"I saw your bumper sticker, NATIONAL ATHEIST DAY APRIL 1ST on a car here in San Antonio. I asked the owner if he really believed in the sticker, and he said 'yes.' I told him that I am an atheist, and have been one all my life. He said he would never vote for an atheist for any office, nor trust any atheist. Now, I would like your ministry to give me a good reason for me not filing a lawsuit against you for telling people lies. I am not a fool." -- Patrick Greene
Patrick,
Thank you for your email. Here's how I would build my defense:
First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.
Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.
Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.
I freely admit that I am the creator of the bumper sticker. But be warned, at the last minute I may say that the bumper sticker created itself, from nothing, over millions of years . . . and appropriately plead insanity.
I await your reply.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Potential Law Suit
131 comments:
Ha HA LOL
Extremely Hillarious.
Hey Ray this guy is like the guy who is suing Zondervan for printing the Bible that says Homosexuality is a sin.
Are they forgetting the Amendments they so love to mis-interpret?
This is as bad as the ACLU and there flip flop schemes.
AMEN Brother Comfort!!!
Besides, its God's word that says the atheist is a "fool", so just Sue God! lol
See how far that goes atheist!!!
We are praying for you atheists!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How can I make my prayers effective?
"I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. As you make your requests, plead for God's mercy upon them, and give thanks.
Pray this way for kings and all others who are in authority, so that we can live in peace and quietness, in godliness and dignity."
1 Timothy 2:1-2 NLT
Have you heard HBKS? You say what is HBKS??? 'Hells Best Kept SECRET' , an awesome video on the Way to Salvation. Watch it while you can on my blogs, or webpage.
God Bless! Have a NICE Day! :)
Ray, you crack me up!!! "But be warned, at the last minute I may say that the bumper sticker created itself, from nothing . . . and appropriately plead insanity." Too funny!!!
BTW, even through my laughing I hear your point and I just pray "Patrick" can on day recognize the Truth.
Poe's Law? You're getting better, Ray.
sigh
As I, admittedly no lawyer, understand it, your bumper sticker insults a large group of people; atheists are no so small a group that any single person could reasonably claim that you had him, personally, in mind. Yet groups cannot be libeled; only individuals can. And again, as I understand it, calling someone a "fool" is an expression of personal opinion; it does not imply any specific actionable claim about the person himself. I'm reasonably sure that any actual lawyer would advise you (or, more likely, him, when he tried to file suit) that your bumper sticker is not legally defamatory.
The defense you propose to adopt is more problematic. We see, around us, builders causing buildings to go up. We see, around us, painters creating paintings. That is, we know, from direct experience, that "intelligent designers" of these things exist. World-Creators and species-Creators are a bit less evident; you can't very well look One up in your local yellow pages just because you'd like to see passenger pigeons make a comeback.
So inferring a builder from a building or painter from a pais not a matter of seeing "specified" or "irreducible" complexity and inferring that only intelligence could have caused it; it is inferring an already-known and well-studied cause from the sort of effect it typically produces.
In inferring a Designer of life, we are reasoning from a much looser analogy: here is something that vaguely resembles a machine, so we infer a sort of super-Machinist. On the other hand, we know that the mechanisms of reproduction, mutation, inheritance, natural selection and genetic drift exist. Thus explaining the nested hierarchy of life in terms of common descent, or parahomologous adaptions in terms of natural selection of mutations, is indeed an inference along the lines of concluding a builder from a building: here is something we know exists, and there is the sort of thing this cause produces.
On a more cosmic scale, we know that gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like exist, and how they behave. Thus it is reasonable to infer, from the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium in the cosmos, the distribution of galactic redshifts, and the cosmic microwave background, that a Big Bang occurred, and that subsequently, formation of stars and galaxies and stellar nucleosynthesis occurred.
It might indeed be folly to assert that nothing created everything from nothing, but I know of no evolutionist or cosmologist who asserts such a thing. Just starting with the laws of physics, one is starting with rather more than nothing.
Ray, maybe the car evolved from nothing and supplied itself with a really cool sticker
Patrick,
I am so thankful you had the courage to question the owner of the sticker. Good for you, because now here you are!
The bottom line is you are suing God himself because He is the one calling you a fool (reference the scripture).
Let me know how that goes! :-)
p.s. Can I sue you because you hurt my feelings as a Chrisitian by not believing the bumper sticker and what God says?
Ray,
This reminds me of when I was in college and a friend of mine posted Psalm 14:1 on the door to his dorm room. The R.A. asked him to take it down because it "offended people."
He transgresed the holy 11th commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Offend."
My friend gave in and removed the Bible verse, despite that many other residents in the dorm had sexually explicit and offensive notes and pictures on their doors.
Oh to go back in time and convince him to stand up and dare the R.A to force him to remove a Bible verse from his door!
I'm glad you're living out Proverbs 28:1 every day.
God bless you, and God bless the non-Christians you run into in cyberspace and in Bellflower. Every born-again Christian is, after all, an ex-non-Christian.
Trying to win that ridiculous lawsuit on your fallacious "proof" of God wouldn't do a thing for you.
I'd mention Freedom of Speech, personally. You have the right to call me a fool, like I have the right to call you deluded.
lol, this bumper sticker is hilarious.
Here in California I have seen some incredibly disgusting and vulgar sayings and images on people's cars. (No idea how or why this is even legal??) Of course its the message of atheism being foolish that raises the hair on someone's neck, not perverted images or disgusting language.
It seems everyone has free speech in this country, except Christians. An odd thing for a Christian nation, but then again, the Bible told us this would happen. =)
I love that bumper sticker! I always thought that was so appropriate. The first time I saw it I laughed. I said, "There's a National Atheists day? What is this world coming to." Then I saw the bottom line. Very Funny indeed.
Ray wrote: "First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.
"Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.
"Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that."
I'm not a fool. And I believe that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Billions of non-fools have believed that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell are examples.
Moreover, my knowledge that something exists is not sufficient for me to reasonably infer that an intelligent super-being caused it to exist. I exist. And no intelligent super-being caused me to exist. A particular person gave birth to me. So, that the known universe exists doesn’t enable me to reasonably infer that an intelligent super-being caused the known universe to exist.
Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.
You are appealing to circular reasoning. You are assuming that your observations are of a "creation" and then deriving from that assumption that a "creator" must be responsible. The flaw in your reasoning, however, is that you have not demonstrated that your observation is, in fact, a "creation" except through the application of your conclusion. Your argument is faulty and, as such, it is invalid.
Your analogy to buildings and paintings is interesting; there are multiple defined physical processes involved in the construction of buildings and paintings. Can you define any physical processes in the construction of the universe? If you cannot, then your analogy is faulty and, as such, it is also invalid.
Christian: See that building? It must have a builder! If you think it doesn't, you are a loony. See that painting? It must have a painter. See this creation? Therefore, there has to be a Creator!
Atheist: Ok, who created the Creator?
Christian: The Creator always existed.
Atheist: So the premise of your argument is that everything that is created must have a creator, yet God is an exception to the rule?
Christian: Yes. God is infinite and eternal.
Atheist: If God is an exception to the rule, couldn't there be an exception that this Creation came from nothing?
Christian: Of course not.
Atheist: So basically your presupposition that God exists is your rationale behind the exception in your argument?
Christian: Well, yes.
Atheist: Basically, we are back where we started. Nothing has changed.
Christian: Good point.
Atheist: Can you make an argument for God that doesn't rely on the presupposition that God exists?
Christian: You will burn in Hell.
Atheist: Thanks for wasting my time.
Great post Ray!
Isn't God Awesome!!
Phil
Ray, a lawsuit could be an excellent oportunity to call into question what is being taught in schools. I say, if someone ever does file suit against you, you take it to trial, make a call for all us "creationists" for support, I would help you will all the funding I could, as I'm sure many here would. I would love to see a trial go to court regarding creation vs evolution, truth vs deception. I wonder how just the justice system really is, how biased the justice system really proves itself to be. Would they side with truth or evolution, would they be honest about where the evidence leads or would they interpret it to suit their presupposition?
I think we all know the answer based on the past.
And Ray, I trust you would interject with:
Acts 24:25
And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment
Steven J. said:
"It might indeed be folly to assert that nothing created everything from nothing, but I know of no evolutionist or cosmologist who asserts such a thing. Just starting with the laws of physics, one is starting with rather more than nothing."
Actually the Big Bang requires a suspension of the laws of physics. The original Big Bang Theory was thrown out, by the way, and replaced by a new one. They kept the name so as not to upset those depending on it as a basis for their atheism. The new expansion theories suggest that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Something exploding out of nothing (or quantum fluctuations in the nothing) is the opposite of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The universe subsequently organizing itself into coherent systems is the opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
How does a theory violating so much observed science survive? Only because of a desperate need to prop up a false faith.
"A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that."
And here's little old me thinking you simply have to lack belief in any Gods to be an atheist. It's a shame I don't believe nothing created everything from nothing, I really would've liked to have been an atheist. I guess I'll just have to content myself with being someone who doesn't believe in God.
"I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool."
AMEN RAY!!11!1, I agree and I'll go you one further. Anyone who looks at a creature with the intelligence to design and build a building and doesn't believe that creature was designed and built by another creature is a fool, and anyone who looks at a creature with the ability to design and create another creature capable of design and creation must have been created by another creature and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on ... (three hours later) .... and so on and so on and so on ...
P.S. When do all the buildings and the paintings get together to have sex ?? I know it's not at night because I'm usually up all night and the best I ever see is two cats going at it.
Now, I would like your ministry to give me a good reason for me not filing a lawsuit against you for telling people lies. I am not a fool." -- Patrick Greene
Tell him that truth is an absolute defense.
Gwd wrote "Trying to win that ridiculous lawsuit on your fallacious "proof" of God wouldn't do a thing for you.
I'd mention Freedom of Speech, personally. You have the right to call me a fool, like I have the right to call you deluded."
Where does your right to free speech come from? The first amendment does not give you the right to free speech, it merely preserves your right from governmental impairment....
from whence comes this inalienable right?
It looks like some scabs have broken the srike.
@
Ray...
How funny and sad!
It would be nice if paintings painted themselves...it would save me a lot of time and money!!! :)
@ Steve
I'm not a fool. And I believe that there are zero Steves and that there never were any Steves.
Now what ever thought is in your mind right now I'm guessing would be close to what I was thinking after reading your comments.
Ray,
I proudly exhibit this bumper sticker on the back window of my car, and I get plenty of tailgaters trying to see what it says. It's fun to watch the expressions on their faces when they see the bottom line.
I was in the drive-thru line at Chik-fil-a the other day and the man behind me was trying to take a picture of it, so I had to sit there for a few seconds so it wouldn't blur.
I thank GOD for your creativity!
You have produced so many wonderful materials for us to use in our personal ministries. My family and I love you very much.
I don't live in California, so I can't do this myself, but I would ask anyone who lives in that area to find Ray's car, smash the windows and the lights and then leave him a note saying:
"Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses"
P.S. I realise that some of the readers of this blog are of a very literal sense of mind, so for their benefit I would point out that the above statement was ironic; damaging private property is against the law (the real law, the one that actually applies here in reality) and also not very nice. Please do not smash Ray's car, or anyone else's, and always remember to be excellent to one another.
gwd is right. Of course you're allowed to have a sticker on your car which calls people fools or deluded.
Patrick Greene is a fool. Not because he's an atheist, but in spite of it.
He should just put up his own sticker. A quote from Einstein about the childishness of religion would work great.
Ha, ha, those are neat! I need to get me some!
Great Post Ray!
In Christian Love,
Brittany
This is one of those things that I often sit back and wonder how anyone could possibly believe that nothing sprang from nothing to create order, beauty, symmetry, precise calculations, laws of physics, a beginning and working machines that are so incredibly complex and ordered. You can take the eye and examine it alone. But it isn't just that the eye is so phenomenal but that the eye works in sync with the circulatory system and the nervous system and the lymphatic system to create and maintain sight. Even something as obscure as the pancreas works in maintaining sight. Ask any diabetic. The immune system keeps the eye protected from microbes and viruses. It is really when these things go haywire that we realize just how perfectly ordered we really are. Then you have to ask yourself which part evolved first? The pancreas? The eyeball? The heart? Or was there a genetic shift that created it all in a day? I look out of my window and see such wonder and beauty and even though it blows my mind the size of this universe, I know that my Redeemer liveth.
Vera
Would they side with truth or evolution, would they be honest about where the evidence leads or would they interpret it to suit their presupposition?
How does evolution relate to Ray's blog entry?
paul brown said,
"I don't live in California, so I can't do this myself, but I would ask anyone who lives in that area to find Ray's car, smash the windows and the lights and then leave him a note saying:
"Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses"
P.S. I realise that some of the readers of this blog are of a very literal sense of mind, so for their benefit I would point out that the above statement was ironic; damaging private property is against the law (the real law, the one that actually applies here in reality) and also not very nice. Please do not smash Ray's car, or anyone else's, and always remember to be excellent to one another."
Well, you stated at the end what I was going to respond to your comment, in part. Yes we must forgive, that's what the scripture says to do. Maybe you are learning something in here. The Law of God has been written on our hearts. Even though you would probably never vandalize private property, God knows the intentions of your heart. The desire to do so is just as bad in God's sight. It's a sobering thought I know. Maybe you should think about washing his car instead. That would be a nice thing to do. Maybe he would tip you.
@ C Diddy
Chris: I see that you're taking a nap on train tracks - aren't you worried that a train might come.
Ath: I don't beleive in trains.
Chris: So how do you explain the tracks?
Ath: Evolution.
Chris: I'm really conserned for you, won't you at least consider your situation - soon a masive train is going to come this way and I don't want to see your head chopped off - it's crazy to stay where you are.
Ath: That's the problem with you Chris, you're always about using fear and name calling. Any so called "train" that's willing to chop off my head isn't worth beleiving in anyways. You can keep you evil train to yourself, I'm fine where I am, and I'm going to get some sleep.
c diddiot and other "atheists":
CHOO CHOO !
get off the track !
Patrick wrote:
"Now, I would like your ministry to give me a good reason for me not filing a lawsuit against you for telling people lies. I am not a fool".
Patrick,
If you find your way here....I have one question for you:
How do you know you're not a fool?
You don't think you are a fool right? My question, more specifically, is what is your basis of knowledge that you are using to make your claim? How can you claim, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that you are not a fool?
Thanks,
John
(BTW, the question is obviously open to any one else who would care to answer.)
@ ethan,
That was such a great answer for C Diddy. I'm definitely going to use that if I have a close encounter with a fool.
@ Ray,
Keep the good work on your ministry. You are using the sword in an effective way, for the glory of God.
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12
Dimensio said...
"Would they side with truth or evolution, would they be honest about where the evidence leads or would they interpret it to suit their presupposition?
How does evolution relate to Ray's blog entry?"
Because atheists are the primary believers that life evolved from a more primative form, and that there is not God, you know the whole creation vs evolution debate. Though there are some false Christians and those that are weak believers who still cling to that false, deceptive belief called evolution.
@ ethan,
That was such a great answer for C Diddy. I'm definitely going to use that if I have a close encounter with a fool.
@ Ray,
Keep the good work on your ministry. You are using the sword in an effective way, for the glory of God.
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12
And btw, that bumper sticker isn't an opinion, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God", it means it the strictest sense. It's not mere opinion, but stating a fact, the person who says"there is no God" IS a fool, not acting like one, but IS a fool. The proverbs are full of this truth.
Notice it's the one who "says" there is no God, not the one believes there is no God. Atheists SAY there is no God, but deep down they are supressing the truth that they KNOW there is.
Thank God I've been saved from this way of thinking, and I pray others who frequent this blog will be too.
Wait a minute, Ray. Your name isn't on the bumper sticker, so how does he know that you made the bumper sticker, or anyone for that matter?
Personally, I believe the bumper sticker was formed over billions of years.
"According to a Gallup/USA Today poll last year, Americans would rather vote for a presidential candidate who was Catholic, black, Jewish, female, Hispanic, Mormon, thrice-married, 72 years old, or homosexual than they would one who was an atheist." from the Telegraph.co.uk site article titled "Americans dont' do Atheism"
Funny...just a few minutes after reading this post, I came across this article. It came in my email via a google alert. Aparently most Americans wouldn't want a fool for president. Since the atheists are all on strike and not reading the blog, my post won't be able to offend them.
oakecho said:
Actually the Big Bang requires a suspension of the laws of physics. The original Big Bang Theory was thrown out, by the way, and replaced by a new one. They kept the name so as not to upset those depending on it as a basis for their atheism. The new expansion theories suggest that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Something exploding out of nothing (or quantum fluctuations in the nothing) is the opposite of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The universe subsequently organizing itself into coherent systems is the opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I find it vaguely amusing that you think that atheists not only depend on the Big Bang theory to justify their atheism, but depend on it being called "the Big Bang." There are, after all, old earth creationists like Hugh Ross who see the Big Bang as evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, as implied by creationism. And there have been atheists who have actually preferred an eternal universe with no beginning.
Note that an atheist could simply say that he has no idea how the universe originated, and sees no reason to assume that the unknown explanation happens to be an omnipotent personal Being with an intense interest in human beings. Creationist criticisms of the Big Bang theory are simply another version of the infamous god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance.
Now, as for your actual points, I'm pretty sure you're wrong in just about everything you say. When you say that the Big Bang theory was replaced, I assume that you're referring to Alan Guth's cosmic inflation theory, invoked to explain why distant regions of the universe all have approximately the same temperature. But this is still called the Big Bang because it still retains the essential features of the Big Bang: an initial very small, very dense, very hot universe that susequently expanded and cooled.
The Big Bang does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The 2LoT permits local increases in order if, overall, entropy increases (otherwise refrigerators wouldn't work, trees and babies wouldn't grow, snowflakes wouldn't form, etc.). And the Big Bang implies that the universe began in a very highly ordered state: all the energy in the universe in one tiny location, from which it subsequently spread out.
The Big Bang doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics either. Strictly speaking, the Big Bang doesn't deal with where the energy came from; originally, the theory simply assumed that all the energy in the universe now was there then, just in a much smaller, denser state.
Inflationary Big Bang theory has been interpreted to permit the universe to have a total energy of zero: the energy (including matter) we see around us is balanced out by the negative energy of the inflationary expansion of space.
On the other hand, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have proposed a cyclic version of Big Bang theory which they say is more parsimonious that current inflationary theory: in their version, the energy of the present universe is simply recycled from the energy of the previous universe, and so on back indefinitely. After a period of expansion, gravity reverses both the expansion and the accumulated entropy of the universe as it destroys this universe and sets the stage for a new one.
All this no doubt sounds very strange. Please note that these gentlemen are all physicists who are well aquainted with the laws of thermodynamics. If they say that the equations balance, it's probably a pretty good bet that the equations balance and the laws of physics are satisfied.
fHow does a theory violating so much observed science survive? Only because of a desperate need to prop up a false faith.
Are you now talking about creationism?
Ath: I don't beleive in trains.
Chris: So how do you explain the tracks?
Ath: Evolution.
I am unaware of any atheist who would suggest that train tracks are a direct result of the process of evolution.
Hey everyone.
What's up?
Same-old-same-old.
@ Ethan:
I made some slight corrections to your conversation to make it more relevant:
Christian: I see that you're taking a nap on train tracks - aren't you worried that a train might come.
Atheist: Huh? I don't see any tracks anywhere. Where do you come with an idea like that?
Christian: This book right here says that people who are napping in at this location are actually napping on train tracks, and eventually the train will come and kill you.
Atheist: Are you serious? I still don't see any train tracks?
Christian: Your hard has been hardened by your sin. You need to pray and accept the Engineer into your life before he kills you with his train.
Atheist: Let me get this straight, there are train tracks here, that are invisible, and a train is going to come by and kill me if I don't move, and you are concerned for my safety?
Christian: Yes! Exactly!
Atheist: Are you sure you aren't imagining things? I don't see any evidence to back up your claims.
Christian: You can't prove my invisible train on the invisble tracks doesn't exist. So ha!
Atheist: Thanks for wasting my time.
ShiVer said (again) "Atheists SAY there is no God, but deep down they are supressing the truth that they KNOW there is."
*Yawn*. One more time ShiVer. I know there's a God, just like you know there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her holy hooves), Thor, Odin, Shiva, Baal. You pretending to know what rational people think is absurd, arrogant, and sometimes funny.
Blaming a book for your error just demonstrates how few critical thinking skills you have.
Steven J asks:
Are you now talking about creationism?
What in creationism contradicts observed data? It adds to, certainly, but what does it contradict? Any answer you give will be based on unobserved, non-reproducible presuppositions.
Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist, in his book -The Edge of Infinity, describes the big bang this way:
"[The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle"
Something from nothing is the opposite of the First Law of Thermodynamics. What you have presented is a "beginning" with all the energy of the universe in complete order. That's quite a start! Either it just appeared from nothing or you argue an infinitely old universe. Either there is a beginning or there is not.
As for recycling, it would require a reversal of the Second Law, a drastic increase in usable energy, within a closed system, the universe. Besides, current thinking based upon the study of supernovas in other galaxies indicates that the rate of expansion in increasing. This has prompted theories pulled out of such thin air as to be practically invoking magic, though not God.
If the universe has no beginning, then how could it ever be now? For instance, how long did you have to wait to be born? Did an infinite amount of time, an infinite past, have to come to an end, and then you were born? If the past is infinite, it can never be "now." Continually pouring time into the river of the past never allows the boat called "now" to get to us.
You will actually have to avoid this argument to "refute" it: sort of like "the Big Bang doesn't deal with where the energy came from."
@ Storeytwin,
In total agreement with you! I have the sticker on the back bumper of my miata and get plenty of free advertising.
It is a blessing to display, million dollar tracts are another great way. Thanks Ray ! for all your hard work and items you sell.
It makes evangelism a whole lot easier!
In His Love,
Terry Burton
I'm not a fool. And I believe that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Billions of non-fools have believed that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell are examples. -steve
Just because billions believe something doesn't mean they aren't deluded.
What in creationism contradicts observed data?
Please define "creationism". Explain the physical mechanisms of "creationism" and explain the evidence deduced to have occurred based upon "creationism".
steven j,
""It might indeed be folly to assert that nothing created everything from nothing, but I know of no evolutionist or cosmologist who asserts such a thing. Just starting with the laws of physics, one is starting with rather more than nothing.""
Problem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
gwd,
""Trying to win that ridiculous lawsuit on your fallacious "proof" of God wouldn't do a thing for you.""
By what standard of logic did you determine this "proof" to be fallacious? Surely you wouldn't be using the absolute standard of logic that God created to assert that God doesn't exist...would you?
That'd be kinda like denying the existence of air while breathing it, and that would be silly. Don't you agree? God Bless.
Problem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
I believe that you are equating "evolutionist" with "atheist". This appears to be a common misconception, however not all who accept that the theory of evolution is valid are atheists and any conclusions derived from assuming that the two terms are synonymous will be inherently faulty.
They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
You are assuming that there exists a "Creator" of laws. Please explain how lacking belief that the fundamental properties of the universe are "created" causes a problem. Be specific.
Hmmm . . . and what does the atheist have to say about the evolution fish (the fish with legs) on the back of thier car? Sounds a little hypicritical to me.
Chris (from Oz) said...something just to be rude.
God will not be mocked.
Hey everyone, got to go. I'm going on a house boat vacation tommorrow morning, should be fun. Please pray for my family, several are unsaved and this could be an excellent opportunity. Please pray for our save return. God bless you all, and God willing, I'll see you guys again in a week and a half, if not, see you at the feast.
Atheists, I will still be keeping you all in my prayers.
The LORD bless you
and keep you;
the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace
steve,
""I'm not a fool. And I believe that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Billions of non-fools have believed that there are zero Gods and that there never were any Gods. Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell are examples.""
Sorry. God has revealed that anyone who denies his existence is indeed a fool. This is because God has provided us with overwhelming evidence that He exists.
Absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic, science, mathematics, and absolute truth are just a few examples of the proof of God's existence.
You will find that none of these things can be accounted for in any atheistic worldview (many atheists on this blog have proven this for us time and time again) and cannot be accounted for in any evolutionary model.
""Moreover, my knowledge that something exists is not sufficient for me to reasonably infer that an intelligent super-being caused it to exist.""
The fact that it's possible for you to know ANYTHING is proof of God's existence. All knowledge is given by revelation from God.
""I exist. And no intelligent super-being caused me to exist.""
Do you know this for certain? If so, how?
""So, that the known universe exists doesn’t enable me to reasonably infer that an intelligent super-being caused the known universe to exist.""
How do you account for the laws of reason and logic you used to come to this conclusion?
Steve, I hope that you will come to see that to deny God is to commit intellectual suicide. I think we would all agree that that's a foolish thing to do. God Bless.
@ Jeff
..no, no, no....there was a group of stickers (small, round, square, some more sticky than others) and they roomed as a group, but over time and through internal fighting and conflict, the Bumper sticker survived and adapted to be the perfect size to fit on a bumper, with the correct amount of adhesive, and as evidence by the fact they are hard to take off, we can deduct that that is some sort of survival mechanism.
Love it Sis! Simply Love it!!! :)
"Since the atheists are all on strike and not reading the blog, my post won't be able to offend them." This really made my Day!
You are such a sweet Blessin from above. Have a Great Day! ;)
In His Love, Terry
Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God " They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
I don't think that this is a personal opinion, but the Word of God which is absolute.
A Little (True) Humor for All:
What do a deceased atheist and a Christian have in common?
They both KNOW that God exists. God Bless.
>This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder.
...
>Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator.
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as Non sequitur.
If A, then B
Does not mean that if B, then A.
In other words:
"Intelligence creates things." does not imply that "Things exist, therefore intelligence created them."
According to God, Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell are fools like all who do not believe God exists. So it doesn't matter what one believes, what matters is what God has said.
A definition of creationism?
The Bible plainly read.
What in the Bible contradicts observed data?
>Problem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
And your god, whom you can give no account for, somehow does explain those laws? Better to admit there are things you do not know than to fill in the holes with strange stories.
>They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
Pushing these explanations back on an ineffable creator doesn't add anything to our understanding.
Please define "creationism". Explain the physical mechanisms of "creationism" and explain the evidence deduced to have occurred based upon "creationism".-dimensio
I cannot explain the mechanics of creation. I cannot explain God, or the power of God outside of "infinite".
So if evolution is true. Why don't you explain and prove the mechanisms behind it. Something that is believable and not something some scientist pulled out of the air as theory.
Theory is not evidence.
paul brown said...I don't live in California, so I can't do this myself, but I would ask anyone who lives in that area to find Ray's car, smash the windows and the lights and then leave him a note saying:
First off Ray rides a bicycle, secondly and not surprising this shows your sinful nature in promoting vandalism and by telling someone else to sin for you.
I pray that you come to repentance before Judgment Day.
paul I forgot to ad ironic or not. ;)
New Species alert---"the Ray-theist":
It seems that a new species of atheist has been discovered in the dark recesses of the internet.
This new species is characterized by a deep obsession with Ray Comfort (even going so far as to creat entire websites dedicated to bashing him). Another characteristic of this species is the ability to conceal its true colors behind "educated" sounding dialogue and "scientific" jargon.
This chameleon-like trait is effective in masking the extremely venemous and aggressive nature of this creature. However, it has been observed that exposure to the light renders this camouflage useless.
Typically dwelling in darkness, the Ray-theist will occassionally venture out to other areas in order to reproduce. Although very slow, this creature is extremely subtle and slippery, making it difficult to apprehend.
The Ray-theist is easily distinguished from its close cousin the atheist by the much larger yellow streak along its back. God Bless and Beware.
Ingenious answer Ray! the bumper sticker created itself over millions of years... ahahahaha (rolling on the floor laughing).
Waaaaaaay too funny!!!!
@ Atheists Know Everything and Jade Garden
That was very clever with the C Diddiot/Fool remark. I'm not sure how your comment passes rule 1 about Christian civility, but oh well. Thanks for responding to me anyway. At least I got your attention. This is where I would respond to the point you made in your responses to me, but you failed to make one.
@ Ethan,
I responded to you from another computer, and it showed up as "christopher". That is me. I will correct the issue with the cookies for the next response.
Hi Ray
Maybe our Atheist friends would like to read this Poem
Alabama
Judge
Some of you may be wondering what Judge Roy Moore has been doing since he was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. Please read the poem he wrote.
The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama . Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice law in Alabama ! The judge's poem sums it up quite well.
America the beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine
choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain
From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
and a need to always pray
We've kept God in our
temples,how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne.
We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges;
who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.
You think that God's not
angry,that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way:
Then God will hear from Heaven;
and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful,
If you don't - then you will see,
A sad but ! ! Holy God
withdraw His hand from Thee.
~~Judge Roy Moore~~
Maybe we need to define what a contradiction is, and what a mystery is. The law of non-contradiction says that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time in the same relationship - s so a contradiction is something that cannot be understood. A mystery is something that we have yet to completely understand and is yet unsolved: we can't say a mystery is unsolvable, because if that were so, then we assert that we know all things.
So, it has been proven that there are principles of evolution that have contradictions, right (according to what I was taught in school)? Evolution says that all creation is getting better, however the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving toward disorder. It's a contradiction - something that can NEVER be equated to itself. Creation cannot be both advancing and deteriorating in the same way at the same time, right? However, the creation account says that all things were created at their best and have moved and are moving toward disorder - this we can see plainly, and there is no contradiction to it.
What I was taught in school about cosmic evolution asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing - an obvious contradiction. In order for this to happen, everything would have had to both exist and not exist at the same time in order to bring itself into existence. So our only options for cosmic evolution is that the universe is self-existing and eternal - which contradicts the obvious fact that everything is moving toward disorder and destrucion -, it is an illusion, or it was created. God says that He created everything out of nothing. Though it's a mystery to understand how, it's logical that a being with complete sovereignty and power could call things into being from nothing. God has complete sovereignty and power, and since He has created all things, wouldn't it make sense that He is judge over all things. And being judge over all things, He sets the laws for right and wrong, and has let us know about the standard by revealing his righteousness in the Ten Commandments. He has also set the standard for being pardoned - humility, repentence, and faith in the one He has appointed to authority: Jesus His Son whom is seated at His right hand and whom He raised from the dead.
(I've been reading The Invisible Hand by R. C. Sproul, and he has a whole section dedicated to the difference between mystery and contradiction; pick it up some time.)
oakecho asks:
What in creationism contradicts observed data? It adds to, certainly, but what does it contradict? Any answer you give will be based on unobserved, non-reproducible presuppositions.
Does it ever bother creationists when they start referring to the sort of assumptions we use every day in gathering and evaluating evidence on every subject under heaven as "unobserved, non-reproducible presuppositions?"
On the (possibly wrong but quite testable) assumption that any creationist who picks a fight with the Big Bang is a young-earth creationist, the most obvious contradiction is that astronomers can see objects in the sky that are far more than 10,000 years old. There are ways around this, of course: the omphalistic assumption that God created the universe with light already en route from the Andromeda and more distant galaxies (undetectable, but it implies a deceptive God Who has planted evidence of false history all over the cosmos), or the assumption that lightspeed has changed over the last 10,000 years (that would have serious and easily detectable influences on redshifts from distant stars), or that time moves at different rates in different parts of the cosmos (again, one would suppose that the massive relativistic distortion in light from distant galaxies would be easily detectable were this idea correct, but the particular distortions required by this idea are not seen).
Now, given that it assumes that the universe was made by an all-powerful Creator of inscrutable motives and inexplicable methods, creationism is in principle compatible with any observation whatsoever (which means that strictly speaking, it explains nothing, predicts nothing, and is not a scientific theory). All of the disagreements between creationism and actual astronomical observations can be papered over by invoking miracles not mentioned in Genesis to explain why we don't see any signs of the miracles that are mentioned in Genesis. But still, creationism cannot explain why the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium, and the distribution of galactic redshifts fits the Big Bang theory, when a Creator could have given any of them any value He wished, including values that contradict the Big Bang.
Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist, in his book -The Edge of Infinity, describes the big bang this way:
"[The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle"
Nonetheless, most physicists and cosmologists do not so describe it. At most, Davies is arguing that the Big Bang requires a Creator to explain it, which is rather a long way from saying that the Big Bang did not happen (by analogy, if you say that the eye requires a Creator, are you saying that eyes cannot work or that all animals are blind?).
Something from nothing is the opposite of the First Law of Thermodynamics. What you have presented is a "beginning" with all the energy of the universe in complete order. That's quite a start! Either it just appeared from nothing or you argue an infinitely old universe. Either there is a beginning or there is not.
Stephen Hawking provides a mathematical treatment of an idea going back to Augustine of Hippo: time starts with the commencement of the Big Bang; prior to that there was no time, much less an infinite duration waiting for the moment of the Big Bang. Time is simply an aspect of the expansion of space-time from the initial state of the universe.
As for recycling, it would require a reversal of the Second Law, a drastic increase in usable energy, within a closed system, the universe. Besides, current thinking based upon the study of supernovas in other galaxies indicates that the rate of expansion in increasing. This has prompted theories pulled out of such thin air as to be practically invoking magic, though not God.
Turok and Steinhardt are of course aware of all these things. I have a difficult time following their arguments, which I think says more about my deficiencies in scalar calculus and relativistic physics than about their reasoning skills. But it is worth noting that not all physical processes can be extrapolated in a straight line forever; in the Steinhardt-Turok model, the acceleration of cosmic expansion eventually triggers a reaction that causes the universe to contract again.
If the universe has no beginning, then how could it ever be now? For instance, how long did you have to wait to be born? Did an infinite amount of time, an infinite past, have to come to an end, and then you were born? If the past is infinite, it can never be "now." Continually pouring time into the river of the past never allows the boat called "now" to get to us.
If Steinhard and Turok are right, then obviously there can be a now, and there can be, in principle, an infinity of moments before and after now. It's like a number line: there are an infinite number of points before and after any particular point, but you personally didn't have to traverse them to get to where you are now. If, rather, Hawking is right, then the universe wasn't waiting for an infinite time, or any time at all: the Big Bang simply represents the commencement of time as well as space, and there's nothing before it.
By the way, it does not seem to me that creationists should get to invoke, over and over again, the mysteries of the divine, and yet complain that any question unanswered by science is a reason to suppose that the answers science already has must be false.
You will actually have to avoid this argument to "refute" it: sort of like "the Big Bang doesn't deal with where the energy came from."
And suppose I do have to avoid it? That the Big Bang leaves unanswered questions is not a reason to suppose that it did not happen.
Scmike said:
Problem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
There are two possible responses to your complaint.
One, it is false to assert that all evolutionists deny a Creator to physical laws. Rather, they deny that traditional, pre-scientific interpretations of scriptures that were not written by science texts ought to dictate how these laws are used to interpret the scientific evidence. To such evolutionists, the Big Bang was how God created the universe, and evolution was how He shaped species and ecologies.
More confrontationally, one might note that you are being misled by metaphor: calling the regularities of nature "laws" does not imply that they require a Lawgiver. Note that God Himself would require regularities of His divine nature: otherwise, how could you say that He never changes or that He maintains consistency in His purposes and plans? Regularities of nature, and the workings of logic, are logically prior to personalities (that is, some "laws" have to exist even for lawmakers to exist). There certainly seems no particular difficulty in assuming that some laws of nature might be eternal and uncreated.
"The God Delusion Debate" on DVD
"The God Delusion Debate" is now on DVD. Follow the LINK on my blog (bold letters) among the other blogs! ;)
" I attended this debate in person and could not wait to get my hands on the DVD to watch it again and consider what was being said.
Dawkins held up well, but not as convincing as he was in his book.
A very lively exchange of ideas I must admit. Lennox did a good job of clear up stereo types and tearing down some of the strawmen arguments erected by atheists." -- Dr. Mark Harrison, Detroit, MI
HBKS Video is available for FREE on my blogs and websites,
God Bless Ya!
In His Love, Terry
Starbuck wrote: "Just because billions believe something doesn't mean they aren't deluded."
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. At least billions of people can be wrong -- if not deluded. But my point was to respond to the suggestion that if one does not believe in God, one is a fool. Billions of non-fools have believed that there is no God. I'm one of them.
So, I just looked at your book list... if God doesn't believe in me, does that mean I don't exist?
Heady stuff, that.
Slight modification to Christopher's train story:
Atheist: Are you sure you aren't imagining things? I don't see any evidence to back up your claims.
Christian: You can't prove my invisible train on the invisble tracks doesn't exist. So ha!
Atheist: Thanks for wasting my ti...[RUMBLE RUMBLE]
[HORN BLARING]
-squish-
Christian: *sniff* I tried to tell him! =(
Hey, Ray finally found an atheist dumb enough for Ray to stand a chance in a debate. Go Ray!
The banana is sure to work this time.
Thanks for the prayers, we'll think for you.
@ (ShiVer)Curtis
Have already started praying that salvation will again come to your family, and that you will have a woderful time. Thanks for the benediction. May God draw you closer and closer to himself.
Craig B.
Thank you stranger.
Ray,
I just wanted to let you know I've been listening to Jan Markell from Olivetreeviews dot com interviewing a former raging feminist/atheist, Kitty Foth-Regner.
Kitty is telling about the book she's written about her journey from atheism into Biblical Christianity.
She says she read many books in
her search for truth, one of them being yours, "100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin".
She said that ultimately it was the Bible that convinced her of the truth, but your book was among others that pushed her towards that truth.
Also, when questioned how to witness to someone she quoted you,
"Give the diagnosis first and then tell them what the cure is".
No problem if you don't post this. I just wanted to give you a bit of encouragement in the work you do and the books you write in bringing people to the knowledge of the Lord.
Christopher said...
@ Ethan:
I made some slight corrections to your conversation to make it more relevant:
Your right.
I didn't factor in that many Atheists deny the reality of sin, the reality of a Creation, and the reality of eternal death and that they pretend there still isn't enough evidence for their desperate situation.
Emily:
I posted my thoughts about the train story on my own blog.
This is living proof that every moron in the world has a right to petition
the court--and tie it up with foolishness.
Have you heard about this case? Great answer-from the judge!
In Florida , an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'
The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your
honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover,
Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no Such holiday!'
The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously Your
client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his Own atheists' holiday!'
The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'
The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'
Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture,
he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!
Way to go, Judge!
AMEN
C.R. Fales replied to Ray's post:
Hmmm . . . and what does the atheist have to say about the evolution fish (the fish with legs) on the back of thier car? Sounds a little hypicritical to me.
I don't know what the lawsuit-threatening atheist thinks about the Darwin fish. Come to think of it, Ray presumably doesn't know what that particular atheist thinks about the Darwin fish.
You are assuming that the atheist regards the Darwin fish as insulting to Christians, and approves of this insult to Christians. But this would be hypocritical only if the atheist were declaring a position that no one should display anything on his car that might insult other people. If he held that it is okay to insult Christians but bad to insult atheists, you could reprove him for bigotry but not for hypocrisy: his principles would be perfectly consistent with his practice.
Now, when I first saw the Darwin and "evolve" fishes, I did assume (possibly because they were advertised as "anti-religion and pro-science") as just such an insult against Christians. They were too obviously a parody of the "Jesus" fish.
But symbols sometimes take on meanings different from their original sense, and I think a lot of people take the "Darwin/evolve" fish as not anti-Christian, just anti-creationist, or maybe even as just a statement that "evolution is cool!" Biology textbook writer Ken Miller (who, I concede, Ray would not regard as a True Christian [tm]) has both a "Jesus" fish and a "Darwin" fish on the back of his car.
So conceivably the lawsuit-threatening atheist disapproves of car ornaments that insult any belief, but does not regard the "Darwin" fish as an insult, and thus, again, is consistent. We don't have enough information.
Oakecho said:
A definition of creationism?
The Bible plainly read.
What in the Bible contradicts observed data?
Well, I think it would be the part where rockets sent into space don't crash into the solid dome of the sky. Oh, wait, you say that the Bible doesn't say that? Yet Isaiah clearly says that God spreads out the sky like a tent (tents are solid objects), and Genesis 1 speaks of a canopy or expanse capable of keeping the waters above the sky from falling to Earth, unless God opens up the windows of heaven. Are you sure that creationism is the Bible "plainly read?"
Well, okay, forget the solid dome of the sky part. At least we agree that creationism clearly says that the sun orbits the Earth. Uh, we do agree on that, don't we? I mean, Genesis 1 says that the sun is created after the Earth (which is a bit impractical, like building a house before putting a basement under it, if the Earth orbits the sun), and several of the Psalms speak of the Earth standing immobile in space. And, of course, the book of Joshua speaks of the sun, like the moon, obeying his command to stop moving around the Earth for a while; the book doesn't point out that technically, it was the Earth that stopped turning.
You don't agree with the Bible on that point, either? This "plainly read" bit is getting a bit fuzzy in the application, wouldn't you say? Now, I'm pretty sure that you hold that the "six days of creation" were six literal, consecutive days; note that Verandoug, and a great many old-earth creationists, would find that not to be the plain meaning of the text at all.
We can discuss whether, and how, the Bible contradicts the evidence when we get a bit more detail on what you imagine the Bible to plainly say.
Webster Hunt (Parts Man) said:
So, it has been proven that there are principles of evolution that have contradictions, right (according to what I was taught in school)? Evolution says that all creation is getting better, however the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving toward disorder. It's a contradiction - something that can NEVER be equated to itself.
Let us stipulate that "getting better" and "moving towards disorder" are contrary to one another (although "getting better" does not necessarily mean "becoming more complex, or more ordered). You err in saying that "evolution" says that "all creation is getting better." Evolution means that some organisms give rise to more complex descendants over time. Indeed, entire ecosystems can become larger and more complex over time. But entire ecosystems are a tiny fraction of the mass of one planet, itself an infintesmal fraction of the universe. To suppose that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that no system can become more complex over time is to suppose that refrigerators cannot work, that snowflakes cannot form, that tomato plants and babies cannot grow. In other words, your first critique of evolutionary theory itself involves a contradiction: if it were correct, many things that you (rightly) accept as self-evident would necessarily be false. Local portions of the universe can increase in complexity and order while the overall disorder of the universe increases.
Creation cannot be both advancing and deteriorating in the same way at the same time, right? However, the creation account says that all things were created at their best and have moved and are moving toward disorder - this we can see plainly, and there is no contradiction to it.
The Noah's Flood account has God ordering Noah to take representatives of every kind into the Ark, so that they would survive the Flood. The obvious implication is that God will not permit any kind to go extinct, even in the face of a global cataclysm (note that this was the understanding of all creationists, until it became evident that some kinds had gone extinct: when Thomas Jefferson learned of fossils of the extinct American mastodon, he asked Lewis and Clark to be on the lookout for such beasts, assuming on creationist grounds that they must still exist) Yet many kinds are extinct. Creationists reinterpret the creation account to keep it consistent with any scientific facts they cannot bring themselves to outright deny.
What I was taught in school about cosmic evolution asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing -an obvious contradiction.
Well, I wasn't in school with you, so perhaps that was what you were taught. But it wasn't what you were supposed to be taught, and I suspect that you misunderstood cosmology as badly as you misunderstood biological evolution. The Big Bang -- certainly versions of it taught in schools -- holds that the universe, at the earliest stage of its history that we can reconstruct, was very small, very hot, and very dense, with energy but no matter, and that it subsequently expanded and cooled, with energy transforming into matter as we know it. The universe did not start out as "nothing," and a school class would not be likely to include speculations about what, if anything, preceded the expansion of the universe.
Tmrfiles:
I googled that and apparently "truth or fiction" has determined that that is fictitious. I don't suppose you would have a reference to the alleged case?
Ethan said:
Chris: I see that you're taking a nap on train tracks - aren't you worried that a train might come.
Ath: I don't beleive in trains.
Chris: So how do you explain the tracks?
Ath: Evolution.
Chris: I'm really conserned for you, won't you at least consider your situation - soon a masive train is going to come this way and I don't want to see your head chopped off - it's crazy to stay where you are.
Ath: That's the problem with you Chris, you're always about using fear and name calling. Any so called "train" that's willing to chop off my head isn't worth beleiving in anyways. You can keep you evil train to yourself, I'm fine where I am, and I'm going to get some sleep.
I'm late getting to this, but why not join the fray?
It is true that atheists don't think that trains build railroad tracks. As a general rule, most people don't think that trains build railroad tracks. Assuming that you don't think that trains build railroad tracks, I suppose that the point of your dialogue is that the atheist, assuming that tracks arise through processes that have no goal in mind, would expect tracks to be useless and unused. But of course, someone who invoked evolution to explain the tracks, might expect some other evolutionary line to produce something that could co-opt and exploit the track: the evolution of symbiosis has been discussed since Darwin himself. Believing that the tracks were not designed for use by trains is not, itself, reason to suppose that trains have not arisen to make use of the tracks.
To avoid being misunderstood, neither tracks nor trains reproduce, so they could be explained by evolution only as "extended phenotypes" produced by something that does reproduce and undergo natural selection. So, again, the atheist has no grounds in atheism or evolutionary theory to suppose that whatever evolved and produced the tracks might not have produced trains as well.
On the other hand, he might wonder how you could be so sure the tracks aren't abandoned, or that a train is coming anytime soon.
Wow!! Mike Anthony, beautiful and powerful poem.
Pub, I'm pretty sure he knows that story is bogus. lol--it's so obviously a joke. That punchline is just a tad contrived. =)
"Pub, I'm pretty sure he knows that story is bogus. lol--it's so obviously a joke. That punchline is just a tad contrived. =)"
And the fact that she had to tell you that, Pvblivs, says something about your observations skills when you are so intent on standing against God. Rage clouds both your judgment and the judgments of the scientists that pretend that evolution is actually true. Calm down, my friend, ad view reality for what it is, not what you wish it to be.
(ShiVeR)Curtis said:
Chris (from Oz) said...something just to be rude.
God will not be mocked.
A couple of points ShiVeR. I wasn't trying to be rude here. I was pointing out that your claim that atheists believe in God is as absurd as the claim that you really believe in other fictional deities. You're simply wrong that atheists believe in God, and no amount of assertion will make it true.
You claim that God will not be mocked. I wasn't mocking him in either of my comments on this posting, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. However I have mocked God in other postings, and frequently in my daily life, and will very likely do so again. So obviously he can be mocked.
What you mean is that you're offended when you think God is being mocked. Why is that ? Can't God look after himself ?
Because atheists are the primary believers that life evolved from a more primative form, and that there is not God, you know the whole creation vs evolution debate.
While I do not have worldwide stats, it is clear that the majority of individuals in the United States who accept that the theory of evolution is valid are not atheists. As the theory of evolution does not address the issue of "there is not God", I do not understand why you have included it as a part of the "creation vs. evolution" debate.
Though there are some false Christians and those that are weak believers who still cling to that false, deceptive belief called evolution.
Declaring that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is valid are "false" or "weak believers" is an appeal both to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and the false dichotomy fallacy. In addition to making an unsubstantiated assertion regarding evolution-accepting Christians as a whole, you have also neglected to consider that not all theists are Christian.
Pvblivs said… (And @ Steven J.)
Pvblivs: I have lived here for several years. I can assure you that trains do not run through my home. Right now, I only see one threat and that's the demented person claiming a train is coming.
I hope you realize that my tongue-in-cheek dialog was a response to C Diddy’s dialog posted at 11:29 AM. He posted…
…Atheist: Can you make an argument for God that doesn't rely on the presupposition that God exists?
Christian: You will burn in Hell.…
Because this was a cheap way of simplifying the debate I thought about the foolish replies that atheists make and show that most atheists are as stubborn with their own worldview and are the ones that don’t think logically about life and death. When we ask where did the universe come from and where did life come from, the quick unintelligent answer we get is “evolution.” So that was the original punch-line of my mock dialog. The rest seemed to hit some other issues about the fact that eternal death is coming, and that to warn you and others about it is a motivation of genuine concern.
I cannot explain the mechanics of creation. I cannot explain God, or the power of God outside of "infinite".
If you cannot describe the mechanics of "creation", then the concept cannot be meaningfully addressed. It is therefore irrational to suggest that any evidence lends credence to "creation", as you have no basis for defining how evidence for "creation" would appear.
So if evolution is true. Why don't you explain and prove the mechanisms behind it.
The most basic mechanisms of evolution are changes from parent to offspring and various factors that affect reproductive success based upon physical properties of an organism that were passed from the parent or parents. At the theory's initial inception, the specific cause of alterations between one generation and the next was not fully understood, however the event itself had been directly observed, and that was sufficient to use it as a logical basis for the theory. Since that time, changes between parent and offspring resulting in physical alterations that could then be passed to further offspring has become known to be the result of genetic mutation, which has also been directly observed. Reproductive success rate based upon the presence of physical characteristics and typically relative to environmental conditions has also been well observed; it is readily apparent that organisms better able to avoid predators, obtain food, more efficiently use energy or obtain a mate are more likely to reproduce and, in so doing, pass their physical characteristics that enabled their reproductive success, to their offspring. That a pattern of only a subset of a population managing to reproduce based upon a selected physical characteristic will result in future generations of the population having a higher incidence rate of that characteristic has been observed through selective breeding programs; that similar 'selection' can occur as a result of environmental conditions has also been tested and the process has been observed to occur.
Something that is believable and not something some scientist pulled out of the air as theory.
Both of the primary mechanisms of evolution -- descent with modification and reproductive selection pressures resulting in success rates based upon the presence of specific physical characteristics -- had been directly observed prior to the creation of the theory itself. They have not been "pulled out of the air", and lacking belief in those mechanisms is essentially a denial of observed reality.
Theory is not evidence.
You are correct. A theory is a comprehensive framework that explains observations based upon physical processes that either are known to occur -- as is the case for all mechanisms for evolution -- or have been logically deduced to occur as the result of multiple known physical processes occurring in concert or under specific conditions. Evidence is an observation that is consistent with predictions derived from a theory; these derivations are essentially logical conclusions regarding the implications of a theory, or rather statements regarding what the mechanisms of a theory should "leave behind" when they occur.
Now, I would like your ministry to give me a good reason for me not filing a lawsuit against you for telling people lies. I am not a fool.
Because stating a personal opinion, even a gratuitously insulting one, is not against the law. Fool.
>Evolution says that all creation is getting better, however the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving toward disorder.
You utterly misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics.
Wikipedia says: "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Entropy is defined as "a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work."
First, the law isn't about order and disorder at all, it's about the amount of available energy in a system.
Second, there is absolutely nothing about this law that prohibits order from arising in the universe as long as the overall disorder of the universe is not decreasing. All of the order ever created on the earth is completely offset by the amount of disorder created by the sun in a single second.
steven j,
""One, it is false to assert that all evolutionists deny a Creator to physical laws.""
True. Some worship false gods and some are misguided Christians.
""Rather, they deny that traditional, pre-scientific interpretations of scriptures that were not written by science texts ought to dictate how these laws are used to interpret the scientific evidence. To such evolutionists, the Big Bang was how God created the universe, and evolution was how He shaped species and ecologies.""
I would assert that those individuals who profess to be Christians and accept evolution don't fully understand either Christianity or evolution (or they are deliberately suppressing the truth that God has revealed in his Word), as these two worldviews are completely incompatible with one another.
""More confrontationally, one might note that you are being misled by metaphor: calling the regularities of nature "laws" does not imply that they require a Lawgiver.
Are you certain of this? If so, how?
""Note that God Himself would require regularities of His divine nature: otherwise, how could you say that He never changes or that He maintains consistency in His purposes and plans?""
What I am saying is that universal, abstract, absolute laws are a direct reflection of God's universal, immaterial, absolute character and nature as revealed to us by Him. Natural laws on the other hand, were created by God and applied His creation.
Tell us Steven, why could God not have created natural laws? Why could abstract, universal, absolute laws not be a reflection of the character and nature of God as revealed to us by Him?
""Regularities of nature, and the workings of logic, are logically prior to personalities.""
You are using logic to try and prove that logic is "prior to personalities". Your argument is viciously circular.
Since you brought it up though, how do YOU account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason according to your worldview?
""(that is, some "laws" have to exist even for lawmakers to exist)""
Do you know this for certain? If so, how?
""There certainly seems no particular difficulty in assuming that some laws of nature might be eternal and uncreated.""
An "assumption" that something "might" be a certain way is nothing more than speculation.
For the sake of our argument, I am only interested in what you KNOW for certain and how you know it. God Bless.
You claim that God will not be mocked. I wasn't mocking him in either of my comments on this posting, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. However I have mocked God in other postings, and frequently in my daily life, and will very likely do so again. So obviously he can be mocked.
Sorry to butt in but I feel like it. XD Jesus said, "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." So, you will answer to all of your blasphemies the day you're judged. So yes, He CAN be mocked (you did and do it, and I used to, too) but you will answer to it, eventually.
What you mean is that you're offended when you think God is being mocked. Why is that ? Can't God look after himself ?
God can defend Himself. What you don't seem to understand is that we LOVE GOD. So when people mock the Lord you mock someone we love dearly, in fact the One we love most of everything and everyone in and outside of the world.
So, imagine that someone you love dearly has become the target of people. How would you like to hear people call your mother, wife or daughter horrible curse words? How would you feel if someone said horrible things about your mom, claiming she committed crimes and she has wronged people. How would you like it if people used your mom's name in their nickname and signatures, mocking her, making websites about her, and saying sick and disgusting things about her. Taking pleasure in slandering her name and watching you try to defend her.
I'm sure if you tried to be peaceful about it you could withstand it for a while, but if you had dozens and dozens of people who it seemed it was their goal in life to hate your mother, I think after a while it would wear you down, too.
No one likes having someone they love dearly disparaged. Defending one we love is a natural human reaction. That is, unless you have ice in your veins.
Ethan,
My mock conversation intended to show the logical fallacy behind Ray's "Building must have a builder..." argument. Nothing more. Its one of the weakest arguments for God there is. If you are going to mock Atheists for weak responses and stubborn viewpoints, don't you have to also consider that Ray is doing the same thing with his fallacious arguments and stubborn viewpoints?
Of course the answer is no. People are entitled to make illogical and weak arguments littered with holes as long as they share your beliefs, right?
Emily said "Sorry to butt in but I feel like it. XD Jesus said, "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." So, you will answer to all of your blasphemies the day you're judged. So yes, He CAN be mocked (you did and do it, and I used to, too) but you will answer to it, eventually."
Emily, Jesus' words here were likely invented by some story teller, so I don't really care what you think he said, but your point that I will answer to it interests me. Do you think there are levels of hell ? Since I'm going there anyway due to not worshipping Jesus, is there really any difference if I also mock God ?
You also went on to explain why people are offended when God is mocked, and you explain it well. I sort of understand now, thanks.
However, I smile when someone insults my friend who is listening and likes to fight. I'm not offended at all. I'm only offended when people insult my loved ones who either aren't there or are too weak to defend themselves. Neither is true with the God you believe in. So, I'm still not able to totally appreciate what you're saying.
Mike and Lizette's Travels and Thoughts said...
"First off Ray rides a bicycle,"
Okay, fair point - Ray has said before that he rides a bike, so I should've said slash his tyres and steal the little basket off the front where Jesus sits (like in the Spielberg film). The point was to show that the difference between the law of God / Allah / Shiva / Thor / whatever and the actual law is that one applies to real world behaviour and the other doesn't; just because scripture says that you should do something doesn't excuse you doing it, which Christians actually know full well and is why they don't really stone their children for being cheeky.
"secondly and not surprising this shows your sinful nature in promoting vandalism and by telling someone else to sin for you.
I pray that you come to repentance before Judgment Day."
and then added
"paul I forgot to ad(sic) ironic or not. ;)"
I wondered whether adding that little paragraph at the end was in fact insulting everyone's intelligence; surely any adult reading this would realise that it was ironic (ironic adj. conveying the opposite intention of the words' literal meaning). Clearly it was not only needed, but not sufficient for some people to understand. Ironic or not makes a lot of difference because irony is conveying the opposite intention of what it literally says. I did in fact clarify that I did not advocate the damaging of Ray's or anyone else's property, but was simply making a point by suggesting that which is clearly not acceptable behaviour. Seriously, guys, how dense are you? Even when I spell it out in plain English you still can't get it; don't bother hiding behind your little smiley as a defense, the accusation of "this shows your sinful nature in promoting vandalism" prooves quite clearly that the point had sailed over your heads and the fact that "ironic or not" makes no difference to you shows that communicating at an adult level is obviously beyond you.
The fact is that this bumper sticker is a direct insult (which you are legally entitled to make), but when it causes a direct insult in return (which I am also legally entitled to make and, believe me, if I see a car with one of these on it I will) you will cry persecution and bemoan the sinful nature of those who respond in kind to your casually thrown abuse.
steven j:
"We see, around us, builders causing buildings to go up. We see, around us, painters creating paintings. That is, we know, from direct experience, that "intelligent designers" of these things exist."
We also know from "direct experience" that things do not come into existence de novo, from nothing.
"World-Creators and species-Creators are a bit less evident; you can't very well look One up in your local yellow pages just because you'd like to see passenger pigeons make a comeback."
Even though you can't look up "world-creators" in your local yellow pages, do you really have to look it up to know that one exists? It would be intellectually dishonest to say that if you are staring at a building, that in order for you to know for a fact that a builder existed you have to look up the builder in the yellow pages or physically see him build it yourself before you can say he existed.
Now, if you want to know WHO the builder was then you would either have to look him up in the yellow pages or city permits or speak to him directly. But you would not have to do those things just to know he existed. The building itself is positive, unrefutable proof that the builder existed.
The same can be said for creation and a Creator. You do not need to "look up" creators in the yellow pages to know that one existed or exists. However, if you want to know WHO the creator is then you would have to "look Him up". That is why the Bible exists. So you can "look up" WHO the creator is and learn more about Him.
"It might indeed be folly to assert that nothing created everything from nothing, but I know of no evolutionist or cosmologist who asserts such a thing. Just starting with the laws of physics, one is starting with rather more than nothing."
You are right. The laws of physics is not nothing. But you are starting off with something. But then it begs the question where did that something (the laws of physics) come from and who created that something?
Emily, Joshua S Black:
The story is indeed strange. However, given the inanities I see within christianity, it is possible for such a story to happen or for christian to pass such a story as true when it is false.
Ethan:
The most obvious for your train/tracks to represent is the allged judgement. So, in my counterpoint, I went with that. If they are meant to represent simultaneously something we can see and something we think is not there, your analogy is overburdened and must fail.
Scmike replied to my statements:
""One, it is false to assert that all evolutionists deny a Creator to physical laws.""
True. Some worship false gods and some are misguided Christians.
""Rather, they deny that traditional, pre-scientific interpretations of scriptures that were not written by science texts ought to dictate how these laws are used to interpret the scientific evidence. To such evolutionists, the Big Bang was how God created the universe, and evolution was how He shaped species and ecologies.""
I would assert that those individuals who profess to be Christians and accept evolution don't fully understand either Christianity or evolution (or they are deliberately suppressing the truth that God has revealed in his Word), as these two worldviews are completely incompatible with one another.
The astronomer Gerardus Bouw would assert that individualswho profess to be Christian and accept heliocentrism (the doctrine that the Earth orbits the sun) don't fully understand either Christianity or heliocentrism, or are deliberately suppressing revealed truth. Indeed, he not only asserts this, he argues for the position, which puts him one up on you. Why should I think his position wrong, and yours right?
Is there some reason that I should accept that your understanding of either Christianity or evolution is greater than that of textbook author and theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller?
""More confrontationally, one might note that you are being misled by metaphor: calling the regularities of nature "laws" does not imply that they require a Lawgiver.
Are you certain of this? If so, how?
""Note that God Himself would require regularities of His divine nature: otherwise, how could you say that He never changes or that He maintains consistency in His purposes and plans?""
What I am saying is that universal, abstract, absolute laws are a direct reflection of God's universal, immaterial, absolute character and nature as revealed to us by Him. Natural laws on the other hand, were created by God and applied His creation.
Tell us Steven, why could God not have created natural laws? Why could abstract, universal, absolute laws not be a reflection of the character and nature of God as revealed to us by Him?
I am not asserting that God could not have created natural laws. I am asserting that natural laws are not, in and of themselves, evidence of a supernatural lawgiver. My point is this: what we call "laws" of nature are in important ways disanalogous to human statutes: nothing breaks them (indeed, the whole concept of "falsification" is based on the assumption that we can't just say, when the data don't match the theory, "well, that time, something broke the laws of nature;" we have to say "the theory appears to be wrong about what the laws of nature are." "Laws" of nature are regularities of nature, the way nature consistently behaves. To say that something or someone has a nature is to say that that thing or person behaves in regular, predictable ways, or, in other words, that that person or thing demonstrates, is governed by, "obeys" "laws of nature."
A mind, to be a mind, has to have purposes that endure from moment to moment, some identity, knowledge, believe and desire that is fairly stable over time. It requires consistency; that is, it requires a "nature" and hence "laws of nature," whether those laws apply only to it or to some broader universe of discourse. This is what I meant by "laws of nature are logically prior to lawgivers": one can have laws of nature without minds (a rock has no mind, but it has a nature and laws of that nature), but one cannot have minds without regularities ("laws") of their nature. This does not mean that some Mind could not author and enact "laws of nature" for its creation, but that mind must have logically (as opposed to "temporally") prior laws of its own nature just to exist and have purposes and enact them. Therefore, there must be laws of some nature that are not created by any mind. It is at least unclear to me why these could not include all the "laws of nature" we see in the universe around us.
""Regularities of nature, and the workings of logic, are logically prior to personalities.""
You are using logic to try and prove that logic is "prior to personalities". Your argument is viciously circular.
I suppose it depends on whether you define "logic" to mean a formal system of reasoning devised by and applied by personalities, or to the underlying consistencies of nature that those formal rules apply to.
Since you brought it up though, how do YOU account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason according to your worldview?
Was that not obvious from my argument? They are eternal and uncreated, ontologically necessary, and uncaused. This, it seems to me, is necessarily true whether or not there is a Personality that also has those attributes, since logic and reason apply also to that Personality.
""(that is, some "laws" have to exist even for lawmakers to exist)""
Do you know this for certain? If so, how?
My argument for this position is offered above.
""There certainly seems no particular difficulty in assuming that some laws of nature might be eternal and uncreated.""
An "assumption" that something "might" be a certain way is nothing more than speculation.
For the sake of our argument, I am only interested in what you KNOW for certain and how you know it. God Bless.
As I have said several times in replies to this blog, Ray and his fans seem to confuse the certainty with which they hold a belief with the truth of that belief, and with their justification for holding that belief. Declaring that something is the Absolute Revealed Truth of God (tm) does not automatically make it better supported or more reasonable than something else that is frankly admitted to be a mere speculation.
Doc replied to me:
We also know from "direct experience" that things do not come into existence de novo, from nothing.
Do you find that observation slightly inconvenient for creationism? After all, you're the one with the account (it really doesn't qualify as a "theory") of origins that requires new things to appear ex nihilo.
Even though you can't look up "world-creators" in your local yellow pages, do you really have to look it up to know that one exists? It would be intellectually dishonest to say that if you are staring at a building, that in order for you to know for a fact that a builder existed you have to look up the builder in the yellow pages or physically see him build it yourself before you can say he existed.
Now, if you want to know WHO the builder was then you would either have to look him up in the yellow pages or city permits or speak to him directly. But you would not have to do those things just to know he existed. The building itself is positive, unrefutable proof that the builder existed.
My point is that we know that the builder of that building exists because we are already familiar with architects, contractors, construction workers, etc. We are not inferring a builder because of the building's "specified complexity," or because we have exhaustively inventoried the universe and determined that no nonteleological causes can account for a building, but because we have conducted a rather limited and local inventory of the universe, and come up with a cause -- human designers and builders -- that produces this sort of effect. We might, in fact, be wrong; there might be something on Earth that is not a human builder but puts up buildings, but this is not a parsimonious assumption and should be considered only when we have evidence for these nonhuman designers and builders.
I didn't bring up the point about the Yellow Pages to suggest that we have to know the identity of a builder or designer to decide that he exists. My point was that one can locate architects and construction firms without the Yellow Pages, if one simply wanders through the city and looks for them, but that it is much easier to find assertions about designers of life and worlds than to find actual designers of life and worlds.
The same can be said for creation and a Creator. You do not need to "look up" creators in the yellow pages to know that one existed or exists. However, if you want to know WHO the creator is then you would have to "look Him up". That is why the Bible exists. So you can "look up" WHO the creator is and learn more about Him.
A great many texts, many ancient and venerable, exist with statements about the Builder or builder of life and worlds.
You are right. The laws of physics is not nothing. But you are starting off with something. But then it begs the question where did that something (the laws of physics) come from and who created that something?
I do not know. Neither the Big Bang theory nor biological evolutionary theories require an answer to that question. You are assuming that the laws of physics needed to be created (by a Creator Who, Himself, did not need to be created). It is non-obvious that some laws of physics cannot be eternal and uncreated in their own right, but nothing in either current cosmological or biological theories require that they be.
My Dh has had a number of conversations generated from the bumper sticker. And we are always seeing folks reading it as we are stopped at red lights. They ahve to read it several times - many think it says National ATHLETES Day.
One great opportunity - while in the parking lot at his job at the District School Board office, a colleague asked why Dh had a bumper sticker for National "Athletes" Day. Dh said to read it again. She did, they had a 5 minute conversation about whether she was a "good person" or not - when she suddenly came to herself (!) and said - "You can't talk about God here - it is school property." Dh never missed a beat - he said "Sure I can, you intitated the conversation." - She tuened and stomped off.
I am sorry to say that while seed was sown i her life, so far for her it is in hard soil - but there are several others at the same work place that are looking like "good ground".
Pvblivs said...
The most obvious for your train/tracks to represent is the allged judgement. So, in my counterpoint, I went with that. If they are meant to represent simultaneously something we can see and something we think is not there, your analogy is overburdened and must fail.
The tracts represented sin, and so all of us start out lying down in our own sin thinking we're ok. The train is eternal death and judgment. Your conscience is aware of the evidence that sin is real and that judgment is real. You can ignore your conscience, but that would be unwise.
While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.
But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief;
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;
so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.
For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night.
But since we are of {the} day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation.
[ 1 Thessalonians 5:3-8 ]
steven j.:
Thanks for your response.
You said:
"Do you find that observation slightly inconvenient for creationism? After all, you're the one with the account (it really doesn't qualify as a "theory") of origins that requires new things to appear ex nihilo."
Observation is not inconvenient but essential to understanding HOW the universe FUNCTIONS. That does not lessen the truth that God created the universe. We do not observe creation occurring because it already occurred. Observation is unecessary to the fact of creation because we already have the created universe in existence. There is no logical need to observe its creation. God created this universe and everything in it ONCE. It is already done. All we can observe is how this creation functions or works. And through observation we know for a fact that material things cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that an all-powerful, eternal being (God) created it.
And please do not use the argument that if God, who is the initiator of creation, is eternal then it is equally possible that the universe can be eternal and God is not necessary because we already know as scientific fact from observation of this universe and the physical laws that exist that this universe had a beginning.
You said:
"My point is that we know that the builder of that building exists because we are already familiar with architects, contractors, construction workers, etc. We are not inferring a builder because of the building's "specified complexity," or because we have exhaustively inventoried the universe and determined that no nonteleological causes can account for a building, but because we have conducted a rather limited and local inventory of the universe, and come up with a cause -- human designers and builders -- that produces this sort of effect. We might, in fact, be wrong; there might be something on Earth that is not a human builder but puts up buildings, but this is not a parsimonious assumption and should be considered only when we have evidence for these nonhuman designers and builders."
WHAT???? This is the problem with many people and the Bible speaks of this very thing so it shouldn't surprise me. You are really overthinking a simple and logical concept and confusing yourself.
It makes no difference how complex or simple the building is. We know from physical science that buildings CANNOT ever build themselves. It is not possible and anyone who says it is does not think very clearly. This is not meant to be an offense to athiests but it is true. It is totally illogical to say that things (buildings, paintings, universes, etc.) come into existence from nothing.
You state that there could be non-human builders. This is true but it is not the point. The fact is whether it is human or non-human we know without a doubt that there was a builder. The question of whether it is human or non-human deals with WHO the builder was not the fact that he/she/it exists or existed. Keep simple things simple and it won't lead to illogical conclusions and confusion.
"I didn't bring up the point about the Yellow Pages to suggest that we have to know the identity of a builder or designer to decide that he exists."
EXACTLY. Just like we do not need to know the identity of the Creator of this universe to know that He exists.
"My point was that one can locate architects and construction firms without the Yellow Pages, if one simply wanders through the city and looks for them,..."
And if one simply wanders through the pages of the Bible and the pages of World History and archeological books one can locate the one true God and creator of this universe.
"...but that it is much easier to find assertions about designers of life and worlds than to find actual designers of life and worlds."
I agree. Assertions are plentiful. But the One true God and Creator is not unknowable. Finding assertions is easier but that does not negate the existence of God the Creator or prove He doesn't exist. No one said it would be "easy" but, then again, the good things in life usually aren't. And if you take the time to seek Him it will be worth your time and effort I guarantee it. It will save your life. Don't you believe your life is worth the effort?
"A great many texts, many ancient and venerable, exist with statements about the Builder or builder of life and worlds."
Yes. That is why it is important that you not be fooled. It may cost you your life and soul. This is truely a matter of life or death. Seek after the truth diligently and wisely. Don't just take my words for it (or Ray's or anyone else's) but seek after the truth honestly and humbly.
" I do not know. Neither the Big Bang theory nor biological evolutionary theories require an answer to that question. You are assuming that the laws of physics needed to be created (by a Creator Who, Himself, did not need to be created). It is non-obvious that some laws of physics cannot be eternal and uncreated in their own right, but nothing in either current cosmological or biological theories require that they be."
Again, laws cannot create themselves. Laws need lawmakers. Laws, in and of themselves, suggest intelligence. Laws need things to govern or else they would not be needed. The concept of the physical laws are something cretaed by man to mathematically explain the order and rules by which this physical universe functions. All require something or someone to create it or else they would not exists on their own.
Steven, you can keep pretending that the Bible teaches geocetrism all you want. Heliocentrism isn't actually true (the universe doesn't revolve around the sun, only this tiny solar system--and the sun itself has an orbit, just as the Bible states in Psalm 19)--but, of course, the facts that don't suit you are being ignored, as per your only available leg to stand on: truth suppression.
Pvblivs, I dearly hope that no one else even began to think that that was a true story, but, hey, if that's what paranoia does to you...
Chris of Oz said, "Emily, Jesus' words here were likely invented by some story teller, so I don't really care what you think he said..."
Everything I (and any other Christian) know(s) about Jesus and Christianity comes from the Word of God. So, it's interesting that you want to engage us in dialogue when you claim you "don't really care what [we] think He [Jesus] said"? Puzzling. =) Care to explain?
"Do you think there are levels of hell ? Since I'm going there anyway due to not worshipping Jesus, is there really any difference if I also mock God ?"
The Bible says there are levels of hell. The Bible says that if anyone preaches a gospel other than what is in the Bible, "let him be accursed" which means, sent to the lowest hell. I wouldn't want you to go to any level of hell, because I assure you that the topmost level is not akin to an afternoon in the sauna. But, if you insist on denying Jesus Christ as your Savior, then your destination at death, is hell. I pray you never see it, Chris.
However, I smile when someone insults my friend who is listening and likes to fight. I'm not offended at all. I'm only offended when people insult my loved ones who either aren't there or are too weak to defend themselves. Neither is true with the God you believe in. So, I'm still not able to totally appreciate what you're saying.
I guess that's the difference between your friend and my God, He doesn't like to fight. God is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty". Those are God's own Words to describe Himself!! (Exodus 34:6)
He's full of love as you can see by His description, but He is also just. I don't smile at the thought of you or your atheist ilk, even the very disrespectful and even disgusting ones that post here on this blog, receiving justice (hell). I don't find it humorous in the least. But I'm not sad about it either, because I know that when the time comes for your life to end, God will have done everything in His power to help you come to the knowledge and love of Him, everything except force you to believe. I know that every single person that is in hell right now has chosen to be there, because they have chosen to live their lives a certain way and chosen to reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Not only that, but as an atheist you don't have God's protection. I bet Madalyn Murray O'Hare would have had a good hearty laugh at that comment, but look at how she died, without God's protection. What a nightmare her last days must have been, I'd be surprised if she did anything other than curse God the entire time, and then to top off her vicious death she is now (probably) burning in hell. I don't clap with glee at her demise, but I certainly don't feel sorry for her IF she didn't repent before she died because that was her choice. Certainly she had ample opportunity to repent--actually her manner of death was in a way God's mercy, maybe she needed that extreme circumstance to be able to humble herself and call out to God for help.
*Anyway*, the worst your friend can do is murder. The Bible says, "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
Amen to that =)
Joshua S Black:
No, paranoia would be if I invented in my own mind and came to believe it, thinking "they're out to get me." In reality, I was presented (actually, we were all presented) with an account of alleged events. That is the bible is, an account of alleged events. Given the history of christianity and, indeed, the national attitude toward atheists, I determined that such an account was possible, but should leave further evidence. What I found told me the account was likely fictitious, but was taken seriously.
JOSHUA S BLACK said:
Steven, you can keep pretending that the Bible teaches geocetrism all you want.
Thank you for your gracious permission.
Heliocentrism isn't actually true (the universe doesn't revolve around the sun, only this tiny solar system--and the sun itself has an orbit, just as the Bible states in Psalm 19)--but, of course, the facts that don't suit you are being ignored, as per your only available leg to stand on: truth suppression.
The point, of course, is that the Earth orbits the sun. Christians -- not only the Pope, but leaders of the Protestant Reformation as well -- rejected this idea on biblical grounds. One might wonder how a doctrine that the Bible does not teach was so readily inferred from it by so many different scholars.
Not one biblical scholar, inferred that the path taken by the sun might be around the center of the galaxy, nor did anyone suggest this idea until after secular astronomer had established it. Between the time of, roughly, Newton in the late 17th century, and that of Harlow Shapley in the early 20th century, it was assumed, by most biblical inerrantists (except the few who held to geocentrism), that the sun was immobile in space, and that the words of Psalm 19 were figurative. Even today, the view that Psalm 19 refers to the solar system's orbit about the center of the galaxy is held only by the sort of Christians who hold that, e.g. there are references to atomic theory in Hebrews or that Isaiah speaks of the expanding universe. I would think that such fanciful exegesis could easily accomodate an old Earth, and perhaps even evolution.
You are as certain that the Bible teaches that the Earth is young and that evolution is false (and that the sun orbits the center of the galaxy), as Luther can Calvin were that it teaches that the sun (and stars) orbit the Earth. It does not seem to me that you have better grounds for your certainty than they did for theirs.
Pvblivs, I dearly hope that no one else even began to think that that was a true story, but, hey, if that's what paranoia does to you...
Are you referring to the story that Tmrfiles cited as "living proof that every moron in the world has a right to petition
the court ...?" Normally, one does not cite something as "living proof" unless one thinks that it is a fact; jokes might be living proof of the temperment or attitudes of the joker, but not about the things joked about. I don't think that Publius regards the story as true, but I'm less sure about Tmrfiles.
Doc writes:
...we know for a fact that material things cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that an all-powerful, eternal being (God) created it.
The only logical conclusion as I see it is that there was never a time when there was absolutely nothing, i.e., there must always have been something. It does not follow that there must always have been an omnipotent and intelligent being.
And please do not use the argument that if God, who is the initiator of creation, is eternal then it is equally possible that the universe can be eternal and God is not necessary because we already know as scientific fact from observation of this universe and the physical laws that exist that this universe had a beginning.
This universe, meaning our space-time continuum and all the matter and energy in it, did have a beginning. But we don't know that this universe constitutes all of natural reality -- some speculate that our "local" universe is only an infinitesimal fraction of that whole -- and so we can't conclude that all of natural reality had a beginning.
In other words, we can agree that our universe had some source, the question is whether we need to capitalize the S in "Source" and call it "The Creator." Maybe it's a small-s "source," an impersonal entity.
We know from physical science that buildings CANNOT ever build themselves.
Sure, because we know that concrete and steel are artificial compounds that don't occur in nature, and even if they did they wouldn't "crystallize" in that kind of form. But we don't similarly know that "universes don't occur in nature" or that "matter and energy can't 'crystallize' out of some other state of existence."
Again, laws cannot create themselves.
Nothing can "create itself" because that's a self-contradiction. (It requires that the thing both exist [to create itself] and not exist [to be created] at the same time.) But that wasn't what Steven J. argued. He argued some laws (conditions, aspects of reality) were eternal and necessary, that they were never "created."
Laws need lawmakers. Laws, in and of themselves, suggest intelligence. Laws need things to govern or else they would not be needed.
You can speak of the "commutative law of addition" (which "mandates" that 2+3 = 3+2), but does that mean somebody (or Somebody) "created" this law? Most people would say "of course not, that's just a necessary aspect of reality; it couldn't be different." Perhaps the "ultimate" physical laws are like that as well. I believe Einstein thought this was the case.
Doc replied to me:
Observation [that things do not pop into existence out of nothing] is not inconvenient but essential to understanding HOW the universe FUNCTIONS. That does not lessen the truth that God created the universe. We do not observe creation occurring because it already occurred. Observation is unecessary to the fact of creation because we already have the created universe in existence. There is no logical need to observe its creation. God created this universe and everything in it ONCE. It is already done. All we can observe is how this creation functions or works. And through observation we know for a fact that material things cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that an all-powerful, eternal being (God) created it.
Given that the observable universe is finite in extent and energy, it seems excessive to infer an infinitely powerful Being as an explanation for it. Certainly I cannot see how such a conclusion is the only logical conclusion. Note that some biblical accounts (e.g. the feeding of the multitudes) imply that creation ex nihilo did not end with the original creation. So while there may be no logical necessity for further miraculous exnihilations in the present day, one might still wonder why, if they happened at other times during history, they don't seem to be happening now.
Of course, by the same token, the Big Bang (to say nothing of biological evolution) doesn't require new universes to be popping into existence right now either.
And please do not use the argument that if God, who is the initiator of creation, is eternal then it is equally possible that the universe can be eternal and God is not necessary because we already know as scientific fact from observation of this universe and the physical laws that exist that this universe had a beginning.
May I ask a question? Do you accept that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and the universe about three times that age? If you do not, then why do you accept the judgment of science that the universe must have had a beginning, when you don't accept any of science's conclusions about when that beginning was, and what it was like? If you do, then we have established that the universe (or at least this present iteration of it) had a beginning, but there seems to me no obvious reason to assume that the beginning of the universe is the beginning of the laws of physics.
This is the problem with many people and the Bible speaks of this very thing so it shouldn't surprise me. You are really overthinking a simple and logical concept and confusing yourself.
It makes no difference how complex or simple the building is. We know from physical science that buildings CANNOT ever build themselves. It is not possible and anyone who says it is does not think very clearly. This is not meant to be an offense to athiests but it is true. It is totally illogical to say that things (buildings, paintings, universes, etc.) come into existence from nothing.
Again, it seems to me that "X comes into existence from nothing," "X makes itself (from preexisting materials)," "Some nonintelligent cause makes X (from preexisting materials)," "some intelligent agent makes X (from preexistent materials)," and "some intelligent Agent makes X from nothing" are five different propositions; you treat them as though they were only two different propositions: "X makes itself from nothing" and "some intelligent agent makes X."
Buildings don't make themselves, and they are not made from nothing. Beyond that, our conclusion that they have intelligent constructors is based on empirical knowledge of the work of such constructors, not on some "scientific" knowledge that things cannot make themselves. Some things (like snowflakes) might as well be described as making themselves, under appropriate conditions; others (like the arrangement of rocks from larger to smaller as one approaches the sea along a stony beach) might better be said to be made by nonintelligent agents. And yet others are made by intelligent agents, using physical means that are constrained by natural laws.
You state that there could be non-human builders. This is true but it is not the point. The fact is whether it is human or non-human we know without a doubt that there was a builder. The question of whether it is human or non-human deals with WHO the builder was not the fact that he/she/it exists or existed. Keep simple things simple and it won't lead to illogical conclusions and confusion.
I'm assuming the issue is simple: we infer causation mainly by learning what causes produce certain effects, not by learning all the causes that cannot produce those effects, and not simply by concluding (however accurately) that those effects cannot "produce themselves."
That is why it is important that you not be fooled. It may cost you your life and soul. This is truely a matter of life or death. Seek after the truth diligently and wisely. Don't just take my words for it (or Ray's or anyone else's) but seek after the truth honestly and humbly.
I shall endeavor to do as you ask, though I suspect that I shall not convince you that I have sought truth honestly and humbly unless I end up agreeing with you and Ray.
Again, laws cannot create themselves. Laws need lawmakers. Laws, in and of themselves, suggest intelligence. Laws need things to govern or else they would not be needed. The concept of the physical laws are something cretaed by man to mathematically explain the order and rules by which this physical universe functions. All require something or someone to create it or else they would not exists on their own.
I've been over this with Scmike (and I doubt I convinced him, either). A "law" of nature is simply a way that nature consistently behaves; it is a regularity demonstrated by the phenomena of nature. Note that a mind (or even, I would think, a Mind) needs to exhibit such regularities in order to function: to perceive (and have perceptions have any sort of consistent relationship to the thing perceived), to reason, to hold purposes that do not alter extravagantly and arbitrarily from one moment to the next, even to exist as the same entity (or Entity) from one moment to the next. A Creator would have to be "subject to" (I use scare quotes because these are not enactments imposed on Him) laws of His own nature. Thus one cannot have minds or lawgivers without regularities of (some) nature. But it is much less obvious that one cannot have regularities of nature without minds; at least, in the scientifically observable universe, many things display regularities of their own nature without evincing any sign that they have minds. So it seems to me that if there is an eternal, uncreated Creator, there must be eternal, uncreated laws of, at least, His nature; why not other laws of nature as well?
Publius said: "That is the bible is, an account of alleged events. Given the history of christianity and, indeed, the national attitude toward atheists, I determined that such an account was possible, but should leave further evidence. What I found told me the account was likely fictitious, but was taken seriously."
Interesting. Have you actually conducted a study (informal, for your own purposes) on how we got the Bible? If so I'd be interested in what books, articles or websites you have read on this topic. My main question is, what causes you to come to the conclusion that the Bible is fictitious?
Emily said "Everything I (and any other Christian) know(s) about Jesus and Christianity comes from the Word of God. So, it's interesting that you want to engage us in dialogue when you claim you "don't really care what [we] think He [Jesus] said"? Puzzling. =) Care to explain?"
Yes, sure. What you think is the word of God is actually the feeble writings of ignorant people 2000 years ago. If there was a Jesus who spoke for God, I'd care. But, what there actually was, was myths and legend. I don't care (in this context) about the Christ story, as I don't care about the Buddha story, or the Zeus story, or that of Mithra or Dionysus. My caring comes only from the fact that others care, and I have to deal with that.
You say "I guess that's the difference between your friend and my God, He doesn't like to fight. God is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty". Those are God's own Words to describe Himself!! (Exodus 34:6)"
Well, here are some other words God uses to describe himself:
Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation.
And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
You say "*Anyway*, the worst your friend can do is murder."
Hmm, here's me thinking that the worst thing is blaspheming the holy spirit. According to Mark 3:29 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
Is or isn't murder forgivable ? If it is, then it's not the worst thing.
steven j:
You said: "Given that the observable universe is finite in extent and energy, it seems excessive to infer an infinitely powerful Being as an explanation for it. Certainly I cannot see how such a conclusion is the only logical conclusion. "
Why?? How is it "excessive"? How else did this physical universe come into existence from absolutely nothing? Don't you think the creator of this universe would have to be "infinitely powerful" to create such a complex and vast universe?
"Note that some biblical accounts (e.g. the feeding of the multitudes) imply that creation ex nihilo did not end with the original creation. So while there may be no logical necessity for further miraculous exnihilations in the present day, one might still wonder why, if they happened at other times during history, they don't seem to be happening now."
The biblical account you mentioned (the feeding of the multiples) did not truly occur ex nihilo. The elements to produce fish and bread already existed. They had already been created and were already in place when the multitudes were fed. As for why don't miracles happen today?? I beg to differ. Miracles happen even today although many may not necessarily call them "miracles". There are instances of people having CT scans of their brains showing tumors and subsequent scans being tumorless without any treatment. If you read the bible in the context of history you will realize that miracles were not necessarily commonplace even during biblical times. They were also rare. It only seems they happened all the time because you are reading about them at the same time, in the same source.
"Do you accept that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and the universe about three times that age?"
The truth is I do not know how old the universe or the Earth are. I have not been around since "the beginning" nor have I seen a clock tracking time since its origins. I have significant doubts that it is as old (billions or millions of years) as many claim it is. But ultimately I don't know.
"If you do not, then why do you accept the judgment of science that the universe must have had a beginning, when you don't accept any of science's conclusions about when that beginning was, and what it was like?"
Sometimes science gets things right. Many times it does not. Science and scientists make mistakes quite frequently. You see, science is not infallible which is why it cannot always be trusted 100%. The word of God can be trusted 100% because God cannot lie or make mistakes. He is omniscient. Many, many times science makes accurate conclusions. But many times scientific data is misinterpreted.
"If you do, then we have established that the universe (or at least this present iteration of it) had a beginning, but there seems to me no obvious reason to assume that the beginning of the universe is the beginning of the laws of physics."
How can the laws of physics exist without a physical world? What did these laws govern if there was no physical world in existence?
And, again, physical laws based on mathematics suggests an intelligence behind them.
Regarding your propositions"
""X comes into existence from nothing," This is a physical impossibility. 0+0=0 therefore X cannot come into existence from nothing.
"X makes itself (from preexisting materials)" x cannot possibly create itself because it doesn't/didn't exist to create anything let alone itself. Plus, where did the pre-existing materials come from and who or what created them?
"some intelligent agent makes X (from preexistent materials)," Again, where did this intelligent agent come from (who cretaed him) and where did the pre-existing material come from?
"some intelligent Agent makes X from nothing"- plausible and logical. Really the only logical arguement if the intelligent agent is eternal and always has existed and is omnipotent.
"Buildings don't make themselves, and they are not made from nothing. Beyond that, our conclusion that they have intelligent constructors is based on empirical knowledge of the work of such constructors, not on some "scientific" knowledge that things cannot make themselves."
I agree. The conclusion that buildings don't make themselves is not a scientifically derived conclusion but a conclusion brought about by logic and common sense resulting from observation of the universe as it presently exists.
"I'm assuming the issue is simple: we infer causation mainly by learning what causes produce certain effects, not by learning all the causes that cannot produce those effects, and not simply by concluding (however accurately) that those effects cannot "produce themselves."
You claim you are keeping things simple but then go on to discuss cause and effect and learning about all causes that don't cause the effect(????)which has nothing to do with the original premise. How is that keeping things simple. The premise was/is that buildings cannot be created without a builder. We cannot say anything regarding WHO the builder is unless we meet him or learn about him from some other source.
" A Creator would have to be "subject to" (I use scare quotes because these are not enactments imposed on Him) laws of His own nature. Thus one cannot have minds or lawgivers without regularities of (some) nature. But it is much less obvious that one cannot have regularities of nature without minds; at least, in the scientifically observable universe, many things display regularities of their own nature without evincing any sign that they have minds. So it seems to me that if there is an eternal, uncreated Creator, there must be eternal, uncreated laws of, at least, His nature; why not other laws of nature as well?"
This is partly true. However, the intelligent being is not "subject to" the laws of his nature. That is just who He is. For example, God does not love in the sense we humans love. He IS love. It is not the law of His nature to love. It is who He is. There does exist eternal laws of His nature but they describe who He is they do not govern Him nor does He necessarily follow these laws per se. It is who He is. As for physical laws, they need not be eternal if prior to the existence of this physical universe there only existed a spirtual being who then created the physical laws to govern a newly created physical world.
Don't you think the creator of this universe would have to be "infinitely powerful" to create such a complex and vast universe?
Without knowing how the universe ultimately came to exist, it is impossible to derive any information regarding the existence of a "creator" and, as such, it is impossible to derive any information regarding any abilities of such a creator, if this creator is extant.
Doc replied to me (excerpts):
Why?? How is it "excessive" [to say that a finite universe does not require an infinitely powerful Creator]? How else did this physical universe come into existence from absolutely nothing? Don't you think the creator of this universe would have to be "infinitely powerful" to create such a complex and vast universe?
I believe that whether "the universe came into existence from absolutely nothing" is part of the point under contention here. It is certainly conceivable that there is some preexisting, non-supernatural, "thing" from which it originated. And the complexity and size of the universe are finite, and therefore do not require infinite power to create. To create them out of "absolutely nothing," of course, would take the ability to do the impossible; this is so far outside the range of human science or experience that I do not see how we could tell if it required "infinite power," or merely the power to do one impossible thing (and, quite possibly, no other impossible things).
The truth is I do not know how old the universe or the Earth are. I have not been around since "the beginning" nor have I seen a clock tracking time since its origins. I have significant doubts that it is as old (billions or millions of years) as many claim it is. But ultimately I don't know ... Sometimes science gets things right. Many times it does not. Science and scientists make mistakes quite frequently.
Well, yes, they do. However, scientists conclude that the universe is finitely old because they assume that the Big Bang (and the various arguments for an ancient universe on which it depends) is correct. If they could mistake a 10,000-year-old universe for a 13.7 billion year-old universe, they could as easily mistake an infinitely old universe for a 13.7 billion year-old universe. If they are wrong to assume that the laws of physics are uniform throughout space and time, they could be (indeed, logically would be) wrong to assume that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics poses some insuperable barrier to an infinitely old universe. You can't toss out the premises and have any confidence in the conclusion (that current science supports the idea that the universe had a beginning).
You see, science is not infallible which is why it cannot always be trusted 100%. The word of God can be trusted 100% because God cannot lie or make mistakes. He is omniscient. Many, many times science makes accurate conclusions. But many times scientific data is misinterpreted.
An omniscient God cannot make mistakes, but pretty obviously bible scholars, commentators, and interpreters can. And the very assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of an omniscient God is, itself, something that requires a better defense than I've seen (indeed, I would think, a better defense than is possible: what level of evidence could support the premise that the Bible makes no errors whatsoever, when it makes assertions about matters concerning which we cannot even gather evidence?).
How can the laws of physics exist without a physical world? What did these laws govern if there was no physical world in existence?
However, the intelligent being is not "subject to" the laws of his nature. That is just who He is. For example, God does not love in the sense we humans love. He IS love. It is not the law of His nature to love. It is who He is. There does exist eternal laws of His nature but they describe who He is they do not govern Him nor does He necessarily follow these laws per se. It is who He is.
And in much the same way, the "laws of nature" are simply the way nature is; they do not "govern" anything. But presumably a physical world would behave in accordance with such laws as soon as matter existed; one would not have the problem of matter coming into existence and needing laws imposed upon it.
As for physical laws, they need not be eternal if prior to the existence of this physical universe there only existed a spirtual being who then created the physical laws to govern a newly created physical world.
I concede your point, but equally we would not need such a lawgiver if there was some sort of eternally existent physical pre-universe that somehow produced our universe.
Sorry, can't alloow links. I removed them and published your kind comment:
Kazim said...
Hello,
I'd just like to point out that Patrick is in the clear minority with atheists on this issue. We on "The Atheist Experience" TV show in Austin have always disagreed strongly with most of Ray's positions. However, we are strong proponents of free speech and think that Patrick's threat of a lawsuit is beyond ridiculous.
In fact, yesterday on the show, we spent about 30 minutes speaking with Patrick on the phone, trying to make him understand that he was, in fact, behaving foolishly. At the end of this call, Patrick voluntarily supplied his email address and told people to write in and let him know whether they support him. Today, we have been flooded with emails, about 50 so far, and not one of them has disagreed with our position that Patrick is in the wrong.
Unfortunately, occasional nuts like Patrick give atheists a bad name, and I feel it is my duty to drop a note pointing out the complete lack of support he has among intelligent people.
July 28, 2008 2:47 PM
steven j,
""The astronomer Gerardus Bouw would assert that individualswho profess to be Christian and accept heliocentrism (the doctrine that the Earth orbits the sun) don't fully understand either Christianity or heliocentrism, or are deliberately suppressing revealed truth. Indeed, he not only asserts this, he argues for the position, which puts him one up on you.""
Not really. His position does not comport with reality. Therefore, it is false by definition.
My position is that Christianity and evolution are totally incompatible, as evolution theory is an obvious contradiction to the truth that God has revealed to us about creation. Christians are instructed to reject ideas that contradict the truth as lies.
""Why should I think his position wrong, and yours right?""
"Wrong" and "right" indicate that you believe in the existence of absolute truth (otherwise nothing could ever be "wrong" or "right"). How do you account for absolute truth according to your worldview?
""Is there some reason that I should accept that your understanding of either Christianity or evolution is greater than that of textbook author and theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller?""
A Christian's ultimate authority is the Word of God. Since God posesses absolute knowledge and He cannot lie, his revelations are true and reliable. Evolution is in contradiction to the revelation we have received of the creation account, and is therefore incompatible with Christianity.
Where do you get your information from Steven? How do you know that it is reliable?
""I am not asserting that God could not have created natural laws.""
Yet, you argue FOR evolution which is in blatant contradiction to the creation account as revealed by God in Scripture. How odd.
""I am asserting that natural laws are not, in and of themselves, evidence of a supernatural lawgiver.""
Natural laws ARE but one part of the body of evidence that God has given as proof of His existence.
Other evidence includes, but is not limited to: absolute truth, consciousness, absolute, immaterial, universal laws of mathematics, science and logic, as well as His physical creation.
I would be interested in knowing how you account for each of these things.
""My point is this: what we call "laws" of nature are in important ways disanalogous to human statutes: nothing breaks them (indeed, the whole concept of "falsification" is based on the assumption that we can't just say, when the data don't match the theory, "well, that time, something broke the laws of nature;" we have to say "the theory appears to be wrong about what the laws of nature are." "Laws" of nature are regularities of nature, the way nature consistently behaves. To say that something or someone has a nature is to say that that thing or person behaves in regular, predictable ways, or, in other words, that that person or thing demonstrates, is governed by, "obeys" "laws of nature.""
Steven, I believe what you are trying to say is that because natural laws exist, God must be bound by them. This is simply not true.
God is the creator of the natural laws that govern creation (gravity, thermodynamics,etc.), and is therefore not subject to these laws, as He is immaterial.
Universal, abstract, absolute laws of logic, science, and mathematics on the other hand, were not created by God, but rather are a reflection of His character and nature.
They exist because He exists and cannot be accounted for in any atheistic worldview (as we have seen over and over again).
""A mind, to be a mind, has to have purposes that endure from moment to moment, some identity, knowledge, believe and desire that is fairly stable over time. It requires consistency; that is, it requires a "nature" and hence "laws of nature," whether those laws apply only to it or to some broader universe of discourse.""
My question to you again is how do you know this for certain? Why could abstract, universal, absolute laws of science, mathematics, and logic not be a reflection of God's nature and character as revealed to us by Him?
Why could natural laws (gravity, etc.) not have been created by God?
""This is what I meant by "laws of nature are logically prior to lawgivers": one can have laws of nature without minds (a rock has no mind, but it has a nature and laws of that nature), but one cannot have minds without regularities ("laws") of their nature.""
Actually, your argument was that the laws of nature "and the workings of LOGIC" are logically prior to lawgivers. I see that you indeed realized the circularity of this argument, thus your correction.
I think Sye answered this argument before (and very well I might add) by pointing out that it's like saying that a brain must be able to exist and function on its own because humans have brains and use them. It's an absurd argument.
""This does not mean that some Mind could not author and enact "laws of nature" for its creation, but that mind must have logically (as opposed to "temporally") prior laws of its own nature just to exist and have purposes and enact them.""
You are making another unfounded knowledge claim here, Steven. Please tell us how you know for certain that a mind must have prior laws of its own nature just to exist.
""Therefore, there must be laws of some nature that are not created by any mind.""
Last time you said this was an assumption that "might" be possible. Now you are claiming to know this for certain. How so??
I said: "You are using logic to try and prove that logic is "prior to personalities". Your argument is viciously circular."
You replied: ""I suppose it depends on whether you define "logic" to mean a formal system of reasoning devised by and applied by personalities, or to the underlying consistencies of nature that those formal rules apply to.""
Neither. I mean the laws of logic and reason that reflect the absolute, immaterial, universal character and nature of God.
If you believe that these laws are "devised by personalities" (created by man), please explain how imperfect personalities can devise something that is abstract, universal, and unchanging.
Since you brought it up though, how do YOU account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason according to your worldview?
""Was that not obvious from my argument? They are eternal and uncreated, ontologically necessary, and uncaused.""
The only thing obvious from your argument is that you claim to know things, but won't state how you know them for certain.
""This, it seems to me, is necessarily true whether or not there is a Personality that also has those attributes, since logic and reason apply also to that Personality.""
For the sake of our discussion, Steven, I not interested in what seems true to you, but rather what you know to be true and how you know it.
""As I have said several times in replies to this blog, Ray and his fans seem to confuse the certainty with which they hold a belief with the truth of that belief, and with their justification for holding that belief.""
You mean like you've been doing this entire time?
What you fail to understand Steven is that I don't believe the things I have told you, I know them for certain (there is a big difference).
You have made knowledge claim after knowledge claim in this (and other) posts, yet you cannot tell us how you know any of the things you claim to know for certain.
""Declaring that something is the Absolute Revealed Truth of God (tm) does not automatically make it better supported or more reasonable than something else that is frankly admitted to be a mere speculation.""
Uh, unless the declaration in question IS the absoulute revealed truth of God.
Truth is exclusive by definition and any "mere speculations" (thanks for admitting that by the way) that contradict the truth are indeed unreasonable (not to mention untrue) and are to be rejected.
Sorry it took so long to respond to your post, but I'm off weekends and was very busy at work Monday.
Nevertheless, I would be very grateful if you would respond in kind and answer the questions above. Thanks in advance for your response. God Bless.
Steven J.:"The point, of course, is that the Earth orbits the sun. Christians -- not only the Pope, but leaders of the Protestant Reformation as well -- rejected this idea on biblical grounds. One might wonder how a doctrine that the Bible does not teach was so readily inferred from it by so many different scholars."
Because it was a translational error. I had to look up the original word myself just to be sure.
There are a lot of words in some languages that don't translate well in other languages. Hence, the method of translation known as dynamic equivilancy. This method is designed to give the full meaning of the sentence to the receiving language, even though the wording might be quite different. Still has huge potential for human error, which is why the NIV is not very respected, but it does work in some cases.
(By the way, the verse they were looking at was Psalm 93:1 and I used Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to look up what the original word meant, only to find that there were several different words that had only one English equivilant for them all. Easy error to make in Latin, too.)
Again from Steven J.: "You are as certain that the Bible teaches that the Earth is young and that evolution is false (and that the sun orbits the center of the galaxy), as Luther can Calvin were that it teaches that the sun (and stars) orbit the Earth. It does not seem to me that you have better grounds for your certainty than they did for theirs."
Yeah, Luther and Calvin said a lot of things about the Bible that were wrong, too. But, I guess, you wouldn't know that if you didn't study the Bible first and their teachings second, which is the error that a lot of Christians and others make today. Typical willful ignorance, I say.
Scmike, you say that "A Christian's ultimate authority is the Word of God. Since God posesses absolute knowledge and He cannot lie, his revelations are true and reliable. Evolution is in contradiction to the revelation we have received of the creation account, and is therefore incompatible with Christianity." For that to be correct, the Word of God" cannot simply mean the Bible. There were Christians before the canon of the Old Testament was fixed, and before the canon of the New Testament was even written, much less collected and recognized as scripture. If it means something besides, or in addition to, the Bible, then you have an additional source of authority that needs to be consulted.
If, e.g. one recognizes the continuing influence of the Holy spirit as an authority (arguably the true ultimate authority over the Christian; at least I have read Christian theologians who say so), then one needs to consider that Christians who accept evolution have at least as deep a grasp on and acceptance of God's Word as you do. If one recognizes nature itself as part of God's Word, then logically evidence from nature can compel us to reinterpret the Bible. You implicitly note this when you dismiss Gerardus Bouw's interpretation of the Bible on no better grounds that that it does not comport with "reality." A young Earth does not comport with reality. Separate origins of different "kinds" does not comport with reality. Common descent is as supported by the evidence as is heliocentrism; if it is incompatible with the Bible, that's bad news for the Bible.
You interpret my earlier post to be saying that "because natural laws exist, God must be bound by them," and add "this is simply not true."
First, that is not what I was saying; I was insisting that "laws of nature" are simply the way nature behaves. If God exists, there are laws of His nature (not necessarily the "laws of nature" that science studies) that are simply the way He behaves. Let me distinguish more clearly here between God's nature and, well, "nature," the stuff science studies: the former must have (as you appear to concede) uncreated laws according to which it acts (as you note, such laws are just the way God behaves). But the "laws of nature" science studies are just the way nature behaves. They might have been created by God, but they might just exist, the way God's nature, if God exists, simply exists without being created.
I see no obvious need to assume that "universal, abstract, absolute laws of logic, science, and mathematics" were on the one hand not created by God (since, as you hold, they are part of His nature and have necessarily existed eternally), but nevertheless can exist only because He exists. It seems to me as reasonable to assume that these things exist but need note not instantiated in a single, supreme, omnipotent Creator and Lawgiver. You assume that these absolute principles must have existed eternally and uncreated; there might be more (a supreme Personality and Will) that have existed eternally and uncreated, but then again, there might not be.
Second, you keep assuming you know things are true (or false) because the Bible (as you interpret it) says that they are true (or false), and you know that the Bible is reliable because it is God's Word, and you know it is God's Word because ... well, actually, you haven't yet got around to explaining that particular point. "Because it says that God wrote it" won't work (I leave the demonstration of that as an exercise to the reader). On the other hand, no amount of empirical evidence adduced for the veracity of the Bible could possibly support its absolute inerrancy, simply because it speaks on some matters on which empirical evidence cannot be gathered (e.g. what happens to our nonphysical selves after death). So you don't actually know, any more than I do, whether or not God is subject to the laws of nature.
Oh, and by the way, I do not admit that the things I say about cosmology, geology, biology, or evolution are "mere speculation." Nor, on the other hand, do I insist that they are "absolute truth." That absolute truth exists does not imply that our own scientific (or theological) researches have vouchsafed it to us. Current scientific theories are the current best inferences from consilience of evidence (explanations consistent with many different lines of empirical research). They're not "absolute truth," just our best current approach to it.
I was merely noting that insisting that one's views are ABSOLUTE TRUTH (tm) because they actuall are THE ABSOLUTE REVEALED TRUTH OF GOD" does not make them any more than speculations that one refuses to admit are speculations. I don't believe that you know the things you know. I concede that God in principle could give you the absolute knowledge you claim; I merely see no sign that He has done so, and your inner conviction is just your own subjective impression.
Joshua S. Black, I know what "dynamic equivalency" is ("idiom for idiom" translation). You keep referring to a single word that was mistranslated (in Latin and English alike, and presumably also in Martin Luther's German), giving rise to the mistaken belief that the Bible assumes and accepts geocentrism. You don't tell me what that word is (I assume it is the one translated "moved"), or what a more correct translation might be. Certainly, geocentrists old and new cite more than one Bible verse in support of their views; do they all (e.g. Joshua 10:13, Ecclesiastes 1:4-7) use the same mistranslated word? Did Luther and Calvin really rest their cases on a single verse in the Psalms? Luther, at least, said he did not.
steven j,
""There were Christians before the canon of the Old Testament was fixed, and before the canon of the New Testament was even written, much less collected and recognized as scripture.""
I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to prove. God revealed himself as the Creator directly to Adam and Eve in the beginning. The fact that He is the Creator has always been known, and precedes the written scriptures.
""If it means something besides, or in addition to, the Bible, then you have an additional source of authority that needs to be consulted.""
Nope. The Bible is the absolute source of authority and contains the written record of God's direct revelation.
""If, e.g. one recognizes the continuing influence of the Holy spirit as an authority (arguably the true ultimate authority over the Christian; at least I have read Christian theologians who say so), then one needs to consider that Christians who accept evolution have at least as deep a grasp on and acceptance of God's Word as you do.""
So, would you say that Christian scientists that are under the leadership of the Holy Ghost and deny evolution have at least as deep a grasp on and acceptance of science as you do?
As I have said before, the theory of evolution is in contradiction to the creation account as revealed by God. Therefore, it is false.
The Bible warns that there are other spirits "not of God" in the world. Christians are implored to "try the spirits" to see if they correspond with the Truth and to reject those that don't.
Those who profess Christianity and embrace evolution are not influenced by the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Truth) in their belief, but are misguided by the "spirit of error".
""If one recognizes nature itself as part of God's Word, then logically evidence from nature can compel us to reinterpret the Bible.""
There's your problem Steven. You interpret scripture based on your presupposition that it is not accurate and that evolution is true. Therefore, you see "inconsistencies" between the evidence in creation and Scripture.
A Christian begins with the presupposition that God's Word is absolutely true and that we can be certain of it. We therefore look for resolutions between any apparent inconsistencies in the evidence we see and Scripture.
The Bible doesn't need to be reinterpreted, it needs to be believed and obeyed.
""A young Earth does not comport with reality.""
So tell us, just how old is the earth really? Last time I checked, nobody knew for sure.
""Separate origins of different "kinds" does not comport with reality. Common descent is as supported by the evidence as is heliocentrism;""
There you go interpreting evidence with your evolutionary worldview again. Christians see this same evidence as pointing to a common designer.
The question is, which one of us lives consistently with their worldview. Your refusal to answer my questions in the previous posts seems to make the answer obvious.
""if it is incompatible with the Bible, that's bad news for the Bible.""
Or, for your worldview.
""First, that is not what I was saying; I was insisting that "laws of nature" are simply the way nature behaves.""
Actually, the most you can possibly know is how nature HAS behaved (which you still haven't said how you can know for certain). How do you know how nature WILL behave in the future?
""But the "laws of nature" science studies are just the way nature behaves.""
Actually, one must first conclude that science is valid before using it. The scientific method presupposes the uniformity of nature (induction), otherwise science would be impossible to practice.
So the question is, how do you account for the uniformity of nature according to your worldview? What grounds do you have to expect the future to be like the past?
""They might have been created by God, but they might just exist, the way God's nature, if God exists, simply exists without being created.""
Another one of your "mere speculations?" :)
""You assume that these absolute principles must have existed eternally and uncreated;""
Actually, I know it for certain, as do you. :)
""there might be more (a supreme Personality and Will) that have existed eternally and uncreated, but then again, there might not be.""
You sound rather uncertain of your worldview, Steven. Is this what your argument has been reduced to?
Rather than discuss what you don't know, let's discuss what you do know for certain. Tell me one thing you do know and how you know it for certain, and we can then compare the basis for our claims. Sound good??
""Second, you keep assuming you know things are true (or false) because the Bible (as you interpret it) says that they are true (or false),""
I'm not assuming, Steven. The Bible is just one of the revelations God has given to mankind so that we can know what is true (and therefore what is false) for certain.
You have already agreed that this is possible, so what's the problem??
""and you know that the Bible is reliable because it is God's Word, and you know it is God's Word because ... well, actually, you haven't yet got around to explaining that particular point.""
Haven't I? God has revealed it to be so in a way that we can be certain.
""Because it says that God wrote it" won't work (I leave the demonstration of that as an exercise to the reader).""
I'm assuming it won't work because you would consider that statement to be circular reasoning?
Now, if you could just explain why circular reason is not allowed in your worldview, I would be much obliged. :)
""So you don't actually know, any more than I do, whether or not God is subject to the laws of nature.""
How do you know that I don't know? Mere speculation?? :)
""Oh, and by the way, I do not admit that the things I say about cosmology, geology, biology, or evolution are "mere speculation." Nor, on the other hand, do I insist that they are "absolute truth.""
Steven, stop refuting your own argument---that's my job!! :)
""That absolute truth exists does not imply that our own scientific (or theological) researches have vouchsafed it to us. Current scientific theories are the current best inferences from consilience of evidence (explanations consistent with many different lines of empirical research). They're not "absolute truth," just our best current approach to it.""
Otherwise known as "mere speculation."
""I was merely noting that insisting that one's views are ABSOLUTE TRUTH (tm) because they actuall are THE ABSOLUTE REVEALED TRUTH OF GOD" does not make them any more than speculations that one refuses to admit are speculations.""
Unless, of course, those views are absolutely true.
""I don't believe that you know the things you know.""
Then how could I know them if I don't know them? Good one!!
""I concede that God in principle could give you the absolute knowledge you claim; I merely see no sign that He has done so,""
I have never claimed absolute knowledge, Steven. Only that it is possible to know some things for certain because God (who does have absolute knowledge) has revealed them to us.
Now, tell us how it is possible for you to know anything for certain according to your worldview.
""and your inner conviction is just your own subjective impression.""
Not so. God has provided plenty of objective evidence to confirm the truth of His revelation to us (but you already know that).
So, what your argument boils down to is this: "you might be wrong, but I'm not really sure....I think." Priceless!!
Perhaps you should give your worldview (and its many inconsistencies some serious thought. Maybe you can reflect as you respond to the questions I have asked you over these last couple of posts. God Bless. :)
Scmike: apparently you accept, as an axiom, the idea that every thought about reality that is not known to be an absolute fact is mere speculation. And apparently you accept, as a second axiom, that your religious views fall into the "known absolute fact" sphere. The role of evidence in supporting one's views seems unfamiliar, if not utterly repugnant, to you.
Given this, I do not see the profit to either of us in continuing to discuss matters of science.
Kazim
In fact, yesterday on the show, we spent about 30 minutes speaking with Patrick on the phone, trying to make him understand that he was, in fact, behaving foolishly. At the end of this call, Patrick voluntarily supplied his email address and told people to write in and let him know whether they support him. Today, we have been flooded with emails, about 50 so far, and not one of them has disagreed with our position that Patrick is in the wrong.
I thought this was an important point you made here in terms of freedom of speech. That one freedom is so important to our country and on both sides of the coin, we need to allow people to express what they believe. I actually believe that it helps others to help them to see our perspective if we can just enter those debates peaceably. No person should be silenced if they disagree unless what they are proposing is criminal and evil. I do not believe in, for example, pornography falling under the heading "freedom of speech." It has been proven to be damaging to many who have fallen prey to it.
Vera
steven j,
""Scmike: apparently you accept, as an axiom, the idea that every thought about reality that is not known to be an absolute fact is mere speculation.""
Because that is the very definition of ""mere speculation". Look it up. :)
""And apparently you accept, as a second axiom, that your religious views fall into the "known absolute fact" sphere. The role of evidence in supporting one's views seems unfamiliar, if not utterly repugnant, to you.""
Let me get this straight, you don't even attempt to answer any of my questions and I'm the one who doesn't understand the concept of evidence?? Steven, this is beneath you. :)
""Given this, I do not see the profit to either of us in continuing to discuss matters of science.""
I agree. I was beginning to become concerned for your well-being as I was reading your responses to those last couple of posts. It sounded like you were about to lose it. :)
Seriously though, Steven, I'm sorry to hear that you're bowing out. I was genuinely interested in hearing your responses to the questions that I asked.
Anyway, I thank you for the discourse and it is my prayer that you will stop supressing the truth that God has obviously revealed to you and that you will repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ before it is too late. God Bless.
Yeah, Luther and Calvin said a lot of things about the Bible that were wrong, too. But, I guess, you wouldn't know that if you didn't study the Bible first and their teachings second, which is the error that a lot of Christians and others make today. Typical willful ignorance, I say.
Joshua,
Amen! I couldn't have said it better.
Vera
Post a Comment