Responses to atheists - add your own

[neophyte]

Aaron I.:

…As far as evolution,() it seems to go against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Yes, I know that a system receiving energy can grow in complexity, but that energy also has to be directed towards an end…

A common misconception about thermo. In fact, the Second Law is in no way a disproof of evolution, nor is there anything in evolutionary theory that contradicts the Second Law.

You may be interested in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23949

 

[Axion]

steveandersen:

Be careful about saying "since they don’t explain X it must mean God” because what are you going to do when they find and explanation for X?

Besides, it can be argued that since space time started with the Big Bang, there technically was no “before”
I won’t pretend to understand all the physics but some funky things happen in quantum mechanics and I know there are some viable hypotheses regarding the “something from nothing” question

Most modern scientists and theoreticians are very good at pretending to know all the answers, when in fact they know very few.

What they do, is start from a presupposition - The Universe was not Created by Intelligence - and formulate their theories on that basis.

You see, whether or not there was a “before” prior to the Big Bang, rationalists are still left with the question “What went BANG in the first place - and why?” This, they are not even close to answering, yet they still fervently deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.

Other questions they fail to answer include how it is that the physical laws of the universe

a: even exist?
b: are established in a manner that allows the existence of planetrs stars and life itself? A tiny change in the relationship of sub-atomic strengths, or even the properties of water would make life impossible anywhere.

Similarly with Evolution. There are major flaws in the theory, which even scientists admit on the quiet. I don’t discount some form of development of species, but the theory of evolution by random mutation is unproven. It also does not agree with the facts that 99% of random mutations are dangerous and not beneficial to the creature. Yet we are tols that a bird on an island that needs a new beak, or a longer neck will somehow randomly come by one in an implausibly short course of time.

 

[steveandersen]

Axion:

Most modern scientists and theoreticians are very good at pretending to know all the answers, when in fact they know very few.

Personal attacks get you nowhere. Experts are usually the most aware of what they don’t know. In fact science is basically all about asking questions rather than spouting off answers. Scince is revelation, it’s induction

Axion:

What they do, is start from a presupposition - The Universe was not Created by Intelligence - and formulate their theories on that basis.

please provide an example of this.

What science does is start with observable data and try to formulate a mechanism that is consistent with it.

Axion:

You see, whether or not there was a “before” prior to the Big Bang, rationalists are still left with the question "What went BANG in the first place

like I said, things get funky on the quantum level and leave a poor engineer like me behind. You’ll have to ask someone who knows. IIRC there are numerous observed instances of particles spontaneously popping out of nowhere.
heady stuff but my education sort of stopped short at Enstien

- and why?"

“why” really isn’t their bailiwick. Scientists are more concerned with “how”
why is for poets and priests

Axion:

This, they are not even close to answering, yet they still fervently deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.

like I said in the post above, just because an answer hasn’t been found doesn’t mean there isn’t one (God’s had a few billion years head start after all) and lack of evidence for A doesn’t mean that B is necessarily any more correct
(unless of course you’re biased)

Axion:

Other questions they fail to answer include how it is that the physical laws of the universe

a: even exist?
b: are established in a manner that allows the existence of planetrs stars and life itself? A tiny change in the relationship of sub-atomic strengths, or even the properties of water would make life impossible anywhere.

AFAIK recent work indicates that there is little or no variability possible in physical constants but once again you’ll have to ask someone who knows a little more about quantum theory. I’m not nearly that smart.

Axion:

Similarly with Evolution. There are major flaws in the theory, which even scientists admit on the quiet.

please provide examples

Axion:

I don’t discount some form of development of species, but the theory of evolution by random mutation is unproven. It also does not agree with the facts that 99% of random mutations are dangerous and not beneficial to the creature. Yet we are tols that a bird on an island that needs a new beak, or a longer neck will somehow randomly come by one in an implausibly short course of time.

sigh
Bio chemistry and genetics are deterministic processes not, I repeat not, random ones.

Where do these notions of randomness and mutations keep coming from?

 

[st_julie]

How about philosophy. Catholic philosophy starts with the belief in God and that man has an immortal soul. Therefore we live with two objective realities. That there is a natural reality and a supernatural reality. The laws of God determine our eternal destination.
Athiesm is stuck with one reality. The natural one only.
st julie

 

[neophyte]

One of my favorite questions is “can you prove that all causes are observable?”.

 

[Kurt_G]

steveandersen:

Axion:

You see, whether or not there was a “before” prior to the Big Bang, rationalists are still left with the question "What went BANG in the first place - and why

?" This, they are not even close to answering, yet they still fervently deny the possibility of an intelligent creator
like I said, things get funky on the quantum level and leave a poor engineer like me behind. You’ll have to ask someone who knows. IIRC there are numerous observed instances of particles spontaneously popping out of nowhere.
heady stuff but my education sort of stopped short at Enstien…

Steve, give Axion’s and migurl’s suggestion of pre-BB a little more credit…it does work to at least provide a “thinking” atheist some material to contemplate. You dismissed that argument because BB can’t definitely “prove” God. I think it’s value is that it at least sets up the “possibility” of God in an atheist’s mind, and opens the door to reasonable discussion of the subject. It’s worked before for me!

 

[Neithan]

steveandersen:

sigh
Bio chemistry and genetics are deterministic processes not, I repeat not, random ones.

Where do these notions of randomness and mutations keep coming from?

Steve you’re writing cryptically and somewhat condescendingly. If mutations are all deterministic, then what determines them? If they are determinedly caused, what is the purpose or end? If there is no purpose or end doesn’t this signify ultimate randomness?
Isn’t it true that all science demonstrates the involvement of an intelligent agent? It is impossible to discount intelligence when science itself is created and governed by our own intelligences.

The main ‘flaw’ of the atheistic scientist is the involvement of his own mind. Everything he sees or observes intimately involves an unobservable agent (his consciousness). This refutes empiricism outright. Science requires the fundamental leap of faith that we can trust our senses–the source of which is in an unsensable ‘self’–to observe objective reality, that an objective reality even exists.