Atheists are fond of saying, “You can’t prove a negative like, “There is no God in the universe, or anywhere else for that matter.””
We could add to this,
. There is no spare tire in my vehicle
. There is no fruit in the fridge
. There is no oxygen in that container
. No neutrinos have ever passed through my body.
You get the idea. Obviously it’s absurd to say, “You can’t prove a negative,” or that “You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist somewhere or anywhere.”
What atheists are really saying is there’s no way of knowing if God exists. They’re saying,
You can’t look in the trunk of the vehicle.
You can’t look in the fridge
You can’t measure oxygen
You can’t see neutrinos with the naked eye
You can’t look at the universe and “see” evidence for God.
In a manner typical of racists, people who atheists derisively call “camel jockeys,” two thousand years ago stated what brilliant philosophers of today call the Law of First Cause. These writers from antiquity were saying that one proof of God’s existence is the universe itself. The very fact that our universe exists AND that it has observers - us - are two proofs that God exists. If our universe had come about by natural causes (I know. There wasn’t anything to “naturally” cause this universe. But to humour atheists let’s say there was) the odds of this universe being life supporting is prohibitively large. There are estimated to be “only” 10 ^ 80 sub atomic particles in the whole universe.
Have you got that in your mind? Are you sure? It’s important. Ok.
Astro physicists have estimated that the odds of our life sustaining universe, coming into being by accident to be 1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230.
Remember the sub atomic particles? 10 ^ 80?
In calculating odds, scientists typically say that anything greater than 10 ^ 50 is impossible. That of course just applies to us regular people. For atheists the only thing that’s impossible is the existence of God.
In Romans, the Apostle Paul, himself no dullard, states, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth . . . since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualitites - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”
Paul didn’t say, “Look there’s lightening, God must exist.”
He didn’t say, “Oooh an earthquake, God must exist.”
He didn’t say, “Something good just happened to me, God must exist.”
He DID say, “Everything cannot come from nothing by nothing.”
People of the time reasoned correctly, in a manner seemingly beyond the ability of modern atheists, that either matter is eternal or a First and Primary Cause is eternal. Based upon the evidence, they reasoned that the best answer is Creator God. Today, science has shown them to be correct, since science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself.
Now, my question is, rather than going on and on and on and on with the canard of
“You can’t prove a negative,” or, “You can’t prove that God is not in the universe,” why not instead prove the positive? Why not put all this Christian nonsense to an end and say, “Everything came from nothing by a natural cause.” And then, give us the evidence to prove that’s what happened. Just do it already! In the local vernacular,
Either crap or get off the pot.
Either put up or shut up.
This really has gone on for decades too, too long.
I mean that is what atheists believe, right? That everything came from nothing by natural means? And being logical, reasonable, rational and scientifically minded, atheists would never believe anything with out verifiable evidence to back them up. Right? So just lay it out. If people that you call camel jockeys in a bronze age book can present a case that is supported with sophisticated philosophical evidence, why can’t the new atheists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I have never, not once, referred to anyone as a "camel jockey". I have never thought of referring to anyone that way. I must respectfully demand that you remove that portion of your post. It is reprehensible of you to suggest that atheists are racists.
It is reprehensible of you to suggest that atheists are racists.
Meh, Ben Stein here calling me a racist doesn't really rise to the level of "reprehensible" considering all the other lies and disinformation he spreads as truth. It's actually quite comical that he's putting racist words in people's mouths, because at the end of the day, he's the one spouting racial epithets, not us. I think that this post shows a lot more about his lack of character than it does about anyone he's accusing.
Although, I'm certain that his defense to that will be to use some kindergarten-style name manipulation on me.
Comrade -
Ben Stein - Ben STEIN! How DARE you call me Ben Stein. I demand that you remove that slur immediately.
"Are you trying to tell me that you've never seen that term used on atheist blogs? Careful now. Lying is a sin."
I can't recall ever seeing that term used on an atheist blog. I've seen it used plenty on sites like Free Republic by professing Christians. I don't doubt you may have but just because I see a Christian write something insanely stupid on a Christian blog, I wouldn't conclude all Christians are stupid. Personally, I would only call someone who races camels a 'camel jockey'.
As to your point, it's the rare atheist who says definitively that there is no God or gods. Most of us have seen no evidence from those asserting there is one. Calling the universe a creation is just another unsupported assertion.
Finally, I wonder what odds astro physicists would put on me posting here given all the variables that would have to fall into place from the time of my birth to this moment. Then, throw in all the variables in your life. The odds would be astro nomical, I bet.
Are you trying to tell me that you've never seen that term used on atheist blogs?
I can't speak for what PersonalFailure has or has not seen on other blogs, but I can say with all honesty that the only blog I've ever seen that particular epithet used on is this one.
In fact, I've seen far, far more racist language spouted from Christian websites than I've ever seen on any atheist site.
The "camel jockey" statement is just a red herring. Atheists are no more racist on average than professing Christians, and probably less so, since there are -- to my knowledge -- no organizations which promote both racism and Atheism.
So ignoring that crap, I note instead that you've set up this whole "argument" based on a pathetic straw man. The argument is not that "You can't prove a negative," but that "You cannot prove a universal negative." Obviously, it can be proven, one way or another, whether your vehicle contains a spare tire, and if you were remotely honest, you'd probably figure that somebody may have noticed that a localized negative can easily be proven one way or another.
So rather than concern yourself with flat-tire repair, foodstuff refrigeration, vacuum seals, or the traveling habits of elementary particles, you should instead face the actual argument. It may be absurd to say, "You can't prove a negative," and that's why no one says that. It is not, however, absurd to say, "You can't prove that something doesn't exist [anywhere]."
Do unicorns exist anywhere? Is this an absurd question to ask?
As to the Law of First Cause, I don't think Aristotle was a "camel jockey," but an "olive-picker." You need to better familiarize yourself with the appropriate slur for a given culture/ethnicity.
The very fact that our universe exists AND that it has observers - us - are two proofs that God exists.
No, genius, that is one candidate for a proof, not two. Of course, it fails in my view, but even in your own, it is not two proofs, but one, maximally. This is because without observers there is no statement as to the existence of the universe, or, if you prefer, there are no observers without something to observe. Ergo, one potential "proof," not two.
...science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself.
Really? Strange... I've never heard this before. I've heard of mass-energy equivalence, and I've heard that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but not that it cannot be eternal...
Sources?
...give us the evidence to prove that’s what happened.
Amen. Give us the evidence. We readily admit that our knowledge as to the origin(s) of the universe is severely limited. You are the one making the positive claim sans evidence. At best, your use of Aristotle's "First Cause" argument supports Deism -- not Theism. You cannot get from "there must have been a first cause, which I shall call god," to "and that god's favorite color is blue," without question begging.
As an atheist, I merely say, "I don't know how or why, but I'm interested in finding out." I don't introduce magic men who give the appearance of not existing, and I don't pretend to know what the magic man thinks about pork.
That's your territory.
So shit or get off the pot, and show us incontrovertible evidence not only of a god, but your god.
--
Stan
So shit or get off the pot, and show us incontrovertible evidence not only of a god, but your god.
::Sigh:: Such a well-constructed deconstruction! Unfortunately, he won't, because he can't. I'm sure he'll offer some delightfully petulant ad-hominem assault on you for pointing out how he's wrong, though.
"At best, your use of Aristotle's "First Cause" argument supports Deism -- not Theism."
Have I suggested anything more than that?
==========
...science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself.
Really? Strange... I've never heard this before.
So which point are you agreeing with,
That matter CAN be infinite? or
That matter CAN create itself?
I'll even let you refer me to a YouTube athest scholar if need be.
================
I don't have incontrovertable evidence, but I do believe I have evidence that gets us beyond resonable doubt.
No, Makarios, the only place I have ever seen that phrase used is here.
Oh, and the "whore" joke? Classy.
So, let's see the fruit by which I will know Makarios is a Christian: a racial slur and a joke about prostitutes.
Oh, and about whoever said he thinks he's seen the term camel jockeys used many times on this blog? I think you're right. It has been used many times - by atheists and only by atheists.
"These writers from antiquity were saying that one proof of God’s existence is the universe itself. The very fact that our universe exists AND that it has observers - us - are two proofs that God exists."
This post ends up being a fine bucket of Red Herrings, as is usually for fundies.
Hey Makarios, lil buddy, when rational folks talk about proof, they are referring to mathematical concepts.
You are using the word proof as a philosophical term.
In other words, you wouldn't know a proof if it kicked you in the butt.
The more sophisticated fundamentalists no longer use these absurd philosophical "proof" terms any longer.
Good luck with this absurd tact.
The Frog-o-matic
Looks like a clear case of Freudian Projection to me. You stay classy Makarios.
Have I suggested anything more than [Deism, as opposed to Theism]?
Yes, you have, in virtually every thread you've created on this blog. You also implied as much in this thread when you referred to "God," rather than "a god," and when you cited the writings of Paul.
So which point are you agreeing with...?
When you say "agreeing," do you instead mean "disagreeing"? If not, you should work on comprehension. If so, you should work on composition.
In any event, I dispute the claim that "science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself." I also requested sources. They can be as complicated as you like -- I'm sure I can follow the math.
I don't have incontrovertable [sic] evidence, but I do believe I have evidence that gets us beyond resonable [sic] doubt.
Then let's have it. I've attempted to follow every argument put forth in support of the claim of Deism (or Theism), yet have found sound refutations for each. No, I've not seen definitive 'proof' that there is no god, but I have seen every argument for the existence of god shot down in one or more way.
If you've got something which trumps "resonable" doubt, let's see it. I'll even accept links to past posts, if you like.
As to the primary claim made in this thread, however, I ask again:
Do unicorns exist anywhere? Is this an absurd question to ask?
It would seem that based on your "argument," you think the above is an absurd question. Why (or why not)? Be careful not to contradict yourself.
--
Stan
I am a big fan of this:
Makarios: So which point are you agreeing with,
That matter CAN be infinite? or
That matter CAN create itself?
In response to this:
Stan: Really? Strange... I've never heard this before. I've heard of mass-energy equivalence, and I've heard that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but not that it cannot be eternal...
This is what I have learned:
1. Make a positive claim
2. When someone asks for evidence backing up your claim, pretend that they are agreeing with your unsubstantiated claim.
3. You have won the debate.
"Oh, and about whoever said he thinks he's seen the term camel jockeys used many times on this blog? I think you're right. It has been used many times - by atheists and only by atheist"
Really, are you sure, a google search reveals that the only person to say that was you.
"Careful now. Lying is a sin."
I also used Google to search the comments. The only person using the phrase is Makarios. In September last year Darron S mentioned camels. But he didn't use the phrase Makarios used.
“This sense of the sacred is not something that I've ever felt in a church, by the way.”
Me neither, well, maybe three times in 28 years.
=============
“our universe began expanding from a hot, dense speck.”
Of course then we’d have to ask, “Where exactly was this dense speck?” and the answer would be, “Oh ya! There wasn’t any space for the speck to "be" nor was there any matter, not even as a dense speck. There wasn’t even a “before” because the concept of time didn’t exist either.”
========
“Please justify your assertion that athiests, as a group, are "racist".”
Where did I say they were?
============
Do unicorns exist anywhere? Is this an absurd question to ask?
Yes, because we know that they don’t. Once again,
Do you believe that matter can be eternal? or
Do you believe that matter can create itself?
These are not difficult questions.
Yes or No for either would satisfy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
That's funny Jill. Thanks for the chuckle
This thread is proof positive that Makarios is either a liar who actually knows very little about the Bible, or a cunning Poe.
Yes [it is absurd to ask whether unicorns exist anywhere], because we know that they don’t.
We do?! No, we don't. We know they don't exist here, but the question is whether or not unicorns exist anywhere. You've identified a planet, I'll grant you, on which they do not exist, but surely it's possible they might exist somewhere in the universe, no?
I sense you may be aware of your retarded mistake regarding local negatives versus universal negatives.
If not, then you are merely retarded.
Do you believe that matter can be eternal? or
Do you believe that matter can create itself?
These are not difficult questions.
Yes or No for either would satisfy.
Nice try, but you were the one who claimed that "science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself."
I dispute this claim, and asked for sources. I'm still waiting. The truly funny thing about this part is that you're attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me, regarding a (gasp!) universal negative. You assert a single positive instance of something, I request evidence. You say science has shown something, I request evidence. You say there is a god, I request evidence.
See how this works?
So, I respectfully decline your attempt at changing the subject, or shifting the burden of proof, and await your evidence in support of the positive claim you made, or, barring all that, I respectfully request that you retract that statement, and post a correction.
If science has proven what you say it has, then I'll look over the documentation you provide and admit my error as appropriate. If you fail to provide any such documentation, you admit you invented support where there was none, and you concede defeat.
Thanks!
--
Stan
"but surely it's possible they might exist somewhere in the universe, no?"
Like I said, the ONLY thing that atheists believe is impossible is that a Creator exists to whom they will one day be accountable.
===============
"science has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself."
Science shows this via the scientific methode of inquiry:
Observation
Verification
Repeat
Observe
Verify
Matter has never been know to pre exist itself either chronologically nor physically so it cannot create itself. If you know of any exceptions here would be the place to note them.
Matter has not existed from eternity because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Or don't you believe what science tells us re: Big Bang cosmology?
Now, do YOU believe:
a) That matter can be eternal, or
b) That matter can create itself
It's a simply question. Yes or no to either of them will be fine.
How about you Vagabond? Any opinion on the origin of matter?
Like I said, the ONLY thing that atheists believe is impossible is that a Creator exists to whom they will one day be accountable.
And even in this you are wrong.
Like I said, the ONLY thing that atheists believe is impossible is that a Creator exists to whom they will one day be accountable.
And even in this you are wrong.
"[S]cience has shown that matter can be neither eternal nor can matter create itself."
Science shows this via the scientific methode [sic] of inquiry:
Observation
Verification
Repeat
Observe
Verify
So... You don't have a source to back up your claim?
Here's a word of advice: Don't try to bullshit your way through subjects about which you know nothing. Science does not say that matter can neither be eternal nor create itself, but is rather agnostic as to the origin and temporal nature of matter. As before, however, if you truly have an actual source to cite in support of your claim, I will happily evaluate it and proceed from there.
Matter has never been know [sic] to pre exist itself [sic] either chronologically nor [sic] physically so it cannot create itself. If you know of any exceptions here would be the place to note them.
What are you talking about?
First, you have built a logically fallacious system: Just because a scenario has not been known to occur does not mean that scenario cannot occur. Second, you're inventing words or attributes to matter which are pure gibberish.
In point of fact, however, particle/anti-particle pairs wink into existence constantly, and likewise constantly annihilate one another. This constitutes the apparent spontaneous generation of matter, and is a result of Quantum Mechanics.
Of course, you are again attempting to shift the burden of proof, and deliberately avoiding my request for documentation supporting your claim.
Matter has not existed from eternity because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Or don't you believe what science tells us re: Big Bang cosmology?
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Mass/energy equivalence means that mass (matter, in your limited vocabulary) needn't exist at all, as it could potentially be converted to energy, or vice-versa. Likewise, Quantum Mechanics allows for some pretty gnarly effects, including, as I mentioned before, the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which can themselves become real particles.
Now, do YOU believe:
a) That matter can be eternal, or
b) That matter can create itself
A: I have no idea. I suppose it's possible, but I find it necessary to stipulate mass/energy equivalence as a part of this possibility.
B: Elementary particles can spontaneously occur, and in theory this could even encompass whole complex entities, but the odds of even a simple molecule forming are so remote as to be negligible. The odds of this happening and being observed are smaller still. Granted, these odds are not zero, so it could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
If you're interested in learning more about these sorts of things, I can arrange a meeting with any of several physics professors. For now, I recommend reading about Quantum Tunneling (link). If you think this is just science fiction, check out Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (link).
So again, if you're ready to offer sources to support your claim, I'm ready to look at them. If not, I'm ready to accept your concession.
--
Stan
So... You don't have a source to back up your claim?
Not yet. Instead I give you common knowledge FROM the scientific method of inquiry.
The fact that you try to pass off the imaginings of QM shows that you don’t have any exceptions to this known fact. And your attempt to squeeze in tunneling of all things shows just how desperate you are. Atheist origin of the universe mythologies won’t help you here.
The fact is particles do not come into being out of nothing, spontaneously or otherwise. They do however arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained IN the sub-atomic vacuum.
It appears that you don’t understand that the vacuum is not NOTHING but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Such models DO NOT therefore involved a true origination ex nihilo.
You really should ask your physics professors about this, unless of course you were supposed to know this and they fail you.
==============
“Second, you're inventing words or attributes to matter which are pure gibberish.”
The word “chronologically” is a new word for you? If matter isn’t eternal, and it can’t be, then you're implying that it had to create itself. In order to create itself it would have to pre exist itself either in time (chronologically) and / or physically.
This is of course absurd. As I’ve learned however, nothing is too absurd for atheists to propose if it will keep Creator God out of the picture.
===============
Makarios said - Matter has not existed from eternity because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Or don't you believe what science tells us re: Big Bang cosmology?”
You replied: “You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?”
Are you suggesting that matter / energy DID exist prior to the Big Bang? And if so, exactly where was this matter / energy?
==============
a) That matter can be eternal,
A: I have no idea. I suppose it's possible,
Really? So how did we get from infinity to today? I’ll give you a hint:
a) The infinite does not exist in material reality - It exists only as a concept
b) It’s impossible to cross or traverse the material infinite
================
Post a Comment