"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." -- Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Truth suffered its first blow in the Garden of Eden, when the Magic Talking Snake™ deceived Eve. Man has suffered from distorted views and images of God ever since. Even Christians are susceptible to the "idolatry" of false views of God.
The Bible says that Jesus was the exact representation of the invisible God. If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. And, although he submitted to death on the Cross, he was no push-over. It is a mistake to underestimate Jesus, or to view him as someone easily dismissed.
Lovers of truth inevitably come to the One who said of himself, "I am the truth". He is the real-deal, not the type, not the shadow, not the distorted image, but the genuine article. A coin may have a representation of an Emperor, but it is not the Emperor. Jesus was not just like God, he was God clothed in humanity.
Jesus said that if anyone sincerely wanted to know the truth, ultimate reality, whether God exists or not, whether Jesus is the real-deal, they would one day know.
Many, like me, have already made that journey. Many are seeking now. The Spirit is drawing. And those whom he draws, come.
Atheists make the mistake of thinking that determining reality and knowing or not knowing God is in their hands. It's not. It's in His. Except He draws, no-one may come to him.
"To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed"?
As the Christmas season approaches, perhaps we should conclude by saying
Wise Men Still Seek Him.
26 comments:
Just keep on working for the king/emperor/chief, and don't ask any questions, and you'll be rewarded after you die. We promise.
It's no surprise that religion has thrived. Easy answers combined with the promise of paradise if you just shut up and keep working. Who could resist that?
Well, you for one.
Of course, what you have presented is a caricature -- it says more about you and your inner attitude of contempt than it does about a serious quest for truth and ultimate realities.
If you don't believe in God, you should look inside and ask yourself a serious question: how did all of this mindlessly emerge from pond scum?
If this doesn't resonate, then take it a step further: where did the pond scum come from -- why is there something instead of nothing? And why is this something so regulated, so ordered, and so wonderful?
If God does exist, it is reasonable to assume he may have communicated with us.
Advent season approaches. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Whether you believe it or not.
Whether you recoil at this or not.
Whether you like it or not.
"Atheists make the mistake of thinking that determining reality and knowing or not knowing God is in their hands. It's not. It's in His."
So it's god's fault that I'm an atheist??
If god is real - why has he ignored me all these years? The only answer that makes sense is that he is not real. I know you're going to say something like: 'you have not looked properly.' or 'your mind is too closed'......
"If you don't believe in God, you should look inside and ask yourself a serious question: how did all of this mindlessly emerge from pond scum?"
Why would the answer to THAT question be inside me?? The answer to that, and other questions, is found with SCIENCE!
Crediting god with as the answer to your questions is simply quitting on yourself. You have decided that you don't care WHAT the answers are - and that you can't be bothered to seek and learn.
What a sad existence religion gives...
"If you don't believe in God, you should look inside and ask yourself a serious question: how did all of this mindlessly emerge from pond scum?"
Why would the answer to THAT question be inside me?? The answer to that, and other questions, is found with SCIENCE!
I did not suggest the answer to that question was inside of you. I asked how did all of this -- what is on the inside of you -- mind, consciousness, morality, free will, longings, desires, etc. etc. emerge from pond scum. You say that the answer to that and other questions is found with science.
Fine. What is the answer?
You say the answer is found with science. Is science the source of all truth, or only some truth?
Crediting god with as the answer to your questions is simply quitting on yourself. You have decided that you don't care WHAT the answers are - and that you can't be bothered to seek and learn.
In fact, I came to believe in God, and, subsequent to this, believe in Christ through diligent inquiry. No questions were off-limits. Only, I did not limit or impair my search by considering only the conclusions reached from scientific experiment.
And, having come to faith in Christ, I continue to be a questioning, seeking person. Only, I do not stultify my inquiry by assuming that scientific inquiry is the only path to knowledge.
"You say the answer is found with science. Is science the source of all truth, or only some truth?"
Science is the answer for ALL truth. I don't think we'll get the answers from science overnight - in some cases the answers might not ever arrive - but the point is that everything has a scientific answer (whether we know THAT answer or not).
"I came to believe in God, and, subsequent to this, believe in Christ through diligent inquiry."
Good for you! Seriously, it is good that you have found something positive in religion - many people have.
But that doesn't avoid the fact that religion is utter BS. That YOU found answers through religion is simply the product of chemical reactions inside YOUR brain. It, in no way, shows that religion has any ~valid~ answers. The answers work for you and that is fine - for YOU.
People used to wonder about things like thunder and lightening, earthquakes, rainbows, etc... science has uncovered the truth about these natural events and did so only after abandoning the idea that god did any of it.
(I don't like being "anonymous" so I'll sign out how I sign out when commenting on other blogs: Joe Agnost).
Joe Agnost.
"Science is the source of all truth".
Joe: you claim to believe this.
Please provide the scientific test and proof of this statement.
Thank you.
"Please provide the scientific test and proof of this statement."
You did not read my comment carefully enough...
Let me highlight the relevant section:
"I don't think we'll get the answers from science overnight - in some cases the answers might not ever arrive - but the point is that everything has a scientific answer..."
Is it clearer now?
joe agnost.
No, it is not clearer. You have stated, in effect, that "science is the source of all truth".
I am asking you to provide the scientific proof that science, and science alone, is the source of all truth.
Unless you can prove this statement scientifically, it is an unscientific statement. From this it follows that If you believe that science is the source of all truth, you should reject.
It becomes a self-contradicting statement.
I await your response.
Joe -- while you are at it, please prove, from science, that you are a conscious, self-aware being with a sense of "I".
PS - Joe, I realize by your last response that you didn't understand the question I was asking you. You really should direct your skepticism towards yourself and your own abilities to comprehend.
For my part, I apologize for not making my original question to you clearer.
I gave the caveat: "I don't think we'll get the answers from science overnight - in some cases the answers might not ever arrive..."
That means that there WILL be questions which OUR understanding of science leaves us unable to answer at the present time.
Because our understanding of science doesn't ~currently~ have all of the answers does NOT mean that there isn't a scientific answer to all questions.
Science is the path to facts. If it is REAL truth you seek then science HAS to be the way... turning to religion is a lazy cop-out. Science adapts to the evidence - religion ignores it.
Joe Agnost.
Joe -- I don't think you understand the question I am asking. You seem to be saying that science is the only source of truth. I am asking you to prove this fact scientifically.
If you can't prove it scientifically, you shouldn't believe it yourself.
"Science adapts to the evidence".
Although darwinian theories in the late 19th cc. appeared to do away with the need for God, much of 21st cc. science today points towards God. If the science continues to point this way, will you be happy to follow it?
Are you prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
The evidence includes:
- the Big Bang and the fact that the universe had a beginning
- the fine-tuning of the universe for life and the immense improbability that these factors happened by chance, leading to lifelong atheists like Anthony Flew abandoning atheism as untenable
- evidence of irreducible complexity in life-forms, especially in the beginning of life
- evidence that DNA contains both the encoding and transmission of information -- suggesting intelligence
In addition to these evidences, you might also want to consider
- consciousness, conscious, self-aware beings
- the built-in moral sense that each human being has
- the existence of objective morality
- the existence of immaterial realities such as logic, mathematics, values such as honor, worth, dignity, etc.
All of these point to the inadequacy of a purely naturalistic universe, (and therefore the inadequacy of naturalistic science to explain everything) and the reality of a Creator-God.
Are you willing to follow the evidence, regardless of where it leads?
"If the science continues to point this way, will you be happy to follow it?"
Of course!
I couldn't disagree with you more though about the direction science is heading. Science has NOTHING to do with god - why bring god into it?
"Are you prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads?"
Yes, but the "evidence" you cite is bogus!
"the Big Bang and the fact that the universe had a beginning"
Fine. What does that have to do with god?
"the fine-tuning of the universe for life and the immense improbability that these factors happened by chance"
This is simply a joke. Take any of those "fine tuned" constants you speak of and change them - you know what you get? A different universe - not one WITHOUT life, but one with DIFFERENT life.
It's like saying the pothole that contains the puddle on the street is EXACTLY the right size and shape to fit the water. That isn't the case - the water is the way it is BECAUSE of the pot hole. With a different size/shaped pothole the puddle would simply be different.
"leading to lifelong atheists like Anthony Flew abandoning atheism as untenable"
Good for you guys. One lifelong atheist converts in his senility and you think that is evidence of ANYTHING? Talk about grasping at straws!
"evidence of irreducible complexity in life-forms"
This has been debunked SO MANY times it's getting tedious. Behe tried using that one in the Dover trials in 2005 and got laughed out of court! It only takes a minute on google to see this one THOROUGHLY debunked!
"evidence that DNA contains both the encoding and transmission of information -- suggesting intelligence"
It doesn't "suggest" anything of the kind! Instead of throwing 'intelligence' around so freely why not study it further to understand it better?
"the built-in moral sense that each human being has"
Evolution answers this well - no need for ID! It's about being a tribal animal and the need for the whole tribe to succeed. What's good for the group is good for the individual - leading to individuals doing thing for the good of another.
"the existence of objective morality
- the existence of immaterial realities such as logic, mathematics, values such as honor, worth, dignity, etc"
I just don't see how that leads to an itelligent designer.
Your evidence is the usual BS that theists throw around. It's ignorant.
If we are to believe that an "intelligent designer" actually created us, then how do you explain the back pain many of us feel? This is due to humans walking on two legs with a body clearly meant for 4 legged walking.
Or childbirth being SO painful for most women? You think that's an "itelligent" design?
Not only is your "evidence" severely flawed - but in the absence of all that you've said it is clear to me that we in fact ARE NOT intelligently designed at all! There are far too many flaws in our design to attribute it to an "intelligent" designer.
(one more thing: some animals can regrow limbs. This is obviously beneficial. So why can't humans?? Aren't we supposed to be the most special animals god made?)
Joe: "the Big Bang and the fact that the universe had a beginning" Fine. What does that have to do with god?"
Simply this: everything that begins to exist has a cause. The material universe began to exist. It must have been caused by something outside of itself.
This is why scientists for a generation resisted the idea of the Big Bang -- not because the evidence didn't point to it -- but because they didn't like the implications of it.
"the fine-tuning of the universe for life and the immense improbability that these factors happened by chance"
This is simply a joke. Take any of those "fine tuned" constants you speak of and change them - you know what you get? A different universe - not one WITHOUT life, but one with DIFFERENT life.
You could not be more wrong.
In the vast majority of cases, you don't even get a universe. In the vast majority of the rest, you get a barren, dead, universe.
The factors required for life, any kind of life, are improbable beyond human comprehension. It is because of this that "scientists" are postulating many-universes.
"leading to lifelong atheists like Anthony Flew abandoning atheism as untenable"
Good for you guys. One lifelong atheist converts in his senility and you think that is evidence of ANYTHING? Talk about grasping at straws!"
Anthony Flew understood the implications of these factors much better than you apparently do. PS - I hope that others speak more kindly about you than you do about your fellow human being Anthony Flew when you reach this stage in life.
"evidence of irreducible complexity in life-forms"
This has been debunked SO MANY times it's getting tedious. Behe tried using that one in the Dover trials in 2005 and got laughed out of court!"
He got "laughed out of court" as you put it not because it is an invalid hypothesis, but because science is defined, by definition, by some, as limiting its search for truth to natural causes for phenomenon. This rules out the supernatural regardless of whether or not the supernatural is the better-fit for all the facts. It's a definitional limitation of science imposed by some. In other words, this kind of Science is not a search for objective truth, it is a search for naturalistic explanations only.
"evidence that DNA contains both the encoding and transmission of information -- suggesting intelligence"
It doesn't "suggest" anything of the kind! Instead of throwing 'intelligence' around so freely why not study it further to understand it better?"
Then why do people like Bill Gates and others say it is like a computer program? Have you every seen a computer program that didn't have intelligence behind it? The DNA information required to encode a human being would fill a library of encyclopedias. It is information. And its transmission is the transformation of information. And this suggests both intelligence and design, whether you like the implications or not.
"the built-in moral sense that each human being has"
Evolution answers this well - no need for ID! It's about being a tribal animal and the need for the whole tribe to succeed. What's good for the group is good for the individual - leading to individuals doing thing for the good of another."
Of course, evolution explains everything. It just doesn't do it very well. If morality is nothing more than the product of a mindless, amoral process, then it has no objective validity. If evolution had encoded us to kill, or steal, or lie, that would become "good". Your moral code is based on an absurdity, a gaseous burp of mindless, uncaring evolution. Life, by your definition, is ultimately absurd.
- the existence of immaterial realities such as logic, mathematics, values such as honor, worth, dignity, etc"
I just don't see how that leads to an itelligent designer.
Simply this. Materialism is a philosophy, a philosophy that you apparently subscribe to. It posits that the material universe is all that exists. I'm suggesting that there are immaterial realities as well. Evolution cannot explain the existence of immaterial realities because it is purely driven by the material universe. So, honor may be a concept humans have invented, but it cannot actually exist. Numbers, as abstract things, cannot exist. Logic cannot actually exist. And yet, it appears that numbers and logic do exist, whether humans are there to discover and articulate them or not.
"If we are to believe that an "intelligent designer" actually created us, then how do you explain the back pain many of us feel? This is due to humans walking on two legs with a body clearly meant for 4 legged walking."
Then I suggest, to be consistent with your beliefs, you start walking on all fours
Or childbirth being SO painful for most women? You think that's an "itelligent" design?
The Bible has an explicitly stated cause for this.
Not only is your "evidence" severely flawed - but in the absence of all that you've said it is clear to me that we in fact ARE NOT intelligently designed at all! There are far too many flaws in our design to attribute it to an "intelligent" designer.
Then how can you possibly put any confidence in anything that comes out of your uncaused, undesigned brain? Why should you trust anything, when your brain can be nothing more than mindless chemical processes?
(one more thing: some animals can regrow limbs. This is obviously beneficial. So why can't humans?? Aren't we supposed to be the most special animals god made?)
One day you'll be able to ask Him. I suggest you prepare a list. You can ask Him one by one, if you're able to stand in his holy presence.
"Your evidence is the usual BS that theists throw around. It's ignorant."
Yet I am compelled to still love you.
"everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Do you ~not~ understand how MEANINGLESS this comment is coming from someone who doesn't hold his 'god' to the same requirement?? It's the very definition of ludicrous that you would require a "cause" for everything except god. What's good for the goose.....
"This is why scientists for a generation resisted the idea of the Big Bang -- not because the evidence didn't point to it -- but because they didn't like the implications of it."
Such a bold (and incorrect) statement requires you to back it up! Where is your evidence of this? Cite please.
"The factors required for life, any kind of life, are improbable beyond human comprehension."
That ~you~ can't comprehend them doesn't surprise me. You have to cling to your ignorance to impress god.
I don't go for the 'argument from ignorance' though. Your argument here is akin to winning the lottery. The odds that someone will win the lottery are beyond unreasonable (millions to one) and yet - WOW - someone always wins.
Billions of years is a long time, and a LOT of chemical reactions in all sorts of different environments took place. Doesn't sound too "improbable" to me.... But regardless of how "improbable" you find it - you can't just point to a creator unless you have some evidence of one. Improbable chemical reactions does not a creator make!
"He got 'laughed out of court' as you put it not because it is an invalid hypothesis"
Um. that's EXACTLY why he got laughed out of court! Look it up on google - don't take my word for it. He was forced to abandon his "irreducibly complex" argument... the trial continued. ID then took a smack down from the VERY republican judge who declared ID to be nothing more than religion and NOTHING to do with science.
"science is defined, by definition, by some, as limiting its search for truth to natural causes for phenomenon."
I should have read your whole post before responding... bacause this section (quoted above) will likely end our discussion.
You are trying to redefine science to include the unscientific. That is NOT what science is for.
"This rules out the supernatural regardless of whether or not the supernatural is the better-fit for all the facts."
Ignoring the fact that I don't see ANY "supernatural" explanations being a "better-fit" - it doesn't change the fact that SCIENCE has ALWAYS had a well defined set of rules. You can't change those to suit YOUR needs. It doesn't work that way.
In science you need to be able to make predictions. You need to be able to reproduce results. How can you do that when you say 'god did it'? It's not that it's WRONG - it's that it's outside of the scope of science! There is a difference.
"It's a definitional limitation of science imposed by some."
No, not "by some"... by ALL scientists. Every one of them.
"why do people like Bill Gates and others say it (dna) is like a computer program?"
Because it is... they do NOT say it points to intelligent design though. So it's like a computer program... so what?
There are quarter-pipe shaped cliffs that the ocean has eroded over millions of years. They look just like a quarter-pipe humans make to jump their bikes/skateboards etc. off. Have you ever heard of a quarter-pipe making itself?? No? Does that mean that those cliffs MUST be intelligently designed?? Of course not.
There goes your 'computer program' analogy out the window...
"If morality is nothing more than the product of a mindless, amoral process, then it has no objective validity."
Of course it doesn't! Morals are subjective, I've always thought that. They are a product of the 'times' and the people. It used to be moral to beat your slave, or leave your horribly disabled newborn at the base of the mountain to die.
"Your moral code is based on an absurdity, a gaseous burp of mindless, uncaring evolution. Life, by your definition, is ultimately absurd."
I just can't take you seriously. I don't know anybody that thinks life is absurd because there is no god. The only people positing this are theists - the very people it apparently doesn't apply to.
I am completely at peace knowing there is no god and that I am the product of chemical reactions. I love my family the same way, I live my life the same way. I just don't see what the problem is....
"The Bible has an explicitly stated cause for this."
Of course it does. (roll eyes). That's the scam!
"Why should you trust anything, when your brain can be nothing more than mindless chemical processes?"
How does the fact that my brain is nothing but chemical processes invalidate anything?? I just don't agree with your whole 'your life is absurd' and 'mindless chemical brain means you can't trust it' angles... I find them ridiculous.
"Yet I am compelled to still love you"
It is exactly because of your ignorance that you feel compelled to love me. I don't love you - I don't even know you! I'm sure you're a nice guy, but love doesn't enter into it.
"everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Do you ~not~ understand how MEANINGLESS this comment is coming from someone who doesn't hold his 'god' to the same requirement?? It's the very definition of ludicrous that you would require a "cause" for everything except god. What's good for the goose.....
***Not at all. You need to read the statement more carefully. Not everything needs to have a cause. Just those things that begin to exist.
"This is why scientists for a generation resisted the idea of the Big Bang -- not because the evidence didn't point to it -- but because they didn't like the implications of it."
Such a bold (and incorrect) statement requires you to back it up! Where is your evidence of this? Cite please."
***It's a fact of scientific history. Google
scientists resisted idea of big bang
and read to your heart's content. The idea that scientists are philosophically neutral, and the science they advocate philosophically neutral, is just untrue. ***
"The factors required for life, any kind of life, are improbable beyond human comprehension."
That ~you~ can't comprehend them doesn't surprise me. You have to cling to your ignorance to impress god.
I don't go for the 'argument from ignorance' though. Your argument here is akin to winning the lottery. The odds that someone will win the lottery are beyond unreasonable (millions to one) and yet - WOW - someone always wins.
*** This is a faulty argument that I have refuted in the past. There are millions of persons vying to win the lottery. Meaning there are millions upon millions of chances to win. And the number of possibilities in a lottery pales in comparison to the cosmic constants required to create a stable universe in which life is possible.
A more accurate analogy would be this. You have 20 lotteries you must win. Each one has a billion possibilities. You have one chance for each lottery. You must pick the right number 20 times in a row, or, no universe, no life.
***
Billions of years is a long time, and a LOT of chemical reactions in all sorts of different environments took place. Doesn't sound too "improbable" to me.... But regardless of how "improbable" you find it - you can't just point to a creator unless you have some evidence of one. Improbable chemical reactions does not a creator make!
*** There is no viable scientific hypothesis for how life emerged from non-life, and as scientists study the matter, the problem just gets worse and worse for them. ***
"He got 'laughed out of court' as you put it not because it is an invalid hypothesis"
Um. that's EXACTLY why he got laughed out of court! Look it up on google - don't take my word for it. He was forced to abandon his "irreducibly complex" argument... the trial continued. ID then took a smack down from the VERY republican judge who declared ID to be nothing more than religion and NOTHING to do with science.
"science is defined, by definition, by some, as limiting its search for truth to natural causes for phenomenon."
I should have read your whole post before responding... bacause this section (quoted above) will likely end our discussion.
You are trying to redefine science to include the unscientific. That is NOT what science is for.
"This rules out the supernatural regardless of whether or not the supernatural is the better-fit for all the facts."
Ignoring the fact that I don't see ANY "supernatural" explanations being a "better-fit" - it doesn't change the fact that SCIENCE has ALWAYS had a well defined set of rules. You can't change those to suit YOUR needs. It doesn't work that way.
*** This is not true. In fact, try to get the scientists to define what science is. They cannot agree. ***
In science you need to be able to make predictions. You need to be able to reproduce results. How can you do that when you say 'god did it'? It's not that it's WRONG - it's that it's outside of the scope of science! There is a difference.
*** Then why is a multiverse theory "science" and an intelligent designer theory "not science". Can you reproduce a multiverse? Can you reproduce the Big Bang? Can you reproduce the moment where life emerged on earth? Is historical investigation unscientific because you cannot reproduce it? Do you believe nothing of history because it cannnot be reproduced and therefore is unscientific? Do you refute the laws of logic because they cannot be "reproduced" in a lab?
Let's say that we get what appears to be a message from aliens from outer space. The message contains a discernible pattern, a language. Is it unscientific to postulate an intelligent source because we cannot reproduce the sending of the message? Is it unscientific to postulate an intelligent source because we know nothing of the alien beings that sent the message beyond the fact that they are intelligent and apparently wish to communicate with us?
If not, then how is postulating an intelligent source for creation, the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the emergence of life on earth any different? . ***
"why do people like Bill Gates and others say it (dna) is like a computer program?"
Because it is... they do NOT say it points to intelligent design though. So it's like a computer program... so what?
There are quarter-pipe shaped cliffs that the ocean has eroded over millions of years. They look just like a quarter-pipe humans make to jump their bikes/skateboards etc. off. Have you ever heard of a quarter-pipe making itself?? No? Does that mean that those cliffs MUST be intelligently designed?? Of course not.
There goes your 'computer program' analogy out the window...
*** Not at all. DNA oozes intelligence. It is encoded information, libraries worth. Your analogy is very weak. See comment above about aliens. ***
"If morality is nothing more than the product of a mindless, amoral process, then it has no objective validity."
Of course it doesn't! Morals are subjective, I've always thought that. They are a product of the 'times' and the people. It used to be moral to beat your slave, or leave your horribly disabled newborn at the base of the mountain to die.
"Your moral code is based on an absurdity, a gaseous burp of mindless, uncaring evolution. Life, by your definition, is ultimately absurd."
I just can't take you seriously. I don't know anybody that thinks life is absurd because there is no god. The only people positing this are theists - the very people it apparently doesn't apply to.
*** Then you either haven't thought through the implications of atheism, or refuse to acknowledge them. Of course having a moral sense, seeking a sense of meaning and purpose in life, is all absurd if humans are unintended accidents. ***
I am completely at peace knowing there is no god and that I am the product of chemical reactions. I love my family the same way, I live my life the same way. I just don't see what the problem is....
*** How do you "know" there is no God? If your only criteria for knowledge is science, and science, by your definition, limits itself to naturalistic explanations, how do you know there is no God? ***
"Why should you trust anything, when your brain can be nothing more than mindless chemical processes?"
It is exactly because of your ignorance that you feel compelled to love me. I don't love you - I don't even know you! I'm sure you're a nice guy, but love doesn't enter into it.
*** Ignorance? You "know" there is no god. I know there is. ***
(I like your use of ***. It makes your response easier to read.)
"Not everything needs to have a cause. Just those things that begin to exist."
***That doesn't change it at all. Instead of holding your god to the same rules as everything else you simply posit that 'he has always been and always will be'. You can't make a seperate set of rules for god.
"There is no viable scientific hypothesis for how life emerged from non-life, and as scientists study the matter, the problem just gets worse and worse for them."
***There is actually a hypothesis - it hasn't reached 'theory' yet though. But regardless...
*** This is the classic 'argument from ignorance' again. That science doesn't have the answer (yet) does not automatically make the case for anything else. Instead of claiming 'science doesn't explain this, so god is the default' you should work on finding evidence of god.
"try to get the scientists to define what science is. They cannot agree."
*** That is absurd. Science is the discipline of determining how things work by using the 'scientific method'. You want to change what the 'scientific method' is to suit your needs - and that isn't going to happen.
"Then why is a multiverse theory 'science' and an intelligent designer theory 'not science'."
*** To be honest I don't know much about multiverses. I am under the impression that it is not at the "theory" stage yet but is an hypothesis.
"Can you reproduce the Big Bang?"
*** No. But the big bang hypothesized that there should be a specific wavelength of energy radiating throughout the entire universe. Scientists spent decades looking for this - and then found it! This helped to validate the theory. Making predictions (that come true) is a big part of science.
*** For ID to be true one prediction would have to be that no new species will appear - and this is obviously not the case.
"Is it unscientific to postulate an intelligent source because we cannot reproduce the sending of the message?"
*** It wouldn't be "unscientific" if what was postulated used the scientific method, you know - like made predictions etc.
*** It's not the 'idea' of ID that makes it "unscientific". It's the fact that it doesn't adhere to the scientific method!!
*** If it doesn't adhere to the scientific method then it simply isn't science. It doesn't say anything about right/wrong - it just isn't science.
"DNA oozes intelligence."
*** Argument from ignorance.
"Then you either haven't thought through the implications of atheism, or refuse to acknowledge them."
*** There are no "implications of atheism"! Being an atheist is the only reasonable decision IMO. There is no evidence of god - hence there is no reason to believe in one.
*** This does not change how one lives life - nor how life carries on. A theist that becomes an atheist overnight doesn't change behaviors - just beliefs! It doesn't change his feeling of right and wrong - and your implication that it does is rather insulting!
"How do you 'know' there is no God?"
*** The same way we both know there are no unicorns. Because there is ZERO evidence of them.
BTW - I replied to a post from Oct. titled 'say merry christmas if you dare'. The topic of christianity (and why I find it utterly unbelievable) is there.
(I like your use of ***. It makes your response easier to read.)
+*+ The post is evolving -- it's called "descent with modification" -- a well-known design construct. +*+
"Not everything needs to have a cause. Just those things that begin to exist."
***That doesn't change it at all. You can't make a seperate set of rules for god.
+*+ Yes, you can. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If the universe were eternal, it would not, of logical necessity, need a cause. Scientists absolutely banked on this, prior to the emergence of the Big Bang theory.
God, who exists outside of the material universe, is a different ontological category of being, by definition eternal and uncaused. +*+
*** This is the classic 'argument from ignorance' again. That science doesn't have the answer (yet) does not automatically make the case for anything else. Instead of claiming 'science doesn't explain this, so god is the default' you should work on finding evidence of god.
+*+ It is not an argument from ignorance; it is an argument from the facts on the table; an argument from the inherent complexity of even the simplest viable life-form, and the improbability of it just popping into existence. You have faith that a mindless process called evolution somehow created this initial life-form, but it is just that -- faith. +*+
"try to get the scientists to define what science is. They cannot agree."
*** That is absurd.
+*+ It is not absurd. There is no agreed-upon definition of what science is. Does it include social studies, i.e., the "social sciences"? Does it include history, i.e., the "science" of the historical method? Does it include textual criticism, i.e., the "science" of textual criticism?
Cosmology, by definition, is beyond your "scientific method" because you cannot replicate the past. The same applies for the historical evolution of species.
+*+
"Then why is a multiverse theory 'science' and an intelligent designer theory 'not science'."
*** To be honest I don't know much about multiverses. I am under the impression that it is not at the "theory" stage yet but is an hypothesis.
+*+ You owe it to yourself to look into them, and why the theory emerged in the first place. It has a whiff of desperation about it. It seeks to provide a purely materialistic explanation for the huge probabilities inherent in our universe that the universe is the product of intention and not chance. +*+
"Can you reproduce the Big Bang?"
*** No. But the big bang hypothesized that there should be a specific wavelength of energy radiating throughout the entire universe. Scientists spent decades looking for this - and then found it! This helped to validate the theory. Making predictions (that come true) is a big part of science.
+*+ And just very recently a problem with this background radiation emerged. If I can locate the article, I'll let you know.
If scientists had hypothesized an intelligent designer, and a beginning to the universe, they would have looked for and found the evidence of the Big Bang much sooner. They discovered it in spite of themselves. +*+
*** For ID to be true one prediction would have to be that no new species will appear - and this is obviously not the case.
+*+ Why couldn't new species appear? +*+
"Is it unscientific to postulate an intelligent source because we cannot reproduce the sending of the message?"
*** It wouldn't be "unscientific" if what was postulated used the scientific method, you know - like made predictions etc.
*** It's not the 'idea' of ID that makes it "unscientific". It's the fact that it doesn't adhere to the scientific method!!
*** If it doesn't adhere to the scientific method then it simply isn't science. It doesn't say anything about right/wrong - it just isn't science.
*** There are no "implications of atheism"!
+*+ Implications of atheism:
a) There is no ultimate purpose to me or my existence.
b) There is no ultimate justice in the universe -- goodness will go unrewarded, evil, unpunished. When I am wronged, and my heart cries out for "justice", this is just one of those gaseous burps of mindless evolution. "I" don't matter to the universe.
c) The baby I hold in my arms is of no more ultimate value or worth to the universe than a pumpkin or a rock. Smashing a baby's head in has no more ultimate moral implications than smashing a pumpkin. The universe is entirely and utterly indifferent to life, death, pain, suffering. Do good or do evil -- it is a matter of complete indifference.
d) Good and evil are merely human constructs. Absolute good and evil does not exist. I can do whatever I want and "get away with it", unless caught by other humans.
e) When I die, that's it. My longings for worth, meaning, and continuance are absurdities. In other words, the things that make me uniquely and essentially human, are absurdities.
"How do you 'know' there is no God?"
*** The same way we both know there are no unicorns. Because there is ZERO evidence of them.
+*+ You may "know" that there are no unicorns, but I do not. I believe there are no unicorns but see no reason why unicorns may have at least existed in the past.
Besides, unicorns form a separate category of creature.
Scientists now believe that knowledge of God, or the sense of God, is pre-wired into human beings. Evolutionists view it as a mis-wiring, but it appears to be there non-the-less. There is no such hard-wiring of a belief in unicorns.
As evidence of this pre-wiring --
I suspect that if I ran a blogsite positing the existence of unicorns you would probably just ignore it. You need to ask yourself what is it about God that drives you emotionally to try to refute belief in God. +*+
BTW - I replied to a post from Oct. titled 'say merry christmas if you dare'. The topic of christianity (and why I find it utterly unbelievable) is there.
+*+ So that was you! Here's the latest --
http://www.news-press.com/article/20081125/NEWS0104/811250380/1075
+*+
"God, who exists outside of the material universe, is a different ontological category of being, by definition eternal and uncaused."
*** How convenient... and totally meaningless to someone who doesn't believe in god.
"It is not an argument from ignorance; it is an argument from the facts on the table; an argument from the inherent complexity of even the simplest viable life-form, and the improbability of it just popping into existence."
*** But those "facts on the table" don't actually point to god. It's just as likely that aliens, or invisible pig-men, are the answer!! That ~you~ choose to credit god in NO WAY reflects that the evidence implies god. You would be just as correct (with the exact same body of evidence) to suggest it was invisible pig-men - and that says something for the weakness of your position.
"You have faith that a mindless process called evolution somehow created this initial life-form..."
*** What a surprise - another ignorant creationist who doesn't even know what evolution says.
*** Evolution makes NO statement about the FIRST lifeform. It only addresses how LIFE (which already exists) evolves. Abiogenesis is the study of the FIRST lifeform and has NOTHING to do with evolution.
"There is no agreed-upon definition of what science is. Does it include social studies, i.e., the "social sciences"? Does it include history"
*** Now I'm beginning to think that you're being deliberately obtuse.
*** The word "science" can be used in many ways (see 'social science' for an example). But the discipline of SCIENCE is well defined and involves the scientific method. Of course 'social studies' and 'history' aren't sciences.
"Cosmology, by definition, is beyond your 'scientific method' because you cannot replicate the past."
*** If you understood cosmology you would know that it involves actually looking at the past.
*** As a short example of this: You can see the sun shining outside of your window. Are you seeing the sun as it is currently? No, you are looking at it as it was 8 minutes ago. That is because it took the light 8 minutes to travel here. If the sun blew up in a flash of light we wouldn't even know about it until 8 minutes after it happened.
*** When cosmologists look out at the stars they are looking at the history of the universe - and the "farther" they look the farther back in time they are seeing.
"And just very recently a problem with this background radiation emerged."
*** And that is perfectly fine. Science will adapt to this new information. It may tweak an hypothesis/theory or two. It might even abandon them - but the point is that it's EVIDENCE that counts.
"If scientists had hypothesized an intelligent designer..."
*** How would such an hypothesis be worded. What would it's predictions be? What could we look for? The fact that even creationists can't define their "theory" is quite telling.
*** The fact that we (humans) are so UNintelligently designed is the most obvious reason why ID is BS. Who designed our wisdom teeth? Who designed our eyes which are susceptible to damage (and the need for glasses not available centuries ago)? The list of 'bad' design goes on and on...
*** There are just SO MANY things about our design which point to FLAWED design that I'm incredulous that ID is still being pushed!!
"There is no ultimate purpose to me or my existence."
*** I don't feel that way at all. I think my life does have purpose. The purpose is to have fun and enjoy the life you've got and (of course) reproduce (and spread my genes!). That you need someone other than yourself to give YOUR life purpose is pretty sad.
"There is no ultimate justice in the universe"
*** You might have me here... I suppose this is an implication of atheism. It's true too so I don't see a problem with it.
"The baby I hold in my arms is of no more ultimate value or worth to the universe than a pumpkin or a rock. Smashing a baby's head in has no more ultimate moral implications than smashing a pumpkin. The universe is entirely and utterly indifferent to life, death, pain, suffering. Do good or do evil -- it is a matter of complete indifference."
*** And I completely agree with this. Why should the "universe" care about your baby? It seems rather silly that you would care...
"Good and evil are merely human constructs. Absolute good and evil does not exist."
*** I agree with this too. The fact that the happiest, healthiest places to live on earth happen to be the most atheist countries is more than a coincidence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5224306.stm) It doesn't take a fear of god to make people decent, it's inate. It evolved because survival depended upon it.
"When I die, that's it. My longings for worth, meaning, and continuance are absurdities."
I agree that your longing for continuance is absurd... but those other things? You're being overly dramatic.
"Scientists now believe that knowledge of God, or the sense of God, is pre-wired into human beings. Evolutionists view it as a mis-wiring"
*** No they don't. They don't call it "mis-wiring", and this finding is only strengthing my atheism. Are you aware that this new research is being used to show that belief in god is a chemical process in the brain - evolved to keep a tribe tight and at odds with other tribes (as all the different tribes had different ideas - like religion today - about what god was, looked like and behaved like).
*** I see this as more evidence that belief in god is a product of evolution - not the other way around. And I am not alone in this.
*** Dawkins had a post about this today: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3373,Why-we-believe-in-gods,J-Anderson-Thomson
*** Here's another interesting article on this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3307,Religion-A-Tool-to-Keep-the-Parasites-Away,Discoblog
"You need to ask yourself what is it about God that drives you emotionally to try to refute belief in God."
*** Other than the fact that I find it interesting and fun there is another reason. Religion tries to inject itself into public life. I find this appalling.
*** Even if you discount the Irans and Saudi Arabias of the world you'd still have the creationism-lobby trying to get ID into public science classes. Or an evangelical president (GWB) who funds faith groups with tax payers money, or withholds public money to states that don't teach abstinence-only sex-ed.
*** I don't begrudge you your religious belief (regardless how silly I find them) - I begrudge them having ANY legitimacy in public life.
Are you aware that this new research is being used to show that belief in god is a chemical process in the brain...
+_+ Are you aware that your will can be nothing more than chemical processes in your brain, and therefore your will as a distinct entity, does not exist? You think you are choosing to respond to my blog, but you are not -- it is all driven by mechanical drips inside your brain.
Same for consciousness. You think you are conscious, but are not really. Since you are nothing more than chemical processes, "you" don't really exist -- all that exists is the chemical processes and the illusion of personhood that these chemical processes create.
This is the kind of absurd reductionist thinking that materialists and darwinians are forced into. Such reductionist thinking appears as intellectual retardation to persons with a wider expanse of intellectual inquiry and an intuitive grasp of reality.
Religion tries to inject itself into public life. I find this appalling.
+_+ I find it appalling that atheism seeks to inject itself into public life and to equate itself with science.
*** I don't begrudge you your religious belief (regardless how silly I find them) - I begrudge them having ANY legitimacy in public life.
+_+ Perhaps you could inter them, or make them wear identifying labels on their arms.
*** You would be just as correct (with the exact same body of evidence) to suggest it was invisible pig-men - and that says something for the weakness of your position.
+_+ Aliens are inside this universe, so they don't count as a possibility. Invisible pig-men could be the answer, however, the evidence of the universe strongly suggests the idea of a single creator, so that would be pig-man. And that pig-man, as creator, would be "god". I just think that my conception of God is more developed, more reasonable, and more rational, than your Invisible Pig-Man hypothesis.
*** What a surprise - another ignorant creationist who doesn't even know what evolution says.
*** Evolution makes NO statement about the FIRST lifeform. It only addresses how LIFE (which already exists) evolves. Abiogenesis is the study of the FIRST lifeform and has NOTHING to do with evolution.
+_+ Scientists now commonly use the term "evolution" in its broad sense to account for everything from the Big Bang onwards -- evolution of stars, planets, etc. etc. right up to the present moment.
This evolution, of necessity, must be viewed as a seamless and uninterrupted chain of cause and effect. This includes the jump from non-life to life.
Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and biological evolution do not exist as independent entitities; they are artificial labels slapped on this uninterrupted continuum.
Because it is uncaused, this jump to life from non-life, like biological evolution, must be one of those itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny jumps that materialists and darwinists need in order to climb the improbable mountain. Which means the first life form must be extremely simple and non-complex.
This contradicts all the evidence on the scientific table which indicates that even the simplest life form must have a complexity that is beyond chance. And the problem only gets worse the deeper scientists delve.
Those who believe in naturalism, however, keep the naturalism-of-the-gaps faith.
*** Now I'm beginning to think that you're being deliberately obtuse.
Of course 'social studies' and 'history' aren't sciences.
+_+ You better look into this as well. You are going to have a lot of people disagreeing with you.
You stated earlier that science is the source of all truth. You now state that the social sciences are not science.
I assume you therefore reject all knowledge based on the social sciences, including anthropology, communication studies, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology.
Or, are there other ways of knowing things other than science?
*** The fact that we (humans) are so UNintelligently designed is the most obvious reason why ID is BS. Who designed our wisdom teeth? Who designed our eyes which are susceptible to damage (and the need for glasses not available centuries ago)? The list of 'bad' design goes on and on...
*** There are just SO MANY things about our design which point to FLAWED design that I'm incredulous that ID is still being pushed!!
+_+ Why must the design be perfect according to your criteria? Human beings create things all the time that are flawed. Do you conclude from this that the things they created were undesigned?
"There is no ultimate purpose to me or my existence."
*** I don't feel that way at all. I think my life does have purpose. The purpose is to have fun and enjoy the life you've got and (of course) reproduce (and spread my genes!).
+_+ Your feelings are incompatible with the facts on the table. Perhaps your feelings, like your wisdom teeth, are another mistake of evolution.
Immaterial concepts such as "purpose" are, like "god", a meaningless idea in an uncreated universe. There can be no purpose in a universe that by definition has no purpose. Purpose is an absurdity.
"Smashing a baby's head in has no more ultimate moral implications than smashing a pumpkin.
*** And I completely agree with this.
"Absolute good and evil does not exist."
*** I agree with this too.
"When I die, that's it. My longings for worth, meaning, and continuance are absurdities."
I agree that your longing for continuance is absurd... but those other things? You're being overly dramatic.
+_+ No, I am not. Immaterial concepts such as purpose, worth, meaning, like god, have no meaning if reality is materialistic.
The fact that they exist within the human hear points the absurdity of life in an atheistic universe.
The fact that such concepts are not merely peripheral but fundamental to what makes us truly human makes humanity a supreme absurdity.
I would intellectually respect atheists a lot more if they would at least admit to this absurdity.
"You think you are choosing to respond to my blog, but you are not -- it is all driven by mechanical drips inside your brain."
*** Do you wonder why your views are not taken seriously? Statement like that one would be a very strong reason.
*** I don't know how you arrive at these ideas of yours but they're fantastic in there absurdity.
"You think you are conscious, but are not really. Since you are nothing more than chemical processes, 'you' don't really exist"
*** No. I ~do~ exist and am, in fact, the sum of these chemical processes. I have no problem with that - I am what I am.
"all that exists is the chemical processes and the illusion of personhood that these chemical processes create."
*** But it's not an "illusion", it is a FACT. I am the sum of the chemical processes.
"I find it appalling that atheism seeks to inject itself into public life"
*** I gave examples of religion injecting itself into public life. Can you do the same for atheism??
*** Note that I agree that atheists have been going too far lately with the whole anti-christmas campaign because I don't find christmas to be religious in the slightest. It's about food, family and booze - not religion. I LOVE christmas!
"and to equate itself with science."
*** What the hell does that mean? Science has nothing to do with atheism.
"Perhaps you could inter them, or make them wear identifying labels on their arms."
*** Yeah yeah... poor christians... just like the jews in nazi germany, you are (roll eyes). What is it with you people that you feel like you're always being persecuted... it's pathetic! Keep your noses out of other people's business and you'll find people are a lot more tolerant of you lot.
"I just think that my conception of God is more developed, more reasonable, and more rational, than your Invisible Pig-Man hypothesis."
*** Of course YOU do! What is absolutely fact is that your "concept" has the exact same body of evidence as my pig-man concept... and is NOT more rational in the slightest!
"Scientists now commonly use the term 'evolution' in its broad sense to account for everything from the Big Bang onwards"
*** That doesn't change what "biological evolution" covers though. You can continue to be as ignorant as you like - but Darwin's theory of evolution does NOT include the first life form. It only covers evolution of life - not creation of it.
"Abiogenesis, and biological evolution do not exist as independent entitities"
*** Spoken wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour. You are wrong - plain and simply wrong. I know it's easier to present your case when you lie like this - but that doesn't change the fact it's wrong. Abiogenesis has absolutely NOTHING to do with biological evolution. NOTHING.
"You stated earlier that science is the source of all truth."
*** And I was wrong (or you mistook my meaning). I meant that everything has a scientific explanation. Science IS a source of truth - but you're right, it doesn't exactly explain why I like watching south park on TV. It does however explain it if you dig deep enough - it's because certain neurons in my brain fire up when I watch it which gives my body pleasure.
*** But things like history certianly do contain truths - like the fact that WWII occured etc.
*** If you would like me to admit I was wrong: I was wrong and jumped the gun on my reply (about science being the only source of truth).
"Why must the design be perfect according to your criteria?"
*** I was under the impression that god didn't make mistakes. I thought he was perfect - and thus wouldn't have designed a flawed being.
*** I thought you guys would scream bloody murder if it was suggested that god made several mistakes, or put several flawed designs into the human body. No?
"Human beings create things all the time that are flawed. Do you conclude from this that the things they created were undesigned?"
*** No. I conclude that the design is flawed. Something I didn't think creationists accepted.
"There can be no purpose in a universe that by definition has no purpose. Purpose is an absurdity."
*** The more I read your replies the more certain I am that religion makes people stupid. There's no other way to explain it...
"I would intellectually respect atheists a lot more if they would at least admit to this absurdity."
*** Thankfully we don't want respect from people like you. You embarrass our species with your ignorance... you should be ashamed.
"Abiogenesis, and biological evolution do not exist as independent entitities"
*** Spoken wearing your ignorance like a badge of honour. You are wrong - plain and simply wrong. I know it's easier to present your case when you lie like this - but that doesn't change the fact it's wrong. Abiogenesis has absolutely NOTHING to do with biological evolution. NOTHING.
Both terms abiogenesis and biological evolution are human constructs of reality. They do not exist as independent entities. They exist only as categories of thought within human minds. The are mere labels.
Since the philosophy of materialism demands a seamless process of cause-effect from the Big Bang onwards, the fact that human beings decide to divide this necessarily seamless process into two parts and label one abiogenesis and the other biological evolution (and then claim that one has "absolutely nothing" to do with the other!) does not detract from the logical necessity that one flow seamlessly from one to the other.
"everything has a scientific explanation."
I assume that you believe that this is a truthful statement.
Fine.
Is this a philosophical statement, or a scientific statement?
"Since the philosophy of materialism demands a seamless process of cause-effect from the Big Bang onwards"
*** I don't care what (you think) materialism means or "demands". I am talking about abiogenesis and evolution. You can be a christian, muslim or atheist - it doesn't matter - these two concepts (abiogenesis and biological evolution) have nothing in common! They are distict matters.
Post a Comment