Refuting the claims of atheists.

[luckyfox]

Hello,

Some of you might be aware of the 'typical' or generalized arguments that atheists and other non-Christians use to question both the existance of a god and to criticize the whole of Christianity. I was wondering, however, what your responses usually are to some of the main arguments I've heard. Please respond to these questions however you see fit, with whatever proof or logic you like, to give me an idea of how you would reply if faced with a sincere skeptic. The reason I am asking is because I'm personally curious about the answers, and also because I'd like to be able to share some of them with friends who are not acquainted with Christianity.

Here are three to begin with. Please feel free to rephrase them if you think it makes more sense another way.

1. Various scientific methods have proven that the Earth was formed several billion years ago, while the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Doesn't this mean the Bible is wrong on some things?

2. Aside from faith, with cannot be quantified, there is no evidence that conclusively proves the existance of God, right?

3. Terrible things have been done in the name of religious belief. Because of this, shouldn't humankind simply scrap religion altogether?

There are many more questions where these ones came from, and I'll try to add them to this thread as I am reminded of them.

 

[handy]

First of all, welcome luckyfox, to the forum! I think it's good to think about questions such as these, because as you say there are sincere skeptics which do have such questions. And, there are also the not so sincere skeptics that are like the Pharisees, questioning only to set up a "Gotcha!" attack. I don't really think we owe those types any answers at all. (The tricky part is discerning the difference, and when in doubt, I always give the benefit to the questioner.)

Regarding #1: I would never claim that the says the earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible never makes such a claim. Folks have come up with the "6000" number merely by adding the years in the various genealogies together, and that isn't a very good basis of establishing any date for Genesis 1:3. And that's just Genesis 1:3. The heavens and the earth were already in place in Genesis 1:1-2, so that makes establishing a set date for the earth even more tricky.

Unless there is a text that actually states the earth is "X"-years-old, I wouldn't "shout where the Scriptures are silent."

#2: Conclusively? Probably not conclusively, but there are many, many evidences which point towards the existance of God. If one were to try to "prove" the existence of God in a criminal trial "beyond any reasonable doubt" and without the Holy Spirit to enlighten; probably won't happen.

However, if one were to try to "prove" the existence of God in a civil trial, where one needs to show that the "preponderance of evidence" logically points towards the conclusion that there is a God, the chances are much better. (One would still need the help of the Holy Spirit though, because humans tend to naturally want to reject God.)

#3: Religion has been an excuse for terrible things being done, but then there have been some pretty well-known atheists who have dones some downright terrible things as well. People do terrible things. Period. In order to stop all terrible things from happening, you pretty much have to scrap all people, not their various philosophies.

 

[Drew]

1. Various scientific methods have proven that the Earth was formed several billion years ago, while the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Doesn't this mean the Bible is wrong on some things?

No, it means that the Bible is a complex compendium of literal history and metaphor. I believe the creation account is probably an allegory. That does not diminish the fundamental truth it provides.

2. Aside from faith, with cannot be quantified, there is no evidence that conclusively proves the existance of God, right?

Arguments about how God has worked through human history. I do not have the time to elaborate on what I mean here. If someone is really interested, I will try to explain more fully.

Terrible things have been done in the name of religious belief. Because of this, shouldn't humankind simply scrap religion altogether?

People who act in the name of religious belief cannot be assumed to be true believers.

 

[francisdesales]

2. Aside from faith, with cannot be quantified, there is no evidence that conclusively proves the existance of God, right?

Sure there is. It's called inferential knowledge. While philosophy has whittled down what we can "know" to only empirical knowledge in recent years, it has not always been so. And quite frankly, in the practical world, we use inferential knowledge all the time...

When we see an automobile, we INFER it was built. Same thing with a house or an airplane.

Who would go into a junkyard and actually think that a car would build itself from the parts laying around? Or that the parts randomly came together to form a built and working car???

We infer that a car was built based on its mere existence. As of yet, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that pieces of a car will put themselves together to form an automobile.

And yet, we are to believe that on a much more grand scale, that the universe created itself? Or on the microscopic level, that single cells get together quite randomly to form a spleen?

Where we have such a complex model of existence, we infer that something with intelligence brought the parts together. This inferential knowledge proves that God exists. It certainly doesn't prove that God exists with Christian-given attributes, but this knowledge has been enough for people of all cultures to accept as FACT that God does exist at some level.

3. Terrible things have been done in the name of religious belief. Because of this, shouldn't humankind simply scrap religion altogether?

Numerous wonderful things have been done in the name of religion. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. On the other hand, numerous terrible things have been done in the name of democracy. Should we scrap all forms of government, since democracy is widely heralded as the best form of government?

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Sure there is. It's called inferential knowledge. While philosophy has whittled down what we can "know" to only empirical knowledge in recent years, it has not always been so. And quite frankly, in the practical world, we use inferential knowledge all the time...

When we see an automobile, we INFER it was built. Same thing with a house or an airplane.

Who would go into a junkyard and actually think that a car would build itself from the parts laying around? Or that the parts randomly came together to form a built and working car???

We infer that a car was built based on its mere existence. As of yet, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that pieces of a car will put themselves together to form an automobile.

And yet, we are to believe that on a much more grand scale, that the universe created itself? Or on the microscopic level, that single cells get together quite randomly to form a spleen?

Where we have such a complex model of existence, we infer that something with intelligence brought the parts together. This inferential knowledge proves that God exists. It certainly doesn't prove that God exists with Christian-given attributes, but this knowledge has been enough for people of all cultures to accept as FACT that God does exist at some level.

I would stay away from this analogy.

I won't talk about why because this thread isn't an evolution debate, but I would suggest some reading if you would like to understand why this analogy is fallacious.

Two good books on the topic are "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Also, you could look up "Hoyle's Fallacy" online and view rebuttals to that.

 

[francisdesales]

I won't talk about why because this thread isn't an evolution debate, but I would suggest some reading if you would like to understand why this analogy is fallacious.

Two good books on the topic are "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Also, you could look up "Hoyle's Fallacy" online and view rebuttals to that.

Vault,

The original poster asked for "evidence". All evidence, even empirical evidence, can be refuted. Inferential knowledge is just as acceptable a form of knowledge as empirical. Theoretically, there is no evidence for anything except your own existence. Very few of us go down that road, practically speaking. Practically speaking, we infer a creator or manufacturer of things that cannot form themselves. Thus, if we accept empirical knowledge without worrying about whether we are living in the "Matrix", then we should accept reasonable and logical inferences, such as an airplane cannot make itself.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I won't talk about why because this thread isn't an evolution debate, but I would suggest some reading if you would like to understand why this analogy is fallacious.

Two good books on the topic are "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Also, you could look up "Hoyle's Fallacy" online and view rebuttals to that.

Vault,

The original poster asked for "evidence". All evidence, even empirical evidence, can be refuted. Inferential knowledge is just as acceptable a form of knowledge as empirical. Theoretically, there is no evidence for anything except your own existence. Very few of us go down that road, practically speaking. Practically speaking, we infer a creator or manufacturer of things that cannot form themselves. Thus, if we accept empirical knowledge without worrying about whether we are living in the "Matrix", then we should accept reasonable and logical inferences, such as an airplane cannot make itself.

Regards

Are you saying that one should not judge the weight of the evidence whatsoever?

Based on your reasoning as stated above, he could be lead to say:

Well the sun rises every morning and sets every evening, thus we need God to rotate the earth. God exists.

But, that of course would lead him to be judge poorely by the people he proposes that to (assuming they understand anything about physics).

The poster requested a way to refute claims laid out by atheists. Not just any old evidence. Likely, most atheists (as most are well informed) he speaks to will see the fallacy in the argument you posted earlier and not take him seriously. Therefore, I suggested he not use that if he is serious about debating with an atheist.

Hoyle's fallacy is easily refuted, and the "boeing 747 created by a toronadoe" argument is not taken seriously by any informed person.

It is true that all evidence can be refuted, but I assume that you are implying that the refutation of the "toronadoe created a 747" argument is not easily discharged. It is. Read the materials provided.

 

[francisdesales]

Are you saying that one should not judge the weight of the evidence whatsoever?

Based on your reasoning as stated above, he could be lead to say:

Well the sun rises every morning and sets every evening, thus we need God to rotate the earth. God exists.

One should certainly judge the weight of the evidence! Airplanes do not create themselves...

Your example has nothing to do with creating something into existence, but explaining how nature works - something that already exists. Scientific explanations of natural phenomemon are beyond what I am speaking about.

The poster requested a way to refute claims laid out by atheists. Not just any old evidence. Likely, most atheists (as most are well informed) he speaks to will see the fallacy in the argument you posted earlier and not take him seriously. Therefore, I suggested he not use that if he is serious about debating with an atheist.

I was "atheist" at one time, as well. The "airplane building itself" argument is sound, to me. Simple parts do not come together under their own volition to create something more complex unless pre-progammed by "something" to do that. No amount of monkeys banging on a keyboard will change that, practically speaking.

Hoyle's fallacy is easily refuted, and the "boeing 747 created by a toronadoe" argument is not taken seriously by any informed person.

It is true that all evidence can be refuted, but I assume that you are implying that the refutation of the "toronadoe created a 747" argument is not easily discharged. It is. Read the materials provided.

I don't have access, nor the time to read books about refuting common sense. Perhaps you can inform me in a few sentences...

Regards

 

[DanR]

This thread seems all about refuting atheist proxy-arguments. Why not just let atheists in themselves and let 'em rip?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

One should certainly judge the weight of the evidence! Airplanes do not create themselves...

Your example has nothing to do with creating something into existence, but explaining how nature works - something that already exists. Scientific explanations of natural phenomemon are beyond what I am speaking about.

Again, the whole point is that it does not have to be refuted. It falls under it’s own weight of fallacy. That is why I suggested he not use it. He wishes to sound informed, not ill-informed.

You are using a false analogy. Airplanes do not create themselves. No one disagrees with that. But no one claims that to happen either. Airplanes are not part of evolutionary theory.

Perhaps if you give an example of an item that you feel can not be a result of evolution we could discuss that.

I was "atheist" at one time, as well. The "airplane building itself" argument is sound, to me. Simple parts do not come together under their own volition to create something more complex unless pre-progammed by "something" to do that. No amount of monkeys banging on a keyboard will change that, practically speaking.

Though it is sound to you, it is not sound to more informed on evolution. He asked how to argue with atheists. Not you.

I don't have access, nor the time to read books about refuting common sense. Perhaps you can inform me in a few sentences...

Regards

It is not common sense. It is common fallacy. Supposed common sense maid people believe that the earth stood still and everything else orbited it. It wasn’t until a few decided to look at observational evidence that we now have our current model.

This is an argument from ignorance. I suggest that you do not use this (to the original poster) if you wish to be taken seriously.

Now, if you do want a better argument, you could talk about the initial abiogenesis, and how we are still unable to understand how life got its spark in the beginning. Again, this is not a fail proof argument, because it is another argument slightly from ignorance, but you cannot be refuted. There is no working theory to state how life came into existence as of yet.

It’s just once you get that spark that evolution comes into play. And besides, there are numerous evolution believing theists. Atheists do not do the reverse and try to argue against God with evolution. Its just some ill-informed theists that assume evolution = No God, which of course is not true. Evolution just means that Genesis is not as literal as some would believe.

 

[MarkT]

1. Various scientific methods have proven that the Earth was formed several billion years ago, while the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Doesn't this mean the Bible is wrong on some things?

No. The Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the earth. In fact, it says the earth was created in 6 periods of creation and we are living in the seventh day. The word 'day' is not a 24 hour period. It's like the word 'kind'. The meaning of the word is found in the way it is used. It refers to everything that belongs to it. A 'day' followed by 'night', for example, can be a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Simply stated, the 'light' belongs to the day.

Let's say God created by 'day'. It means that there was a period of time which corresponded to a period of light during which time God created. This was followed by an equal period of time which corresponded to darkness during which time he did not create. We would call it 'night'. The question is how long did it take relative to the earth going around the sun. But the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day so it becomes difficult to say.

Let's say, for example, that a thousand years is as a 'day'. That might be true. But it is also true that seven thousand years can be as a 'day'. It depends on what you are saying. If the LORD rested on the seventh 'day', as far as we know we are in that 'day'. If we add up the years according to the genealogy of man, we come up with 4000 years/4 'days' from Adam to Christ and 2000 years/2 'days' from Christ to today. That leaves a 'day', a thousand years, for Christ to reign during God's rest. I predict that since Christ rose on the third day, that we can expect his return very soon. He should return on the third 'day'. If he was born 10 B.C., for example, and he was 30 years old when he was crucified, then the third 'day' would begin 2020 A.D. It all depends on when he was born and how old he was when he was crucified. The 'day' may come sooner or later. We don't know the exact date but it shouldn't be too far off.

If we go backwards and assume each 'day' or period of light was seven thousand years and each 'day' was followed by an equal period of darkness, then we can calculate the age of the earth. First the earth was without form and void. The dry earth was created in the third 'day'. So there was a 7000 year period of light followed by a 7000 period of darkness - 14,000 years. There was a 4th day, a 5th day, a 6th day, and 6000 years so far belonging to the 7th day. So that would be four 14,000 year periods plus 6000 years - 62,000 years. However, like I said, the sun wasn't created until the 4th day and each period that corresponds to a 'day' seems to be unique in that what happened during the 'day' - what was created - belongs to the 'day' it was created in. One 'day' might even be 7X7000 years. The next might be 6X7000 years. I don't know.

I hope you understand that I'm using the word 'day' in the same way we use the word 'kind' and that 'day' is associated with light and light is associated with work and the period of time during which work is done.

 

[francisdesales]

You are using a false analogy. Airplanes do not create themselves. No one disagrees with that. But no one claims that to happen either. Airplanes are not part of evolutionary theory.

Science has not proven that life "created itself" to the point where we stand today. While the THEORY of evolution is sound at the micro level - a bird changing colors, for example, over a period of time, it has yet to be proven that organisms change into other species - such as a bunch of single cell creatures forming into an unrelated, complex organism. It is pure speculation and assumption that reptiles HAD to change into birds. There is literally no evidence of that. It is based on a philosophical assumption, not scientific evidence.

And just as a series of simple parts do not come together to form an airplane, a series of simple cells do not come to form a complex organism by themselves. The material evolutionists makes a philosophical presumption - because we exist, we must have evolved. Just because we see evolution at the micro level doesn't make it scientifically true at the macro level. The argument is circular, just like fundamentalists make about the Bible and the Word of God.

Though it is sound to you, it is not sound to more informed on evolution. He asked how to argue with atheists. Not you.

I have not seen any argument that proved the THEORY of evolution as true at the macro level.

It is not common sense. It is common fallacy. Supposed common sense maid people believe that the earth stood still and everything else orbited it. It wasn’t until a few decided to look at observational evidence that we now have our current model.

Again, you are arguing oranges and apples. I am speaking about the creation of something that was previously non-existent. You are talking about explaining a natural phenomenom that already exists.

Now, if you do want a better argument, you could talk about the initial abiogenesis, and how we are still unable to understand how life got its spark in the beginning. Again, this is not a fail proof argument, because it is another argument slightly from ignorance, but you cannot be refuted. There is no working theory to state how life came into existence as of yet.

Scientists that believe in God, now or in the past, are able to live with the explanation that God is part of the equation of life without being scientifically untrue to themselves. This is because knowledge is not only empircal, but it is also inferential... Certain philosophers would like man to relate only to empirical knowledge - but that is a philosophical construct.

From my experience, you aren't going to be able to "prove" anything to a person who doesn't want to hear something counter to their opinion. The evidence that would be required to make an "atheist" believe in God rarely exists on this side of reality because they set the bar extremely high - this is a willing desire to keep that status quo... Something like what happened at Fatima at the turn of the 20th century.

Rest assured that a number of atheists have converted for their own reasons and experiences - and have not considered themselves suddenly foolish or ignorant. To a man (from those who I know), they considered their PREVIOUS beliefs as foolish and ignorant. Thus, in the end, the will becomes part of the equation on whether one believes - or not - in anything.

It is not necessary to believe Genesis is literal history to be a Christian. That is a straw man argument.

Regards

 

[tblaine74]

1. Let the one who claims the Bible states this bear the burden of proving his/her claim.

2. Aside from faith, there is no evidence that conclusively proves anything. If you think you can prove something without faith, I don’t believe you have been introduced to the logical genius of true skepticism.

3. By what logic does a disregard for truth nullify truth?

 

[Veritas]

2. Aside from faith, there is no evidence that conclusively proves anything. If you think you can prove something without faith, I don’t believe you have been introduced to the logical genius of true skepticism.

heh... yeah, a true skeptic would doubt even "reason" itself. Thinking that way really puts a person into the realm of an imbecile...I actually don't think too many people do that, even atheists.

...Gotta have faith in "reason" to start off to go anywhere. And if you've done that you've already admited there is such a thing "an absolute truth" to measure things by. So.. I think most atheists really havent thought that out fully. They are too busy muddling over the empirical process. The empirical process is fine, but many forget our whole way of thinking logically requires faith in the first place. I don't think they are being intellectually honest with themselves by overlooking that fact. But I can see why they wish too... it is tantalizingly close to realizing there must be a God. Our very way of thinking depends upon it.

 

[MarkT]

2. Aside from faith, with cannot be quantified, there is no evidence that conclusively proves the existance of God, right?

Not until Jesus returns. But we do have the spirit that tells men they should hate God. We have the spirit that tells men they can act like animals and women that they can be whores. We have the spirit that wants to put God to the proof. We have the spirit that finds fault with God.

Let's look at prophecy. We have a generation of children calling to each other in the market place. The internet is a market place. Children call to each other. They text message. They leave messages on the internet for their friends to read. The Baby Boomer generation is the only generation I know of that is named. That's a curious thing. To call it a generation of children is to call them wilful and spoiled; a generation that thinks they are the greatest generation, but they never did anything great in their lives. Wicked, lovers of self, hearts trained in greed. And The men of Nineveh condemn this generation. That's never happened before. Nineveh is in Iraq by the way. The West can't get it into their heads that they are hated for their immorality. We have the desolating sacrilege. That didn't exist 2000 years ago. I'm talking about nuclear weapons; something that can waste the earth with fire. Man has never had the ability/technology to waste the earth; to destroy himself and everything God created.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Science has not proven that life "created itself" to the point where we stand today. While the THEORY of evolution is sound at the micro level - a bird changing colors, for example, over a period of time, it has yet to be proven that organisms change into other species - such as a bunch of single cell creatures forming into an unrelated, complex organism. It is pure speculation and assumption that reptiles HAD to change into birds. There is literally no evidence of that. It is based on a philosophical assumption, not scientific evidence.

But that’s just it. Microevolution just means viewing evolution on a smaller time scale. Macroevolution shows the changes that take place over a long long long time. There is no Micro or Macro as separate entities. You need to read up on the theory a bit.

And just as a series of simple parts do not come together to form an airplane, a series of simple cells do not come to form a complex organism by themselves. The material evolutionists makes a philosophical presumption - because we exist, we must have evolved. Just because we see evolution at the micro level doesn't make it scientifically true at the macro level. The argument is circular, just like fundamentalists make about the Bible and the Word of God.

I suggest that you move away from the Behe books and look at some real science. You are referring to “irreducible complexâ€Â. Behe was sorely embarrassed in court over this issue and has yet to ever find one such instance of an organ or attribute that hits a road block. Not a single one.

He had on the other hand, thought he found some, and used them in court. Well after talking about them, numerous peer reviewed papers were produced that had been written years before showing exactly how those certain aspects had evolved. When Behe was questioned about a response to the papers, he had to inform the court that he had not read them. He was just merely asserting his position without doing any research. What a scientist! He just makes random claims and does no research.

I have not seen any argument that proved the THEORY of evolution as true at the macro level.

You are using the same coined words as the defunct ID group. “Provedâ€Â.
You very well know nothing can actually be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for 100%. Therefore, no one uses the word proved. But you do realize evolution is one of the most well backed theories in science? Probably better backed than relativity.

Scientists that believe in God, now or in the past, are able to live with the explanation that God is part of the equation of life without being scientifically untrue to themselves. This is because knowledge is not only empircal, but it is also inferential... Certain philosophers would like man to relate only to empirical knowledge - but that is a philosophical construct.

From my experience, you aren't going to be able to "prove" anything to a person who doesn't want to hear something counter to their opinion. The evidence that would be required to make an "atheist" believe in God rarely exists on this side of reality because they set the bar extremely high - this is a willing desire to keep that status quo... Something like what happened at Fatima at the turn of the 20th century.

Rest assured that a number of atheists have converted for their own reasons and experiences - and have not considered themselves suddenly foolish or ignorant. To a man (from those who I know), they considered their PREVIOUS beliefs as foolish and ignorant. Thus, in the end, the will becomes part of the equation on whether one believes - or not - in anything.

It is not necessary to believe Genesis is literal history to be a Christian. That is a straw man argument.

1. I never said you can’t believe in science and believe in God. In fact I stated the opposite.
2. There are many more that converted the other way around. Neither conversion backs up either side.
3. Its not a straw man argument when I didn’t use it to argue anything. I was clarifying that for the original poster. Was not directed towards you.

All I have tried to argue is that it is not wise to use Hoyle’s fallacy when debating with an informed non-theist. It will just make you look uninformed. I am giving advice to the poster as per his request. Use abiogenesis if he wants to use science, though again, it proves nothing. It just sounds a lot more informed than stating the “tornoadoe makes a 747†aka irreducibility complex. An idea that has been completely debunked. In fact most theists stray away from reducing God to the â€ÅGod of the Gapsâ€Â. It makes for weak theology as well.

 

[francisdesales]

But that’s just it. Microevolution just means viewing evolution on a smaller time scale. Macroevolution shows the changes that take place over a long long long time. There is no Micro or Macro as separate entities. You need to read up on the theory a bit.

Thanks for the condescension, but I have, and the problem is the PRESUMPTION that a change in color of a bird's wings necessarily leads to a similar observation of a MAJOR change from one species into another - a reptile into a bird... It does NOT follow that a change WITHIN a species means that a species ITSELF "evolves" into something no longer recognizable. Science has not actually observed ANY of that. They PRESUME it happened.

This is not observed in nature. It is an attempt to explain what exists NOW, rather than a scientific explanation of an observed change. It is based on preconceived notions of what "must" have happened... Darwin observed changes in colors, not a lizard growing wings. And what makes you think that this "macro-evolution" SHOULD have stopped? If it is true, we would NOW observe less complex creatures changing into more complex or "mature" creatures. We don't observe the process now. We don't see monkeys NOW evolving into "pre-men". If the idea was true, we should be able to notice and observe the continuation of the "survival of the fittest" invention. Nor do we observe the paleontology that "proves" it EVER happened that way.

I suggest that you move away from the Behe books and look at some real science. You are referring to “irreducible complexâ€Â. Behe was sorely embarrassed in court over this issue and has yet to ever find one such instance of an organ or attribute that hits a road block. Not a single one.

I haven't read Behe's books, although I am aware of his "irreducible complex" idea. Again, just as in the last posts, you feel the need to be condescending?

Unfortunately, you find it necessary to use the same tactics as an atheist. Why? Because they are all condescending in their views towards anyone who holds to intelligent design, or anything that questions the sacred cow of "materialistic evolution"... That is the typical strategy they use. Attack, attack, and attack. Naturally, "real" science is only shown in evolution, which has not been observed on the macro scale... Belittle anyone who holds a contrary view. I'm sure Copernicus faced the same ridicule... Because "real" scientists "knew" that he was wrong, he must have been.

Whether Behe was "embarrassed" in court does not prove a thing. Many lawyers have found ways of embarrassing or twisting the truth, both in crinimal and civil law. It doesn't make them true. No doubt you have heard of robbers breaking into a house, falling down, and sueing the owner of the house, and winning. According to your logic, the crook was right...

He hadn't read every single critique of his ideas?! Is he expected to read everything ever written that contradicts his idea? Behe has written and backed up his claims, in my opinion. Now, whether he has refuted every person who comes along trying to knock down HIS theory, that may be so. But that doesn't prove he is not a "scientist". If NO ONE questioned the status quo - which is now "materialistic evolution", we would still think the earth is flat... A scientist does not lose his "designation" because he is not able to convince people who do not want to be convinced.

You are using the same coined words as the defunct ID group. “Provedâ€Â.
You very well know nothing can actually be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for 100%. Therefore, no one uses the word proved. But you do realize evolution is one of the most well backed theories in science? Probably better backed than relativity.

I have no problems distinguishing between "practical proof" and "theoretical and absolute proof". Evidence can be convincing enough that makes it proof. Now, no doubt, you might be in the "Matrix" and its all a dream, but I don't worry about such philosophical mind-games that lead nowhere.

Materialistic evolution is NOT the "most well backed theory in science"! If it was, it would be a "Law". It yet is a theory. Accepted by the status quo scientists - but with little observable evidence to back it up. Going from Darwin's micro-evolution to macro evolution is more a leap of faith than the preponderance of evidence that points to a higher intelligence. Have you seen a lizard that sprouted wings? How about a Neanderthal from an ape? Really, there are so many holes in the theory, that it's not even funny. And the idea that evolution is one of the most well backed theories in science says very little - a lot of people were saying that the earth was flat was a pretty solidly backed idea. Even scientific LAWS are subject to re-working. You are really reaching to say that Evolution is so scientifically certain.

Sorry, it is philosophy, not science, that has entrenched scientists into this "theory". The problem is that there is currently nothing to replace evolution (without considering a higher intelligence). Thus, scientists, who can be just as fundamental as any religious fanatic, desperately will shoot down anything they don't want to accept to maintain status quo. You think that is a new thing in science? Science has ALWAYS resisted change to the status quo. Thus, it is not surprising that materialistic evolutionists must resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than letting their "science" stand on its own merit.

1. I never said you can’t believe in science and believe in God. In fact I stated the opposite.

When?

2. There are many more that converted the other way around. Neither conversion backs up either side.

I doubt that there are many actual "atheists" out there. The more likely term to use is "agnostic". Atheism is the idea that there is NO God. Really, where is the evidence to verify or "prove" that legitimately? Atheism is an absolute denial of something that cannot be emperically measured. It is based on philosophical bent, rather than science. However, there are a number of scientists who have not found it necessary to convince themselves that God doesn't exist for philosophical reasons - since EVEN IF macro evolution was true, it proves absolutely NOTHING about God's EXISTENCE. The most it can do is describe HOW God did it. It can never rule out the possibility that God exists. Thus, the whole argument, as I said, is pointless IF the will is not open to hear another opinion.

3. Its not a straw man argument when I didn’t use it to argue anything. I was clarifying that for the original poster. Was not directed towards you.

Oh, so you write an entire post to me, and one sentence, without preface, you address to someone else... I hadn't realized that this paragraph suddenly addresses someone else in the last sentence...

It’s just once you get that spark that evolution comes into play. And besides, there are numerous evolution believing theists. Atheists do not do the reverse and try to argue against God with evolution. Its just some ill-informed theists that assume evolution = No God, which of course is not true. Evolution just means that Genesis is not as literal as some would believe.

While some theists may believe that evolution = No God, I don't believe it because it makes no scientific sense, nor is it necessary to convulute such a theory when another already exists. Perhaps, if there was some actual evidence, I could accept it. But even before I became Christian, I didn't accept the idea that we are here today because of monkies. It certainly may be true, but where's the evidence? Piltman man?

All I have tried to argue is that it is not wise to use Hoyle’s fallacy when debating with an informed non-theist. It will just make you look uninformed. I am giving advice to the poster as per his request. Use abiogenesis if he wants to use science, though again, it proves nothing. It just sounds a lot more informed than stating the “tornoadoe makes a 747†aka irreducibility complex. An idea that has been completely debunked. In fact most theists stray away from reducing God to the “God of the Gapsâ€Â. It makes for weak theology as well.

First of all, "Hoyle's fallacy" is not very convincing. A tornado will not produce even the smallest of parts for an airplane. NONE. Even if all of the parts were spread out in the junkyard with other junk, a random tornado is not going to bring pieces together in a repeatable manner, (as evolution claims) at ANY level. Thus, the dismissal of the analogy is false. We don't need to argue that an entire airplance cannot be built. Even the parts will not be built. Furthermore, the even if the various smaller sections were put together, it doesn't follow that the airplane could be built by random events in such a way that the tornado wouldn't just destroy the one lucky time it happened, if ever... But that's what macro evolution claims. A random event occurs that will NOT be destroyed and will be repeatable over and over as some sort of inexorable march towards higher existence - based on "survival of the fittest"

Continuing on. As I have said before, and you appear to agree, there is very little "proof" that is acceptable to a person who will refuse to believe - whether for or against God. It is a waste of time to argue with an atheist on this matter because, by faith, they believe something opposite. No logical argument will pry them away from that belief. It will only change when the person HIMSELF experiences something beyond himself, or realizes he is not in control of his destiny.

In the end, what I have offered will only be effective for someone open to the question - in other words, an agnostic who is truly searching. The will plays a large role in what a person believes - whether they believe in God or not (since atheism is not based on scientific evidence).

Regards

 

[luckyfox]

Handy: Regarding #1: I would never claim that the says the earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible never makes such a claim. Folks have come up with the "6000" number merely by adding the years in the various genealogies together, and that isn't a very good basis of establishing any date for Genesis 1:3. And that's just Genesis 1:3. The heavens and the earth were already in place in Genesis 1:1-2, so that makes establishing a set date for the earth even more tricky.

Unless there is a text that actually states the earth is "X"-years-old, I wouldn't "shout where the Scriptures are silent.

I never knew that. Thank you for pointing that out. In my high school, we were taught that the earth was likely 5,000 - 6,000 years old, but no actual verses were pointed out. :D

(One would still need the help of the Holy Spirit though, because humans tend to naturally want to reject God.)

Why do you suppose that is? Since we are told many positive things about God, why would someone want to reject the idea?

Drew: People who act in the name of religious belief cannot be assumed to be true believers.

Can you explain more about this for me? It usually seems that those who act in the name of their beliefs, even if their beliefs convince them to do negative things, are perceived as strong beliveres. For instance, if a Muslim is inspired by the Qur'an to do something like detonate a car bomb, we usually refer to them as a Muslim fundamentalist, or Muslim terrorist, implying their firm beliefs triggered the act.

Francisdesales: Sure there is. It's called inferential knowledge. While philosophy has whittled down what we can "know" to only empirical knowledge in recent years, it has not always been so. And quite frankly, in the practical world, we use inferential knowledge all the time...

When we see an automobile, we INFER it was built. Same thing with a house or an airplane.

Who would go into a junkyard and actually think that a car would build itself from the parts laying around? Or that the parts randomly came together to form a built and working car???

We infer that a car was built based on its mere existence. As of yet, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that pieces of a car will put themselves together to form an automobile.

And yet, we are to believe that on a much more grand scale, that the universe created itself? Or on the microscopic level, that single cells get together quite randomly to form a spleen?

Where we have such a complex model of existence, we infer that something with intelligence brought the parts together. This inferential knowledge proves that God exists. It certainly doesn't prove that God exists with Christian-given attributes, but this knowledge has been enough for people of all cultures to accept as FACT that God does exist at some level.

Hmm, I guess I'm confused by this. If I see a car and neither automatically infer that it was built, nor believe you when you tell me it was, you could take me to an automobile production factory and prove it right then and there. I'd be able to see the raw materials, the individual pieces and the actual assembly, so I could understand it and believe it. But with religious belief, if I fail to infer the same thing you do (ie: that God is real because the splendour of the universe suggests it), how could you prove it? A great many people apparently are not inferring that God exists based on the beauty of the universe, and other theories like big bang have arisen to explain it because of this.

Numerous wonderful things have been done in the name of religion. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. On the other hand, numerous terrible things have been done in the name of democracy. Should we scrap all forms of government, since democracy is widely heralded as the best form of government?

An interesting point to remember! Thank you.

VaultZero: The poster requested a way to refute claims laid out by atheists. Not just any old evidence. Likely, most atheists (as most are well informed) he speaks to will see the fallacy in the argument you posted earlier and not take him seriously. Therefore, I suggested he not use that if he is serious about debating with an atheist.

I really like some of the points you are making. Just wanted to let you know, I'm actually female. ;)

MarkT: No. The Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the earth. In fact, it says the earth was created in 6 periods of creation and we are living in the seventh day. The word 'day' is not a 24 hour period. It's like the word 'kind'. The meaning of the word is found in the way it is used. It refers to everything that belongs to it. A 'day' followed by 'night', for example, can be a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Simply stated, the 'light' belongs to the day.

Oh, that's a way of looking at it that I haven't heard before. That suggests that the periods of creation could be of any length or even spaced out, and not to be understood as literal twenty four hour days at all, right? That's really interesting and I will definitely pass that idea along.

tblaine74: 2. Aside from faith, there is no evidence that conclusively proves anything. If you think you can prove something without faith, I don’t believe you have been introduced to the logical genius of true skepticism.

Perhaps you can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, or conclusively, but it does seem that in some cases, for some theories or hypotheses, some proof can be provided. Tangible proof being just one aspect of evidence, if I tell you trees grow fruit, you can touch the tree, touch the fruit, monitor the growth and pollination, test the area for rain and sun to see how it affects the tree, take pictures, etc. That's just a really simplistic example, but is there anything like that which can prove God is real? Is there historical or physical evidence that backs up some of the things written in the Bible?

3. By what logic does a disregard for truth nullify truth?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you explain?

 

[francisdesales]

If I see a car and neither automatically infer that it was built, nor believe you when you tell me it was, you could take me to an automobile production factory and prove it right then and there. I'd be able to see the raw materials, the individual pieces and the actual assembly, so I could understand it and believe it. But with religious belief, if I fail to infer the same thing you do (ie: that God is real because the splendour of the universe suggests it), how could you prove it? A great many people apparently are not inferring that God exists based on the beauty of the universe, and other theories like big bang have arisen to explain it because of this.

Human experience enables us to infer that complex objects have been built. We don't question whether a toy was built. Making such distinctions on what we can know, to me, borders on philosophical experiments and has no utilization in the practical world. Whether we realize it or not, we do not require "proof" of such things. Now, if we sat in a philosophy class and were questioned on "how do you know that?", no doubt, our answer will not satisify the instructor. However, inferential knowledge effectively answers the question and is sufficient in a practical sense UNTIL otherwise proven false. Thus, it is practical to say a toy was manufactured, rather than questioning whether it evolved from a frog as part of the blind inexorable climb to perfection...

We live our lives without REQUIRING such proof. Do we have "proof" that our cars will start in the morning? Do we have proof that our alarms will go off in the morning? No - we have faith that they will, based on our experiences of the past. We don't live in "philosophy land" where we have to "prove" everything beyond a shadow of a doubt (which nothing but our own existence is certain). The arguments for God's existence will not convince an ardent "atheist" (which I believe are very few in number, if we take the literal definition). The problem is that they are inconsistent in their actions. On the one hand, they set the bar at an extremely high level of "proof" for God's existence, but seem perfectly content to accept countless other items in their lives at face value with very little "proof" whatsoever. As such, atheism becomes a willing choice rather than a measured perception of the facts.

To me, atheists do not WANT to believe in a God. Since the will is a crucial part in any belief structure, logical proof will not necessarily "convert" someone. This is not just an "atheist" syndrome. Watch apologetic arguments between two Christians who utilize the same book, the bible, as their "proofs". Person "x" says one thing, person "y" says the opposite, using the same book to prove their points. Both cannot be correct. However, from my experience, when the dust clears, both sides adhere to their points, even if one is sadly proven wrong by the force of plain logic. That's the way we work. We don't WANT to admit we are wrong. Thus, humans have a hard time being convinced of logical arguments IF it interferes with their belief system. And materialistic evolution and atheism are definitely belief systems, since neither are beyond the reaches of logical refutation.

In the end, finding a fool-proof argument to ANY bipolar argument where conviction and principle are involved will lead to frustration. Whether it is about politics or religion, people do not lightly give up their ideas by force of logical arguments. I have found that action speaks much louder than such words. Thus, to "convince" an atheist/agnostic, one must SHOW how God effects their lives in good times and bad. Those arguments are much more convincing and lead to a more effective understanding and acceptance than any logical-only argument.

Regards

 

[tblaine74]

is there anything like that which can prove God is real?

Here is a link to the argument that led to my acceptance of a God: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm - Articles 2 and 3. If you are dissatisfied with the author’s explanation as to why the regression of cause “cannot go on to infinityâ€Â, then I would recommend consideration of Zeno’s paradoxes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you explain?

Suppose I profess it to be true that one should not kill another, and yet I have killed someone. Regardless of my claim for justification, does my action nullify the truth that I profess?