It’s one thing to say, as atheists are fond of saying,
“If the evidence changes then I’m willing to change what I believe.”
It’s quite another thing to say, as atheists seem determined to say,
“I’m going to believe what I believe even if my belief contradicts known and knowable scientific evidence.”
Examples?
. Yes Science says that anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning, But I believe that things can just pop into existence without a cause. For example our universe. It just happened - no cause.
. Yes Science says that everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause, But I don’t believe that’s true.
. Yes Science says that time, space and matter itself had a beginning, But I believe that they didn’t
. Yes Science says that the universe had a beginning, But I believe that it didn’t
. Yes Science says that matter cannot create itself, But I believe it can.
. Yes Science says that matter cannot precede itself, But I believe it can.
. Yes Science says that the infinite only exists as a concept, But I believe that it exists as reality.
. Yes Science says that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity, But I believe that it doesn’t
. Yes Science says that the background radiation we observe points to a Singularity, But I believe that it doesn’t
. Yes Science says that the levels of entropy we find point to a Singularity, But I believe that it doesn’t
. Yes Science says that the expansion of the universe points to a Singularity, But I believe that it doesn’t
“I don’t care what science says, I won’t believe anything that opens the door to the possibility of Creator God.”
. Yes Science says that you can’t get everything from nothing by natural means, But I but I believe you can.
. Yes Science says that inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve, But I believe that they can
. Yes Science says that non life cannot produce life, But I believe that it can
. Yes Science says that randomness cannot produce fine-tuning, But I believe that it can
.Yes Science says that inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information, But I believe that they can
. Yes Science says that “nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness, But I believe that it can
. Yes Science says that we should go with the simplest explanation possible, and that the Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe, But I’m going to reject the Singularity - for obvious reasons - and I’m going to pick one or more of the following models even though each and every one of them has been proven to be unworkable:
The steady state model
Oscillating models
Baby universes
Multi verses
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario
The Chaotic Inflationary Model
Brane-cosmology
Inflationary multi-verse
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum
The many worlds hypothesis
The black hole hypothesis
String Scenarios
Quantum gravity models
Vacuum fluctuation models
Imaginary time and imaginary space
Space aliens brought life to earth
“I don’t care what science says, I won’t believe anything that opens the door to the possibility of Creator God.”
. Yes it seems that objective morals exist, But I believe they don’t. In fact the whole reason I became an atheist is so that I can live as though the only morals, values and obligations that exist are those of my choosing.
. Yes the Christian world-view best explains what we observe but I’m going to say that it doesn’t.
. Yes the atheist world-view and its illogical and unscientific statements take a tremendous amount of faith, But I’m going to say to anyone who will listen that being an atheist doesn’t take any faith at all.
“We atheists live by the evidence and by the scientific method of discovery.”
See! All you have to do is say it. Listen to this!
“Atheism makes it possible for me to be intellectually fulfilled.”
Nothing to it. Just say it, and say it and say it until you believe it. Oh, and about God’s existence? It’s not that I can prove He doesn’t exist. I just deny that He does exist.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thank you for your kind comment. I had to wonder as I read how I would offend the atheist by saying "I'm just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread". If I concern myself with being offensive, I would have to silence myself. The cross is an offense.
Ya it is. Huge. God Bless - See you there.
You do realize that pretty much everything you *think* science says you got it wrong, right? You should study more science before attributing anything to science. There are really too many errors to count in your list unfortunately...
In most of the questions/issues you raise, the scientist's response is not "I don't believe it" but is instead: "I don't know"
By the way: "If the evidence changes then I’m willing to change what I believe" is not something that an atheist would say, but a *scientist*. Can you pick up the difference there?
"You do realize that pretty much everything you *think* science says you got it wrong, right?"
There aren't that many. Let me help you. Put a no beside each statement that you think is verified or believed by science.
. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. For example our universe. It just happened - no cause.
. Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause.
. Space and matter itself had a beginning.
. Matter cannot create itself.
. Matter cannot precede itself.
. Infinite only exists as a concept.
. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity
. Background radiation points to a Singularity
. The levels of entropy point to a Singularity
. The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity
. You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means
. Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve.
. Non life cannot produce life,
. Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning.
. Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information.
. "Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness.
. The Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe
. Objective morals exist,
==================
"Can you pick up the difference there?"
That was actually the point of this post. Atheists claim to adhere to science but in reality they do not. Why? Because in the case of origins, science is not supporting the atheist hypothesis.
Sorry but you do in fact have many things misunderstood or your sources are not very credible.
"Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. For example our universe. It just happened - no cause."
Science cannot answer this question (yet). In which theory did you see a mention to "no cause"?
"Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause"
Again, who says that?
"Space and matter itself had a beginning."
That seems to be the case, yes. But I don't see how this is in favor of your argument here?
"Matter cannot create itself."
Did you make that up? Actually QM permit the creation of matter-antimatter particle pairs out of nowhere so long as they only exist within time periods permissible by Heisenger uncertainty principle.
"Matter cannot precede itself."
This sentence doesn't even make sense to me.
"Infinite only exists as a concept."
How is this relevant?
"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity
Background radiation points to a Singularity
The levels of entropy point to a Singularity
The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity"
What's your point here?
"You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means"
Who in science claims this? Currently there are hypothesis in regards to the creation of the universe but the honest answer any scientist will give you is: "we don't know"
"Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve.
Non life cannot produce life"
Did you made these up as well? What is your definition of life? Because there are very, *very* plausible paths for the formation of simple aminoacids from very simple RNA molecules which have been shown to form *spontaneously* in conditions like those in the primordial earth.
"Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning."
Fine tuning is just misconception of creationists. Where exactly is the fine tuning when only a lousy planet has life and there are so many lifeless planets out there?!? How do you know it's fine tuning when you don't know the range of valid values? It is not the universe that is fine tuned for life, but life that evolved to survive in these conditions.
"Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information.
"Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness"
These straw men of yours only show your deep misunderstandings of what science talks about. I suggest you read much more on the related sciences instead of repeating tired old misunderstandings of creationists.
"The Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe"
Sort of. The inflationary model is currently the model that describes best the evolution of the universe since a little bit after its creation.
"Objective morals exist"
This is just your assertion. I think science (population statistics etc.) only talks about "universal morals" which is vastly different to objective morals.
None of your statements are things that science says OR that have any relevance to your argument. As you can see you have misunderstood A LOT about the related scientific fields.
Science currently shows that there are more than just plausible pathways to the evolution of life on earth through natural means. Very good models also exist for the description of the universal evolution.
No we don't know everything yet and we probably never will. But the only honest way to continue is to say "I don't know" instead of arrogantly asserting the existence of a supernatural all powerful being.
“Science cannot answer this question (yet). In which theory did you see a mention to "no cause"?
The scientific method requires observing evidence, interpretation through repeated testing and verification. EVERYTHING that we’ve observed that begins to exist has a cause.
"Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause" Again, who says that?”
How about you give me an example of something that doesn’t?
“Actually QM permit the creation of matter . . .”
Particles most certainly DO NOT come into being from nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum. The vacuum is NOT nothing. It is in fact a sea of fluctuation energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.
"Infinite only exists as a concept." How is this relevant?
It’s relevant because atheists say that the universe is infinite and did not require a beginning.
"You can’t get everything from nothing" Who in science claims this?
NO ONE. However atheists say it.
"Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve." What is your definition of life?
Amino acids are not gas. A living system must do at least three things: It must be able to process energy. It must be able to store information and It must be able to replicate.
“Where exactly is the fine tuning?”
The natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.
These constants and qualities were not something that EVOLVED as the universe aged. They were “PUT IN” at the Big Bang.
.The ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been EXACTLY as it was or else at 10 to -17 seconds after the start of the singularity, the necessary binding of helium - 4, beryllium - 8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.
. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.
. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.
. If the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.
. If the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.
. The gravitational constant must be exactly ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force.
. A change of only 1 part in 10^ 102 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing.
. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life. Remember, these values had to be put in prior to Planck time.
. The cosmological constant is tuned to 1 part in 10^120 Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe.
. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 ^ 1,230.
“Very good models also exist for the description of the universal evolution.”
Google Borde - Guth - Vilenkin Theorem
"How about you give me an example of something that doesn’t?"
You know this is fallacious reasoning don't you?
"Particles most certainly DO NOT come into being from nothing"
Good, you are playing with semantics. Common thing with creationists to use ambiguous wording and terminology so that they can move the goalposts a little bit later. Fair enough, I now know.
"It’s relevant because atheists say that the universe is infinite and did not require a beginning."
Actually atheists ONLY say that in response to theists requiring an infinite God. So the response is: "if God is infinite and outside physical laws, why not the Universe being this infinite thing?" It is not an argument of atheism per se.
"NO ONE. However atheists say it."
Why did you put it in your science list then? Are you using ambiguity as your weapon again?
"Amino acids are not gas. A living system must do at least three things: It must be able to process energy. It must be able to store information and It must be able to replicate."
I am still over confusion about why you keep mentioning gases here. please explain. As for living things I say in the beginning only replication is necessary in order to allow evolution through mutations and selection. Everything else just follows. And simple replication "factories" is a very very plausible scenario for the beginning of life.
As for the fine tuning stuff you write: again, we do not know if the universe is fine-tuned as you say but we're in the process of finding out why these constants have these values. To simply say that God did it is once again belittling of the things humans have achieved through science. You can mention any numbers and any constants you wish. This is not proof for anything except our ignorance. Basically all you're saying is: "life exists!"
And the assertion that life as we know wouldn't exist shows that you didn't even register my previous comment: it wasn't the conditions that were fixed to support life. It was life that evolved to suit these conditions! Get a grip on it!
Oh and of course, most of the things I mentioned in my previous comment you didn't even try to answer...
I started to reply but honestly? I don't think it's worth it. Too much energy for too few results.
Good luck.
Well, I changed my mind.
To claim that scientists would only say, "I don't know" regarding things like, 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause' is just a red herring. They would also say the same for gravity but we all live as though we know exactly how gravity works. You wouldn't step of the edge of a tall building with the claim, "We don't know everything there is to know about gravity. Maybe this time I'll fly."
It's the same with:
. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning.
. Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause.
. Space and matter itself had a beginning.
. Matter cannot create itself.
. Matter cannot precede itself.
. Infinity only exists as a concept.
. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity
. Background radiation points to a Singularity
. The levels of entropy point to a Singularity
. The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity
. You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means
. Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve.
. Non life cannot produce life,
. Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning.
. Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information.
. "Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness.
. The Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe
. Objective morals exist,
We don't have to know why something exists to know that it does exist. We don't have to know why a maxim is true to know that it is true. Yet, as I said in my post, atheists go absolutely against what we know and what we know via the scientific method of knowing for no other reason than to support their irrational belief system.
Taking just one example from your list, let's look at "...our universe. It just happened."
If we ask the atheist what happened before the Big Bang, then if he is to answer scientifically, he must admit "I don't know." In which case, his position is at best agnostic; for how can it be atheistic, if he doesn't know?
If he replies, "I don't know, but God wasn't there" then he's making an assumption, he's having faith in his belief just like the religious, because that belief is not scientific, for science must say, "I don't know."
Oh my oh my...
Makarios, did you just copy and paste without taking into consideration any of my comments? Great contribution to the discussion (as always with most creationists)
Your example is also totally misleading and out of context: the origin of gravity might not be well understood but the theoretical framework models gravity in great detail and the physical properties are very well know. It is not the same with the question of the origin of the universe of course.
Jeff, if you cannot see how logically flawed your example is then sorry but you are helpless... You are blatantly mangling theological and scientific questions to reach your weird conclusion. In the scientific question he is purely agnostic *as to the cause of the big bang*. But in the theological domain he is an atheist because he has no belief to supernatural beings. How could you possibly confuse this?
To both: it doesn't require belief to be an atheist! An atheist has NO beliefs in supernatural beings. Period. No matter how he has reached his conclusions, it still takes no belief to be an atheist.
The juice of it comes down to this: with no explicit evidence in favor of supernatural beings the atheist finds no reason to believe in one. Arguments from ignorance ("why is it fine tuned? God must have designed it!") are not evidence for any such being. The default position is: "no gods". It is irrational to consider the default position to be: "gods" since there are no positive evidence to support this view (show me ONE). The atheist however, can draw confidence for his view from science since natural explanations and frameworks from most things that were thought once to be supernatural are being found all the time. Science is pushing your gods to mere spectators all the time leaving them with pretty much nothing attributed to them any more.
But hey, feel free to repeat the same old fallacious arguments once more...
“the physical properties are very well know. It is not the same with the question of the origin of the universe of course.”
So eliminate that one if it pleases you so much. All you have left are the items below, established by the scientific method of verification and all denied by atheists who you say have nothing in common but a denial of God's existence oh and the denial that the items below are not true:
. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning.
. Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause.
. Space and matter itself had a beginning.
. Matter cannot create itself.
. Matter cannot precede itself.
. Infinity only exists as a concept.
. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity
. Background radiation points to a Singularity
. The levels of entropy point to a Singularity
. The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity
. You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means
. Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve.
. Non life cannot produce life,
. Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning.
. Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information.
. "Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness.
. Objective morals exist,
[sarcasm]
Good to see that you are not repeating the same things again and that you have tried to respond to my comments
[/sarcasm]
Post a Comment