Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs

_{Gil Dodgen

February 4, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

With what is now known about the fine-tuning of the laws of physics for the production of a universe that “knew” we were coming (Freeman Dyson), and with what is now known about the sophisticated information-processing systems and technology found in even the simplest living cell (not to mention the human mind), it is incomprehensible to me that this evidence would lead any rational person to the conclusion that it all came about by chance and necessity, and not by design.

Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs.

There is no third option.

Comments

Champ, as you so clearly illustrate, what someone believes to be true, and what is actually true are two very different things. So what if Harris, and apparently you when it suits you agenda, deny that atheists are moral relativists. The FACT, i.e. truth of reality, is that, no matter your protestations to the contrary, Atheists have no basis to ground objective morality.,,, I really don't care one iota of the lies you or Sam Harris believes. What matters is that atheists have no objective basis for morality and are thus moral relativists, and thus explaining why they committed such unmitigated horror in the 20th century.bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

BA77, By mentioning 'Atheist Sam Harris', who is not a relativist, you confirm my point: atheism and relativism are not synonymous. Thank you.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Champ, atheists hold that there are no objective moral absolutes, thus they are stuck with moral relativism for a moral basis! Or do you want to defend objective moral absolutes from a atheistic standpoint? Good luck with that endeavor, many, much brighter than you or I, have tried before; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00 Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed (of being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/ Objective Morality – The Objections – Frank Turek – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MWBsPf5pgbornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

BA77, Your spam is irrelevant to the question, which was:
What atrocities are you aware of that were justified by their perpetrators on relativist grounds? How do they stack up against the atrocities committed on account of religious zeal?
By the way, look up the word 'relativism'. It's not synonymous with 'atheism'.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Romans 1:19-20 "19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Gil, I don't think you have lost your mind at all.tjguy_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

champignon, spam spam spam is your only response to scientific evidence which falsifies your materialistic/atheistic belief? Champ do you know that if you do not fairly address the scientific evidence presented against you, that makes you no better than the religious dogmatists you constantly rail against? So are you a religious dogmatists Champ?bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Champ trying to defend the 'moral superiority of Atheism asks: Really? What atrocities are you aware of that were justified by their perpetrators on relativist grounds? How do they stack up against the atrocities committed on account of religious zeal?'' Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government: “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, is probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ "for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed." Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15. (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German 'master race' was defeated in World War II)bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Spam, spam, spam, spam...champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

a few more notes: ,,,, the quantum wave state (superposition) is defined as infinite information, yet when it collapses to its particle state, it yields only a single bit of information:,,,
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Zeilinger's principle The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
,,,Wigner stated this in regards to his Nobel Prize winning work on Quantum Symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
,,,i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”,,, ,,,It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?,,,
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,
Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,
John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/
bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Stu,
Yes perhaps it was a quotemine of sorts, but the “amended” version remains applicable nonetheless wouldn’t you say?
In my experience, not very often. There are some atheists, like philosopher Thomas Nagel, who hope that God doesn't exist (although in his case, I suspect that evidence trumps desire in terms of what he actually believes). But many (if not most) of us would have no problem believing in God if the evidence were there. I am certainly glad that the God of the Old Testament doesn't exist, but I would be delighted to find instead that a good, loving God exists and that we'll all spend eternity in bliss. I just don't find it believable. I was quite happy as a Christian. I gave up my Christianity, and later my theism, reluctantly, when I could no longer justify them intellectually.
Moral relativism, the progeny of Atheism, is just as, if not more so, historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind than religious zeal.
Really? What atrocities are you aware of that were justified by their perpetrators on relativist grounds? How do they stack up against the atrocities committed on account of religious zeal?champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Champ states:
'These days, God is continually jumping to new gaps as he gets squeezed out of the old ones. Theists are in retreat, hoping to find at least one gap out there that won’t close in on Him.'
Do you really believe what you wrote Champ? This is certainly, from a scientific point of view, not true! While it is true that many unfounded quasi-Theistic imaginary superstitions have fallen by the wayside over the last few centuries, the fact is that many, many foundational Theistic presuppositions have been confirmed by the advance of science in stunning degree. Whereas, on the other hand, Atheistic Materialists have had to retreat further and further into larger and larger gaps of superstitious materialistic imagination! (i.e. multiverses, punctuated equilibrium, Origin of Life etc.. etc.. etc..). Notes to that effect:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins agrees:
"The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." Richard Dawkins The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978
In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
For a quick overview, here are a few:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality. Thesism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even central, position within material reality. - 7. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9) - 8. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 9. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 10. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 11. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 12. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 13. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 14. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 15. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 16. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - references for each of the 16 predictions: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (updated video with notes in description) http://vimeo.com/34084462
Champ, thus the science is certainly firmly in the Theists camp and the Atheists has no friend in science and are regulated to superstition!!!! But of a more personal note, even though this scientific evidence is very good to have, the fact is that we each desperately need a personal touch from God to make Him personally real for each of us. God was there for me in a time of need, when I looked to him for guidance. Even though the experience was very subtle, I was blown away. Moreover, I can't force you to ask God to reveal Himself in a personal way to you, but I can assure you that the amazing grace of God is there for all who will humble themselves and seek it!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Yes perhaps it was a quotemine of sorts, but the "amended" version remains applicable nonetheless wouldn't you say? Given the OP assertions surrounding fine-tuning (an unimaginable amount) and the reality of a first cause. Somewhat OT: I would disagree with some of the contentions made like: "Indeed, it is surely religious zeal rather than atheism which is historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind." Moral relativism, the progeny of Atheism, is just as, if not more so, historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind than religious zeal.Stu7_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

Hi vj,
Yet curiously, very few of the Greeks were atheists, even though the evidence they had for the existence of a God or gods was much weaker than the evidence we have today. Paradoxically, though, atheism is flourishing as never before in human history. Go figure.
The Greeks didn't have the advantage of seeing hundreds of supernatural beliefs and explanations fall by the wayside as science advanced. Who today but the most benighted believes that mental illness is caused by demonic possession? These days, God is continually jumping to new gaps as he gets squeezed out of the old ones. Theists are in retreat, hoping to find at least one gap out there that won't close in on Him.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Stu7,
It’s probably time for a quote.
I think you meant to say:
It's probably time for a shameless quotemine.
You misquoted Stoppard:
“Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.” – Tom Stoppard
The actual quotation is of a character in a Stoppard play, and here's what he says:
Archie: ...It's an interesting view of atheism, as a sort of crutch for those who can't bear the reality of God...
And here's an excerpt from the preceding dialogue:
Archie: ... Religious faith and atheism differ mainly about God; about Man they are in accord: Man is the highest form of life, he has duties he has rights, etcetera, and it is usually better to be kind than cruel. Even if there is some inscrutable divinity behind it all, our condition for good or ill is apparently determined by our choice of actions, and choosing seems to be a genuine human possibility. Indeed, it is surely religious zeal rather than atheism which is historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind. George: I'm not at all sure that the God of religious observance is the object of my faith. Do you suppose it would be presumptuous to coin a deity? Archie: I don't see the point. If he caught on, you'd kill for him, too. [bolding is mine]
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

It's probably time for a quote.
"Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." -- Tom Stoppard
Stu7_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Hi Gil, You haven't lost your mind. The truth is that there has never been a better time in history to argue the case for Intelligent Design. Consider the ancient Greeks. They were very clever people, but they didn't know if the universe had a beginning or not. Most of them thought it had been there forever. Now, as I mentioned in a recent post, we even have atheist cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin saying, "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning" - and when he says that, he's talking about the whole multiverse (including the most fundamental laws of Nature), and not just the observable universe. Unless you want to believe that the cosmos just popped into existence lawlessly, for absolutely no reason, the conclusion that it was made by someone or something is inescapable. And since the multiverse includes all the laws of Nature, this Maker must not be subject to any of them. The Greeks were inclined to point to the four seasons and the movements of the heavenly bodies as evidence of design, but they knew nothing about the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe, and even of the multiverse as a whole, which I referred to in the same post. We now have a very strong case that the cosmos was designed for intelligent life. The ancient Greeks thought that life was capable of being generated spontaneously from mud - including even mammals. We now know that spontaneous generation is a myth, and that there are good grounds for saying that abiogenesis as a result of unguided processes is impossible. Professor John C. Walton summarized the evidence very handily in a recent talk which I linked to in another post called, The Big Picture: 56 minutes that will change your life . Many of the Greeks (including philosophers like Aristotle) were inclined to think that species had been around forever, so there was no need to account for their origin. We now know that life on Earth had a beginning, and that species came into existence. If the first cell somehow evolved into all these life-forms, then it must have been packed with information - in other words, front-loaded. The Greeks had no settled opinions regarding an after-life either. Few of them looked forward to Heaven when they died, and many of their finest philosophers were materialists. Additionally, the Greeks were well aware of the problem of evil, which was pithily summarized by Epicurus in his famous trilemma . Their answers to Epicurus' trilemma were far less intellectually sophisticated than the answers put forward by modern philosophers of religion. Yet curiously, very few of the Greeks were atheists, even though the evidence they had for the existence of a God or gods was much weaker than the evidence we have today. Paradoxically, though, atheism is flourishing as never before in human history. Go figure. What that suggests to me is that people do not form their opinions rationally, but in accordance with prevailing intellectual fads and the Zeitgeist. I just wish we'd known all this stuff before 1859. Who knows how history would have turned out then?vjtorley_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Even as some kind of game it would be weird. A universe of endless, incredibly variegated and subtle designs, "from top to bottom", which..... are not designs? Coz.... coz.... 'designs' would predicate intelligence and purpose.. and ... and a ... ggggg....o..dAxel_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply