Is Atheism Logical?
75
The more that I hear atheists give arguments for their belief, the more it becomes clear that atheism is completely irrational. By stating this, I realize that there is more than one type of atheism. There are those who simply lack belief in a god of any sort. They are what some have called weak atheists. To me this is closer to agnosticism which says that you cannot know for certain that a god exists and therefore live life as if he, she , or it does not exist. The atheists that completely confound me are strong atheists. These are those who say that they know for certain that a god doesn't exist. This to me is the height of arrogance and is completely unprovable. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of a god, for to do that you would have to have all knowledge. Since no human being possesses all knowledge, he could never say for certain that no god exists. His position is completely illogical and based upon faith.
The truth is, if you choose to have no religious belief, the more logical choice is agnosticism, for it at least allows for the possibility of a deity. However, even that choice depends on the assumption that there is no evidence, or non-sufficient evidence for a deity. To that I answer: "Are you blind?" The Bible has said it well: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." The truth is that there is more than enough evidence for a god of some kind. The question is not evidence. It is a question of how you interpret the evidence that we have. The theist looks at the universe with its vast complexity and sees design that has to have a designer. The atheist looks at the same evidence and chooses to say that it all happened by random chance. In order to do that he or she has to completely ignore facts regarding this universe that we all take for granted. One is the simple fact that: "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Everything we know about this universe demonstrates the fact that if you have nothing to start with, something will not suddenly appear, even after billions of years. You have to have matter and energy. Where did these things come from? They couldn't have created themselves. They are lifeless things. Are they eternal? Some Scientists would have you believe this to be true just as they used to teach that the universe itself was eternal. This is no longer believed. In fact, every shred of evidence that we have points to the fact that the universe had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it must have a cause.
One thing to consider that has lead Science to believe that the universe had a beginning is the fact that it is running down. An understanding of the second law of thermodynamics shows us that this universe is running out of usable energy. And if it is running down, at one time , it had to have started,
The Hubble telescope confirmed, several years ago, that the Universe is expanding. Since that is the case, at one time it must have been contracted back to a single point where it came into existence. The Big Bang theory which attempts to explain all of this postulates that at one point our universe was an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity. From this it began to expand and still expands today. The radiation echo was discovered by Bell labs in 1965. This is believed to be the afterglow of the Big Bang. No longer can we assume that the universe has always been in a steady eternal state. Rather at one time it must have exploded.
Albert Einstein himself, had to admit after coming up with his theory of relativity that the universe is not eternal. It is not a cause, but rather one big effect. He didn't want to admit this at first but was lead by the evidence to the only conclusion possible. The universe had a beginning. An amazing discovery that the Bible told us all along. And of course it also states that the ultimate cause of all things is God.
To take this further, in the universe in which we live, every effect must resemble its cause. In other words, a cause cannot give what it does not possess. If that is the case, how can a impersonal, amoral, purposeless universe create beings that have personality, morality and purpose? The answer to this is, It can't.
There are many arguments made for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological argument is a very persuasive one, unless you are an atheist and have to keep your irrational belief in chance. Stated simply, the argument is as follows:
1. Everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause
2. The universe has a beginning of existence
3. So the universe has a cause.
4. An uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5. This uncaused cause which transcends physical reality is a description of God.
6. Therefore God exists.
Another area that atheists cling to is an irrational hope that someday there will be found a way to prove that life came from non-life. The pseudo-science of abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. After thousands of experiments over many years they have not been able to produce one single living cell. Abiogenesis seems to me to be a resurrection of the old scientific belief in the spontaneous generation of life that was widely held during the middle ages and into the latter half of the 19th century. This belief was laid to rest by Louis Pasteur in his studies of microbes. Yet some people just have to cling to this false belief that life comes from anything except life. Life begets life. That is how our universe operates. God, who is not part of this universe, but the creator of it, is the only one capable of giving life. You can choose to deny the existence of such a God but to do this is to cling to an alternative that goes against the laws of nature as we know them.
Atheism is simply not a viable option for most rational people. It is interesting that no one would look at a house and say that it just came into existence. It had to have a designer and a builder. However, seemingly bright men and women can look at this universe in which we live and say that it only has an "appearance" of design. It really came to be the way it is over billions of years, totally without a person of intelligence behind it. Well, I guess you are free to believe in whatever you like, but stop saying that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator. Design is all around us. Denying it will not make it go away.
CommentsLoading...
First of all, thank you for your positive comments on my Hub. I try to put a lot of thought and study into everything I say. And to answer your comment on the can of coke and the ghost, this is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparison. The immaterial Spirit I am talking about here happens to be the one who created the physical world. And if He indeed created it, He is more than capable of interacting with it.
As far as the Big Bang not being The correct answer to how the universe got here, that does not negate the possibility of a creator. It just means that Science is still not even close to being able to explain the existence of the universe in a natural, rather than a supernatural way.
Also, I disagree with you that eternal matter is the only rational explanation. Matter forming all that we see here, with its complexities and intricacies, does not sound rational at all. How can something lifeless, irrational and purposeless create life, rational thought and purpose? To say such a thing to me boggles my mind.
Finally, I didn't say creation ex nihilo is impossible. I just meant that it is impossible to happen in a universe that has all of the laws that we currently know to exist. Obviously if all of the laws we know are against this world being here in the first place, then something or someone greater than those laws must exist.
It is not magic to create ex nihilo. Because by definition ex nihilo means "out of nothing". If magic means doing things outside the laws of nature, how can the Creator work outside of laws that didn't exist before He created them?
The adult thought is to acknowledge the Creator.
(If magic means doing things outside the laws of nature, how can the Creator work outside of laws that didn't exist before He created them?)
All you are doing is using a mystical cause when there is no basis for doing so. You are also committing the fallacy of begging the question by assuming creation, hence the need for a creator.
Creation ex nihilo is an ontological contradiction as if there were a god he would have to be something rather than nothing. There could never have been a time when nothing existed.
Your argument is really pantheism - god and nature are one. You can call nature god if you want. I know a guy who named his leisure suit The Streets of San Francisco. That doesn't mean his suit was ever in California, though.
I am assuming what a logical person would assume if they had no agenda to disprove God as a first cause when speaking of how things got here. How is it more logical that matter is eternal than something or someone else?
All we know about existence in this universe demonstrates that something comes from something else. So there has to be something outside of this universe that is involved. There is no way to prove that matter is eternal any more than any other explanation. Unless you can say for sure that a lifeless substance that is mindless and amoral can cause not only life but all the complexities of the universe in which we live and a world that can sustain life, you cannot completely rule out the need for a God. It doesn't prove it but you cannot rule it out. If there is a reality beyond the material, then you won't find it under a microscope. But evidence for its existence comes from ruling out possibilities of the material getting here on its own. That has yet to be proved and it is folly to rule out something supernatural.
Further, creation ex-nihilo is not an ontological contradiction because God did not create Himself. God being outside of this universe can be eternal. That which is in this world cannot because, as I have said, it goes against everything we know about this universe. God has always been. He is the uncaused cause. Can I explain this? No. But it seems to be a better explanation than the alternative.
Also, pantheism makes God part of the natural world.
I am saying that God is transcendent or beyond the natural order. If He is eternal, He was in existence before the natural order and therefore not part of it.
The whole premise of my Hub was to say that atheism is illogical because it cannot disprove the possibility of a god. The word "atheist" assumes what cannot be proven.
Therefore, you cannot be a true atheist and be logical.
(All we know about existence in this universe demonstrates that something comes from something else. So there has to be something outside of this universe that is involved.)
GT,
You start off with an illogical argument. If something comes from something else, then that something must be part of the universe. So there are only two rational possibilities - god is part of the universe or the universe was always there. That is the logical dichotomy that presents itself. If P then not-P.
Either the universe is eternal, or the universe is not eternal. All we know is that those things within the universe come about by the combination of other things that are within the universe. Hence, logic would say that there could be no first cause because a first cause would have to come from outside the universe, which we have just said is impossible unless one wishes to posit magical powers on some imaginary being.
(There is no way to prove that matter is eternal any more than any other explanation)
GT,
You are correct. It has nothing to do with "proof". It has to do with rationally explaining without using non-supernatural means.
Proof has to do with inductive reasoning, and unless you are willing to accept proof it doesn't matter how good of argument is made against belief.
Because we are aware that existence exists but know nothing of a supernatural existence, it is always more logical by a magnitude of the infinite to assume a non-supernatural reason.
The only logical explanation left is that there was no first cause and thus matter itself is eternal.
I cannot accept your premise that there are only two logical possibilities. The third possibility is as I have said, that God transcends the natural. He is not a part of what He has made. Obviously there has to be something eternal. But it doesn't logically follow that it has to be matter. Could it be something we have not discovered yet.
You must agree that your statement that "because we are aware that existence exists but know nothing of a supernatural existence, it is always more logical....to assume a non-supernatural reason" is an opinion at best.
There is so much about this universe that we don't know yet, but does that mean that only what we know now with our limited capacities is all there is? Certainly you would agree that man is not omniscient. If that is the case, logic dictates that you cannot say dogmatically that if you had full knowledge, your reasoning would not change.
The only logical choice, even if you are not convinced of a god, is to say that it is a possibility. Hence, agnosticism is more logical than atheism if you choose not to put a god in the equation at all. And as far as those who are convinced that there is a God, you cannot just write them off as crazy or mislead or as following superstitions. If something is possible, then it has to be seen as a viable alternative.
(If something is possible, then it has to be seen as a viable alternative.)
GT,
The key issue is viability, as you say. We are once again back to inductive reasoning. To say something is possible is not saying it is even remotely likely. A further problem is that to assume anything is possible means you also have to accept that ontological contradictions are also possible.
Again, we get back to the law of non-contradiction. If P then not-P. If anything is possible, then not anything is possible cannot also be true.
If you decide that an imaginary being you call god is possible, then you must also accept any other concept as valid, including square circles or invisible flying red dragons. They are both in the same realm.
I know that the chemicals of RNA exist. I do not know how the chemicals combined spontaneously to form the first simple lifeform, but the assumption that they did stays within the realm of not-P, that some things are not possible (flying reindeed, Santa, and God). I do not have to also believe square circles are real, either.
First of all, it amazes me that you put things like square circles and invisible dragons in the same category as God. They aren't even close. There is no evidence that these things exist and therefore it is logical not to believe in them. Although ST. Nicholas was a real person, around which a legend was built.
Also, square circles are self contradictory. They are not viable possibilities either.
What you are proposing, it would seem to me, is a series of effects that go back forever. If there is no first cause, then that is what has to be the case. That is an impossibility as well. For every effect must have a cause in this universe. Eternal effects are self-contradictory.
And if a universe has an appearance of design, is it
not logical to assume the possibility that this is evidence that it had a designer. If we were talking about anything else, whether a house or the proverbial watch and watch maker, no one would disagree. Why do we disagree on something vastly more complex and intricately designed as the universe and life itself?
Hi, GT,
You are no dummy and I appreciate the civility of your hub and conversation, but we don't seem to be on the same page of understanding about many things.
There is no, zero, nada, nuthin', kaput, zilch, concrete physical validation of a God or any gods. That is why I can easily place god or God in the same category as flying reindeer, invisible dragons, or square circles.
If you say, no, flying invisible dragons cannot be real but god is real you are no different than the Son of Sam who claimed the neighbor's dog talked to him - you are claiming that your personal beliefs make up reality.
They don't.
What you don't seem to grasp is that claiming a first cause god is no different than claiming the universe was its own cause. In an infinite regress, there is no reason to stop at god other than assertion. So who made god? What was the cause of god? If god had no cause, why can't the universe be causeless, as well?
Here is a hint - it can. There is no difference between saying god had no cause and the universe had no cause except we know the universe exists. We don't know any gods that exist.
The order you claim you see is simply perception and opinion biased by belief. The design you think you see is only a superficial look - the human eye has a blind spot due to the way evolution produced it, with the optic nerves exiting the back of the eye, and not because a perfect designer made an imperfect eye.
You are right. We are not on the same page. What you are claiming about the universe is absurd, if you are claiming it is the product of infinite regress. The German mathematician, David Hilbert, demonstrated the absurdity of an infinite regression of past events in his illustration known as Hilbert's Grand Hotel. You may be familiar with it but if not it can be easily looked up on the internet. And the evidence points toward this universe having a beginning rather than being infinite.
Also, there is a big difference between saying that a person with intellect, emotions and will created a watch and saying that the watch always was or that it created itself. A watch cannot always be and it cannot create itself and neither can a universe. To say that the universe always was goes against all known laws of this universe. And to say it created itself is saying that the universe was around before it was created. That is absurd.
Also, the human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain. The problem for evolution is how many intricate components could have independently evolved that work together perfectly if it is the case that a single component not functioning would cause the eye not to work at all. Partial transitional structures in this case don't help and could be a hindrance. So no further gradual development would take place because the creature, do to natural selection, would be less apt to survive than the creatures around him. This would make the eye, despite what you may think of its design, an evolutionary impossibility.
Wow, looking a t your conversation shows you know what you are talking about and your no christian idiot making up stuff to try to Protect his belief. This was a wonderful article, and I'm glad your using logic and reasoning to show why there is the possibility of a creator, well done article, I now follow you
Also one more word of advice, I try not to involve any bible or religious texts in my articles, because I believe that might put off some people and particularly Atheists, who already from reading that are already assuming this evidence that you have will not put against anything since bible quotes are being put, Just how i do things, just a suggestions, I just state to the Raw logical facts that we have at our disposal, I believe that's enough, But it's just me
Thanks for the critique and the advice. Take Care.
Hi GodTalk,
Very interesting hub and very well written. Equally interesting comments too.
I'm an atheist who comes from a different direction to both you and AKA Winston. I believe the universe had a beginning, but do not believe there was any preordained intent.
I'm only going to make one critical point on your hub; The Big Bang theory does not require something to come from nothing. This is the argument theists most often bring up when attempting to quash the validity of the theory.
The Big Bang theory only requires a 'disturbance' to take place. The amount of energy required to trigger this disturbance can be as much or as little as you wish, it is only when the result is observed that we know how much energy was required.
Because we experience the universe in relative terms, we see it as ridiculously huge. However, the 'disturbance' that triggered the Big Bang does not acknowledge such hugeness because there was no relativity to demand any required set amount of energy.
Some infinitely weak disturbance could have triggered the Bang to bring our infinitely small universe into existence. With an infinitely small amount of energy and effort required, the event becomes ALMOST inevitable! That said, we should not be surprised to find ourselves here, because the event that was ALMOST inevitable, actually happened.
AKA Winston,
Are you sure 'dark matter' and 'background radiation' are essential components of the Big Bang theory?
As far as I understand it, dark matter was introduced to calculate a scenario in which the universe slows expansion and then contracts (collapsing universe). Scientists prefer the collapsing universe model because it makes valid the notion that matter always existed in one form or another (eternally) and that as matter collapses and meets, another Big Bang is triggered and so the cycle goes on, which therefore negates the need for a 'first cause'. (This is obviously to silence those who relentlessly tug at the skirt hems of mother with a worried look on their faces asking 'how can something come from nothing?')
As for background radiation; I'm not sure who's missing something here (most probably me!).
'Cosmic Background Radiation' is microwave radiation which was once light waves. Those light waves are stretched so that the frequency decreases into the microwave region. This tells us the universe is still expanding.
One anomally which needs to be noted; It makes no difference which direction we look into the heavens, we detect the EXACT same amount of microwave radiation wherever we look!
This could imply that Earth is at the very centre of the universe. But in actual fact, it demonstrates the opposite; there is NO centre of the universe!
Probably gone off-topic there, but looking forward to any feedback.
Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know, I didn't say that there was no Big Bang. God's creation of the Universe and this theory are not mutually exclusive. My whole point is that there cannot be an infinite amount of effects without a first cause. An ultimate series of retractions and expansions of matter and energy could not be possible. That also assumes that matter and energy are eternal. The only other alternative is that they created themselves. From what we know about matter and energy, that is impossible.
The order and complexity of this universe leads most people to believe that it had to have a designer. This is also the case when contemplating the existence of life. Even a single cell is so complicated that some have likened it to a miniature factory.
As I stated in the last paragraph of my article, the evidence for a creator is there. But one must take the time to look with unbiased eyes. I hope that what I have said will at least make you consider the possibility that God exists.
GodTalk,
I didn't say you dismiss the Big Bang theory, just that you cannot see how something can come from nothing.
It is always difficult to get the point across that the physical laws that rule this universe perhaps do not apply to other universes or where there are no universes (because there would be no laws at all, so theoretically 'anything goes'!). With that in mind, is it wise to assert that matter cannot come from nothing?
As for the complexity of single cells, how do we know that we only see them as being so complex because we are so stupid in the great scheme of things? Why are we so arrogantly high and mighty about human intelligence?
I don't think you will find a single atheist who has not considered the possibility of a god existing. For me, atheism isn't a choice. I cannot CHOOSE to believe in God (or any other deity) because that would require me to go against what I KNOW.
What you are saying is, as you implied, all theoretical, and not able to be proved scientifically. And since there is no other universe that we can study, we are left with what we know to be true of this one. In other words, you are getting into the realm of faith here. In the universe in which we do know exists, the laws I stated are valid. It would seem, as many theists have said, that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe that there is a god. And if you rely totally upon the data available, I would say it takes more faith to be an atheist.
And regarding your choice, or lack of choice to disbelieve in a god, consider that there are people of equal intelligence and knowledge as yourself that are not atheists. They take all of the data that you know and interpret it in a different way. At least consider that possibility that you've misinterpreted the data that you have discovered.
What you are saying is that we are both equally as lost as each other. Would you deny that?
Intelligence is not representative of wisdom. The most intellectual of people can do silly things.
As for faith; I have faith in my own judgement. I have faith in my interpretation of the evidence. I have faith in the findings of thousands of scientists from many different countries united by a theory that stands up to close scrutiny.
I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. I have faith that a glass bottle will shatter when dropped onto a stone floor.
I have faith that when I die I will no longer exist.
I would not agree that each of us is equally lost. Having faith does not make one lost. All mankind has faith in something. You have named just a few of your own. The problem comes if what you are putting your faith in is invalid.
I tend to agree that intelligent people make unwise decisions, but the question is, who is making the unwise decision, those who have faith in the supernatural, or those who merely see empirical evidence. And as I have stated, the empirical evidence does point to the possibility that something exists beyond it.
In looking at evolutionary theory, what all those scientists can see from the findings is evidence for adaptation within a species. There is nothing to support all of the conclusions that all of life came from single celled organisms, and there certainly isn't any evidence that life as we know it can even exist apart from a Giver of Life.
Finally, it is a giant leap of faith to assume that when you die, you'll cease to exist. I choose to accept the word of the One who has actually seen death and rose again to tell us about it. That may not be enough for you, but since Science can offer no real solutions for the beginning of life, or why this universe, in all of its complexity, order and beauty can even exist, I will stick with what seems to me a more sure bet. If that is delusional thinking then, I would rather be delusional that way than to have the delusion that Science is going in the right direction by promoting a theory that goes against the very laws of nature of the universe that it is studying.
Sorry to but in, but after reading this comment conversation, I felt like i had to say a few things, I don't like to get involved in these conversations cause they most of the times go nowhere, but let me say this to GodTalk. I am a believer in God, and i see no reason why Evolution can't be understood as a way God created life, I'm more a believer in Theistic Evolution. Intelligent design really is the scientific claim of the creationist christian. Some stuff of that can't be fully put out, but it itself can't be too supported either. The reasons you want to claim to it so much is because you view the world Biblical, now that's ok, but you have to realize that is not the only way to view the world. Christians go about with the belief that their philosophical views and their beliefs are the only "Right Ones" in the world. And from that they try to put science with the bible in literal terms. The way creation is revealed in the bible, and how evolution isn't compatible with that, they reject it and try to come up with scientific theories about how the bible can be right. Now science and religion can resonate beautifully together, but the approach many have tried has soiled that possibility and cause the dilemmas of debate that christians and other beliefs,and Atheists themselves have. I feel that Science has it's job, and religion has it's own. When you try to take one approach that you would use for science and try to approach big questions that religions tackle, your bound to fail, same thing would happen if the other way around. Francis S. Collins, a famous scientist, who use to be an atheist who then converted to christianity, rejects the idea of creationism, and inteligent Design, and full accepts Evolution. I see Evolution as a great example of how clever God and existence itself is. I mean I'm not trying to push down these beliefs down your throats either, but I thought I would put it out there. The only way in the end why i believe creationism to have nowhere to go is because it's steeped in Plain old conservative Christian point of views. The way to God and the world itself can not be seen in only Christian point of View, and when you look at other religions, accept the mysticism of the Universe, you see why evolution may be more compatible, Evolution itself has holes also, I know this, but Creationism can do more harm to The whole God conversation than good, In my belief that is, don't mean to offend anybody.
"I would not agree that each of us is equally lost."
GodTalk,
You have just won me a year's supply of beer!!! I KNEW you would say that!
So, who is MORE lost? Me or you?
...and this is for the prize of a year's supply of smugness.
GodTalk, you have given me Pascal's Wager. I get that all the time. I think you underestimate me.
I'll put it back to you: Would you rather be proved wrong by God, or by scientists?
Thought-Provoking: Jesus Christ Himself claimed: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the father, except through me." Being a follower of Jesus Christ, and believing His claims to be God, leads me to reject any other way to God and the supernatural. I could get into all kinds of reasons why I believe that He is exactly what He claimed to be, but I think I will save it for a Hub.
That being said, Evolutionary theory does not explain the universe as we know it without a designer. As you have said, there are a lot of holes in the theory. It explains perfectly how we got the wide variety of animals within each species, but it simply cannot tell us where life came from in the first place. And the fossil record cannot prove that different species came from other species. The Cambrian Explosion proves just the opposite.
Cromper: You give me too much credit. I wasn't even thinking about Pascal's Wager. If I'm not mistaken he said that since the existence of God cannot be proven by reason, it is a better bet to live as though He exists.
I don't totally agree with Pascal. My whole thought is that there is far more evidence for the existence of God than not, unless you take away the possibility of the supernatural out of the equation. That is what atheists do. They search for ways to explain the design of creation without the designer. They look also, for ways to explain life without a Giver of life.
I mix my faith, with all the evidence that indicates that my faith is sound. I cannot accept what atheists have tried to do with the theory of Evolution because it takes too much faith to disbelieve in God.
Evolution states that we all come from a common ancestor, who says that common ancestor wasn't created by God, inteligent design simply states taht some animals or creatures just popped out of nowhere, I'm not one to believe, at least with the evidence that is Presented so far, the only reason people cling on to that theory is because it's the most compatible with the bible story of creation, and people need to realize that you can't take that story seriously, it's meant to symbolically show that at one point in time there was a split between Man and God, when you take it to literal, things fall apart. At least that's what the catholic point of view is. Now moving on to Jesus Christ's claim of being the only way to God. I believe we should look deeper into what he meant. I mean this is just my belief. But we can admit Jesus was the truth, could jesus not have meant when you look upon t me, who embodies all that is good, that's the only way of making it to heaven, did he not mean if you follow the rules and principles i have laid out for you, you will make it to heaven. And plus if you look at what he said literally, you'll see that many other religions make some of the same claims as christianity. You'll probably say,"Oh well they haven't done or brought goodness into the world like christianity." Well they have, many other world religions have a connection to God also, and they have all worked Miracles and have brought goodness into their own right, just like christianity. I think you'll find it only in the west do people have an idea that their religion is the only religion. I believe it's a foolish concept. There can not be only one way of looking at it, at least after studying so many different religions, it's appalling to how much they all share in common. Have you bothered to look upon the world you are in not from a biblical point of view but from a broaden point of view. There are miracles all around the world. Not just in christianity, and when you have these beliefs of "One religion being right", and you take your text literally and you do not bother to study the text more, reflect on it from different perspectives, and ponder at it historically, you get things like Creationism, and from there on you start making up false things. I mean I'm sure someone like you doesn't believe that the earth is 4,000 years old. I mean look into this link, read a little bit about it, study the world more and think about it differently, you'll soon find that there is not one way to God, or one to anything. Check this link out at least,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahรก'%C3%AD_Faith
I'm a christian too, but the idea that we are the only ones that got it right is something i firmly Reject with all my heart, and something i will never accept myself
Thought-Provoking: It would seem that we are getting off the topic of this Hub. If you want to discuss this further, I will be doing another series of Hubs soon on Jesus and the Bible's view of Him. Just to answer you briefly, things did not pop out of nowhere. They were created by an all powerful, creator of life. In nature, life comes from life. There are no examples of abiogenesis that have ever been documented. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Evolutionary theory does not even address where life began, which is a major flaw since there must be life, before it can evolve. Not that many haven't tried experiments to to get life in another way. They just have failed because it simply is not possible.
As far as the Bible and Jesus claims, if each person interprets Scripture other than literally, then you can prove anything you want, and many have. The question is, what did the original human writers of the Bible mean when they wrote it? And if it is inspired by God as it claims, what did God mean? If you can read the Bible and get your own private interpretation from it, then what is the point of reading it at all? Just decide what you want to believe and believe it.
Finally, I have no doubt that other faiths have a lot to say. Man was indeed created in the image of God so these faith's have bits and pieces of truth. But I cannot be what I believe the Bible means to be a Christian and say all roads lead to God. There are many verses that say there is only one, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians at the very beginning of the faith were called "followers of the Way" because they believed Jesus' claim to be the only way to God. The question is, just how far can we stray from the original teachings of Jesus and his apostles and still claim to be Christian?
I still stick to "Theistic Evolution," and sorry for getting of topic, but let me just add this, your right if we don't take it literally we can come up with whatever we want, but if we take it literally, The world will simply not make sense, I should've said we can take some parts seriously and others not as seriously as the others. I believe we must take the philosophical and Moral principles Literally and seriously, other things not so much. If you take the bible seriously, when you correlate it with history, and science, your not going to win at all. And this is true. If you take the bible seriously, then society today in the conservative's views is completely wrong. When the men you say wrote the bible, they weren't envisioning how society would be today, many of the stories and things said in the bible were said only to make sense of the world back then. The Catholics have made a big leap in christian thinking by being the mature ones, in seeing the world more universal than the fundamentalist do. If you were born in another religion, you would see things differently. you have to realize that what your fundamentalist christian views can be paralleled by a fundamentalist Muslim, No one is going to win. This idea of Literalism will never take you anywhere. It's a fact that Literalism is doomed and at one point people will realize that we area ll interconnected and not separate from each other, and that we must look deeper into meaning of the bible, what it's true message of Love is conveying, and where we realize that the great image of God that is portraying will be tainted if people try to take some of the words said in the bible seriously. So sorry for getting off topic, but i would love to continue this conversation, i will read your upcoming hubs on the bible, and will offer my ideas, if I am allowed, Thank you
oh and one more thing to the abiogenesis thing, I'm not talking about things popping from thin air, evolution states that in the beggining we were all prokaryotic cells, one celled organisms, many theories that seem reasonable said that the prokaryotic cells we were, were made by chemical interactions, I don't really think evolution is saying everything popped from nowhere, I'm sure you know this, why deny it
Singularly speaking, I am a bystander to life, both scientifically and spiritually. Both will continue with or without my being here, yet I chose to recognize an intelligent designer as I see and learn about the functionality of our being. This is a great conversation, but all four of you are brining different theories and beliefs to the table.
Like GT says, he believes the single cell to be infinitely complex and impossibly random. Cromper, you believe man infinitely stupid in obtaining enough universal knowledge (for which I happen to agree with you, but I believe in God) to say a single cell is neither complex nor simple. One chooses to believe in design; one fate and another complete randomness. Oh well, we as Christians have to accept there are those who cannot see what we see, it is not insult, it is part of our teaching. As a believer, God will reveal what he wants revealed to each individual for a purpose, for a design. It is not convenient, it is highly inconvenient, but we are to never stop looking for signs just as questioning atheist do. Cheers to both of you.
Thought-Provoking: What you have when you take the Bible other than literally is a mess. As I have stated, you can have your own interpretation and I can have mine. Before long you have people believing all sorts of things and still calling themselves Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings. We get his teachings in the Bible. But when we start picking and choosing what we want to believe and not believe, we start to get to a point that we follow our own views of life and not His.
As far as evolution is concerned, I realize that they teach that life came from one celled organisms. What they fail to teach is how we got those one celled organisms in the first place. Presumably these one celled organisms have some form of life. As I have said, they have done all sorts of experiments to try to see if they can get chemicals to come together to form life and have failed.
I can take it one step further and say, where did the matter come from that life evolved out of? We have a choice here between believing in eternal matter or an eternal God. Matter has no sentient life of its own. It cannot decide to create. So what we are saying is that all of the complexities that we know to be our universe simply came from random chance without a God.
Theistic Evolution, to me,is trying to accommodate ourselves to the ever changing views of Science. There is no need for this because the whole evolutionary theory is flawed in the first place. There is no indication from the fossil records, or any other that all of life in all of its diversity came from single celled organisms. There is evidence that the individual species can and have adapted over the centuries, but none that they have slowly transformed into another species entirely.
Jason R. Manning: Thank you for your comments, and yes Cromper and I are coming from different view points. I am not insulted by what he says. But as a believer that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, as He has stated, I believe that there is truth and not everyone's point of view is correct. Truth is found ultimately in Christ. All I can do is state the truth as revealed in Scripture and let God do the rest. God bless you.
But it's not like intelligent design doesn't have flaws either, Evolution states everything came from a single celled, why can' we say that maybe that's where God came in and did his work. It might have not been, but you can't just poke at evolution and not point out the flaws in your theory either, you don't think many scientist in the world who support evolution didn't think of that either, and besides to your comment on theistic evolution just accommodating with science. In this field when we're trying to figure out what the universe is and maybe where it came from, we have to let science do the job and not let religion butt in. At the same time certain scientific discoveries can be found to either prove God or not, in the end no one will ever be able to fully prove God's existence or God's Non-existence. But in the end there are certain areas where in science you can't run to the bible to make sense of it, especially if your taking it literally, and you can only take the bible seriously, if it was the only perfect, piece and represented things universally. The bible point of view of the world is sometimes flawed and is not universal. Where science is, and if you take the bible literally, you'll never see that. And you'll set up things to make yourself believe.
Plus on the subject of "What you have when you take the Bible other than literally is a mess. As I have stated, you can have your own interpretation and I can have mine. Before long you have people believing all sorts of things and still calling themselves Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings. We get his teachings in the Bible. But when we start picking and choosing what we want to believe and not believe, we start to get to a point that we follow our own views of life and not His."
There is few things about what you said that i think you got me wrong at. First of all, when i say take it symbolically and philosophically, we can definitely see not a mess, but good things. I mean the Catholic church teachings, at least most of them do not take the bible seriously, and do you see a mess in Catholics, no of course. When you don't take it literally, that doesn't mean we are picking and choosing what we want. It means going down on a deeper level, and seeing what Christ meant universally in terms for all humans, and where the bible stands in this world amongst other things. Plus fundamentalist can not talk about picking and choosing. Fundamentalists have taken the bible literally in the past, and look where it's gotten them. If you take the bible literally, everything that it says, especially in the old testament, as you have done, we can see support for a whole lot of immoral things. You see support for slavery,Racism, demeaning of women, reasons to slash at gays, you even see an immoral God in some cases in the old testament that sometimes stands against the loving God that is the true God. If you want to take the bible literally, all of it as i think your making the case for, then your basically gonna have to take all those other things seriously too, and that would question a moral factor too. The fact of the matter is, you can't take anything at face value, if you do, there's going to be an even bigger mess, a bigger mess than what you think will happen if you take symbolically. Which i have not seen happen yet. You can take the moral teachings, the good message of love seriously, but not the stories or the context in which they are put. The only way i would take the whole bible seriously and literally,every word of it at face value, is if it was written by the hands of God himself and handed down to humans. I always say the message and deep spiritual teachings of the bible are perfect, but the form of that it has been written is imperfect. Why, because humans have touched it, and before science the creation stories were taken seriously because there was not any other source, and plus that's just how people viewed things back then, they never imagined our world, it was mainly for their world, now that we have science on the table, we can't bend the hard facts of science so that they can fit well with 5,000 year old traditional Myths that were mainly supposed to be use to show mankind's relationship with God on deeper levels than at face value. I don't say that intelligent design has no ground, obviously it does, but so does evolution, they're both filled with flaws, Maybe one more than the other, depending on how we see it, we might pick one over the other.
Thought-Provoking: You have written so much that it would almost take a whole new hub to answer properly. To answer your question on intelligent design, I'm not sure where you see the flaws. Design demands a Designer. Life comes from life. And I cannot say that everything came from a single cell, because there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing did, or could ever have happened. Adaptations within a species are obviously there. Changing into another, completely different species simply has not been proven.
As far as letting Science do their job, I admire many men of Science. It is the ones that sit atop their lofty high towers and try to tell us that they know for certain that this universe is a result of random chance and billions of years that I have a problem with. No amount of study will prove this. There is absolutely no way to scientifically verify this by an experiment. It is a matter of faith. And they go further and say that life did not come from an Intelligent Designer, but from non-living matter. Again, all of this is faith, because there is no evidence that life could ever come about in this way. These people laugh at my faith. They are much to be pitied, because they have tried to replace my Creator with the god of random chance. And a poor god he makes.
Finally, I cannot answer in a few sentences why I believe that literal interpretation of the Bible is the only way to make sense of it. I have said that everyone will end up making up their own rules, as many have, if you interpret it any other way. If we interpreted all books that we read, like most people interpret the Bible, then no one would ever be able to write a book telling what his or her thoughts were on any subject, because no one would take them literally anyway.
I believe that the same God in the Old is the God in the New. In the Old we see more of the holiness of God and his hatred of sin, as well as His judgement upon it. In the New we see God doing something about sin in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence, we see more of the love of God in the New. Although if you read the Old, you will see examples of God's love there too. For instance, His promise of a redeemer, starting in Genesis 3:15 and expounded upon many times in the Old Testament. Finally, in the New Testament, we see that the redeemer is none other than Jesus Christ.
As I have said, all of this could and should be expounded upon further, but the comment section is not a good forum for this.
GodTalk,
I think you should read up on evolution before you make claims that the theory is flawed. You are talking parrot-fashion about this subject and regurgitating the same old creationist arguments.
All living creatures are split into species for our benefit. Nature has no concept of 'species' because that isn't how it works. You'll be shouting about 'missing links' next.
The great thing about science is that it is constantly out to prove itself wrong. This has happened many many times and on such occasions science books are updated with new data (a process which is never applied to The Bible). Science is humble enough to accept mistakes and correct them. It happens all the time.
Just because we have no specific answer for something today does not mean we will not have an answer tomorrow, and if that answer turns out to be God, then so be it. However, if it turns out to be the contrary, I doubt very much the likes of you would ever accept it and will carry on your faith.
Your relentless resistance to certain theories (and it boils down to about 2 or 3 from the huge spectrum of sciences) is becoming more and more embarrasing by the day. You are struggling to keep up with evolution because the evidence is growing by the minute. I say 'struggling' because you (and 1000's of others) obviously have such a poor (or complete absense of) understanding of the theory.
Science never chooses what it wants to discover. It just discovers things! If you distrust certain theories, then you must distrust all of them (even your own existence), because one branch of science cannot be wrong while all the others are right!
It amazes me how much faith you place in science, and yet say that I am blindly following my beliefs. Science, like any other branch of knowledge is not omnipotent and it is seems that you have put unwavering faith in their ability to solve all of the mysteries of the universe. Well, there are certain mysteries that you cannot put under a microscope, like how all of this got here in the first place. Experiments must be repeatable and verifiable in order to prove something. What possible experiment can be done to prove something that happened so long ago. And there was no one there to observe it in the first place.
I am sorry that you are embarrassed by people who won't fall down at the feet of your gods of science, but none of the evidence that I have seen shows me that it is even possible for a universe with an appearance of design to come about without a designer. And it certainly isn't possible for non-living matter to form the intricacies of life that we see on this planet. From what I can see, the evidence for this, rather than growing by the minute, is just as shallow as it ever has been.
You keep telling me that I have a limited, if not absent, understanding of your precious theory. But if I were to name scientists with complete knowledge of the theory that don't agree with it, you would simply say that those particular scientists are deluded, or you would question their credentials. I say that they are courageous because they don't bow down to a politically correct take on the latest theories and really do what science was meant to do. They question until they find the right answers. And they admit when they haven't yet found the answers.
And finally, I hope that you don't actually believe that you have to distrust all of science if you distrust certain theories? Certainly there are some theories that have been disproven in the past. We no longer accept them as valid. Does that mean that all of science is invalid? One branch of science can indeed be wrong while the others are right!
'I am sorry that you are embarrassed by people who won't fall down at the feet of your gods of science...'
It isn't me who is embarrassed, it is your fellow Christians. Believe me GodTalk, the religious Christian landscape in the US is an embarrasment to Christians around the world. Its frightening how twisted some branches of the religion over there are.
'And it certainly isn't possible for non-living matter to form the intricacies of life that we see on this planet. From what I can see, the evidence for this, rather than growing by the minute, is just as shallow as it ever has been.'
Do you have any idea what matter is? Are you aware of the Periodic Table? Do you know how non-living matter forms living matter?
'You keep telling me that I have a limited, if not absent, understanding of your precious theory. But if I were to name scientists with complete knowledge of the theory that don't agree with it, you would simply say that those particular scientists are deluded, or you would question their credentials. I say that they are courageous because they don't bow down to a politically correct take on the latest theories and really do what science was meant to do. They question until they find the right answers. And they admit when they haven't yet found the answers.'
There is good science - and there is bad. There are good scientists - and there are bad.
Bad scientists make up a minority, otherwise their interpretations of observations would be regarded correct by the majority. That is how science works! It is the majority ruling!
There are also scientists who throw themselves into debates that they are not qualified to assert any authority over, such as biologists giving their view on astrophysics.
GodTalk, you cannot use science against science, or scientists against scientists. Scientists are not 'special' people; they are human beings. ANYONE can be a scientist, and lots of ordinary people do indeed become so.
'One branch of science can indeed be wrong while the others are right!'
Wrong (mostly), because theories rely on cross-referencing between sciences (physics, biology, chemistry). Yet again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of theories and science overall.
You are proactively refuting the dependability of science and yet you seem to lack a good understanding of it. I wouldn't mind if you could come up with some examples that would test my knowledge and get me to think again, but you can't.
I am tired of the same old arguments being made over and over between both sides of this debate, but I know why it is being done. There is no way to scientifically prove what is being said about the origins of the universe and the beginning of life. And even if you could come up with a seemingly plausible explaination, that doesn't mean it is the correct one. For instance, it seems correct that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But we know verifiably that the sun doesn't actually move. It is the same with evolutionary theory and its views on the origins of life, if you choose to deny the existence of a god. It may seem plausible. But in this case it is unverifiable. And to say without a doubt that it is correct is a matter of faith.
As far as the "twisted" landscape of Christianity, it is because so many have strayed far away from the teachings of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ.
By the way, in case you are interested, this is what Jesus and the Apostle Paul said would happen before the return of Christ.
And when it comes to Scientists, it would seem to me that your definition of a bad scientist is one who disagrees with the majority. My question is, have the majority ever been wrong? If they are never wrong, then we can stop scientific inquiry all together, because we probably have a majority opinion on just about everything under the sun. And you still haven't explained how one branch of Science can be wrong while the others are right, if indeed there have been some theories out there that have later proven to be wrong. You seem to lack an understanding of the history of science if you believe that every theory that has ever been advanced has proven to be correct.
When it comes to life coming from non life, I do know that there have been many experiments done, and none have produced even the simplest form of life, unless you know of one that has. You ask me questions about whether I know how non-living matter forms living matter. Science doesn't know this, and you ask me to tell you. Life, has never been proven to come from non-life. Every person with any knowledge that I've talked with has said this. Do you have special knowledge? My guess is that you have unverified theories just like everyone else.
Also, you keep telling me I have no understanding of science yet, as I predicted, you refute those who have a great understanding of it as well. You may have noticed that I don't ask your credentials or what makes you qualified to talk for science. I really don't care. If a person has a valid argument, it really doesn't matter. In debating a subject, you debate the validity of an argument. From what has been shown me, there is no validity to the speculations about a purely naturalistic understanding of life. It takes too much faith for me to be an atheist.
Theories that have been disproved: The earth is flat; the earth is at the centre of the universe; humans will suffocate traveling at speeds in excess of 50MPH; Ships will fall off the edge of the earth if they venture out far enough to sea; Christ will return 2000 years after his death; and so on.
For your information, I do not have any scientific qualifications - but that doesn't mean I could never understand science. Anyone can study.
GodTalk, just because there is no answer to the origin of organic matter does not mean we have to stop investigating or accept that it was created by a god.
Accepting that we do not know something is far better than claiming 'God did it'. Like I always say; just because we don't know something today, doesn't mean we won't know tomorrow
So what you are saying is that we agree here. One branch of science can be wrong, while others are right. Also, the fact that Christ hasn't returned as of yet is not a theory. It was an irresponsible prediction, which was not based on Scripture.
And, once again we have a faith issue. The scientists keep looking for something they will never find, because it is impossible for life to come from non-living matter, at least in the universe we know.
Finally, why is it so hard for you to at least acknowledge that there could be a creator? As I said in my article, agnosticism is far more logical, given the seeming intricate design of this universe. As the Bible says: "The heavens declare the glory of God." My faith position is not completely without evidence in this and other areas that I haven't talked about here. And your faith position chooses to interpret that evidence in a different way. But the evidence is still there.
"And, once again we have a faith issue. The scientists keep looking for something they will never find, because it is impossible for life to come from non-living matter, at least in the universe we know."
Firstly, there are many things that were regarded as impossible until they were found to be possible, so you are taking a gamble by saying that. And, secondly, even if what you say is true, there will be people out there who will need to satisfy themselves with the proof. Why should you stand in their way?
Like I said; 'just because there is no answer... does not mean we have to stop investigating or accept that it was created by a god.'
Indeed, we might just find god if we do investigate further! Isn't that what you would want?
If this universe is created, then surely it is in your interests (as much as anyone else's) for scientists to delve ever deeper with their investigations. For in the end they would come up with the evidence of a creator.
The reason I find it so hard to acknowledge a creator is because, surely, there would be a universal 'clue' which every one of us experiences, sees, feels, or whatever, in exactly the same way as everyone else.
I have experienced things that I cannot explain, but I do not conceed I will never be able to explain them! That isn't in my nature. Just as I never conceeded I would never know how a computer works because it's too complicated for the likes of me! I do know how a computer works, and I sadly have to report there is no magic involved.
Science tells us lots of things we don't want to hear, but we cannot dismiss the things we don't like. Evolution is a theory which is here to stay. It is a theory which many people (quite understandably) feel uncomfortable with because it paints such an unremarkable picture of our existence. It also contradicts the story of Adam and Eve, putting the validity of the Bible into doubt.
I fully respect those who believe in a creator, but not religion. Religion simply does not make any sense to me.
We will have to agree to disagree here. There are lots of universal clues to a creator, and mankind, with the exception of a very few, acknowledges that there is a god. We just don't agree on who that god is. This can be accounted for if you accept that man, in his pride, refused to acknowledge the true creator, and sought to make one in his own image.
And I have nothing against science delving into whatever it likes. Evolutionary theory is not a theory I am uncomfortable with because it does not paint a picture of mankind that is unremarkable. Indeed, in many ways, it has hit a lot of dead ends. If I am not mistaken, this theory does not claim to tell us the origin of the universe. That is the Big Bang theory, which is not inherently against a creator which caused the Big Bang. Nor can evolutionary theory say with certainty the origin of life, because it cannot do a verifiable experiment that proves that life comes from non-living matter. It simply tell us how wonderfully adaptive the life is that God has placed on this planet.
That is how each species has been able to survive and thrive in the various conditions that they have encountered over the centuries.
What I am "uncomfortable" with are the people who try to make this theory their reason to disbelieve in a god. And, not only that, but many of these same people are out there trying desperately to rid the world of religious belief by using this same theory. If you don't believe this, then check out some of the Hubs by many atheists in this very community.
Evolutionary theory, as it has been developed, is not inconsistent with the existence of a god. Those who say it is are simply deluding themselves.
I never use evolution as an argument against the existence of a creator, I just defend the theory.
Anyway, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree on this. Interesting debate all the same.
I hope we both find the answers we are looking for. I remain open-minded.
Thanks for your comments. Even though I don't agree with them, it is good to talk with someone who has knowledge enough to defend what he believes.
Thanks for this Hub. Touches on some things I am going through right now. Used to be a Christian but have recently lost faith and have been calling myself an "atheist" but sometimes wonder if that is what I really am. Maybe I am an agnostic...because no matter what Dawkins and Hawking and others say...how...when you look at the Universe and the Earth...could this all have happened by "accident"?
Thanks for reading vicseay. You are right. It is hard to look at what we are surrounded by every day and say that there was no intelligence behind it. It is my prayer that this Hub will help you in your journey to find the truth. God bless you.
AKA Winston said:
'There is no difference between saying god had no cause and the universe had no cause except we know the universe exists. We don't know any gods that exist.'
It seems to me rational to think that I genuinely am a 'subjective' self (that I feel, observe, know, etc.), that I am not simply an illusion. Further, it seems to me rational to think that there exist objects which, unlike myself, lack a 'subjective' self. For example, atoms, rocks, clouds, and even entire star systems seem to me to lack such a 'self'. I also assume that you, AKA Winston, think these same things about yourself and the other objects I've just named.
But, if objects which lack a 'subjective' self exist, then our most basic question might have be: what is the causal relation, if any, between a 'self' per se and a non-self object? How can it even be possible for a non-self-object to cause a self? I assume you probably answer that 'It simply does, given some of my most favored empirical observations of my own physical self.' For all I know, you might even answer that a 'self' simply IS a particular organization of non-self objects. And, if that's what you answer, then I would think you probably claim that that answer is perfectly justified by the merest fact that it is possible for us selves to make devices out of non-self objects which behave automatically like many of our own self-driven actions.
But, if a 'zombie' is even so much as logically possible, then it seems to me either:
1) the existence of genuine thoughts and feelings are ultimately uselessly redundant of the functions which genuine thoughts and feelings seem to drive,
or
2) there is some kind of genuine ontological barrier between non-self objects and selves.
In the case of 2, zombies would be exactly that, no matter that they perfectly simulate the total behavior set of selves.
In the case of 1, it seems to me the very existence of selves would be far more inexplicably magical than to grant that a God-self created our selves.
I'm not sure that I followed much of what you said, but thanks for the comments.
AKA Winston Level 5 Commenter 14 months ago
Nicely written and thought out. A couple of points of disagreement. First, although abiogenesis does look for a method of natural spontaneous life, it is using those chemicals which are known to exist. To posit a supernatural being created life is like saying a ghost knocked over the can of coke - how can an immaterial spirit interact with the physical world? The theist cannot answer this question other than to claim "magic" - the power of god to do the impossible - which is a circular argument.
Secondly, the Big Bang itself is a religious theory thought up by a Catholic priest. Although packaged and sold as factual, there are still many holes in the idea. Redshift as a Doppler Effect is a glaring defect, and the Cosmic Background Radiation has other possible explanations than residue left over from a big bang.
When you then combine all the Ptolemyic-type assumptions that have to be made to make the big bang model work mathematically (dark energy, dark matter, etc), it is far from fact that the big bang is THE correct answer.
The only rational explanation is that matter is eternal.
And as you said, creation ex nihilo is impossible. So nothing can come from nothing it must have always been - it is either that or magic.
Which is the adult thought?