A Response
Posted by Price on November 29, 2008
I’ve decided to move this discussion to my blog, simply because I enjoy it so much. In my responses, I will try to avoid ad hominems since that is becoming ever prevalent in our discussions.
From a discussion with krissmith77:
“pricegutshall Says:
‘Scientists are not out to prove that God or a Creator doesn’t exist, they are just trying to make sense of observables.’
Interesting. I do not actually remember saying that.”
Much of the time what happens in these discussions, or what is expressed by the religious defense, is that where science fails is where God wins. Which, is to assume that science is also attempting to disprove the existence of God. It is not, and several scientists (although a minority) are not atheists or agnostics.
“Actually abiogenesis would get rid of the need of God, whether you admit it or not.”
Depends on your interpretation of God. Frankly, I think you might find it excusable to allow modern science to take over explaining phenomenon, but that doesn’t require denouncing God. Although I, as an atheist, believe it is flawed, the God concept is rather dynamic and can be molded into most world views. The problem for organized religion, particularly Bible-literalists, is that yes, much of science throws the Bible into question and forces you to ask: What gives the Bible (or any sacred religious text) authority to truth? That is a fundamental concern for believers, a valid concern, because before modern science, religion served a purpose in explaining wordly phenomenon. Modern science, however, just does a better job at it. Nevertheless, science does not disprove the existence of God because science is not in the business of supernaturalism, thus it is impossible for science to say, “no, God does not exist.” The question is, is the Bible right? And if your answer is yes, why?
“Okay, 1) I never said it wasto create the earth again, 2) yes, how long it lasts does matter because if a simple uncomplex cell (that is supposedly like the first cell that came into existence) cannot survive even in the lab much less in the lab then that itself would refute the idea that the first cell was simple and uncomplex.”
All the experiments aim to prove is that it can happen. The next experiment that follows would be concerned with how organic matter was sustained; the answer to whether or not organic matter can occur given particular conditions has been answered, but the question of how it continued is another one altogether.
“But the fact remains, none of these experiments have been successfull and are all invalid.”
No, not invalid. The experiments prompt questions on how the experiment might be done better or more accurately. They are not unsuccessful altogether, they certainly answer some questions. Despite whether the experiment answers the question of the hypothesis (which presumably it would prove the hypothesis wrong), it begs new questions that were previously not engaged (hence, scientific progress).
“Besides, as I have said, the latest experiments are cheating their ways through by beginning with complex systems and acids (I.e., fatty acids). They are jumping ahead instead of starting from scratch therefore rendering the experiments irrelevant.”
But they answer questions as to how those complex systems produced even more complex systems; it at least can answer some question concerning the development of life, although maybe not the essential question. Answers to these ‘mid-level’ questions can provide insight into more fundamental questions.
“pricegutshall: ‘How do you know God is not bound by what is possible? Isn’t what is possible the only thing that can happen? No, see, whenever someone finds a flaw with concept of “God” it is simply “well, as humans we can’t understand God” (great answer! Solves everything! God is always there so we don’t have to think about it.)’
I know because he himself said so,
Isaiah 55: 8,9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
And as for God existing without a beginning:
Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are God.””
Again, without begging the question with a circular argument, what gives the Bible the authority to these claims? You know these are important questions, and are much at the heart of theology. If scripture can be justified, then great, you can use those arguments against mine. However, for a Christian to cite scripture as evidence/support for an argument against an atheist, you know that it is difficult. You have to engage your opponent’s viewpoint, uncover where I am wrong, and explain how scripture is better in supporting an argument than the evidence that I cite. Fundamentally, this debate (and your argument) rests on the authority of the Bible in proving your claims against mine (which also requires you to explain how the Bible is justified in answering those questions). Thomas Aquinas did not cite scripture to justify the concept of God, because the concept of God must be justified in order to justify the authority of the Bible (something Aquinas never really could do, as he admitted).
I should say that I believe that God can be justified, but not with the Bible. And I also have yet to see the Bible justified even when God is justified.
““God isn’t bound by what everything is bound by…” that’s cute; my imaginary best friend George can fly. Why? Because HE has special powers. Aww, cute.”
“Nice. You’re living proof that the “tolerant” free thinkers are only “tolerant” and “free-thinking” in name only. All you can do is resort to making fun of me.”
The lack of respect in my answer is defensive, because my comment was mocked by “aw, cute.” Look, my point is: Why isn’t God bound by anything? How do we know? Again, citing scripture requires you to justify scripture as an authority, a valid source for answering this question. I can say anything about my imaginary friend; since I am the only one who can see and talk with him, I am the only authority in George’s powers. I can say anything about him. Does it make it true?
“Sorry, but if you attack somebody’s intelligence (as you did), they are not going to give a damn about what your point is. Actually that only makes them more defensive of their own opinion. That’s pretty counterproductive.
The moment you personally insult someone, no matter what your argument is, you have already lost.”
Argument is not lost, but it does put more BS in the way of good points. So, from here on out, we’ll avoid ad hominem.
“pricegutshall: Ah, not an insult on Christian intelligence, rather a giving the author the benefit of the doubt since his comments suggest he might not know what relativity is. ”
Bullcrap! It is an insult on Christian intelligence because you assumed that Christians are inorant of Relativity and that ALL of us believe have a dogmatic belief that the universe in 6,000 years old. — You said that relativity was probably “mind-boggling” to me. Dude, that’s just derogatory. Even if you didn’t mean it as such, it still comes across as such.”
No, I don’t believe that. In fact, I believe a majority of Christians are not concerned with the age of the universe; why? It is irrelevant to God’s existence, only harmful to the literal Bible. Given prior statements, I (unjustly) assumed that you were probably unaware of relativity. My bad, I should take that back because it, as you say, is counterproductive to positive debate.
Einstein said that the light from stars would bend as it passed by the sun and apparently moves the position of the star, and that gravity could bend light. He also settled the debate of whether light was a particle or a wave: He concluded it was both.
Actually Einstein’s theory avoids actually going back in time. It never says that’s possible. However, it does say that it is possible to go FORWARD into the future. To influence time it is possible to use both speed and gravity to slow down time. — But time is still going forward. Going to the past actually requires moving time backwards and admittedly there is debate about that.
He says that light is not relative; it is always traveling at the same speed of 186,000 miles per second. This is huge because it opens up questions about space and time. Light only travels through one dimension of space; the curvature of space time was proven during an eclipse. You’re right, we cannot travel back in time since it would require infinite energy to reach the speed of light and be devoid of time, and transcending that is impossible. However, giving the nature of light and time, we can see back in time when we look at the stars; if a star is a light year away, we see the star from a year ago. That is why when we look at the deep field of the universe, we are looking back in time (not travelling back in time). Gravity increases speed and thus slows time, which is why if you were on the event horizon of a black hole (with immense gravity) for a year, then time on earth will have passed faster because the gravity is not as strong.
Belief in science did not make me become an atheist. Of course, I do fall back on science for explaining worldly phenomenon, though that does not make it my ‘Bible.’ I am a metaphysical realist, a determinist, a Kantian, and a libertarian. If these are points you wish to engage me on, I welcome it because I always enjoy a good discussion. I hope this has not been as ‘offensive’ and I hope that you, too, will avoid ad hominem arguments in further discussion.
USWeapon said
Nice commentary. I agree with most everything that you have written here. I hope you will come check out my blog. I am very similar to you in that I consistently simply call out false arguments and restate my position. We are currently dissecting the Libertarian Party platform and discussing its pros and cons. We have also had some vigorous debates on gay rights and gay marriage. I would value your thoughts and hope that I see you posting some comments on there. I intend to read more of your blog and add you the my blogroll once I have done so. My site is:
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com
krissmith777 said
You say:
“Fundamentally, this debate (and your argument) rests on the authority of the Bible in proving your claims against mine (which also requires you to explain how the Bible is justified in answering those questions). Thomas Aquinas did not cite scripture to justify the concept of God, because the concept of God must be justified in order to justify the authority of the Bible (something Aquinas never really could do, as he admitted).”
True.but I got the impression that when you asked me why I believed God wasn’t bound by natural laws that you wanted me to cite the source of the knowlegde of God, (i.e., the Bible)
But other than that, if God exists and is the author of natural laws, then he would therefore not be subjet to them, or else he would not be God.
You say:
“The lack of respect in my answer is defensive, because my comment was mocked by “aw, cute.” Look, my point is: Why isn’t God bound by anything? How do we know?”
1) I’m sorry that I myself came across as rude.
And 2) As I have just said, if God is the author of nature then he is not bound by the laws of nature. IF he wished, he could therefore re-write them.
Let me put it to you this way: If God is indeed subject to what we humans are limmited to then what?
– Suppose for a minute that God is the creator of the universe – If God is indeed bound by what we are bound to then that means that either 1) we are gods ourselves and are capable of creating separate universes with separate life or 2) that God isn’t really God.
Now If a man walked up to you and said he actually was able to duplicate what God did (and I don’t mean creating life, but a separate creation on a universal level) — would you believe him? Of course not. That is because such creation is impossible with human abilities.
You say:
“Again, citing scripture requires you to justify scripture as an authority, a valid source for answering this question.”
It’s not as if I was citing the Bible by trying to pass it off as a science book. I only cited it because you were asking me where I got my knowledge of God. That’s the exact same thing a Muslim would do (with the Koran) of a Hindu (with the Harabarata). Granted that does take faith, and I freely admit faith is not science.
You say:
” I am a metaphysical realist, a determinist, a Kantian, and a libertarian”
I’m a Libertarian myself, so there’s SOME common ground
You say:
” hope this has not been as ‘offensive’ and I hope that you, too, will avoid ad hominem arguments in further discussion.”
It wasn’t, and I’m sorry IF I offended you. That was not my intention. I am kind of hot headed.
pricegutshall said
“True.but I got the impression that when you asked me why I believed God wasn’t bound by natural laws that you wanted me to cite the source of the knowlegde of God, (i.e., the Bible)
But other than that, if God exists and is the author of natural laws, then he would therefore not be subjet to them, or else he would not be God.”
I want to press two questions: (1) what justifies the Bible as a source of knowledge into the mechanics of the universe as well as the nature of God (even if you cite ‘faith in the Bible,’ you must have a reason for establishing faith in the Bible)? (2) assuming you believe that God intervenes in our experience, an experience constrained by the laws of nature, why does it follow that as an ‘author’ of the natural laws God is not subject to them; my question is philosophically concerned with how a God not subject to the laws of nature might be able to affect or interact within the laws of nature, how could we experience them if they are beyond human comprehension, and how might we obtain knowledge or a personal interaction with a God who is not subject to the laws? The fundamental problem here is that if God is not subject to the laws of nature (which are consequently the laws of our experience) how are we to know that he exists, that he is the author, and that we are able to know this?
See my post on God, Impossibility, and the Nature of Science.
“1) I’m sorry that I myself came across as rude.”
Thanks. I think we are resolved to move on to a more respectable conversation.
“2) As I have just said, if God is the author of nature then he is not bound by the laws of nature. IF he wished, he could therefore re-write them.”
My answer is the same as above.
“Let me put it to you this way: If God is indeed subject to what we humans are limited to then what?”
That is good question, an important question in understanding both the nature of the God of belief and the logically possibility of his existence. Four philosophers come to mind who have worked with the concern of God’s logical nature: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas Malebranche, and Baruch Spinoza. Each philosophers’ conception of the logical God is a reconstruction of his nature in popular belief. I’ve provided quick (though uncharitable) synopses of their theories:
Aristotle: concerned with the problem of infinite regress, argues that a Prime Mover is logically necessary to divide the substances of the universe (earth, fire, water, and air) and put the substance into motion. Problem: Aristotle was a HUGE categories guy (founder of categorical logic), essentially inherited from Plato’s Forms, and did not address the possibility of nonexistant categories coming into existence from previous categories. He also does not address perspectivism as a source for the possible ‘illusion’ of categories.
Thomas Aquinas: borrowed from Aristotle, God is the First Cause (same as the Prime Mover, essentially) of the universe. For God to be omniscient, he must be an active God; that is, he never ceases to reflect or rest, he is in constant motion maintaining universal substance. He is, by nature, of good will because the very act of maintaining the universe is good in itself. (1st problem: why is that act good in itself? Why is the value ‘good’ inherent to existence?) God does not answer prayers because he does not receive, which builds on the logic that if God is omniscient he must be in constant motion and must also know the future. As a dualist, he believed that there was the body, the soul, celestial agents, and God (these are the substances). Each form is in constant interaction with another. Problems: though Aquinas addresses Free Will as inherent to the soul, if God is omniscient and in constant motion and interaction with the substances of the universe, Aquinas is indubitably stuck in dilemma of determinism. Other problems, essentially for traditional Christian theology, are that worship, sin, repentence, and many other tenets of Christian belief are unnecessary and/or irrelevant to God and existence.
Nicolas Malebranche: the father of occasionalism, argues that God must exist as the mechanics of the universe (or, as opposed to be the author of the laws of nature, he IS the law of nature), similiar to Aquinas, but his nature extended to being the causal agent of all things. That is, if I place a cup on a table, the God must intervene and maintain the interaction between the cup and the table (hence, why the cup doesn’t float off or the table collapse). The evidence for God’s intervention is when an event occurs against our preconceptions or predictions (i.e., to cite a more contemporary example because I can’t really think of another off the top of my head: the bending of light around celestial masses, such as the Sun, though we would expect light to be constant and unchanging according to Newtonian physics.) Problem: really, contemporary physics completely debunks the theory. The strict occasionalism of Malebranche is hardly supported by contemporary theologians because it has been proven wrong in observation (theory of physics).
Baruch Spinoza: probably the most meaningless and bizarre interpretation of God, but the most logical by any means (he was also excommunicated from his Jewish community because of his theory). There is one substance: God. Everything else is an extension of God (i.e., all physical matter is an extension–a term borrowed from Descartes–of the one substance); the mind, though an extension of God, is the soul, and souls are an extension of God (we all, essentially, are of God). God is impersonal, only souls are persons (have emotions, etc). Problem: makes ‘God’ meaningless insofar that the term simply means ‘everything.’
“Suppose for a minute that God is the creator of the universe – If God is indeed bound by what we are bound to then that means that either 1) we are gods ourselves and are capable of creating separate universes with separate life or 2) that God isn’t really God.”
Response to (1) what is to say that we are not? Think of games like Second Life or Sim City where we create little universes and control the very actions of those universes. Though we wouldn’t consider that ‘real life,’ perhaps the video game we are in, its creators don’t view us as ‘real life.’ That is a true philosophical concern. Response to (2) perhaps we don’t understand the characteristics of God, and thus requires more investigation into his possible nature.
“Now If a man walked up to you and said he actually was able to duplicate what God did (and I don’t mean creating life, but a separate creation on a universal level) — would you believe him? Of course not. That is because such creation is impossible with human abilities.”
That is an unanswerable question (not in offense to you, but I mean on a philosophical level, how do we know that such creation is impossible with human abilities? We don’t.)
“It’s not as if I was citing the Bible by trying to pass it off as a science book. I only cited it because you were asking me where I got my knowledge of God. That’s the exact same thing a Muslim would do (with the Koran) of a Hindu (with the Harabarata). Granted that does take faith, and I freely admit faith is not science.”
Again, I must stress the importance of justifying the Bible as an authority to answer important questions. Just as the Muslim and the Hindu must do. Furthermore, what makes the Bible of greater authority than the Koran and Harabarata (and the other way around)?
“I’m a Libertarian myself, so there’s SOME common ground
”
Well good. Maybe we’ll find each other on another blog defending the same arguments.
krissmith777 said
You say:
“Again, I must stress the importance of justifying the Bible as an authority to answer important questions. Just as the Muslim and the Hindu must do. Furthermore, what makes the Bible of greater authority than the Koran and Harabarata (and the other way around)?”
From either an Athiest ir Agnostic viewpoint, none of them have to say than none would be more authoratative than the others.
But as a Christian, I would say that the Bible does on the grounds of fulfilled prophesy, for example, in the Book of Daniel.
It’s a bit much to go into a comment but I detail that here: http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/daniels-four-empires-the-skeptics-just-dont-get-it/