The Atheist and Christian Evangelists–two options.

It’s been my experience that there are a variety of evangelists in this world. All promote their own belief systems and all operate on a system of faith. Today I want to look at the evangelistic message of the Atheist and the Christian.

The Atheist says; there is no God because its totally illogical to believe in any such thing because you cannot prove there is a God. Their message in reality is that you have no real purpose in life. Your just an accident that happened. The universe within some inexplicable scientific mystery, just happened to go bang when a whole heap of nothing compressed into nothing, which created such a huge compression of nothing that it exploded into something and from out of nothing, this something was created which in turn formed the heavens and the earth and on earth some form of life was made which ended up being a whole variety of evolute  life forms.

The Christian on the other hand says.. You do have a purpose in life. God created you with a purpose. God existed before the heavens and the earth and within his own plans and purposes for life, created the heavens and the earth and all the life forms within. God’s purpose for you is to live in relationship with him and with each other.

Both the Atheist and the Christian have a belief system as to how creation happened. The Atheist as much as they try cannot truly logically explain how something is made from nothing… and the Christian cannot explain how God happened to exist either….and truthfully the Bible doesn’t try to explain the existence of God, rather just says…yes God exists.

The question to ask is which is more plausible? The Atheist decries the implausibility of God and yet religiously pushes the barrow that its ever so plausible that nothing compressed nothing which created nothing, but the compression was so huge that it created a big bang….which created everything.  OK……… then….

The message of the Atheist is that we speak the truth and our truth is that because your an accident, you have no purpose, no hope, no forgiveness, no point of being and there is no reality of morals.

The message of the Christian says…hey your made for a purpose, there is hope, there is forgiveness, there a point of being and there is a reality of morals which is the foundation of love and how to get along with each other…and by the way – this same God who caused all this to happen really loves you and wants you to know him also.

I know which message I think is more plausible… what about you?

Advertisements

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in atheism, evangelism, li, Lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Atheist and Christian Evangelists–two options.

  1. tildeb says:

    Well, you could ask an actual gnu atheist says… and it not what you describe.
    You didn’t come from nothing, Craig. You came from your parents. What purpose did they have in conceiving and bringing you to term? Where, exactly in this biological process, did a divine creator intervene and on what evidence?

    (This will be good…)

    • Craig Benno says:

      And yet…when you go all the way back… where did creation start?

    • tildeb says:

      When did creation start? Isn’t that like asking someone “When did you stop beating your wife?” It begs the question.

      The history of the world and how life on it developed is a marvelous undertaking. I urge anyone to do so. As our knowledge about it increases, so too does one’s appreciation for life deepen. Unfortunately for the theist, nowhere is there any evidence of any intervening supernatural agent. None is needed or necessary. It’s even more marvelous for that.

      As for your line of thinking about nothing coming from nothing, please enjoy skepchik’s (another gnu atheist) wonderful video aimed at exactly this stubborn theistic stumbling block.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Actually its not a theistic stumbling block… The big bang theory is foundational to the Atheists framework of existence and being. Your framework of being denies the existence of any form of deistic involvement…whereas a theistic approach accepts a deistic framework behind and within the framework of existence and being. I look at creation and say “Wow! All of creation speaks of the wonders of God” … In reality you can only say…Wow! All this happened because of an accident.

      • tildeb says:

        If it were a foundation, then how were there atheists long before any notion of the Big Bang? The atheist’s framework is to not believe in things without good reasons to do so. It’s pretty straightforward.

        As for your dialogue on my behalf, I wouldn’t say any such thing. I marvel at the universe and am in awe that I am a part of it. I wouldn’t have the gumption to assume any higher role than that.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Yes…all of creation does speak of the wonders and majesty of God…its good to hear you say that you don’t believe in the big bang theory.

      • tildeb says:

        Assuming I said that (and I didn’t) why would you think it is ‘good’ not to believe in the Big Bang theory? (I’m using the word ‘believe’ in the common parlance of meaning ‘I think that…because…’) Cosmologists and physicists a lot more knowledgeable than I tell me there is very strong evidence for a Big Bang (or a Big Bounce if you watch the video I sent) about 14 billion years ago. Why is it ‘good’ to pretend I know better than they, that I should distrust their professional and highly specialized efforts to understand our cosmological history?

      • Craig Benno says:

        So you do believe in the Big Bang theory. How does that theory provide a framework of purpose?

      • tildeb says:

        In the same way that the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

  2. What I hear atheists say alot is that they can’t be bunched together with things like opinions and attitudes as atheism is simply a disbelief in God. They also say that their beliefs don’t require faith because they depend on scientific evidence.

    The first I kind of agree with.

    My problem with the latter is that science can only work with the limited material/data available at the time, not knowing what else comes into the equation until or unless discovered, which is why some areas of science are constantly changing. science can neither prove nor disprove God, therefore a lack of scientific proof is seen as lack of evidence which requires a degree of faith from the atheist on the grounds of probability based on lack of evidence in the pool of evidence available/known by scientists at the time.

    If a scientist set out to prove God does not exist, would their lack of available evidence be seen as probability that God does exist?

    • tildeb says:

      But Sarah, there should be oodles of evidence of this divine critter who supposedly intervenes in reality. That, too, is missing in its entirety.

      Non belief requires no faith in the same way that non collecting of stamps requires no hobby. To try to ascribe collective characteristics to those who do not collect stamps is just silly, so I’m glad you agree with the first part. You should also agree with (somewhat) with the second in that of course no faith isn’t a different kind of faith any more than not being a woman is a different kind of woman. The assertion is absurd. But you make a mistake to suggest that atheists depend on scientific evidence; atheists rely on evidence to inform their assertions. That science produces excellent quality evidence is a point in its favour, I think you’ll agree. What is produced from good science is what works in reality. That’s not a bad thing, which certainly leads one to trusting it so much that most of us are quite willing to place our life in its care when the need arises. Science as a method of inquiry leading to practical knowledge about the universe and everything in it deserves our trust not because we simply park our faith there for convenience but because it reliably and consistently works. From its labour we accrue mounting evidence that the method works, that it yields practical and trustworthy applications we can trust with our lives.

      Inquiry by science into the god hypothesis keeps coming up empty. You assume that means that science has yet to prove god when, in fact, it should have already found strong evidence. That absence of evidence means something, too. But to account for that absence, theistic apologists take god out of reality and place him carefully in a metaphysical arena where what’s true in reality simply doesn’t matter. In this arena where theists stick their god, science cannot disprove its existence. This is a bait and switch tactic where we play whack-a-mole between science that we know works and reveals reality to us and theology that makes claims about its interventionist god in reality but scurries for cover outside of reality when the spotlight of scientific inquiry is aimed at them. Along comes the theist to explain that our interpretation of the absurd claim is somehow incorrect, that our ‘faith’ in science is a false idol, that god is really love, that god only selects those who are worthy, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Not once does the theist become honest and admit that the best explanation for an absence of evidence is an incorrect assertion: that the god hypothesis is wrong. But atheists are gentle people and always aware of the honesty of doubt. Perhaps there is a god. Perhaps the evidence that should be there isn’t there for some other reason. And so we find even an atheist like Richard Dawkins places his certainty about the god hypothesis as wrong on a scale from one (meaning absolutely uncertainty) to seven (meaning absolute certainty) at a six. That’s intellectually honest and theists can learn by his example. Doubt in the absence of positive evidence for a claim should strongly outweigh certainty in the truth of that claim. When that condition is furthered by a lack of any evidence at all that should be there, then it is intellectual dishonesty to assert that the claim is still true on the metric of this new playing field about reality called ‘faith’. And that’s why faith in the religious sense is incoherent, meaning that it rejects reality as an arbiter of what’s true and accepts belief in its place to then explain a reality riddled by supernaturalism that miraculously evades all scientific inquiry.

      So to answer your question: No, a scientist would not find the absence of evidence to evidence for god.It’s evidence that people can fool themselves into believing anything.

  3. Hi Tildeb.

    This will be brief as I am writing this on my not-so-smart phone.

    1. Do you not think that it takes faith to believe that something came from nothing when science or mathematics has never been able to replicate that? Is it not then a valid hypotheses that a force may exist outside of the time/matter continuum given that science, which is limited to time/matter, cannot replicate creation?

    2. Oodles of evidence… not all evidence is scientific in nature. There is overwhelming evidence supports the life, death and resurrection of Christ. not to mention the writings of other historians of the time. There is archealogical evidence that support major events in the bible. The last statistic I came across of the Christian population was 2.2 billion globally. That is 2.2 billion people who testify to have a belief in/connection with God. Not to mention other theists who believe /experience God.

    I will write some more later as I just got to work!

    Sarah of the Collage

    • tildeb says:

      Well done, Sarah. You far exceed my ability to type coherently on a phone!

      1. a) No, it does not take ‘faith’ in the religious sense to understand how something can come from nothing. I know it’s counter-intuitive. I know it is difficult. But many physicists tell us this is EXACTLY what works at the sub atomic level… works predictably, mathematically, and reliably so. Because these same physicists have created reliable technologies that utilize exactly these same principles that seem so outlandish to thee and me at first blush, I am going to trust that they know what they’re talking about. That is the sense of ‘faith’ and/or ‘belief’ I have in their knowledge that far exceeds my own: trust and confidence willingly placed in their explanations not by some divine authority but by a long track record of what works consistently and reliably in reality. That is worth something.
      b) If some force exists outside the space/time continuum, we can know nothing about it. But when claims are made that this force somehow acts in this universe, somehow intervenes in the creation of whatever, then we can know something about it. That’s the evidence that’s missing when it comes to god’s supposed interactions in this universe. If this unknowable force somehow infused just energy alone into this universe, then there should be some energy signature. Even that’s missing. So your notion of creationism resides only in your imagination. All evidence in reality points to natural laws that come from the interaction of matter, energy, and space. As Hawking says, no god is necessary for what we call ‘creation’ (meaning the universe and everything in it), any more than a designer is necessary for erosion to create the Grand Canyon. To attribute purpose and meaning to the universe, as Craig insists we should, is the same thing as pretending erosion has the purpose and meaning to to create topography. Erosion, like all natural forces in the universe, is unguided and mindless. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

    • tildeb says:

      2. a) I agree that not all evidence is scientific. But I also give credence to many biblical scholars who find consensus that jesus was a real man. This is the history that can be presented as evidence. But confusion takes over at this point where many believers use this evidence to support the divinity of jesus, and this is not the same kind of evidence; it’s simply hearsay repeated over and over again by guys who say that they knew a guy who was related to a guy who says he was there. This is not reliable historical evidence, yet look how effortlessly you link the historical evidence for jesus to be the same kind of historical evidence for christ, meaning the divine jesus. This is cheating. There is archeological evidence for the setting of many biblical stories. There is an absence of archeological for others (zero evidence that should be there but isn’t for the story of the exodus, for example.) But consider: all stories need a setting. The reality of the setting doesn’t make the story placed there – let’s say the real setting for the story of of Romeo and Juliet, for example – literally true. That there are so many factual inconsistencies in the various books of the bible in general and the gospels in particular indicate at the very least to proceed cautiously when we hear people insist that all claims found within are true because they were divinely inspired. One would reasonably expect a divine and omnipotent agent to be a bit better prepared to deliver a consistent and cohesive and uniform message when the eternal souls of the listeners are supposedly at stake.
      b) What’s true in reality is not determined by popularity. The Big Mac is not the epitome of culinary truth, nor is Rebeca Black’s singing the epitome of the human voice, although both are unquestionably popular if sales and views are any indication. What should strike you as ominous is that the geography of your birth is the best indicator of what your religious beliefs will be… rather than the supposed ‘truth’ of the divine message. In other words, if born into a muslim family, you will most likely be labeled a muslim, or a hindu family labeled a hinduu. What matters most is not whether islam or hinduism is the correct theology to determine your own, but the geographical place of your birth is the best indicator which of these ‘truths’ you will believe.

      So when you suggest that because a whole bunch of people share a similar belief, what they believe must be closer to what is true by the weight of numbers, you are making a thinking mistake: a whole bunch of people MUST BE WRONG already when you consider the vast numbers of adherents loyal to contrary faiths right this second.

      This raises a very important question: how can we determine which theological claims really do sum up the correct theology, the one that really is closer to the ‘truth’?

      When you are willing to honestly ask that question and seek honest answers for your efforts, then you are on the path to honest discovery rather than meekly submitting your mind to the rank and file of a belief set you merely inherited by the geographical accident of your birth.

  4. tildeb says:

    Here’s the thing:
    Fazale Rana, president of Reasons to Believe. “But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’ve got a problem.” . . . “I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not.”

    Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

    “When Adam sinned, he sinned for us,” Mohler says. “And it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.

    Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam’s original sin.

    “Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul’s description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament,” Mohler says.

    From evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne:

    “Why is this important? Because it strikes at the heart of the debate between science and faith. Here is a case in which science has absolutely falsified a major tenet of a major religion. (This isn’t new, of course, for the Biblical Flood never happened either. But the flood is nowhere near as important in Christian theology as the Adam and Eve tale.) This shows, first of all, that the accommodationist claim that science and religion aren’t in conflict is flat out wrong.”

    • Craig Benno says:

      Tildeb,,,The key of Christianity lays in the centrality of Christ. It always has and always will. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to look around the world and see a world that is devastated by sin….The Christian message is one of reconciliation to God and the forgiveness of sin… Now if you can prove that there is no sin and that Christ didn’t exist, didn’t do and say what scripture says he did and said…then you are on a winner to disprove Christianity.

      Perhaps you can explain to me what or why it is you don’t wish to be forgiven for all your sins and accept a relationship with the God of creation?

  5. Craig Benno says:

    Tildeb…to say a flood never happened is not true….all historians / scholars believe a flood happened. There is a difference of opinion as to the extent of that flood, in whether it was a global flood or a large regional flood.

    As for the story of Adam and Eve….Some do insist that its a literal story (many ancient cultures write a similar story of it…its not just a Jewish story) whereas some interpret it as a an ancient myth (which is different to a fairy tale) which tells the story of sin. You cannot discredit Christianity on the proof or lack of of Adam and Eve…… Christianity falls on the centrality of Christ.

    As for the story of Adam and Eve… are you saying that at no time in the story of creation did the first human appear…and are you saying that at no time in the story of humanity did humans start sinning?

    • tildeb says:

      There was no global flood. That’s a fact. Your belief that there really, really, really was is factually wrong. Regional flooding just doesn’t cut it, either. There is no evidence for some vast flooding throughout the Middle East in the last 10,000 years. Approximately 20,000 years ago there was glaciation and run-off but arks of any size don’t do well sailing on ice.

      There was no pair of first humans who reproduced the species. That’s an indisputable fact.

      With no literal Adam and Eve – and we know there could not have been – the story becomes metaphorical, meaning the Fall is metaphorical. This is fatal problem for christianity – pointed out rather succinctly I think by Mohler – whose savior then suffered and died (it is said) to sacrifice himself in our place for this original sin. But the original sin is a metaphor, meaning that jesus died to appease a metaphorical Fall. That why Mohler says it makes the work of christ nonsensical. That’s why Mohler and his millions and millions of believers argue for the necessity of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and why they are hellbent on teaching children creationism in the science classroom.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Not every secular scientist believes that there was no global flood… f the vast amount of oil deposits around the world point to epic flooding. However the point is whether the ancient story of the flood is stating that it was a global flood or was it a flood of epic proportions that destroyed their world as they know it.?

        Have you not read the story of Genesis? It clearly says that God took Adam and placed him in the garden… from that we can say that there were other forms of humanity on earth at the time….

        However the point of the story is that its one of the sinfulness of humanity… Can you in all honesty say that humanity is not sinful? Can you in all honesty say that you have never sinned within the framework of what sin is? Not every Christian is hell bent on teaching creationism…and yet I do ask you why is it that the theory of evolution is being proposed by many to be taught as fact in the class room and not as a theory?…. It is after all still a theory!

  6. Hi tildeb.

    Just wanted to say I read your response and i will try to respond over the weeknd if I can.

    Cheers

    Sarah of the Collage

  7. Hi Tildeb!

    Wow, you sure did write alot. I will respond to what i can for the moment as I am busy busy busy.

    1. You talked about the value of science, and said it is the basis for your assertions about the universe etc. Yes, I also agree that it has much value. Very much value. But as i said earlier, it can only work with the evidence it has available at that time. It has component A and component B. They can see that A + B is why C happens. Other times, they can see that A + B + something else = C, so they set out to find out what this missing component is. Like algebra. And other times, there are components that they have not yet defined or discovered.

    Two examples of this i can think of are understanding about the universe and medicine. Scientists are always discovering new things about our universe. New celestial bodies and forces. They can work with the material they have available, they can work on observations, etc etc. But their assertions about the universe are constantly changing. Once, they said life on Mars was not possible. Now, they have discovered water on Mars, and there was an unverified assertion a couple of months ago saying they had found signs of bacteria fossils in the soil on Mars. That original assertion was made based on the facts they had to work with at that time, which means it would take faith to accept that assertion as gospel because obviously science does not and can not have ALL the facts to factor in to their conclusions. Sometimes the lack of available factual information means these assertions are called theory or probability.

    With medicine/health, assertions are changing constantly. Health advice is constantly changing. Sometimes red meat can help prevent cancer, other times it’s decided that red meat causes it. In the area of psychiatry, the DVSM is constantly changing to include or exclude conditions, or variations on the criteria of various disorders. Some people have clear mental disturbances but do not necessarily fit into one of the categories listed in this manual, so they are either misdiagnosed or it is decided they have no such condition, if the DVSM is taken as gospel.

    The constant changes are because scientists are constantly discovering new things. New thigns about the universe, our brains, our bodies, climate change, etc.

    Then there are things that scientists have not yet even begun to understand. There are various forces at work in the universe such as the appearance of light being sucked into a black hole. Based on the understanding science has of light, it is simply energy and does not carry mass, so based on what they understand, light can not be affected by gravity.

    2. I must rush off soon, sorry i have made this long. The second thing i wanted to ask you about… i am sorry but i have never come across anything that suggests that something can be created from nothing. Science works within the framework of matter and time. Matter and time are a continuum. How is it then that something could have simply always been if time does not allow for eternity? Or how can it be that something was created from nothing at the beginning of time? How can matter come into being from the non-existence of matter? How does it not take faith to believe a theory about this when science has clearly NOT been able to replicate this?

    You said yourself that “All evidence in reality points to natural laws that come from the interaction of matter, energy, and space”. So if matter/energy/space is all there is, how can something be created from nothing within these confines?

    3. Ok, must dash soon. Third thing i wanted to say… I was not suggesting that a bunch of people believing something make something a fact. I was not asserting that at all. But in the context of giving examples of other types of evidence (and i especially encourage you to look into historial evidence of Jesus birth, death and resurrection for which there is overwhelming evidence, if you are interested), i was saying that this many people having some belief in God, they must be able to testify to this. What i am saying is that this many people testify to existence of God based on their experiences. I am not saying that experience necessarily means fact, but this many people claiming to have experiences of God in their lives, some weight must be given to this. People have their own unique stories of experiencing God, and many testimonies are available online should you wish to peruse and make assertions about them. Some claim to have had physical healings from God, where medical science had told them they were incurable. Some claim they have CAT scans and other material evidence of having had a condition, and it healing, without medical intervention, or despite a doctor’s prognosis. Others say they feel God’s presence. Others say God protected them in situations where they were going to die or where they were in serious danger. Others say they feel God’s love for them. Others say God helps them to be a better person. Others say God heals their pain. Others say God helps them to forgive. Others still say they have dreams or visions of Jesus, pre-warning them about some kind of danger, or showing them something meaningful.

    If you are interested, here is my background… and note that despite your assertion, i was hardly born into a Christian background. My mum was atheist, dad was vaguelly Christian, and non-practicing at that. The biggest influence on me was my scripture class, after which I experienced God in a profound way. In fact, I had an experience that was very similar to people’s “born again” experiences, when i had no knowledge of anyone else’s stories of God, or that others encountered God in similar ways.

    http://sarahscollage.blogspot.com/2010/10/life-and-death.html
    http://sarahscollage.blogspot.com/2010/10/steps-to-salvation.html
    http://sarahscollage.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-i-met-god_03.html

    I must dash! Sorry.

    Cheers

    Sarah of the Collage

    • tildeb says:

      I’m only going to reply to one part of your comment, SotC, namely, your notion of what science is. I’m doing this to so that you can better appreciate why attributing your personal experience to agency that exists as some part of this universe causes so many problems in one’s pursuit of understanding this universe.

      Science is a method of inquiry and not a product. ‘Science’ doesn’t change when conclusions are refined or overturned. It remains our only reliable and consistent method relying on a rational exploration of the universe and it does this using empirical techniques that to a very large extent removes one’s biases from the process. In other words, we use methods that are the same for everyone, everywhere, all the time so that scientific findings can be rigorously tested for consistency and reliability. The examples you introduce show particular findings that are then tested rigorously and found wanting. This is good science in action, meaning the process works. Too many theists assume that the proof of why this process is so effective in revealing knowledge about the universe lies only in its conclusions that seem so variable to the untrained… and so seems untrustworthy in comparison to the certainty offered by religious beliefs. Yet to the trained mind, this ‘variability’ of products is exactly why the method is so brilliant: it works to strip of us of our biases and assumptions and attributions by asking us always to keep in mind two key questions:

      1) Is it true?
      2) How do you know?

      This is where the method inquiry shines. It is in the answering of these questions where we have to come up with explanations that work reliably and consistently well for everyone, everywhere, all the time. What you see as uncertain conclusions are actually notions that are undergoing this very process. That’s why science uses exacting language to describe where in this process a notion currently is. For example, the term ‘hypothesis’ is a proposed notion open to testing. The term ‘law’ is a mathematical expression of a stable relationship that seems to work well in practice. The term ‘theory’ is an explanation that has been thoroughly tested – usually for decades and occasionally more than a century, and remains a cohesive and reliable explanation upon which technologies can be built that work for everybody, everywhere, all the time. As I’m sure you can imagine, such theories are few and far between. In scientific terminology, when a notion has reached the stage of a theory, it is the pinnacle of human knowledge about some aspect of the universe.

      How unfortunate is it, then, that the common parlance of the term ‘theory’ is used to mean the opposite… a notion that may or may not be true? In scientific terminology, this fits the definition of an hypothesis… some proposed notion that has yet to undergo and survive rigorous testing to establish beyond any reasonable doubt what remains consistently and reliably true for everyone, everywhere, all the time. What you claim is that scientific theories are really “assertions about the universe are constantly changing.” This is neither true nor accurate but shows a real lack of basic understanding about science and why scientific theories are worth our greatest respect and admiration for having surmounted every single criticism successfully.

      You compound your lack of understanding when you assert that light does not have properties of mass. This is one of Einstein’s greatest achievements: proving beyond any reasonable doubt that light is bent by gravity yet does not alter its speed, leading him to propose the brilliant hypothesis that what once was considered two things – space and time – are really one state, and that mass and energy within space-time are really different states of one thing (think of water, ice, and vapour as different states of one thing: H2O). This has since evolved after rigorous testing into two scientific theories: the theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity. More importantly, it has opened up the door to the notion of finding what’s called a ‘theory of everything’ regarding the central relationship between what we see as different natural forces. This is where physics is today but it has effect on knowledge in other areas, too, like cosmology.

      As you can see, the process of science yields fields of study with tremendous depth to its various branches of knowledge. People spend their lives pursuing some small segment of it, following some tiny rivulet of detailed inquiry, adding incrementally to our store of knowledge that is true for everyone, everywhere, all the time. That’s why planes fly, and medications work, why air conditioners cool and microwaves heat. That’s why prayer doesn’t work and dead bodies cannot reanimate… unless all of this knowledge is wrong, all of these natural forces can be and are suspended. Yet nowhere do we have evidence to suggest this is possible… except in claims unsubstantiated by the rigorous process of inquiry we call the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be this way, SotC. But it is… for everyone, everywhere, all the time as far as science is concerned because we have no reliable contrary evidence.

      When someone claims a faith-based belief to be true in reality but cherrypicks which bits of scientific products to endorse (like parts of physics, chemistry, and biology that are useful) while rejecting other bits that are contrary to the faith-based beliefs, then one is committing intellectual hypocrisy. Either the method of science works to reveal knowledge about the universe (and we have nothing but strong evidence in our planes and microwaves and computers and medicines that it does) or it does not. Those who wish to suspend trust in the process of science to suit particular claims of their faith-based beliefs are not being intellectually honest; they sacrifice their integrity of rational pursuit of knowledge on the alter of their religious beliefs, which they assume are true because they have attributed their experiences to some nebulous agency able to evade all our scientific inquires into its factual existence. This is why religious belief leaves the realm of reality – of which we really can know something about using empirical methods – and changes the landscape to the metaphysical where anything goes. When we apply the same two questions – Is it true, how do we know – to the metaphysical realm where gods and faeries, angels and ghosts, demons and monsters, seem to hang out, we have nothing to go by except our beliefs. And our beliefs can be wrong and spectacularly so. That’s why one either respects the scientific method of inquiry that really can answer those questions or the realm of faith that cannot. A person cannot do both without giving up intellectual integrity. Perhaps that’s why most scientists are atheists; they understand that the two methods of inquiry are contrary and incompatible ways to know.

  8. Pingback: The Atheist and Christian discussion continued… part 4 The Theistic Agnostic. | Trinitarian Dance

  9. Hi again Tildeb.
    Sorry again about the delay in responding. When I am near a computer, I am usually booking things for a trip I am planning! So I have found it hard to go back and forth to your responses on my very small phone.
    I freely and openly admit that I am not a scientist nor do I claim to have advanced knowledge on most things. I do understand that science is a method of enquiry, and I don’t think anything I have said disputes that.
    The point I have been trying to make (and perhaps not very clearly) is that conclusions based on scientific information change as new information comes to light and is factored into the scientific process. Therefore, what I am saying is that the method of enquiry called science does not always have all the information needed to provide an “all things considered” conclusion. When scientist has component A + B and can see the outcome is C, they have an equation they can test. Or, they can also see that A + something = C, and they can work with A and C to determine what B is. If there are two or more variables, they may need some more information before being able to produce conclusive evidence. The universe, the human brain and biology are areas where continual discoveries are being made. Therefore, conclusions based on scientific evidence are often changing. Sometimes, they change from A to B then back to A again.
    To my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong), but I have not come across anything supported or replicated by science or mathematics that something can come from nothing. Have you? How can something come from nothing? There is obviously a beginning to our universe, and based on information available, scientists theorise about this big bang but can not seem to offer any ideas about how that matter came into being, which suggests there is evidence they do not have available to be able to factor in.
    1. Is it true that something came from nothing if there are no factors outside time/matter to factor in?
    2. How do you know?

    • tildeb says:

      1. Yes
      2. Because quantum physics works.

      You keep asking. I keep linking. You keep asking. At some point, SotC, the onus falls on you to learn, to take up the questions you ask with seriousness, to inquire to whatever level of understanding you feel you need. I can’t ‘learn’ you anything: that’s your job. There is a world of information through science that answers your questions in great detail with much strong evidence and reliable technologies based on them. You are reading these words because this method produces reliable and practical applications. If the conclusions of good science were unreliable, you would not. It’s really quite that simple.You hold the proof in your hands that quantum physics works.

      But are you being fair? Is there any equivalent and compatible information and technologies from your theology that offers some kind of legitimate alternative? The fact that you accept the obvious benefits of our sciences but attempt to hold it as untrustworthy to privilege your faith-based beliefs is not honest. You want your cake – like the phone you have – and eat it too – suggesting that what knowledge makes it a reliable technology is just as untrustworthy as claims that a dead man could reanimate or that praying causes effect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s