A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[TempestTossed]

nebula, I am sorry I missed your questions. Please forgive me for that.

I gave up trying to prove that God doesn't exist a long time ago.  Nobody can ever prove that God or any other supernatural entities don't exist.  That is what supernaturalism is all about.  The best that any atheist can ever do is model the universe and show that there is no necessity for God, and that model is well on its way to being completed.  Even that would not show that God does not exist.  You went to the wrong science classes.  Science deals with nature, and it isn't even supposed to touch the question of God.

Hi, there!

I am puzzled by this.

"and show that there is no necessity for God"

I do not understand how that can stand as a reason to not believe in God.

Is there a necessity for rainbows? Is there a necessity for the color neon yellow? Is there a necessity for . . . well if I were more creative, I coud probably come up with other examples.

Why is "necessity" a requirement for existance?

You are perhaps misunderstanding me when I say "necessity." I don't mean "necessity" as in necessity for human survival or well-being. I mean necessity for explanation. In that sense, Thor's Hammer is not a necessity for explaining lightning bolts because we have the theory of electromagnetism.

Also this:

"Science deals with nature, and it isn't even supposed to touch the question of God."

So, why use scientific methods to determine whether or not God exists? (Specifically, why use scientific arguments to disbelieve in God?)

Scientific arguments can defeat many arguments that are meant to be evidence for the existence of God. The teleological argument in relation to biology says that God must exist because creatures are well-adapted to their environments and only God could have made it that way. But the theory of evolution gives evidence that God is not necessary in that sense, though God still may or may not have an ongoing hand in the process. Science uses a naturalistic lens, where things are predictable, observable, and sensible, not subject to the arbitrary will of unpredictable supernatural agents. That doesn't mean that science assumes God does not exist. Science simply does not speculate about God or anything else beyond nature.

[TempestTossed]

WhySoBlind, I can't really rigidly deny what you are saying. According to general relativity, a dog's tail can be at rest and the dog plus planet Earth can be wagging. It is mathematically valid, but not useful for understanding the physics of it. The dog is applying a force on the tail, and so it makes more sense to think of the tail accelerating accordingly. Similarly, we think of the Sun as the focus of the solar system because it is the Sun's gravity that makes the rest of the planets move as they do. You said, "relativity states that there is no prefered frame of reference, all reference frames are equally correct and useful." All reference frames may be equally correct, but not all are equally useful. "Useful" depends on the opinions of the observers, and it is simply more convenient to think of the Sun as at rest in the vicinity of the solar system.

[nebula]

nebula, I am sorry I missed your questions.  Please forgive me for that.

Not a problem!

You are perhaps misunderstanding me when I say "necessity."  I don't mean "necessity" as in necessity for human survival or well-being.  I mean necessity for explanation.  In that sense, Thor's Hammer is not a necessity for explaining lightning bolts because we have the theory of electromagnetism.

As much as I am not a traditional Creationist, one thing I still have a hard time understanding among traditional evolutionists is how you all can believe these complexities and interconnectings and progression can move and work together in such order without there having been any guiding hand behind it.

Things left alone tend towards chaos and decay - yet insert the element of time and chance and voila! instant order and progression.

Scientific arguments can defeat many arguments that are meant to be evidence for the existence of God.  The teleological argument in relation to biology says that God must exist because creatures are well-adapted to their environments and only God could have made it that way.  But the theory of evolution gives evidence that God is not necessary in that sense,

That's a matter of opinion.

though God still may or may not have an ongoing hand in the process.  Science uses a naturalistic lens, where things are predictable, observable, and sensible, not subject to the arbitrary will of unpredictable supernatural agents.  That doesn't mean that science assumes God does not exist.  Science simply does not speculate about God or anything else beyond nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why I wonder why atheists are always running to science to disprove or disbelieve in God.

[TempestTossed]

As much as I am not a traditional Creationist, one thing I still have a hard time understanding among traditional evolutionists is how you all can believe these complexities and interconnectings and progression can move and work together in such order without there having been any guiding hand behind it.

Things left alone tend towards chaos and decay - yet insert the element of time and chance and voila! instant order and progression.

OK, allow me to help you understand. It is not actually a law of any natural science that says things tend toward chaos and decay. It is an intuitive rule of thumb, but there are many exceptions. For example, plug the bath, turn on the hot water, pour in some soap, and you will have almost perfectly half-spherical bubbles forming on the surface of the water formed out of that chaos. Pull the plug, and you will have an orderly spiraling whirlpool. Those things are formed not just from time and chance, but also predictable natural laws. Relatively unordered molecules of water turn into complexly chrystallized snowflakes without any intelligent hand to guide it. Of course, none of those examples approaches the complexity of life, yet we have everything we need in nature to make present day life a possibility. We have a diversely-chemicalled environment, a continuous flow of energy, and consistent natural laws, which may form a simple replicating system of matter. Once you have that, all you need is a mechanism of change and natural selection. The duplicates that change in favor of survival generally live to produce the next generation. The changes can either be bigger, smaller, faster, slower, more complex, or less complex than the previous generation. After billions of generations, we would expect to have a great diversity and some very complex forms of life, which we do.

though God still may or may not have an ongoing hand in the process.  Science uses a naturalistic lens, where things are predictable, observable, and sensible, not subject to the arbitrary will of unpredictable supernatural agents.  That doesn't mean that science assumes God does not exist.  Science simply does not speculate about God or anything else beyond nature.

Which is why I wonder why atheists are always running to science to disprove or disbelieve in God.

Many atheists think that science has successfully eliminated the need for God to be used as an explanation for nature. Over the centuries, a naturalistic way of looking at the universe has eliminated what used to be explained by whatever gods that were popular of the time of those mysteries. But a naturalistic model of the universe has advanced tremendously, so we no longer need Poseidon to explain ocean waves, storms, and currents. We no longer need the life and death of Sun gods to explain the cycles of night and day. We don't need divine invention to explain fire. We don't need demons to explain mental disorders. We don't need promises of God to explain rainbows. We don't need messages of the gods to explain the patterns of stars. We don't need Satan to explain the origins of religions. We don't need divine curses to explain the diversity of languages. And we don't need a creator to explain the diversity of life. Whatever unanswered questions of nature we have left, it is figured by atheists that they also will be explained naturally in enough time, and even if such questions will never be answered, it is still more likely that such mysteries have a forever-unknown natural cause rather than a supernatural cause, which can "explain" absolutely any puzzle imaginable.

[TempestTossed]

WhySoBlind, I can't really rigidly deny what you are saying.  According to general relativity, a dog's tail can be at rest and the dog plus planet Earth can be wagging.  It is mathematically valid, but not useful for understanding the physics of it.  The dog is applying a force on the tail, and so it makes more sense to think of the tail accelerating accordingly. Similarly, we think of the Sun as the focus of the solar system because it is the Sun's gravity that makes the rest of the planets move as they do.

this is true only in the suns reference frame.

In the earth's reference frame about the only effect the sun's gravity has on earth itself is some relatively minor tidal influence as it passes over head. It has very little effect on the motion of the other bodies in space from the earth's reference frame, because we observe everything move in an orbit around the earth, or else a circle in the sky, every twenty four hours. Imperfections in these orbits and circles are created by forces produced by both by the sun and moon, as well as other bodies such as planets and even distant stars. All of which must be explained by physics with respect to the earth's reference frame.

You said, "relativity states that there is no prefered frame of reference, all reference frames are equally correct and useful."  All reference frames may be equally correct, but not all are equally useful. "Useful" depends on the opinions of the observers, and it is simply more convenient to think of the Sun as at rest in the vicinity of the solar system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, I'll give you that much, if you define useful as 'how easy it is to do the math', but that in no way calls into question the Biblical account of creation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no argument with that. I don't really want to argue the validity of whatever the Bible has to say about the physics of the Sun and Earth, because there are dozens of ways for a devoted Bible literalist to dodge the problems while still feeling justified. I think the Bible makes more sense looking at it from my perspective. The Bible has a geocentric model simply because that was the popular idea of the time of its writing. It is a straightforward, obvious, and intuitive explanation for me. Most apologists seem to have their own explanations to make the Bible still seem like the infallible Word of God, such as God speaking poetically and in the language of his audience, or alternative meanings for words like "foundation." You have what seems to me to be a wag-the-dog sort of explanation, and it may make sense to you, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it would be vain to explain exactly why unless you really want me to.

[nebula]

Many atheists think that science has successfully eliminated the need for God to be used as an explanation for nature. . . .

So in other words . . . atheists are using science as a means of disproving God -

Even though science isn't supposed to be dealing with God.

[TempestTossed]

Many atheists think that science has successfully eliminated the need for God to be used as an explanation for nature. . . .

So in other words . . . atheists are using science as a means of disproving God -

Even though science isn't supposed to be dealing with God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the minds of some atheists and many Christians, eliminating the need for explaning nature with God is the equivalent of disproving God, but that isn't logical. God could still be there and he even could have a great ongoing hand in the workings of nature, despite the lack of need for the explanation of God. Like I said, science can never disprove God. God could have created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearence of an eventful history of 14 billion years, and science would not know any better. God could be moving every particle, wave, and force in the universe with the appearance that it is all the natural workings of the universe, and science would not know any better. Science deals only with nature and logic. Christianity and other religious belief systems state that God interacts with nature, and so the best that science can help atheists do is eliminate the need for God as an explanation of nature. Science cannot look into the realm of God and take pictures.

[TempestTossed]

This is where evolution is weakest. I don't know how many times I've made this argument, but random genetic mutations cannot produce new limbs, wings, etc. Explaing how a single celled organism supposedly evolves into a multicelled one, sudden appearance of new types or organs in higher life forms, etc.

Do you know anything about computer programming? (DNA can be shown to be a self replicating computer program at its most basic level, with teh nucleus as the CPU, RNA is drivers derived from DNA, and organelles are devices attached to the nucleus.) While mutations can explain minor modifications to existing genes, they cannot explain appearance of totally new genes or chromosome pairs, etc. I have shown in the past how even if an organism was born with an extra chromosome pair, it would not be able to pass that on, at least not through sexual reproduction, to an offspring, because the mate would not have a corresponding extra pair. Second, the DNA on the chromosome, even if it somehow was unique from the rest of the organisms chromosomes*, would not be useful to the cell, because the cell would not have the existing physiology(proper organelles with proper unique chemistry, and transport systems within the cell, etc,) to decode the extra chromosome properly. It would be like feeding a text sorting function to a program that is trying to call a prime number generating function in a computer. In the cell, you are just going to get garbage protiens, etc  that is of no use to the client organelles, etc..

*The most likely scenario would be an extra copy of an existing chromosome pair, not a totally unique one.

If I only I knew more about genetics, I could address what you are saying. I may get back to you this weekend after I do some reading.

I think the reason you are here is because deep down you know something is wrong with all that rhetoric you just posted. Deep down the Holy Spirit is speaking to you, showing you the truth, and drawing you here. I pray that one day you open your eyes to the Holy Spirit and let the Lord touch you.

I hear that a lot from Christian apologists and evangelists, and I strongly doubt it. What draws me to most message boards is an insatiable need to argue.

[nebula]

In the minds of some atheists and many Christians, eliminating the need for explaning nature with God is the equivalent of disproving God, but that isn't logical.  God could still be there and he even could have a great ongoing hand in the workings of nature, despite the lack of need for the explanation of God.  Like I said, science can never disprove God. . . .  Science cannot look into the realm of God and take pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes - and thank-you.

Which is why I still do not understand why many/most atheists still insist on using science as their grounds for disbelieving in God? (If you don't, great - but why do the others?)

[TempestTossed]

In the minds of some atheists and many Christians, eliminating the need for explaning nature with God is the equivalent of disproving God, but that isn't logical.  God could still be there and he even could have a great ongoing hand in the workings of nature, despite the lack of need for the explanation of God.  Like I said, science can never disprove God. . . .  Science cannot look into the realm of God and take pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes - and thank-you.

Which is why I still do not understand why many/most atheists still insist on using science as their grounds for disbelieving in God? (If you don't, great - but why do the others?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The primary grounds for disbelieving in God is almost always, "There is no evidence." When Christians present arguments from nature to show that God exists, those arguments are shot down with science.