Jump to content

God And Science Website


neuro
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/a...html#Objections

 

I got this link from my ex girlfriend of whom the only reason why we broke up was because I am such a skeptic and she's a devout follower.

 

I have to admit, I feel like a bit of a fool looking at some explanations because I made claims about the Christian god that weren't educated attacks on Christianity. However, some of the answers they have are so pourous it's amazing... absolutely amazing. Other examples need such scrutinization and reinterpertation of the bible that it doesn't do much for someone who was a skeptic. If we were all open for interperation of which denomination was correct in their understanding, then christianity as a whole lacks a basis. for example, articles such as:

 

- People could not live 900+ years: Long Life Spans- "Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died"

- Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

- Why Does the God of the Old Testament Seem So Cruel and Judgmental?

- Does God command wives to obey their husbands?

- Is the Virgin Birth Scientifically Impossible? [ this one really, really, really bothered me next to the day age interpertation one ]

 

and the one that made me feel like i didn't know the tenants of christianity, but then again i've heard otherwise:

- What will happen to the people who have never heard of Jesus Christ? - Will they all burn in hell?

 

anyways, has anyone ventured into this site to take a peek?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the introduction to this site and am entirely unimpressed. It’s just more of the same tired objections and misuses of quotes from atheists in the scientific community.

 

Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

 

The Bible is no more an accurate historical record of events than are the Iliad, the Odyssey, or Gone with the Wind! There is no reason to trust that it is any more true than these other literary epics. The fact that “90% of what is described [in the Bible] is purely naturalistic” has nothing to do with the 10% that is supposed to be supernatural. We write about what we know.

 

The author of this article is also erecting a straw man to attack by claiming there are skeptics who claim supernatural events never occur. Until any event can be proven to be supernatural the point is moot. Until that time, events which have no readily evident natural cause are simply inexplicable. We’ve not yet determined cause, but we’re not about to write it off as “supernatural.” Falling back on the “supernatural” to explain the as of yet unknown should have died out with the dark ages.

 

The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

 

Correction, the KNOWN physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges. There is an entire universe out there. We know how many things work here, on our speck of dust in that universe, but not all. How are we to say that the laws of physics elsewhere in this vast macrocosm MUST work precisely as they do here? We make this assumption because we have nothing else on which to base our theory. As of yet, we have no reason to believe they should work differently anywhere else. Once we are able to travel to other points beyond our solar system, perhaps we will find that the laws of physics we thought we knew do not govern universally. We don’t know. But is that any reason then to throw up our hands and exclaim, “God did it!” Hardly. We simply do not know the answers. There’s no need to invoke the supernatural. There IS an answer there somewhere.

 

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

 

Skeptics and atheists believe that theories should be able to be supported by observational evidence. That is standard scientific method. But NO, they are not, for the most part, intolerant of beliefs that contradict observational evidence. What they ARE intolerant of is those who attempt to impose these beliefs on everyone else. There are of course going to be “militant atheists” just as much as there are militant Christians, militant Muslims, etc, etc. These people most likely treat their atheism as a religion despite the fact that they are probably the most vociferously objectionable to the claim that atheism is its own religion. Nevertheless, this argument is incorrect in its assumptions. Atheists and skeptics don’t generally hunt out people with irrational beliefs, but simply speak their mind when those irrational beliefs are foisted upon them.

 

 

I’m beginning to see a pattern for those who absolutely must believe in a god of some sort. They can’t accept “We don’t know” as an answer. The author of this website puts forth a lot of “scientific evidence” that I’m not entirely convinced he truly understands. I know I don’t understand a lot of it. I try my best to digest it all, but I leave it up to the competent hands and minds of our world’s scientific community to test the theories and come up with appropriate conclusions. The fact of the matter is that the majority of those in science are NOT people of “faith.” The number with no belief in any “personal god” continues to grow. A survey conducted in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University showed that at that time, only 40% of those surveyed “expressed belief in a supreme being.” The same type of survey conducted in 1997 showed that the number had dropped drastically from 40% to 7%! Wouldn’t this tend to show that the “evidence” for god is sparse and they evidence for the contrary is much more convincing?

 

Since the board has changed, I can't figure out how to do the inline links, so here's the URL to the source for my information about the surveys.

 

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.