to make sense of life.
I also believe in God because of the historicity of Jesus. Except for those who exist on the lunatic fringe (eg. those who also deny the Holocaust), the reality of Jesus cannot be denied. In fact, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus cannot be adequately explained away. Something totally other took place when Jesus appeared on earth.
I believe in God because the heavens and the earth declare His handiwork. There is simply no sufficient explanation for WHY the universe began to exist exactly as it did other than “Creator God.” This is not an explanation from ignorance because Creator God is the ONLY conclusion that fits the scientific evidence.
The concept of atheism forces us to say that it’s only the illusion of the “I” that questions not only our origin but also our destiny. It’s only the illusion of the “I” that has a refined aesthetic sense that admires beauty and longs to be surrounded with it. When we cultivate a garden, put flowers in a vase, or hang up a painting, it’s the illusion of the “I” that is expressing a love of beauty and a strong creative impulse. Our poetry, painting, dance, drama and music, our weekly craft groups where baskets are woven, wool is spun, shawls are knit, and photo albums are covered, all this, says the ardent materialist, is carried out for no particular reason save to follow the command of chemical exchanges.
Reason, language, enquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour, to such intangible but fundamental qualities, atheists like Bertrand Russel can only respond, and in the total absence of proofs or evidence, yet driven by a desperate desire to be free from all accountability to one’s Creator, they hope that you will agree, “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction . . . that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
The atheist’s philosophical and powerful emotional reaction to the fact of a universe with a beginning and to the impossibility of life arising unaided from non life shows that we are far, far more than a mass of chemical exchanges, more than mere thinking machines.
And that is why I say:
. Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, and
. Because the cosmological argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of reality as we know it, and
. Because the teleological argument shows more than just the appearance of design, and
. Because of the Kalam argument that shows that whatever begins to exist has a cause and an explanation for its beginning to exist, and
. Because the moral argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of all objective morals, values, obligations and Truth,
. I believe that Creator God exists and that Christianity is the best explanation for the type of world / environment and the cosmos in which we live.
While any or all the above may or may not give you pause for thought, the most important basis for my belief in God lies in a different category. The palpable presence of God in my life, His counsel, His comfort, His correction and guidance, His love and mercy and grace, all of these things are so very real in my innermost being that they compel me to acknowledge the truth of His existence.
I am so very grateful that I have been granted the gift of what I call, "Wide-Band Awareness." This is a Gift / ability that is shared and immediately recognized by believers from around the world regardless of race, social stature, gender or intellectual ability. Roughly 95% of the people in the world know at some level that there is more to life, that there is much more going on around us than what meets the eye. There are thin places in life where we can almost but not quite reach through and touch the other side of things.
For some reason atheists lack this perceptive ability and they live out their existence on earth within a very Narrow Band of Awareness. This condemns them to examining only a very narrow band of evidence as they, like all of us, struggle to make sense of life.
I also believe in God because of the historicity of Jesus. Except for those who exist on the lunatic fringe (eg. those who also deny the Holocaust), the reality of Jesus cannot be denied. In fact, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus cannot be adequately explained away. Something totally other took place when Jesus appeared on earth.
I believe in God because the heavens and the earth declare His handiwork. There is simply no sufficient explanation for WHY the universe began to exist exactly as it did other than “Creator God.” This is not an explanation from ignorance because Creator God is the ONLY conclusion that fits the scientific evidence.
While it's
true that atheists have proposed other theories for the "Creation”
of the universe, it is not because of any inadequacy in or lack of
evidence for the idea of God as Creator. The presentation of
alternative theories is only because God as Creator is
philosophically unacceptable to atheists.
The type of belief in God that I'm talking about is sometimes called “faith.” But faith is often misunderstood as being separate from reason or evidence. That could not be more inaccurate. For one thing, we are told to love the Lord our God with, among other things, “all our mind.” Second the Bible describes Faith as being “The substance of, the certainty of, the essence of, the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.” While one’s faith does not find its origin in evidence (the origin is purely from God - John 6:44), faith is clearly supported by evidence, reason, logic and experience. In other words, my Faith in Creator God is anything but blind or uninformed. In my opinion agnostics are the only ones who ‘go as far as empirical evidence will let them.’ Atheists take the next step because the evidence points to a philosophically and metaphysically unacceptable conclusion - Creator God exists. Christians take the next step because of the reality of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord of lords and King of kings who lives within their very being. Nevertheless, my epistemic and experiential belief in God is grounded in logic and reason and that is why I'm not an atheist.
In that sense Christian faith can be described as “Choosing to believe the conclusion that the Bible and God Himself through the person of Jesus the Christ has presented regarding the evidence that we have before us.” Faith in Christianity is rejecting the faith that a very small percentage of people place in atheism.
Faith is not, as those who fear the idea of a Creator say, believing something even in the absence of evidence. At bare minimum we have a whole universe proclaiming the existence of Creator God. When pressed, honest atheists acquiesce that a Deistic God may well exist, “But that doesn’t prove a Theistic God.” Well, no it doesn’t. For that we have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus who said, “If you have seen Me you have seen Creator God.”
Among other historical events, proof of His resurrection comes in the form of:
. The empty tomb
. The dramatic change in character of the disciples
. The rise of the Christian Church
. The conversion of the sceptic and Christian killer Paul
. The conversion of the sceptics, Jesus' brothers, sisters and mother -
all of these confirming the theistic God as seen in Jesus.
The fact is, faith stems from evidence. Both atheists and Christians have before them the same amount of evidence, and both atheists and Christians have drawn the conclusions they have drawn by faith.
“By faith we (Christians) understand (choose to believe the Bible’s claim) that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3
“By an even greater amount of faith (everything came from nothing by nothing) atheists understand (choose to believe the implication of atheism) that the universe came into being by natural means even though nothing natural / material existed UNTIL the universe came into being.” For the Christian, faith is choosing to believe the conclusion that comes from the evidence put before us both from the existence of a life-sustaining universe and from what God tells us in His Word. Faith, for the Christian, is a balance between naive belief and total scepticism.
While there have been and will continue to be criticisms of the arguments that I've put forth in this book (what else would we expect from someone who wants to be an atheist?), what’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not necessarily the same as a refutation.
The type of belief in God that I'm talking about is sometimes called “faith.” But faith is often misunderstood as being separate from reason or evidence. That could not be more inaccurate. For one thing, we are told to love the Lord our God with, among other things, “all our mind.” Second the Bible describes Faith as being “The substance of, the certainty of, the essence of, the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.” While one’s faith does not find its origin in evidence (the origin is purely from God - John 6:44), faith is clearly supported by evidence, reason, logic and experience. In other words, my Faith in Creator God is anything but blind or uninformed. In my opinion agnostics are the only ones who ‘go as far as empirical evidence will let them.’ Atheists take the next step because the evidence points to a philosophically and metaphysically unacceptable conclusion - Creator God exists. Christians take the next step because of the reality of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord of lords and King of kings who lives within their very being. Nevertheless, my epistemic and experiential belief in God is grounded in logic and reason and that is why I'm not an atheist.
In that sense Christian faith can be described as “Choosing to believe the conclusion that the Bible and God Himself through the person of Jesus the Christ has presented regarding the evidence that we have before us.” Faith in Christianity is rejecting the faith that a very small percentage of people place in atheism.
Faith is not, as those who fear the idea of a Creator say, believing something even in the absence of evidence. At bare minimum we have a whole universe proclaiming the existence of Creator God. When pressed, honest atheists acquiesce that a Deistic God may well exist, “But that doesn’t prove a Theistic God.” Well, no it doesn’t. For that we have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus who said, “If you have seen Me you have seen Creator God.”
Among other historical events, proof of His resurrection comes in the form of:
. The empty tomb
. The dramatic change in character of the disciples
. The rise of the Christian Church
. The conversion of the sceptic and Christian killer Paul
. The conversion of the sceptics, Jesus' brothers, sisters and mother -
all of these confirming the theistic God as seen in Jesus.
The fact is, faith stems from evidence. Both atheists and Christians have before them the same amount of evidence, and both atheists and Christians have drawn the conclusions they have drawn by faith.
“By faith we (Christians) understand (choose to believe the Bible’s claim) that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3
“By an even greater amount of faith (everything came from nothing by nothing) atheists understand (choose to believe the implication of atheism) that the universe came into being by natural means even though nothing natural / material existed UNTIL the universe came into being.” For the Christian, faith is choosing to believe the conclusion that comes from the evidence put before us both from the existence of a life-sustaining universe and from what God tells us in His Word. Faith, for the Christian, is a balance between naive belief and total scepticism.
While there have been and will continue to be criticisms of the arguments that I've put forth in this book (what else would we expect from someone who wants to be an atheist?), what’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not necessarily the same as a refutation.
When an
intelligent person wilfully abandons reason and begins to posit
finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings,
I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate
attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator
God exists.
When an intelligent person wilfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When someone ignores Occam’s Razor and goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid the conclusion indicated by current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
Thanks to advances in science, every year to an increasing degree, we are pointed by science toward the existence of a Supernatural Creator and away from the foolish proposition of materialism / naturalism.
That is why I’m not an atheist.
When an intelligent person wilfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When someone ignores Occam’s Razor and goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid the conclusion indicated by current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
Thanks to advances in science, every year to an increasing degree, we are pointed by science toward the existence of a Supernatural Creator and away from the foolish proposition of materialism / naturalism.
That is why I’m not an atheist.
What you are presenting is based on a very old argument called the Ontological argument. From this argument, you then deduce all kinds of claims you label as 'scientific'. It's not. It's assumptions all the way down and older than the New Testament. The central criticisms against it are not 'scientific' or 'atheist' or whatever modern label you wish to attach to it's fatal flaws. It's central criticism comes from a very big brained fellow with whom you are probably familiar: Thomas Aquinas. And good luck explaining how his impeccable logic is wanting! He points out, quite correctly, how the argument contains contains false premises, and on that basis alone is why Aquinas not just dismembers but eviscerates it.
ReplyDeleteBut the carcass has since been revived by that modern day theological Robin Hood WL Craig, who steals from the rich theology (you know, the good stuff from the Fathers of the Church) and gives to the poor (you know, the modern day evangelical who rarely has the religious education to understand such Sophisticated Theology (TM)). He's a charlatan widely celebrated as knowledgeable theologian who tries to gain popularity not by the soundness of his ideas (which he refuses to address when pointed out repeatedly to him) but by advertising through debate.
Look, prior to Galileo, there were assumptions made about the nature of things that were held to be true. For about 2,000 years, the best physics we had was based on assumptions that we now know are wrong: things once held to be self evident but now known to be factually incorrect. The language of these arguments reveals their ancient origin.
For example, inanimate objects do not possess 'natures', that motion is not evidence for the agency of a 'Prime Mover', and so on, but specifically that 'First Causes' are not a logical requirement defined by how we interpret causal effects. This language reveals the now discredited notion of the old assumptions, the old physics, the Aristotelian natural sciences that informed early and middle christian theology.
You continue to make the thinking error of assigning your assumptions equivalence to evidence. This is a fatal flaw. Where our knowledge ends is not god (the ever-shrinking realm for the god of the gaps argument) but a much more honest "I don't know and you don't either" domain. But because you continue to infuse your belief to be a legitimate means of gaining knowledge, you fool yourself into thinking your beliefs are knowledge. And this is demonstrably false because your beliefs do not create the hallmarks of knowledge, namely, applications, therapies, and technologies that work. In fact, the old physics produces not one bit of practical, applicable knowledge. Ever. At all. It is a dead end not because atheists claim it is but because the assumptions you make do not translate into knowledge. That's not the fault of anyone but the practitioner who, in spite of achieving exactly the same null knowledge result over and over again insist that believing will work this time. That's the very definition of crazy. We as a species have moved on from this failed epistemology. And atheists are quite willing to let anyone who respects what's true and what is knowable into the camp of rationality. Those who refuse to respect what's true, refuse to admit that "I don't know and neither do you" can be a really good and honest answer, should not be awarded respect and social privilege for arrogantly promoting intellectual dishonesty and a lack of intellectual integrity. That's what the New Atheists are all about because fooling ourselves in the name of god can be very, very dangerous to all of us.
I'll catch up to you on this one when you 've answered the questions I asked on the other post.
ReplyDeleteAh... the fine tuning argument, from Douglas Adams:
ReplyDelete"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
“How do you know . . .”
ReplyDeleteFrom a scientific perspective, neither of us “know.” Although from a scientific and philosophic perspective I think the evidence is year after year, increasingly pointing to an immaterial dimension especially as it relates to origins.
=====
“We fool ourselves to protect ourselves! That rustling in the long grass?”
Since “there are many such examples” it won't be hard for you to give me some examples of beneficial lying to myself that are several hundred thousand years closer to modern circumstances than the danger of rustling grass.
=====
“Eyewitnesses rarely assume correctly. . .”
I'd like to see a citation for that one. I agree that eyewitness testimony is fraught with difficulty, but “rarely”? I don't believe that. "Exactly"? sure. "Correct" enough to know what happened? not rarely.
And while we're at it, let's get right to the issue at hand. How did several hundred eyewitnesses, fooling themselves into believing that they ate with the resurrected Jesus, touched the resurrected Jesus, walked and talked and learned from the resurrected Jesus over a period of almost two months aid in their survival? Or am I wrong in thinking that you believe they were fooling themselves?
=====
“I start with the assumption that the same two questions require answering before I assume an opinion. And I change that opinion when I have better reasons to do so than the ones that informed the previous opinion.”
Do you see evidence eliminating all but a material cause for the beginning of the universe?
============
“That's why a sound methodology is so vital to doing this.”
I agree. So when we consistently observe that for (x) to exist, (a) is required, and when we test that for (x) to exist, (a) is required, and when we verify that for (x) to exist, (a) is required, and it's the same each and every time for as long as humans have existed, isn't it logical and reasonable to go with what we've observed to be true? And since, from a scientific point of view, nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification, don't we have the highest reason to believe that for (x) to exist, (a) is required and that it is not logical or reasonable to assume that there must be an alternative simply because we don't want (a) to exist?
Isn't that the principle behind your points 1) and 2)?
And if every single attempt to promote an alternative to the existence of (a) only reinforces the truth of the existence of (a), wouldn't we have the highest motivation to accept its existence? That is after all the basis of the scientific method, is it not?
Besides that, when you run into information that seems to confirm both your current position and a position that you don't want to accept, what do you do? How do you keep internal bias from discarding a “competing” proposition of equal validity?
============
“No, I wouldn't agree with that statement.”
What other means are there for ascertaining truth? And if you don't agree with that statement why should I accept your conclusion when this scientist with more experience and greater intelligence than you says something completely different? Who is using the correct methodology here – you or Lewontin? Whose bias is skewing the conclusion?
-----
“Science as a method of inquiring about reality is a truly remarkable achievement of our species.”
Absolutely. Are you aware of any areas of enquiry where the scientific method is not helpful or where it is perhaps even the wrong methodology to use for knowing the truth?
=====
“the term 'true' can also be a subjective value statement.
Is there such a thing as truth? For example, “This is a material universe with no supernatural component,” Would you consider that to be a “true” statement?
Re: Origins... I don't know and you don't either. This is not a good reason to insert, "Therefore, Oogity Boogity!"
ReplyDelete===
More modern examples? The social benefits of believing in whatever your preferred flavour of Oogity Boogity might be. Believing in purpose, meaning, fate, signs and portents, and so on. Only when the costs outweigh the benefits do any of us seriously revisit our reasons for granting these ideas affective power.
====
Finish my quote! What is it that eyewitnesses rarely assume? "What we actually 'see' for example is almost entirely created not with visual input through the eyes but created by our brain filling in and making sense of what we think we are seeing. Eyewitnesses rarely assume correctly that they did not actually see what they think they saw."
The point I was making was, I thought, clear: we interpret what we think we see. This is such a well-known problem with first person accounts that eye-witness testimony in our judicial system is one of the weakest forms of evidence allowed. Apply that fact with your observation about the reliability of second-hand witness accounts (I heard it from this guy who says he saw what he saw!) of Jesus after his resurrection (but conveniently ignore the lack of witnesses for all the other dead bodies Matthew tells us were supposedly wandering about).
Come on. Your belief in the accounts do not make your interpretation of other people's interpretations historically valid. The truth of the matter is that we have no compelling evidence that your interpretation is any better grounded in reality than the beliefs held by scientologists about invisible thetans.
====
Do you see evidence eliminating all but a material cause for the beginning of the universe?
Again, this question makes no sense because it is incoherent. How can you determine a cause for time? Please illuminate us with something more substantial than the non-answer "Goddidit," or "It's logically necessary."
======
Your methodology is not sound because you continue to fail to grasp why your talk of a 'cause' is incoherent in meaning.
====
If you read my response, you are obviously having difficulty comprehending it. The difference I pointed out between me and Lewontin's statement was taking into account the broad and narrow sense of the term 'true'. I included an explanation you seem to have entirely skipped as far as trying to understand why there appears to be a difference of opinion. You then effortlessly slide from the meaning of the word 'true' to asking me if there is "such a thing as truth".
Good grief. No, there is no object in existence called truth. AS FAR AS WE KNOW this universe has yet to provide us with compelling evidence to suggest there exists a supernatural component. What we do know is that belief in supernatural causation looks identical to ignorance. What we do know is that respecting ignorance does not increase our knowledge. For those who make the positive claim that the supernatural contains causal agency, they have provided no evidence to independently link this supposed supernatural cause with a natural effect, nor offered us any testable way to show the mechanism by which this link causes effect.
Are you going to address my points with your own or simply make more counter statements in the form of questions so admired and regularly practiced by the pundits of FOX News?