|
Real_Solitude -> RE: Does God Exist? (4/21/2008 5:29:14 AM)
|
This sounds like fun. I'm going to be helping Rebel along. Since Dashing has taken most of the space in this thread, he's getting his own response-post. I'll handle all other response in my following post. This will be structured based on the order of your posts.
quote:
RatherDashing
Interesting title (Life, the Universe, and Everything) to choose for a lecture on creationism, considering Douglas Adams' was self-described as a "radical atheist."
"While time began with the production of two elements, the heavens and the earth, with an intelligent designer crafting these two elements from complete nothingness."
There are a number of problems with this. The first is that the heavens and the earth are not elements, as defined scientifically. The second is that the heavens (if you're referring to 'anything not on earth' and not the place after death') and the earth are both made out of the same stuff, and therefore there is no need for differentiation. The third is that you're positing that things can either
A. Come out of nothing (as in God's creating H&E, or God himself coming to exist.)
B. Exist eternally (if we're assuming that God always existed.)
If you're going to posit that something can come out of nothing, there is no reason to assume a creator. If you're going to posit that things can exist eternally, there is no reason to posit a creator. This is because if you can apply one of these to the creator, then it has to be applicable to the universe as well.
This isn't to mention the problems in the creation story itself. (Light existing before sources.)
I understand that you're not really making a scientific appeal in this piece, but more of an emotional one, but there are still things that need to be answered.
"For it to be, there had to be something to create it. That's how it is with everything in life."
This is to be read without irony?
Again, you're positing an eternal God, then immediately turning to say that all things must be created. Even if you're only saying that all things within the universe need to be created, this obviously can't apply to the universe as a whole. Not to mention that, with the advent of quantum physics, we do know of uncaused events (or events that appear uncaused, at least).
" Basically, you're saying:[...] produce any more logicalness"
Going point-by-point.
*Your understanding of cosmology is flawed. The things you mention are not inherently random. The universe follows certain laws. You can argue that in an uncreated universe, these laws are random, but after that, you can't claim randomness. The reason that everything formed as it did, from nebula to stars to planets, would be because everything was obeying according to the natural laws. (In this case, namely gravity and the other fundamental forces).
*Your view of abiogenesis and evolution are flawed. Things would have formed due to natural law up until the first imperfect replicator comes to be. From that point on, the survival of any given replicator (including animal life) is based on its ability to survive within its environment. This process is essentially non-random. It takes an element of randomness (mutation), and uses a non-random process to act upon it (Natural selection). It would be akin to having a box filled with separate shapes, but only a round hole, and when shaken calling it random that only round objects fell out of the box.Happenstance is involved, but not as heavily as is usually perceived.
Eyewitness accounts are the least acceptable form of court testimony, as the psyche is easily susceptible to changing based on perceived desire. People can be convinced that they saw things that never happened. This isn't even to call into question the validity of the account that 500 people did see him. It is much easier to forge an account that says there were 500 witnesses than to round up 500 people to witness. Remember that you're trying to convince an atheist. Biblical inerrancy can not be touted without proof.
*** Again, you're using Biblical inerrancy. This time you're adding cyclical logic to the mix as well. You're saying, basically, that the Bible says that God created the universe, and we know this is true because God says he wrote the Bible. If you're going to attempt to use this logic, then you must also accept every other religion that has ever made a similar claim.
If the Bible isn't true then it's back to a Theory. Just like the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, the Theory of General Relativity etc... In scientific nomenclature, fact is something that physically exists (things fall). Theory is the explanation for this (Theory of Gravity). Calling something a theory is high praise, because it means that a hypothesis has undergone rigorous enough testing to gain acceptance in the scientific community as the correct explanation for the event in question.
*It didn't. As you yourself said, humanity only emerged about 200,000 years ago. As humans are the only creatures to ever truly have society, society has only been around for 200k years. And even then it has had a rather poor showing, being interspersed with constant war as it is.
*There is no such thing as "solar fabric." Unless you're going to use actual terminology, or define your terminology, I can't respond. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in the natural world, so there is always friction and matter. (Even space has matter, just at very low densities.)
*Again, there's no such thing. If you're referring to the whole universe always existing or forming from nothing, then I ask the same about God. Any answer you use can also be used for me.
It is easier to simply say "God doesn't exist" or "God does exist" and just leave it there. Thankfully, many people are not satisfied with the easy answer, and have given us explanations for their reasons.
"It CAN be provided. It's all written and periodically documented in the Bible. They just choose to ignore another concept outside of the worldview their presented with, but rather trash it because they have neither A. no documented evidence to support evolution. B. no evidence to disapprove creation."
Once again, an atheist will not assume the inerrancy of the Bible. Much of the Bible is either disregarded or questioned by the secular historical community. For instance, there is little to no evidence that there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt within several centuries of the claimed dates. There is no evidence of a global flood. There is plenty of contrary evidence to a young earth/universe. There is evidence that Jesus existed (it is generally accepted that he did) but anywhere near to the Biblical description.
If you're trying to convince an atheist, the Bible is a poor place to go for facts.
Also, there is plenty and plenty of documented evidence for evolution. That's why evolutionary theory is still in existence over 150 years after it's popularization. The fossil record and the geological column are strong evidence for evolution. Endogenous Retroviruses are another. Biology and genetics are filled with evidence for evolution. There are over 200,000 (I think that's the number) peer-reviewed publications that give evidence for evolution. A simple internet search can fill you in on many of the basic pieces of evidence for evolution.
I'm only talking about evidence for Evolutionary Theory. Evolution as a natural process is accepted as fact, because it can be observed. (Evolution as fact deals with genetic drift, not species change.).
|
|
|
|