Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

For those of you who may be interested:

Vatican Observatory: vaticanobservatory.org/VO.html

Thanks. I didn’t know the Catholic Church was quite so involved in current scientific research.

 

[joe370]

Atheist, where did gravity come from? I know science has discovered and defined it as a natural law, but who or what created this invisible force of attraction between all masses in the universe? Without gravity there would be no stars or planets…No us! Just as you need evidence to believe that there is a God, I need evidence to believe that gravity needs no God! If you can’t provide this evidence then I will assume that your belief is faith based, which of course I respect, but couldn’t possibly embrace, just as you cannot embrace Christianity.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, where did gravity come from? I know science has discovered and defined it as a natural law, but who or what created this invisible force of attraction between all masses in the universe? Without gravity there would be no stars or planets…No us! Just as you need evidence to believe that there is a God, I need evidence to believe that gravity needs no God! If you can’t provide this evidence then I will assume that your belief is faith based, which of course I respect, but couldn’t possibly embrace, just as you cannot embrace Christianity.

Without God, I don’t think we have any reason to have an a priori expectation of what things would be like. I would consider it just as weird, if not weirder, for there to be absolutely nothing (no matter, energy, space, or time) than for there to have been some kind of something. As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in that universe (as pure randomness itself is a kind of regularity). You do not support your assumption that there can be no regularities without there being a creator. You also do not show that my view requires any faith at all.

 

[joe370]

**Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
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.
**

Atheist said:

I don’t think it’s illogical. Something coming from nothing just seems like it couldn’t happen.

Agreed!

However, I do think that it is illogical if you say that science shows the universe had a beginning.

**Science absolutely does not claim that something preceded the universe! Why would it? This assertion is not verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment, just as the idea that the universe had no beginning, or that something came from nothing, is not verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. These are simply theory’s that you feel most comfortable with, I am assuming.

To say that science claims that something preceded the universe would be highly irresponsible! Apologetics, which is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity, is not a science; it is faith based oriented. We here, at CAF will never be able to verify or prove to you, by means of observation or experiment, that Christianity is of God. If we could, you’d be a Christian. This belief is something that comes from within; it’s a spiritual journey, not an empirical journey, just as your atheistic beliefs are unspiritual/temporal not empirical. **

 

[anEvilAtheist]

However, I do think that it is illogical if you say that science shows the universe had a beginning.

**Science absolutely does not claim that something preceded the universe! Why would it? This assertion is not verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment, just as the idea that the universe had no beginning, or that something came from nothing, is not verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. These are simply theory’s that you feel most comfortable with, I am assuming.

To say that science claims that something preceded the universe would be highly irresponsible! Apologetics, which is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity, is not a science; it is faith based oriented. We here, at CAF will never be able to verify or prove to you, by means of observation or experiment, that Christianity is of God. If we could, you’d be a Christian. This belief is something that comes from within; it’s a spiritual journey, not an empirical journey, just as your atheistic beliefs are unspiritual/temporal not empirical. **

My position is that we currently do not have enough data to determine whether the universe is infinitely old, whether it had a beginning without a creator, or whether it was begun by some kind of creator. Since there were once many things that we could not explain without a creator which are now easily explainable by science, I see no reason to assume that there probably was a creator. Your belief that the universe (the entire natural world) had a beginning is the position that is wholly unsupported by the scientific evidence.

 

[joe370]

Without God, I don’t think we have any reason to have an a priori expectation of what things would be like. I would consider it just as weird, if not weirder, for there to be absolutely nothing (no matter, energy, space, or time) than for there to have been some kind of something.

OK…

As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in that universe (as pure randomness itself is a kind of regularity).

**Which would you rather rely on: randomness or specificity? Is science a random based system, or is it logical, analytical, methodical, precise, systematic and complete? If you want to believe that the universe is the end result of randomness, as opposed to design, that’s cool. I have a lot of friends who share your atheistic views, at least an offshoot of your views.
**

You do not support your assumption that there can be no regularities without there being a creator.

**I don’t recall saying anything about regularities. I do agree with you; As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in the universe. The question is: where did this something come from? I have faith that it came from God; you have faith that it simply always existed, eternally, necessitating no need for a beginning, unless otherwise empirically proven. You too cannot support your assumption that there can be a universe without there being a creator. We are simply deadlocked. Our faith in diametrical view points is our only hope, unless science discovers something new. **

You also do not show that my view requires any faith at all.

**Prove to me that your views are not faith based. Provide scientific evidence that the universe had no beginning…that something can indeed come from nothing. **

 

[joe370]

anEvilAtheist: My position is that we currently do not have enough data to determine whether the universe is infinitely old, whether it had a beginning without a creator, or whether it was begun by some kind of creator.

I totally agree; science does not have enough data to determine whether the universe is infinitely old, whether it had a beginning without a creator, or whether it was begun by some kind of creator.!

Since there were once many things that we could not explain without a creator which are now easily explainable by science, I see no reason to assume that there probably was a creator.

I totally respect that my friend!

Your belief that the universe (the entire natural world) had a beginning is the position that is wholly unsupported by the scientific evidence.

Agreed…There is no scientific evidence that something existed before the big bang! As I said before, we are deadlocked. You have faith in one thing; I have faith in another. One thing is for certain: If you are right, when you die, you won’t be able to confirm what you believe, and if I am right, when I die, I will be able to confirm what I believe. I simply cannot believe that life is a product of nothing, and I don’t need any proof that God exists; I see it all around me!

Peace friend…

 

[Filioque]

Thanks. I didn’t know the Catholic Church was quite so involved in current scientific research.

Catholic scholars have always been involved in current research. With genetics it was Mendle, with the Cosmos the most famous was Capernicus who’s ideas infulenced Galeleo. Even among the Protestants, Newton and Darwin were Theologians and Biblical Scholars, who sought to prove God by the world around them. It is sad that Charles Darwin (who was correct about some things and off base about others) is branded as Anti-Christian, since he was a Theologian first.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Thanks for being so honest about it. I think a lot of people believe what they do merely because it feels right, but then say the reason for their belief is some flawed apologetic argument. I obviously disagree with you about the universe having been too complicated to have evolved, but I do think that there’s a chance there is some sort of God. My problem is that if there is a God, I think we know absolutely nothing about him. So when religions try to attribute a long list of properties to him, it becomes incredibly unlikely that such a god exists. If you only believe a couple things about God, it seems a lot more likely that you’d be right.

Hey a.E.A.
As I read your post I was wondering about the science of chance? Is there really such a thing? I know that we utilize a great deal of statistics in quantum physics and I actually use stats all the time to formulate predictors and probabilities within control parameters. But stats and all the tools we have for distributions though useful are inexact. But it has always occurred to me that the more factors you are intimate with, within any systematic framework the more one can control it. (e.g. rolling the dice: if I’m aware of all the initial conditions, the friction force of the table, the vectored trajectory of the dice, the potential force, gravity, the initial angle of the dice, etc, etc, etc down to all factors within the physical framework wouldn’t it be possible to always roll snake eyes) in other words I don’t really believe there even is such a thing as chance. I think theres a reason for the dice shakers in adding unknowns to the initial parameters in those casinos. So my belief is that chance only serves to give us the warm fuzzies about what we are uncertain of when we don’t have all the facts and factors. What are your thoughts on this? Can you humor me and actually prove chance exists?
Thanks, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Without God, I don’t think we have any reason to have an a priori expectation of what things would be like. I would consider it just as weird, if not weirder, for there to be absolutely nothing (no matter, energy, space, or time) than for there to have been some kind of something.

OK…

As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in that universe (as pure randomness itself is a kind of regularity).

**Which would you rather rely on: randomness or specificity? Is science a random based system, or is it logical, analytical, methodical, precise, systematic and complete? If you want to believe that the universe is the end result of randomness, as opposed to design, that’s cool. I have a lot of friends who share your atheistic views, at least an offshoot of your views. **

Well I want to believe in whatever is true. But I was actually saying that the universe does have some regularity, so I wouldn’t say it’s complete randomness (unless you merely define random as everything that’s not designed).

You do not support your assumption that there can be no regularities without there being a creator.

**I don’t recall saying anything about regularities. I do agree with you; As long as there is something, there will be some regularity in how things work in the universe. **

You didn’t specifically say it, but that’s what I inferred from your post on gravity. It seemed like you were saying that there couldn’t be natural laws without God.

**The question is: where did this something come from? I have faith that it came from God; you have faith that it simply always existed, eternally, necessitating no need for a beginning, unless otherwise empirically proven. **

No, as I have said repeatedly in earlier posts, I do not “have faith that it simply always existed”. That is one of the possibilities, but I have not ruled out the possibility that the universe had a beginning, either with or without a creator.

**You too cannot support your assumption that there can be a universe without there being a creator. We are simply deadlocked. Our faith in diametrical view points is our only hope, unless science discovers something new. **

The universe could have a finite or infinite past. It could have had a supernatural creator, or no supernatural creator. We have theories for how each would be possible, but we do not have any universes with known origin that we can use to verify which are possible. The most logical position seems to be that each one is possible, or at least that each one could possibly be possible (though our knowledge is far too limited to know things like whether something supernatural can create something natural).

You also do not show that my view requires any faith at all.

**Prove to me that your views are not faith based. Provide scientific evidence that the universe had no beginning…that something can indeed come from nothing. **

I believe it is theoretically possible. Without evidence to the contrary, I do not rule things out, regardless of whether they seem weird to me.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Your belief that the universe (the entire natural world) had a beginning is the position that is wholly unsupported by the scientific evidence.

Agreed…There is no scientific evidence that something existed before the big bang! As I said before, we are deadlocked. You have faith in one thing; I have faith in another. One thing is for certain: If you are right, when you die, you won’t be able to confirm what you believe, and if I am right, when I die, I will be able to confirm what I believe. I simply cannot believe that life is a product of nothing, and I don’t need any proof that God exists; I see it all around me!

Peace friend…

Yeah, it definitely does seem like we’re deadlocked. However, I do not think that my position requires any faith. I am open to the possibility of a creator; I just think that the more qualities you give him, the less likely it is that your conception of the creator is right. I’d be interested in your definition of faith, and how my position is one of faith. I also disagree with you that there is evidence all around us. The universe could look exactly as it does now, regardless of whether God exists (and I’d actually think it would look quite different if there was a God: better designed human bodies, less suffering, etc).

Peace.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Catholic scholars have always been involved in current research. With genetics it was Mendle, with the Cosmos the most famous was Capernicus who’s ideas infulenced Galeleo. Even among the Protestants, Newton and Darwin were Theologians and Biblical Scholars, who sought to prove God by the world around them. It is sad that Charles Darwin (who was correct about some things and off base about others) is branded as Anti-Christian, since he was a Theologian first.

Good points. I agree with you that Darwin got some things wrong, and that he was once very religious. However, I do think it’s worth pointing out that he eventually stopped going to church and considered himself an agnostic.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hey a.E.A.
As I read your post I was wondering about the science of chance? Is there really such a thing? I know that we utilize a great deal of statistics in quantum physics and I actually use stats all the time to formulate predictors and probabilities within control parameters. But stats and all the tools we have for distributions though useful are inexact. But it has always occurred to me that the more factors you are intimate with, within any systematic framework the more one can control it. (e.g. rolling the dice: if I’m aware of all the initial conditions, the friction force of the table, the vectored trajectory of the dice, the potential force, gravity, the initial angle of the dice, etc, etc, etc down to all factors within the physical framework wouldn’t it be possible to always roll snake eyes) in other words I don’t really believe there even is such a thing as chance. I think theres a reason for the dice shakers in adding unknowns to the initial parameters in those casinos. So my belief is that chance only serves to give us the warm fuzzies about what we are uncertain of when we don’t have all the facts and factors. What are your thoughts on this? Can you humor me and actually prove chance exists?
Thanks, Erchomai Kyrios

You raise a great point. Quantum physics seems to provide evidence against determinism, but it’s still possible that there are non-local hidden variables that are causing the apparent randomness. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way. And then there’s the issue of which theory of time you adhere to: the A-theory, or the B-theory. This is an issue I’d like to explore more someday, but I just haven’t researched it enough to have a very strong opinion.

I won’t try to prove that chance exists because I don’t know if it does. When I say that there’s a chance of something, I just mean that we don’t know that it’s impossible. It’s possible that it’s possible. So there’s a chance of pretty much anything.

But in everyday conversation, I usually say that there’s a chance of something if it is not contradicted by something we are reasonably certain of. I am reasonably certain that I would fall if I jumped off a building, so I wouldn’t say that there’s a chance that I would float in mid-air.

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t mean his research in the sense that science somehow showed him that God exists. I meant that it sounded like you were saying that Einstein’s experiences led him to belief in God. Since you brought up a famous scientist, I figured you thought that science factored into his thoughts on God (though I didn’t think you meant it was solely due to science).

Maan, where did I say that? My post was a one liner. I am not quite sure how you could have inferred that from my post. The only reason you could have misconstrued it that way would have been due to bad arguments from theists you have encountered in the past. So again, posting with a set of assumptions in motion.

It is natural to figure that there was some reason that you (or Cinette) chose to mention a brilliant scientist. For example, it would seem pretty strange if I were to make a post about how Patton Oswalt is an atheist, and you might not understand why I would feel that it was worth mentioning. However, if I said that Steven Hawking was an atheist, you would probably think that I was either trying to show that it’s possible for a smart scientist to be an atheist, or that science and intelligence lead to atheism.

No there is no reason for me to mention Einstein. So correction again, That is why I did not mention Einstein. I merely commented on Cinnete mentioning Einstein.

If anything the only thing that I was thinking when I commented on Cinnete’s post was the common misconception among atheists and agnostics that only the “uneducated” and “idiotic” belived in God. But then again, I did not write that then becaused that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion and I have not read any posts that suggested you have bought into that misconception as well.

So I am not explaining myself again on this matter suffice it to say that both you and Surfmeister got it totally wrong. So that’s that.

Again, a reminder. Stick to what has been written and when in doubt ask.

 

[benedictus2]

There’s another dishonest apologist tactic that gets on my nerves. When atheists pretend to be searching, but they’re really just throwing little ropes around, hoping the theists will trip over them or hang themselves with them.

That certianly is dishonest but I have not seen theists suspended from a rope with breath quickly failing

 

[benedictus2]

that, my friend, is where you are mistaken…lol…i dont believe in god as an event or force, but as a distinct creator with all the powers that would be in attendance for someone who could create a universe…

Way to go Surfie. … And that is certainly no small God. :clapping:Nice to see you put jargon in his place.

THEN full stop…btw…i rarely capitalise, so whether i’m referring to the christian concept of god, the deist concept of god, or the pantheon of norse mythology, i simply wtite “god”…i hope this clears up any confusion……frederick

One thing you have not grasped so far is that the Creator God IS the Christian God. God’s soverignty rests on the fact that He is Creator. That is one humongous chunk of how we perceive God.

The only thing is that Christian’s see Him more clearly with many more facets. Love being the biggest facet of all.

 

[joe370]

Yeah, it definitely does seem like we’re deadlocked. However, I do not think that my position requires any faith. I am open to the possibility of a creator; I just think that the more qualities you give him, the less likely it is that your conception of the creator is right. I’d be interested in your definition of faith, and how my position is one of faith. I also disagree with you that there is evidence all around us. The universe could look exactly as it does now, regardless of whether God exists (and I’d actually think it would look quite different if there was a God: better designed human bodies, less suffering, etc).

Peace.

Please expound on how the universe could look exactly as it does now, without a creator? I really want to understand your belief system! I have been giving your perspective of the possibility of something coming from nothing a lot of thought, and frankly, it just gives me a headache. LOL…Through the process of simple mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence. Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause. The theory of evolution, even if it could be proved, would not explain the origin of anything; evolution simply deals with what may have happened after matter came into existence.I am sure you will disagree, but, logically speaking, the universal order presupposes a Universal Orderer; cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic Energizer, and natural law presupposes a Universal Law Maker. But that’s just me.

I have given God no qualities! I simply have faith that the C.C. is Jesus’ mystical body to which he is the head and savior, guided by the holy spirit, in perpetuity. I believe what the C.C. teaches about God, and I do realize that I cannot prove any of it! I’m cool with that. If you were to actually research the miracles of Damascus, you would see that science has indeed confirmed that a girl exuded 100 % olive oil of an unknown origin, and a lot of it. There is a great significance attached to olive oil. Sweating or exuding 100 % PURE olive oil is IMPOSSIBLE!!! Rick Salbato, A BIG DOUBTER OF APPARITIONS, is a man on a mission; to disprove apparitions, but he ended up believing in the apparitions of Damascus. See link, if interested:

catholicdigitalstudio.com/miracleofdamascus.htm

If your position is not based on faith, then you should be able to provide evidence; can you? Faith is belief that is not based on proof. Science can’t prove that the universe is a product of nothing; science can’t prove that the universe had no beginning. You simply have faith in both these possibilities. By being open to the possibility of a creator, or to the possibility that a creator was unnecessary, is a leap faith, not fact.

The evidence to which I am referring is created life. Do you disagree that the irreducible complexity inherent in many biochemical systems, such as: cilium, flagellum and blood clotting, not only precludes the possibility that they evolved by Darwinian natural selection, but actually suggests the strong possibility that intelligent design is necessary? If so, could you please expound? The amazing complexity of these systems has gone largely unnoticed and unpublicized, until now; I wonder why that is? Michael Behe, a renown biophysics professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and many other prominent scientists believe in evolution as an explanation of the later development of animals, but seriously doubt if evolution can explain the existence of the cell. Many evolutionist have come to believe that a single cell can only function as a complete unit. That means a cell is unable to function if it gradually comes into existence by means of evolution. They use a mouse trap as an example:

“A mouse trap does not function if parts are missing. All the various parts have to be assembled in the right position for the mouse trap to work smoothly. In this sense, a cell can only function if all the ‘parts’ (or systems) are present within the cell. That’s what we call the ‘irreducible complexity’ of a cell. If only one minor fragment is missing, the cell is unable to function.” You seem pretty knowledgeable and up to date; what’s your take on this?

Darwin said in his book Origin:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down…”

Do yo agree with him?

 

[Sinner82]

Cool! I see some science experts.
Can someone show me a link or explain how evolution & natural selection come up with the pattern on the wings of the butterflies that look like an eye and how animals developed skin patterns that camouflage their environment?
According to some love and religion is a product of evolution. How does the love for the same gender(lesbian & gay relatioships) connect to evolution? What benefit does such a relationship have to our species? PS I respect gays and lesbians and even have severals friends who are such. Thanks and peace to all.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, if you had worded it like that in beginning, there wouldn’t have been an issue. Einstein did not have a ‘change of heart’ at the end of his life, his disbelief in the capital G God was decades old. Perhaps you’re thinking of Sartre (in dispute) and Antony Flew, who developed a deist leaning late in life.

There was nothing wrong with Cinette’s post in the beginning. This is what Cinette wrote in her post 489

Cinette:

"In a little book “The Universe and Dr Einstein” I found this quote by Einstein:

***"***My religion," he says, “consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

To which I responded as follows in post 490

benedictus2:

Yes, the most brilliant scientific mind believes in God

The whole problem arose out of you misinterpreting our post and jumping to all the wrong conclusions.

 

[benedictus2]

Flame Wars would also be contrary to the forum rules.

Don’t worry. I have stowed away my heat seeking missiles so you can come out of the bunker now.