Question:
Fine Tuning: This argument (based on my understanding) is based on the assumption that life can only form under the conditions of our universe and only takes into account life as we know it. Is it not possible for life to form under different physical constants? If so, wouldn't the fine tuning of our universe be irrelevant to the question of God's existence?
Moral Argument: You assert that objective morality comes about through God (to put it very simply). Isn't it just as plausible to see morality as something evolving from early homo sapiens and the development of different societies and civilizations and the necessities that follow from living in those societies? Couldn't morality have come about naturally through the demands of a society to conform to the norms?
Nathan
Dr. William Lane Craig responds:
.jpg)
1. Fine-Tuning. Your understanding of the argument is incorrect. See my exposition of the argument in Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. When scientists talk about a universe's being life-permitting, they're not talking about just present forms of life. By "life" scientists just mean the property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. Anything that can fulfill those functions counts as life. And the point is, in order for life so-defined to exist, whatever form it might take, the constants and quantities of the universe have to be unbelievably fine-tuned. You suggest that if the constants and quantities had had different values, then different forms of life might have evolved. But you're underestimating the truly disastrous consequences of a change in the values of these constants and quantities. In the absence of fine-tuning not even matter, not even chemistry, would exist, much less planets where life might evolve.
Someone might think, "But maybe in a universe governed by different laws of nature, such disastrous consequences might not result." But this objection also betrays a misunderstanding of the argument. We're not concerned with universes governed by different laws of nature. We have no idea what such universes might be like! Rather we're concerned solely with universes governed by the same laws of nature but with different values of the constants and arbitrary quantities. The philosopher John Leslie gives the following illustration: imagine a solitary fly, resting on a large, blank area of the wall. A single shot is fired, and the bullet strikes the fly. Now even if the rest of the wall outside the blank area is covered with flies, so that a randomly fired bullet would probably hit one, nevertheless it remains highly improbable that a single, randomly fired bullet would strike the solitary fly within the large, blank area.
In the same way, we need concern ourselves only with universes governed by the same laws of nature in order to determine how likely it is that one of them should be life-permitting. Because the laws are the same, we can determine what would happen if the constants and quantities were to be altered. And the results turn out to be disastrous. A life-permitting universe is like that solitary fly on the wall.
2. Morality. The answer to your questions is: It all depends! If God does not exist, then, as I've argued, what you say is exactly what moral values are: mere byproducts of biological and social evolution. But if God exists, then they're not. For the truth of a belief is independent of how you came to hold that belief. You may have acquired your moral beliefs through a fortune cookie or by reading tea leaves, and they could still be true. In particular, if God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist, regardless of how we come to learn about them. The socio-biological account at best proves that our perception of moral values and duties has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible perception of those values no more undermines their objective reality than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines its objective reality.
So the real question is: do you think there is an objective distinction between good and evil, right and wrong? I'm sure you do. Philosophers who reflect on our moral experience see no more reason to distrust that experience than the experience of our five senses. I believe what my five senses tell me, that there is a world of physical objects out there. Similarly, in the absence of some reason to distrust my moral experience, I should accept what it tells me, that some things are objectively good or evil, right or wrong.
Extracted from ReasonableFaith.org
I see a flaw in the reasoning of Lane Craigs response about fine tuning. The authors argument is that "in order for life so-defined to exist, whatever form it might take, the constants and quantities of the universe have to be unbelievably fine-tuned." In order for this logic to be correct the author has made the assumption that the only way life can exist in this universe is in the same we can observe it as it exists now. This has conclusively been the problem when searching for extra-terrestrial lifeforms. The small band called the goldilocks zone that we live in is improbably small compared to the rest of the universe, and acts as the correct habitat for US. One also cannot assume that this is the only habital zone in the universe, simply because they cannot see all zones; but mostly we cannot assume that our version of terrestrial life is the only version of life that can exist.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Craigs argument is based purely on speculation and assumptions.
@ Jonathan
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of the response? The objection you just raised is almost identical to the one by Nathan in the article. As was written there:
"You suggest that if the constants and quantities had had different values, then different forms of life might have evolved. But you're underestimating the truly disastrous consequences of a change in the values of these constants and quantities. In the absence of fine-tuning not even matter, not even chemistry, would exist, much less planets where life might evolve."
To give you an example from basic nuclear physics of what would happen if we were to alter some of them:
# The electromagnetic coupling constant (Coulomb's constant) binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms. Thus either way preventing molecules and life from forming.
# Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form, nor life.
# Strong nuclear force (related to the strong coupling constant). If this was to change then the available elements for life would radically change. If the force was weaker by as little as 2% there would be nothing but hydrogen in the universe. If on the other hand it was stronger by as little as 1% then hydrogen and some of the heavier elements would not exist. Greater increases/decreases than this lead to more catastrophic changes. Needless to say life could not exist in any of these situations.
# Newtonian Gravitational Constant. If this was to change most solar systems, galaxies and planets/stars would slowly disintergrate (lesser value) or slowly implode (greater value).
So as you can see from the above it is not a simple matter of "other forms of life" vs us, it is a matter of the universe existing with any form at all. This arguement is based on the fact that our universe let alone us (that is a whole other arguement again) is fine tuned and the simplest explanation is a creator. Even Paul Davies (world famous evolutionist/athiest physicist) appealed to some kind of "quantum computer" (ie a non-personal intelligence) to attempt to explain away the emense problem of fine tuning (http://creation.com/quantum-leap-of-faith). But seeing computers are made not self organising it strikes me as special pleading to claim this.
The universe, including you and I Jonathan, are made, and we are accountable to our maker for our actions and attitudes to each other and to Him. He has offered you peace with Him and life eternally in Jesus Christ.... what are you going to do about it?
PS A few articles for your information.
http://creation.com/a-new-age-of-quantum-madness
http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life
Gee...
ReplyDeleteI will not debate you on this until you lose the bias towards the universe needing a creator. Your entire post drips with it.
Jon
ReplyDeleteI hate to state the obvious but you have come onto a CHRISTIAN APPOLOGETICS BLOG. We are here to discuss the evidences for our faith.
If you are unwilling to discuss these issues with someone of another faith then why bother commenting. You have a bias against a creator - that was plain from your comment. Don't be so hypocritical, debate involves two opposing perspectives. Until you understand that all you really are looking for is an opportunity to indulgin in rhetoric.
Fairwell for now I guess... pity.
Gee...
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to presuade you into believing something that contradicts what you say. I initially commented because I disagreed with the response that Craig gave, it was you who began to walk into a debate.
I clearly stated that I will not debate with you because you are 100% biased, and I have no intentions to prove that you are wrong. I am open to new ideas concerning the beginnings of the universe, but to say that God did it does not cut it as a clear and concise answer for me. There is absolutely no reason for you to have a holier than thou attitude when someone disagrees with what you believe. That is why you won't, or can't be taken seriously.
You will only be humbled until you realize that there is a high possibility you may be wrong, and only then will you be receptive to new ideas. So until then, I bid you well.
Jon...
ReplyDeleteYou made a comment because you felt you need to voice your disagreement. I felt likewise with your comment.
As for holier than thou... Is that because I pointed out the inconsistency of your response or my rather wry response to your comment on bias? Or prehaps the fact that I called you to repent and trust in Jesus that makes you say that?
If you wont take me seriously because I take my faith seriously that is sad and rather intolerant but still your perogative. I am open to new ideas Jon but the sharing of ideas has to begin with respect on BOTH sides of the equation. You obviously feel I have been disrespectful to you, for that I appologise.
But you likewise have begun with an baseless objection and when I genuinely tried to give you an answer, you blow me off as biased and not worth talking with... That is disrespectful Jon, keep that in mind and fairwell.
David Gee answered your objection thoroughly and you instantly refuse to debate him further, saying he's "100% biased" toward his own viewpoint. Might I suggest that you're equally 100% biased toward YOUR viewpoint -- and might I suggest that you're now running away from the debate because your viewpoint is clearly untenable?
ReplyDeleteThis is the reason I won't debate you until the bias towards a creator is lost.
ReplyDelete"I am open to new ideas Jon but the sharing of ideas has to begin with respect on BOTH sides of the equation."
Were you to truly be open to another idea you have to not believe that your knowledge is the one true knowledge. This is what I mean by you being biased, no amount of me giving you an explanation will satisfy what you already believe to be true.
I am an athiest, and I have no bias; I am neutral in the matter. I am truly open to other explanations and answers but only if they logically make sense, and can be conclusively and independentily tested. I am an atheist because there has been no evidence for the existence of a god, and the universe and creation is not evidence for that, as there are numerous explanations as to how it could have come into existence. I do want to take you seriously but it seems as if any explanation will be shot down because it does not corelate with your already solid belief.
To assume that because we do not have all of the evidence proves that god is the cause is to take one step forward and three steps back.
Iggy...
There will be no debate until all biased is lost. I am neutral in the matter. If god were to come down and visit me then I would have to believe in him, because if I didn't then I would be a hypocrite. I do not absolutely know that god does not exist, but as of now there has been no proof of his existence. Because Gee assumes that the universe and the so called fine tuning exist he absoultely believes god is the originator; and because of this he is completely biased. And might I say my stance is not untenable but completely possible.
Ok enough of the "you're biased" "no you're biased" exchanges. I would like to define terms here. Biased as I am using it is best summarised: a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.
ReplyDeleteJon you are biased and from your above comment I am going to show you this. I have presuppositions regarding the universe and God that I hope has not become preducial bias, I will attempt to show you this also.
To begin with: "I am an athiest, and I have no bias; I am neutral in the matter. I am truly open to other explanations and answers but only if they logically make sense, and can be conclusively and independentily tested. I am an atheist because there has been no evidence for the existence of a god"
1. You are an athiest - this is a commitment on your part Jon to an ideology/philosophy/belief system. Thus you at least have a presupposition that there is no God (the philosophical impossibilities of this position aside). You are not neutral in the matter, you oppose all that Christianity stands for if you take the true atheistic position.
2. You are open to only the answers that are logical, and can be independently and imperically tested (you may as well have added scientifically/naturalistically test here Jon given your athiesim) - weather you know it or not Jon this effectively has become an excuse to exclude the answers you like and fit with your philosophy. A good example of this is your response to my answer, all of the constants and effects of changes to them can be tested independently and imperically and even top physicists think there is a need for an intelligent cause to this. Yet you discard the answer and will not even discuss the issue because it does not fit your philosophy. This shows your impartiallity is impaired Jon, an evidence of bias.
3. You claim there is no evidence for God's existence (let alone the truth claims of the Bible) - From this I can then assume that you have not only examined thoroughly all the articles in this blog but also have examined all that has been produced by Christian thinkers on this issue? To start with Jon, have you read the Bible completely and refuted it's claims? Next up have you read all our articles on this blog and refuted them also? Lastly have you taken the time to talk with Christian thinkers extensively on this issue and baffled them with your wisdom? You earlier said I am biased and closed to new ideas, yet I have spent extended time talking with, studying under, researching and examining the claims of atheists/agnostics/evolutionists. Can you say the same of Christian thought? "No evidence for God", I am sorry Jon that just doesn't cut it. It is that kind of absolute unsupported comment that you would not for a minute accept from a Christian, yet you seem to think it valid on your lips. This is yet another example of bias on your part.
Secondly: "To assume that because we do not have all of the evidence proves that god is the cause..."
Misrepresenting your opposition is another common clue to preducial bias Jon. Here you have asserted falsely (as is plain from the rest of this blog) that I have no other reasons for my theistic world view. This is a strawman arguement Jon and indicates either you have not bothered looking at what I think; or you are trying to paint me as someone more simplistic than is true.
"Thirdly: "If god were to come down and visit me then I would have to believe in him, because if I didn't then I would be a hypocrite."
ReplyDeleteThis is the classic example of preducial bias, the claim that you would be convinced by direct personal experience when outside evidences are discarded out of hand. Unfortunately Jon you like the sceptics of old will not be given this "sign" but rather as Jesus told them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:39-40)
The signs of God's existence, creation and salvation through one God-man are all available to you. You have chosen not to look or have rejected them, that is both your perogative and also your responsibility.
Lastly: "There will be no debate until all biased is lost. I am neutral in the matter...he absoultely believes god is the originator; and because of this he is completely biased."
You are right Jon, there will be no debate on this issue between us until bias is lost. It is yours and not mine though that stops any discussion occuring.
In the light of what I have said above, Jon you have given plenty of evidence of preducial bias and yet provide none of mine other than my belief in God. I am open to discussion and new ideas Jon, I've put myself into the arena and am actively involved in discussion of these issues on many levels(person to person as well as on the internet). Can you say the same? I cant even contact you as your profile is private.
It currently appears Jon that in your prejudice against God you want to be able to snipe from the sidelines and yet be insulated from the examination of your own beliefs. If you have reasons beyond your strawman assertions that I and William Lane-Craig are biased speculators, then bring them out. Otherwise answer the arguement or again fairwell.
Gee...
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I am open to the thought of an all mighty power, but given current science, physical explanations to previous unknowns and knowledge in general, the idea of a higher power becomes illogical. I never said that I have the one true knowledge. I said that you assuming that God did it and then give no evidence to how he did it, or by what means he would have done it, does not feel in the gaps for me. If you could prove to me that your God did in fact create the universe I then would evaluate my stance and correct it if necessary.
"Biased as I am using it best summarised: a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective."
This is a correct definition, and I am biased in areas other than the topic at hand, but you must realize that for the entire time, I have not once claimed that I was completely right about the matter. I believe it was this statement,
"So as you can see from the above it is not a simple matter of "other forms of life" vs us, it is a matter of the universe existing with any form at all. This argument is based on the fact that our universe let alone us (that is a whole other argument again) is fine tuned and the simplest explanation is a creator."
that shows who here is truly biased. Might I correct you on a few things first?
"1. You are an athiest - this is a commitment on your part Jon to an ideology/philosophy/belief system. Thus
you at least have a presupposition that there is no God (the philosophical impossibilities of this position aside)."
--From Webster’s dictionary:
1. archaic: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2a. a DISBELIEF in the existence of a deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
This is a common misunderstanding about atheism. We do not have a belief that God doesn't exist, we have a lack of belief that a god or any gods do exist. This can be understood as "lacking" evidence for the existence of a god. Now because this is a lack of belief doesn't mean that if there was evidence we would still not believe, but that if there was evidence we would believe. Now the second sentence caught my eye. For me to have a presupposition that there is no God would mean that I would have to have all knowledge that there is no God, and I have explained my beliefs on this. What you have done is make an assumption on my behalf, incorrectly labeling me as one knows before actually knowing. This could be the same as me believing a hamster powered my computer before finding out that a PSU powers a computer. So it is unfair for you to assume my position when you clearly know my position. Could you please explain to me the philosophical impossibilities of a God not existing?
"2. You are open to only the answers that are logical, and can be independently and imperically tested (you may as well have added scientifically/naturalistically test here Jon given your athiesim) - weather you know it or not Jon this effectively has become an excuse to exclude the answers you like and fit with your philosophy. A good example of this is your response to my answer, all of the constants and effects of changes to them can be tested independently and imperically and even top physicists think there is a need for an intelligent cause to this."
Second Part
ReplyDelete--Once again, you assume that I have always been an atheist. From the time I could walk and hold objects I have been taking objects apart and putting them back together to find out the inner workings. Always testing everything before I believed that this is the way it works. You must also remember, that there is a majority of atheists who don't believe God exists because of other reasons than science, but for me it is the scientific method; it has ruled the majority of my life. As for excluding answers because I don't like them, well this is a fallacious statement. For instance, I know that there are two stars spinning around each other 8000 light years away, and when they collide they will form a hypernova and a gamma burst will be fired off with the high possibility of hitting earth and eradicating life as we know it. Now, I don't exclude the resultant answer for two stars forming a gamma burst and killing us because of my philosophy on survival, but I understand that this may happen because it is being observed and documented; that the probability of us dying is there. Even if top physicists believe that there is a need for an intelligent cause does not mean that they are correct on the matter. They are coming to a conclusion without having all evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of. You have to remember that there was a time when people thought sickness was from evil spirits, and this was believed for a long time until it was showed there was a better, more accurate explanation. And once again, this does not show bias on my part, but a general wanting to know the actual mechanisms for the birth of the universe.
"3. You claim there is no evidence for God's existence (let alone the truth claims of the Bible) - From this I can then assume that you have not only examined thoroughly all the articles in this blog but also have examined all that has been produced by Christian thinkers on this issue?"
--The Bible cannot be the authority on the existence of God because it says God exists. I would ask you to describe to me the truth claims of the Bible; also do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
Your assumption is correct about me not reading all of the articles on this blog, or all that has been produced by Christian thinkers. I haven’t read everything on your blog because it is synonymous with the beliefs of other creationists, which I have been thoroughly introduced to. Asking me to read everything Christian thinkers produce is equal to me asking you to read everything evolutionary biologists produce; it is impossibility, and I fail to see the relevance that this has.
"3. To start with Jon, have you read the Bible completely and refuted its claims? Next up have you read all our articles on this blog and refuted them also? Lastly have you taken the time to talk with Christian thinkers extensively on this issue and baffled them with your wisdom?"
--Yes, I have read the Bible completely, but no I have not refuted all of its claims. This doesn't mean that because I haven’t refuted every claim in the Bible that I have no relevant thoughts on the matter.
--I have already explained the second question.
--Yes, I have taken the time to talk to some Christian thinkers extensively and usually hear the same aged arguments you present. I do not know if I baffled them with my wisdom, but I do know that I was polite in every sense of the word; something you lack in.
"3. You earlier said I am biased and closed to new ideas, yet I have spent extended time talking with, studying under, researching and examining the claims of atheists/agnostics/evolutionists."
--I do not believe this, as you still have the misconception of what an atheist is, and some of your claims on fine tuning are illogical, as I will get to later on if you would like.
Third Part
ReplyDelete"3. Can you say the same of Christian thought?”No evidence for God", I am sorry Jon that just doesn't cut it. It is that kind of absolute unsupported comment that you would not for a minute accept from a Christian, yet you seem to think it valid on your lips. This is yet another example of bias on your part."..
--Well, you simply could have asked and I would have told you. These are some of my reasons why I believe there is no God:
-Treacher Collins Syndrome
-Any destructive disease
-Lack of any physical evidence left by God
-The Bible stating that God spoke in a booming voice to thousands, yet he has not said a word since (speaking to your mind does not count)
-Any evidence for God interacting with modern man (miracles excluded because all miracles are unremarkable miracles)
These are some of the reasons, and before your rebuttal about the atrocities ask yourself this: If God does exist, and atrocities today being the result of sin after the fall, why are we born into sin, when he is powerful enough to create a perfect system? His emotions when Adam and Eve betrayed him are mirror images of human emotions.
"Secondly: "To assume that because we do not have all of the evidence proves that god is the cause..."Misrepresenting your opposition is another common clue to preducial bias Jon. Here you have asserted falsely (as is plain from the rest of this blog) that I have no other reasons for my theistic world view."
Gee, I apologize for that. You are correct that I did assume certain things about you and thank you for bringing that to my attention. Could you please explain these other reasons for a theistic world view, as I was clearly mistaken?
"This is the classic example of preducial bias, the claim that you would be convinced by direct personal experience when outside evidences are discarded out of hand."
You do see what you did there, right? You claim I am biased, but then turn around and claim that your belief is the correct reasoning. The burden of proof is on you to show me how the natural processes that occur are not natural, but rather by God. The creationist belief of "look around you" is as old and illogical as "walk it off."
Last Part
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately Jon you like the sceptics of old will not be given this "sign" but rather as Jesus told them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:39-40)"
Why won't we be given this sign? Does this also mean that if we did look for him in our past and weren't shown a sign that he didn't want us from the beginning? Doesn't this seem kind of petty to you, kind of human. The above passage is one of the passages I have refuted as shown below.
Jonah was supposedly swallowed by a fish (or whale according to whom you talk to) and lived for three days. The problem here is three fold.
1. Jonah is a mammal, and as a mammal he would need oxygen. Now the fish has the means of getting dissolved oxygen through the water, but Jonah requires oxygen in gas form. Not only does he need for oxygen to pass over his lungs, but he needs about 20 times more oxygen than is available in water. The fish requires less because of it being cold blooded, but it also has to work a lot harder for oxygen than mammals do. So in essence, Jonah would have suffocated.
2. Next, Jonah has to worry about digestive juices. Now it could be said that the digestive juices of that respective fish could have been tame, but it could not be to tame as it would not be able to dissolve and digest organic matter. Also, for the size that the fish had to be to swallow Jonah, it is safe to assume that the fish would have been fairly large; which would increase the amount of digestive liquid in the fish stomach. So for three days he would be submerged in an acidic mixture, slowly eating away at his body, causing extreme pain that would more than likely lead to shock and then death.
3. Lastly would be water. The human adult male requires approximately 3.7 liters of water a day. Any water that the fish would have swallowed (a natural occurrence) would have instantly mixed with the digestive juices. This toxic, acidic mixture would not be deluded by the water, but would actualy increase the amount of digestive juices due to natural biological actions with feeding or drinking. Jonah would more have likely died from the lack of any liquids. Now it could be said that he may have had any amount of water on him to let him survive, but this does not solve the other two problems listed above.
What I do believe the story is referring to is faith. Jonah has to solve a problem but does not have an answer and does not think that God can or will help him. It is faith that Jonah then prays and faith that God answers him. So I believe this sorry is about putting faith in letting God answer your prayers. But this is just another interpretation of the countless that exist.
The signs of God's existence, creation and salvation through one God-man are all available to you. You have chosen not to look or have rejected them, that is both your perogative and also your responsibility."
I have to disagree. The burden of proof is on God. If he truly wants me to believe in him, he needs to show me he exists. I require evidence, not faith, to believe; and if he does exist that means he made me this way. For him not to show himself, when by his supposed design I require physical evidence, tells me that he is either petty, or hints to his non-existence.
I am not opposed to the idea of God, but cannot be swayed by an explanation of God did it, because we lack a better explanation. This is counteractive to human progression. I hope you can understand the way I think and see in no way do I attack religion or Christianity, but will challenge what people believe; which is something I hope you will continue to do with me.
“If you could prove to me that your God did in fact create the universe I then would evaluate my stance and correct it if necessary.”
ReplyDeleteI have given you evidence in the form of the fine tuning of the universal constants that make up the universe's structure. Without which there would be no “Goldie Locks” zone or any life at that. The other evidences are throughout this blog but as you have said yourself, you have no desire to read them as they are no different to what has been said in the past. You don't know this, you are just assuming there is nothing beyond what you have read before. As for proof, I don't need to prove it but rather remove all the other options as impossible and then remove reasonable doubt and give evidence that creation is consistent with reality. This is the point of what we have posted on this blog.
“This is a common misunderstanding about atheism. We do not have a belief that God doesn't exist, we have a lack of belief that a god or any gods do exist. This can be understood as "lacking" evidence for the existence of a god. Now because this is a lack of belief doesn't mean that if there was evidence we would still not believe, but that if there was evidence we would believe.”
The origin of the word atheism is from two greek words: “a” which means no or to negate something and “theos” which means God. Put them together you get “No God” or “There is No God”. Historically this is the central tenet of atheism, a denial of all deity (all gods). Not a lack of belief but rather a belief in the lack of deity. You may believe what you say is the case but when you identify yourself as an atheist; you identifying with the historical and common usage of the term unless you qualify it as you now have.
In light of what you are saying you are agnostic rather than an atheist, because you don't know if there is a God but if evidence was available you may believe it. I appologise if you took my comments to not represent you but I might suggest you define your terms as they are outside the common usage of Atheist/Agnostic.
“Could you please explain to me the philosophical impossibilities of a God not existing?”
The philosophical impossibilities are clearly stated by you already, to presume there is not God requires one to have absolute knowledge of all space and time. This is outside the ability of mankind and thus the claim of atheism is one that is impossible.
“Always testing everything before I believed that this is the way it works.... As for excluding answers because I don't like them, well this is a fallacious statement....Even if top physicists believe that there is a need for an intelligent cause does not mean that they are correct on the matter. They are coming to a conclusion without having all evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of.”
You have an applaudable approach to scientific exploration from the sound of what you have just said above, but what relevance does your past explorations have to do with this discussion? You may have been open in the past, but Jon that doesn't mean that in this discussion that you have not given the appearance of bias by refusing to discuss the matter and rather resorted to calling me biased and WLC an uninformed speculator. You have not given me much to go on but what you have said previously certainly gave the impression that you were simply refusing to discuss the matter because you didn't like what was said.
As for the physicists, well Jon they will never have all the evidence so they, like us do what they can with what they've got. And if someone that highly trained thinks that the evidence they have is pointing in the direction of an intelligent cause then it begs the question of why it has to be a case of “anything but Goddidit”. If you really have some reasons why the fine tuning argument doesn't work then please tell me so we can discuss them like adults.
“The Bible cannot be the authority on the existence of God because it says God exists. I would ask you to describe to me the truth claims of the Bible; also do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?”
ReplyDeleteThe bible can be the authority on the existence of God because it is anchored in historical facts, thus it is falsifiable and testable. So it is not circular reasoning to point to the bible as and authority on this because it provides testable evidence that God is real.
The bible is inerrant, you obviously think otherwise. If that is the case state your reasons with backing evidences for why you think this. As for the truth claims of the bible, there is nowhere near enough space to give you them all so here is just a couple: God is the maker and sustainer of all that exists both seen and unseen, God made the universe and all on earth in 7 solar/24hour days, God is a single being that exists in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), man has rebelled against God and thus cursed the earth producing it's current imperfect state, God flooded the earth as a punishment for sin in the past and will one day destroy it by fire for the same, by grace God has saved some people from their sin and will raise them to eternal life on a new earth in a new universe when this one is gone, the salvation is available to all who will trust in the work of Jesus Christ, Jesus is God in flesh and as predicted centuries beforehand by the Jewish prophets came by virgin birth to live/suffer/die to save His people and rose from the dead after three days as He predicted beforehand.
“Your assumption is correct about me not reading all of the articles on this blog, or all that has been produced by Christian thinkers. I haven’t read everything on your blog because it is synonymous with the beliefs of other creationists, which I have been thoroughly introduced to. Asking me to read everything Christian thinkers produce is equal to me asking you to read everything evolutionary biologists produce; it is impossibility, and I fail to see the relevance that this has.”
The relevance is simple: you say there is no evidence for God yet provide no backing for you claim, so I ask have you read the available evidence. You have made an absolute claim (NO evidence) and so I obviously and logically ask the question. I don't claim an absolute lack of evidence for evolution Jon so I am not even needing to examine all available literature, but on the point of being open to new information (something you have assumed I am not) I have read a lot of what is available and various people keep me up to date on new developments. Have you done the same is my point.
“Yes, I have read the Bible completely, but no I have not refuted all of its claims. This doesn't mean that because I haven’t refuted every claim in the Bible that I have no relevant thoughts on the matter.”
See my above comment on what each of us is claiming. I never said you have no relevant thoughts, I simply challenged your fallacious claim of no evidence.
“Yes, I have taken the time to talk to some Christian thinkers extensively and usually hear the same aged arguments you present. I do not know if I baffled them with my wisdom, but I do know that I was polite in every sense of the word; something you lack in.”
Polite? Is that what you call blowing someone off as biased, close minded, not worth talking to, and in need of humbling? I would hate to see you be impolite Jon.
On my claim to have studied evolution etc “I do not believe this, as you still have the misconception of what an atheist is, and some of your claims on fine tuning are illogical, as I will get to later on if you would like.”
ReplyDeleteDisbelieve it if you will it is true, I studied for 7 years in the area of science. 2 in the area of zoology and ecology and a further 5 in the area of veterinary science. This was not in a Christian university Jon but rather in an atheistic evolutionary driven university. As for my ongoing studies in this area it is a double standard to expect me to believe you on the topic of your scientific explorations and disbelieve mine. I've explained the whole atheism thing already.
“These are some of my reasons why I believe there is no God: *Treacher Collins Syndrome *Any destructive disease *Lack of any physical evidence left by God *The Bible stating that God spoke in a booming voice to thousands, yet he has not said a word since (speaking to your mind does not count) *Any evidence for God interacting with modern man (miracles excluded because all miracles are unremarkable miracles)”
Treacher Collins Syndrome/destructive disease: As I have said and I am sure you have read in the bible, sin brought about the death and decay that we see in the world today. This was the choice of mankind, the natural consequence of rejecting the one who gave us life.
Lack of evidence: read the other posts, the teleological/design argument accounts for this, or were you looking for something written in large letters saying God was here or similar? Then read the bible again with a history book beside you.
God speaking once with a booming voice and then not. To quote the bible: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
(Hebrews 1:1-2). God has spoken finally and fully through Jesus Christ Jon, in Him there is the full revelation of what God would have us know. All we need do is pick up and read.
Miracles and modern interactions: It is no surprise that miracles are not well publicised in a society that is largely opposed to the supernatural and committed to antitheism in it's various forms. And secondly I would like to know what you mean re all miracles are unremarkable. If you are after a more mundane example then look at the effect of Christianity in the developing world and taking another atheist's perspective on it read our latest post by Matthew Paris.
“...ask yourself this: If God does exist, and atrocities today being the result of sin after the fall, why are we born into sin, when he is powerful enough to create a perfect system?”
Why does God allow people to be born into this imperfect world and suffer and die? Why does He not remove all the causes of sin and create the whole system again? I am not sure but He has promised that when all who will believe have believed then He will judge all those who live in sin and place those who trust in Him into a perfect universe that will never face any of these atrocities. Why did God allow it in the first place? Well if you really want the answer to that one then pray to God and He will deal with it, because I have not been told and I'm not wise enough to figure it out.
“Could you please explain these other reasons for a theistic world view, as I was clearly mistaken?”
Read the blog, the answers are there Jon.
“The burden of proof is on you to show me how the natural processes that occur are not natural, but rather by God. The creationist belief of "look around you" is as old and illogical as "walk it off."”
ReplyDeleteJon, the burden of proof is not on my side or on yours only but rather it is both our responsibilities to support our positions. You are claiming that the world is naturalistic (ie no God and natural processes only) and all life comes through common decent. I on the other hand am claiming that the world is created by God and that all life has been made by Him and continues from that beginning following natural laws laid down at the beginging.
You are right I need to provide you with reasons to prefer my view over your current one. But this does not mean that your position is the default until I have proven mine to your satisfaction. To give you a couple of my reasons in passing: the impossibility of chemical evolution, the lack of valid transitional series, the numerous evidences for a young earth, the impossibility of bird evolution, the hierachies of design present in the feather/immune system/digestive system etc, the hugely complex and concentrated system of information present in DNA.
Your comment on creationists is also another example of misrepresentation Jon, what we believe is no where near that simple.
“Jonah was supposedly swallowed by a fish (or whale according to whom you talk to) and lived for three days.”
I like this response Jon, you are right, in most circumstances any man swallowed by any fish would become one thing – food. But your assumption that therefore the passage is all symbolic is not so great. The passage lacks any of the linguistic markers of symbolic or prophetic Jewish literature. This is a miracle Jon, when God who is the ruler of all the laws of the universe desires to make a point using physical signs then there is no reason why He could not suspend the normal laws of operation and make it clear that this is a message from Him.
“The burden of proof is on God.... I require evidence, not faith, to believe; and if he does exist that means he made me this way. For him not to show himself, when by his supposed design I require physical evidence, tells me that he is either petty, or hints to his non-existence.”
You can disagree Jon that is your right but also your responsibility as I said. God made you a certain way that is true, but you have chosen to interpret the facts of the universe/history/literature etc a certain way and have chosen to believe certain things. There is plenty of evidence out there for the existence of God Jon, you say that you have rejected them, why is that? Ask yourself is it purely because they don't work or is it because of some other issue.
A lot of atheists I speak to have some very negative experience of religion or God and are intensely angry at what “God has done”. I ask this honestly and knowing it may not be true (no need to respond here but I would ask that you think on it). Is there a hurt from a Christian or Church or tragedy that could be clouding your view of God?
“I hope you can understand the way I think and see in no way do I attack religion or Christianity, but will challenge what people believe; which is something I hope you will continue to do with me.”
I will Jon and I would ask you to make clear now what your reason for rejecting the fine tuning argument is.
Gee...
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you have given no evidence. The reason I said I haven’t read your entire blog is because the exact same arguments you present in your blog are the exact same arguments that creationists have claimed, even when they are shown that the evidence is in direct contradiction to their claim. Here I will provide you with evidence that there is in fact no fine tuning, and then in later posts I will answer your questions from your last post, but before I will correct you on atheism:
You state:
"The origin of the word atheism is from two greek words: “a” which means no or to negate something and “theos” which means God. Put them together you get “No God” or “There is No God”. Historically this is the central tenet of atheism, a denial of all deity (all gods). Not a lack of belief but rather a belief in the lack of deity. You may believe what you say is the case but when you identify yourself as an atheist; you identifying with the historical and common usage of the term unless you qualify it as you now have.
In light of what you are saying you are agnostic rather than an atheist, because you don't know if there is a God but if evidence was available you may believe it. I appologise if you took my comments to not represent you but I might suggest you define your terms as they are outside the common usage of Atheist/Agnostic."
Let me get this straight. I am an atheist. I believe that there are no deities. I believe this because of the lack of evidence for them. I am 99.9% sure that there are no gods, but because I cannot know everything I cannot be 100% sure. Now you'll probably say that the .1% shows that I'm agnostic, but that one .1% is me being true when saying I cannot know possibly everything. I don't know if there is an ultimate being, but I do know that given current evidence of a naturalistic universe there is a high probability of no god existing. I am committed to this high probability of a god not existing, that is why I am an atheist, not agnostic.
The universe appears to be fine tuned because we are made within the realm of our physical laws; the universe was not made with us in mind from the beginning, this is completely selfish and humanistic in every way.
How big is the universe?
"The observable universe has a radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years, so, let's convert this into metres, using the fact that the speed of light in vacuo is 299,792,458 m s-1, and a 365 day year equals 31,536,000 seconds, which gives us a distance of 9,454,254,955,488,000 metres for a light year. Therefore the radius of the universe is 129,523,292,890,185,600,000,000,000 metres. The volume enclosed by a spherical volume of this radius is given by (4/3)Ï€r3, where r is the radius, and therefore, the volume resulting from this calculation is approximately 9.101 × 1078 m3."
Second Part:
ReplyDeleteThis number alone should show you how insignificant we are in comparison to the rest of the universe. This is not a bias, but an evidential fact. If this universe were to be fine tuned for us, this size would be dramatically smaller.
"Again, we have that the mean radius of the Earth is 6,371,000 m, therefore the volume is 1.083 × 1021 m3. Therefore the fraction of the universe that is habitable by humans, even if we assume that the entire volume of the Earth is habitable (which it isn't - you try living for any length of time in the deep magma 1000 Km below the crust), is 1.190 × 10-58. "
The earth is roughly 1-1.5% habitable, that leaves 98.5-99% as inhabitable. A comparison of the universe with a volume of 9.101 x 1078 m3 is preposterously larger than the volume of earth which is 1.190 x 10-58. Given that the earth is not completely habitable this leaves the known universe that is inhabitable at something like 99.999999999999999999999999999999...%. If you look at these numbers and still believe that the universe is fine tuned for us, then there will probably be no changing or your mind.
Earlier you posted certain physical constants that you use for your fine tuning argument. I replied that physicists do not claim these are constants because we only know so much and it just so happens that I was shown a peer reviewed paper titled "Stars in Other Universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants”. I will give you a brief idea of what it says, but you can download the paper in its entirety at (http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3697). The paper discusses stellar constants needed to form stars, without stars there is no life, and shows that the constants you provided do not need to be constants, but can be varied. The constants can vary by orders of magnitude and still allow for the existence of stars. This paper alone should conclusively show you that the universe is not fine tuned. There are fantastical new theories supported by evidence that are beginning to show that his universe is not the only universe. In fact, if you want to read for yourself the entire problem with the fine tuning go to (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=2506075#p2506075) and read the response about fine tuning by Calilasseia. Calilasseia does an infinitely better job at arguing this point and will more than likely answer some of the arguments that are used by creationists.
You state:
"The philosophical impossibilities are clearly stated by you already, to presume there is not God requires one to have absolute knowledge of all space and time. This is outside the ability of mankind and thus the claim of atheism is one that is impossible."
This is a contradiction. You claim that to presume no God exists requires absolute knowledge, which is true. Then you state that this is outside of mankind and thus atheism is impossible. Now since you state that mankind cannot have absolute knowledge and this makes atheism impossible, logical thinking can also say that Christianity is impossible, since you yourself said that absolute knowledge is impossible. What you are then doing is begging the question.
Third Part:
ReplyDeleteYou state:
"As for the physicists, well Jon they will never have all the evidence so they, like us do what they can with what they've got. And if someone that highly trained thinks that the evidence they have is pointing in the direction of an intelligent cause..."
This is a fallacious statement. Any physicists worth his merit would not claim that there must be an intelligent cause because they don't have all of the answers; they would be jumping to a conclusion which completely undermines the scientific method. Could you provide any names of these top physicists who have written a peer reviewed paper that shows definitive evidence for an intelligent cause?
"The bible can be the authority on the existence of God because it is anchored in historical facts, thus it is falsifiable and testable."
Evidence please.
You state:
"So it is not circular reasoning to point to the bible as and authority on this because it provides testable evidence that God is real."
This is an argument from authority. The Bible cannot be evidence for God because it already claims God exists.
You state:
"The bible is inerrant, you obviously think otherwise."
Inerrant - free from error
First of all you accept the NKJV of the Bible. This Bible is a translation from another transcript. For you to say the Bible is inerrant, given you use the NKJV, means that you do not accept other versions. This is possibly due to preference and shows that because of your preference for a version the Bible is not inerrant, but merely inerrant to you because of self interpretation.
If the Bible was to be inerrant then the translations should not change.
KJV:
2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God"
NKJV:
2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God"
Continuation from third part:
ReplyDeleteKJV:
Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject"
NKJV:
Titus 3:10 "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"
KJV:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all apperance of evil."
NKJV:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from every form of evil."
KJV:
Isaiah 66:5 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your breathren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."
NKJV:
Isaiah 66:5 "Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, who cast you out for My name's ake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed."
These very few problems, along with the countless scientific inaccuracies, show that the Bible is not inerrant. It is riddled with errors throughout, and I can assume that you beleive it is inerrant only because of self interpretation. An analytical approach shows just how many errors there are.
You state:
"God is the maker and sustainer of all that exists both seen and unseen, God made the universe and all on earth in 7 solar/24hour days, God is a single being that exists in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), man has rebelled against God and thus cursed the earth producing it's current imperfect state, God flooded the earth as a punishment for sin in the past and will one day destroy it by fire for the same, by grace God has saved some people from their sin and will raise them to eternal life on a new earth in a new universe when this one is gone, the salvation is available to all who will trust in the work of Jesus Christ, Jesus is God in flesh and as predicted centuries beforehand by the Jewish prophets came by virgin birth to live/suffer/die to save His people and rose from the dead after three days as He predicted beforehand."
Argument from authority. The Bible cannot claim God's existence because it states that God exists, therefore any of Gods actions in the Bible cannot be evidence of his existence.
You state:
"The relevance is simple: you say there is no evidence for God yet provide no backing for you claim, so I ask have you read the available evidence."
I have shown you some of my evidence above.
You state:
"I don't claim an absolute lack of evidence for evolution Jon so I am not even needing to examine all available literature, but on the point of being open to new information (something you have assumed I am not) I have read a lot of what is available and various people keep me up to date on new developments. Have you done the same is my point."
If your evidence comes from a source showing evidence for God's existence with all information coming from an individual who believes in creationism then it is 100% biased. The information I read, and have presented to you is not in proving or disproving Gods existence, but rather reporting observable instances and fact. Any derailing into it being proof of a God or no God is then based on the individual who interprets it.
Fourth part:
ReplyDeleteYou state:
"Disbelieve it if you will it is true, I studied for 7 years in the area of science. 2 in the area of zoology and ecology and a further 5 in the area of veterinary science. This was not in a Christian university Jon but rather in an atheistic evolutionary driven university."
I'm sorry, but this is another creationist tactic. Just because you studied in these areas does not make you correct on these areas. Have you, or any creationists provided any sort of independent test to show that God is the cause. Could you provide the name of the school that openly states it is an atheistic evolutionary driven university?
You state:
"I've explained the whole atheism thing already."
I've also explained Christianity by your logic.
You state:
"Treacher Collins Syndrome/destructive disease: As I have said and I am sure you have read in the bible, sin brought about the death and decay that we see in the world today. This was the choice of mankind, the natural consequence of rejecting the one who gave us life."
This is simply an appeal to belief. So an individual born with Treacher Collins Syndrome is a consequence of Adam and Eve sinning against God. Now with the logic that God created us and that we are made in His image, where does this person with this syndrome fall? Did God purposefully create him/her with the syndrome because of sin? If this is the case, then why do we not all have this sin, since we are all supposedly born into sin? Subsequently if he did create him/her with this syndrome that negates all of his perfect morality as He is letting him/her suffer before they are even cognizant of themselves.
You state:
"God has spoken finally and fully through Jesus Christ Jon, in Him there is the full revelation of what God would have us know. All we need do is pick up and read."
This is special pleading. As I have shown you, the evidence for a God existing is completely lacking. Evidence will disqualify my claims, but so far you have not given any credible evidence.
You state:
"Miracles and modern interactions: It is no surprise that miracles are not well publicized in a society that is largely opposed to the supernatural and committed to antitheism in its various forms. And secondly I would like to know what you mean re all miracles are unremarkable. If you are after a more mundane example then look at the effect of Christianity in the developing world and taking another atheist's perspective on it read our latest post by Matthew Paris."
Which society are you talking about? In America 92% of people believe in God and an afterlife. That puts atheists in the minority here. So you're saying that this large number of people are having miracles but are not publicizing them because of anti-theism, and that this is what is happening all across the globe? That is a complete lie. When I say that all miracles are unremarkable I mean they are unremarkable. For example, a lady who waits a few extra seconds at the stop sign who would have been killed by a truck running its stop sign if she wouldn't have waited those extra seconds. This is chance. One person was saved. A true miracle, not explainable by science in any way, would be every one with cancer is cured all at once. Not one person somewhere in Kansas, but all people. For a God who is claimed to have created the universe, one person is not evidence of His power. That is why all miracles are unremarkable
.
Last part:
ReplyDeleteYou State:
"I am not sure but He has promised that when all who will believe have believed then He will judge all those who live in sin and place those who trust in Him into a perfect universe that will never face any of these atrocities. Why did God allow it in the first place? Well if you really want the answer to that one then pray to God and He will deal with it, because I have not been told and I'm not wise enough to figure it out."
This is an appeal to belief. Because you believe this is true, with no evidence to support your claim, does not make you the authority on the existence of God.
You state:
"the impossibility of chemical evolution, the lack of valid transitional series, the numerous evidences for a young earth, the impossibility of bird evolution, the hierachies of design present in the feather/immune system/digestive system etc, the hugely complex and concentrated system of information present in DNA."
These are all claims with no evidence to support them. Provide me with any evidence that supports your claims and I'll reply to them.
You state in reference to Jonah and the fish:
"This is a miracle Jon, when God who is the ruler of all the laws of the universe desires to make a point using physical signs then there is no reason why He could not suspend the normal laws of operation and make it clear that this is a message from Him."
This is an unremarkable miracle. I should also state that if God is capable of changing the physical laws to save Jonah without destroying this universe, then your argument for a fine tuned universe is dismantled; this would mean that the physical laws are not constant. But I assume that you will state that He is God and thus capable of such an action.
You state:
"God made you a certain way that is true, but you have chosen to interpret the facts of the universe/history/literature etc a certain way and have chosen to believe certain things."
I said SUPPOSEDLY, as in without evidence. Do not twist my words. As I stated before, you cannot claim to be the authority of God because you believe he exists.
You state:
"There is plenty of evidence out there for the existence of God Jon, you say that you have rejected them, why is that?"
Because the evidence you provide is created by individuals already believing in God and thus their evidence is formed to prove their belief.
You state:
"A lot of atheists I speak to have some very negative experience of religion or God and are intensely angry at what “God has done”. I ask this honestly and knowing it may not be true (no need to respond here but I would ask that you think on it). Is there a hurt from a Christian or Church or tragedy that could be clouding your view of God?"
I cannot speak for all other atheists, but I am not angry at what God has done because I don't believe he exists; I cannot be angry as something that does not exist. What I am angry at is people who claim God exists, at the same time begging the question mind you, while the humans continue to destroy this planet, and each other in creative and destructive ways. There is no hurt from any Christians or any Churches. I have been atheist since I new what the word meant, but there was a time when I wanted to believe God existed, so I searched for him, gave myself to him, and got absolutely nothing. No feelings of strong emotions, nothing but my usual normal mind. Will you tell me that I searched wrong, or that I wasn't true to myself when I was looking?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhoops typo... here it is again.
ReplyDelete“I don't know if there is an ultimate being, but I do know that given current evidence of a naturalistic universe there is a high probability of no god existing. I am committed to this high probability of a god not existing, that is why I am an atheist, not agnostic.”
Ok then Jon, lets run with the fact that you are committed to your atheistic belief system then. You believe certain things about the world and need to give an account for why and continually saying “The burden of proof is on .......” whoever, doesn't work in reality. That is just a cop out. Now you've made a start on some of the reasons but there is a major problem here Jon, how can you claim to have the most rational position when you will only disagree with my position and not defend your own? Example: you claim that evil and suffering in the world represent a evidence that the Christian God does not exist; how do you account for evil and suffering in the world Jon, why do you care about these unfortunate people when as Dawkin's puts it “we just dance to the tune of our DNA” and afterwards there is nothing?
“This number alone should show you how insignificant we are in comparison to the rest of the universe. This is not a bias, but an evidential fact. If this universe were to be fine tuned for us, this size would be dramatically smaller.”
The argument is not that the universe is fine tuned just for us Jon, but rather that it is fine tuned to produce life as we know it. The size of the universe is utterly irrelevant in the matter; further to that IF there is any relevance in size do you or Calilasseia have any idea whether the universe needs to be the size it is to produce life?
“"Stars in Other Universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants”...The paper discusses stellar constants needed to form stars, without stars there is no life, and shows that the constants you provided do not need to be constants, but can be varied. The constants can vary by orders of magnitude and still allow for the existence of stars....Calilasseia does an infinitely better job at arguing this point and will more than likely answer some of the arguments that are used by creationists.”
After reading both the paper and the large rant by Calilasseia I would have to ask you Jon, what is your point? The fine tuning argument is discussing many of the constants TOGETHER and the whole picture points to a concerted organised whole. Secondly Jon under the variations in G and alpha only mean that according to some high level maths that stars could form and ignite, this by no means equates with possibility of the organisation of solar systems and life bearing planets. You have frequently accused creationists like me of jumping to conclusions, that is exactly what you have done here Jon. The conclusion that you two have drawn is poor to say the least, you see some small correlation to your argument and so you've pulled this article in which says nothing of the sort.
While we are on the topic of Calilasseia's rant Jon, she does raise one very good point. She rips into those who have commented on her perspective on things without bothering to read what she has actually written. You have done the same and persistently in ignorance insist that I provide you with evidences that you can go and read on the rest of the blog. I am not going to pander to your laziness, go and read the rest of the blog and then come back with your questions on the bible, history and teleology etc when you have read it.
“This is a fallacious statement. Any physicists worth his merit would not claim that there must be an intelligent cause because they don't have all of the answers; they would be jumping to a conclusion which completely undermines the scientific method.”
ReplyDeleteYou have completely misconstrued what I was saying Jon. You are right if they had not enough answers and that was the only reason for their decision that there should be a intelligent cause to the universe, then that would be jumping to conclusions. But that is exactly my point! They have many of the answers (I would hazard to say many more than you, I or Calilassiea) and it is BECAUSE they have these answers that they envoke an inteligent cause to the universe (ie the quantum computer model). From this it is not far at all logically speaking to move to a personal intelligent cause.
“Inerrant - free from error. First of all you accept the NKJV of the Bible. This Bible is a translation from another transcript. For you to say the Bible is inerrant, given you use the NKJV, means that you do not accept other versions.”
This one I will answer. Firstly who said we use the NKJV as our sole text? We don't so the comparison against other texts is essentially irrelevant. Second the long list of apparent “contradictions”, 90% of those are variation on possible meaning of the verbs and change nothing of the meaning in context. As for the inconsistencies in the different manuscripts; the bible is translated from a large body of greek, hebrew and aramaic (with a smattering of syrian and latin also) as time has gone on more of these manuscripts have become available. Like any good historian should those who translate the bible have preferred the earlier and more complete documents. The minor (ie changing no major doctrine) changes present in the translations represent a public and honest representation of the progressive manuscript finds. The bible is free of error, Christians are not so simplistic as to insist that this must be a verbatim representation.
“These very few problems, along with the countless scientific inaccuracies, show that the Bible is not inerrant. It is riddled with errors throughout, and I can assume that you beleive it is inerrant only because of self interpretation. An analytical approach shows just how many errors there are.”
That is a huge claim, evidence please. Otherwise I will assume it is merely rhetoric and ignore it.
“The information I read, and have presented to you is not in proving or disproving Gods existence, but rather reporting observable instances and fact. Any derailing into it being proof of a God or no God is then based on the individual who interprets it.”
Garbage Jon, the whole point of your presentation has been to prove that there is no God.
“This is simply an appeal to belief. So an individual born with Treacher Collins Syndrome is a consequence of Adam and Eve sinning against God. Now with the logic that God created us and that we are made in His image, where does this person with this syndrome fall? Did God purposefully create him/her with the syndrome because of sin? If this is the case, then why do we not all have this sin, since we are all supposedly born into sin? Subsequently if he did create him/her with this syndrome that negates all of his perfect morality as He is letting him/her suffer before they are even cognizant of themselves.”
I've answered this before, read the rest of the blog for further THEN get back to me.
“This is special pleading. As I have shown you, the evidence for a God existing is completely lacking. Evidence will disqualify my claims, but so far you have not given any credible evidence.”
ReplyDeleteNo Jon, this is called a biblical answer for a biblical question. In your question you are the one who assumed God when you asked why He doesn't speak in the way that He used to. I was merely answering you with your own frame of reference. I have not included evidences because that was not part of your question. God is a person, He is able to choose how He reveals Himself over time, who are you to say that He should/could not speak from heaven for a period and then change to another form of revelation in the future?
“A true miracle, not explainable by science in any way, would be every one with cancer is cured all at once. Not one person somewhere in Kansas, but all people. For a God who is claimed to have created the universe, one person is not evidence of His power. That is why all miracles are unremarkable.”
No Jon a miracle is remarkable regardless if it happens to a single person or to the entire world population. A miracle is in biblical terms an event that could not be orchestrated by man or is impossible naturally. That is exactly what the event with Jonah was – naturally impossible. The resurrection of Jesus was in the same category, impossible naturally for a man dead for three days to revive and impossible to even orchestrate in appearance by man.
Re reasons why evolution is false: “These are all claims with no evidence to support them. Provide me with any evidence that supports your claims and I'll reply to them.”
Seeing you think it valid to post a website for evidence here is one for you:
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index
“I should also state that if God is capable of changing the physical laws to save Jonah without destroying this universe, then your argument for a fine tuned universe is dismantled; this would mean that the physical laws are not constant.”
Yes I affirm that God is has and always will be capable of this action. No it does not dismantle the fine tuning argument Jon. Why? Because the argument supposes that there is a person in control of the fundamental physical world. God being a person is able to choose the way He operates and being in control and omnipotent He is powerful enough to change the natural laws for one instance without compromising the entire universe. Miracles if anything confirm the message of the fine tuning argument because they point to an intelligence behind the operation of the universe.
“Because the evidence you provide is created by individuals already believing in God and thus their evidence is formed to prove their belief.”
Oh come on Jon, using that logic you would have to discard everything you have submitted to uphold your beliefs about the supposedly naturalistic universe and there supposedly being no God. And created? Not quite, Christians use evidence same as you, we just come to antithetical conclusions.
“I have been atheist since I new what the word meant, but there was a time when I wanted to believe God existed, so I searched for him, gave myself to him, and got absolutely nothing. No feelings of strong emotions, nothing but my usual normal mind. Will you tell me that I searched wrong, or that I wasn't true to myself when I was looking?”
ReplyDeleteOk, firstly if you genuinely “gave yourself to God” and searched for Him you have not always been an atheist, you don't search for someone who does not exist. Secondly if you felt nothing, and gained nothing that is not unusual, some people come to know God gradually. You sound as though you were expecting a bolt of lighting moment, may I ask how long you searched for God? Lastly, there is a way that God has given us to come to know Him and it is through repentance from sin (a complete hatred of everything that dishonours God) and trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Was this the way that you sought God Jon? If that is not it then yes you searched in vain.
"Ok then Jon, let’s run with the fact that you are committed to your atheistic belief system then. You believe certain things about the world and need to give an account for why and continually saying “The burden of proof is on .......” whoever, doesn't work in reality."
ReplyDeleteNot surprising that your first comment is a misrepresentation of what I said. I said the burden of proof for the existence of God is on you, this is because SCIENCE CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL. If you can produce an independently testable experiment to show evidence of a God then please do so, but until quit moving the goal post.
"you claim that evil and suffering in the world represent a evidence that the Christian God does not exist; how do you account for evil and suffering in the world Jon, why do you care about these unfortunate people when as Dawkin's puts it “we just dance to the tune of our DNA” and afterwards there is nothing?"
People cause evil and suffering, nature causes evil and suffering. Do you see a pattern there? You state that God created everything and this means He's also responsible for evil and suffering. Could you tell me what the purpose is for evil and why He would create it?
I do not necessarily care about what happens to these people because I do not know most of these people. I do not have any sort of emotional, personal attachment to them, but I do recognize that if everybody were to act like a murderous maniac then we would not exist. It is beneficial in societies to help one another because it HELPS TO PROPAGATE THE SPECIES. Repeat that as many times in your head as possible. If the whole of society were to always kill each other then the human race would not exist, there is no other reasons except for propagation.
"The argument is not that the universe is fine tuned just for us Jon, but rather that it is fine tuned to produce life as we know it. The size of the universe is utterly irrelevant in the matter; further to that IF there is any relevance in size do you or Calilasseia have any idea whether the universe needs to be the size it is to produce life?"
No, we exist because the laws permit life. There could be other universes out there that's laws do not permit life, and if that were our universe then this conversation would not exist. Yes, the size of the universe is relevant. Why would a deity only put life on this earth while wasting the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe on uninhabitable matter? That seems like an extremely poor job of design. No, the universe does not have to be this monstrous of a size for life to exist. If our solar system were the only thing in existence we would still exist, because the laws allow it. The size of the universe does not matter when life is involved, but saying this universe was designed when almost 100% of it is uninhabitable is a cop out.
"After reading both the paper and the large rant by Calilasseia I would have to ask you Jon, what is your point? The fine tuning argument is discussing many of the constants TOGETHER and the whole picture points to a concerted organised whole. Secondly Jon under the variations in G and alpha only mean that according to some high level maths that stars could form and ignite, this by no means equates with possibility of the organisation of solar systems and life bearing planets."
Second Part.
ReplyDeleteMy point? You seriously don't see it? If the fine tuning argument is discussing many of the constants TOGETHER then it is completely understood that if those constants could VARY in any way while producing stars then the fine tuning argument falls apart. Your argument requires CONSTANTS; it has been shown through a mathematical proof. Here I'll help you with what a proof is:
In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true[1][2]. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.
In this case the paper shows that the constants can vary BY THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDES and still produce stars IN ALL ASPECTS. How can you not see this is exact evidence against the fine tuning argument?
"Secondly Jon under the variations in G and alpha only mean that according to some high level maths that stars could form and ignite, this by no means equates with possibility of the organisation of solar systems and life bearing planets."
I have shown you above how much weight the "high level maths" holds. Astrophysics answers the reasons to why solar systems formed. As for life bearing planets, how do you know that life has to exist as we do? We do not have all of the answers, but we do not equate this with a supernatural deity, however you do.
"You have frequently accused creationists like me of jumping to conclusions, that is exactly what you have done here Jon. The conclusion that you two have drawn is poor to say the least, you see some small correlation to your argument and so you've pulled this article in which says nothing of the sort."
Science is not jumping to conclusions. We easily state we do not know all of the answers and stay in the realm of I don't know. We do not state that the universe is the cause from an intelligent being BECAUSE THE SUPERNATURAL IS UNTESTABLE. Please, show me how you think the conclusion is poor and please point out the issues that you see, otherwise your dodging the question.
"While we are on the topic of Calilasseia's rant Jon, she does raise one very good point. She rips into those who have commented on her perspective on things without bothering to read what she has actually written."
Where and how?
"You have done the same and persistently in ignorance insist that I provide you with evidences that you can go and read on the rest of the blog. I am not going to pander to your laziness, go and read the rest of the blog and then come back with your questions on the bible, history and teleology etc when you have read it."
Such an incredible claim would require incredible evidence. Could you provide me with a peer reviewed journal on what you just said? If not, then I assume this is an accusation.
"Second the long list of apparent “contradictions”, 90% of those are variation on possible meaning of the verbs and change nothing of the meaning in context."
With your perception they do not change the context, but to someone else’s perception then context is changed.
Gee, I do have glanced over all of your articles and decided not to read them. The reason is because they are the same arguments used time and time again. There are no new arguments, just old ones that have been dismantled time and time again. No, I will not show you. You can do that for yourself by going to any other site besides your biased creation.com site.
"They have many of the answers (I would hazard to say many more than you, I or Calilassiea) and it is BECAUSE they have these answers that they envoke an inteligent cause to the universe (ie the quantum computer model). From this it is not far at all logically speaking to move to a personal intelligent cause."
"The minor (ie changing no major doctrine) changes present in the translations represent a public and honest representation of the progressive manuscript finds. The bible is free of error, Christians are not so simplistic as to insist that this must be a verbatim representation."
ReplyDeleteIf you are to claim that something is inerrant it HAS to be free from ANY errors. You cannot claim it inerrant at the same time agreeing to any sort of translation issues. Words replacing other words and changing their context while certain passages being taken out because they hold no relevance to the old ways does not constitute inerrant. Your Bible is in no way error free.
"That is a huge claim, evidence please. Otherwise I will assume it is merely rhetoric and ignore it."
I'll supply the evidence at a later date when I can compile the data.
"Garbage Jon, the whole point of your presentation has been to prove that there is no God."
Wrong again. Science is not about proving or disproving God, it CANNOT test the supernatural. The things I've stated show that the universe could have come about by naturalistic means. There is no mention of God in there, only that God doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist. Now my conclusion is that it is evidence against a deity existing, but the papers and evidence do not try to prove a deity exists. My conclusion is separate from the evidence.
"No Jon, this is called a biblical answer for a biblical question."
Once again, the Bible cannot be evidence for Gods existence because it says God exists. That is circular reasoning.
"A miracle is in biblical terms an event that could not be orchestrated by man or is impossible naturally."
How do you know that it is impossible naturally? Do all scientists have all answers that show God did do it? Could you provide me with a miracle that isn't in the Bible.
"Seeing you think it valid to post a website for evidence here is one for you:"
Interesting tactic. The first site I sent you to was a peer reviewed paper, which you declared as wrong, and the second site was to a well laid out logical response to fine tuning with citations and references.
"God being a person is able to choose the way He operates and being in control and omnipotent He is powerful enough to change the natural laws for one instance without compromising the entire universe."
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If you cannot support this claim with evidence then you are dishonest.
"Oh come on Jon, using that logic you would have to discard everything you have submitted to uphold your beliefs about the supposedly naturalistic universe and there supposedly being no God. And created? Not quite, Christians use evidence same as you, we just come to antithetical conclusions."
Really? The websites you've provided show their belief and bias even in their URL. I've already glanced at the refutation of evolution there and within 1 minute of reading already saw a serious misconception. You're not using evidence, you're seeing it and then hand waving it away as impossible or coming to the wrong conclusion. There is no subjectivity to evidence; evidence is cold hard observation fact with no intent on proving or disproving a God because once again SCIENCE CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL.
"Ok, firstly if you genuinely “gave yourself to God” and searched for Him you have not always been an atheist, you don't search for someone who does not exist."
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I didn't believe He existed but that doesn't mean I didn't want him to.
"Secondly if you felt nothing, and gained nothing that is not unusual, some people come to know God gradually."
So is there a time limit of Him showing Himself to us?
"You sound as though you were expecting a bolt of lighting moment; may I ask how long you searched for God?"
That's a preposterous assumption. I expected no bolt of lighting but I did expect ANYTHING, which I got 0% of.
"...may I ask how long you searched for God? Lastly, there is a way that God has given us to come to know Him and it is through repentance from sin (a complete hatred of everything that dishonours God) and trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Was this the way that you sought God Jon? If that is not it then yes you searched in vain."
So you judge first before you know the answer? How Christian of you. To answer your question I searched for 5 years. How long before God showed himself to you? Did you grow up in a house of believers and worshippers? Why do you judge before not knowing the answers?
I'm going to read the refuting evolution and get back to you. You should probably expect a very long response.
Refuting-Refuting Evolution Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete"It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc."
Includes other things than evolution.
"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist — see documentation), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology."
Also known for his anti-science stance. This quote is irrelevant because one mans belief does not weigh more than evidence.
"Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven’t seen the designer."
Because it has a human pattern of previous arrowheads known to be man made, thus showing a designer. Creationism assumes a designer with no evidence to support it.
"C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents."
Personal beliefs are not evidence. This quote is also referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.
The source must have a meaning behind it. There have been signals found in space that appeared to be created by intelligence but were shown to have a naturalistic and predictable manner.
"Many atheists have claimed to be atheists precisely because of evolution."
This has no relevance to evolution.
"Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution (i.e., everything made itself)."
A bold claim that mistakes abiogenesis for evolution. Evolution is after life began, not the origins of life.
Dr Russell Humphreys-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is physics-all models of his have been shown to be false and rejected by scientific consensus
John Baumgardner-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is electrical engineer and geophysicist
Edward Boudreaux-field not in evolutionary biology
Theoretical chemistry-reported to have peer reviewed papers, unable to find any at all
Maciej Giertych-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is forest genetics-dendrology
Raymond Damadian-field not in evolutionary biology
Pioneer of MRI-not related to evolution
Raymond Jones-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is agricultural science
Brian Stone-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is mechanical engineer
Duane Gish-field not in evolutionary biology
Actual field is biochemistry, also believes that science is falsifying evidence on a grand scale
None of these scientists that state evolution is false have any relevance in evolutionary biology. In fact, none of their fields are in evolutionary biology, or anything studying evolution at all.
Second Part:
ReplyDelete"In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past."
This statement is speculation as there are peer reviewed papers on observed evolution in controlled environments and uncontrolled environments.
"It is also wrong to claim that denying evolution is rejecting the type of science that put men on the moon, although many evolutionary propagandists make such claims."
Blatant lie.
"Actually the man behind the Apollo moon mission was the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun."
No relevance to evolutionary biology.
"In dealing with the past, ‘origins science’ can enable us to make educated guesses about origins. It uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause26) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past)."
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life; it deals with the origins of species. We only observe man made objects as something designed, all other instances have been shown to have natural means.
"But the only way we can be really sure about the past is if we have a reliable eyewitness account."
Eyewitness accounts are completely unreliable and are usually thrown out in every case as evidence.
"Evolutionists claim there is no such account, so their ideas are derived from assumptions about the past. But biblical creationists believe that Genesis is an eyewitness account of the origin of the universe and living organisms. They also believe that there is good evidence for this claim, so they reject the claim that theirs is a blind faith."
Yet they do not or will not show evidence to back their claim, which is why it is not a science.
So chapter 1 holds no relevance at all on evolution and did not answer "This chapter takes a critical look at the definitions of science," one of its main premises. It also shows the many misconceptions that creationists have towards evolution and is pretty blatant on feeding you its agenda. This chapter shows me what to expect and how easy it will to be refute the claims. I will do this chapter by chapter. Assumptions do not make a case against evolution; valid evidence disproving evolution will only do so. As of yet, there is none to disprove it.
Jon, most of your comments are personal scepticism and so I've left them. Others are not a refutation and so don't need an answer. What is left I have answered.
ReplyDeleteYou have mentioned several times that I am making myself an authority on God. By no means is this the case, I offer you logical/metaphysical and scientific evidences for my belief in God, you have just continued to object to my world view. On the other hand there have been several times now where you have placed yourself as an authority over the evidences I have brought and ruled them inadequate or not even worth consideration . It is you and not I who have made yourself an authority over God in this, it is a double standard to accuse me of this when you are acting like a self declared ruling council over the discussion.
“SCIENCE CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL. If you can produce an independently testable experiment to show evidence of a God then please do so, but until quit moving the goal post.”
The supernatural cannot tested in and of itself, fair enough. That is not what we are discussing, the issue at hand is if it is testable and identifiable when the supernatural interacts with the natural world. There are evidences in the natural world that are testable by science and with logic/reason we can reach a conclusion weather a certain event(s) is supernatural in origin.
Ok firstly is all science concerned with direct correlation from evidence or is there a type of science that is interested in indirect evidences? There are theorists around the world who will contradict you if you say there is not. Secondly there is a giant independently testable historical “experiment” that you can use to look into this, did the bible correctly predict the events that it claimed to predict as a sign of God being the ultimate author of the bible. If you want a good summary, read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel or “Evidence that demands a verdict” by Joshua McDowell. The goal posts are not being moved by me mate, rather I think you are trying to rule out of court the evidence you find inconvenient.
“I do not necessarily care about what happens to these people because I do not know most of these people. I do not have any sort of emotional, personal attachment to them, but I do recognize that if everybody were to act like a murderous maniac then we would not exist. It is beneficial in societies to help one another because it HELPS TO PROPAGATE THE SPECIES.”
Helps propagate the species – you use that as your explanation? Ok then, I will use that to test what you have raised thus far as sources of evil.
Destructive disease (an evil or I would assume that you would not be protesting against it). How do those who have Treacher Collins syndrome, lymphoma, cirrhosis or MS contribute to the propagation of the species in your world view Jon? How do these people (who I have a lot of care for despite not knowing them) make the species more fit in an evolutionary world view? And thus how does this make sense of why you seem to think it evil that they would suffer in such a way and so leading to your rejection of a good God existing.
Christianity (if you don't think it evil as the others at dawkins.net do then why raise it?). This is a religion that encourages people to have, raise and nurture children and that the role of a mother and father are important. This is a religion that urges people to maintain social order and “if possible live in peace with all”. This is a religion that is assisting the propagation of the species and is of massive benefit to society Jon(as shown by the atheist Matthew Paris' thoughts on the matter in our article by him), why then oppose it?
Murder is not the only type of evil out there Jon, what do you define as evil and how do you account for it in the world if there is only the subjective and naturalistic? No God as absolute moral law giver equals no absolute moral law and thus subjectivism rules if there is no God. How do you account for things that are absolutely evil and absolutely honourable and good Jon?
Re the size of the universe: “That seems like an extremely poor job of design. No, the universe does not have to be this monstrous of a size for life to exist....The size of the universe does not matter when life is involved, but saying this universe was designed when almost 100% of it is uninhabitable is a cop out.”
ReplyDeleteFirst assumption, the universe should be full of life because it was designed. Second assumption, the fact that there is no detectable life in the universe other than us is my reason for assuming it is designed. Both are faulty and thus your argument fails. To find out why the universe is the size it is in the Christian world view you need only look at the bible to hear what God says on the matter. “The heavens declare the glory of God” gives a clue – the size and beauty of the universe is a reflection of the power/creativity/glory/greatness of God.
“If the fine tuning argument is discussing many of the constants TOGETHER then it is completely understood that if those constants could VARY in any way while producing stars then the fine tuning argument falls apart. Your argument requires CONSTANTS; it has been shown through a mathematical proof. Here I'll help you with what a proof is.... (long, unnecessary and patronising explanation)..... In this case the paper shows that the constants can vary BY THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDES and still produce stars IN ALL ASPECTS. How can you not see this is exact evidence against the fine tuning argument?”
Assumption one, that the production of stars in a theoretical (read unprovable) situation is the crux of the fine tuning argument and if that happens all life happens by default. Assumption two, that any variation in the constants indicates that there is no designer (sic he could not have that much control....). Assumption three, the stars theoretically produced in the article are normal in all respects. All of these are again faulty assumptions and thus your argument fails.
Life does not and would not occur if there is formation of stars yet the solar systems did not form – one of my original points on the gravitational constant that you've ignored. You have a long way to go to prove that life from non-life would occur period, but that aside do you understand the radical changes that an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE change in gravitation would do to cellular biology? The evolution of life as you claim would go from impossible to utterly ridiculous.
“Science is not jumping to conclusions. We easily state we do not know all of the answers and stay in the realm of I don't know. We do not state that the universe is the cause from an intelligent being BECAUSE THE SUPERNATURAL IS UNTESTABLE.”
Covered this already and it only serves to point out your claiming authority and the bias you have against God and the supernatural.
Re Calilasseia ripping into those who have commented without bothering to read what she has actually written.
And I quote: “Your reading comprehension would appear to be in need of revision, assuming of course that you actually read the post in question...And here is your first error. Because, if you had bothered to READ my original post, you would have learned, from section [16] thereof....”
“Gee, I do have glanced over all of your articles and decided not to read them. The reason is because they are the same arguments used time and time again. There are no new arguments, just old ones that have been dismantled time and time again. No, I will not show you. You can do that for yourself by going to any other site besides your biased creation.com site.”
ReplyDeleteI doubt that in the extreme Jon, apart from your appeal to your own authority there has been NO reasoned rebuttal of the historical/archaeological/literary arguments that we have put forward. As for the scientific, there has not even been a discussion let alone any scope for public and peer reviewed assessment of the facts brought by creationists. Why do you refuse to comment on those arguments? It is not because there are better explanations out there. I've looked on talk origins and spoken with dawkins.net people, there are refutations sure but most of those are already adequately responded to and precious little further has been produced bar “where did God come from?” which appears to be Dawkins and co.'s contribution.
“Now my conclusion is that it is evidence against a deity existing, but the papers and evidence do not try to prove a deity exists. My conclusion is separate from the evidence.”
Oh I agree that the evidence says no such thing, that is a conclusion that requires an evolutionary world view. I look at the same evidence and side with the creationists reasoning from the available evidence.
Your conclusion is separate from the evidence? I would agree but not in the way you mean. You have a conclusion that you have formed from evidently a young age (i.e. there is no God) and yet claim that you came to said conclusion through the science you now have. You claim that all the evidence supports you and yet you will not discuss these things as though you are right and there is no need to comment beyond that. You evidently subscribe to atheistic promulgators, readily regurgitating Hume, Dawkins/Hitchins et. al., and ancient fallacies regarding the Christian faith and yet accuse Christian thinkers of poor argumentation. And you wonder why I accuse you of bias Jon?
Re Jonah: “How do you know that it is impossible naturally? Do all scientists have all answers that show God did do it? Could you provide me with a miracle that isn't in the Bible.”
How do I know it's impossible? Same way you do Jon! You provided the basic evidences that this sort of thing is not possible in you initial response to this miracle. I am surprised that you ask.
Re www.creation.com : “Interesting tactic. The first site I sent you to was a peer reviewed paper, which you declared as wrong, and the second site was to a well laid out logical response to fine tuning with citations and references....The websites you've provided show their belief and bias even in their URL. I've already glanced at the refutation of evolution there and within 1 minute of reading already saw a serious misconception.”
ReplyDeleteAs to the paper, I said your conclusion was wrong. I made no mention of the paper being in any way wrong or faulty. I responded with a website because it contains links to peer reviewed papers as well as argumentation from those papers. Fairly obvious I would think.
As for the website you quoted.... well the dawkins.net site is far from your “unbiased source” and the forum is worse still. You have spoken about the bias and religious precommitment of creation.com, very interesting as on the front page of your quoted site is an indication of Richard's own religious commitments: The two videos Root of All Evil 1&2, to quote the blurb:
“The 2-hour program highlights the dangers of faith and religion in the 21st century, and asks people of reason to say “Enough is enough!” ....There are would-be murderers, all around the world who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they are motivated by what they think is the highest ideal…” – Richard Dawkins
Bias? Religious prejudice? Ignorance and misrepresentation? Well they are all there Jon and you seem to think that this is a good source to quote from. I would challenge you to find ANYTHING as bigoted as Richard's rant against God in the God Delusion ANYWHERE on our site or any site we quote. Biased sources my eye!!!
“You're right, I didn't believe He existed but that doesn't mean I didn't want him to....So you judge first before you know the answer? How Christian of you. To answer your question I searched for 5 years. How long before God showed himself to you? Did you grow up in a house of believers and worshippers? Why do you judge before not knowing the answers?”
If you wanted Him to exist then all well and good. If you wanted to know Him you should listen to what He says about coming to know Him. If you have offended someone and want to restore relationship with them it would be fair enough for them to define how that will happen and what the conditions are. That is our position before God Jon, we have wronged Him and it is only to be expected that there are some conditions on HOW we come to Him.
I am not judging you or the time you spent searching, but rather questioning you to see if there is a reason why nothing came of your search for God. You have commented that you were true to yourself, that is fair enough but not the point. Were you true to what God has laid out as the ONLY way to come to Him?
Re Refuting Evolution:
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you would want to do a point by point analysis of this book, would you mind if I send this to the author also? It would be interesting to him I am sure. Most of your points again boil down to personal scepticism and so I have answered a couple of them and left the rest.
Re Professor Richard Lewontin: Also known for his anti-science stance. This quote is irrelevant because one mans belief does not weigh more than evidence.
Normally I would agree with you on this on Jon but when the person speaking is: Richard Lewontin. Professor of Biology Emeritus, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. There is a need to take some notice because he is essentially speaking in public for the entire Zoology department of the school. Here therefore is the quote you have objected to:
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Prof Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons
“This quote is also referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. The source must have a meaning behind it....A bold claim that mistakes abiogenesis for evolution. Evolution is after life began, not the origins of life.”
Indeed indeed Jon I agree entirely, only problem is this is exactly why creationists raise the issue. Life with no source is a great embarrassment to evolution. And as this book references, the work by Summerland and Shapiro confirms that no life could have come from either the protein or RNA rout to life. Both authors provide a killer punch to the other's work, confirming that neither option is correct and life did not arise from random interactions of molecules in a warm pool somewhere. There is no scientifically supported reason for life to have arisen spontaneously and all the other answers (e.g. panspermia) are absurd in the extreme.
"This statement is speculation as there are peer reviewed papers on observed evolution in controlled environments and uncontrolled environments.”
hmm how did you put it? Blatant lie.
So chapter 1 holds no relevance at all on evolution ... Assumptions do not make a case against evolution; valid evidence disproving evolution will only do so. As of yet, there is none to disprove it.
I look forward to it, for those wanting to do an assessment of how Jon does in his refuting please read along, the website is: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index
Gee. I'm done trying to talk to you about these things. I can see that your belief is stronger than the intrinsic skepticism in everyone and that you will probably continue to believe what you do in light of evidence that contradicts it. If you did indeed talk to the people at dawkins.net (wrong website by the way, so how can I be sure you did?) tell me what your username was, what topics you created, and what topics you may have posted under. I have reason to believe this may be a lie. When you have the courage to come over to forum.richarddawkins.net and prove your worth then feel free to. I imagine the people there will have more patience than I. However, do I think you'll visit it and show how you're right? Well, we'll just see about that I guess.
ReplyDeleteYes Jon I did do short hand on the website I'm sorry. And as for my posts on the site, I never said that I was writing on the site or discussing on it. Rather I have spoken (literally) to people on it and discussed with them on this site. So no you will not find my posts there as I didn't mean that.
ReplyDeleteIt is a pity that you don't have the time or inclination to continue this discussion Jon. I unfortunately wont be taking up your offer of coming to post on forum.richarddawkins.net - I have no time for that between my many commitments.
Fair well and God bless you, I have and will continue to pray for you. Consider what we've discussed and if you find the time come back another time and discuss.