An atheist trying to convert christians

[G. White]

These questions become foolish when trying to speak to someone abut God. Never argue with a fool. They will beat you with experience.

Or how about this:

"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." - Proverbs 26:12

 

[Potluck]

Always looking for another beginning.
Forever is a concept quite unimaginable to the human mind. We measure time, we measure weight, we measure volume. In short it's our very nature to quantify things. And why not. We are quantified in ourselves. We experience only the things around us since the five senses has it's origin of point of view where we are at the moment. "Moment". Again, a quantified time slice.
We know what a beginning is. We perceive beginnings all the time. We know what endings are. We perceive those also. But forever? Not really or not at all. The things we experience are within the time slice we call self-awareness.

Science is nothing more than an extension of those five senses thus limited to man's environment and himself. Sensors of various attributes transpose what we can't detect into something we can. And we conceive, design and use those sensors to do so. What stands in our way is the barrier of comprehension to what is to be detected. Nobody designs, builds a detector for which there is no primary assumption that there is something understandable to be detected and transformed into something we can decipher with the five senses. Therefore science is but the gathering of intelligible data, intelligible to us as far as our intellect will allow.

The next step is deriving a conclusion from the data gathered. And it's here that things can become controversial. Science does not make conclusions, the one using science to gather the data does. Those conclusions are absolutely confined to previous experience and/or exposure to past thought but still within the confines of a limited intellect and limited comprehension.

Christians claim creation from nothing. Science cannot. Science, by virtue of the perception of man, it's very nature, that is the human mind, cannot and will not conceive the mechanics of creation from nothing dictated by laws set forth by man governing the process thereof. It's impossible for him to do so. And always will be.

The existence of God is by faith. The power of man through science is also by faith that someday something can or will be answered if given enough time. I see little difference between the two. For an atheist to prove there is no God is to attempt to prove a negative. For a Christian to prove there is a God is an attempt to explain the faith of belief. Both or doomed to failure to convince the other. For the Christian God speaks to the heart, for the atheist God has no place in the mind.

Science is the God-given gift to man that he may stand in ever-increasing awe of God's power and glory.

It's up to man himself to make the conclusions provided by the gift that allows man the desire to collect the data in the first place. He wants us to be curious. He wants us to explore. He wants us to think things through and He wants us to know Him.

 

[Potluck]

I completely disagree with this. Are you saying science is a subjective practice? Data is data, a good scientist does not allow preconceptions to influence his conclusions based upon the data.

You're assuming all data is conclusive.
Research is based on preconception anyway. An assumption must first be made before a path of study can be planned and pursued.
A defense attorney assumes his client is innocent while the prosecutor assumes he is guilty. Each set out to prove their case using science, forensics, to provide data, evidence, for the support of their primary assumption. Evidence for the opposing claim is ignored, overlooked or simply not sought. That's the way it is.
Once the data is gathered a conclusion results based on that data.
Again, not all data is as conclusive as you would have it to be. If it was there would not be anything called "theories". Theories are not conclusive.
Science does not make conclusions. The scientist does. He comes up with theories then sets out to prove his/her case by seeking data to support the assumption of theory.

 

[Free]

I completely disagree with this. Are you saying science is a subjective practice? Data is data, a good scientist does not allow preconceptions to influence his conclusions based upon the data.

Impossible.

 

[Free]

Explain? I'm sorry you feel scientists would manipulate their data in order to fit their own preconceptions. Now Creation 'scientists' however...

I am not saying anyone necessarily manipulates data, although I'm sure it happens, however, it is utterly impossible for any scientist to be completely objective when interpreting the data. All scientists will end up interpreting the data based on preconceived ideas, whether consciously or not.

 

[handy]

Yes scientists come up with the 'ideas', but he does not manipulate the data gained to fit his preconceptions, which was the point I was trying to make. If this isn't what you were saying, then please disregard my post.

Just an observation here.....

For years we had dueling "scientific" reports about whether or not cigarettes were bad for one's health, especially if smoking increased lung cancer risks.

Scientific studies were done on both sides of the issues...the studies that were done by the cigarette manufacturers always came down on the side that there was either little increase to health risks from smoking, or that it was "inconclusive". Studies done by others found a direct correlation between smoking and health problems.

Then there is the current issue of global warming or climate change (as it's now being relabled.) There are a whole bevy of scientists out there who put forth that man-made pollutants are causing the world's climate to heat up and that will result in the worst natural disasters the world will ever know. But, there are also plenty of scientists who are not on board with the theory...and in spite of the fact that they are often pilloried for speaking out against the idea of man-made global warming, they do so anyway.

When I was at college, one of my professors brought in a man who worked on the studies of saccharine. He told us that they did studies on whether or not there was a cancer risk with saccharine. The studies they did showed that there were no health risks to consuming saccharine....not good enough. The FDA demanded that they increase the amount of saccharine they were putting into the rats. Still no cancer...still not good enough. The FDA again demanded that they increase the amount of the saccharine they were putting into the test rats.

According to the guy who worked on the study (and I'm sorry, I've forgotten his name, I listened to him for one lecture 29 years ago), they finally got to the point where they were putting an amount of saccharine into those rats that was the equivalent of drinking over 20 cans of diet Coke, every single day for over 50 years...and wallah...some of the rats developed bladder cancer. The FDA then slapped warning labels on Sweet-n-Low and trumpeted the news that it was bad for you.

I've noticed that the warning labels on saccharine have quietly disappeared.

I understand the scientific method...and the scientific method is indeed the best way to get at what is factual about our physical world. But, sorry...I think it's the height of naivete to believe that either research itself or the results of research is never manipulated.

 

[reba]

Neuroscience for Kids - Statistics

Stats lie they can be use to say about anything....

 

[Free]

There's a rather large importance in distinguishing these two. One indicates accidentally interpreting data incorrectly and the other means deliberately doing so.

I also still disagree that data can not be interpreted objectively. This doesn't mean all of it, but to say not a single bit (which I'm not sure if you're saying or not) can be interpreted objectively is incorrect I think.

To clarify, I think that when it relates to topics such as this--origins of the universe and life, evolution, etc.--where worldviews clash strongly, the data is often interpreted to fit one's worldview as it is so difficult to view the data objectively.

I will retract the "impossibility" statement and change it rather to "so difficult that it is nearly impossible."

 

[Vic C.]

Dora said:

For instance, in the OP, G. White specifically said that the athiest was "baiting" the Christians...Christ didn't answer "baiters" nor does He expect us to.

Danus added:

For example, a Christian understands that Genesis is not about how God created the universe, but simply THAT God created the universe. What ultimately happens is that the nonbeliever baits the believer. It's much easier to simply not believe. To a nonbeliever the whole notion of God is just silly. Let them be.

... and here is the bait.

With all due respect, have you read the Bible? It specifically lays out the order of events. Read Genesis.

We have a non believer suggesting we take a very literal approach to our interpretation, but then at some point would ridicule us for being so literal.

Amazing.

 

[Ashua]

This seems to be a convenient excuse. Why wasn't this a prominent point of view, or even mentioned until we had discovered the finite speed of light and the immense distances between stars?

Nevertheless I find this to be an interesting point of view, where you essentially manipulate the laws of physics to fit your preconceived notions of of 'truth', in this case specifically, negating the speed of light, and thus what we currently hold to be the 'speed limit' of our Universe which nothing can travel faster than. Your assertion that the light of stars were set to instantaneously reach earth upon their 'creation' isn't only not specifically supported anywhere within your text, but we don't find any evidence of it ever being the case. This alone is enough to dismiss your assertion as a way of addressing modern scientific understandings contradiction with your preconceptions. The evidence simply doesn't support it. If your answer to questions regarding the data is simply going to be "Well God made it that way" then why even engage? There isn't any reason for I, nor anyone in the scientific community to take such claims seriously.


The original point of the question however was a to humorously point out God only took one day to create all the galaxies within which all the other stars and planets were created, yet took much longer to simply create the Earth alone.

Manipulate the laws of physics? Hardly. First, I never said that the laws of physics were ignored. I never said that light's speed was magnified in the beginning so that it would reach us. What I was saying was when God said very plainly "Let there be light," that light came into being instantaneously along the spacial ray between the stars and the rest of the expanse of space. In other words every light ray from beginning to end was created in place. The Bible says "God said let there be light and there was light." This is clearly presented in "my" Book. The reason why it was not a prominent point of view prior to learning about the properties of light is that it is something that is easy to overlook. A Biblical fact taken for granted--and it always has been a prominent view. Its just been one that people held without thinking about it. Much like how you breath and your heart beats of its own. "Let there be light" says everything it needs to say.

Oh, and by the way. According to Genesis, light existed before the sun and moon were created to govern it. The "laws of physics" are subject to God as their author. He does not need to submit to them. The Bible is full of instances of this from the parting of seas and walking on water to the raising of the dead. That is why we call certain things "miracles."

What I say is not so much "convenient" as it is wholly consistent with the methodology of the creation narrative. God created things in place and at a state advanced beyond "infancies."

 

[reba]

Peer reviewed?

That is one of the biggest jokes around. Peer review, lets got all those who think like we do to agree with our studies.

That is on any side of any subject. All sides of the coin...

 

[handy]

Shouldn't it be apparent why studies done by the cigarette manufacturers would conclude there were little no health risks?
In any case, can you provide some links to these studies please?

Why provide the links...I think most are in agreement that the cigarette manufacturer's scientists skewed their results.

So, are we going to the "no true Scotsman" argument about whether or not these were "true" scientists? Or, shall we just agree that scientists are just as human as everyone else and will manipulate data when it's in their best interests to do so.

There are a plethora of issues that scientists disagree upon that are openly discussed.
The current disagreement about global warming is whether or not it's caused by humans. Why is this troubling you? Scientists disagreeing upon an issue is a problem?

My point is that science, while it is the best method for coming up with facts, only goes so far. After the data is compiled...there is the human effort of coming up with conclusions and then the human capability to look at the same source information and come up with divergent ideas comes into play.
(It doesn't really trouble me.)

This is quite a bold claim you're making about the FDA demanding increased saccharin to be put into rats in order to fit what they wanted (a ban on diabetic sugars?), which I'm assuming you don't have anything to back up with. In any case, here is some actual information on what you're talking about, complete with why the labels disappeared!

Saccharin - FDA

As I said, 29 years ago, my college chemistry professor brought in this guy, who claimed to be part of the scientific research team that were to study the effects of saccharine on humans...I shared with the board here what he shared with us. My point to sharing is the same as the other examples that I gave...scientific data is manipulated by humans for a variety of reasons.

And nope...as I mentioned, it was 29 years ago...I can't even remember the name of my professor, but the gist of what the scientist spoke of is correct. If you want to believe that the scientist was lying to the professor and to us...feel free to do so. Why he would come fly out to a podunk college in central California and tell a bunch of college chemistry students a lie...he wasn't selling a book or anything...the most he got out of it were some cookies and coffee...I don't know. But, what I shared that he spoke of is accurate enough.

Why is it that you've insisted on straw manning me? It's seems as though you've decided you're just not going to read the posts you're responding to and make an entire response based off an incorrect of the other posters position, which just makes you look silly.

Sorry that you feel I'm straw manning you. I realize that by quoting you, it would seem that I'm doing so...sorry, not my intent. My intent was to take the phrase "but he does not manipulate the data gained to fit his preconceptions, which was the point I was trying to make" and share some general observations on that idea. Observations that point out that the scientist does indeed manipulate data gained to fit preconceptions.

Oh, and thanks for the ad hominem.

Try reading again, I never said 'results of research is never manipulated'. I've explicitly said that creation 'scientists' for instance certainly do manipulate their data. Secular scientists may also on occasion, although we would hope they would, manipulate their data for their own benefit.

Now manipulating and interpreting, as I'm sure you know, are two entirely different things. Manipulating would be taking the result of 5 and changing it to 7, simply because its what you wanted the result to be. Interpreting would be taking 5 and interpreting it to mean X despite possible an equal possibility it could mean Y. They're two entirely different things.

Secular scientists are no more nor no less apt to both manipulate and/or interpret data to fit their own conclusions than creation scientists are. Most of the body of scientific research is done by non-creation scientists. My point...and I stand by it, silly or not...is that one can make the same mistake with "science" as one can with "religion" ascribe too much righteousness on the part of the people involved. The truth is all people, whether scientists or religious types, are prone to prejudices, error and manipulations and all conclusions, whether made by scientists or religious types, should be examined with a certain amount of skepticism until something is firmly established....and even then, it doesn't hurt to revisit the issues.

 

[theLords]

Try reading again, I never said 'results of research is never manipulated'. I've explicitly said that creation 'scientists' for instance certainly do manipulate their data. Secular scientists may also on occasion, although we would hope they would, manipulate their data for their own benefit.

Let's take a look at the unbiased view of the secular understanding:

Creation "scientists", certainly, manipulate data

Secular scientists (no quotes!), may, on occasion manipulate data

View attachment 2077

Someone give this guy a medal for having an objective, unbiased view producing objective, unbiased results!

In the words of Borat: High Five!

Chinqui :nod

 

[Ashua]

The "let there be light" line came before the creation of the stars and the Earth, but I'm assuming you reconcile this problem by asserting it isn't supposed to be taken literally right?

Also, this would indicate that the photons came from no source if they had said appeared a distance of 3 parsecs away from a star instantaneously but there's not much to say here when you're simply making things up.



Is this really the reason you're going to give? Again, there's not much to say here, nor is there any reason for I nor anyone in the scientific community to take this seriously.




The moon does not create its own light, it reflects the sun's. I realize the bible states otherwise though.

Once again you show your haste to easy conclusions built on inaccurate presumptions: Just because the moon is not a primary light source does not mean that it does not "give light" as I know you know. This is semantics. The Bible says the moon is a "lesser light" to govern the night. The purpose of it is to say that the moon regulates light. It never explicitly states the moon generates it.

As far as "Let there be light" please do not equate me with those who love to play the "figurative language" card. The Bible certainly uses a lot of figurative language in the prophecies including Revelation, but Genesis isn't one of those times. The intent of the author of the Book is most literal.

Let me try it this way since I apparently am failing to express the notion to you:

I want you to imagine all of the known universe on a grid. Imagine the newly formed earth plotted somewhere on this grid. Then when God says "Let there be light" Imagine light dispersed within the empty voids between the earth and any other potential bodies occupying space. Now Imagine that God sets the stars in place.

The light was already present throughout the "void" of space when the stars were seated in the midst of the pre-existing light. This is like turning on a flashlight in the middle of the day. By the time the evening comes and the sun reclines, if that flash light is still turned on, it will continue to give light to replace the initial light beams which are long passed by. Granted a flash light is hardly equivalent to the sun, but that is not the point and I think if you are being honest you can see what I am saying whether or not you will accept it.

As far as the photons coming from "no source" you are still neglecting that the Author of Creation is that source. He "spoke" light into being. And do not be high minded in this, for far more ridiculous a notion is held in science, namely that every photon and all matter down to the least component also "came into being" without a source. The big bang or alternative theory is a complete reductio ad absurdum. To suppose that somehow the physical universe and all that composes it generated instantaneously by some unprovoked and un-fueled cosmic explosion (seeing as how there would exist no components to form the composition of the big bang itself) would present the ultimate chicken and egg complex. What came first? The big bang to create matter or matter to create the big bang? At least God has no physical composition. So I suppose that must mean either matter is of an eternal nature, or that SOMETHING or SOMEONE of an eternal nature formed matter. Statistically speaking which is more improbable if indeed there can be a statistical bias to either conclusion? Either way your assertion that photons coming from "no source" is void in this greater context of necessary improbability, though I wholly disagree that those photons were without source as previously stated.

 

[felix]

Explain? I'm sorry you feel scientists would manipulate their data in order to fit their own preconceptions. Now Creation 'scientists' however...

A good example is the hockey stick formula by Al-gore's scientists.

 

[Ashua]

Another good example is Ernst Haeckel's forgeries he used to "prove" his embryonic recapitulation theory. These forgeries were discovered only what? 140 years ago? And they still are being taught at major universities to defend evolution. I remember being taught myself that embryo's have "gill slits" which is a complete lie seeing as how they are not respiratory gills, but folds in skin that later develop into the human ear (If I remember right it is the ear) Vestigial organs, so-called junk DNA, and the like are also falsely misrepresented to "prove" evolution.

 

[daydreaming]

I befriended a co-worker years ago (Mike), this was before I discovered he was an atheist. One day on the job I am working along-side him with two others across from us on the line who were born again christians. Mike knew about this and so he tried baiting them into a religious discussion.

He asked, "If it took God six days to create the heaven and earth and on the seventh day he rested, why did he rest? Afterall he's God! He shouldn't need rest."

2nd question: "Why didn't God just create everything in an instant? Aftrall he's supposed to be so mighty, why did it take him six days instead of a split second?!"

3rd point as a statement: "Your bible only tracks time back to approximately 10,000 years and yet science proves dinosaurs walked the earth millions of years ago. According to your bible dinosaurs never existed and time didn't exist before the book of Genesis."

From what I can remember (this happened many years ago) is that they didn't give him any real replies. It's as if it was better for them to ignore him rather than to offer a greater perspective.

Is it the duty of all christians to save souls (or at least give their best attempt)?

I wonder to this day why they didn't get more involved in forming a challenging debate.

Maybe it's just me but I don't understand the bate.

Questions 1 and 2 are assumptions on his part. Who said God couldn't rest? Why is the fact that God is resting means He's not God? And why is it a bad thing that God created the world in 6 days? Does that not prove Him to be a Creator? Would Him creating the world in an instant make Him more of a God than Him creating it in 6-days, if that's what God said He did? I'm not sure why God's Godship (totally making that word up) would be called into question because He created it in 6 days? Does your friend know anyone who could create the world in an instant that makes Him more of a God than the God we know? The fact that God created the world, shows Him to be a powerful being.


And question 3 is based on scientific assumptions and the bible do speak about dinosaurs (but weren't called that) briefly in Job 40 and 41, called the Behemoth and Leviathan.

 

[Rageprophet]

And how has all the vast amounts of wisdom made you into a better person.

Has understanding cosmology, astronomy, or partical physics made you into a person that is more tolerant of the people around you or has it made you into a person that is so incredibly educated that you look down your nose at everyone who is not as learned as you in Science?

Christians hold to an ideology to love God and their neighbor and try to become better people and encourage others to do the same.

Atheism is on a mission to Destroy Christianity and its followers and make them look like buffoons, and I think its kind of funny and I'll tell you why. People have been trying for centuries to destroy Christianity and it has not gone away but instead has thrived through adversity. Christianity will still be here when you are dead and gone and it will still be unchanged long after your science has proven and disproven itself time and time again. Despite this fact you go on and continue to try and destroy our faith and we will love you through it just know you are not the first and you will not be the last we cling to our convictions not because we understand quantum physics or have a vast understanding of the cosmos but because we see the fruits of our relationship with an all powerful God and we see his hand in our lives, we are a broken people who were brought back from the brink of self destruction and our lives are regenerate because of the love from our Great Maker King. With that I invite you to come and join us and come and see that the Lord is good and he is ready to accept you into the fold and forgive you of your sins.

 

[G. White]

Has understanding cosmology, astronomy, or partical physics made you into a person that is more tolerant of the people around you or has it made you into a person that is so incredibly educated that you look down your nose at everyone who is not as learned as you in Science?

I knew some born again christians who held contempt for others who weren't affiliated with their denomination. The low tolerance one group has towards another isn't on just one side of the fence here.

With all due respect, you seem largely ignorant of the science you're trying to discuss.

Could we please refrain from attacking each other and instead attack the discussion? It's just that I've been on other forums and threads that started out with thoughtful responses turned ugly and spiraled out of control. I would not like to see that happen here.

Thank you

 

[theLords]

Locked Pending clean up