Atheists Please Read!

[Guest jlo23_1214]

Dr Ross might know his Astronomy, but the theological conclusions he draws are weak at best.

His lecture is certainly not "scientific proof" of anything.

To go through his lecture part by part (although the length is such that I cannot do it full justice here)...

He starts by taking some quotes from other physicists. These have no relevance to what he is talking about except to mix quotes from atheist physicists and Christian physicists to make it look as though all those physicists agree with him, rather than just the Christian ones.

Then he gives a brief overview of "dark matter" - nothing controversial there (except that he says the existence of "dark matter" is "proven", when it is in fact only one hypothesis out of many, and is inferred from the evidence, not deduced from the evidence). Being an astrophysicist, he should know better than to do this. However, this lecture is rhetoric, rather than science, so he probably thinks he can play fast-and-loose with his terminology.

He then takes a sarcastic comment made by another physicist (comparing the zeal with which physicists embraced the "Big Bang" theory with the zeal of Christians) and twists it to make it sound as if the other physicist is "admitting" that "Big Bang = Christ"!

He then introduces the evidence that the universe is expanding - which is fair enough - but tries to imply that Evolutionary Theory relies on older "static universe" hypotheses (presumably to put doubt about it in peoples' minds and make them think that the modern discoveries about the universe preclude Evolutionary Theory). This is, of course, completely irrelevant. All that Evolutionary Theory relies on is an old Earth - which both the "static" universe and the "inflationary universe" models provide.

He also repeats lies about Einstein's religious beliefs - lies that Einstein himself refuted, but that are still repeated by apologists - claiming that Einsteins discoveries made him into a theist.

He then goes on to say that because time has a beginning, Christianity must be correct because it is the only religion that claims that time and the universe had a beginning. He is, of course, wrong on two counts. Firstly, Christianity does not claim that time had a beginning, and secondly many other religions claim that the universe had a beginning.

He then claims with absolutely no evidence that this proves there to have been a creator - since something must have caused the universe to come into existence. I am surprised that he can say this with a straight face. For a start, being an astrophyiscist, he should know that time began at the beginning of the universe - so the whole notion of cause-and-effect cannot be applied before then (since cause and effect relies on the existence of time). His argument is also flawed in other ways, but this should suffice.

After having given this poor quality version of the oft refuted Cosmological Argument for God (I can only assume that he is hoping people will be "wowed" by the fact that he is an astrophysicist and that this will distract them from the weakness of his argument - a sort of Argument by Personal Authority) he launches into a typical version of the Teleological Argument for God.

In this rather lengthy section, he lists a load of things - and says that if they were different then the Earth and Universe would be different. He combines this with the we in the form that we are could not live if the Universe were different. Thus, says,he, the universe must have been formed especially for us.

Of course, he neglects the obvious answer to this. We are the way we are because we fit the existing universe, not because the universe was designed to fit us.

The best analogy for this is to go outside on a cold day and find a puddle of water that has frozen. We can (if we are careful) lift this frozen lump of water out of the depression that it is in and examine it.

Notice how the contours of the frozen water exactly match the contours of the depression! The odds of that are incredible! Therefore the depression must have been intelligently designed to fit the water!

Of course, this is not the case. The water fits the available space. If the depression were differently shaped, we would still have a frozen block of water but it would be a different block of water.

The same applies to us. Just because we fit our environment, it does not mean that the environment must have been created especially for us. If the environment were different, we would be different and still fit it.

Finally, he launches into an ill-informed attack on Evolution. He is an astrophysicist and not a biologist - so there is no particular reason for him to know any biology. He shows this amply by simply throwing in a quote from two people (who he does not give any information about - but a quick Google search on Paul Erlich brings up a variety of sites gleefully pointing out how wrong he has been about many things) that there is no evidence for speciation.

Once again he relies on his Argument from Personal Authority. He's an astrophysicist! Therefore when he says that someone else says that Evolution can't work, it must be true!

Ignore the fact that Ross himself is not a biologist! Ignore the fact that the person he quotes appears to be something of a crackpot! Ross is an astrophysicist! He must be correct!

So there we have it.

It is a fairly run-of-the-mill apologetic screed, with the usual out-of-context quotes and the same old arguments that have been brought up and refuted time and time again.

Just because the person who wrote this is an astrophysicist doesn't make it any better.

It is most certainly not "scientific proof" of anything...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right....and Dr. Phil is a therapist....but he can't cure us all. The problem is...this explanation is so simple that many won't accept it because it doesn't have enough scientific terms to meet the quota. It's common sense....not book sense.

[Inti]

Right....and Dr. Phil is a therapist....but he can't cure us all.  The problem is...this explanation is so simple that many won't accept it because it doesn't have enough scientific terms to meet the quota.  It's common sense....not book sense.

It hardly has ANY scientific terms in it. It alluded to dark matter or anti matter as making up the 90% of the universe. It does. That does not mean we can't explain it scientifically, and have to attribute it to a creator.

Have a look at CERN and other Particle Accelerators. And find out that that kind of anti-matter has already been created in the lab.

Either we've made God in the lab or your argument is flawed. I wonder which one it is...

[Inti]

What would that prove?  If that is what constitutes proof of something, then there have been many 'proven' facts that would now have to be discredited because someone used a quote out of context.

It forces the question, "Why does the article need to use quotes out of context to achieve credibility?"

[Guest jlo23_1214]

Right....and Dr. Phil is a therapist....but he can't cure us all.

[Guest jlo23_1214]

What would that prove?

[Token Atheist]

Right....and Dr. Phil is a therapist....but he can't cure us all.  The problem is...this explanation is so simple that many won't accept it because it doesn't have enough scientific terms to meet the quota.

We are not failing to accept Ross's explanation because it "doesn't have enough scientific terms to meet the quota" as you put it.

We are failing to accept Ross's explanation because it is fundamentally flawed in the ways that I have described.

It's common sense....not book sense.

Then why did you introduce it as "Scientific Proof for God" if you think it is no such thing?

[Inti]

It boils down to the fact that the quote is used to create an argument.  Not back it up or defend it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To create what argument exactly? It is not accepted academic practice to use quotes out of context for any reason, as it could mislead the reader.

[ecco]

While I certainly beg to differ with your arguments, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. Just out of curiosity though....what "proof" is it that you need? It's hard for me to understand how someone can live everyday and not believe that there is no higher being. It doesn't even make common sense. I have to believe that those who do not believe are simply scared.....scared that there is a God out there.....bigger than you and me....more powerful that you or me....and more importantly....in control of you and me. I pray for your souls. Faith is believing without seeing.

While I certainly beg to differ with your arguments, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. It's hard for me to understand how someone can live everyday and not believe that there is no higher being. It doesn't even make common sense. I have to believe that those who do believe are simply scared.....scared that there is a God out there.....bigger than you and me....more powerful that you or me....and more importantly....in control of you and me. Faith is believing without seeing.

Has science answered everything?

No. That

[Guest jlo23_1214]

I am not looking for "scientific" evidence myself to prove there is a God...I know that in my heart....again....the word FAITH. It was laid upon my heart to share this lecture with you. Atheists look to science for proof. If you feel there are flaws with his argument....then that is your opinion. The truth is, you will never find 100% undeniable proof of the existence of God. It says in the Bible that you won't. Ever thought that this may be why you keep searching for the answers and there are none?? Once again....the Bible has held true.

By the way....I entitled my OP as Scientific proof of God because that is the title of the lecture. Got your attention huh?

[ecco]

Atheists look to science for proof.

We look for evidence.

If you feel there are flaws with his argument....then that is your opinion.

As I pointed out in my post #7