As we have pointed out in previous articles, recent decades has seen a resurgence of Atheism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism in America. A Pew Research Center survey recently indicated that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as believers in God (by any definition) dropped from 92% in 2007 to 89% in 2014. It also showed that people self-identifying as religiously “unaffiliated” increased from 18.1% in 2007 to 22.8% in 2014. Those may not sound like a big margins. However, they show that belief in God and religiosity is no longer a “taken-for-granted” characteristic of all Americans, and the spiritual landscape is rapidly changing.
Whatever the reasons for the trends, and there are certainly more than just one, the increasing propaganda efforts by committed secularists and Atheists have contributed to them. In recent years several significant best-selling books have taken aim at Theism. Those books include God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever by the late Christopher Hitchens; The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Darrel W. Ray; Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God by Armin Navabi; and Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World by David Silverman.
There are even books for teaching children and teens not to believe: Great Without Religion by Lance Gregorchuk; It Is Ok To Be A Godless Me by Courtney Lynn; and What If I’m an Atheist?: A Teen’s Guide to Exploring a Life Without Religion by David Seidma. There is also a website: AtheistParents.org.
All this is to say, most Atheists have their minds made up. In many cases, they simply don’t want believe so as not to be ultimately accountable for their behaviors. Other committed Atheists contend that no real evidence for a god exists, and that modern science makes belief in the supernatural obsolete.
The truth is, most Atheists are unwilling to acknowledge publically that there are some important questions of science and philosophy for which they cannot provide adequate answers. In this article and the next, we will look at six questions that Atheists cannot answer, and to which only a theistic (and specifically Christian) worldview can offer reasonable solutions. In this installment we will examine three of them and, in part 2, three more.
We begin with the most basic philosophical questions.
Question 1 – Why does anything exist?
When Atheists look at the world and the universe, all they see is what is observable by either their senses or through scientific instruments. That would include space, time, matter, and energy. But the problem they have no solution for is: Where did it all come from? Why does anything exist at all?
Atheism has no valid answer for that question. Before the latter-half of the 20th Century they would simply say, “It has always been here. There was no beginning. The universe is eternal. It just is!” Of course, that is no answer at all, especially in light of the second question below.
The only answer that makes sense is that God is the reason that anything exists. Without Him there is no reason for it (or us) to be. All time, space, matter, and energy must have been the conscious creation of God. As Isaiah says: “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), ‘I am the LORD, and there is none else.’” (Isaiah 45:18 NASB)
The atheist is helpless to counter that proposition. This leads to a second and related unsolvable riddle for atheism.
Question 2- How did the universe begin?
In previous articles we talked about one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century. In 1964 astronomers at Bell Laboratories, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, explored space with their radio telescope. As they processed their data, they found something quite unexpected. Their radio telescope recorded low levels of microwave radiation noise wherever they pointed it. They actually discovered what is called Cosmic Background Microwave (CBM) radiation. The CBM exists as a remnant echo of the beginning of the universe. Wilson’s and Penzias’ discovery, and its later confirmation, provides objective scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning point from nothing, and came into existence in an instant. That is, all time, space, matter, and energy came into existence in one instant. Before that there was absolutely nothing. Actually, there was no “before” for anything to exist in. This is what I call “Nothing-nothing.” It means that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite.
This fact presents a painful dilemma for Atheists because one of the most fundamental of all philosophical and logical principles is, “Everything that begins to exist has to have a cause.” So, if the universe had a chronological beginning point when everything began to exist, then it had to have had a Cause. That Cause would have had to be somehow external (transcendent) to the material universe and enormously powerful (perhaps infinitely so). It would have also required a conscious intentionality to decide to make it.
Again, the Atheist has no answer to this question. If that entity that created the universe is not God, as the Bible describes Him, then what possibly could it be? Such an event as the universe suddenly springing into being out of nothing could not possibly be the product of pure random chance as Atheism requires.
Genesis 1:1 simply and profoundly supplies the only reasonable solution: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!”
And as Isaiah again asserts: “Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker – An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’?” (Isaiah 45:9 NASB)
God is the only explanation for creation. He is the only possible explanation for how and why the universe came into being. The Atheist as has no answer. All she can say is: “ I don’t know how, but it just happened.”
Question 3- Why can the physical world be explained by the laws of nature?
Atheists like to extol the laws of nature as explaining how the universe works. They point to the formulas of mathematics and physics to demonstrate that no supernatural events need to or can happen to override those fixed laws. They argue that if all the variables of any phenomenon were known, then formulas and equations could be brought together to explain everything that happens.
That assertion is highly debatable even among secular physicists and scientists. Many acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to know every variable of every phenomenon. In any case, however, Atheists cannot explain why the laws of nature, as far as we understand them, are so fine-tuned they can be codified by mathematics and physics. For example, when we do simple arithmetic such as 5 + 5, we know the answer is always going to be 10. You could never say 5 + 5 = 9 or 11 or 99. Why? Because the laws of mathematics requires it to be 10. Now we know that the numbers 5 and 10 are only symbols on paper (or just in our minds) that don’t necessarily represent anything tangible in the world. But we also know that if we are talking about, say, oranges, that if you took 5 oranges and added 5 more to them, then you would always have 10 oranges total.
Again, the Atheist cannot explain why those laws are fixed in all places and in all time. Why can’t 5 + 5 = 11? Their answer can only be … “because that’s just the way it is.” True, that is the way it is, but that does not answer the question “Why?” To answer “Why?” requires that a super mind had to design and fix the laws of nature. That mind could only be God. By the way, this also explains why miracles can happen. Cannot the God who created the laws of nature, when He sees fit, override those same laws? That’s a reasonable assumption.
In the next installment we will look at three more pertinent questions for which Aatheism can supply no answer. We will ask: “Why does intelligent life exist on earth?”; “Why do we have consciousness of who we are?”; and “What is the basis for objective moral values?”
© 2016 Tal Davis
Well, as an atheist that happened to come by these questions, I was a little confused that you think they are impossible to answer. Because they were all rather easy and quick to answer. So here’s the answers to the unanswerable questions that we can’t answer:
1. There’s something because there has to be something. There can’t be non-being. To say that non-being is is logically self contradictory. And the odd thing is that people don’t want to answer this question when put at God. Why does God exist rather than not? For what reason? Theists believe there is no reason; God just exists. Well, that’s what we believe of the universe. The difference is that we know the universe exists, which makes it a candidate for what it is that exits for no reason. The only candidate in fact.
2. I reject the idea that that begins to exist has to have a cause. This is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence. Because we have never ever before observed anything beginning to exist. We have only ever observed things take new form. When we call it (!) that I began to exist, there was in fact nothing that all of a sudden started existing that didn’t already. What happened was simply that already existing material (a sperm and an egg) took a form in the shape of a fertilized egg, and additional material in the form of the food my mother ate was added, and with time, that made me. “I” am a particular arrangement of material. And all we have ever seen is material rearrange. So what we know in fact is that rearrangement of material is causality and that everything that gets made by rearranging material into it has a cause. If you think the universe came into being from absolutely nothingness, then that is a completely new concept never observed and you need to provide the testing that shows that such an event can be causal. Which it can’t. Because nothing was caused to become the universe if there was nothing to cause to do anything. By definition of causality, there can be no cause if the universe truly did come from nothing.
3. The reason the world can be explained is that the universe does what it does. Simple as that. 5 and 5 is ten. Because those are two ways of describing the same thing. That’s what the “=” sign means. “The universe does what it does” is all required to answer this question.
But notice what happened. You don’t actually believe that the biblical god is an explanation for this. Because the biblical god is a magician that breaks the laws of logic and physics. Feeds an army with a few fish. Stops the sun in its path across the sky. Forms people out of clay. Turns water into wine. The biblical god is not a law-giver. It’s a miracle worker. If one day 5+5 did all of a sudden add up to 11, then we would have confirmation that there are supernatural forces at play. But never have we observed anything like this. Because the universe does what it does, and it does exactly what we would expect it to do if there were no gods fiddling with it.
And to answer your short upcoming questions:
4. Because intelligence evolved. Intelligence is clearly a beneficial trait that would be passed on by natural selection, and we do have tons of intermediate stages of different degrees of intelligence in nature that shows that it clearly could evolve. And we know of course by stimulating the physical brain physically like with operations, brain damage, illness, drugs, even temperature, etc, it will affect the intelligence of us. And if you think intelligence is a phenomenon that requires some explanation in the form of an intelligent creator, then who made the intelligent creator? Did a bigger intelligent creator? Even you know that you don’t really think that the existence of intelligence means it was created. You reject that with God across the board most likely.
5. Because consciousness evolved. Again, to be aware of your own self and your existence with respect to the world you live in is clearly a benefit that would be passed on. And again; anyone that drinks a liter of vodka will quickly find out that consciousness/awareness is a physical process that can be physically chemically affected by stimulating the physical brain. And again, if consciousness must be explained with a creator, then who made the conscious god you think exists? Same problem as before.
6. “Objective value” is a logically self contradicting incoherent concept that doesn’t refer to anything real. By definition, every value is subjective. We value human life and a cooperative happy healthy society. We do so subjectively. But the actions we take can be objectively valued and objectively tested with respect to that value. For instance; if we value human life and a healthy society, then it is objectively true that we should not murder people, because murdering people does not lead to a healthy cooperative society.
Jacob:
Thank you for writing. I appreciate your answers to what I call the unanswerable questions of atheism. I will address each of your comments.
1. There´s something because there has to be something. There can´t be non-being. To say that non-being is is logically self contradictory. And the odd thing is that people don´t want to answer this question when put at God. Why does God exist rather than not? For what reason? Theists believe there is no reason; God just exists. Well, that’s what we believe of the universe. The difference is that we know the universe exists, which makes it a candidate for what it is that exits for no reason. The only candidate in fact.
The problem with your answer is that is considered an established fact of physics and cosmology that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed. I mean nothing: no time, no space, no matter, no energy. Just plain nothing. That is, indeed, a hard proposition for us to get our minds around. But, from that nothing, somehow the entire universe came into existence in an instant. Before then there was no before then. So the question still remains, how and why did something (everything, actually) come from nothing?
2. I reject the idea that that begins to exist has to have a cause. This is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence. Because we have never ever before observed anything beginning to exist. We have only ever observed things take new form. When we call it (!) that I began to exist, there was in fact nothing that all of a sudden started existing that didnTMt already. What happened was simply that already existing material (a sperm and an egg) took a form in the shape of a fertilized egg, and additional material in the form of the food my mother ate was added, and with time, that made me. I am a particular arrangement of material. And all we have ever seen is material rearrange. So what we know in fact is that rearrangement of material is causality and that everything that gets made by rearranging material into it has a cause. If you think the universe came into being from absolutely nothingness, then that is a completely new concept never observed and you need to provide the testing that shows that such an event can be causal. Which it can’t. Because nothing was caused to become the universe if there was nothing to cause to do anything. By definition of causality, there can be no cause if the universe truly did come from nothing.
As the song goes, “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever did.”
One of the most basic universal principles of physics and philosophy is that everything that happens must have a cause (eg.: your mother getting pregnant).
So, logically, we have to say:
(1) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist (see above).
(3) Therefore, the universe had a cause. (The “First Cause’)
Now I realize that the above tautology does not prove the existence of the biblical God. But, whatever it was that caused the universe must meet several criteria. (1) It must have unimaginable (perhaps infinite) power. (2) It would have to have some kind of existence that transcends the material universe of time, space, matter, and energy. (3) It must have personal will in order to decide to create the universe.
What can the atheist propose that meets those criteria? (Uh…nothing)
3. The reason the world can be explained is that the universe does what it does. Simple as that. 5 and 5 is ten. Because those are two ways of describing the same thing. That´s what the “=” sign means. “The universe does what it does” is all required to answer this question. But notice what happened. You don´t actually believe that the biblical god is an explanation for this. Because the biblical god is a magician that breaks the laws of logic and physics. Feeds an army with a few fish. Stops the sun in its path across the sky. Forms people out of clay. Turns water into wine. The biblical god is not a law-giver. It’s a miracle worker. If one day 5+5 did all of a sudden add up to 11, then we would have confirmation that there are supernatural forces at play. But never have we observed anything like this. Because the universe does what it does, and it does exactly what we would expect it to do if there were no gods fiddling with it.
Your statement is not an answer to the question of why the universe works the way in it does. Most cosmologists would agree that the laws of physics and nature did not have to be the way they are in the universe. In fact, the odds were trillions to one that they are (otherwise we wouldn’t be here). However, when the Big Bang occurred the laws were so finely tuned (they did not have to be) that the universe was able to remain stable (not fall back on itself or expand too rapidly) so that stars, planets, galaxies, and the earth could form.
Now, that being said, I am not a deist who simply says God created the universe and then left the scene and let the laws of nature take over. I believe the same God who created the universe and established the laws of nature can, at His sovereign discretion, override those laws for His purposes (i.e.: miracles). They don’t happen often, not even in ancient times – only when God was revealing truth about Himself or interceding into human affairs for His reasons. Those instances are recorded in the Bible.
In reply to Freddy’s reply to my earlier comment. 🙂
Wauw, some time has passed. Just remembered this. Good to see a response.
1. “[It] is considered an established fact of physics and cosmology that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed.” There you go. Then there was nothing that the universe could have come from, and so it didn’t. The universe didn’t come from anywhere. It exists without having come from anywhere. That’s what I already said. That’s what science says, according to you. When you say that before then there was no before then, then you’ve answered your own question and confirmed exactly what I said. That the existence of the physical material and the natural world is synonymous with existence and there was not anything that existed before it. Even if the universe popped out of literally nothing, which I don’t believe, but even if it did, that would be an event unlike anything we have ever observed, and we would not know anything about it. Whether it could happen on its own or if it took something or someone or what have you. I am fine with not knowing the details of an answer. Because I didn’t come here with the position “I know everything, just ask and I’ll tell you the answer to the mystery”; I came here as an atheist which means that I am not convinced that any gods exist, and therefore I am clearly not convinced that any gods have been doing anything either.
Every question you ask can be answered by yourself if we take the question and hold up a mirror to see what you believe. We can just switch the words “god” and “universe”. Why does this god exist? There didn’t have to be a god, so why is there one rather than not, according to you? You don’t believe this god was created or that it formed over some process. You just believe that this god exists. No reason. Just does. No cause. It didn’t have a cause. It doesn’t exist for any reason. It just exists. That’s what you believe. Which is in absolutely no way any different from what I just said. Physical material / energy just exists. No reason. No cause. Just like you say about your god. If you think that’s nonsense and that I have to explain where the default state of existence (energy/material) came from, then you also automatically think that it’s nonsense that a god can just exist for no reason with no cause, and now you have a lot of explaining to do.
2. Your answer isn’t really a reply to me. If anything. It’s the other way around. You present the Kalam Cosmological argument, which I already addressed indirectly. I stated clearly what causality is. “Nothing was caused to become the universe if there was nothing to cause to do anything. By definition of causality, there can be no cause if the universe truly did come from nothing.” I already explained this. You submit that the universe was fabricated by a god out of no previously existing material. That is not a cause. A cause by definition implies existing material to cause to do something. You reject that existed. If there was no existing material to cause to do anything (such as to make a universe) then no possible causal event could possibly happen.
So we are back to where we left off in question 1. The material that the universe is made of wasn’t created or caused. It couldn’t be. The only possible way it could have been caused is if there was some other existing material, and now we’re explaining the existence of material by appealing to the existence of material, which is unneeded. We still have all reason to believe that the material just exists. No reason. No cause. No possibility of a cause. It just exists.
“One of the most basic universal principles of physics and philosophy is that everything that happens must have a cause (eg.: your mother getting pregnant).” I also already explained this. This applies to things made of material, where material gets rearranged into something new. Already existing material is being caused to perform this new task. That’s causality. Which is why I had a cause. I came from a sperm and an egg. If as you say there existed nothing before the universe then there could not by any possible means what so ever be any cause. Even if a god existed prior to the universe, it had no access to any existing material to cause to do anything, let alone create a universe. Unless this god changed its form into the universe, but that’s not what you believe, is it?
3. My statement is exactly an answer to why the universe works the way it does. Sometimes questions are wrong. Once again, there’s no reason why it works the way it works. It just works some way. It could have worked any way. There’s no reason. You’re asking for a reason that doesn’t exist, and pointing out that your question is therefore wrong is a perfectly valid way of answering that question.
Again, I invite you to look in the mirror when we hold it up. Why does this god behave the way this god does? You think this god can create physical material somehow. You think this god can just will it and a planet forms. Why is that? Why is it the case? Why isn’t it the case that this god wills it and an elephant forms? Or that only half a planet forms? Or that nothing happens what so ever? Why is God’s will effective? What is the reason for that? Again, you don’t believe that there is any reason. You don’t believe anyone made his will effective. You don’t believe this god could make its own will effective as its will would have to be effective in order to do that. You don’t believe there could be any possible reason. This god just works in whatever way it works for no reason with no cause. You are the one claiming that this isn’t reasonable when I say it but you hold to it yourself. Why is that? Why is it that you ignore your own standards as you will it? I accept – as you do – that things can exist for no reason and they can operate the way they do for no reason. The reason I don’t believe in a god isn’t that I find the theistic position irrational; that being the position that this god exists and exists the way it does for no reason with no cause. Because that’s perfectly fine. The objection is that you just don’t have any reason to believe this thing even exists.
So we know for a fact that the material world exists. Therefore it is in fact a candidate to play the role as that which exists for no reason with no cause. You are stating that you are denying that anything can exist for no reason with no cause so that you can demand that the universe must exist for some reason with some cause, and once you’ve dreamed up a god as an answer, then you drop the idea you originally held and then you say that this god can just exist for no reason with no cause. Sorry. That’s not reasonable.
“Most cosmologists would agree that the laws of physics and nature did not have to be the way they are in the universe.” I agree. That’s exactly what I said. They didn’t have to be any way. They just happen to. No reason. No cause. They just happen to be what they are.
“when the Big Bang occurred the laws were so finely tuned (they did not have to be) that the universe was able to remain stable [etc]” You don’t get to say it was finely tuned. What happened happened. You don’t get to state that a hill was finely tuned for a rock to fall in that exact same spot it happened to fall into either. If you let a rock roll down a hill, it might bounce left, then right, then there’s a hill, then it accelerates, then there’s some mud that slows it down so this and that happens, and all of these factors lead u to the final location of the rock. And the rock could have ended up in trillions and trillions and trillions of other positions. It could have ended up one inch further to the right, or on the completely otherwise of the hill … or in Morocco. But where ever it ended up is where ever it ended up by nothing other than natural chance and happenstance. And had it ended up somewhere else then it would have ended up somewhere else. The odds against where it ended up are meaningless. Because you drew the target around the rock AFTER it already settled. And you drew a target around humanity AFTER we are here. That action that you have taken is a dishonest tactic. The odds are irrelevant. The rock on the hill absolutely demonstrates that. If you claim that there was finetuning going on, then you’d have to demonstrate that there exists something or someone who could have tuned it. And that hasn’t happened yet.
“I believe the same God who created the universe and established the laws of nature can, at His sovereign discretion, override those laws for His purposes (i.e.: miracles).” Then you are being irrational. Then you have set up an unfalsifiable set up where you can claim to be right either way. Because if you observe nature behave as one would expect, then you would point and say “See, that’s proof God made it that way, he created the laws of nature to make that happen” which would in fact mean that if you then saw nature behave differently, you ought to think that God made a mistake or didn’t design in perfectly, but you don’t; you point and say “See, that’s proof God performed a miracle!” So which is it? If I let go of a rock and it falls, you say that’s God, and if I let go of it and it floats, you say that’s God too? That’s an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore it’s necessarily irrational.
Fascinating response, Jacob. What is so fascinating is that you have assumed Naturalism to be true and based your entire response on that assumption without demonstrating in any sense that it is true. Your response of full of declarations like: 1) The universe didn’t come from anywhere. It exists without having come from anywhere. and 2) We still have all reason to believe that the material just exists. No reason. No cause. No possibility of a cause. It just exists.
Obviously you don’t realize it, but what you have said is religious to the core. You have no science to back up your claims, but you assert them as if they are scientific fact.
The main thing you don’t realize, thus don’t take into account, is that: 1) God is not material and is thus not subject to the laws of the material universe, and 2) God is eternal and self existing. You can’t analyze him using the laws of nature as you are trying to do. What we do know about him, we know because he has revealed himself. You would do well to understand what you are fighting against before you continue to give answers about things you obviously don’t understand. As it is, your answers require you to be all knowing – which you are not. You would have been much better off just admitting outright that “you don’t have a clue” (which is basically what your answers say).
“What is so fascinating is that you have assumed Naturalism to be true and based your entire response on that assumption without demonstrating in any sense that it is true.” But that’s the data I was offered. I was just operating under the data I was given by you yourself. You said; “[It] is considered an established fact of physics and cosmology that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed. I mean nothing: no time, no space, no matter, no energy. Just plain nothing.” And I just took that to the logical conclusion; that if there wasn’t anything that existed prior to the natural universe, then therefore the universe exists but didn’t come from anywhere it just exists for no reason with no cause as the default state of reality.
“You have no science to back up your claims, but you assert them as if they are scientific fact.” You provided the science. You provided that yourself. I just took it to the necessary conclusion and explained what it necessarily can only mean.
“The main thing you don’t realize, thus don’t take into account, is that: 1) God is not material and is thus not subject to the laws of the material universe, and 2) God is eternal and self existing.” I think I already responded to this: We know that physical material exists. We know it’s here. The fact that you’re typing on a keyboard demonstrates that material exists. We know it exists. Therefore it can in fact possibly play the role as a candidate for the default state of existence. In order for something to be the default state of existence, it has to as a minimum exist. Things that don’t exist can’t be the default state of existence. And things that haven’t been demonstrated to exist can’t be said to be the default state of existence. I say that the default state of existence is physical material for two reasons. One; the science you yourself already provided. And two; it is at least known to exist, which is the absolute minimum criteria. You don’t know that any god exists, and according to your OWN statement, you can’t analyze a god to see if it really IS self-existing. You can only imagine or state it. But on both accounts; we DO know that material exists, and we DO know with all the science to support it that it is in fact self existing though the possible analysis.
So it’s like a coffee cup. I say that the cup holds the liquid in. You assert that that’s not good enough and that there has to be more to it, so you imagine a substance that is extra to the cup, and then you admit that you can’t observe or analyze it, and then you state that THAT is what keeps the liquid in. We don’t know that the substance exists, because you only imagined it, and you can’t analyze it. So you have nothing to work with. But we do know that cups exist, and we can analyze them. And the analysis indicates that the cup does the job fine. What more do you need? What does Occam’s razor make of your assertion of this imagined extra supposedly unneeded substance? Because that’s exactly what you’ve done.
We don’t know that any gods exist. We haven’t been presented with any. Nobody has even attempted. The reason people believe a god exists is that they have imagined a god as a workable solution to X Y or Z. But that’s not a demonstration of existence. We know that material exists. And therefore it can at least possibly be the default state of existence. I know I’m repeating myself, but it’s such a simple point that can so simply be nailed down; in order to claim X exists by default, it has to at least exist. “You can’t analyze him using the laws of nature as you are trying to do.” You can’t analyze any gods by ANY means. You can’t even show them to exist. That’s the problem. It’s not that someone is trying to use the wrong tool. We have no tools of any kind, and no reason to believe that there’s anything there in the first place. I’m not trying to analyze a god. I recognize that gods by definition can’t be tested or demonstrated or shown to do anything, let alone to be shown to even exist. That’s why I’m not interested in including them even on the hypothetical drawing board. Why should we?
“What we do know about him, we know because he has revealed himself.” As I said, things that don’t exist can’t do anything. And things that haven’t been demonstrated to exist can’t be asserted to have done anything. In order to claim that some god did X (reveal anything) then that god has to at a minimum exist, but that can’t be demonstrated, and nobody has even attempted demonstrating it. How can you state that a god revealed X to you when neither you nor anyone has or could possibly demonstrate that this god even exists? We know that people exist and people interpret things as revelation. Which is also why people all over the world of all kinds of conflicting contradictory religious views all believe at the same time that the one true god revealed something to them that contradicts what the person sitting next to them say god revealed to her. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong, and neither of them can claim that a god does anything until they’ve shown that a god exists.
“You would do well to understand what you are fighting against” This is not a fight. This is an investigation. A discussion of what is and isn’t believable, and as such an act of cooperation and assistance and mutual working together to find out what is most likely believable by learning and/or teaching. If you think this is a fight, you’re going to make many mistakes as things progress. “As it is, your answers require you to be all knowing – which you are not.” Am I also playing omniscient for asserting that a coffee cup can hold liquid without the addition of immaterial unanalyzable substances? I know that I am willing to make assertions that other people are not. But I am not making these assertions in a claim of knowledge let alone in absolute certainty, and therefore I am clearly not playing omniscient. Physical material might possibly have been caused by some other previously existing substance morphing into it that itself wasn’t strictly physical. Causality might have played on for let’s say 5 trillion years before big bang, outside my awareness. I don’t have to rely on that, so I don’t, as Occam’s razor dictates I should, but I am willing to change my position to that if the evidence supports it in the future. But at this point there’s no evidence to indicate it. At this point there’s no additional possible theoretical candidates to play the role as “default state of existence”. There’s only physical material, which we know exists.
So the two of us are in a room, having an eye to eye conversation. There’s a loud yell. We both react, and we turn to see a girl standing in the corner of the room. And I see no indication that there are anyone else on the room. There are no other candidates in the room. She is the only candidate. So I assume it was her. Am I playing omniscient? There are no other apparent candidates, so is that such an irrational position to hold. You are telling me that I can’t assert it was her. So I grab you by the arm and walk around the room, flip the furniture over look behind curtains and all, and we see no indication of anyone other than her. After observation and analysis, she is still the only candidate known to exist in the room. And yet you still insist that I am playing omniscient and that there could possibly be ghosts and invisible people and super heroes and tiny tiny one inch tall humans with massive voices hiding about … or even the the furniture might be screaming. Why is it such an out there position of mine that I simply hang the phenomenon on the only thing shown to exist as a real world candidate and that I am not operating within your imagined supernatural claims that you couldn’t demonstrate in a million years?
You really don’t see the flaws in your assumptions, do you? You said over and over that we know the natural universe exists and don’t know God exists. First of all, if you are going to insist on asserting the Naturalism you have assumed, how do you know that the natural universe actually exists? How do you know that you are not living in the Matrix and you only imagine it exists? You don’t! Second, your numerous assertions that God does not exist is based on your naturalistic presuppositions – which you assume to be true but which can’t be demonstrated by your own naturalistic requirements. You argument is full of massive gaps that you don’t even see. You don’t analyze God using science because God exists outside of the natural universe – which he, himself, created. Nothing that we understand to be natural material existed before the Big Bang, but God did exist. Your argument is simply untenable.
Your approach to trying to discredit what I have said simply cannot be demonstrated to be true. But I will tell you how you can disprove what I have written. Demonstrate that the presuppositions of Naturalism are true using the beliefs of Naturalism itself. If you do that, you have actually proven that God does not exist. Until you can show that the basis of your arguments are true using your own beliefs, your arguments are totally meaningless. Just because you have never personally encountered God does not mean he does not exist. You, obviously, are not looking where he has revealed himself to be.
“First of all, if you are going to insist on asserting the Naturalism you have assumed, how do you know that the natural universe actually exists?” There you go. Now you have reached the most laughable absurd cowardly act of desperation that portrays so much about your position: In order to protect your god at ALL costs, you reject reality itself. If reality has to somehow not really be real in order for your god to be real, that says a LOT! When everything in the world shows that you are wrong; all the logic and all the data and all the evidence, you choose to pretend it’s all imaginary. When you observe that in actuality all your reasons for believing are deeply flawed and that you don’t really believe it for any good reason, pretend that nobody believes anything for any good reason including that the world is even real … as if that gave you a free pass to also believe things that are just wild ass assertions even if other people are. And. You just actively threw me out of the conversation. You’ve just ended the conversation. If we can’t even agree that the two of us exist in this shared world having a conversation, then we can’t have a conversation. And so the conversation is over.
Jacob, I think you need to reread the article. Nowhere does it say or imply that the natural world is not real. In fact, the Christian faith acknowledges the existence of both the natural world AND transcendent reality. On top of that, we believe that the natural universe operates by fixed natural laws that makes scientific study possible. (Did you know that it was Christians who originated the scientific method based on that very principle?) For some reason you seem to think that the Christian faith and science are incompatible. That is simply not true.
You also don’t seem to grasp the implications of your own naturalistic worldview as it relates to “knowing.” If the natural universe is all that exists, and everything did arise out of mindless matter and energy, there is no certainty that your perception of existence is as it appears to be. How to you know that you are not hooked up to “the Matrix?” Obviously, Christians don’t believe that; we believe that an intelligent creator made humanity with the characteristics of personhood that allow us to live as personal, self-aware beings.
The very premise of your comments are wrong because you are responding to things that are simply not in the article. Beyond that, the naturalistic worldview beliefs you are trying to use to discount the article do not provide you with the logical substance to even make the argument you are trying to make. I believe you need to rethink your assumptions.
“Jacob, I think you need to reread the article.” Okay. I reread the article, the questions and our conversation. I invite you to do the same.
“Nowhere does it say or imply that the natural world is not real.” Your question did. I quoted you. If you now see that it’s a mistake on your part that you brought up irrelevant useless cowardly questions that didn’t have anything to do with the article, then that’s good. I trust you won’t be making that mistake again.
“In fact, the Christian faith acknowledges the existence of both the natural world AND transcendent reality.” Wrong. It acknowledges the existence of the natural world, and then it assumes the existence of the transcendent world without making any demonstration thereof. You smuggle the assumption in with the word “acknowledge” as if it’s a given that it’s a real thing that you just see as it is. But that’s not the case. It’s not a given. And this entire conversation shows why it’s assumed: Because it’s assumed to be an explanation for the natural world. And that is a useless proposition. And I believe I’ve explained why quite clearly. But in short. You’re imagining that X can’t exist without a cause, so you imagine that X needs a cause, so you assume a cause Y, and then you say that Y can exist without a cause. Just acknowledge that you don’t have any reason to believe that X has a cause. Because everything else is just a game of pretend.
“On top of that, we believe that the natural universe operates by fixed natural laws that makes scientific study possible.” No you absolutely don’t. Please stop lying to me. It’s insulting and it shows that you don’t even care about attempting to be consistent. You do NOT believe in fixed natural laws. You do NOT. And you told me directly! Remember? :
“I believe the same God who created the universe and established the laws of nature can, at His sovereign discretion, override those laws for His purposes (i.e.: miracles).”
The god you believe in does in fact make science impossible. Because it can change all natural and logical “laws” at any time it wishes, and you believe it has done so tons of times already. You are holding to a logically self-contradictory belief. Because you observe the natural world for what it is, but you assume and imagine things into it in addition that are neither here nor there. So you assume things that you don’t need to assume, and they then make huge problems for you. So why on Earth would you assume it? Stop doing it. I understand that you observe that the natural world exists and makes science possible. Your problem is your additional belief in a miracle-working law-breaker. Which was one of the first things I explained. You’re trying to believe in a law-setter that is also a law-breaker, and that is logically self refuting. It’s one or the other. Which is it? “For some reason you seem to think that the Christian faith and science are incompatible. That is simply not true.” It’s absolutely true! The two are only “compatible” in the sense that people can be irrational and believe two at the same time. It’s called a double standard; a contradiction. Because people have no idea what the implications of their beliefs are. In reality, they aren’t compatible, and I’ve explained why since my first comment. In reality, they are incompatible, and I explained why.
“How to you know that you are not hooked up to “the Matrix?”” So you told me that you weren’t going to go there, because you did agree with me that this world exists, and because you knew it had nothing to do with the topic of the article the questions or the discussion, and now you’re trying to change that once again? Again, I tell you: If you can’t argue from the given fact that this world exists, then that says a lot. And btw, you’re only arguing from consequences. So what if we can’t know things for certain. Doesn’t change a thing about my earlier answers to your earlier questions. The material natural world is still all there is. We still have no reason what so ever to believe anything else. The consequence thereof is irrelevant to the fact of the matter.
“Christians believe that an intelligent creator made humanity with the characteristics of personhood that allow us to live as personal, self-aware beings.” Isn’t God a personal, self-aware being in your book? Of course he is. So you already believe that beings can exist, being personal and self-aware without having been created to be so. You are once again trying to assume that something needs an explanation, so you assume an explanation that magically doesn’t need one. If you can believe that a god can just exist for no reason with no cause, yet be self aware and personal, then so can humans. You are once again simply assuming that there exists a problem that you have to solve, and then your solution doesn’t solve anything, even if it was completely real, which you have no hope of demonstrating.
“The naturalistic worldview beliefs you are trying to use to discount the article do not provide you with the logical substance to even make the argument you are trying to make.” Of course they do. Now you are once again trying to take away reality to protect your beliefs. You have twice tried to take away reality, and now you’re trying to take away logic. Again, this is in the very first comment I made, where I explained this. The universe does what it does. It doesn’t do what it doesn’t do. And it does what it does, because it has to do something. And there are no gods that all of a sudden make it do something it didn’t do yesterday. That is _all_ it takes to have a foundation for logic: the observable self-evident fact that the universe does what it does. And I explained that your assumed god – if it existed – would make logic impossible. I explained that. And you seem to have forgotten that.
“You need to rethink your assumptions.” They are not assumptions. I have explained that quite clearly. They are demonstrations. Sometimes based on the very data you yourself provided for me. As I have also explained in detail. While I’ve explained that your assumptions that there have to be more than this clearly are assumptions. If you think mine are assumptions and yours aren’t, then I think you need to rethink it. If you think I am the one making assumptions, then please respond to the loud yell and the one girl in the room analogy that you completely ignored, when completely showed that I am being completely fair in what I say while you are just making things up as you go.
Very interesting, Jacob, that you are accusing me of working off of assumptions that are illogical because they can’t be proven by naturalistic presuppositions, while you are assuming the truth of Naturalism without being able to demonstrate it to be true by your own presuppositions. If Naturalism is true, then everything, in all of existence must be explainable using the scientific method. However, it can’t. You are working off of assumptions that simply don’t even meet your own standards. You are requiring that I demonstrate the existence of God using naturalistic proofs, when you can’t even do the same for the existence of the natural universe using your own requirements. You say that what you believe is based on “demonstrations” not assumptions, but that only shows you don’t understand the assumptions you are working off of. Because of your false logic, nearly everything you have said in your comment simply cannot be demonstrated to be true.
What is the origin of the material that makes up the natural universe?
What is the origin of life?
How did the variety of life forms that exist in the world come into being?
What is the origin of consciousness?
You see, you can’t answer any of these questions using the scientific method. You believe they all have natural origins because of your presuppositions (your religious faith), not because of any scientific proof.
You seem to think that the only kind of proof for the existence of reality is scientific proof. It is not. You talk of me making a mockery of logic, but you must realize that even logic is an expression of your worldview beliefs. The existence of God doesn’t seem logical to you because you have decreed it to be so based on your worldview presuppositions. You think that if he can’t be shown to exist using the scientific method he can’t exist. However, it is your logic that comes up short.
Human beings are not purely natural animals as you must assume using your worldview beliefs; we are spiritual beings who have the ability to operate in a spiritual arena. That is possible, because God made us that way. We have the capability of knowing him based on spiritual laws that operate outside of the laws of the natural universe. I understand that you don’t grasp that, but it is true none the less; and even you yourself operate based on spiritual laws every time you interact with other people. Do you seriously believe that communication is purely a natural phenomenon? Do you seriously believe love, and other emotions, are based purely natural bodily functions? Do you really believe that self sacrifice is purely a survival mechanism? None of these things can be explained using naturalistic means.
No, I believe in God because I know him in a personal relationship. There absolutely is proof that he exists, but it is not naturalistic proof – it is personal proof. Not personal in the sense that it is personal to me because I make it up in my head, but personal in that it exists in a relationship that is objectively real – because both God and human beings are objectively real persons.
Jacob, you can deny the existence of spiritual reality all you want, but you can’t do it based on the arguments you have been using. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to do more than simply attack my beliefs and assert by fiat that I am wrong; you have to prove that Naturalism is true – using your own naturalistic presuppositions. Until you do that, your argument simply can’t be taken seriously.
Your entire comment is in no way a response. I’m sorry. But it isn’t. You haven’t responded to my points. You’ve kept making assertions while you demonstrate nothing. More importantly; you ignore my clear demonstration that you lied and that you do not believe that you can trust logic or science or uniformity when you believe in a god that can change them at will. You ignore all the problems I show you. You don’t respond to the yell and the girl in the room analogy even when I tell you to, in order to clear up who is actually the one making assumptions. You are just stuck on autopilot. I can hear it. I can hear that this is pre-written and that you’re not making an attempt to respond to anything I say.
I have no reason to make a long response. Because everything I’ve already said is a response to this last comment which is now just repeating what you’ve already said. Everything can be cleared up, if you respond to one thing alone: the yell and the girl in the room analogy. Respond to it, Freddy. Please. That is the only way we can continue this. You can run away from my clear demonstration that logic and science are utterly impossible under your assertion of a law-breaking miracle worker. I get why you do that. But Freddy. Answer to the yell and the girl in the room analogy. And _then_ we can discuss who is making the greater assumptions.
“There absolutely is proof that he exists, but it is not naturalistic proof – it is personal proof.” Then it isn’t proof. Proof that you can’t show anyone else isn’t proof. Your own experience is – by all possible standards – indistinguishable from a delusion. If it’s personal, and if you can’t independently verify it, then it is completely utterly equal to a delusion or a mirage or a hallucination that only exists in your head. What demonstrable difference is there between your relationship to a god and a kindergarten kid who has an invisible friend that only she can see? What is the demonstrable (!!!!!) difference? You’ve already conceded that you can’t provide any proof. And to go to the analogy: you are trying to explain the yell by saying that it was your invisible friend that you think you have personal proof of. And again, if you think I am making assumptions, when I tell you that you’re nuts, then explain how I’m wrong. Go back to the analogy, and tell me exactly how it is unreasonable of me to state that it is most likely that girl who yelled! Go back to that analogy. I can’t do anything if you continuously avoid that analogy.
I’m sorry Jacob, but you seem to be in over your head. You say I have not responded to you and I have. What I have said is that you have attacked me based on a set of beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to be true; thus, your entire attack is meaningless. You have not demonstrated what you think you have, and your assertions about my beliefs are simply in error. You don’t seem to understand what you are attacking.
1. God does not just come in and change things willy-nilly. And when he does perform a miracle, he is able to do it in a way that does not alter the laws of nature. This is not a perfect illustration, but you can think of is like a back door into a computer program, where the technician can go in and do things that cannot be done by a regular operator, but does not mess up the ones using the program. Your assumptions about who God is and how he works is simply wrong, so your attacks using your particular arguments are not valid.
2. Girl in the room argument – This illustration is a straw man and meaningless to this conversation. You are comparing the room to reality, and assuming that the room is all that exists. There is no place in your illustration for anything other than naturalistic assumptions.
Look, I am willing to concede and declare you the winner of this argument if you can prove, using your own naturalistic presuppositions, that the natural universe is all that exists. I gave you the means for doing that in my last post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. You continue to blast me for not being able to give naturalistic proof for the existence of God (which is not a requirement of my theistic beliefs), while you continue to assert the naturalistic existence of the natural universe with no scientific proof yourself (which does require naturalistic proofs).
Jacob, your entire argument is a religious argument. You believe Naturalism by faith, and until you can give me evidence that your beliefs have some validity using your own presuppositional requirements, your arguments are simply not valid.
I already informed you that this is not an attack. The more you treat this as an attack, you’re continuously telling yourself that you are against me. You don’t treat this as you should: an act of cooperation to find out what is most likely true. You can’t honestly consider or understand what I say if you treat my statements as opposing attacks. They are not.
“God does not just come in and change things willy-nilly.” Baseless assertion. You have no clue of this. You can only assert it. You have no hope of ever demonstrating the intentions of anyone, god or not. You state that there exists a being that can change anything at will. “And when he does perform a miracle, he is able to do it in a way that does not alter the laws of nature.” Then it’s not a miracle. What you describe is literally a nonsensical incoherent nothing. It’s like saying “light that’s not made of photons” or “speech that can’t be heard”. “It’s like a back door into a computer program, where the technician can go in and do things that cannot be done by a regular operator, but does not mess up the ones using the program.” Or he can crash your entire computer and reprogram anything at will, make your curser go right when you move the mouse up, install viruses, make buttons into self destruct buttons, and what have you. You are once again only asserting what you personally imagine that your god would do, with no hope of demonstration.
You’re playing God. You’re playing omniscient, claiming knowledge of internal intentions of other beings as well as the future. “Your assumptions about who God is and how he works is simply wrong” They are your assumptions. You are the one who assumed that a God has the power to do this. I don’t hold any such assumption. I am responding to your assumptions and showing them to you as they are. And they don’t fit together. These are your assumptions against yourself. This is your inconsistency.
Thank you for finally going into the girl in the room analogy. Sort of.
“Girl in the room argument – This illustration is a straw man and meaningless to this conversation.” In what way is it a strawman? Do we know of anything else in the room capable of yelling? Have you shown that there’s more? I am saying that as far as I know, she is all there is in that room, and no one has shown more. Is that a strawman analogy? Has anyone shown that there’s more than material existence? “You are comparing the room to reality, and assuming that the room is all that exists.” You’re only digging yourself deeper into the assumptions that I JUST demonstrated that you are making. You are inventing things that you cannot possibly demonstrate. You are. You invent invisible beings, talking furniture and now you are – exactly as I stated – imagining and assuming that there is “more” to this. You are still doing exactly as I said you do.
I say that the girl in that room is the one and only candidate that we know of, and therefore I say she did it. I am not claiming absolute certainty. And I tell you that if you can show any other candidate, then I am of course willing to change my mind. And you simply continuously imagine things that you can’t possibly demonstrate to be true and complain that I can’t show things to absolutely certainty. You have only dug yourself deeper into the nonsense that I wanted to show that you do. You invent things out of your backside. And you complain that I can’t demonstrate things to absolute certainty. So without claiming absolute certainty, and given that you haven’t demonstrated ANYTING what so ever; am I not justified in claiming knowledge that the girl is the one who yelled?
“I am willing to concede and declare you the winner of this argument if you can prove, using your own naturalistic presuppositions, that the natural universe is all that exists.” Freddy, you’re being unreasonable. Look up the logical fallacy “Argument from ignorance.” You’re asking me to prove X wrong, and until I’ve done that, you’ll believe X is true. That is unreasonable. That is a logical fallacy. That is irrational. You’re being irrational. Look up the argument from ignorance. Look up the burden of proof.
“You continue to blast me for not being able to give naturalistic proof for the existence of God” Correction. You are not able to give any proof of any kind what so ever of God. “Which is not a requirement of my theistic beliefs.” Then we are not required to include it in “reality” and “things we can show to be real”. You are complaining that I don’t include the supernatural in the category of real things just based on your sayso that it’s possible. And you shift the burden of proof. When I say that I accept that the girl yelled, which is a reasonable natural conclusion that nobody would question, (and you know this) what you’re saying is “I am willing to concede that she is the one who yelled if you can prove, that there are no invisible intangible ghosts in here”. You’re being a moron for saying this. And you know this. You would know this in any other area of your life. You know I’m right.
If your complaint only makes sense in the understanding that I am making claims of absolute certainty, then understand that I am (NOT!!!!!!) making claims of absolute certainty. I can’t underline that any stronger. So I hope you get that. So given that; do you have any complaint that’s valid?
Jacob,
You still don’t seem to be able to see beyond your own naturalistic presuppositions. If your presuppositions are true, then you have a case, but you can’t just assume they are and make a case “as if” they are without backing them up – which is exactly what you are trying to do.
“Most likely true?” Based on what criteria? You see, the only criteria you seem to even be able to imagine are those based on your naturalistic presuppositions. For the third time, prove them to be true based on your own presuppositions and you have a case. Until then, your arguments are meaningless.
1. I don’t consider your arguments as opposing attacks. I consider them arguments based on a worldview platform that has no evidence to support it. Until you understand worldview concepts, you will continue to make this mistake.
2. You assert that the Christian theistic concepts I have asserted are “nonsense.” The only way you can make that assertion is for you to KNOW that your naturalistic beliefs are true. However, once again, you have not demonstrated that to be true. Your accusations on that front are meaningless until you do that. How do you know? You don’t! If anyone is saying things that “you personally imagine,” it is you. You have simply dismissed my paradigm based on your own religious beliefs without giving any evidence whatsoever that they are true.
3. There is only an inconsistency in my beliefs if they are not true. You can disprove that in one of two ways: 1) Prove Christian Theism is not true (I don’t expect you to try this one.). 2) Prove Naturalism is true. You have done neither, and until you do, again, your accusations are meaningless. As for my beliefs, they are not simply “my assumptions.” They are a revelation from God himself. If that is true, which I am certain it is, then my arguments make perfect sense. They don’t make sense to you because you have dismissed the concept of a personal God who has revealed himself to mankind out of hand (again, without any evidence).
4. Girl in the room – again. Your illustration assumes that “the room” corresponds with the entirety of reality. It is a straw man because reality exists in a form that does not correspond with your room. If you want to prove me wrong, prove Naturalism to be true. You keep accusing me of making things up, yet your argument does exactly what you accuse me of. How hypocritical! Prove Naturalism to be true and you win. Until then, all you are doing is expressing your religious beliefs about the nature of reality.
5. Me? Unreasonable? Have you even read what I have written? I have not asked you to prove God does not exist. What I have asked you to prove, using your own naturalistic presuppositions, is that the natural universe is all that exists (which is your argument). And, again for the third time, I have given you a way to do it. Answer the 4 questions I gave you using the scientific method, and you have proven me wrong. But you did not even attempt it. In fact, you have totally ignored that I gave you the opportunity. If your naturalistic beliefs are true, that should be absolutely doable. Based on your attacks on my thinking (and you can say you are not attacking all you want – your argument says differently) all you have done is tell me my faith is wrong because your faith is right.
Jacob, once again, your problem is that you are so locked into your own naturalistic presuppositions that you cannot even conceive of other possibilities. You would do well to do a little bit of study about worldview concepts. The fact that God cannot be known using your presuppositions does not in any sense mean he does not exist or that he cannot be known. He just can’t be known using your belief set. He does exist and can be known, and, in fact, you can know him if you open up your life to him.
Freddy, I asked you specifically if you have any other concerns other than absolute certainty. I have not claimed absolutely certainty. Yet everything you say only makes sense in the light that I was. All your critiques only make sense in the light that I make a claim of absolutely certainty.
Btw, notice that you made a claim of certainty. “They are a revelation from God himself. If that is true, which I am certain it is, then my arguments make perfect sense.” You made a claim of certainty. You are certain that you are correct. You have made the claim. And yet, notice that you’ve done nothing to demonstrate anything. You continuously ask me to prove your case wrong. And I haven’t even made any claims of certainty. I am not saying that the natural world is necessarily all that exists and I am certain of that. I have not said that. Yet that is what you want me to defend. And you want me to prove your Christian beliefs false. You ask me repeatedly.
When someone says “The blue whale is the largest animal that exists” what do you think they mean by this? Freddy, you’re not that dishonest, that you would pretend that they make a claim of absolute knowledge, right? You know that there’s an unstated condition: “… that we know of so far”. You know this. “This is the oldest civilization … that we have discovered”. “I am never going to have children … as things are right now, but of course things can change”. And also “The girl is the only one who could have yelled … that we know of”.
This is why I asked you to respond directly to the analogy. Because it demonstrates perfectly the one and only problem. I am not making claims of absolute certainty. I am making claims of what is most reasonable based on the available evidence. And that is what most of the people in the world do; because they understand that we aren’t omniscient, and we can’t make claims of absolute certainty (like you do, Freddy). I am saying that all the available evidence shows only one single candidate: the girl. So I say she yelled. What I say is directly equivalent to “The blue whale is the largest animal that exists”. And that is a reasonable statement. If you don’t twist it into a statement of absolutely certainty. And yet, Freddy, you repeatedly treat my statement as a claim of absolute certainty. That I can’t know this. Because this and this and this and that and this and that could be true outside of my awareness. You are soaked up in absolute certainty. Something I have never claimed. So I ask you again the one thing that was the most important in my last comment, and the one that you ignored or forgot:
If your complaint only makes sense in the understanding that I am making claims of absolute certainty, then understand that I am (NOT!!!!!!) making claims of absolute certainty. I can’t underline that any stronger. So I hope you get that. So given that; do you have any complaint that’s valid?
I’m sorry, Jacob, but what a disingenuous answer – you have made claims of certainty even if you deny you have. If you are not certain of that which you are railing against, then what in the dickens are your doing? The tenor of your response is, “I am not completely certain that I am right, but I am absolutely certain you are not.” You have claimed that you are not certain, yet seem to have enough certainty to say I am not right. You said, “All your critiques only make sense in the light that I make a claim of absolutely certainty,” yet your critique only makes sense if you are absolutely certain. So, which is it?
It also seems that you continue to be offended that I cannot produce naturalistic evidence to prove the existence of God and my personal relationship with him. It is true that I have not produced that kind of evidence, and I never will because God cannot be evaluated based on naturalistic presuppositions. Your continued insistence that I do only makes sense if you can demonstrate that the Natural universe is all that exists and that all of reality can actually be accounted for based on those presuppositions. I have asked you three times already to do that, and you continue to ignore it. Until you do it, your assertions about my belief in God continue to be meaningless.
You see, there are things that can be known that can’t be demonstrated by science. I can know I love my wife, but I can’t prove it using science. I can know that murdering babies is wrong, but I can’t prove it by science – and I could go on and on. Not everything can be proven by naturalistic means, and your insistence that I prove belief in God using those presuppositions, while you refuse to hold yourself accountable to your own presuppositions (which is a necessary element of Naturalism), is ludicrous.
Once again, your analogies are flawed. “That we know of? Seriously? Your “blue whale” and “oldest civilization” illustrations are useless. There are some things that can change, but there are some things that cannot. You don’t seem to be able to make that distinction.
And back to the girl in the room. I already told you the flaw in that analogy, but let me try again. You have created an artificial naturalistic environment that does not correspond with reality. The totality of reality is not a room, and the girl is not the only possible communicator. Just because you can’t think outside of your box does not make your box true. I reject your basic premise, and until you can demonstrate it to be true, it also continues to be meaningless.
Jacob, reality exists in some objectively real way, whether or not you know it or believe it. The fact that you reject God does not mean he does not exist, it only means that you have refused to look where you can find him. God is the Creator, not the created. God created natural laws, which means he exists outside of them. Until you can, at the very least, grasp that basic theistic concept, you will continue to look to validate the existence of reality in places it can’t be found. Let me suggest you read the Gospel of John.
Blessings,
Freddy
So in short, the problem is this. You claim that something is real. You can’t demonstrate that it is in fact real. It can’t be observed, it can’t be detected, it doesn’t manifest, it’s invisible, it’s silent, it’s intangible, it is completely and utterly indistinguishable from nothing. By everyday standards in everyday language, that means that it IS (!) nothing. And I speak in that language. And when it smacks you in the face that you believe things are true that are NOT real by every everyday standards, you make up another standard by yourself that nobody plays by, but by that standard your beliefs can be sheltered and protected so that you can keep believing them. So when I and the rest of the world speak in a language in which the supernatural isn’t real, you speak in another language. You complain in a language and a standard of absolute certainty, and by that standard I can’t know that the supernatural is not real. And I have already conceded that by your standard of absolute certainty, I will NOT claim that it’s nothing. I will only claim that by my standard. But if we have to have a conversation then we have to agree on terms. And even though everybody in the world agrees with MY definitions and standards at EVERY SINGLE point in time of their lives, I’ll gladly change for the sake of this conversation.
So I’ll respond to your comment. In YOUR language. Not mine. Yours. Remember that.
“you have made claims of certainty even if you deny you have.” No, not in your language. Not even in my own, but certainly not in yours. I may use statements of a factual nature like “this IS the case” in my language, but not in yours.
“The tenor of your response is, “I am not completely certain that I am right, but I am absolutely certain you are not.” No, I never claimed to a standard of absolutely certainty that there can’t exist things that are invisible intangible silent immaterial etc. I claimed that by everyday standards. But for the sake of conversation, I’ll talk in your language now, and no, I do not make that claim.
“Your critique only makes sense if you are absolutely certain.” No, because now we have established that my critique only makes sense if I am NOT absolutely certain. I can ONLY make the claim that immaterial intangible invisible silent nonmanifesting things are not real by MY everyday standards and definitions. But we aren’t playing by those anymore. They do not make ANY sense by standards of absolute certainty. So quite the opposite. Remember; now we’re talking your language, not mine. “It is true that I have not produced that kind of evidence (evidence that can be observed), and I never will because God cannot be evaluated based on naturalistic presuppositions.” Yep. So I can’t accept it as real. I can’t say “This is real”. And I won’t say that “this is real”. But because we’re talking absolute certainty I will NOT say that it is definitely not real. “Your continued insistence that I do only makes sense if you can demonstrate that the Natural universe is all that exists”. No, Freddy. That’s not the assertion. Not anymore. The assertion is no longer that the supernatural does not exist. Now, according to your standards, the assertion (which is absolutely fine) is that the supernatural has not yet been demonstrated to exist, and so I can’t claim that it is true that the supernatural exists. “Natural” by definition (mine and yours, I assume) means “that which can be observed, detected, that which manifests”. If it can’t be observed or detected, and if it doesn’t manifest, then I can’t accept it as real. But I won’t say that you’re wrong either. If I am asked to answer in the standard of certainty then I can’t know in certainty either way.
“You see, there are things that can be known that can’t be demonstrated by science. I can know I love my wife, but I can’t prove it using science.” But we aren’t talking about emotions. We are talking about things that you claim exist as objects/beings. Love is not an object. It’s in your head. We aren’t talking about what’s in your head. Unless you think God only exists in your head. In your imagination. If you don’t, then you are talking about that which exists as an object in the real objective world. You’re talking about an object or being, that can’t be seen or heard or sensed or touched, that can’t be detected by any scientific instruments, and that doesn’t manifest in the real world. That is what we were talking about.
“That we know of? Seriously?” Yes, Freddy, seriously, because I am not making claims of absolute certainty. So yes; that we know of. If I don’t know things to certainty, and I don’t, then I HAVE to say “that I know of”. And I informed you of this in the girl in the room analogy. The girl is everything that I know of, and that’s why I say that she yelled, but I don’t make that claim in absolute certainty, and I will gladly change my answer if other things are presented to me. The bluewhale is so far the largest animal that I know of, and that’s why I say that it’s the largest, but I don’t make that claim in absolute certainty, and I will gladly change my answer if larger animals are presented to me. The natural world is everything that I know of, and that’s why I say that this is what is real, but I don’t make that claim in absolute certainty, and I will gladly change my answer if other things are presented to me. Seriously! So what’s wrong with that? Are you trying to argue that I can’t possibly hold such a reasonable dynamic tentative position? So did you pressure me to prove X to absolute certainty in order to show that I can’t be absolutely certain, all this time to hear me say that I am not absolutely certain, and then you scoff at that with a bitchy “Seriously?” Don’t piss on my leg and tell me that I stink of piss and that I need to take a shower, Freddy.
“The fact that you reject God does not mean he does not exist” I know, and I wouldn’t even claim that by my standards or by my language!
I am still right about what I said lately. Your one and only critique is that I can’t absolutely know for certain that there isn’t more than the natural world. I can’t make it any more clear to you that if we’re talking about absolute certainty that you for some reason hold so dear, then I do NOT claim that the natural world is all there is. But that doesn’t force me to say that the supernatural IS real. Not until you give me a reason to. Now I’m just stuck not knowing. It could be real. It could be not real. I don’t know.
Had I known that you were ALL about absolute certainty and nothing else, I would probably never have answered your questions on this page. Because I don’t claim absolute certainty about anything, and now do most people in the world. You might as well have made a webpage that stated this: Questions that musicians and people with hair on their toes can’t answer (to the satisfaction of absolute certainty): Do you have hands? Did yesterday happen? Do you have parents?
I don’t know what the point of this is. Hanging people up on standards that they have never claimed that they play by. But again. If absolute certainty is so important to you, then I’ll repeat my question: Do you have any other complains?
In short, you have misdiagnosed the problem. I can demonstrate that God is real, it is just that you don’t accept the evidence. You are demanding naturalistic proofs for things that do not fit within Naturalism. God can be known, detected, and observed, but since you don’t acknowledge the means by which he can be known, detected, and observed, you reject him. Again, that is not a reflection of his reality, it is a reflection on your standards of proof. You have stated directly that you will not accept any evidence that is not based on naturalistic proofs. So, how do you know that naturalistic proofs can cause you to arrive at an understanding of the totality of the structure of reality? Well, you don’t, and therein lies the problem. That is an assertion of absolute knowledge whether you want to admit it or not. You are assuming that if God can be known at all, he must be able to be known empirically. It is simply a false assumption. Your “that I know of” is nothing more than a dodge that you are using to claim that my point of view is wrong. The problem is, your assertion is totally illogical unless and until you demonstrate that your point of view is right. If you can’t at least do that, any claim you make that someone else is wrong is totally meaningless. You have from the beginning contradicted yourself on this point, and you continue to do so. And if you don’t understand that, once again, it is not a problem with my logic, it is a problem of your inability to think outside of your naturalistic box. You admit that there is possibly a lot you don’t know, and I am simply affirming your assessment on that. [And to correct another of your mistakes, while you seem to believe that everybody in the world believes the way you believe, it is the exact opposite. True Naturalists are a significant minority of the world’s population. Not all who disagree with you are Christians, or even Theists, but those who disagree with you are the VAST majority in the world.]
In truth, I have presented you with other information to support my point of view. The fact that you reject it does not mean I have not given evidence, it only means you haven’t come to a place where you understand it. That is a problem with your understanding not my arguments.
Finally, one more time about your naturalistic presuppositions. Every judgment (about my beliefs and the evidence you are willing to accept as valid) you have made is based on them. So, if you want your point of view to have any validity at all, you have to demonstrate that Naturalism is true using empirical methodology – since that is the standard for Naturalism. You have ignored this for too long already. Answer the four questions I posed and prove them to be true using your standard. Your own argument demands it. If you can’t, then what that says is that your acceptance of your own point of view is a religious belief that cannot live up to your own demands. No attack on my point of view has any relevance until you can do that. I am waiting.
I don’t have to respond to anything you’ve said. At all. You say that you can present evidence and that you can present means by which a god can be observed and detected. Go ahead. The rest is literally just a repetition of what we have already discussed and what I have already explained, and I have no interested in that.
“I can demonstrate that God is real” “God can be known, detected, and observed” Go ahead then.
“I am waiting” for what? What are you waiting for? What are you waiting for me to do? I just explained that by your standards I am making no assertions. I make assertions in accordance with my standards but that we aren’t going to play by my standards anymore. I have gracefully put them away. Now I am a completely clean slate. I have made no assertions. I am to you like a kindergarten child with no understanding of reality. Now, all I require is input. You said you have the input. “I can demonstrate that God is real” “God can be known, detected, and observed” Go ahead then.
I don’t have to respond to anything you’ve said. At all. You say that you can present evidence and that you can present means by which a god can be observed and detected. Go ahead. The rest is literally just a repetition of what we have already discussed and what I have already explained, and I have no interested in that.
“I can demonstrate that God is real” “God can be known, detected, and observed” Go ahead then.
“I am waiting” for what? What are you waiting for? What are you waiting for me to do? I just explained that by your standards I am making no assertions. I make assertions in accordance with my standards but that we aren’t going to play by my standards anymore. I have gracefully put them away. Now I am a completely clean slate. I have made no assertions. I am to you like a kindergarten child with no understanding of reality. Now, all I require is input. You said you have the input. “I can demonstrate that God is real” “God can be known, detected, and observed” Go ahead then.
Jacob,
Actually, if you want to be taken seriously, you do have to answer for your assertions. In spite of the fact that you claim to be making no assertions, every claim you have made and every put-down you have made of me is an assertion about the objective structure of reality that you recognize. The fact that you don’t understand the basis of your own argument doesn’t change that. That said, as you requested, I will lay it out for you. However, you should recognize that even your request that I do it is full of misunderstanding of the task. You need to understand this if you are serious about understanding my answer.
Up until now, you have insisted that the “knowing, detection, and observation” be based on naturalistic presuppositions. I have already said, numerous times, that there is a different way to “know, detect, and observe” that uses Theistic presuppositions, instead. You have stated in your request that “we aren’t going to play by my standards anymore,” so I am taking you at your word that you are going to interpret my arguments based on my presuppositions, not yours. So, here goes:
There is evidence that God exists and it falls into a number of different categories. There are actually entire books written on each of the different categories, so giving a full blown explanation of each one is impossible – there is just too much material. So, what I am going to do is lay out the categories for you, and if you are truly serious about wanting to know more, you can do a little more reading yourself.
* The naturalistic worldview that you have been trying to assert is not viable. The article that you have responded to here (along with its part 2 companion) gives a short explanation of this.
* The evidence for the validity of the Bible is profound. This is seen in: 1) how the biblical text has been accurately preserved and transmitted to our current day, 2) the consistency of the message in the text, 3) fulfilled prophesy, and 4) the scientific consistency seen in the archeological evidence and the evidence for an intelligent designer.
* Christ claimed to be God in the flesh. He believed himself to be, and those who lived and worked with him recognized the same based on his miracles and his teaching. He was either crazy, lying, or truthful. All of the evidence points to the latter.
* The accounts of the life of Jesus that we have are eyewitness testimony.
* Evidence from outside historians indicate that he truly did exist as a human on earth, and that his ministry caused a big enough stir to be recognized.
* In spite of many people throughout history trying to discredit the Christian faith based on Christ’s historical existence, his resurrection, his teachings, his miracles, etc. (including your own arguments), no one has been able to prove that Jesus was not who he said he was.
* The descriptions of the death and resurrection of Jesus are consistent with what would be expected based on the medical knowledge of that day.
* The body of Christ was missing after the resurrection (in spite of the full weight of the Roman government wanting to deny it).
* Christ appeared to well over 500 eyewitnesses following his resurrection from the dead.
* Christ’s disciples were willing to die for their beliefs rather than recant – in spite of severe persecution.
* High profile skeptics became followers of Christ following his resurrection after seeing him.
* Finally, and most important, literally millions and millions of people throughout history have met him personally and testify to the fact that they have met him and he has changed their lives.
Now, I am one of those who will affirm that last statement. God does exist, he has revealed himself and those who are willing to open their life to him can know him also – yourself included. The fact that he cannot be demonstrated using material proofs is completely beside the point because there is a part of reality that exists outside of material reality.
So:
1. He can be known by anyone who is willing to open their life to him.
2. He can be detected as an individual opens their life to him and he touches the individual spirit.
3. He can be observed as he changes people’s lives and works through them out in the world.
Hopefully, this helps you to understand more fully. If you are interested in entering into this personal relationship with God and would like more info, I would be delighted to help you further.
* “The naturalistic worldview that you have been trying to assert is not viable.” That’s not an argument for X, and it’s not even trying to be; that’s an argument against Y. Do you believe anything that hasn’t been proven to be false?
* “The evidence for the validity of the Bible is profound.”
—– “1) how the biblical text has been accurately preserved and transmitted to our current day,” Fictional texts can be preserved too. Other religious texts have been well preserved too. Are they true too?
—– 2) “the consistency of the message in the text” I see no such thing. The god is described both as a loving father and a warlord, the god says both that he wants to be feared, that he wants to be loved, and that love and fear don’t mix. Moral commandments are blatantly changed over time. Especially from OT to NT. The time and place Jesus is born changes. Etc. And I trust that other religious texts and even other fictional writings are much more self-consistent. Does that indicate they are true?
—– 3) “fulfilled prophesy” most of the fulfilled prophecies are vague with no specifics and time limits or they fall into the category of things people have been working towards. Tons of them have also downright failed, like “Damascus is taken away from being a city”, “he river [The Nile] shall be wasted and dried up”, “O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean”, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”, “I tell you the truth: some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”, etc. This is simply a mix of vague predictions, some too vague to be even called predictions, and some happen to ht and some happen to not. This is _not_ an indication of a supernatural omniscient being that could tell you to the nanosecond and to the milligram the specific circumstances. Hold the evidence to the standard of the claim. The claim that this is a god of omniscience requires PERFECT predictions. Perfect predictions can’t fail, and they can’t be vague. Is there anything that actually requires an omniscient being? Also. You should talk to a Muslim about knowledge in a holy book that could only come from a god. They will make you and the bible look like a fool, I guarantee you. They have SUCH powerful demonstrations of divine knowledge. And yet you don’t believe Islam, do you?
—– 4) “the scientific consistency seen in the archeological evidence and the evidence for an intelligent designer.”I don’t know what any archeological evidence has to do with a god existing, and I don’t know what you think there is in the form of evidence for an intelligent designer.
* “Christ claimed to be God in the flesh.” Then quote him saying so, please. I can only recall Jesus talking about God and even to God as his father. He pays to God and talks to God as if it’s a second entity especially on the cross. Also. Even if he claimed it, haven’t tons of people claimed that over the years? Even if he claimed it, that doesn’t mean he was actually a god. “He was either crazy, lying, or truthful.” There are more options actually, but he could easily be lying and crazy. Why couldn’t he have been? Haven’t people already been lying and crazy, saying that they were gods? Don’t we know for a fact that Joseph Smith fabricated a religion knowingly? People simply do this sometimes. You can’t deny that. “All of the evidence points to the latter.” Does it? We know that people actually lie and get crazy and make mistakes, and we know that people make legendary stories about things that aren’t true. So we can demonstrate that these explanations, however much you want to dismiss them, are actually possible explanations. Plausible explanations. Real explanations. We don’t know yet that it is even possible for someone to be a god or for the supernatural to exist. It’s like trying to say “I know that it’s perfectly plausible that a storm or maybe an Earthquake caused this house to crash together, because these things happen all the time, but I still think that Godzilla manifested out of the blue and tore it down.” The claim proposed is not even known to be possible, and yet known-to-be-possible claims are dismissed for it.
* “The accounts of the life of Jesus that we have are eyewitness testimony.” I am not aware of any eye witness testimonies, and even if we had any, that’s not good enough to establish that they actually saw what they think they saw. After all. People claim to be eyewitnesses to alien abduction. These are btw people you can still interview today. Even groups of people. Do you believe them too?
* “Evidence from outside historians indicate that he truly did exist as a human on earth, and that his ministry caused a big enough stir to be recognized.” Well, humans can do that. You don’t have to be a god to cause a big stir. Right?
* “In spite of many people throughout history trying to discredit the Christian faith based on Christ’s historical existence, his resurrection, his teachings, his miracles, etc. (including your own arguments), no one has been able to prove that Jesus was not who he said he was.” First of all; I have already. You say that my argument failed, but do you even remember what it was? I showed that the god of the bible is said to be the same today as tomorrow, that he is never changing, and then I showed that the god from the NT and the god from the OT are so drastically different in every area that one cannot honestly say that one believes that this is the same changeless being as the book claims. But I digress, because you’re again shifting of the burden of proof. You’re arguing against Y, again, not for X. Do you believe anything that hasn’t been proven to be false?
* “The descriptions of the death and resurrection of Jesus are consistent with what would be expected based on the medical knowledge of that day.” There’s medical knowledge at ANY time describing how people die and resurrect?
* “The body of Christ was missing after the resurrection (in spite of the full weight of the Roman government wanting to deny it).” And this could be for any number of reasons. Wild animals could have taken it, it could have been moved to what some people thought was a better place to bury him, it could have been stolen, maybe he was brutally wounded and mistaken for dead but not actually dead, which has happened tons of times in history. People have all kinds of excuses for why they don’t believe these alternate explanations. And yet, they ALL necessarily HAVE to reject things we know are both possible and plausible and happen all the time around the world all though history, in order to believe that something extraordinary that we don’t even know is possible happened. They are arguing what would be irrational behavior of people to move the body for example. As if people don’t ever act irrationally. They are saying that even though they know people are irrational all the time, they still think it’s more believable that some person was actually a god. They believe that which has no indication to be even possible over that which is clearly happening all over the world all though history. That is unreasonable.
* “Christ appeared to well over 500 eyewitnesses following his resurrection from the dead.” So one single source says. If I tell you that some horse spawned wings and flew over Paris yesterday, and if I say that I and 1.000.000 people saw it, is that one claim or 1.000.000 eyewitnesses? And as I said, above, we have group accounts for alien abductions. We also have the event in Fátima, Portugal, 100 years ago only, where no less than 30.000 people claimed to witness the sun moving around. And yet, nobody in the daytime area of the world saw this, and no observatories reported it. So we know for a fact that the sun did not move around, and yet 30.000 people claimed that they saw it. Group hallucinations can happen. Do you believe them and their testimonies too?
* “Christ’s disciples were willing to die for their beliefs rather than recant – in spite of severe persecution.” So they believed it. People can believe things that are wrong, can they not? Self-immolation happens in Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism too. Do you believe them too?
* “High profile skeptics became followers of Christ following his resurrection after seeing him.” Skeptics can be wrong, can they not? Skeptics have been convinced of Island Hinduism and Buddhism too, have they not? Again, people can be wrong. Especially if they are skeptics in a time of little to no scientific knowledge, and no technology to repeat what had happened like surveillance cameras etc. All the more easy to convince a skeptic.
* “Finally, and most important, literally millions and millions of people throughout history have met him personally and testify to the fact that they have met him and he has changed their lives.” But when you pressure them for details and honesty in their descriptions, they do not claim to have met him personally. They claim that he appeared to them mentally. They claim that things happen in their lives that they attribute to him. But next to nobody claims to have actually met him. Yourself included. You don’t believe that you’ve met a god that you could video record and show me. He appeared in exactly the same way imaginary friends appear to kindergarteners, right? And people claim that they have met the gods of other religions too. George Harrison and tons of people like him was a Hindu, and he stated that Krishna appeared to him for him to see and hear.
Your standards of accepting the statements of people and books on these grounds force (!) you to also accept every other religion. They have no better or worse evidence than you do. Literally everything you have said applies 100% exactly to what other religions claim, so do you believe them too? These are your standards that you put forward to indicate what is real. If they apply equally to all other religions, do you then accept Hinduism? Do you accept Islam? Do you accept that aliens have visited Earth and abducted people? If not, you’re holding on to double standards. The evidence is exactly the same.
First of all, you show a remarkable ignorance for the actual explanations I gave. You obviously have never done any serious study on this topic. And the logic related to your answers, in most cases, does not even relate to the explanations I gave. Your hypothetical arguments against my explanations only demonstrate that you, yourself, have a vivid imagination. Your critique is nothing more than an elaborate way of getting around actually dealing with the issues I brought up. And the fact that you don’t even see the connection between many of my answers and your questions shows only that you need to do a little study before you go off attacking people about topics you don’t understand. On top of that, your understanding of biblical hermeneutics is abysmal – and, once again, based on a set of presuppositions that you have not been willing to back up.
Yes, my first argument is an argument against Y, and it is the same argument I have been making against your criticism from the very beginning. The problem is, your Y is the basis for all of your criticism, and you have not demonstrated that it is a valid point of view. Thus your criticism that I am “arguing against Y” is not valid, and every single one of the critiques you have made against my answers using that point of view are also not valid until you can demonstrate that Naturalism reflects actual reality.
Beyond that, you have been totally dishonest. You specifically said that you were throwing out your presuppositions and were willing to evaluate my arguments based on my presuppositions. So what do you do? You take EVERY SINGLE ONE of my comments and evaluate them based on your own naturalistic presuppositions. It is obvious that you only did that as a pretense to get me to lay out some things that you felt you could criticize. Well, it didn’t work. I fully expected you to do that, and you didn’t disappoint.
It did do two things, though: 1) It exposed your dishonesty, and, 2) it brought us to the point to where you can no longer run away from validating your naturalistic presuppositions. None of your criticism has any meaning until you prove valid the basis for it. I am still waiting for you to validate your point of view using your own presuppositions, and am going to continue to call you out on your duplicity until you do.
So I made my point. I state my standard. You respond, basically, with nothing other than a “nuh-uh” and in essence, I’ve never heard anything of more substance from you than that. I see though with that, and I drop it. In order to make you make your point. And you make your points; you state your standard. I show reasonably by appealing to your own sense, that you do not hold the standards you claim to hold. You say that you case is demonstrated because of X Y and Z, and I show that you most probably don’t believe other claims even though X Y and Z apply equally to them as well. I noticed that you did everything you could to not tell me whether or not you believed these standards when I held them up in front of you in other cases. Did you believe or reject Islam Hinduism, alien abduction stories, etc? They offer the same evidence you do.
Why didn’t you answer when I asked you if you believe or reject those based on you standard? If you believed your standard, you would necessarily have to accept them. So why didn’t you come clean and answer that simple yes or no question? And I think we both know why. You know for a fact that your “evidence” is not evidence, because other religions and other claims have the exact same evidence (eye witnesses, consistent story, etc,) and yet you reject them. You have not offered any standards that YOU actually hold. So we have nothing to talk about anymore Freddy.
You don’t care about my standards, because you have a religion that forces you to reject it, and you don’t care about your own standards, but you have a religion that forces you to accept it, but only with respect to the claims of the religion. It forces you to either believe contradictory stories or to commit the logical fallacy of a double standard. But you’re too much of a coward to be honest and come clean and say it as it is; you’re right Jacob; as a matter of fact, I reject consistent stories and eyewitness testimonies all the time. You are not being honest in this discussion.
“It is obvious that you only did that as a pretense to get me to lay out some things that you felt you could criticize. Well, it didn’t work. I fully expected you to do that, and you didn’t disappoint.” Freddy, what’s the point? I don’t care if you anticipated or not. Is the point valid or not? What about your ability to anticipate my critique renders my critique invalid? “Well, it didn’t work.” Because you are too much of a coward to answer. I asked you yes or no questions; do you believe this too. If you answered ‘yes’, I could demonstrate that you believe contradictory claims, and that’s madness. If you answered ‘no’, I could demonstrate that you are holding double standards. The reason that you say that “it didn’t work” is _only_ that you _saw_ the trap coming, so you refuse to tell me what has happened now that you’re in the trap. But this isn’t about statements. It’s about ideas. And your ideas were already trapped, whether you saw it coming or whether you wish to talk about it. You’re done, Freddy. You’re demonstrably dishonest and unreasonable. The fact that you refuse to talk about it is your issue. But you are. And your dishonest attempt to hold me to a standard I don’t hold and to a claim I’ve never made is STILL (!!!!) apparent, and you’re a moron for repeating it, when it’s proven in text that I never claimed such a thing and never stated any such thing. You are arguing ghosts to attempt saving your already dead “argument” from the fact that you have nothing to support it. You are demonstrably dishonest. And your best attempt to show that “I” am dishonest requires you to put words into my mouth that I have never said and that I have corrected you on. Good for you Freddy.
If you can’t represent me OR yourself honestly, then there’s no reason to continue conversation. When you’re honest enough to represent yourself and others, then we can talk again.
And that is the problem. You think you have shown reasonably that I am wrong, but your reasoning is based on a set of presuppositions that you have not and cannot demonstrate to be actually reasonable (and even with that you hedge by using some standard of probability that you won’t and can’t support). I actually have demonstrated my points to be reasonable based on a set of presuppositions that I have backed up. It is actually you who have done nothing but say “nuh-uh.” In spite of the fact that I have repeatedly asked you to back up the beliefs you are using to dis my comments, and have even given you a means whereby you could do it, you have totally ignored that – in fact, you have refused to even acknowledge that I am requiring this of you. It is quite disingenuous for you to accuse me of not answering your questions when you have refused mine. That said, until you do, as I have said many times, your replies mean nothing. If you can’t back up your own beliefs by which you are critiquing and attacking me by demonstrating the validity of your reasoning using your own worldview presuppositions, nothing you say has any meaning.
In your arguments above where you, once again, try to say you have shown my arguments wrong, you are simply in error. You are, once again, trying to disprove my beliefs using your belief system. What you think are yes and no questions that trap me no matter what I answer are simply meaningless questions because the presuppositions of the questions themselves are not true. There are other possibilities that your questions don’t allow for, and that you don’t seem capable of grasping. You have used the, “Do you still beat your wife?” trick question. The questions themselves are flawed. I gave you answers that didn’t fit your paradigm so you say I didn’t answer. The problem is not that I didn’t give an answer, but that you didn’t understand the answers because you are so locked into your beliefs that you don’t allow my answers. You have done essentially the same thing with your critique with the X, Y, and Z, and with your questions about other religions. Your questions are flawed and cannot be answered truthfully based purely on the way you asked them. Your logic is simply wrong, and will continue to be wrong unless and until you can prove that the basis for your questions is true (which you have not done). Your analysis is in error, which leads you to erroneous conclusions on every point you think you have won. You simply haven’t and cannot make a valid point until you demonstrate your beliefs to be true using the presuppositions of your own beliefs.
I find it truly fascinating that you claim I have not answered your questions. I actually have, but you don’t understand the answers because you are still attempting to interpret them through your own belief system – which simply cannot be done. If you want to demonstrate my beliefs to be wrong, you have to do it using my presuppositions (the way I demonstrated yours to be wrong using your beliefs). I’m sorry you can’t understand that. You see, I have taken the time to understand your beliefs which is why I know your inconsistencies. Until you take the time to study and understand mine, you will continue to make the same errors you have been making because you are locked into a type of logic that blinds you to any other possibilities.
What you still don’t seem to understand is that nothing you have said is based on science, nor have you used the scientific method to make your points – even though you demand that I explain God using some kind of empirical formula. The problem is, your assertions are based on a belief system that contains a particular type of logic that you can’t defend using your own belief system. In other words, your argument is, in its entirety, a religious argument (based on faith), and it will continue to be so until you can back it up using empirical science.
Jacob, God actually does exist, and he can be known if you are willing to come to him based on an understanding of reality that is consistent with how he actually exists. Until you are willing and able to do that, the very idea of God will continue to seem silly to you – that is what worldview beliefs cause. But just because it seems unreasonable to you does not mean it is unreasonable in actuality. So, go ahead, prove your beliefs true (thus the basis for your critique) and you win this argument. But until you do, nothing you say is reasonable in any respect, and you will continue to go around denying the existence of God based on an unwillingness to understand what he has revealed.
The immaterial cannot logically exist, nor can the supernatural. A material is what a thing is made of, its substance. The immaterial therefore cannot be made of anything, and is instead made of absolute nothing, which cannot exist. Thus, the immaterial cannot exist.
The supernatural cannot obey any laws, otherwise it can be considered physical and natural. Things that don’t obey laws cannot have order and complexity, and are chaos and disorder. There is no reason to call that supernatural. The supernatural is logically impossible, and whatever cause the universe may have is material and physical.
Thanks for the comment, Christopher.
If the material universe can only come from a pre-existing material or physical entity, then how did the universe come to exist from nothing? The scientific evidence is conclusive that the universe (all time, space, matter, and energy- i.e.: everything) was created from nothing. Also, how did life begin from totally nonbiological molecules? Scientists simply do not have an answer for that question. Occasionally someone will claim scientists are on the verge of creating life or describing how life began, but we are no closer now that when Miller and Urey did their famous experiments in the early 1950s. In fact, the problem has multiplied in complexity over the years. The only logical answer to both questions is that a supernatural infinitely powerful transcendent intelligence created the universe and designed life.
Also, where did the laws of nature come from?
Tal Davis
Question 1 – Why does anything exist?
WHY does anything exist? Does there have to be a reason? IF there must be a reason WHY, I am sure I do not know it.
Question 2- How did the universe begin?
The Big Bang Theory gets a lot of traction, though for sure I do not understand it completely, the idea of something coming from nothing, or a vast universe coming from very little, is troublesome to me. I cannot say that I know for sure.
Question 3- Why can the physical world be explained by the laws of nature?
It seems to me that the laws of nature were determined by observing the physical world. So, the laws of nature explaining the physical world seems pretty straight-forward.
Question 4 – Why does intelligent life exist on earth?
Again, asking “WHY” is an interesting way to approach the issue, and admittedly, I do not know WHY it exists. I am not completely sure there is a reason why, per se.
Question 5 – Why do we have consciousness of who we are?
Same answer
Question 6 – What is the basis for objective moral values?
Our interaction with one another, and our collective understanding of the best way to co-exist as a society for the well-being of everyone?
Stephen:
I appreciate your comments. You did not indicate if you are an atheist. Anyway your comments only confirm the point of the article. Atheists have no answers for the key questions posed in the piece.
Your comment on Question #3 does not really answer the question. The point of it was to ask why the laws of nature exist as they do. Some great Mind must have designed them as they are so that the universe acts as it does.
Your comment on Question #6 does not provide any objective basis for morality. In your utilitarian position any act can be deemed right if the consensus of people in a society agree upon it. But what if the consensus believes it is right to exterminate certain kinds of minority children who they perceive to be in conflict with the “collective understanding of the best way to co-exist as a society?”
The leaders of North Korea probably believe their society meets your criteria. The point is that the only real objective basis for morality must be an Infinite and Eternal Being (God) who sets the standards and has communicated or revealed them to mankind.
–Tal Davis
Atheists do not need to answer any of these questions to reasonably have no belief in a talking snake, a rib-woman, and magical fruit that gives knowledge. A lack of belief in these things would only be illogical and unreasonable if theists had evidence for them.
Mr. Johnson:
You seem to think that by disparaging the Bible you can avoid facing up to the ultimate questions. The question of the existence of God has many reasonable deductive arguments. For instance, the fact that the entire universe (all time, space,matter, and energy) had a beginning from nothing testifies to an infinite creative intelligence. So does the exquisite fine-tuning of the laws of physics for the universe to exist and for life to thrive. Likewise, the fact that nearly all rational people believe some things are always right or wrong means that some personal basis for ethics and morals must exist. The only such basis would have to be God.
–Dr. Tal Davis
“You seem to think that by disparaging the Bible you can avoid facing up to the ultimate questions.”
I do not have to answer a single question in order to justify a lack of belief in the Christian god, or the Christian Bible. All I need to do is look at the evidence against the Bible, and note the lack of evidence for Yahweh.
“The question of the existence of God has many reasonable deductive arguments. For instance, the fact that the entire universe (all time, space,matter, and energy) had a beginning from nothing testifies to an infinite creative intelligence.”
It seems you misunderstand Big Bang cosmology. The Big Bang theory is not a theory about the creation of the universe, as it begins with space-time, matter, and energy already in existence, and does not explain where they came from. In no way does the Big Bang theory begin with nothing, or with nature not already in existence. At this time, scientists do not know if the universe ever began to exist. In fact, since time can warp into a space dimension at the beginning of the Big Bang (No Boundary Proposal), so there is at first space, but no time, it is possible the universe never began to exist.
“Likewise, the fact that nearly all rational people believe some things are always right or wrong means that some personal basis for ethics and morals must exist. ”
Our morality is effectually based on empathy, sympathy, pity, love, and a sense of fairness. No God is needed. Interestingly, the Bible also has subjective morality. It says the moral law is based on ‘love God and love one another’ and ‘do unto others what you would have them do to you’ (sense of fairness).
How did the universe come to exist?
Well magic pixies used magic universe creating dust to create the universe.
If this answer doesn’t satisfy you, then why should yours satisfy me?
Alexa:
Thanks for writing. Obviously you are being sarcastic, which is okay. However, you are still at a loss to provide any kind of reasonable answer as to how the universe began to exist from absolutely nothing. Our answer, an all-powerful transcendent and personal being (God), is really the only one that makes sense. As the old song says “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could!” Yet, in the case of the universe, it did! Something, or someone, must have caused it.
True, it is a matter of faith. Yet it is not faith without some supporting evidence. The miracles of Jesus and His historical resurrection from the dead demonstrate that such an all-powerful being does indeed exist. You may want to investigate why we believe in God and the resurrection. Have you read any books by C.S. Lewis such as MERE CHRISTIANITY? Also the books by Lee Strobel (THE CASE FOR FAITH, et.al.) may be enlightening. If you are really serious about why believing in God is reasonable and want to delve really deep into it, read REASONABLE FAITH by William Lane Craig. Those books should all be available cheap on amazon.com. If you are not serious and just want to continue to be sarcastic, then probably there is nothing I can do to try and change your mind.
Tal Davis
Question 1 – Why does anything exist?
Each thing exists for different reasons, but the reason that the universe exists is not known. That we don’t know something is not an excuse to insert a magical ghost as an explanation.
Question 2- How did the universe begin?
We don’t know that the universe did begin. The Big Bang theory is not a theory about the creation of the universe, and scientists do not know at this time if the universe began to exist. In fact, the No Boundary Proposal shows that the universe could be eternal, because time warps into a space dimension at the beginning of the Big Bang. If the universe did begin to exist, there is no reason to think that a magical ghost caused it to, and since every cause we have ever observed has been physical and natural, the probability that a cause for the universe is physical and natural is very high.
Question 3- Why can the physical world be explained by the laws of nature?
We don’t know why things behave in such a way as we can apply laws to them, and that is not an excuse to insert a magical ghost to explain it.
Now, you should know that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, and is not an explanation for how the universe and laws exist. One doesn’t have to explain lightning and thunder to lack belief in the existence of Zeus, nor does one have to explain the origin of the universe to lack belief in Yahweh. It is okay to lack belief in the existence of a magical ghost that creates things by talking while also not knowing how the universe came to exist.
Thank you Mr.Johnson for your comments.I believe I understand Big Bang cosmology very well. It does indeed require that everything in the material universe came into existence out of pure nothing. Why do you suppose many physicists and astronomers in the last century were so reluctant to accept Big Bang cosmology when it was confirmed by Pensias and Wilson (they discovered the cosmic background microwave radiation in 1964)? It was because they understood the metaphysical implications of something coming from nothing (it had to have a Cause). Eventually as the evidence has continued to mount, even the most determined resisters were forced to concede to the accuracy of the theory. It is now regarded as one of the best attested facts in astronomical science.
Obviously, for unbelievers in God this is a serious quandary. Therefore, they have had to imagine all sorts of untestable theories to try and explain the problem of something from nothing. It is what I call “atheism of the gaps.”
As for the laws of nature, the odds against them to be so fine tuned to allow for intelligent life anywhere in the universe are less than the number of atoms in the universe itself! The last time I saw a computation it was something like 10 to the minus 300th power.
No, these facts do not prove the existence of God, but they sure make believing in Him quite reasonable.
Tal Davis