Intelligent Design theism

At Mind Matters News: 3. Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views

Spread the love

Egnor, for “Yes, God exists” went first. But now it is Matt Dillahunty’s turn:

“Does God exist?”Earlier this month, Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty began to debate the question at Theology Unleashed. As they briefly explain in the first episode, Egnor was an agnostic and became a Christian, based on his experiences; Dillahunty went the opposite route. In the second episode, Egnor set out his position briefly, offering ten proofs of the existence of God. Now it is Matt Dillahunty’s fifteen minutes — to spot weaknesses in Egnor’s arguments and offer his own, beginning at 20:30 min. He begins by remarking on Egnor’s speed of presentation:

Matt Dillahunty: Never in the entire history of doing debates has someone come in and, in 15 minutes, presented 10 different arguments [00:20:30] and six questions all in a 13-minute opening statement. I wonder… We’ll get there! I look forward to answering all of those questions to the best that I can.

News, “Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views” at Mind Matters News

Matt Dillahunty: As soon as people start giving a definition of the God they believe in and talking about the characteristics and qualities of that God, we can begin to look at the world and see if the world is compatible or consistent with that. [00:25:00] So if we define God, what are its qualities? What are its attributes?

Well, since I’m dealing with someone who’s a Catholic, I think we can begin with at least the qualities generally associated with the God of classical theism. We’re talking about some sort of agent that is timeless, materialless, or spaceless, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent, or whatever excessive degree of knowing power and benevolence there is within there. [00:25:30]

The problem is that I don’t know how we could demonstrate any of those. If someone came up to you and said, “I know everything,” the only thing you would ever be able to demonstrate is that they know more than you.

They’re able to teach you things. They’re able to show you things that you didn’t know beforehand. And so they are more knowledgeable than you. but how could you ever show that they know everything? Or that they know everything that is knowable? Which is an even more complicated problem. Because if I say I know everything well, that means I know how many atoms are in that pencil over there. But if I say, I know that everything is knowable, I still know that, but there might be things that I don’t know. But how do we determine which things are knowable and which things aren’t? We are limited fallible beings that are just beginning to stand on the shoulders of the people who thought about these questions before us, who did the investigation, and led to these discoveries. [00:26:30]

I find it arrogant to presume that any individual could conclude that there is a being that knows everything and that they know who it is.

News, “Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.


Next: Now it’s Mike Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty… stay tuned.

Egnor’s rebuttal: No, the burden of proof is on all of us…

The debate to date:

  1. Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
  2. A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.

You may also wish to read: COVID-19: Atheism went viral as well. Atheists are uniquely unsuited to accuse others of devaluing human life. Professor Steven Pinker’s quickly deleted tweet provides a window into anti-religious hate. In health and medicine, he is entirely mistaken. (Michael Egnor)

30 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: 3. Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    “I find it arrogant to presume that any individual could conclude that there is a being that knows everything and that they know who it is.“

    Well I find an arrogant that he believes that the possibility can’t exist or that people can’t know who it is

    How does he know that such a being doesn’t exist based off of his own knowledge Which in itself is his own presumption

    He can’t, so he can just shove off

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If someone came up to you and said, “I know everything,” the only thing you would ever be able to demonstrate is that they know more than you.

    He does not understand the basics of that argument. He’s putting into colloquial terms, like God is a guy he met at the bar down the street.
    The whole concept is in the origin of being – and a being that is purely actual with no potentiality. A being that cannot be composed of parts or be dependent on other beings for its existence.
    In that case, for an infinite being – it must necessarily have all knowledge because there would be no way to acquire any more knowledge (where would it come from?) and any lack of knowledge would be a flaw or lack of being – and that’s just a potentiality that could not exist in a fully actual being. Every potential can only be actualized by an actual being – and for God the first and fullness of being itself, God cannot be dependent on any other beings (who would all have been created by Him anyway) to actualize any potential He is supposed to have. A potential can only exist if there is some possibility of it being actualized – but since God cannot be actualized by another being, God cannot have any potentialities. God can have no capabilities unfulfilled – no possibilities not fully realized. So there can be no knowledge of anything that God doesn’t already have.

  3. 3
    zweston says:

    To debate Dillahunty is an exercise in futility. He is a hyper-skeptic… He also won’t bear the burden of proof.. he won’t be able to disprove God, and he won’t accept any known form of evidence for Jesus and his Resurrection (which is the same types of evidence we would use for other historical events and people).

    He is also on record saying if Christianity were true he wouldn’t be one… so again, don’t hold your breath on changing his mind. He will sit with his arms crossed and say “there is no evidence” and “there is no possible evidence I think you can present” and “that’s not evidence.” It’s tiresome.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    I see:

    [MD:] since I’m dealing with someone who’s a Catholic, I think we can begin with at least the qualities generally associated with the God of classical theism. We’re talking about some sort of agent that is timeless, materialless, or spaceless, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent, or whatever excessive degree of knowing power and benevolence there is within there. [00:25:30]

    The problem is that I don’t know how we could demonstrate any of those. If someone came up to you and said, “I know everything,” the only thing you would ever be able to demonstrate is that they know more than you . . .

    Instantly, we see utter ignorance of logic of being and modes of being related to root of reality. Scientism peeks out, backed by a philosophical fail. First, the claim that “Science” monopolises knowledge-seeking and contents is NOT a claim of science but of epistemology a branch of the obviously dismissed philosophy. It refutes itself and fails at outset. Linked, ever so many philosophical points are far more certain than any scientific theory, once the pessimistic induction is reckoned with. Where of course inductive reasoning is a matter of logic, another branch of philosophy. The department of knowledge and investigation that explores hard questions using fundamental methods of thought. Where, there is a sub branch called phil of sci which investigates science, its methods and knowledge claims.

    Next, returning to the main point, notice how MD casts the question in negative terms, as though piling up conundrums and unknowns? Not only a strawman caricature but a rhetorical tactic of fostering needless doubts.

    God is not merely a speculative entity, nor is he an it, a mere thing. Much to DM’s discredit lies in that little piece of unwillingness to acknowledge, He. Personhood. Rhetorical stunts and fails.

    Next, God is not addressed in a vacuum, he is addressed in the context of required roots of reality involving rational, responsible, significantly free morally governed creatures [including on first duties of reason such as to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, sound conscience etc.]. Multiplied by the four modes of possible being and non being: Possible vs impossible being, crossed with contingent vs necessary being, applied to here roots of reality thus of possible and actual worlds. With things like fine tuning evidence of design and the use of digitally coded algorithms in cell based life [DNA] . . . so language and goal-directed stepwise processes . . . relevant.

    Candidates for being may be possible or impossible. We exist and are possible, square circles cannot be in any possible state of affairs of a possible world due to contradictory core characteristics. Similarly, we are contingent and dependent on any number of causal factors, whilst there is no world in which the number 2 is not present, or begins to exist or may cease from existing. Twoness is a necessary, world-framework entity, closely connected to logic of being of worlds and to laws of logic starting with distinct identity. For that matter, this necessary being character shown by 2 is also responsible for the pervasive universality and power of core mathematics in actual and possible worlds. And I doubt that MD would so easily dismiss 2 and associated mathematical entities and properties as “timeless, materialless, or spaceless” as though such entities are ghosts extracted from denial of the contingent, concrete material entities he is familiar with.

    Speaking of, MD cannot reduce his mind to a dynamic-stochastic computational substrate without fatally undermining freedom to reason and decide freely; which invites dismissing his assertions as so much accident of what happened psychosocial and genetic programming with an addition of blind chance. Minds may use brains but have dramatically diverse characteristics, on pain of fatal self-refutation pointed out by J B S Haldane:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    The point is, to explain our existence in our world, we need an adequate, finitely remote — we cannot traverse any imagined transfinite past in finite stage causally connected steps [years, for convenience] — reality root. One, of necessary, world framework being character and one adequate to ground our moral government. Mind is required, and morally adequate mind.

    Thus, we see why the framework is put on the table as candidate reality root: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary, maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, rational, freely given service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This is the God of ethical theism, and he is familiar in the history of thought in our civilisation and from pages of the foundational book of that civilisation, The Holy Bible. Someone, we should not be playing rhetorical stunts of not knowing what is meant by the concept, God as Supreme Being and Creator.

    Now, God is obviously a serious candidate necessary being. The real issue, then, is that the atheist has an unmet burden of proof to show God impossible of being. As, if possible, such a candidate would exist in at least one possible world as a part of its in-common framework as a world feasible of actuality. Therefore, present in any world and so too in ours. Indeed, the full panoply of possible worlds would be eternally contemplated by God.

    Until recent decades, many atheists imagined that the logical problem of evils was adequate but 50 years past Plantinga shattered that and tamed the inductive form in one swoop. That is why we see the sort of stunts that are now on the table and similarly, attempts to raise the Euthyphro false dilemma to a similar state. Euthyphro fails as God is the root of reality and inherently good exponentiated by being utterly wise and maximally great. So, he expresses the good (which is intelligible to us in key part) and is its fountainhead. Good is not independent of his being nor is it arbitrary whims or diktats.

    So, the atheist is in fact the one who has an unmet burden of proof. It would be interesting to see MD et al actually take it up.

    KF

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: MD belabours the concept of an all-knowing deity, further showing his failure to understand logic of being applied to root of reality. The answer is simple, maximally great, utterly wise, inherently good mind knows to the supreme possible degree compossible with other attributes of said greatness and goodness. That is not incoherent nor does it require proof by exhaustion of empirically investigated possible points of knowledge. That is yet another strawman stunt as MD knows just as well as we do, that we are finite, fallible and cannot complete the composition of such an examination, much less grading it. He knows or should know that the omniscience of God was not derived on that plodding inductive basis but refuses to acknowledge that Big-S Science is not the colossus dominating the field of knowledge. Appeal to prejudice of Scientism, which is self-refuting from the outset (its thesis is an epistemological claim in a lab coat), fails. KF

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    As to, “I find it arrogant to presume that any individual could conclude that there is a being that knows everything and that they know who it is.“

    Well it might surprise Dillahunty to know that there are a few ‘non-arrogant’ ways to infer that God is omniscient, i.e. infinite in knowledge.

    One way is ‘through application of ‘Gödelian reasoning’ where, in order to maintain ‘logical consistency’, we can infer that “there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings.”

    A Mono-Theism Theorem: Gödelian Consistency in the Hierarchy of Inference – Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II – June 2014
    Abstract: Logic is foundational in the assessment of philosophy and the validation of theology. In 1931 Kurt Gödel derailed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica by showing logically that any set of consistent axioms will eventually yield unknowable propositions. Gödel did so by showing that, otherwise, the formal system would be inconsistent. Turing, in the first celebrated application of Gödelian ideas, demonstrated the impossibility of writing a computer program capable of examining another arbitrary program and announcing whether or not that program would halt or run forever. He did so by showing that the existence of a halting program can lead to self-refuting propositions. We propose that, through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings. This Supreme Being must by necessity exist or have existed outside of time and space. The conclusion results simply from the requirement of a logical consistency of one being having the ability to answer questions about another. The existence of any question that generates a self refuting response is assumed to invalidate the ability of a being to be all-knowing about the being who was the subject of the question.
    http://robertmarks.org/REPRINT.....heorem.pdf

    It is interesting to note just how closely Marks and Ewert’s preceding argument follows the ancient ontological argument for a ‘maximally great Being’, i.e. for God.

    Ontological Argument
    Excerpt: This logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows:
    1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
    2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
    3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
    4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
    5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
    6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
    Ontological Argument: Is It Sound?
    While the ontological argument has been the subject of fierce criticism by many contemporary philosophers, many of the criticisms of it result from a failure to properly understand the argument.
    The ontological argument is clearly logically valid—that is to say, the conclusion necessarily follows provided that Premises 1 to 5 are true. The crucial Premise, therefore, is Premise 3, namely, that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. To refute this Premise, one would need to show that the very concept of an infinitely great being is somehow logically incoherent—like a “married bachelor.” Since no argument to that effect has been forthcoming, however, it follows necessarily and inescapably that “Therefore, a maximally great being exists.”
    https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ontological-argument.htm

    Of related interest to proving that the ontological argument is logically sound, it is interesting to note that Computer scientists have now proven Godel’s ontological proof for God to be logically true, and consistent,

    Godel’s ontological proof: Computer Scientists ‘Prove’ God Exists – Oct. 23, 2013
    Excerpt: Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel.,,,?researchers,, say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel,,,?Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel’s proof was correct,,,
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....28668.html

    Ironically, atheists, in their appeal to an infinitude of multiverses, (i.e. an infinity of other possible worlds), in order to try to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe, have, unwittingly, conceded the necessary premise to Theists in order for the ontological argument to work. i.e. they have conceded that it is logically possible for God to exist.

    Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns – May 2014
    Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.”
    By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales.
    Postscript
    While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.”
    https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/

    Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One – February 9th, 2017
    Excerpt: The ardent Multiverse proponent went on to state that he readily accepts that a universe governed by Mr. T riding a cyborg ostrich is possible. Also, one with floating, flaming bears instead of stars, one that contains planets full of hairy toasters made out of grape-flavored pudding, a universe that is just one humongous chicken in a bikini, and a universe that is literally a zit wearing a chef’s hat with the “@” symbol tattooed on its face.
    “I like to think there is a universe where Richard Dawkins has 20 heads, waffles rain from the sky covered in ice cream, the only plant that grows is pot and weiner dogs are the most socially progressive and advanced animal there is,” Hemsworth said with a cheerful glimmer in his eye. “Also there are only ponies, no horses.”
    When asked if this means that the universe outlined in the Bible might be one of these infinite possibilities, Hemsworth scoffed and said, “I am a scientist. I don’t have the luxury of engaging in that kind of wishful thinking.”
    https://babylonbee.com/news/atheist-accepts-multiverse-theory-every-possible-universe-except-biblical-one

    Interestingly, in this following video, entitled “The Ontological Argument for the Triune God”, refines the Ontological argument for a maximally great Being into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:

    The Ontological Argument for the Triune God – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQRtUfS17PE

    i.e. without this distinction of God existing in more than one person, i.e. the triune God, we are stuck with the logical contradiction of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’ being grounded in ones own self, which is, obviously, the very antithesis of maximally great love.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Another way to infer that God must be omniscient is that it is now shown by Gregory Chaitin, via Godel, that, “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    Thus since an infinite number of mathematical theorems could have described this universe, but don’t,, i.e. Weinberg, “we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’.

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.?The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”?(Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)?“No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”?Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video?
    Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    Thus since an infinite number of mathematical theorems could have described this universe, but don’t, then it necessarily follows that “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a (omniscient) mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, from quantum physics, (our most powerful theory is science), we can also infer that God is omniscient, (as well as infer that he is omnipresent).

    Specifically, In quantum mechanics a photon, prior to quantum wave collapse, is mathematically described as being in an infinite dimensional state,,,

    Wave function
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    ,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark
    Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (a qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals.
    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Now I don’t know about atheists, but saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, certainly sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence to me.
    And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly certainly sounds to me, as a Christian, very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience.

    Jeremiah 23:23-24
    “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away?” “Can a man hide in secret places where I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and earth?” declares the LORD.…

    Psalm 147:5
    Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite

    Interestingly, instead of accepting the reality of the collapse of the infinite dimensional, infinite information, quantum wave, many atheists have instead opted for believing in ‘Many Worlds’ which denies the reality of quantum wave collapse.

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....plications

    To state that the atheist’s belief in many worlds is an insane belief for the atheist to hold is to make an understatement.

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017
    Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic.
    The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less.
    Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,,
    What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

    Moreover, although atheists have denied the reality of quantum wave collapse in their ‘many worlds’ model, experiments have now proven quantum wave collapse is, in fact, a real effect.

    Specifically, as the following article states, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,” and,, “”Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (i.e. beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Thus, besides the atheist’s belief in ‘many worlds’ being a patently absurd belief to hold in the first place, the atheist’s denial of the reality of quantum wave collapse has been falsified by empirical evidence. i.e. The atheist’s belief in many worlds in falsified by both logic and experimental evidence!

    So thus in conclusion, although Dillahunty may “find it arrogant to presume that any individual could conclude that there is a being that knows everything and that they know who it is“, the fact of the matter is that there are several ‘non-arrogant’ ways, via logic, math, and physics, to infer that God must exist and that He must possess omniscience as a defining attribute.

    And if Dillahunty thinks that following logic, math, and empirical evidence to where they lead is to be considered an arrogant thing for someone to do, well then, I am guilty as charged. 🙂

    Exodus 15:11
    “Who is like you among the gods, O LORD— glorious in holiness, awesome in splendor, performing great wonders?

  9. 9
    tjguy says:

    “I find it arrogant to presume that any individual could conclude that there is a being that knows everything and that they know who it is.“

    Interesting. I think the conclusion that such a being exists is common sense so we’ll just agree to disagree.

    “The problem is that I don’t know how we could demonstrate any of those. If someone came up to you and said, “I know everything,” the only thing you would ever be able to demonstrate is that they know more than you.”

    These atheists are all about “proof” of God’s existence, but it is impossible to prove that God exists. Christians think it is a reasonable deduction and so we choose to believe that He does, but in the end, it requires faith to believe. Either way, it is a belief – we believe He does exist or we believe He does not exist. Neither side can conclusively demonstrate their own side to be true. Both sides can give reasons for why they believe what they do, but that’s it. So, if he thinks he has us over the barrel because we can’t demonstrate that God is who He reveals Himself to be in the Bible, he’s wrong.

    It is only atheists/skeptics who demand actual proof for God’s existence. But, in the end, they are such hypocrites because there are so many things they believe to be true and yet cannot demonstrate. So it seems that proof is only important when it comes to the theists and their beliefs, while it is not so important for them when it comes to their own beliefs. Funny how that is.

    For instance, they believe that eyes evolved. But did they? It would be so easy and simple if we could do an actual experiment to see if such a thing is really possible, but unfortunately(fortunately for them), we can’t. BUT, that doesn’t stop them from believe it to be true. They accept their own worldview by faith and this idea of eye evolution fits within that worldview so it makes sense to them and they believe it. Abiogenesis is another good illustration. They believe it to be true, but can’t demonstrate it. They take it by faith. They are very willing to attribute creation of life to LUCK, but they buck at the possibility of the involvement of intelligence – in spite of the multiple codes, machines, efficiency, systems, software, hardware, information, miniaturization, etc. Imagine the stupidity of someone actually looking at the data and concluding that the best answer/explanation is an Intelligent Designer/all-powerful Creator! LOL!

  10. 10
    Hanks says:

    Neither side can conclusively demonstrate their own side to be true.

    Not true. Information demonstrates easily which side is true. There is not even a discussion .

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    Not true. Information demonstrates easily which side is true. There is not even a discussion .

    That’s an argument that atheists are winning. That’s what the numbers tell us. Especially among the young.

  12. 12
    Hanks says:

    That’s an argument that atheists are winning. That’s what the numbers tell us. Especially among the young.

    🙂 What do you mean? “Atheists” are winning with brainwashing not with reason. And because youngs don’t pray, don’t read the Bible and writings of Early Fathers but they play computer games and watch whatever movies hollyweirds produce.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @4,
    Thank you–I find it helpful that you dissect, identify, categorize, and evaluate Dillahunty’s arguments and presuppositions. It seems that performing such a task is an important first step in many cases before presenting one’s own case in detail.

    We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

    This argument is interesting, but falls apart upon examination.

    – First of all, it’s a tautology, as in “One can’t disprove an undisprovable proposition.” Whoop dee doo. Not very profound, is it.

    – Second, the statement already assumes its conclusion. What makes God unfalsifiable?

    What if it can be conclusively shown that the universe arose out of a series of observable and repeatable naturalistic steps? Or what if God chose to manifest himself in a way that’s scientifically undeniable? This is certainly God’s choice. By comparison, an ant would have a hard time proving or disproving the existence of a human being. But how could you prove your existence to an ant?

    – Third, it also presupposes that God is a non-sentient, theoretical entity that’s conceptually not much different than “dark matter.” Dark matter does not have the ability to choose or to interact with a person in a personal way.

    What are the options for God to do so and how does it depend on His intent?

    -Q

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, the existence of God is in principle subject to rational analysis. Up to 50 years ago, atheists thought they had a knock-down disproof, the logical problem of evil, so that the God of Ethical Theism was an impossible being. Then Plantinga’s free will defence decisively shattered it as a matter of logic. So now they resort to gliding over that history and rhetorically posing assertions that the reality of God is unfalsifiable therefore meaningless. The history exposes the stunt, why don’t they simply honestly acknowledge that their favourite argument of former days, failed? And in fact, exploration of logic of being in a contingent world in which morally governed creatures able to freely reason exist, points to needing a necessary being, temporally finitely remote root of reality as source of our world. Where being inherently good and utterly wise provides a decisive answer to the Euthyphro false dilemma. Goodness is in key part intelligible to us, is non-arbitrary (not mere diktat) and is rooted in the being at source of worlds. What we are seeing in this debate is rhetorical flailing in absence of a good atheistical argument [!!!] that God as serious candidate necessary being at root of reality, is impossible of being. KF

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    That’s an argument that atheists are winning. That’s what the numbers tell us. Especially among the young.

    Atheism’s numbers are increasing – true. So are the numbers of suicides.
    So, both movements are winning, in that sense.
    But I wouldn’t all either of them a winning position to take – in spite of the gain in popularity.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    This following 2017 study questioned the widely believed ‘secularization thesis’ of America,

    The Persistent and Exceptional Intensity of American Religion: A Response to Recent Research
    Landon Schnabel, a Sean Bock b – 2017
    a) Indiana University Bloomington; b) Harvard University
    Abstract: Recent research argues that the United States is secularizing, that this religious change is consistent with the secularization thesis, and that American religion is not exceptional. But we show that rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion—strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism—is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States. We also show that in comparable countries, intense religion is on the decline or already at very low levels. Therefore, the intensity of American religion is actually becoming more exceptional over time. We conclude that intense religion in the United States is persistent and exceptional in ways that do not fit the secularization thesis.
    https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/november/SocSci_v4_686to700.pdf

    Likewise, Rodney Stark also questions the validity of the ‘secularization thesis’,

    No, Non-Believers Are Not Increasing In America – APRIL 24, 2019
    Excerpt: The stats are given as often and with as much confidence as they are wrong. The story goes that our nation is growing more secular with every passing day. Christianity is tanking, and atheists and generic non-believers mushrooming.,,,
    Stark gets more precise: “The entire change [toward none-ness] has taken place with the non-attending group.” “In other words,” he adds, “this change marks a decrease only in nominal affiliation, not an increase in irreligion.” Stark says the wealth of data he has studied, as well as that his peers have, “does not support claims for increased secularization, let alone a decrease in the number of Christians. It may not even reflect an increase in those who say they are ‘nones.’”,,,
    In fact, Professor Barry A. Kosmin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, the man who coined the term “the nones,” expresses frustration that the larger press has not really gotten the story right on what belief group is actually seeing the largest size increase. He told me, “The rise of nondenominational Christianity is probably one of the strongest [religious growth] trends in the last two decades” in the United States.
    He added that the percentage gain among the “nons,” or nondenoms, is “many times larger” compared to those we have come to know as the nones. Read that again. The growth of nondenominational churches has been many times larger than that of the nones. Is it likely that one group that is growing—the nones—are gaining folks from a particular group that is growing at even greater pace? That answer would be no.
    Greg Smith, the long-time associate director of research at the Pew Research Center, adds heft to the conclusion that evangelicalism is actually growing. He confidently explains that while the more liberal mainline churches have been tanking dramatically, losing from 5 to 7.5 million members since 2007 (!), things are completely different for evangelical and non-denominational churches….
    The Harvard/Indiana University researchers found the same thing, explaining “evangelicals are not on the decline” but “grew from 1972 when they were 18 percent of the population, to a steady level of about 28 percent” from the late 1980s to the present. This “percentage of the population” measure is very significant because it shows not only growth in terms of real numbers, but enough growth to keep up with or even exceed the rate of population growth. That’s not nothing.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/24/no-non-believers-not-increasing-america/

    But anyways, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, (due to the fact they are indoctrinating students, by force of law, with their false propaganda in public schools into Darwinian atheism), that atheists may be ‘winning’ the battle here in America, on the larger stage of the world at large, we still find that atheism, (although it may be, or may not be, winning the battle here in America), is in fact losing the war for the world at large.

    Atheism is declining globally – Report
    Among Christian groups, Pentecostals and evangelicals are growing faster than others.
    October 20, 2019
    Excerpt: As a percentage of the world’s population, the number of those who don’t belief in the existence of God is on the decline – projected to drop below 1.8% by 2050, according to research findings.
    Researchers from the ?Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass, released the 2019 ?edition? of their “Status of Global Christianity” report, noting that there are fewer atheists in the world today than there were in 1970.
    The study found that in 1970 there were 165 million atheists worldwide, about 4.5% of the global population. In 2010, the number of atheists had fallen to 138 million or 2.0% of the population.
    If trends continue, according to the study, this number is expected to drop to below 130 million by 2050, or about 1.8% of the world population.
    Researchers analyzed data on church membership and activities from thousands of Christian denominations and other religions worldwide, presenting that data from 1970 and 2010 for a 40-year comparison and, using that information and related demographic data to forecast the world religious makeup in 2050.
    “Projections to 2050 indicate a sustained decrease of the global share of the non-religious,” read the study. This is due primarily to the resurgence of other faith groups.
    Globally, the report revealed, Christianity is growing at a 1.27% rate. Currently, there are 2.5 billion Christians in the world. The world’s population, 7.7 billion, is growing at a 1.20% rate.
    Islam (1.95%), Sikhs (1.66%) and Hindus (1.30%) are the only religious groups growing faster than Christianity, though followers of Jesus outnumber every other faith and are predicted to continue to do so at least through 2050, the report says.
    Among Christian groups, Pentecostals (2.26%) and evangelicals (2.19%) are growing faster than others.
    They are both also growing faster than they did just two years ago. In 2017, Pentecostals’ growth rate was 2.22% and evangelicals was 2.12%.
    According to the report, more than half of the world’s population in 1900 (54.3%) were unevangelized. That percentage continues to shrink, dropping to 28.4% in 2019.
    That still means, however, that almost 2.2 billion people living today are still considered unevangelized.
    https://www.ugchristiannews.com/atheism-is-declining-globally-report/

    Interestingly, although Russia, particularly under Stalin, brutally suppressed Christianity to the point of destroying thousands of churches and killing thousands, (upon thousands), of priests, nuns, and pastors, and enthusiastically promoting atheism, when Communism finally died its ignoble death in the former USSR, it was as if atheism had never been present in the former USSR. i.e. after the fall of the USSR, Christianity was found to be surprisingly robust in the former USSR, with numbers comparable to other parts of the world where atheism was never actively promoted by the government.

    Pew: Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe
    In 18 nations across Central and Eastern Europe, religion is now essential to national identity. (massive study based on face-to-face interviews with 25,000 adults in 18 countries}
    Jeremy Weber – 5/10/2017
    Excerpt: “The comeback of religion in a region once dominated by atheist regimes is striking,” states Pew in its latest report. Today, only 14 percent of the region’s population identify as atheists, agnostics, or “nones.” By comparison, 57 percent identify as Orthodox, and another 18 percent as Catholics.
    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/may/pew-atheism-failed-central-eastern-europe-orthodox-identity.html

    Moreover, until a fairly recent brutal suppression of Christianity in communist China, China, (a notoriously atheistic country), was on pace to become the ‘most Christian’ nation in the world,

    China on course to become ‘world’s most Christian nation’ within 15 years – 19 Apr 2014
    Excerpt: Officially, the People’s Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.
    Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao’s death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.
    Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world’s number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.
    “By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.
    “It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change.”
    China’s Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre’s Forum on Religion and Public Life.
    Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.
    By 2030, China’s total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.
    “Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this,” Prof Yang said. “It’s ironic – they didn’t. They actually failed completely.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....years.html

    Update:
    China’s war on religion, academics: Xi Jinping moves to reassert Communist Party dominance – 14 Aug, 2018
    Excerpt: Images of Christ are being replaced with posters of President Xi. As with the Tibetans and Uighur’s before them, Christian children are no longer allowed to attend church.
    “The move is aimed at Christian families in poverty, and we educated them to believe in science and not in superstition, making them believe in the party.”
    One Beijing pastor told AP otherwise: “A lot of our flock are terrified by the pressure that the government is putting on them,” he said. “It’s painful to think that in our own country’s capital, we must pay so dearly just to practice our faith.”,,
    Beijing sees Christianity as a Western threat, and its 67 million followers as infected by dangerous Western ideals.
    President Xi stated in 2016: “We must resolutely guard against overseas infiltrations via religious means.”
    And any community that places any entity above himself is not putting the Party first.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12106917

    Thus, although atheists may be, (or may not be), winning the battle here in America, they are, in fact, losing the war for the world at large.

    Luke 1:33
    and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @18,

    What we are seeing in this debate is rhetorical flailing in absence of a good atheistical argument [!!!] that God as serious candidate necessary being at root of reality, is impossible of being.

    Excellent point. What we see is the logical equivalent in atheistic argument of “But what about baby ducks?”

    I’ve not been aware of Plantinga’s free will defense nor of what sounds like a formal philosophical debate, but it seems like God’s creation of free will allows evil as a possibility and a choice.

    I once had a discussion with a colleague who suggested that God, if he existed, should prevent heinous crimes and cruel catastrophes. But my counter argument was that this would put humanity “on rails,” where even innocuous acts would become impossible due to the butterfly effect or that all choices would result only in good things.

    -Q

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ID proposes “Intelligence” as the source of some features in nature and for the universe itself.
    That intelligence could be some kind of immaterial force, a deistic god, a multitude of immaterial agents, gods or the theistic God – or just some intelligence somehow out there.
    Moving from ID to theism requires many steps. The various arguments for the existence of God point in that direction. But theism requires a revelation from a God who has personal interest in creation.
    Aristotle was a deist.
    Plato was a theist. Plato believed in the revelations and oracles in Greek religion, to the extent that he interpreted them.
    Moving directly from ID to Christian theism does not work as a intellectual pathway. There are too many other arguments required to sort out polytheism, pantheism or various immaterial forces – and ID does not provide any of them.
    From theism – one has to sort out polytheism from monotheism. From monotheism, then more study of Scriptures between Islam, Judaism and other monotheistic views in indigenous religions.
    From Christianity – then there’s the process of understanding Christian doctrine and the various Christian communions and sorting all of them out.
    When we talk about God on UD, we’re usually talking about Christianized monotheism — although there is a lot left out of that discussion as well.
    It’s important to know what theological background atheistic critics have – because that background forms their understanding of God and why they reject God.
    An atheist from a Calvinist background will have different complaints about God than one from a Mormon, Muslim or Jewish background. Each will be rejecting a different idea of God – although there are some similarities in all of those.

    With that in mind: Atheism should not be treated as a single idea, but rather, atheism is the rejection of the God that is known by each particular atheist. They all end with no God at all, but the reasons will be aligned to their understanding of religion.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic,
    The appearance, complexity, and functional design of the universe shouts to us of the existence of a Creator. But the purposes, plans, and power of the Creator God can be understood only in self revelation and then only in part.

    Practically speaking, I think you’re right that “atheism” seems to be a choice to reject belief in a specific god relevant to the atheist. Some of these atheists gravitate toward some type of “cosmic consciousness,” a sort of safely denatured god.

    -Q

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Some of these atheists gravitate toward some type of “cosmic consciousness,” a sort of safely denatured god.

    True – and ID can only go as far as science can go. If a person ends up believing that some immaterial, cosmic consciousness exists and had an influence on earth or the universe – that’s enough confirmation for ID.
    What is kind of weird is that ID is compatible with that kind of deistic, pan-consciousness – some kind of intelligent force, but ID is not compatible with theistic evolution.

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    What is kind of weird is that ID is compatible with that kind of deistic, pan-consciousness – some kind of intelligent force, but ID is not compatible with theistic evolution.

    Yes, I agree with the first part, but I’m not sure whether theistic evolution means evolution set in motion by God, or evolution guided by God. If it’s simply set in motion by God, I’d agree because, unlike Athena and Zeus, designs can’t spring fully formed from the brow of mother nature.

    The closest I’ve ever come is a technology called generative design:
    https://www.generativedesign.org/

    This technology creates sets of brute force solutions (similar to how chess computers work) based on specifications, rules, parameters, and constraints for the design of mechanical parts, furniture, architecture, urban planning, prosthetic devices, and so on. It seems to be an aid for designers but not a replacement.

    -Q

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Q

    Yes, I agree with the first part, but I’m not sure whether theistic evolution means evolution set in motion by God, or evolution guided by God. If it’s simply set in motion by God, I’d agree because, unlike Athena and Zeus, designs can’t spring fully formed from the brow of mother nature.

    I don’t really understand the difference with those. Guided by God or set in motion by God – they seem very similar.

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    What I meant by “Guided by God” is something like God designing “kinds” of living things (for example, basic body plans in animals) that can then adapt with the fine-tuning of allele frequency and epigenetic expression.

    What I meant by “evolution set in motion” is God programming living things to be able to evolve from mud or single cells, and then stepping back.

    -Q

  24. 24
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Q – ok, got it – thanks. The second one is basically materialism but God just started the big bang.

  25. 25
    ram says:

    Matt Dillahunty is not really against a Higher Power. More to the point, he is against “religion” as commonly understood. I understand that, and agree.

    He’s a fun, entertaining guy, and I like him. We could have beers. But he does not seem to have done any deep dive into his own consciousness. You can tell, by the words they he uses.

    So. Not impressed.

    Consciousness is primary. Consciousness is all.

    Well, from what I can tell.

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Ram @25,

    Good points all!

    My list of the essentials of our existence is consciousness, information, observation, choice, probability, and a field (space-time, mass-energy, etc.) where all this can be manifested. Several of these listed can be collapsed into each other depending on the scope of the definitions.

    -Q

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N, I think there is a magical mindset out there that sees a vague power immanent in the cosmos that can shape the course of events. KF

  28. 28
    Hanks says:

    Consciousness is primary. Consciousness is all.

    Unfortunately there are 2 types of consciousness. The consciousness of lie and the consciousness of truth and both say that they are telling the truth. :))

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Immaterial consciousness which has an observable impact on nature – is the ID proposal.
    Actually, not even consciousness – that goes beyond ID. It’s only immaterial intelligence needed.

  30. 30
    bruzzi says:

    The debate seemed to gravitate to morality, and Egnor basically did a William Lane Craig, which is claim that the existence of morality is proof of God. It is interesting (euphemism for frustrating) that anyone could accept that gods are needed as the source of morality. Every parent on the playground who has had to intervene in a disturbance between children explains, “Don’t do that. You wouldn’t want that done to you.” I have never heard a parent say that the child is violating a god’s law. Clearly that would have no meaning for the child. So, give me the child at 7 and I’ll show you the adult, and that 7 year old understands consequences more than any gods.

Leave a Reply