Dishonest Apologetics

[joe370]

And with the exception of God if Christianity is correct.

**I’ll take my chances with God versus atheism, but I do respect your antithetical viewpoint!
**

By the way, there is no “atheist position”.

**Sure there is: God does not exist. **

There are a number of possible theories for what happened before Planck time…

And all require faith…

…some of which hold that the universe had a beginning and some of which do not. I am pretty agnostic about which theories are most likely to be correct.

**No beginning…WOW! Wrap your brain around that one.
**

I do not believe any miracles have occurred. Of course you could define the word miracle in a way such that there would be tons of miracles if God did not exist, but in that case, miracles would no longer be evidence of a God.

**I will give you the quintessential miracle. Everything in the temporal universe spontaneously materialized out of nothing, given enough time, and eventually this inanimate, lifeless material spawned animate and intelligent life forms.
**

An eternal universe was never spawned.

**Prove it!!! As an advocate of logic and reason, your conclusion is bereft of both! Their is design in every aspect of the temporal universe, and it is still expanding. It seems that you would rather believe in an entropic, temporal universe far removed from God, a designer, what ever you wish to call it? What happens when this entropic, temporal universe runs out of energy? Will something still exist, outside of space and time? Could a car, given enough time, spontaneously materialize? Remember, like you said, given enough time…I have no problem with the big bang theory; I just happen tom believe that God set the whole thing in motion. The idea that universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) - was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a “Big Crunch” instead of another Big Bang. However, even if this theory was true, an impetus is required for the initial birth!!!.
**

 

[joe370]

Why do you use the pen name, “anEvilAtheist?” You said:

I would need some reason to think that it is more likely that God exists than that he does not exist.

**Well, one thing is for sure, you will will find out one day, just as we all will. **

Because although the evidence is not very good, there is some evidence that Jesus existed. Also, many of the things mentioned in the Bible are not inherently improbable.

**Cite evidence please, and then cite the evidence that supports your embellishment theory. The authors of the bible believed that a man defeated death and that this man called himself the son of God. If you don’t believe in God then why would you put any stock into the works of these authors? **

Is there good evidence that there are not invisible trolls who are conspiring to destroy Microsoft? Is there good evidence that the universe was not created 10 minutes ago with memories implanted in our heads? Despite no evidence that either of these did not happen, I think it would be crazy to believe in them. I assume you do not believe in either of these, so you must agree that you do not need evidence disproving something, if there is no good evidence supporting something.

**We are surrounded by the evidence that proves that God exists. You are an intelligent person; where did this intelligence ultimately come from? **

But why is Jesus the one you chose to have faith in? Unless there is evidence supporting your faith, how is this any better than having faith in Scientology?

I don’t need evidence; I feel it in my heart and soul. No mere man would do what Christ did. He had no motives or agendas for this world. When I read the N.T. I see a recipe for the next life, as opposed to this life. This would be an unnatural course for a mere man to take. Why do you believe what you have been taught vis-a-vis secular history? You were not there to confirm it.

**I said:

So you are saying: since I do not know how the infinite universe was created, then it must not have been created?
**

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

** Every scientist worth his salt, concedes to a genesis of the universe. So, you are saying: if the universe is to endure for a time only; temporary (pertaining to time) - transitory as opposed to eternal, then it could not have a beginning? That makes no sense; sorry…**

I said: …Sure, but without a designer???

Yes. What’s wrong with this?

**If you can’t figure this out, then I seriously doubt, anything that I say will help. You believe that it is impossible for nothing to give rise to something, in this world, rightfully so, but blindly believe that nothing, given enough time, can absolutely give rise to something (called the universe) - totally negating the need for a beginning. WOW times infinity… Please define the power of nothingness. After all, according to you, this nothingness gave us a very powerful something, called the universe.
**

 

[joe370]

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

Remember, the universe is infinite from our perspective, not Gods…

 

[joe370]

**Also, when Jews, Muslims and Christians worship God, they are all, essentially, worshiping the same God, the God of creation. **

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Please do…

Once you establish that it happened.

**So, hundreds of Physicians and scientists (many of them being atheists) - confirming that this did in fact happen, is not good enough for you? Phew… This happened in the 1980’s and was caught on tape; people were there for the sole purpose of refuting it and they came away from it as believers. If you can’t find evidence in Garabandal, then it’s because you don’t want to see it. I think what you are saying is: I WASN’T THERE TO SEE IT, THEREFORE I DON’T BELIEVE IT, NOR DO i BELIEVE THE EYEWITNESSES? Is that correct? **

If what you say is true, that’s the best case for a miracle I’ve heard. However, I haven’t been able to find any evidence of what you say. You can’t expect me to merely convert merely because you claim a miracle took place without any evidence.

In this case something did not come from nothing; without humans this would have been impossible. I never said: Something cannot come from nothing because it hasn’t on our planet; I said: Something cannot come from nothing --without a designer…without God! If your next question is: …then who created God? My answer is: I am a finite creature and do not have access to this infinite sphere --yet.

No, my question is why do you assume that something cannot come from nothing? I agree with you that it would seem crazy to something to come from nothing. But I recognize that my intuition is unreliable when it comes to physics in situations completely different than earth. It would have once sounded crazy if you had said that when things move very fast they get enormous and travel through time, but this is basically what relativity teaches.

Yup, temporal infinity (space and time). Something outside of space and time created space and time! Logic dictates so! To say otherwise is to defy logic in every sense. Absolutely, If every finite number could be fully written down, (which of course is possible) --given enough time, surely every infinite one must be able to be written down also --by an infinite being!!! You have no faith in Christianity, but you have no problem believing that humans, given enough time, will be able to write down every infinite number. Talk about a faith based system!

I’m sorry, but you’re not making any sense. You have not shown that “Something outside of space and time created space and time”. You are just saying my position is illogical without providing any logical reasons that it is. If I’m wrong, prove it. I will not keep replying if you do not make substantive points, and instead just call me illogical. And I agree with you that it is idiotic to suggest that given enough time, humans will be able to finish writing down an infinitely long number. I was using it to show why, even if every finite thing did require a designer, infinite things can be different. Just because finite things are a certain way doesn’t mean infinite things are too. You have given absolutely no reason to think that an eternal universe must have had a designer.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There are a number of possible theories for what happened before Planck time…

And all require faith…

How do you define faith, and why would you think they would require faith? I said I am agnostic about which specific theory is correct.

**No beginning…WOW! Wrap your brain around that one.
**

I think it’s actually a lot easier to wrap my brain around than the Catholic God.

An eternal universe was never spawned.

Prove it!!! As an advocate of logic and reason, your conclusion is bereft of both! Their is design in every aspect of the temporal universe, and it is still expanding. It seems that you would rather believe in an entropic, temporal universe far removed from God, a designer, what ever you wish to call it? What happens when this entropic, temporal universe runs out of energy? Will something still exist, outside of space and time? Could a car, given enough time, spontaneously materialize? Remember, like you said, given enough time…I have no problem with the big bang theory; I just happen tom believe that God set the whole thing in motion. The idea that universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) - was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a “Big Crunch” instead of another Big Bang. However, even if this theory was true, an impetus is required for the initial birth!!!

You set up a false dilemma, and I was pointing this out. One option you gave was an eternal universe not created by God, and the other option was a universe created by God. If there was no God that spawned the universe, then an eternal universe would be one that was never created. And the oscillatory universe theory is one theory that does not work; however, there are plenty of cyclic models to the universe that do work. You are trying to say that all similar models cannot work, because at one point some people came up with a flawed one.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Why do you use the pen name, “anEvilAtheist?”

I think it catches people’s attention. I also think it’s a bit funny, considering I’m not just a troll coming here to slam religion.
joe370;5330629:

**Cite evidence please, and then cite the evidence that supports your embellishment theory. The authors of the bible believed that a man defeated death and that this man called himself the son of God. If you don’t believe in God then why would you put any stock into the works of these authors? **

If I found a random business card on the ground that said “Frank Jones, Orthodontist”, I would consider that enough evidence that there is probably an orthodontist by that name. However, if it said “Frank Jones, Miracle Worker”, I would not consider that sufficient evidence that he probably performed miracles. It has to do with the inherent plausibility of the claims. I do not know whether my theory is correct, it is just one of several possible natural explanations that are more plausible than that Jesus was the son of God.

**We are surrounded by the evidence that proves that God exists. You are an intelligent person; where did this intelligence ultimately come from? **

Evolution.

I don’t need evidence; I feel it in my heart and soul. No mere man would do what Christ did. He had no motives or agendas for this world. When I read the N.T. I see a recipe for the next life, as opposed to this life. This would be an unnatural course for a mere man to take. Why do you believe what you have been taught vis-a-vis secular history? You were not there to confirm it.

I was not. It comes down to what is that most plausible explanation. History being generally correct is more plausible than a vast conspiracy to fabricate it.

** Every scientist worth his salt, concedes to a genesis of the universe. So, you are saying: if the universe is to endure for a time only; temporary (pertaining to time) - transitory as opposed to eternal, then it could not have a beginning? That makes no sense; sorry…**

That’s not what I’m saying. And all scientists do not concede the genesis of the universe.

If you can’t figure this out, then I seriously doubt, anything that I say will help. You believe that it is impossible for nothing to give rise to something, in this world, rightfully so, but blindly believe that nothing, given enough time, can absolutely give rise to something (called the universe) - totally negating the need for a beginning. WOW times infinity… Please define the power of nothingness. After all, according to you, this nothingness gave us a very powerful something, called the universe.

Under a common theory, space and time both started together. So there was no “given enough time”, because there was no such thing as time (at least in the sense we’re used to). I’m with you that thinking about this is very confusing and hard to wrap your head around, and it intuitively seems wrong. But until I see evidence against it, I’m not going to rule it out as definitely impossible.

You are trying to prove that my views are false, but you are offering pretty much no evidence that they are. If your future posts are merely argumentative, and not substantive, I will stop replying.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

Remember, the universe is infinite from our perspective, not Gods…

You had asked:

So you are saying: since I do not know how the infinite universe was created, then it must not have been created?

I had replied with:

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

This was to show that your statement that “since I do not know how the infinite universe was created” was bad because it assumed that the universe was created. We have no evidence that it was. If the universe is temporally infinite, then there is no time at which it was created.

 

[jargon631]

There are as many versions of god/God as their are believers in that god/God. Every believer has their own definition of what their god/God is and is capable of. A god with capabilities to create a universe could be a …computer? Apollo? A panel of superhuman heroes? You don’t know, I don’t know. We’re both without knowledge, really. Agnostic, in a sense.

fair enough, mano…i think i saw apollo as creator on an old star trek…lol…fd

 

[Sinner82]

People may see God in several ways, atleast they try to have a relationship with Him.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I certainly enjoyed reading your posts. It may be that the atheists out there will need a shovel to dig their broken arguments out of the ground where you burried them!

So just like you (I presume) can’t explain why there is a God and the universe instead of no God and no universe, I don’t know why there is a universe instead of no universe. There are some questions that we can never know the answer to.

B]Which point of view do you consider to be more consistent with logic: an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, or, an eternal, infinite universe spawned from nothing, by an infinite Intelligent designer? Surely nothing can’t give rise to something without a designer.

You are doing a great job - carry on!

God bless

 

[joe370]

Atheist, you said:

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

The fact that you call it a temporal universe implies a time line, starting with the big bang! It doesn’t make any sense to believe that the universe has always existed. Science in general, and research by NASA and various space agencies around the world have proven that the universe is indeed expanding or projecting outward. If the universe is projecting outward, clearly this means that the universe had a starting, point of origin! If the universe has always existed, as you suggest, then there would be no need for a point of origin. If the universe “did not come into being,” and is never changing or expanding, then it must be the same today as it was a million light years ago, but the steady state theory supporting this theory, has been unanimously abandoned by science, in favor of the big bang theory. Science embraces a beginning; they simply do not know if the big bang was preceded by something; That is where religion takes over, for me anyway!

Go to pbs.com (Nova) or who ever…Don’t take my word on it…

By the way, I was not suggesting that you are illogical, just your position that something could come from nothing without an antecedent cause! And you believe that my position that something could not come from nothing, is impossible without an impetus…a designer. Science does not support your particular view point; they simply don’t know one way or another! If you don’t agree with me, that’s cool.

 

[joe370]

Atheist, said:

By the way, I was not suggesting that you are illogical, just your position that something could come from nothing without an antecedent cause! And you believe that my position that something could not come from nothing, is impossible without an impetus…a designer. Science does not support your particular view point; they simply don’t know one way or another! If you don’t agree with me, that’s cool.

I was tired; I meant to say: And you believe, that my belief, that something could not come from nothing without a designer is illogical…Sorry friend…off to work.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, you said:

If the universe is temporally infinite, it did not come into being.

The fact that you call it a temporal universe implies a time line, starting with the big bang!

No, think of a number line with 0 representing the present. There are infinitely many numbers to the left and right of 0.

It doesn’t make any sense to believe that the universe has always existed. Science in general, and research by NASA and various space agencies around the world have proven that the universe is indeed expanding or projecting outward.

I agree, there is extremely good evidence of this.

If the universe is projecting outward, clearly this means that the universe had a starting, point of origin!

No, a universe that has always been expanding and contracting would be expanding at certain points in time, but would not have an origin.

If the universe has always existed, as you suggest, then there would be no need for a point of origin. If the universe “did not come into being,” and is never changing or expanding, then it must be the same today as it was a million light years ago, but the steady state theory supporting this theory, has been unanimously abandoned by science, in favor of the big bang theory.

Of course. It would be absurd and unscientific if I were proposing the stead state theory as a serious possibility. As I have explained in previous posts on this thread (my posts in this thread responding to benedictus2 might be worth a read if you have the time), I am not proposing the steady state model; I am proposing that one of various cyclic models could be correct. I suggest reading talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions to better understand what the theory actually says and how strong the evidence for the big bang theory is.

Science embraces a beginning; they simply do not know if the big bang was preceded by something; That is where religion takes over, for me anyway!

We have no scientific evidence or data of any kind that supports the theory that the universe had a beginning. It’s possible, but just as possible as a cyclic universe model.

Go to pbs.com (Nova) or who ever…Don’t take my word on it…

Of course I won’t take your word for it, because it’s contradicted by what scientists say. You have to understand that sometimes people use the word ‘universe’ to mean the spatial and temporal part of the universe that we can see, and other times people use it to describe the entire natural world.

By the way, I was not suggesting that you are illogical, just your position that something could come from nothing without an antecedent cause! And you believe that my position that something could not come from nothing, is impossible without an impetus…a designer. Science does not support your particular view point; they simply don’t know one way or another! If you don’t agree with me, that’s cool.

In order for it to be even relevant whether something can come from nothing, you first have to show that the universe had a beginning. If the universe has always existed, then it needs no creator.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I was tired; I meant to say: And you believe, that my belief, that something could not come from nothing without a designer is illogical…Sorry friend…off to work.

I don’t think it’s illogical. Something coming from nothing just seems like it couldn’t happen. However, I do think that it is illogical if you say that science shows the universe had a beginning.

 

[Cinette]

For those of you who may be interested:

*Observatory’s New Home Ready
Vatican Astronomers Moving This Month

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, JUNE 17, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A renovated convent in Albano, Italy, is the new home of the Vatican Observatory – a change that will give the Jesuits who work there better living and working space, and better accommodate visitors to the Observatory.

The Vatican Observatory had been housed in the pontifical palace at Castel Gandolfo, the town south of Rome where the Pope spends the summer months. It moved there in 1939, more than three centuries after its first beginnings within Vatican City, because of growing light pollution in Rome.

The Observatory and its 15 scientists are moving to their newest home this month, though the new space won’t be inaugurated until October.

The move is an undertaking that involves the 22,000-volume library, which includes a collection of ancient books, as well as works by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler and others.

A notable collection of meteorites will also be part of the move.

The Vatican Observatory was founded in 1578 by Pope Gregory XIII as a committee to study the data and implications involved in the reform of the calendar that occurred in 1582.

Since that time, the papacy has continued to support astronomical research.

In 1981, the Observatory founded a second research center, again because of too much light in the night skies close to Rome. This time the researchers headed to the desert of the United States, founding the Vatican Observatory Research Group in Tucson, Arizona. That location is now one of the world’s largest center’s for observational astronomy.

---

On the Net:
*
Vatican Observatory: vaticanobservatory.org/VO.html

 

[jargon631]

Hi, Surfmeister,

OK, if you like this definition … it is fine with me. Please understand that there is NO question in the mind of the Diest that THERE IS A GOD… Now, this makes a real and quite clear distinction between this belief and the belief of the Atheist - who claims that there IS NO GOD. In brief, both of you guy can not be on the same side of the argument…

well…that depends on what part of the arguement we are discussing…neither the atheist or the deist has much use for visions, miracles, religion and such…we have different reasons…but we share a lot of the same conclusions…:extrahappy:…frederick

 

[jargon631]

I am not trying to ‘suit myself’. I’m trying to establish an accurate and impartial assessment of Einstein’s belief structure and why people wish to claim him as ‘one of their own’.
Why do YOU wish to?
(Of course, the quote I wish to reply to doesn’t appear in this message, because I am
A) a complete newbie
B) unable to wrap my head around this forum and the posting rules therein
C) demonic intervention
D) chance

oh…i’d have to go with demonic intervention……fd

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I just want to touch base with one of your ideas…

If Christianity rests on faith instead of evidence, why are you trying to use evidence to prove it?

While our belief in Christ and Catholic Church He founded on Peter rests on Faith - human beings were created by God as reasoning creatures. We would reject anything that is CONTRARY to reason (e.g., a square circle is a contradiction in terms. Something that is round can not have 90 degree angles and something that is square must have 90 degree angles. Such an idea is simply contrary to reason - the very fact that we can come up with two words that cancell one another out does not make it exist.) There is nothing CONTRARY TO REASON in our belief in a Creator. Reasonable arguments are presented simply because we are reasoning people.

There is nothing in the human experience to in any way SOMETHING coming from NOTHING. This is simply because we have no experience with NOTHING. Wherever you are, there is light (or the absence of light - but, there is still something we call dark), there is temperature (even in outer space with absolute zero is considered as far as one can go in getting cold - still has a property) In space we think of a vacuum - but, even a vacuum is something. The very concept of NOTHING is something we can not even imagine… no atoms or molecules no gravity or mass or anything. Out of this NOTHINGNESS God choses to create - and from His Divine Will - everything is brought into existence - and, more to the point - it has order.

Here is a link you may find of interest: en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Physiology/Cell_physiology This link will take you to a site that compares and contrasts human and plant cells. What is amazing to me is that we appear so different from plants - but, just look at the similarities at the cellular level. Now, you can draw any conclusion you want - but, look at the order in how these cells work and there is nothing ‘natural’ about order - the rule is that things fall apart and do not work - NOT that they stay intact and work in harmony. Yes the vast majority of humans share many characteristics as they grow and develop the same way.

This type of observable PATTERN implies a PATTERN MAKER. It is just so much easier to call this God…

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I just want to touch base with one of your ideas…

While our belief in Christ and Catholic Church He founded on Peter rests on Faith - human beings were created by God as reasoning creatures. We would reject anything that is CONTRARY to reason (e.g., a square circle is a contradiction in terms. Something that is round can not have 90 degree angles and something that is square must have 90 degree angles. Such an idea is simply contrary to reason - the very fact that we can come up with two words that cancell one another out does not make it exist.) There is nothing CONTRARY TO REASON in our belief in a Creator. Reasonable arguments are presented simply because we are reasoning people.

There is nothing in the human experience to in any way SOMETHING coming from NOTHING. This is simply because we have no experience with NOTHING. Wherever you are, there is light (or the absence of light - but, there is still something we call dark), there is temperature (even in outer space with absolute zero is considered as far as one can go in getting cold - still has a property) In space we think of a vacuum - but, even a vacuum is something. The very concept of NOTHING is something we can not even imagine… no atoms or molecules no gravity or mass or anything.

I agree completely. But the lack of experience with nothingness shows that we do not have any evidence either for or against the ability of something to come from nothing. Intuitively it seems wrong, but our intuition is often wrong when it comes to physics that is outside our own experience.

Out of this NOTHINGNESS God choses to create - and from His Divine Will - everything is brought into existence - and, more to the point - it has order.

You’d first have to establish that the universe is not eternal, and that something cannot come from nothing.

Here is a link you may find of interest: en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Physiology/Cell_physiology This link will take you to a site that compares and contrasts human and plant cells. What is amazing to me is that we appear so different from plants - but, just look at the similarities at the cellular level. Now, you can draw any conclusion you want - but, look at the order in how these cells work and there is nothing ‘natural’ about order - the rule is that things fall apart and do not work - NOT that they stay intact and work in harmony. Yes the vast majority of humans share many characteristics as they grow and develop the same way.

This type of observable PATTERN implies a PATTERN MAKER. It is just so much easier to call this God…

God bless

Cells are indeed extraordinarily complex, but why do you assume that every pattern must have a pattern maker? We have no experience which would tell us that this is so. We have some examples of man-made patterns, but we also have patterns in nature, ranging from a simple sand dune to the most beautiful flower. So without assuming a God, there is no way to use this argument as evidence of a God. You are also making a rather large assumption that without God, there could not be any patterns and the universe would merely have atoms scattered completely randomly throughout. There is no reason to believe that things such as gravity are impossible without a God. But if there is gravity, then some of the atoms should coalesce to form larger objects, which could eventually lead to the formation of planets. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that without God there could be no natural laws, because even complete randomness and unchangingness would be natural laws. So I just don’t see how your arguments give any evidence of God. I think I’m open to having faith in something I don’t fully understand, but not in something that is unlikely to exist.