House of Eratosthenes

Recently, a “physicist” by the name of Lawrence Krauss claimed that “all scientists should be militant atheists.” On the contrary, any scientist who is not a theist is incompetent.

Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity. To see this, unpack the definition of “God.” The word “supernatural” literally means “above nature,” or outside of space and time, and not subject to the laws of physics…the cosmological singularity is the cause of everything that exists, but is itself uncaused.
:
So now that we know that God is the cosmological singularity, the question of God’s existence is now a question of physics: Does the cosmological singularity exist?

If we accept the laws of physics, the answer is yes.

It’s an interesting summation of the argument. One might accuse Tipler of transmogrifying the dispute away from “Is there a God?” to “Is there a causative agent existing outside of space and time?” But if you’ve ever watched people wrestle with these accusations that the faithful are the ones displaying incompetence, you know that this is exactly what’s being debated. It’s chicken-and-egg, with “things that exist in space and time” being the egg.

I’m less interested in the final answer, than in the methods being used in the argument. Those who assert that the secular types are the ones who have it right, look exactly like what the Christians say we all are: flawed mortals, stained with the sin of Adam and unable to do anything about it, flailing around within an earthly dominion for an answer that exists well outside of it, with our understanding of what lies beyond limited in ways we can’t even assess. We don’t even know the true magnitude of what we don’t know.

From the comments:

Anyone that believes in an invisible sky wizard are [sic] insane.

Those who doubt, at least share the doubt with swelling ranks of sophists like this one. Rhetoric-people. The ones who place all their faith in the cosmetic outcomes of shouting matches, ignoring the metaphysical.

Many among them have this perception that the belief in God is merely a wallowing-around in comforting pablum, a belief in a deity not very much different from a child’s belief in the Tooth Fairy. Atheism, supposedly, is something outside of religion, the final embracing of the scientific method. Yet they do not object when their ranks are infiltrated by persons like the above, who do not use the scientific method.

And ask them how the universe came to be, sometime, without God. They do have an answer, and the answer defies the cosmological singularity, asserting that all things existing within space and time, were caused by other things within space and time. But you will quickly find that this doesn’t use the scientific method either, it uses the method of “It is that way because I say it is that way,” just like “they’re insane because I say they’re insane.”

It isn’t a trivial task to come up with proof that there is a God, but I find it way-easy to provide the proof that atheism is a religion. It is far easier than proving a liar is telling a lie, because when you look at how people arrive at their opinions and how they comment on it all, you see people tend to be consistently and refreshingly honest about this. They’re all too eager to share the innards of how they came to think a certain thing. Even when there are no innards. “I just decided that, and look how emphatically I’m repeating it, look at all the passion I have about it.”

To which they would object, I’m quite sure, that the above is the very definition of a church service. And that’s a fair point. But it’s like declaring yourself to be a transformative figure after you become President of the United States, and then spending your entire time in that office hiding behind the “other guy did it too” defense after every misstep. Atheism, in a very similar way, overpromises and underdelivers. It says: “Stop forming beliefs using the religious method, use the scientific method instead — gather the facts, form the theories, validate them by way of experimentation, decide what you believe after all of that. Like this…” And then it doesn’t do it.

My journey back from atheism took way longer than it should have, but it started here:

Anyone that believes in an invisible sky wizard are [sic] insane.

Nope. ANY explanation for the origin of the universe starts with a Singularity, a Big Bang, an Unmoved Mover — that is, something which by definition is above and beyond the laws of physics as they currently operate, e.g. something literally supernatural. Aristotle knocked all this out 2500 years ago.

And the only honorable alternative — arguments that the universe has always existed — are contradicted by our current understanding of physics, so no good little atheist can go against them… it wouldn’t be scientific.

People who claim to be smarter and better informed than the herd, in other words, can only do so through abysmal ignorance of basic Western cultural history. What you want to say, my atheist chums, is that you don’t like Jesus, whom you’ve confused with your Daddy. Which is a perfectly honorable position, provided you just say so… in the full knowledge that this doesn’t make you smarter or better than the rest of us, but rather just another tiresome bratty teenager.
- Severian | 12/21/2015 @ 13:30
“ANY explanation for the origin of the universe starts with a Singularity, a Big Bang, an Unmoved Mover…”
Science-BELIEVERS. In caps. Everyone here knows the type I’m talking about…liberal and/or atheist that screams ‘SCIENCE’ only when they think it benefits the argument. In the anti-Creationist screeds that always come up from discussions with the SB’s, I ask “Yep, ok…Big Bang. Where did the elements come from? What set them in motion?” That instantly shuts the conversation down. You see…THAT’s not important, it’s distracting from the fanatic quasi-religious science BELIEF. You must believe that their argument is correct, because science is always correct, and their argument cannot be wrong, because science is never wrong.

I have a good friend that is amazed because I believe in natural selection, but not selective evolution. Natural selection is demonstrably observable and provable. Selective evolution is not, and has never been. Hence the BELIEVERS constantly extending the age of the Earth, and flying spaghetti-monster leaps in logic like “evolutionary jumps.” (See, we can’t observe it and it’s never been documented, but I BELIEVE, so evolution must have jumped ahead magically years back before humans existed) I simply cannot explain it clearly enough. I realized after years of arguments and explanations that it will never be explained to him, because it conflicts with the BELIEF.
- P_Ang | 12/22/2015 @ 12:52
I know exactly what you mean. It’s why I tell Proggies that I’m the only guy I know who really believes in evolution.

Evolution requires hierarchy. If some individual animals aren’t superior to others, and if that superiority isn’t heritable, then evolution fails.

Which means that “equality” is impossible.

Which means the bedrock principle of Progressivism is a scientific impossibility. Moreover, any attempts to impose it are in fact detrimental to the human species, in the same way that purebred dogs suffer all kinds of inherited problems.

Which makes liberalism not just unscientific, but positively dystopian. That is, unless science’s BFFs over there on the left can point out the exact moment where evolution ceased to operate in humans, and only in humans…..
- Severian | 12/22/2015 @ 13:30
I find it quite interesting that this debate, such as it is, is taking place a mere couple days before Christmas, the most holy days of Christians.

I guess my question is – why? If you’re so convinced, so absolutely correct in your beliefs why the need to defend you position, to call out non-believers at this time?

I really enjoyed Sev’s Strawman argument and name calling, especially considering his previous held atheism.

Anyways, I wish you all, sincerely, a very Merry Christmas. If you don’t appreciate it coming from an Atheist, that’s your issue not mine.
- tim | 12/23/2015 @ 10:16
I really enjoyed Sev’s Strawman argument

What part of my argument is a straw man? Wait… you don’t seriously believe that my “evolution invalidates Progressivism” comment is an attack on atheism…..?

and name calling

Who did I call a name, and what name did I call him? The only “names” I can see in my comment are “Proggies” and “science’s BFFs.” And since Proggies call themselves Proggies, and they most certainly posture as science’s bestest friends, I’m not seeing the insult there. Huh… attacking a position that the other person doesn’t hold. Wish there was a name for that.

especially considering his previous held atheism.

Interesting. So it’s impossible to change one’s mind in the light of new evidence? I believe that’s called “dogma,” and I thought atheists were against it….?

But hey, that’s the internet for you. I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas as well.
- Severian | 12/24/2015 @ 10:52
A very merry Christmas to you and yours, small tee tim.
- mkfreeberg | 12/24/2015 @ 12:25
Evolutionists often say that Christians just believe in creation because they’re biased. They don’t dare look at the facts or objectively evaluate the evidence because it might contradict their beliefs. Only atheists can look at the evidence fairly and objectively.

But think about that for a moment. In reality, it is atheists who can’t study the question objectively. Only a Christian can afford to be objective on this issue.

If a Christian carefully studied the facts and concluded that evolution was true, he might have to adjust his beliefs a little, but there’s no inherent reason why he’d have to give up his most fundamental beliefs, he could still believe that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is God come to Earth. The simple proof of this is that there are a lot of Christians out there who believe that evolution is true.

But if an atheist carefully studied the facts and concluded that creation was true, there is no way that he could continue to be an atheist. If he accepts creation, he must abandon his most cherished beliefs about the nature of the universe and his place in it.

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. You can’t be an atheist and believe in creation. So an atheist cannot examine the question objectively unless he is prepared to radically change his beliefs. The Christian doesn’t have that problem. The Christian can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The atheist can’t.
- saneperson | 02/05/2016 @ 12:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Proof God ExistsSunday, December 20th, 2015

Proof God Exists
Sunday, December 20th, 2015