Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Devil’s in the Details

I’ve just had an atheist tell me that because people were wrong about Thor pulling the sun across the sky, and Zeus beating the drums of thunder, or the other way around, I’m not sure, that people have been “100% wrong” about God being involved in the workings of nature.

It’s a bit like someone who denies that auto makers exist saying, “Because we’ve shown that there isn’t an army of ants turning cranks in the engine compartment (like people once thought) and because we've shown that there isn’t an army of moles pressing leavers to squirt oil (like people once thought), therefore we know that vehicles are not manufactured, they just happen.

Ok, bad example but time is short and the principle is the same.

This atheist has stated, “It's interesting to point out that throughout the entire history of scientific investigation, not one supernatural explanation has ever been confirmed as true.” Besides Zeus and Thor, he doesn’t give any examples, but let’s give him the benefit of doubt. I’ll be the first to admit that Christians have said some pretty stupid things - things admittedly said in ignorance.

What this atheist (atheists are those who believe that our's was the first intelligence to arise) doesn’t understand is that while the details (Greek mythologies) have been wrong, that in no way takes away from the Christian doctrine of Creator God. This doctrine states that the universe with its exquisitely finely tuned constants and qualities could not and did not come into being from nothing apart from the willed initiation and design of Creator God.

Because the evidence so strongly supports a supernatural explanation for the universe, people like this atheist and better known atheists like Ricky Gervais (very funny man) and Richard Dawkins have been reduced to positing an infinite number of universes to explain the why and how of our universe.

Why have they done that?

Because according to current evidence, the only way to explain the why and how of this universe is a supernatural cause; a cause that operated outside of nature.

That of course is not allowed in the narrow atheist world.

Because atheism does not allow anything outside of the material to exist, atheists have been forced to come up with the idea of an infinite number of universes. The theory being that with an infinite number of universes, one such as ours could come into existence -
. without a natural cause (current evidence says nothing natural existed)
.NOR a cause from outside of nature -

No nature.

No super nature.

It Just Happened! Ta Da!

With an infinite number of universes, even the impossible becomes possible.

In atheist world, that's how things work. So far atheists have been 100% wrong in their suppositions as to how this took place but that doesn't stop them from trying. Even though atheists have been ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG to date, they expect us to believe their next guess will be the right one.

So I asked this atheist if he was perhaps leaning pretty heavily on atheism of the gaps but he wouldn't answer. I asked him quite a few questions actually but he wouldn't answer, so I’ll ask them again here and perhaps someone else would be brave enough to take a shot.

I said:
"we (meaning you and other materialists) don't know "yet" the material cause of the universe"

THAT is a gap in your knowledge. Yes?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.

===============

I said:
You do not have evidence that the cause of the universe is material BUT you are confident, so confident that a material answer will be found that you toss aside the current lack of evidence and simply claim, "Nature did it."

As far as you're concerned an answer that will probably come in the future is as good as having an answer now - Yes?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.

============

I said:
“The evidence is that nothing natural existed at the singularity.”

Are you saying that there WAS something material in existence at the singularity?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.

============

I said:
“The evidence is that NOTHING comes into being without an external cause.”

Are you saying that there ARE things that DO come into being without an external cause?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.
==================

I said:
“The evidence is that the external cause for the beginning of the universe could not have been natural.”

Are you saying that there IS evidence for a natural cause in existence at the singularity?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.
=================

I said:
"The evidence is that if the cause was not natural then it must have been outside of nature, or super natural."

Are you saying that everything CAN come from nothing by nothing?
Or that the universe brought itself into existence;
Or that matter created itself;
Or that matter preexisted itself?

Or are you relying on one of the dozen or more atheist origin of the universe mythologies being tossed around by those desperate to avoid the metaphysical implications of Big Bang Cosmology?

Atheist: [No Answer] Just - They were wrong about Thor, so you’re wrong too.
=================

Even though atheists have been 100% wrong in their ideas of how this universe came into existence without the presence of anything natural / material in existence at the singularity, they continue to press for new and more bizarre scenarios, all in an attempt to avoid the metaphysical implications of Big Bang Cosmology.

19 comments:

Ginx said...

It's funny, both of these posts I've commented on today are covered in my last post, and if you take 5 minutes to read them, you'll know why none of this has anything to do with atheism.

Makarios said...

The conclusions, Ginx. The conclusions that scientists who are atheists draw can only be drawn based upon their atheist world view / box top, NOT based upon the evidence that has / is observed. That is the connection.

If you had taken the hour and a half to read this post you'd know that's what I'm saying.

Ginx said...

I read both this and the other post I commented on twice before commenting on either, respectively. Once to read what you're saying, and again while I wrote comments. I just find so many of your assumptions to be not only wrong, but repititions of things I have already wasted my time explaining to you. Why waste more when I could just leave a glib remark summing up my sentiment?

But since you asked so nicely...

Science is one line of the pursuit of truth. Religion claims to have truth OR to give one directions towards the truth. You can begin to see the conflict of interest, but science is not a religion, nor is science or religion truth. Only truth is truth, and all the others are our human attempt to pursue it.

You can quote every atheist and scientist in the world, it won't have any more effect on an atheist than quoting abominable verses from the Bible does to a Christian. Do you want to be thought akin to the likes of Pat Robertson? I know you're far more compassionate than he is. Those of like mind see the context and understand that humans are prone to choose their words poorly, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists.

For the love of Odin said...

Makarios, I doubt you'll be able to prove the "big bang" theory wrong. Gods aren't needed with "big bang" theory. There is no evidence that your god made the universe.

Makarios said...

"Makarios, I doubt you'll be able to prove the "big bang" theory wrong."

WRONG! I'm trying to convince atheists that it's correct! Why would I want to go against the evidence? That's what the atheists are doing, not me.
-----------

“repititions of things I have already wasted my time explaining to you.”

So are you thinking that if Ginx says something I should automatically agree and never go down that road again? Sorry bud, but I don't - well - sorry.
=========

"Science is one line of the pursuit of truth. Religion claims to have truth OR to give one directions towards the truth. You can begin to see the conflict of interest”

No, I don’t see a conflict. The only conflict between science and religion is the one imposed by the likes of Dawkins and such. Both religion and science are windows looking out toward information that we need. Granted, they’re two different windows but they are exploring the same vista.

Now, if you want to talk conflict, there is a conflict between good science and bad science; bad science being the one influenced by atheism which drives pre determined conclusions.
=========

“You can quote every atheist and scientist in the world, it won't have any more effect on an atheist”

You don’t find them interesting? I love reading quotes. Surely there must be at least one other person who finds the quotes interesting.

I’m not so naive as to think the quotes will change anyone. Those who agree will continue to agree and those who disagree will continue to disagree.
===========

For the love of Odin said...

"Makarios, I doubt you'll be able to prove the "big bang" theory wrong."

WRONG! I'm trying to convince atheists that it's correct! Why would I want to go against the evidence
?

If you're a theist, why promote a natural explanation for everything we see?
If you're a Christian why promote an idea that proves your holy book wrong?

Makarios said...

What is natural about a universe brought into existence by Creator God?

Ginx said...

If God created the universe, then God exists. If God exists, He would be a part of nature, not supernatural. God is "supernatural" because there are no natural means of detecting Him.

People do detect gods, which is why the idea of gods is not "supernatural" to me, it is merely abstract, for it is a concept which does in fact exist within the minds of human beings who harbor belief. God is as real as love, hate, sympathy, or any other abstract concept, and the effects of God are directly felt by those affected by religious believers.

Ginx said...

Forgot to add: one can be affected by religious believers in both good and bad ways. This is why some say they see God's love in the actions of others, while some of us (atheists, for example) see the negative effects more often.

Makarios said...

If God created the universe, then God exists. If God exists, He would be a part of nature, not supernatural"

So if I create a painting I'm part of the painting? I don't think so.
==============

God is "supernatural" because there are no natural means of detecting Him."

True, but He is also Spirit and existed prior to nature.
===========

This is why some say they see God's love in the actions of others, while some of us (atheists, for example) see the negative effects more often."

Well, we see what we want to see, yes? That's why I see atheist blogs with censorship and atheists see Christian blogs with censhorship and each things the other does it more. I'd laugh if we weren't so pathetic.

For the love of Odin said...

So you don't accept the Big Bang, you think this universe was made by a god.

Makarios said...

You're too late in the game kid. I'm not going down this road again.

For the love of Odin said...

Why are you so afraid to go where the evidence leads?

Makarios said...

I believe that I go exactly where the evidence leads. What makes you think I don't?

For the love of Odin said...

Let's see, you accept a natural creation of the universe, ie the "big bang" and you also believe in the supernatural creation of the universe, ie magic.

Anonymous said...

Makarios can't defend his ideas so he needs to shift the burden. He can't prove spirits exist.
Eventually atheists on this blog see he's got nothing and move on [ or they're killed by earthquakes :-( ] and a new batch come.

Sarah said...

Mak can so defend his ideas but YOU have to believe first.

Makarios said...

"you accept a natural creation of the universe, ie the "big bang"

There is nothing natural about the Big Bang because nothing natural existed
- "before" the Big Bang
- At the Big Bang
- Until the Big Bang.

That is why atheist scientists so desperately want to find a way to avoid Big Bang cosmology a cosmology that directly points to a super natural / outside of nature explanation.

Anonymous #6 said...

That is why atheist scientists so desperately want to find a way to avoid Big Bang cosmology...

Are you retarded? It's Christians who want to avoid inflationary cosmology because it doesn't need a god to create a universe.