Dishonest Apologetics

[joe370]

Atheist, please see link below regarding “the Intelligent Construction of the Universe: A Mathematical Proof.” Just click on the link, then click on: download the paper.

works.bepress.com/ashley_lipson/1/

Here’s the synopsis regarding the paper:

Mathematical proof

“The Universe was either created randomly (accidentally - of course something had to have caused the accident) - or by intelligence. Compute the probability of a randomly created mathematical structure for the Universe. If that probability is zero, then the existence of intelligent intervention for the construction of the Universe itself seems to be the only plausible alternative…”

Results

“…Recall that the number of digits representing Pi and e are infinite. Because they are irrational numbers, the digits never repeat; rather, they continue infinitely. Therefore, the probability that three very specific constants ( Pi, e, i), at least two of which have non-repeating integer decimal digits, could come together randomly (or by accident) to form perfect unity, is zero. But they did, in fact, come together. If not by accident, then it must have been by way of choice.”

Conclusion

“…Mathematics itself seems to form a perfect brush that sweeps across an endless multi-dimensional universe painting the invisible fabric of time, space and the laws that govern them; an infinite tapestry, far purer, more complex and more elegant than anything we can ever hope to fully comprehend, more less construct. It is one thing to claim that out of a billion galaxies a perfectly balanced life-system on a single planet could arguably be attributed to chance alone. But it is another matter to claim that
the perfectly constructed mathematical laws governing all of the countless planets came about randomly. It has been suggested that mathematics itself may be at the very top of the power chain, accompanied by the heady notion that even God would be limited by its laws. Such a notion would constitute a form of mathematical determinism in its purest form. Not wishing to step on toes (i.e., very big toes), I rapidly back away from this notion by asking the proponents: “Who, or what, would have had the power to create mathematical laws that bind”

 

[joe370]

nope…too funny…and here we sit…what a moment of zen…:extrahappy:…frederick

**Exactly! That is why I said to atheist: this is an unwinnable debate. The result is a stalemate. Take a look at my post on mathematical proof; let me know what you think. **

 

[Angie_Baskin]

Not every action we take makes it more likely that we pass on our genes. There were many benefits to gaining knowledge, so when humans evolved, it makes sense that those who wanted to understand the world would be more likely to pass on our genes. This does not mean that every type of knowledge that we can now seek will make it more likely that we can pass on our genes.

I tried searching for the article in a number of different ways, but didn’t find anything. The only place or name you gave me was Australia, so it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. If you ever find the article though, I’ll take a look.

I went looking for it too. All I could find was a reference to it as a leading channel nine news rating programe “womans out of body experience” along with a food item. but try as I did, I could not bring it up anywhere. Why is this so?? Why doesn’t the world regard this type of story as important?? It’s almost as if there is some underlying conspireosy to keep these things quiet. The programme aired aprox 8th or 9th of june 2009 on channel nine tv news. You might have better luck then me as I’m only new at this ‘investigating on web thing’. I prefer books. Angie

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Frederick,

I do not think there is a proof for a Christian God. The proofs I am familiar with are for God.

hmmm…can you humor me and actually prove that the christian god exists?..frederick…

The basic problem, at least as I see it, is a group of people who have a behavior model that is non-conforming to an ordered way of living. It is simply much easier to state that there is no order, then to go to all the effort of re-ordering their life.

Since you have apparently drawn a distinction between existence of the Christian God and God Himself - please enlighten us on the proofs that have convinced you as to teh existence of God.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Tom

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

What’s the other option? Randomly pick someone and always defer to them on these matters? In the end, even if I rely on the opinions of others, I have to use my reason to determine whose opinions I should rely on. So I really don’t see what you think the other option is besides relying on oneself.

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,

First of all, since you are using this as an argument for a creator, I assume you define ‘pattern maker” as a sentient being, rather than merely natural laws. The problem with your argument is that we have no experience that patterns require a pattern-maker. There are many patterns created by humans, but there are also many wonderful patterns in nature. If you assume that there is a God, all known patterns have a pattern maker, so your logic works. However, if you do not assume this, then we have no empirical support for the claim that all patterns have a pattern maker. So you can only prove a God/creator if you start by assuming that there is one.

You agree that there is order, yet deny a Orderer

I have already discussed why I think that even without a God, it is probably inevitable that there will be some regularities, and thus some kind of order. There is certainly no reason to think that order is only possible if there is a God. And doesn’t God himself have some order to him? He is not pure randomness. I do not think that he was once disorderly and then made himself orderly, so this would mean that God would exhibit order, even though there was nothing that ordered God.

You identify natural laws, yet deny a Law Giver

If all laws required a law giver, than wouldn’t there have to be a law giver before or above God? In order for God to be able to have been all powerful, it would have to have been a law that everything that God wills happens. Furthermore, aren’t laws, such as that nothing can bring itself into existence, possible even if there is no God?

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,

I do not need God’s existence to be experimentally tested. I just need some reason to believe that a God exists. If there is an argument for God’s existence that you think is valid, feel free to show it to me. I have read tons of the arguments that top apologists use and found all of them to be invalid.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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. **

I definitely do not need proof in order to believe. When you say you trust logic, what logic are you referring too? I see no logical reason that time must have had a beginning.

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. **

What arguments convince you that there must have been a designer? I agree completely with Einstein’s comment, but I really don’t see how that could possibly lead you to your position that you must believe in a higher intelligence. To me, the fact that there is quite a lot that I don’t know means that I should not assume that the universe originated a certain way, or presume to have any knowledge of what God, if he existed, would want from me unless I had some kind of evidence.

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. **

It is conceivable, and we have no evidence against it. On what grounds do you think that in the absence of any God, something (of any kind at all), would be inherently less likely than nothing?

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.

You believe that God requires no explanation/cause for his existence. I see no reason to think that it is more illogical to say that the universe ‘just is’, than to say that God ‘just is’. I never once said that I believed that something came from nothing. I personally prefer the theory that the universe has always existed, but I do not think it is proper to reject other theories (such as a finite universe, or a God), merely because you don’t like them and without evidence that they are false. I am not relying on science to reveal the unknowable. I never expect to know why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I went looking for it too. All I could find was a reference to it as a leading channel nine news rating programe “womans out of body experience” along with a food item. but try as I did, I could not bring it up anywhere. Why is this so?? Why doesn’t the world regard this type of story as important?? It’s almost as if there is some underlying conspireosy to keep these things quiet. The programme aired aprox 8th or 9th of june 2009 on channel nine tv news. You might have better luck then me as I’m only new at this ‘investigating on web thing’. I prefer books. Angie

All I could find was this, which really just shows that there was some report on it. I would think that the world would regard it as very important, as long as the claims could be well verified (I know that it’s not terribly uncommon for local news channels to get some of the facts wrong in one of their reports). My guess is that she wasn’t actually dead for that long.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist, please see link below regarding “the Intelligent Construction of the Universe: A Mathematical Proof.” Just click on the link, then click on: download the paper.

works.bepress.com/ashley_lipson/1/

Thanks for the link. I would love it if there was a mathematical proof of God. I would be willing to believe with merely some good reason to think that God exists, but a proof would make things a lot easier.

But I don’t think she actually proves that there’s a creator. Her argument rests on the assumption that without a creator, these constants could have had any value at all. She says that the only options are accident or chance. However, I think the values are what they are due to logical necessity. I do not think there is a possible world in which pi=3. I do not think there is a possible world in which 1 + -1 = 0. The only difference between Euler’s identity and 1 + -1 = 0 is that while the latter is so obvious that we immediately realize it is true, the former uses advanced mathematical concepts and is only obvious to those with a lot of mathematical skill. “Gauss is reported to have commented that if this formula was not immediately obvious, the reader would never be a first-class mathematician (Derbyshire 2004, p. 202)” (mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html). These numbers have to be related in this way. But if there is no possible world in which these values are different, then this is no evidence of God.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I’ve just logged in. Saw Cinnette’s post re soccer. Saw this post. And can’q quite believe it. How in the world did you ever come up with this post? That Cinnete is arguing that God exist because the US beat Spain? There was absolutely nothing in Cinette’s post that indicated she was saying that

Reading her post I came to the conclusion that she was so flabbergasted by the result she has to vent that out and she thougth she share her amazement with whoever is on this thread. And now you call it dihonest apologetics???!! It was not even apologetics.

It was just something compeltely off topic. Maybe she should have predicated her post with “With completely off topic but…”

Hmmm I just saw a light flash accross the road when there is no one about… therefore God must exist

 

[joe370]

Thanks for the link. I would love it if there was a mathematical proof of God. I would be willing to believe with merely some good reason to think that God exists, but a proof would make things a lot easier.

But I don’t think she actually proves that there’s a creator. Her argument rests on the assumption that without a creator, these constants could have had any value at all. She says that the only options are accident or chance. However, I think the values are what they are due to logical necessity. I do not think there is a possible world in which pi=3. I do not think there is a possible world in which 1 + -1 = 0. The only difference between Euler’s identity and 1 + -1 = 0 is that while the latter is so obvious that we immediately realize it is true, the former uses advanced mathematical concepts and is only obvious to those with a lot of mathematical skill. “Gauss is reported to have commented that if this formula was not immediately obvious, the reader would never be a first-class mathematician (Derbyshire 2004, p. 202)”

(mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html). These numbers have to be related in this way. But if there is no possible world in which these values are different, then this is no evidence of God.

Let us explore those mathematical skills. Forget quotes; what does your intellect say? What would it take for you to believe in GOD???

 

[twb1621]

We’ve already discussed prophecy a little bit. In order for it to be a clear prophecy, it has to have definitely been made before the event that was prophesized, and can’t be so vague that the meaning is extremely ambiguous. I have not seen any prophecies like this that were stunningly accurate (at least no more than you would expect to be right merely by chance).

Of course there are cases of fraud or other explanations unworthy of acceptance as of a supernatural means, you are absolutely right. But I would say you are not looking deeply enough into the prophecies and miracles that have been fulfilled and recognized by the Church. I have gone over them as have many others. I can also tell you the Catholic Church is not one to accept these events lightly in the sense they thoroughly scrutinize and investigate each and every claim brought to them and do not accept any where there could be the result of other than a supernatural sources. This is not a Church that offers during mass services a public display of individuals coming to the front of the audience to have a hand laid on each person who then are miraculously healed of diseases, rise from wheel chairs healed of physical afflictions or have demons removed in convulsions. Every recognized miracle and accepted event must be investigated and must have no other explanation than of a supernatural source and two of the reasons is because acceptance of anything else would raise issue with the credibility of the Church Jesus founded and promote further doubt with those who have difficulty in believing. You should realize these appearances of Mary for instance, have not in the past nor do not just occur to Catholics, but to people of any faith AND people with no faith or absolutely no knowledge of who Mary is. There have been times that it was Mary herself who said who she was and told those who witnessed her information the could not have known about her so others who did know could realize her authenticity and it was in fact her. You can always find someone who will voice doubt but not with any credibility. Prophecies do not include the names and addresses of the participants in future events to prove accuracy but when the events are numerous and all clearly fit the subject, refusing to recognize the validity is the DESIRED position, not the truth to the matter.

This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. Especially when something happened thousands of years ago, it would be hard to show even incredibly far-fetched theories to be false. You couldn’t prove that Islam is false, and yet you don’t believe in it. We don’t have any proof that Russell’s teapot does not exist, but we don’t believe in it. Regarding archeology, there’s certainly some truth to the Bible. The Roman Empire existed, as did Jerusalem. Even if the Bible were to be made up and there was no such person as Jesus (which is not what I believe), it would have been easy to incorporate real locations and events. But what’s surprising is that so much of the Bible does not show up at all in the archeological record. There is not good evidence for the Exodus, despite the huge number of people who were supposedly involved. If you think that the lack of archeological evidence is evidence for the Bible, then I would be interested in whether you could name two things that, if discovered, would prove Christianity to be false.

Are you saying that it is impossible to supportively refute something that was based on fraudulent information for 2000 years or less? You are incorrect on that one. There have been many cases and subjects that have been determined to be wrongfully believed or thought after something through other recorded history or an archeological discovery had been located. I can and have obtained enough to show for me that Islam is false based on the inclusiveness of the history of Christianity and the Old Testament prophecies but that is another subject. If the Bible had been made up or the heart of Jesus’ life false, there certainly would have been recognition of that long before now because there were too many people to substantiate His life and too many prophecies of His own that have come accurately to life throughout the last 2000 years. You would have to know the faith in order to know what has.

Actually, in the past decade, people like Roger Penrose have been realizing that the cyclic model is a serious possibility. We don’t currently have data to support the theory that the universe had a beginning, let alone a supernatural one.

Again you refer to possibilities without proof but you expect proof from God that he exists. I can name many and have provided you links to many physicists who now are leaning to God when once they were atheists. The proof you ask for was given 2000 years ago and realistically you can not expect Him to go through that every so often to convince people who doubt because time passes. The next time He comes it wont be as subtle. Do you think for one minute there are not those who would crucify Him again in these days if He returned to provide proof once more? You should know better than that.

You need to recognize that athough you are obviously knowledgable there have been many much more knowedgable that you or I who have done more harm them good with that knowledge which is why I pointed out so many of our screw-ups over recent history.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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…

I agree that it is a matter of opinion, but I also think it is a matter of science. Science tells us that the part of the universe we can observe started about 14 billion years ago. Certainly it is possible that the universe actually started 10 minutes ago, and the creator created us with memories implanted in our heads. I cannot prove that the universe is more than 10 minutes old, but it is my opinion that the universe is indeed older than that. If all the evidence points to the observable universe being 14 billion years old, and there is no reason to think that the universe is 10 minutes old, then I think that scientists and the public should accept the claim for which there is evidence.

In order to try to assess whether Michael Behe is correct, or whether standard evolutionary theory is correct, we need to know what both sides claim. Behe claims that there are irreducibly complex systems, and that this is evidence of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory says that all living things are the product of natural selection. So if any part of any animal was ever found that could not have come about through natural selection, the theory of evolution would fall apart.

Behe’s claims that there are irreducibly complex systems have repeatedly been shown to be false. He argues that evolutionary biologists have no explanation for how these systems could have come about through evolution, but there have been countless articles published which lay out how those systems could easily have evolved. Now certainly we do not know the entire evolutionary history of every single species (we can’t exactly exhume the bodies of the bacteria that existed many millions of years ago and see how they changed generation by generation). What we do have is a theory of how all life developed. Countless discoveries have been consistent with evolutionary theory, and none have shown it to be false. Darwin even used his theory to correctly predict the existence of a creature that was thought laughable at the time (here’s a very basic overview of this example: lepcurious.blogspot.com/2008/09/predicted-moth.html). So there are good explanations for all of the things that Behe identifies. For example, Behe claimed that there were no evolutionary explanations for the evolution of the human immune system. During the Dover trial, they produced a stack of books and articles that all explained how the various parts of the immune system were able to evolve. Not a single one of his claims that something is irreducibly complex have stood up to scrutiny.

So Behe has not shown that there is anything which is irreducibly complex. Furthermore, he does not show that even if something was irreducibly complex, that this would refute evolution. He defines irreducible complexity as basically something that could not function if one part were removed. But such systems could easily have evolved. For example, the current flagellum could have evolved from a simpler version of the flagellum. Maybe various parts, such as the propeller, motor, hook, and drive shaft used to be much simpler. The older versions of the bacteria may have had more primitive versions of these parts. One possibility is that in these much simpler versions of the bacteria, the functions of two of the parts could have been combined into one. There is no reason to assume that just because the current bacterial flagellum wouldn’t work with one less part, this would be true of its distant ancestors as well. Furthermore, a part thought to be irreducibly complex could have evolved to perform some other function, and then have part of it evolve away. This is a little like how removing one stone from an arch causes it to collapse, but you can build it stone by stone as long as you use scaffolding (which is later removed).

Continued…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So Behe’s claim to have found a flaw in evolutionary theory completely collapses upon closer inspection. However, you’re right that there is not concrete proof. Science does not work on absolute proof. Every theory, no matter how well established, could later be found to be false. However, science does work on overwhelming evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that the theory of gravity is true. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round. There is overwhelming evidence that astrology is false. There is overwhelming evidence that phrenology is false. By Behe’s own admission, in order for his theories to be considered science, you would have to use his definition, which would consider astrology and phrenology valid scientific theories.

Just because there are two sides to a debate doesn’t mean that there’s good evidence on both sides. For example, there is a decent sized group of people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. There is substantial evidence that it did, but there’s no way you can prove anything with 100% certainty. If you were to read articles by people who claimed that the Holocaust did happen, and those who claimed that it did not happen, they would both say that the other side’s claims “collapse under close scrutiny” as you put it. But this does not mean that their positions are equally valid. You may think this to be an extreme example, but the difference between the amounts of evidence for evolution vs. intelligent design is actually very similar to the difference between the amounts of evidence for the Holocaust vs. no Holocaust.

**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…**

What about the links did you think was not substantive? They explain exactly how all of these things are consistent with evolutionary theory. We will never have the DNA or fossils of every single living thing that has ever existed (because conditions have to be just right for a creature to become a fossil), so we will never know every single step in the evolutionary chain for certain. We currently have a very detailed record of the evolution of life, and everything we have found lines up with evolution.

I encourage you to check out the other links. I spent a decent amount of time finding good articles and looking through them. I also think you should look into the Dover case. That video I linked you to gives a great overview of the case and has a good section on Behe. But if you want a really good overview of some of these issues, I encourage you to read pages 71 to 84 of the Dover vs. Kitzmiller decision: pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. The decision was written by a Christian judge who had been recommended for appointment by Senator Santorum, and appointed by President Bush, both of whom supported the teaching of intelligent design. So while this does not guarantee anything, Judge Jones definitely seems like the kind of judge who would be open to the theory of intelligent design. I think that those pages of the decision would be the best place to start because they give a basic overview of things.

I also don’t understand why you say “Unless your other links provide something more substantive, I’ll be sticking with God”. Evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with Catholicism. Even Behe believes that evolution takes place in a ton of circumstances. His view of things is that an intelligent designer starts things off, and then, in a small number of cases, needs to intervene. Wouldn’t it be far more elegant for God to have created a system that worked perfectly on its own, one that did not even require his intervention?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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…

I don’t know why you would think that. It’s a complicated topic and it’s not easy to just dash off a reply. If you take a look at what I have provided, I think it’s clear that the case for intelligent design is very weak. But if you have substantive disagreements with something I’ve said or with a point made in one of the links, I’d be happy to try to address it.

I will be sticking with God, too.

God bless

I don’t know why you see this as an either or proposition. The Catholic Church does not reject the theory of evolution. Intelligent design, as advocated by Behe, is the theory that a designer must be actively involved in various stages of the evolutionary process. You can reject his theory and still believe that God created a perfect system to begin with and never had the need to intervene.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist;5367364:

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.

I’ve just logged in. Saw Cinnette’s post re soccer. Saw this post. And can’q quite believe it. How in the world did you ever come up with this post? That Cinnete is arguing that God exist because the US beat Spain? There was absolutely nothing in Cinette’s post that indicated she was saying that

Reading her post I came to the conclusion that she was so flabbergasted by the result she has to vent that out and she thougth she share her amazement with whoever is on this thread. And now you call it dihonest apologetics???!! It was not even apologetics.

It was just something compeltely off topic. Maybe she should have predicated her post with “With completely off topic but…”

Hmmm I just saw a light flash accross the road when there is no one about… therefore God must exist

LOL, I was just making a joke. I thought that given the ordeal with Surfmeister, some people might find it funny.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I would argue that in some cases using bad arguments is justified. Not outright lies, but ones like “why would God create so much useless matter”. One fundamental part of finding the truth is the truth. The other fundamental part is actually finding it. Lets say you attempt to dialogue with a less theologically advanced believer and argue Thomas Hobbes atomic theory to persuade him out of his religious convictions. The believer may not be learned enough in his own religion to mount arguments to counter Hobbes, and so you win not because you are right but because you are smarter. Say you use the lots-of-useless-matter-in-the-universe, it stimulates the believer to interact with you in a true dialogue. As the believer is slowly forced to work his way up to more advanced and logically nuanced views of metaphysics, morality, or whatever is at stake and then a truly investigative debate is waged.

I still use the disingenuous argument of 2nd thermal law against evolution from time to time first to measure what I am up against and secondly to make them pause and do their homework before coming back to the dialogue. Granted, this can easily degenerate into intellectual laziness, which is to be avoided.

Don’t you think that starting with disingenuous arguments might make it less likely that they will trust you in the future?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

Great post! Thanks for the link.

God bless

Atheist, please see link below regarding “the Intelligent Construction of the Universe: A Mathematical Proof.” Just click on the link, then click on: download the paper.

works.bepress.com/ashley_lipson/1/

Here’s the synopsis regarding the paper:

Mathematical proof

“The Universe was either created randomly (accidentally - of course something had to have caused the accident) - or by intelligence. Compute the probability of a randomly created mathematical structure for the Universe. If that probability is zero, then the existence of intelligent intervention for the construction of the Universe itself seems to be the only plausible alternative…”

Results

“…Recall that the number of digits representing Pi and e are infinite. Because they are irrational numbers, the digits never repeat; rather, they continue infinitely. Therefore, the probability that three very specific constants ( Pi, e, i), at least two of which have non-repeating integer decimal digits, could come together randomly (or by accident) to form perfect unity, is zero. But they did, in fact, come together. If not by accident, then it must have been by way of choice.”

Conclusion

“…Mathematics itself seems to form a perfect brush that sweeps across an endless multi-dimensional universe painting the invisible fabric of time, space and the laws that govern them; an infinite tapestry, far purer, more complex and more elegant than anything we can ever hope to fully comprehend, more less construct. It is one thing to claim that out of a billion galaxies a perfectly balanced life-system on a single planet could arguably be attributed to chance alone. But it is another matter to claim that
the perfectly constructed mathematical laws governing all of the countless planets came about randomly. It has been suggested that mathematics itself may be at the very top of the power chain, accompanied by the heady notion that even God would be limited by its laws. Such a notion would constitute a form of mathematical determinism in its purest form. Not wishing to step on toes (i.e., very big toes), I rapidly back away from this notion by asking the proponents: “Who, or what, would have had the power to create mathematical laws that bind”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

In regard to the “mathematical Approach” I referred to, my point was merely that statistically speaking, all the progress man has made since getting away from living amongst nature and in unison with the environment in his quest to improve and make convenient modern life (especially over the last 200 years for example) has shown man to fall flat on his face so-to-speak. Sure there are some benefits but there are always newly recognized draw-backs even to those. We now recognize that substantially increased populations can create situations of mass catastrophic plagues for instance. Our cocky attitude toward our “superior intelligence” in combination with our greed and laziness has led to a civilization dependant on the very “conveniences” that are destroying the ecosystem. Automobiles for example, initially had been intended to offer a more convenient mode of transportation and efficiency of time. In the relatively short time we have introduced them into our life style, they have become a necessity for most people to survive in modern day civilization. In fact, the ability to travel from one place to the next in shorter time has opened the door for society and industry to demand more of one’s time then ever before. The average person must be able to get from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ to point ‘c’ and so on daily to complete his or her responsibilities. Now considering how our society is governed by the greed of industry and rule of commercialism, who is going to stop the destruction being cause by the powers that rule? My final point in this regard is a person should take serious notice to the distance we have been placing between ourselves and God as we continue.

Okay, this just doesn’t mean anything to me because I don’t think God exists.

There is a newly released book titled “**The Secrets, Chastisement, and Triumph of the Two Hearts of Jesus and Mary”, authored by ****Kelly Bowring. **Since we are trying to clear the cloud of prophecy for you a bit, it would be an interesting book for you to check out. It will show you more specifics in the relationship between religious prophecies and events that have already occurred. And where we stand in time.

Do you know if they back up their claims with a lot of citations to actual evidence? I’ve read a lot of false claims from different religions, and claims that aren’t backed up are pretty meaningless to me.

If you can disregard such historically recorded prophecies as those of “Our Lady Of Success” 400 years ago in relation to the events of the 20th century, it may be you do not want to see the possibilities of the existence of God.

Regarding “Our Lady of Success”, do you know of any compilation of every single prediction that she made? If someone makes a lot of prophecies, you would expect some to come true, and some not to come true.

Oh, by the way, I wanted to raise a point in regard to your need for proof regarding God. I noticed you refer to the “theories” (a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena without proof) of man in many matters but find the most difficulty in historically recorded events additionally supported by the very adversaries to the Christians 2000 years ago and beyond in many cases. You do realize your selectively choosing without basis and our track record should show our reliability or lack of it.

I don’t know what you mean by your “track record”. I don’t think I’m selectively choosing at all. When something is a radical departure from well evidenced theories, I think it is reasonable to want a decent amount of evidence. For example, if a New Age believer claimed to be able to levitate tiny objects with their mind, I think I would be justifiably skeptical. Even if I witnessed them doing it, I would be skeptical. There could easily be some magnet hidden within the object, and they could be causing it to move by altering the magnetic field of a nearby magnet. Project Alpha (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) demonstrated how easy it can be to even fool scientists into thinking that paranormal phenomena were real.

It also takes quite a lot for physicists to accept something that goes against current theories because the physical laws are so well established and have repeatedly held up to scrutiny. While social scientists accept something as evidence with a p-value of .05, physicists will typically require a p-value of .0001 in order to consider something as evidence that current theories are wrong. And physicists would probably test it again several more times just to be sure. I think this is wise; it should take a lot of evidence to overturn a well established principle of physics.

With historical claims as well, I think it’s reasonable to disbelieve a stupendous claim unless there is really good evidence. I don’t think that the evidence for Christianity comes close to meeting this standard.

You see, you can have reassurance of the existance of God but not without having a relationship with Him. He wont come to you, you have to seek Him.

I have sought him. I will not waste huge amounts of time seeking him because I think the chances that he exists are exceedingly low. I mean, if someone told you that you had to actively seek a relationship with Zeus, would you?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Let us explore those mathematical skills. Forget quotes; what does your intellect say? What would it take for you to believe in GOD???

My intellect says there is almost certainly no God. In order to believe in him, I would need some kind of evidence to make me think that he probably exists.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Now, hold onto your hat … but … I am in total agreement with you on this!

Don’t you think that starting with disingenuous arguments might make it less likely that they will trust you in the future?

As Christians we are expected to do our very best in presenting the Truth of God to others. The idea that anyone could win souls to Christ be deceit or trickery or any form of dishonest presentation is to make a mockery of what God has told us.

Being ‘sly’ is no virtue - and, a prudent person would avoid any statement from one who was viewed is dishonest. Actully, when looking at the ‘leadership’ that ‘slyone’ hopes to provide… I would not believe it was a sunny day if he said so unless I first looked out the window!

God bless