Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

Please expound on how the universe could look exactly as it does now, without a creator?

Without a God, either there is something or there is nothing. if there is something, I see no reason why the universe couldn’t have the natural laws that it does and have developed as current scientific theories say that it did. Now I’m not saying that science has answered every single question and there’s no more need for scientists, but cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for almost every aspect of why things came to be the way they did.

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.

It gives me a headache too. Time is a very hard topic to wrap your mind around. Our intuitions are just so poorly suited to understanding it. In our lives, we see ourselves moving through time at a constant rate. It is mentally jarring when you first learn about relativity, and how some objects can move through time faster than others. The bewildering nature of time is not merely an issue with the Big Bang; we also confront it with relativity, as well as with the concept of God. I encourage you to read these articles to see how complex time can be:
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5839
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6051

So there are a variety of reasons why I just don’t trust my intuitions when it comes to which theories about time are possible and which are impossible. I have not researched this topic nearly as much as some people have. I do not think I should reject the theories of brilliant men such as Stephen Hawking as impossible unless I find a flaw in their thinking. Until I see why time having a beginning is impossible, I will continue to believe that it’s possible. By possible I do not mean that I know it could be true, I just mean that I have no good reason to reject it as impossible.

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.

Please explain the mathematical-type reasoning that leads you to conclude that everything has a cause. If it’s simple, it should be easy for you to lay it out. Quantum physics gives us reason to seriously question whether this is true.

Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause.

I still haven’t seen a good argument that this is so.

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.

You’re right about evolution; there are separate theories of abiogenesis that explain how life could have come from non-life (as you would expect considering that we know more about the earth’s recent past, these theories are not yet as well developed as the theory of evolution).

I am sure you will disagree, but, logically speaking, the universal order presupposes a Universal Orderer;

This presupposes that it would be possible for there to be any order whatsoever in the absence of a God. I see no reason to think that it would be impossible for some regularities to develop in the universe in the absence of a God.

cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic Energizer, and natural law presupposes a Universal Law Maker. But that’s just me.

So without a God, you think it is impossible that there could be any time, space, matter, energy, or natural regularities/laws?! What makes you think that the state of absolute nothingness is what you would expect? I don’t think there’s any good reason to expect that without a God, there must be absolute nothingness, rather than anything at all.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

My point is that if there is no evidence that the Catholic Church is right, I think the probability that they happened to guess correctly regarding every property of God is vanishingly small.

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

I looked at the site and saw some of the video, but the video was more of a glorification of her than an examination of the evidence. If there were impartial scientists who thoroughly investigated the oil or her stigmata, that would be some pretty weighty evidence. However, if her hands were always hidden when the stigmata or olive oil appeared, then it could have easily been a case of fraud. There have been many cases of religious fraud over the years, and if Catholicism is false, I see no reason why it should be exempt. So I have investigated it on my own and do not think there is any good evidence of a miracle. However, if there is some evidence that you think I might have missed, I’d be happy to take a look.

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.

By that definition, pretty much every single belief would be based on faith. There’s no way of proving that reality is not an illusion, or that you would fall down if you jumped off a building, but I don’t think you should say that someone has faith if they believe those things.

But my position is even more solid than someone who believes in gravity! I merely believe that I have no proof of what our universe was like in the distant past. I believe that I do not have the knowledge with which to rule out any of the popular theories. My belief is like me saying that if someone random is forced to choose a one digit number without me interacting with them in any way and does, they will either choose 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, and I do not know which number they will choose. As long as logic is reliable, my position seems to be guaranteed to be logically true. Either something supernatural created the universe, the universe began naturally, the universe always has existed, or maybe even some weird fourth option that I can’t think of at the moment.

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.

I do not have faith that they are possible. I do not have proof that they are impossible, so I believe that it is at least possible that they are possible. Given the endorsement of these positions by people far wiser than myself, I think these are more than remote possibilities. But I have no idea how I would even begin to try to put odds on which explanation was most likely.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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?

Yes, I disagree with you quite strongly. I do not mean to offend, but if you care at all about whether your arguments are true, I think you should really do some more research into these issues. We actually have very good evolutionary explanations for every single example that you cited. This response to your post has already become obscenely long, so I won’t attempt to debunk all of the intelligent design claims in this post. However, I will provide you links that explain how none of the links you cited discredit evolution and that hopefully will help you understand the current state of research into these topics. Some of these articles are somewhat technical, but if you want a basic explanation of why the claims of irreducible complexity are false, I recommend checking out this video on the recent Dover trial. The whole thing is worth watching, but the part where Michael Behe testified and is cross-examined is especially worthwhile (From about 1 hour and 5 minutes in until a bit after 1 hour and 31 minutes). This case was especially notable because many of the flaws in theories of intelligent design were exposed, and even the foremost advocates of intelligent design were unable to convince a conservative Christian judge that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

Here are links dealing with the flagellum:
newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%E2%80%9CFrom+The+Origin+of+Species+to+the+origin+of+bacterial+flagella%E2%80%9D&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Here are links dealing with the cilium:
pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of-cilia-and-si.html
pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/full-text-of-th.html

Here are links dealing with the blood clotting:
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html

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?

It’s because the conclusions that Dr. Behe reaches are unscientific, at least unless you consider astrology and phrenology as science (Behe had to admit during the trial that in order for intelligent design to be considered a science, he had to expand his definition of science in order to include things such as astrology and phrenology).

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.

How do you define ‘reknowned’? Michael Behe is famous for providing an intellectual face of the intelligent design movement, but to my knowledge, his publications are not particularly notable. Also, you say that “many other prominent scientists” doubt that evolution can explain the cell. I don’t believe this claim. Would you mind providing me the names of three such prominent scientists so I can see whether there are even a few such scientists? I think only a very small fraction of scientists believe this, so unless you are extremely liberal with the word ‘prominent’, I do not think there are many prominent scientists who believe this.

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?

My take is that Behe is dead wrong. There is tons of evidence that shows that the various claims that Behe makes are false. I could write more on this subject, but this response has already become absurdly long, so I’ll leave it at that. But if you want, I’d be happy to discuss any aspect of this further. I really think you should carefully study this issue. Not only do I think that it’s always good to know the truth about how the world works, but I think that if you talk to people about your religion and use evidence that blatantly contradicts the scientific evidence, it could hurt your credibility. I just wanted to emphasize in my message how much solid evidence is stacked against the claims made by believers in intelligent design. While we don’t yet know the entire evolutionary history, we know an amazing amount, and there is no good evidence against standard evolutionary theory. Fortunately, as a Catholic, you do not have to choose between science and your faith.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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?

I agree with this quote 100%.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, you said:

Hawking does not say that it is impossible for there to have been something before the Big Bang, he merely says that it is currently impossible for us to know anything about that period.

I agree with Hawking! It is currently impossible, and no doubt, will always be impossible for Science to know anything about that period before the big bang. You said the universe started 15 billion years ago. So, in your opinion the universe did have a starting point?

I do not believe that the universe had a beginning if by universe you mean the entire natural world. It might have had a beginning, but it also might not have.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, you said:

Although I don’t see how a being outside our natural world could actualize our universe merely by willing it so, I am willing to accept this as possible.

Is it more probable that a being outside our natural world actualized our universe, or, is it more probable that nothing outside our natural world actualized our universe merely by willing it so?

Well it becomes very complicated when you try to understand causality if time itself started with the Big Bang. I really don’t know what is more likely. Since many previously unexplainable phenomena have turned out to have natural explanations, I would probably lean towards it being more likely that there is some kind of natural explanation. But this is so far outside the realm of my experience that I do not see any reasonable way of assigning probabilities.

**So we’re left with three possibilities. I have no idea how to assign odds to each of them. But unless we can know something about what this creator would be like, even a 100% chance of there being a creator would not cause us to live any differently.

Is it safe to say that, until God presents himself to you, you will never believe in God? If so, then what is the point of debating? I am not say: let’s stop debating; I’m simply saying: no one can win this debate!

No creator, no creation. Is this premise probable or improbable? **

Labeling the universe a creation presumes that it has a creator.

If there is a God, I need some reason to think he probably exists and that one particular religion has the right conception of what he’s like. I could be convinced by a valid philosophical or scientific argument. I could also be convinced by well documented miracles. I could probably also be convinced by a Bayesian case for God’s existence (assuming the probabilities chosen were reasonable). And yes, I could also be convinced by meeting God. But it may be true that no evidence can convince me, for if there is no God, I would hope that I evaluate the evidence critically enough that I wouldn’t be convinced that God exists if he doesn’t. Now I certainly think that if God would send me to hell for disbelief, I should be more concerned about disbelieving in God when he does exist than believing in God when he does not. However, I think the evidence points so strongly against the Catholic conception of God that unless I see some other reasons to believe, I don’t think I could force myself to believe no matter how hard I tried. I want to believe in him if he exists, but I do not want to try to force myself to believe in something that I think is almost certainly false.

 

[twb1621]

“… If there is a God, I need some reason to think he probably exists and that one particular religion has the right conception of what he’s like. I could be convinced by a valid philosophical or scientific argument. I could also be convinced by well documented miracles. I could probably also be convinced by a Bayesian case for God’s existence (assuming the probabilities chosen were reasonable).” .

Try starting with some of this information then.

Apparitions and Prophacies at;

traditioninaction.org/OLGS/A008olgsInterviewLife2.htm

rexresearch.com/mary/maryapps.htm#pillar

ourladyofamerica.org/explanation.php

bibleprobe.com/miracles.htm

christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles2.htm?200924

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I have read your presentations, arguments and ideas and have concluded that you are content to use yourself as the sole judge on these matters.

Without a God, either there is something or there is nothing. if there is something, I see no reason why the universe couldn’t have the natural laws that it does and have developed as current scientific theories (emphasis added)say that it did. Now I’m not saying that science has answered every single question and there’s no more need for scientists, but cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for almost every aspect of why things came to be the way they did.

It would seem to me that cosmology, physics and biology are the ones finding the order and process of a Well Ordered and Infinitely Well Designed Universe. These scientists are not creating this order or design - just finding out what is ALREADY THERE. The only real question is just HOW did it get there. Chaos does not produce order, especially, an order that replicates itself over and over and over again. I think that an honest inquiry into the HOW of this question will lead to the answer - and it is WHO.

You agree that there are patterns, yet deny a Pattern Maker,

You agree that there is order, yet deny a Orderer

You identify natural laws, yet deny a Law Giver

God apparently just fails the test of convincing you of His existence. Since the existence of God is not an empiracle experiement that can be reproduced for the benefit of those who doubt, the conclusion will be delayed … at least for some time… until we all stand before the White Throne of God’s Judgment.

God bless,

 

[joe370]

Atheist, you said:

Without a God, either there is something or there is nothing.

**With God, there is only something. Nothing leads to nothing. **

if there is something, I see no reason why the universe couldn’t have the natural laws that it does and have developed as current scientific theories say that it did.

**Well, clearly there is something; we see it.
**

Now I’m not saying that science has answered every single question and there’s no more need for scientists, but cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for almost every aspect of why things came to be the way they did.

**There will always be a need for scientists, and no doubt new discoveries lie on the horizon. True, cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for a lot of things, and how they came to be the way they did, but eventually, as they get closer to the source and summit of creation, do you really think that all their discoveries as intelligent creatures, will ultimately lead to an unintelligent source? **

 

[Cinette]

*WOW! U N B E L I E V A B L E!
The United States hs beaten Spain at soccer! 2-0! U N B E L I E V A B L E!

SPAIN WAS UNABLE TO SCORE A SINGLE GOAL!

Now I have seen everything!!!:crying::crying::bigyikes::bigyikes::banghead:*

 

[joe370]

So there are a variety of reasons why I just don’t trust my intuitions when it comes to which theories about time are possible and which are impossible. I have not researched this topic nearly as much as some people have. I do not think I should reject the theories of brilliant men such as Stephen Hawking as impossible unless I find a flaw in their thinking. Until I see why time having a beginning is impossible, I will continue to believe that it’s possible. By possible I do not mean that I know it could be true, I just mean that I have no good reason to reject it as impossible.

**I totally respect the fact that you need proof before you will believe. For me, I need proof that time needed no beginning, and until science does so, I will trust logic over chance every time. **

This presupposes that it would be possible for there to be any order whatsoever in the absence of a God. I see no reason to think that it would be impossible for some regularities to develop in the universe in the absence of a God.

**OK, I respect that, but I see no reason to think that it would be possible for the universe to exist in the absence of a designer; logic prevents me from making this precarious plunge, and always will. I concur with Einstein" Arguably, one of the most intelligent men that ever lived stated, “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”… We will NEVER know with 100% certainty, everything about the universe. With that said, I have no choice but to believe in a higher intelligence. **

So without a God, you think it is impossible that there could be any time, space, matter, energy, or natural regularities/laws?!

**Give me a reason to believe otherwise. **

What makes you think that the state of absolute nothingness is what you would expect? I don’t think there’s any good reason to expect that without a God, there must be absolute nothingness, rather than anything at all.

****You believe that the material world need no explanation/cause for its genesis, and to me, **that requires a leap of faith that is unsurpassed, whether you want to admit it or not. Faith in GOD requires a huge leap of faith as well, but nothing like believing, that nothing set in motion all of the energy that we see in the universe. You want proof, and since no one can provide proof for you, no one will ever be able to sway you. This is an unwinnable debate!!! You seem to have no faith in anything, including probability. You want what you will never get: unshakable proof for everything, before you will believe in anything, and I totally respect your reasoning, but that, for me, is an unthinkable course to take, when I consider the idea that the material universe just is, with no need of a beginning. I have faith that there was a beginning. My reasoning will not allow me to think otherwise. If you are relying on science to eventually reveal to you the unknowable, you are in for a very long wait I am afraid. **

**I will check out some of the links you sent me. **

 

[anEvilAtheist]

*WOW! U N B E L I E V A B L E!
The United States hs beaten Spain at soccer! 2-0! U N B E L I E V A B L E!

SPAIN WAS UNABLE TO SCORE A SINGLE GOAL!

Now I have seen everything!!!:crying::crying::bigyikes::bigyikes::banghead:*

THAT’S INSANE!

I didn’t watch it, but I’ve been following the team a little bit and that’s pretty incredible. Just to even have the opportunity to play that game they had to have everything fall perfectly into place.

 

[Cinette]

The nuns in the Convent will be ringing the bells!! It is 10.30pm - I can’t phone anybody! Orlando who lives across from us and who is a soccer fanatic must have gone to bed because there are no lights in his apartment!! My son has the flu and I just can’t sleep! I know the nuns are going to have something to say at Mass tomorrow!

Well done America!! Now you have proved you can do anything!!! N O B O D Y expected this! NOBODY!

 

[joe370]

Reminds me of the time when the U.S. hockey team shocked the world in 1980…

 

[Angie_Baskin]

Or that the desire to better understand the world was an evolutionarily advantageous trait.

We do not know that. It is a common myth that we use only 10% of our brains. I suggest reading these articles:
snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10

I still don’t think that there is a God out there for me to find, but I guess I’ll see.

Regarding ‘evolutionary advantageous traits’: I don’t see man as having a desire to better understand the world other than from a survival viewpoint. It certainly not for wanting to better himself because history keeps repeating it’s self. Civilizations rise and destroy themselves and the process starts all again. We happen to be in the middle of one of these cycles and it only SEEMS that we have progressed. I DO see man though as having a desire to better understand HIMSELF and where? and WHY? he is here in this world. It’s only natural (instinctual) to survival to better understand the world we live in but that doesn’t explain the desire for “where we come from and why we exist”? "WHO AM I??’ The astronomers pursuit of looking through a telescope to eventually be able to see ‘the big bang’ itself is wonderous. I wonder what else we will see??

Regarding 10% brain usage:
Notice that I used the word ‘MIND’ not ‘brain’. The articles you refer to apply to the use & function of the brain. The mind is SPIRIT (and of God) and has ALL the power and the brain is just the vessel it uses to communicate to the body & outward. I know science is learning more & more about the brain and it’s functions but none of the data perceives the power of the mind. They know it exists somehow, but without a belief in ‘God’ have no real foundation to work from. We are using our ‘mind’ unconsciously all the time but are unaware of it’s power to create being trapped in a finite body. There was a story on the Australian news the other day about a woman who died of a heart attact through the night. Her husband found her dead in bed and tried to revive her. She told the story of watching his attempts / his calling the ambulance/ of them arriving/ of their attempts/ of them giving up after 30mins (proceedure) / of the sheet pull over her body and being left in a darkened room. She experienced the typical ‘experiences’ of light/love/happiness/etc.etc. (often dismissed as religious or media conditioning). She told of a meeting in ‘heaven’ / of the crowds of spirits she saw and interacted with/ of a heavenly lifestyle. Conversations back & forward, and questions she asked being answered. She was told it wasn’t her time yet & that she had more work to do. She reluctantly returned to her body to the absolute shock of ambulance/police & her husband. She had been declared dead for 45minutes (not counting the actual time of death prior to her husband waking & calling the ambulance). To make things even more creepy, her brother (living in another country) rang on the phone wanting to know how his sister was, because at dawn that morning, she had stood at the end of his bed and waking him up with excited pleas to “come with me, you have to see this…” at which she disappeared. It gave him such a fright he had to ring her to make sure he was dreaming as it was so real. A scientist was asked to comment on what happened and he said he çouldn’t explain it and that the time period negated the theory of ‘brain sparking’ and as for the brother’s experience… he had no comment he could make. This happened only recently & I’m sure you will be able to find something on the net about it. The woman was expected to have brain damage from lack of oxygen but she has totally recovered with no effects other then being relieved to know that there is an after life. (something she had not believed in prior). I have read dozens of such stories from all religious backgrounds. I might be explained as universal energies? but pure CONSCIOUS energy?? Isn’t that another name for God?

 

[joe370]

**Well, I read one of your links and just as I suspected, neither I.D. or evolution can provide any concrete proof one way or the other; both insist that the other party’s claim collapses under close scrutiny. Certainly there is an argument for the devolution of TTSS, in my opinion. Some scientists have suggested that the flagellum preceded the TTSS in nature and thus the TTSS represents a devolution from flagella rather than flagella being evolved from a TTSS. Devolution is much easier than evolution. Excerpt from your article:
**

"A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine.

However, in agreeing to this, one must keep in mind that the doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step beyond the claim of ignorance.

This is a matter of opinion not science…

It was fashioned in order to provide a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn’t have evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS) has been discovered among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any “evidence” that the flagellum was designed.

Unless your other links provide something more substantive, I’ll be sticking with God…LOL…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I get the impression that Evil is not particularly interested in this topic … or, he has thrown out his own red herring to demonstrate another application of the Thread Subject…

** Well, I read one of your links and just as I suspected, neither I.D. or evolution can provide any concrete proof one way or the other; both insist that the other party’s claim collapses under close scrutiny.** Unless your other links provide something more substantive, I’ll be sticking with God…LOL…

I will be sticking with God, too.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

By the way, in case anyone thinks that discussing soccer is off topic, I think that arguing that there must be a God because the U.S. beat Spain is dishonest apologetics. So if Cinette was trying to prove that God exists using the argument from soccer, I think that she was being dishonest.

 

[joe370]

By the way, in case anyone thinks that discussing soccer is off topic, I think that arguing that there must be a God because the U.S. beat Spain is dishonest apologetics. So if Cinette was trying to prove that God exists using the argument from soccer, I think that she was being dishonest. /QUOTE

Come on man, lighten up. She was just injecting a little levity into the thread – and shock. When the U.S. hockey team won in 1980, I was in total disbelief.

 

[joe370]

Just caught the wink…my bad.