Show me the proof??

[freeway]

I also think that there is plenty of proof for the existence of God, form the creation of the Universe which is fine tuned to the creation of man animals insects and plants. For me this is way beyond just mere chance..
But one of the most importance evidence for a deity "God" is myself. Before I accepted Christ as my savior back in 81. I knew that person that was looking out from behind my eyes and he had a very different outlook on life. But just after a few minutes of being a Christian, well that person changed. I looked the same, my voice didn't chance my family was still my family. But something inside changed, my whole outlook looked different. It is something that I really only have one word for..... Jesus.... so just like my brother in Christ... Yepimonfire says and I quote,

within a few minutes of asking christ into my life, i completly had my view changed on the entire universe and for once in my life understood my purpose, god, salvation, morals, etc. not to mention, i fight a war everyday within me, a constant battle of flesh vs. spirit. i am 100% sure there is a god and nothing could ever change my mind

Although it has been what almost 30 years. I have had times when I felt as if God was a million miles away. But I always felt this pull at me to return, when I did, I always found that God was not a million miles away, I was..

 

[Kristaok]

They cannot prove he doesn't exist, just like we cannot prove of his existence. So it's all in faith and who has it.

 

[happyjoy]

They cannot prove he doesn't exist, just like we cannot prove of his existence. So it's all in faith and who has it.

While I don't think it is possible to prove either way in a scientific way, but I don't think scientific evidence applies anyway.

We can come to an understanding using logic.

Our current understanding of the universe is that it is infinite in scope. In an infinite universe all things that can exist do exist.

So the burden does indeed fall to the atheist to show that God is impossible. I for one see no reason to believe God to be impossible, and reject outright the notion that the human race is the smartest most advanced beings in the universe.

 

[logical bob]

Our current understanding of the universe is that it is infinite in scope.

Not that I've heard. There are good reasons to think that the universe is finite in size. What's your evidence for saying that?

In an infinite universe all things that can exist do exist.

Even if the universe was infinite, this wouldn't follow. There are infinitely many numbers for instance, but that set contains only numbers. It doesn't contain everything that could exist.

So the burden does indeed fall to the atheist to show that God is impossible.

Atheists don't necessarily have to think that God is impossible (although many do). An atheist is someone who thinks that no gods exist.

I don't think there's a goat in my kitchen just now, because I have no reason to think that there might be. It's not impossible, however, that there could be a goat in my kitchen. If you think there is then the burden is on you to justify this, not on me to show that it's impossible.

 

[freeway]

I don't believe the burden of proof of God's existence is on the Christian. As a Christian myself I realize that God is really unprovable to be seen. as a person looks at another person. In the same matter I do believe you can see the works of God. Everything under and above the sun is there for all to see. Now as a Christian I see these things and attribute them to God. Where as a atheist attributes them to mere chance. We all have and do put our faith in something whether its God or just plan luck. Myself I enjoy telling others about what has happened in my life and after all I do know the person "me" before and after Jesus although its the same blood running through my veins, it is definitely not the same thoughts.

 

[logical bob]

In the same matter I do believe you can see the works of God. Everything under and above the sun is there for all to see. Now as a Christian I see these things and attribute them to God.

The problem here is that all religious people attribute them to the god of their own religion. Even if you're absolutely convinced that a deity is needed to explain what we see around us, what reason is there to think it's your deity rather than any other?

Where as a atheist attributes them to mere chance.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. For a start, evolution is not a chance process and if you think it is then you haven't understood it. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Steve Jones' Almost Like a Whale are two books that set this out really clearly for non-scientists like me.

Secondly, atheists don't claim to currently have a complete explanation of everything. It's perfectly possible that things we don't understand now will one day be shown to be that way for a reason as non-random as evolution.

We all have and do put our faith in something whether its God or just plan luck.

No, no, no. We don't have to have faith in anything. See above for comments about luck. You have faith in God because you know you can't prove it. We don't have faith in science. Where something can be proved it's not a question of faith. When something can't be proved we're happy to say we don't know, rather than that we must have faith in an answer we can't prove.

Myself I enjoy telling others about what has happened in my life and after all I do know the person "me" before and after Jesus although its the same blood running through my veins, it is definitely not the same thoughts.

Yes, but for every Christian with a testimony there's someone with a different religion who also has a testimony. And also someone who's achieved change in their life and rightly claims the credit for it themself.

 

[ivdavid]

@ Logical Bob,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. For a start, evolution is not a chance process

Well, that depends on what system you are considering as reference. If you're just looking at earth and all the observations of evolution and all the human inferences, then it may seem logical. But when you look at the whole system that includes everything, then some questions arise. See, even in the account of evolution , you need a starting point from which all life-form 'evolved'. If it's some single-celled protein compound (I'm absolutely ignorant in all this) that started all life-form, where did that come from? Assuming the scientific theory and tracing back through all the random activity of atoms and matter, you reach a starting point for the universe itself. Let's assume that science is able to observe and determine even that starting particle which 'evolved' or randomized into the universe. Even so, you need to explain where that came from. And please let's not play around with words by saying it came from 'nothingness'. As if 'nothingness' is scientific and empirically observable. As C.S.Lewis says,
"An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity."

You did mention some books by Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones and no, i haven't read them. And until I have, I might not have perspective. But I request you, for the sake of this discussion, to fill me in on anything from those books that might answer my concerns here. Let's say we ignore the 'starting point' question for now (note though, it can never be answered by science). Let's take the case of how earth and initial life on earth came about. Science, to my knowledge, guesses that there must have been a big-bang or some similar event that triggered a random movement of matter which then, over millions and billions of years, settled into the universe we know of now. Can something that's random suddenly settle into an equilibrium or orderly pattern without an external stimulus?

To illustrate crudely, let's say you're in a room. I'm standing outside the door with 5 marbles in my hand. I throw these marbles into the room and slip out before you can see me. So all you're observing is that 5 marbles are rolling on the floor in different directions arbitrarily. Now at one particular moment, these 5 marbles just so happen, by chance, to maintain equal distance among themselves - not an impossibility at all. But what if these 5 marbles, after this particular moment, continue to roll while strictly maintaining the same equal distance between them. I imagine you'd say even this is not impossible. Well, even so, these marbles are still acting according to chance and randomness because no external stimuli has acted upon them. The same is the case with the universe which is the whole system. If later, science happens to find out that this universe isn't the whole system, then kindly extend this very same argument to that complete system.

So, when and how did the randomness settle down into orderliness in the absence of external stimuli? It theoretically cannot. If it's accepted by faith, then I won't question that. But my point is this - if our universe started from matter, and nothing else is present apart from this, then our current world too should continue to have only matter. Where did the mind come from? Where did purpose come from when there was none in the beginning? So, your arguments and mine on this forum are actually just a random dance of atoms that we shouldn't be able to perceive at all with our 'minds' but we somehow simply happen to. Explain this to me.

I've tried to show how science is just another religion accepted in faith when it comes to matters of life/death/meaning/purpose/hope in this thread - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=44905&start=45 . Science is great and essential to further our observations of all real-world phenomena and does so in a reliable way, but beyond that, science can only make guesses - not establish truths.

Even if you're absolutely convinced that a deity is needed to explain what we see around us, what reason is there to think it's your deity rather than any other?

I've tried considering some possibilities here - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=45262&start=90 .

Hope these help clarify your thoughts. I don't intend to debate or challenge any beliefs, I simply want to clear misconceptions and share the truth. If you think there's any truth in what I've shared, then please don't harden your heart -

I pray to the Father to open your heart and mind to see meaning, hope, truth and life in Christ. In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[logical bob]

David, that's a massive post and I've only got a few minutes before I'm out of here for a few days. Here are a few thoughts, however, though nothing like a comprehensive response.

What you're asking about is abiogenesis, the beginning of life. This isn't part of the theory of evolution, which deals with how things which are self-replicating (i.e. living things) change in the context of their environment but starts with the assumption that something self-replicating exists.

I'm no expert, but abiogenesis is thought to have happened about 3.8 billion years ago in the sea. The "primordial soup" of the time was a rich mixture of organic elements. Abiogenesis would require a chemical reaction to occur which combined these elements to create a molecule that produced copies of itself. Exactly how this would have happened is unknown because, as far as I know, it hasn't been reproduced in the lab. If you put some suitable elements in a test-tube and give it a shake then such a molecule is obviously very unlikely to result. But if you have the whole of the oceans and billions of years to play with then that's the equivalent of having billions upon billions of test tubes and as abiogenesis only has to occur once it actually becomes very probable that it will happen in one of them. I can back the probability argument up if you want, although it does involve some maths.

So it seems that a molecule arose that made copies of itself. It would be a complex protein something like an amino acid. Fairly soon there will be lots of copies and that's where evolution kicks in. The copying process isn't perfect and occaisonally a molecule arises that is a bit different. It can be different in a way that makes it less good at copying itself or better. If it's less good it will die out but if it's better then there will be soon be many copies of it. In this way, varieties of life arise and, over many generations, the self-replicating molecules become better at reproducing themselves.

These molecules became larger and more complex until they became what we call genes. At some point, and this would have taken many millions of years to happen, some arose that were encased in a protective shell. This was the first simple celled creature and the protection the shell (cell wall) offered would have been a huge advantage and helped them to multiply rapidly.

About 1 billion years ago the first multi-celled organisms arose. From here we're into the more familiar territory of evolution through natural selection.

So how does complex and stable structure arise without outside stimulus (your marbles example)? Evolution produces it given that first spark - a self-replicating molecule. To reiterate, such a molecule happening spontaneously is a staggeringly unlikely event, and yet given the whole of the world's oceans and the mind-boggling lengths of time available for the process to happen it's statistically likely that it would happen somewhere, at some time, at least once.

I can't do justice to how evolution goes on to produce the complexity and variety we see in a forum post. You really have to go to the literature. Dawkins is the best in terms of sharp explanations for the lay person but I realise he comes with ideological baggage these days. Steve Jones is good too.

I can come back to mind and purpose next week if you want. Suffice it to say that I think mind arises from the physical, an emergent property of he human brain. That's whole fields of science and philosophy right there though, so it's a minefield.

Best wishes,

logical bob

 

[freeway]

LB wrote:
The problem here is that all religious people attribute them to the god of their own religion. Even if you're absolutely convinced that a deity is needed to explain what we see around us, what reason is there to think it's your deity rather than any other?

Yes that is a problem. My deity that I refer to is Jesus. Jesus the author of the bible, sure it was just mortal men that penned the 66 books of the bible. These men were filled with the spirit of God to write these books. From Genesis to Revelations these books have a single red line through them and that is Jesus, His creation, His first coming and his second coming, everything in the bible the main structure points to a loving God. As I said and you also stated other religion do have their own "gods" But where do these religions point. They do not explain how man is to be redeemed. Just one in example Egypt in its past put it faith in these gods.
Sun Ra, Music Hathor, Destruction Sekhmet, Sky Nut, Earth Geb
Death Osiris. The goes on an on, as most every other religion, not all but most. Also Christianity is singled out along with the Jews as hated, why does every world power seeks to destroy the Jews and now Christianity? seem kind of odd? Could it be the work of Satan? Although other cultures do have there own deities my answer is that, the God of the bible is the only deity that explains all that we see. Also has been proven 100 acurate on it prophecies. no other religion even comes close.

 

[freeway]

LB wrote:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. For a start, evolution is not a chance process and if you think it is then you haven't understood it. Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Steve Jones' Almost Like a Whale are two books that set this out really clearly for non-scientists like me.

Secondly, atheists don't claim to currently have a complete explanation of everything. It's perfectly possible that things we don't understand now will one day be shown to be that way for a reason as non-random as evolution.

Oh but I do understand evolution and how its mechanics are supposed to work. But you see evolution whenever it comes up against a wall "prov-en wrong" well the evolutionist change direction. I could list some of these turns but I feel you know what they are.. As far as RD, he's an atheist with a chip on his shoulder and his main thrust is to do harm to Christianity. Notice he never goes after Buddhist, the Hopi Indians, Islam? why? because God is not behind them.."interesting"
2nd. No "atheist" don't claim to have a complete answer, nor do I, but only I believe that God has everything to do with it. I don't pretend to know all the answers, just that God does. It is very possible that someday that everything will be shown and how it came to be, "Jesus". Sadly for you it will not be evolution, mere chance, a big bang, a great expansion or even a primordial soup.

 

[freeway]

Logical Bob again says:
No, no, no. We don't have to have faith in anything. See above for comments about luck. You have faith in God because you know you can't prove it. We don't have faith in science. Where something can be proved it's not a question of faith. When something can't be proved we're happy to say we don't know, rather than that we must have faith in an answer we can't prove.

Yes Yes Yes, you do have faith and hope. One sentence you call upon evolution for the answerers. Then in another sentence you use words of faith. Evolutionist alway use words like, someday, possible, our best understanding, what we believe from history, what we suppose has happened in the fossil record, these go on and on.. sound like a faith based religion to me.. but I'm not the evolutionist here. As evolution says we take what we find and apply it to our best understanding of what we believe to be true. But who is calling history true? God or Satan? you have to make a choice where you put your trust and faith.

 

[freeway]

@ Logical Bob,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. For a start, evolution is not a chance process

Well, that depends on what system you are considering as reference. If you're just looking at earth and all the observations of evolution and all the human inferences, then it may seem logical. But when you look at the whole system that includes everything, then some questions arise. See, even in the account of evolution , you need a starting point from which all life-form 'evolved'. If it's some single-celled protein compound (I'm absolutely ignorant in all this) that started all life-form, where did that come from? Assuming the scientific theory and tracing back through all the random activity of atoms and matter, you reach a starting point for the universe itself. Let's assume that science is able to observe and determine even that starting particle which 'evolved' or randomized into the universe. Even so, you need to explain where that came from. And please let's not play around with words by saying it came from 'nothingness'. As if 'nothingness' is scientific and empirically observable. As C.S.Lewis says,
"An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity."

You did mention some books by Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones and no, i haven't read them. And until I have, I might not have perspective. But I request you, for the sake of this discussion, to fill me in on anything from those books that might answer my concerns here. Let's say we ignore the 'starting point' question for now (note though, it can never be answered by science). Let's take the case of how earth and initial life on earth came about. Science, to my knowledge, guesses that there must have been a big-bang or some similar event that triggered a random movement of matter which then, over millions and billions of years, settled into the universe we know of now. Can something that's random suddenly settle into an equilibrium or orderly pattern without an external stimulus?

To illustrate crudely, let's say you're in a room. I'm standing outside the door with 5 marbles in my hand. I throw these marbles into the room and slip out before you can see me. So all you're observing is that 5 marbles are rolling on the floor in different directions arbitrarily. Now at one particular moment, these 5 marbles just so happen, by chance, to maintain equal distance among themselves - not an impossibility at all. But what if these 5 marbles, after this particular moment, continue to roll while strictly maintaining the same equal distance between them. I imagine you'd say even this is not impossible. Well, even so, these marbles are still acting according to chance and randomness because no external stimuli has acted upon them. The same is the case with the universe which is the whole system. If later, science happens to find out that this universe isn't the whole system, then kindly extend this very same argument to that complete system.

So, when and how did the randomness settle down into orderliness in the absence of external stimuli? It theoretically cannot. If it's accepted by faith, then I won't question that. But my point is this - if our universe started from matter, and nothing else is present apart from this, then our current world too should continue to have only matter. Where did the mind come from? Where did purpose come from when there was none in the beginning? So, your arguments and mine on this forum are actually just a random dance of atoms that we shouldn't be able to perceive at all with our 'minds' but we somehow simply happen to. Explain this to me.

I've tried to show how science is just another religion accepted in faith when it comes to matters of life/death/meaning/purpose/hope in this thread - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=44905&start=45 . Science is great and essential to further our observations of all real-world phenomena and does so in a reliable way, but beyond that, science can only make guesses - not establish truths.

[quote:154zejbp]Even if you're absolutely convinced that a deity is needed to explain what we see around us, what reason is there to think it's your deity rather than any other?

I've tried considering some possibilities here - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=45262&start=90 .

Hope these help clarify your thoughts. I don't intend to debate or challenge any beliefs, I simply want to clear misconceptions and share the truth. If you think there's any truth in what I've shared, then please don't harden your heart -

I pray to the Father to open your heart and mind to see meaning, hope, truth and life in Christ. In Jesus' name, Amen.[/quote:154zejbp]
As do I, nice post...

 

[ivdavid]

@ logical Bob,

I appreciate your replying so quickly. I hope this discussion can help clear a lot of misconceptions.

I think in your hurry to leave, you've totally misunderstood the intent of my previous post - I do not want any information on abiogenesis or on evolution. I only want you to realize that by denying God, you're believing our world to be a random dance of atoms/matter today. And when you realize this, I pray for you to turn to Christ for meaning, purpose and hope.

This is what I understand about your stance from your earlier posts - You don't believe in God and the account of creation of the world, the first man and everything else. And the reason for not believing is because you haven't been given 'proof' and you wouldn't endorse accepting this in faith. Instead you find meaning in evolution that doesn't seem random and is backed up by 'evidence'. (There is a lot of literature that questions the authenticity of the 'evidence' but i'm not going there now.) If I've incorrectly presumed something about you, please correct me.

Just to clarify, in evolution/creation discussions, i think everybody agrees upon the process of (micro)evolution as such - the point of difference seems to be that of 'common descent'. I don't intend debating the truth in it but when you remove God from the picture, then -
There are 2 things I want to point out - I don't mean it in an intrusive way, just an effort to correct some misconceptions.....
1. Accepting the theory of common descent is done so in faith.
2. Apart from God, evolution(and everything else) is not meaningful and purpose-driven - it is just a random chance activity, even this very moment.

Considering the first point of whether common descent is a matter of empirical evidence or faith -

the theory of evolution......starts with the assumption that something self-replicating exists.

An evolutionist unbeliever states that evolution is a theory framed by man with the empirically unproved assumption of a self-replicating molecule.
A Christian believer states that creation is an account revealed by the Creator with the empirically unproved assumption of an eternal perfect God.

Do you see any difference in the above statements - yet one is derided as being a matter of faith while the other is hailed as a rational, logical explanation that can be relied upon as if it's 'proved'.

Granted, you might give me complex calculations to show how there's a high probability for this self-replicating molecule to arise from the primordial soup. But I ask - has the primordial soup been empirically proved? Isn't it just a model/theory devised by man to help answer the origin of this self-replicating molecule? And if that primordial soup can be empirically proved, where did that arise from? This line of questioning can go on and no answer can ever be reached apart from God. And until you've proved the empirical validity of the primordial soup, you can't prove the empirical validity of a self-replicating molecule. Till then, you can, of course, choose to accept it in faith.

Regarding the second point of evolution being a random chance activity -
As I've understood, evolution assumes the existence of a self-replicating molecule that was formed by random chance. A self-replicating molecule out of chance - this is impossible.
How could something created by random chance attain and exhibit an intrinsic property - namely that
of self-replication? A molecule making copies of itself must then have happened only by random chance too.

The copying process isn't perfect

How can we even define 'perfect' in a process that is random?

If it's less good it will die out but if it's better then there will be soon be many copies of it.

How can we define a condition in a random process? If it's been observed empirically, then where did this condition come from - definitely not from inside the system because the system has just random chance happening inside it. If from outside - are you referring to God?

So how does complex and stable structure arise without outside stimulus (your marbles example)? Evolution produces it given that first spark - a self-replicating molecule.

From what we've seen so far, if that self-replicating molecule is by chance, then its self replication is also by chance. If self-replication is by chance then everything else that arises out of it is also by chance. Without an external stimuli, in a random environment, we'll only have what we started out with and that's just the same random environment.
And what does 'Evolution produces it...' mean? Is evolution some kind of external stimulus? Is it a god? I'm sure you didn't mean it that way - I think you meant that all the theories in evolution just 'kick in'. Kick in from where? In a random environment, where did these patterns that we've now defined as theories come from? So all that we're observing even now seems to be just meaningless random chance that we're trying to give meaning to - how pitiable we should be? And that's what we are apart from God.

Kindly keep an open mind, considering, also, the truth in God's existence. I wish you well till you return. Until then, I'd like people with similar views to continue this discussion.

Our Father, we pray for your grace, peace and love to abound in us. In Jesus' glorious name, Amen.

 

[happyjoy]

Our current understanding of the universe is that it is infinite in scope.

Not that I've heard. There are good reasons to think that the universe is finite in size. What's your evidence for saying that?

In an infinite universe all things that can exist do exist.

Even if the universe was infinite, this wouldn't follow. There are infinitely many numbers for instance, but that set contains only numbers. It doesn't contain everything that could exist.

[quote:2ast5zyr]So the burden does indeed fall to the atheist to show that God is impossible.

Atheists don't necessarily have to think that God is impossible (although many do). An atheist is someone who thinks that no gods exist.

I don't think there's a goat in my kitchen just now, because I have no reason to think that there might be. It's not impossible, however, that there could be a goat in my kitchen. If you think there is then the burden is on you to justify this, not on me to show that it's impossible.[/quote:2ast5zyr]


My evidence that the universe is infinite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcHTrznC ... _embedded#

Michio Kaku has done several interesting shows about time, space, other universes, etc. He has said and had many renowned physicist agree that the universe most likely infinite, and has specifically said that in an infinite universe all possible things exist. If you don't like the clip I linked he says it in other episodes as well.

 

[logical bob]

My evidence that the universe is infinite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcHTrznC ... _embedded#

Michio Kaku has done several interesting shows about time, space, other universes, etc. He has said and had many renowned physicist agree that the universe most likely infinite, and has specifically said that in an infinite universe all possible things exist. If you don't like the clip I linked he says it in other episodes as well.

Oh, you mean parralel universes. I have Kaku's book on the shelf and I'm looking forward to it. But in that case you're suggesting that God should be real in one or more out of infinitely many parralel universes. If you're a Christian I presume you believe he exists in this universe. And this universe is finite.

 

[logical bob]

Hello to ivdavid and freeway01. There's too much in your posts to go for a line by line response, so let me pick out a few key points.

First up, you both suggest you have evidence against evolution but shy away from presenting it. Don't be so bashful, guys! If you have it, bring it.

Freeway 01 says Richard Dawkins is an atheist with a chip on his shoulder. OK then. I suggested his books because they're really good explanations of the science. If you don't like Dawkins try Carl Zimmer, Steven Jones, Steven Jay Gould, Jerry Coyne, Melvin Berger, Steve Jenkins, Mark Ridley, Douglas Futuymu, Joseph Travis etc etc. The thing about facts is that it doesn't matter who explains them.

Both of you present scientific belief as faith based and say we're essentially in the same boat. Freeway 01 says that anyone who uses words like probably, possibly and best understanding is engaged in faith based religion. ivdavid says that until every link in the chain of explanation from the big bang to the present is empirically verified there's no difference between scientific belief and belief in revelation by a god which can't be empirically verified.

Science is a work in progress. It’s fairly obvious to say that science knows more now than it did in the past and less than it will in the future. So it makes perfect sense to say that we if don’t fully understand something now we hope to in the future. We don’t understand every detail of the workings of the human body. Does that make medicine a faith based religion? Of course it doesn’t. When a doctor treats you, that treatment is based on extensive clinical trials that provide sound, non-faith based reasons to think it will help. In the same way, evolutionary theory provides sound, evidence based grounds for belief in common descent. The fact that we don’t currently know why the universe began hardly renders that faith based.

Science is a work in progress and it is progressing. A few centuries ago there was nothing much to say about our origins. Now we have an evolutionary theory which is pretty confident on the broad sweep of how we arose from very simple organisms, we have a number of ideas about abiogenesis, we have solid theory on the formation of stars and planets and the origin in supernovae of the elements necessary for life and cosmology has definite things to say about events to within 1/300th of a second of the big bang. You guys take your stand on the gaps in this knowledge and say “look, you don’t know, it’s faith,†but those gaps are shrinking every year and you have progressively less ground to stand on.

But the key difference between science and faith is the possibility of falsification. The biologist J.B.S. Haldane, asked what would make him change his mind about evolution, said without hesitation “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.†He wasn’t exaggerating. One authenticated fossil in the wrong place could bring the whole thing crashing down. One solid, peer reviewed experiment can cause the rejection of any established theory, just as Arthur Eddington’s 1919 demonstration that light bends around the sun caused the rejection of Newton’s theory of gravity in favour of Einstein’s. With science it’s always on the line.

Your guys believe what you do on the basis of revelation from a god whose existence can’t be disproved. That means that there’s absolutely nothing that will ever count as evidence against your view. You may think that’s a position of strength. It isn’t. At a minimum, that’s why belief in common descent, abiogenesis or any scientific view is utterly different from a faith position.

Lastly, a word on the term “evolutionist.†Why do you call me that? You don’t call me a gravitionist, an elecrtomagnetismist, a thermodynamicist or an inorganic-chemistyist. Yet these are all scientific theories I subscribe to. What’s that about? I suspect you’re trying again to portray science as equivalent to faith, so you have creationists on one side and “evolutionists†on the other. I hope these points about progress and falsification make it clear that there is no equivalence whatsoever.

 

[ivdavid]

Hello Logical Bob,

Glad to hear from you again. This is a mighty good discussion but I find myself having to clarify my intent often. Kindly bear with my shortcomings and please do patiently read through everything notwithstanding the length of this post.

So, let me state my intent clearly - I want to help dismantle any misconception that the existence of God is negated by the evidences and proofs of science.

Everything I write is aimed towards sharing the truth in Christ by helping people see how and why they need Christ. Towards this goal, I discuss other people's beliefs and urge them to test the validity of their own beliefs. And if any contradiction is found in their beliefs, I then plead with them to turn to Christ for truth, meaning,purpose,life and love. I have no pleasure in debating or challenging anyone - I only want a peaceful discussion of beliefs that would be aimed at seeking the truth - which can be found in Christ alone.

Now, with that cleared up, I'd like to make some observations about atheists. By atheist, I mean those who have absolutely no beliefs regarding God. The ones who are confused or curious to know about God are referred to as agnostics.

1. There are some atheists who deny any belief in God because they simply don't hold any beliefs in anything - no beliefs in God,science,meaning,purpose - nothing. They believe in living for the day and enjoying it till it lasts. To these, I have nothing to say - I don't think any such atheist would be visiting this forum.

2. There are some 'atheists' who simply run away from God with no just cause. These grab at anything that comes their way which gives them a modicum of reason to deny God - and their excuse is found most reliably in science. These atheists don't really understand science - they wave it as something that actually 'proves' God's non-existence. They compare the religious account and then the scientific account and trump that a theory of evolution or common descent has just 'proved' that God does not exist. These people only want to deny the Holy God altogether, so as to hold on to their autonomous self-rule apart from God and his demands for us to be holy. These are self-professed 'atheists' though in all honesty, these are not what the true atheists endorse. No true atheist would claim to be able to prove the non-existence of God - they wouldn't even be trying. And no true proponent of science would say that any theory/model has been 'proved' absolutely. Models are just that - models to be modified and built upon depending on new input. As you rightly mentioned -

Science is a work in progress and it is progressing.
But the key difference between science and faith is the possibility of falsification.

This has also been agreed upon by both Physicist and me here - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=44905&start=45

I'd like to reiterate that I have nothing against science and its observations. I have no issues with the inferences/theories/models that are needed to explore more. But what happens is that these theories/models are somehow declared, by some, to have been 'proved' and this 'proof' is used as an argument against the existence of God. This is wrongly concluded by those 'atheists' who claim to have understood science.
So my first statement of argument was addressed to these self-professed 'atheists'.

1. Accepting the theory of common descent is done so in faith.

I only wanted to tell such people that if they believed that common descent was proved beyond falsification and that it disproved the existence of God, then they were doing so in faith. But if a person held on to his observations totally unconnected with how it has anything to deal with God, and is willing to accede that these very same theories could break down and form into others in light of new evidence, then I have nothing against that.
I didn't know what view you held, which is why I enquired about it in my previous post. I have now inferred that you don't belong here in group 2 - I had to infer from your posts in the absence of any clear stance stated by you. So, you were referred to as an 'evolutionist' because it was evolution that challenged the existence of God, not gravitation,magnetism and the likes.

The above two groups of atheists don't actually reflect who a true atheist is. In my observation,

3. A true atheist would actually not even think about God in his day-to-day work. He'd find the concept of God to be mythical and superstitious. He'd more gladly involve himself in matters of reason and thought, driving himself towards meaning, purpose and truth through reliable means of exploration and not just 'blind faith'. He has no arguments against God, because he doesn't feel the need to. He prefers reasoning over 'blind faith'. Maybe he'd get so passionate about the reliability of reasoning and logic, that he'd want to defend the position of science that he feels is being attacked unfairly by some religious zealots. I'm guessing this is why you're here.

Well, just to clarify, true Christians are not mindless either. They don't put 'blind faith' in a proposition. Blind faith is not knowing what you're putting your faith in and why. Christians take the leap of faith only after knowing what they believe in and why. They test the Scriptures with their experiences and are convinced enough of the truth to believe in God. They continue to reason and verify the stated truth in the Bible and with every confirmation, faith grows. These Christians then are not at all hesitant to continue in their faith, rather want others too to partake in this wonderful gift of grace from our loving Father. There is no other motive behind evangelizing and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, I do trust in science's observations of supernovae, its discoveries and applications in medicine, even the findings of fossils, the analysis of their dna etc. I personally don't believe science has inferred correctly the theory of common descent but since both of us agree that this could be found otherwise in light of future evidence, I have no issues over people accepting this theory as a model - I don't accept it myself, but there is no reason for me to question other's attempting to find out the truth behind it. Scientists may be enthusiastic about finding origins of life and they may go one way, find a dead-end, might come back and start another way. No issues at all. That's the way science should work. That's the way I work with science at least.

What I'm trying to show you and other true atheists is that - By ignoring God, your search for meaning and purpose is both futile and contradictory.

There's too much in your posts to go for a line by line response, so let me pick out a few key points.

My key points have unfortunately not been addressed. I hope it was not intentional.
1. As I mentioned in the beginning of my first post here, science can go on exploring and discovering answers but this elaborate search has to theoretically reach an end sometime in the future - and that end would be the conclusion that a first-particle or first-state was there - simply there - and no one knows why or how. Denying God even at this point seems just as absurd as believing in a first-particle/state. This is where I quoted C.S.Lewis -
"An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity."
This search is futile in the sense, you will have to concede an i-don't-know which God actually answers now. Of course, you are entitled to still ignore God to hold on to your views which brings us to the contradiction -

2. If there is no God, then everything is plain random chance even this very moment which seems to contradict the atheist's search for truth. This is a grave logical error that most well-intentioned atheists make - they give sound theories and evidences but fail to grasp the little assumptions they've made, that point to God despite their ignoring Him. I definitely would want you to address these 2 points - not for my sake, but for your own good.
As a true logical atheist, who prefers reason over faith, what is your stance on the questions raised regarding chance and meaning in the previous post?

Note again, my goal is not to debate and argue and leave it at that - I want to share truth and clarify misconceptions for you to realize that all scientific atheists have been referring to God in their little assumptions and have been plain stubbornly rebellious to acknowledge the work of God. God is willing to overlook all sin and rebellion if only one would seek Him in all earnestness and humility.

O God, please have mercy upon us and let Your grace and love fill us with unspeakable joy. Breathe forgiveness over us and save us so we may give glory and honor to Your Precious Son - In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[logical bob]

Thanks for that David. I certainly wouldn't argue with you describing me as a type three atheist as defined in your last post. I'd be happy to address your two key points, but first let me make sure that I understand them correctly.

Your first point seems to be that even if science can take us back to a starting point (the big bang presumably) we need God to explain that starting point.

I'm struggling a little to understand the second. You seem to be saying that if there was no god then everything would random to such an extent that science would be impossible. It appears that you say God is the guarantee that the universe is sufficiently structured for us to engage in rational enquiry at all. Am I understanding you correctly?

As I say, I'll respond fully but I don't want to do so based on an incorrect understanding of what you're saying.

 

[ivdavid]

I think we're getting somewhere, Bob. I think the issue is that we are so caught up in our own perspectives that we're finding it hard to see the other's viewpoint and the reasoning behind it. So, we've got to work together on this.

I personally don't accept many widely accepted theories/models of science but for this discussion, I'd go along and assume as true, whatever theory you accept - because it's not any particular theory that I'm focusing on, rather how all these fit together as a complete whole. I'm also quite ignorant on most scientific theories - so if I get something technically wrong, please do correct me but let the discussion not veer off into the intricacies of the theory. I'm only looking at it with a black-box approach - I'm not overly concerned with what happens inside, rather I'd like to just know how the interconnections between two theories/models are met.

Your first point seems to be that even if science can take us back to a starting point (the big bang presumably) we need God to explain that starting point.

Assuming the big bang really happened, the starting point should be even before that - namely,the primordial hot and dense initial condition. Let's assume that in the future, scientists are able to show what that primordial condition actually was and they also demonstrate the mechanics within that dense condition to simulate a big bang here in our laboratories. Man still has only shown 'what' the primordial condition was and 'how' the big bang happened. 'Why' the primordial condition existed there can never be found out unless someone really was the cause of all this and even then, we need that someone to reveal it to us.

Man usually asks a 'why' and begins to research and seek the truth. But he always ends up with a 'what' or a 'how', and maybe another 'why' - never a conclusive purpose. When asked why we are the way we are, the answer might trace back through evolution, common descent, genes,self-replicating molecule etc. to show how evolution might have happened and what a gene is but never - why a self-replicating molecule. Attributing it to random chance still gives only the how, not the why. Random chance can never answer the question 'why'.

If the above stuff seems confusing, we'll come back to it later. My point is that man searches for purpose and reason and this takes him up the ladder to the very beginning - but even there, he wouldn't be able to find it through science. He might observe that random chance triggered off many things but there isn't any purpose to be found in random chance, is there?

My second point:
2. According to science, our world is still just random chanced activity and will always continue to be so.
This seems like an impossible statement. How can I meaningfully conclude that there is no meaning in our world. Let me discuss this claim in parts.

I don't know how to put this any other way -
As I've understood, evolution assumes the existence of a self-replicating molecule that was formed by random chance. But a 'self-replicating' molecule out of 'chance' is conceptually impossible. Note, I don't mean that it is probabilistically impossible - I mean it makes no sense conceptually.
How can something created by random chance attain and exhibit an intrinsic property - namely that
of self-replication?
So, can we conclude that the observed 'pattern' of making self-copies also was only by random chance.

If you're not able to grasp my second point, please let's further discuss the same and clear it out before moving on.I'll continue after your reply....

 

[happyjoy]

My evidence that the universe is infinite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcHTrznC ... _embedded#

Michio Kaku has done several interesting shows about time, space, other universes, etc. He has said and had many renowned physicist agree that the universe most likely infinite, and has specifically said that in an infinite universe all possible things exist. If you don't like the clip I linked he says it in other episodes as well.

Oh, you mean parralel universes. I have Kaku's book on the shelf and I'm looking forward to it. But in that case you're suggesting that God should be real in one or more out of infinitely many parralel universes. If you're a Christian I presume you believe he exists in this universe. And this universe is finite.

Well one of the versions Kaku talked about was that if one travels far enough in our own universe we will eventually run into a copy of ourselves. Kaku assumes there is no boundary to space, and I assume he assumes an infinite amount of matter as well. The Observable universe if finite, but that is only because of the limitation of the speed of light. I guess that atheists can't wrap their head about an infinite universe any more than the infinite god that created it.