Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

There has been a lot of interesting and intellectual discussions on this thread. The problem is, however, that it is actually a religious debate. The question of whether one’s science determines their religion, or their religion determines their science, is for the atheistic perspective, religion determines their science. It is impossible to for atheists to accept any hypothesis, theory, or fact that includes the possibility of God. Why? Because the acknowledgment of God in one area opens the door for all areas. So the atheists must have an answer that supports their religious beliefs of no God. In science, this eliminates at least half of the possible answers.

Some scientists take this approach. However, I think that science could investigate the existence of God. Any God that is actively involved in the natural world could leave traces of his presence. For example, if Catholic intercessory prayer was shown to be more effective than nothing, that would be extremely strong evidence for Catholicism. Whenever religion can make a prediction, we can check whether the answer given by the religion was correct.

You once told me that my data was outdated. My data is 6,000 years old. It is not outdated because it is the truth.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

This means that He created matter. So one option is to believe what science and common sense say is impossible.
The other is to believe in God, who tells us through His word of what He did, and is impossible to disprove.

Science has not shown that it is impossible for matter to be come about without God, and I do not think our intuitions on matters of physics far outside our experiences are reliable. Also, there is the additional option of an eternal universe. But the inability to disprove something is not necessarily evidence in its favor. I do not think there is evidence of invisible unicorns just because I don’t see any.

This extends well beyond matter and energy, but to light and darkness, animals, plants, water, and even the moon and the stars. Since atheistic science has no factual data for the creation of all this and more, and God can not be disproven as the Creator, why can’t atheistic science accept this answer? Because of their “no God” religion. There is no choice.

So what is the atheistic scientists’ defense?

Ignore the issue.

To change all laws, observations, and existing conditions to make their religion fit.

Science is not a religion, unless you use some very weird definition of religion.

To berate the fact that the “something from nothing” argument won’t go away.

There are plenty of bad arguments that won’t go away.

Admit that they don’t know, with the implication that they will have the right answer someday. There has been 2,000 years of “somedays” and atheists are no closer today than when they began.

And I don’t think we ever will have an ultimate answer for why there is a universe any more than theists will have an explanation for why there is God and the universe.

The most common weapon of choice for the atheists is to present as many theories and arguments as possible,starting after the beginning of the universe and of life. Divide and conquer, so to speak. But this doesn’t change the core issue. If you don’t have a foundation, hypothesis and theories are actually no more than speculation.

Actually, I present very few arguments for atheism. I think the evidential argument from evil and a couple others are pretty good, but I don’t think I can prove that Christianity is wrong. I actually feel that it’s Christians who try to win by presenting so many arguments that atheists don’t have time to refute all of them (I see this a lot in debates by William Lane Craig). Also, you are not in a better position regarding a foundation. There are tons of people of other faiths who are very well read and feel certain that their position is right. I do not think there is any way for you to know with 100% certainty that your religion is correct. Given this, your views are just as speculative.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

In reference to other areas in which the atheistic perspective allows no dissension, take prophecy. Atheists have no choice but to deny prophecy. Acknowledging the Son of God is acknowledging God. So the thinking goes that what prophecies exist in the Old Testament are ambiguous and few. Again they don’t allow the facts to get in the way of their beliefs.

I have discussed prophecy previously in this thread. My main problem is that much of it is vague, and this relies on the New Testament being historically accurate.

The body of Jesus was placed in a stone cave, and the only entrance blocked by a stone in the 2000 to 3000 lb. range.

The tomb was sealed with the insignia of the highest ranking Roman in Jerusalem, and guarded by soldiers who are still considered the most disciplined in history, with the threat of death if anything goes awry.

And yet, the tomb on Sunday morning, was empty. If the body was in the tomb, the enemies of Jesus would have taken it to the city and completely destroyed the religion they feared. But it was not there. And 500 witnesses testify that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion and resurrection. The evidence could not be more compelling. And yet, for the atheist religion, they still have to deny all the facts, and produce none of their own, so they can continue to not believe in God.

What evidence do you have for any of this, and why do you assume that those sources are reliable historical accounts?

Isn’t it interesting that for the last 2,000 years Christians have held to one understanding and atheists, while unsuccessfully trying deny this fact, have come up with untold different theories? If you and I had a dime for all these attempts, I think we could both safely retire. This also adds credibility to the one consistent understanding.

Without good evidence one way or another about Jesus, people can only speculate, much like historians do with King Arthur (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur).

Isn’t it ironic that the religion of the non believer, is the greatest barrier they have in finding the truth. If they wanted to practice science, not their flawed religion, all they have to do is to leave the door open to the truth of God. He is leaving the door open for them.

May God Bless,

m33

I have still left the door a little bit open. I’ll be sure to let people here know if I ever hear a knock.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

*I don’t think that these show evolution to be false though. Science is always improving, and just because we don’t currently have all the answers, doesn’t mean that God must be the explanation for what we don’t yet know. *

You might consider whether there is another lesson to be learned from your own words: Just because we cannot answer all the questions raised by religion, it doesn’t follow that religion is false and that we must turn to science to answer the only questions that really matter.

I completely agree. I don’t need answers to all the mysteries of Catholicism, just something to make me think that it is probably true.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This is a story of how I was led astray by Luke Timothy Johnson:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/09/trials-of-heresy-led-astray-by-luke-timothy-johnson/

DJ

Thanks for sharing. I don’t think your story is that relevant for the situation I’m in though.

 

[twb1621]

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in quantum physics, but according to what I’ve read, it seems that virtual particles spring uncaused into and out of existence (if you want more information, you can check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations or scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea). Now they do appear in space and time, so you could argue that they don’t appear out of complete nothingness, but my point is just that if people experienced dogs springing into existence uncaused in our everyday lives, our intuitions would not be so strongly against the possibility of the universe popping into existence.

True. But I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible that this is possible without both.

Yes, but objects similar in size to the early universe do.

No we certainly don’t. It’s just one theory. It’s actually not a theory I favor, but I won’t reject it as impossible until I see a reason why I should.

Fair enough.

Because without any evidence for a finite universe or for an eternal universe, I don’t think I should rule out either. Another reason is that there are fairly well defined theories for how the universe could have been infinitely old (arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2730v2.pdf is an example of one such theory).

We are not a separate being to the universe. We are part of it, much like my lung is part of me. You don’t provide any evidence that the universe would have had to be the cause.

Stephen Hawking ends his immensely popular book, A Brief History of Time, with several questions about what physics can tell us about “The Mind of God”.

“…We are now ready to answer Hawking’s questions about the Mind of God. It is the wave function of the universe. The wave function of the universe is in superspace that is literally beyond spacetime but it guides the evolution of our expanding universe in cosmic time. If we add the back-reaction of living matter on the wavefunction of the universe then we have a mechanism for communion with God.”

qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/godphys.html

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I think you have summarized about 80% of your position with this statement:

I don’t. I don’t know.

Stop and think about this: we will never have enough ‘proof’ (at least in this life-time) about God’s existence. We can’t even give sufficient ‘proof’ about how TIME exists outside of our very narrow experience. But, we do not have to go out into deep space and tinker with Black Holes to confounded by a lack of ‘proof’ about a reality. Just look around you.

Most of the world is in a current econmic crisis. And, while every economist must be proficient in advanced math and science - they are all focused on making reasonable decisons (or, at least what seemed reasonable at the time! ) under conditions of uncertainty. You just do not hear someone way, “It is THIS and nothing else will answer the question!” Even economists have a type of Faith … ! If they knew how to solve the current problems (better yet - to have avoided them in the first place!) I have every confidence the problem(s) would have been solved by now. Normally, their solutions involve either money or credit - and government which usually has a lot of both (but, we are finding that this is not infinite, either - even if we do have the printing presses!) is not saying they will not act until such time as THEY HAVE PROOF!

Demanding such a degree of ‘proof’ is simply unrealistic - and, has no similar example in the real world where actual decisons must be made. God just won’t fit under any microscope we can build. But, we can certainly admire His handiwork with our eyes.

You have not given any proof of the possibility of it being temporally finite. Since we have no data for this period, I would need evidence to rule a theory out, not to consider it. You claim that things are impossible but do not back up your claims.

No. I think you have a definitional problem here. With agnosticism one can NEVER KNOW because the knowledge is unobtainable. ( while there are many definitions, here is link to one: dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic )

The catch here is simple: who could blame someone for NOT knowing something when this knowledge just isn’t there? Well, no one, of course. The problem with that approach, however, is that it is similar to man who refuses to open his eyes while walking. Sooner or later he will fall - and, while he may marvel at his injury - no one else will!

Yes, in addition to being an atheist, I am an agnostic. One deals with belief and the other deals with knowledge.

Of course you don’t agree … doing so would total dismantel this system of absolute denial. And, is there any ‘relevant analogy’ that could ever be constructed to fit this system of negation. No.

We do agree that the universe is an amazing thing Chances are, the atomic clock ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Clock ) is considered an ‘amazing thing’, too. But, no one is saying it has always existed, was never created or will go on for all eternity. In the experience of everyone, EVERYthing came into existence at some point. Even astromers have identified the BIRTH and DEATH of stars ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nursery ) - and this is just what we can ‘see’ with the Hubble Telescope. Does anyone doubt that there is the possibility of more wonderous things ‘out there’ beyond the visual field of Hubble? No one in the scientific community is saying, “We do not have enough ‘proof’ that there is anything else out there!” These guys have Faith … and this is something to consider.

Maybe it is time to come in out of the cold.

I do not agree with your claims and I do not think your analogy is relevant. Haha, I know it’s not. The universe is an amazing thing. I just don’t see a reason why it must have been created by a supernatural being.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dishonest apologetics is a matter of pretending to have all the answers. No one has them all. Even the atheist, who believes it unlikely there can be a God, cannot be absolutely certain.

The fundamental issue of atheism is not whether intellectually one can see or not see God, but whether one wills or does not will to see God. Satan could certainly see that God exists, but he refused to submit himself to God’s will. So it is with atheism … the refusal to submit one’s will … and the need to justify that refusal by pretending (without absolute proof) that there is no divine Will to submit to.

But when the full circle of life is complete, when we rise up from the miracle of birth to descend into the miracle of death, something invariably happens I believe to every soul that ever lived.

HOPE!

 

[twb1621]

I don’t. I don’t know.

It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to recognize we have reached the age of overwhelming depravity and total disregard for the respect of kindred and marital commitments in relationships, procreation and protection of new life, morality and above all, God. Our morality in general has been replaced with a degenerate emphasis in support of perversion. This has been incredibly foretold. For a country founded on Godly principles, the separation of Church and state has been distorted and abused beyond comprehension and a statistically overwhelming Christian population who claim to believe in God, Christ and salvation do not seem to recognize nor do they defend these principles in this decomposing society they live within. This is a country once proud of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and one would think the references to God within these documents pertaining to the rights of man “by the Creator” and the protection of life would hold value but it no longer applies unless it is convenient.

A person who does not believe in God or doubts the existence of God but doesn’t have the self-interest to seek conclusively the knowledge is self-condemning according to the teachings of the one God accepted by the faithful. Now it should reflect sensibility that if one doesn’t believe in God but has no credible support (which no one has) the instinct for survival should generate the interest to seriously seek that knowledge. The time will come when the ability to choose has expired. How close are we and in who’s lifetime is the question. God will not find the indecisiveness of man an excuse for Divine Mercy.

 

[jargon631]

Yes that IS right except THIS energy is not unknown, as it is LOVE. God IS Love. Love IS this energy, SO Love IS GOD. It created all things in it’s likeness. That’s why WE understand and experience something of love. It binds all things together. It heals and makes things grow. The bible tells us the characters of Love. So we know WHO GOD IS. God is not some mythical mirror of man sitting in the sky. We already know Him, feel Him, use His power, feel His effect. We just haven’t the understanding OR knowledge OR technology to harness Him like we do electricity. And we NEVER WILL be able to, because God is MORE than JUST an energy to be used and harnessed. God is the CONSCIOUS and fully CREATIVE energy that couldn’t help but extend itself outward as is Love’s nature, to create. It (male & female) is our source (the bible says we are made in His image. Male & female he created us). Centuries ago man would not have had the technical knowledge to understand the dynamics of this. But today we DO or are just begining to. We understand about unseen energies, about relativity, about atoms and the micro world. In the distant future we probably WILL be able to use ‘love’ energy to travel by but even THAT prediction doesn’t down grade God to something lesser. God is the energy the IS. FULL STOP! The proof isn’t in the capture. It is in the recognition. I think that is as close we are ever going to get.

ummmmm…what???..fd

 

[Maranatha33]

Some scientists take this approach. However, I think that science could investigate the existence of God. Any God that is actively involved in the natural world could leave traces of his presence.

If you study the history of science, you will find that the modern discipline of science was created for just that reason. And until the 20th century, the main purpose of the vast majority of scientists was directly tied into their Christian beliefs. Remember, when the senile old man named darwin released his first book, the Origin of the species in 1859, the idea of creation/science without the Biblical God was so rare and unacceptable, that darwin held back his theories until he was “forced” to release the book. (another scientist that darwin worked with was about to release his similar findings, and the first published gets the credit.) This was against the wishes of his Christian wife, and in fear of the church reaction.

{note: I used “senile” to describe darwin to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the “Descent of man” (1871), darwin propagates eugenics. Anyone who would endorse this most horrendous of endeavors is either senile or evil.}

With the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D… A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator. Here are some examples:
Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.”
Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.” And,
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

Other creation believing scientists include:
Louis Pasteur- bacteriology.
Lord Kelvin-energetics
Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics
Charles Babbage-computer science
Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery
Robert Boyle-chemistry
James Simpson-anesthesiology
Samuel Morse-telegraphy

So for 400 of the 500 years of science, by the vast majority of scientists, science is to honor our Creator.

Also, there is the additional option of an eternal universe.

For the universe to be eternal, there would have to be no molecular movement. This would create a “virtual heat death” and the creation and existence of life could not take place.

I do not think there is evidence of invisible unicorns just because I don’t see any.

The proof of God’s existence supersedes the visible dimension.

Romans 1:18-20

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

His invisible qualities are love, kindness, mercy, grace, and all the other attributes we consider to be “good”. And, obviously, they are very real. Where did they come from? There is certainly no evolutionary process that can explain His divine attributes, which He shares with us.

continued…

 

[Maranatha33]

Science is not a religion, unless you use some very weird definition of religion.

I did not say that science is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Saying that existence could have no God involved is a metaphysical, not scientific, perspective. God threw down the gauntlet when He wrote Genesis. So to address this topic with the “no God” theme, is a religion. It is a major controlling factor in all scientific discoveries.

There are plenty of bad arguments that won’t go away.

True. However, the creation of matter certainly isn’t one of them. Turn the table for a moment. If atheistic science could prove how matter could be created and exist outside of God, that would become the foundational truth for the atheistic scientists, wouldn’t it? So the argument is valid, it is just the answer that atheists don’t like.

And I don’t think we ever will have an ultimate answer for why there is a universe any more than theists will have an explanation for why there is God and the universe.

True. However we do know that God lives and how He brought the universe, and all things, into existence. His Word. The Bible tells us that He lives. Also, He spoke all things into existence. Both are His Word. On the seventh day He rested, and that was also the last day that matter was ever created. And until that scientific, religious, and ultimate truth can disproved, there is no foundation for any evolutionary theory.

I think the evidential argument from evil and a couple others are pretty good, but I don’t think I can prove that Christianity is wrong.

I don’t know that one.

I actually feel that it’s Christians who try to win by presenting so many arguments that atheists don’t have time to refute all of them (I see this a lot in debates by William Lane Craig).

There is only one argument that the atheists need to “win”. The creation of matter. With that proof, all atheistic theories have gained credibility. Without, they have none. It is that simple.

Also, you are not in a better position regarding a foundation.

Actually, we are. Whether you agree or not, our position is not only documented, but the only real possible answer. After God created (matter), it has been theoretically and factually impossible for any other possibility. If there is only one possibility, isn’t that evidence of a factual event?

There are tons of people of other faiths who are very well read and feel certain that their position is right. I do not think there is any way for you to know with 100% certainty that your religion is correct.

My religion is Christianity. This discussion is on the creation of the universe by God. This is the same entity that the Jews,Muslims, and many cults believe in. So the question is whether there is a divine creator or not. All the foundational evidence is that there has to be. The dividing line here is God or no God. Beliefs that incorporate all followers as a part of God, are on your side. Only those who believe in One true God are on ours. The foundation of my theism is the creation. The foundation of my Christianity incorporates many other truths of God. Do I know that my religion is 100 % certain? I better, I am betting my life on it. Are you willing to bet your life that your non-belief is true?

It is obvious that you are in high demand on this site. If you do decide to respond to this directly (for time constraints if nothing else) please take your time. It takes time to add the answers in your heart to the answers in your head. I will respond to your additional statements later, as I have already written a book. Just one more statement as “food for thought.” If the atheistic perspective is true, you are offering me a path to a lifetime in a box. If the Christian perspective is true, we are offering you a path to eternity in paradise. Not really a fair trade, is it?

In Christ Jesus,

m33

 

[Angie_Baskin]

No offense, but this shows you don’t quite get what science is about. There is no such thing as proven scientific laws/theories. All our theories are based on observational data, and there is no way to prove with certainty that a given theory is true. They are all able to be revised if we ever get new data that contradicts them. All we have are theories that are extremely well supported by the evidence, such as the theory that the earth is round, and the theory of evolution. Are theories only considered proven to you if you agree with them?

There are a number of reasons why the argument from the First Law of Thermodynamics just doesn’t work. For one thing, if time itself began with the Big Bang as a lot of people think, then this was not a case of something being created from nothing (as there was never nothing). And even if there was some kind of time before the Big Bang, we do not know what natural laws would hold in this pre-Big Bang state. But this is of course merely one theory, and the universe (natural world) could also have been eternal.

Right, no energy was created in the young universe. Space, time, and energy all began at the same time under that theory.

Under some versions of the Big Bang model, our universe will eventually reach heat death. However under other models, such as the Baum-Frampton model, matter could always have been in existence without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does rule out some old models of an infinite universe, but modern models are consistent with it.

 

[Angie_Baskin]

Angie_Baskin:
Let’s look at a hypothetical:- What if the Biblical account of genesis is symbolic of this theory?? What if pre Big Bang existance IS God existance, Love extending and creating in a spiritual form of which we know nothing and of which has no visable proof or confinds of time. Then… say – (tongue in cheek) one of the ‘spirit’ creations of God wishing / or believeing the possibility of existance apart from God, just by thought alone, caused a catostrophic reaction like the spliting of the atom - ‘The Big Bang’ itself. What if this was the Original Sin the bible speaks of??? I’m just hypothesizing now. I’m of the belief (rightly or wrongly) that anything man CAN imagine is in reality possible and given time and technology CAN be realized in some form or degree. That is why we can think it in the first place. Does this sound stupid??? The bible is one of the first accounts of “What God is”. And if God exists and we are his creations, it would follow that He would impart knowledge of Himself to us. If God doesn’t exist then we are back to --Why the big bang? AND why the story of Genesis?? or of Dreamtime or of The Great White Spirit or of similar ancient stories in other cultures??? Could these be the seeds of rememberance planted within our essence of knowledge of God??

 

[Angie_Baskin]

No, as I said before, the Big Bang theory only addresses what happened after Planck time. However, it is commonly presented to the public as if it went back to a singularity. Some physicists believe that it did, but others believe that the universe has been eternal.

I said we have a pretty good idea there was something before Planck time because our knowledge is limited in that we cannot receive any light from this period to see exactly what it was like, so we have no “data” in that sense. We instead have to come up with theories based on what is consistent with the laws of physics. As we discover more about physics, we have been able to narrow down the possibilities. I say we have a pretty good idea, because it would be far harder to theoretically explain the universe coming into existence at Planck time itself.

What you are saying about not receiving any light from this period. How is it that the Genesis account of the bible says that in the begining ??? there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word said ‘let there be light’ and there was and the process continues on & on & on re: the bible account. My question is, How did early man know ANYTHING of physics etc. In the recently published book '‘God Actually’ The author states that the way Genesis accures is exactly the way today’s science believes things probably developed. How & where do you think this idea could possibly pop into primitive man without some intelligent spiritual imput?? Did they just GUESS it right??? These concepts would have been way beyond their knowledge. What are your thoughts??

 

[Angie_Baskin]

I did not say that science is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Saying that existence could have no God involved is a metaphysical, not scientific, perspective. God threw down the gauntlet when He wrote Genesis. So to address this topic with the “no God” theme, is a religion. It is a major controlling factor in all scientific discoveries.

True. However, the creation of matter certainly isn’t one of them. Turn the table for a moment. If atheistic science could prove how matter could be created and exist outside of God, that would become the foundational truth for the atheistic scientists, wouldn’t it? So the argument is valid, it is just the answer that atheists don’t like.

True. However we do know that God lives and how He brought the universe, and all things, into existence. His Word. The Bible tells us that He lives. Also, He spoke all things into existence. Both are His Word. On the seventh day He rested, and that was also the last day that matter was ever created. And until that scientific, religious, and ultimate truth can disproved, there is no foundation for any evolutionary theory.

I’m sorry, but although I agree with everything you have so far stated above, I don’t believe a belief in evolutionary necessarily discounts Genesis. If viewed as symbolic (or similar to parables in which Jesus taught) evolution is perfectly possible within the Genesis account.

I don’t know that one.

There is only one argument that the atheists need to “win”. The creation of matter. With that proof, all atheistic theories have gained credibility. Without, they have none. It is that simple.

Actually, we are. Whether you agree or not, our position is not only documented, but the only real possible answer. After God created (matter), it has been theoretically and factually impossible for any other possibility. If there is only one possibility, isn’t that evidence of a factual event?

My religion is Christianity. This discussion is on the creation of the universe by God. This is the same entity that the Jews,Muslims, and many cults believe in. So the question is whether there is a divine creator or not. All the foundational evidence is that there has to be. The dividing line here is God or no God. Beliefs that incorporate all followers as a part of God, are on your side. Only those who believe in One true God are on ours. The foundation of my theism is the creation. The foundation of my Christianity incorporates many other truths of God. Do I know that my religion is 100 % certain? I better, I am betting my life on it. Are you willing to bet your life that your non-belief is true?

It is obvious that you are in high demand on this site. If you do decide to respond to this directly (for time constraints if nothing else) please take your time. It takes time to add the answers in your heart to the answers in your head. I will respond to your additional statements later, as I have already written a book. Just one more statement as “food for thought.” If the atheistic perspective is true, you are offering me a path to a lifetime in a box. If the Christian perspective is true, we are offering you a path to eternity in paradise. Not really a fair trade, is it?

In Christ Jesus,

m33

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thanks for all your posts. I’m finding this discussion really interesting. Unfortunately I’m going to be a bit busy with other things over the next few days so I need to take a break from this thread. I’ll be sure to reply to all your posts once I have the time.

 

[djeter]

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, .

This is probably the most singular persuasive argument for rejecting Atheism that I know. It is advanced by Fr. John Cihuk and Michael Novak and based upon the theological works of Hans Urs von Balthazar. You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

In there somewhere is Penn (of Penn and Teller fame) speaking about receiving the gift of a book of Psalms from an Apologist. He’s a complete nitwit but out of the mouths of idiots comes the most important thing Christians need to know about Apologetics.

If you are further interested I also uploaded an article on why atheists are atheists, the motives for atheism. You can find that here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Also a book review of The Language of God by Francis Collins. The review is by theoretical physicist Steven M. Barr and comments on the story of how and why the leader in the Genome Project came to believe in God.

That is here: payingattentiontothesky.com/book-review-the-language-of-god-by-francis-s-collins/

All good stuff to spend some time with, unless you are just holding court here and rejecting all Apologetics outright.

Regards

DJ

 

[joe370]

Atheist, if you click on the thumbnail you will see that the source of energy is locatable and is absolutely necessary, in every phase of this particular example, as is with all things that require energy. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (just transformed from usable energy to unusable energy) - in this closed system we call the universe, then logically speaking, it must have come from some external energy source outside said closed system --right? In other words, where did the nuclear reactions in the sun come from? If you believe in the big bang, and the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then doesn’t it make more sense to believe that something put in motion all of this energy, rather then concluding that this big bang that led to all of the energy, in this closed system, was caused by non-energy, for lack of a better word. If the potential energy e.g., a raised weight, coiled spring, or charged battery, that exists in all objects because of its position, rather than its motion, needs an impetus to transform that potential energy into kinetic energy (the energy of motion) - then doesn’t it stand to reason that the big bang also needed an impetus to transform the potential energy of the big bang into kinetic energy? I mean, if I told you that my cars battery (potential energy) - started my car (kinetic energy) - on its own, you’d think I was kidding or nuts. LOL… Aren’t you kind of expecting us to believe the same thing regarding the source of energy (the battery) - for the universe? Something had to turn the key over, so to speak!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Djeter,

Thank you for these excellent links.

This is probably the most singular persuasive argument for rejecting Atheism that I know. It is advanced by Fr. John Cihuk and Michael Novak and based upon the theological works of Hans Urs von Balthazar. You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

In there somewhere is Penn (of Penn and Teller fame) speaking about receiving the gift of a book of Psalms from an Apologist. He’s a complete nitwit but out of the mouths of idiots comes the most important thing Christians need to know about Apologetics.

If you are further interested I also uploaded an article on why atheists are atheists, the motives for atheism. You can find that here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Also a book review of The Language of God by Francis Collins. The review is by theoretical physicist Steven M. Barr and comments on the story of how and why the leader in the Genome Project came to believe in God.

That is here: payingattentiontothesky.com/book-review-the-language-of-god-by-francis-s-collins/

All good stuff to spend some time with, unless you are just holding court here and rejecting all Apologetics outright.

Regards

DJ

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

What a great model!

You know, it takes so little to just look around and see that all of this precise interaction could not just ‘happen’. The fact that we have just had our next breath and heart beat should convice most that exchanging all of these chemicals just at the right moment - can not be ‘luck’.

Thanks for sharing this material.

Atheist, if you click on the thumbnail you will see that the source of energy is locatable and is absolutely necessary, in every phase of this particular example, as is with all things that require energy. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (just transformed from usable energy to unusable energy) - in this closed system we call the universe, then logically speaking, it must have come from some external energy source outside said closed system --right? In other words, where did the nuclear reactions in the sun come from? If you believe in the big bang, and the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then doesn’t it make more sense to believe that something put in motion all of this energy, rather then concluding that this big bang that led to all of the energy, in this closed system, was caused by non-energy, for lack of a better word. If the potential energy e.g., a raised weight, coiled spring, or charged battery, that exists in all objects because of its position, rather than its motion, needs an impetus to transform that potential energy into kinetic energy (the energy of motion) - then doesn’t it stand to reason that the big bang also needed an impetus to transform the potential energy of the big bang into kinetic energy? I mean, if I told you that my cars battery (potential energy) - started my car (kinetic energy) - on its own, you’d think I was kidding or nuts. LOL… Aren’t you kind of expecting us to believe the same thing regarding the source of energy (the battery) - for the universe? Something had to turn the key over, so to speak!

God bless