Neon Genesis Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 This morning at my parents' church, the sermon was about how creation proves the existence of a creator and the preacher tried to use the fine tuning argument to prove the existence of God. He started out quoting the Psalms verse that says the fool says in their heart there is no god while at the same time saying that wasn't meant as an insult. Huh? The whole sermon was full of scientific inaccuracies, logical fallacies, and false dichotomies. He starts out setting up this false dichotomy that either God exists or he doesn't and that's the only two options but it's not really the only two options. There's also the third option of pantheism, that God is the natural universe itself. He uses the same cliched arguments creationists have always used, that you can't have a design without a designer and the Earth is placed in just the right location from the sun because if the Earth was even a little bit further away, we would freeze to death or if the Earth was just a little bit closer, we would all burn up. He then mistakenly claims that Earth is the only known planet in the universe capable of sustaining life but if he was keeping up with science news instead of reading out-dated and long since debunked creationist arguments, he would know we've already discovered an Earth-like planet in another galaxy. Even within our own solar system, we now know that Europa has the potential of sustaining alien life. The preacher used the cliche argument that the eye is too complex to have come about by accident and that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution even though this argument has long since been debunked by Dawkins and other biologists. His whole argument is a false dichotomy between creation and evolution. He didn't seem to understand that evolution and the origins of the universe are two different things and that evolution is about how the process of life arose, not how the universe was created. So even if evolution is disproved, it doesn't prove a creator and a creator doesn't disprove evolution. He then quoted some Christian apologist who said something about how when atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in everything and that you need God to provide morals and meaning. It just drove me nuts he kept spouting out all these scientific inaccuracies and arguments that scientists, both theists and atheists, have already debunked and why do creationists love false dichotomies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 It just drove me nuts he kept spouting out all these scientific inaccuracies and arguments that scientists, both theists and atheists, have already debunked and why do creationists love false dichotomies? Because, in their insular circles, it proves them right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 They are just soothing their congregants. If it keeps them quiet and keeps them paying their salaries, then mission accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I went to one service around easter time last year not exactly by choice, and he went on a tirade against atheists saying that they just don't want to believe and all. The laughable thing was they said they believed the bible by faith and he said it like it was a strong argument somehow. He did quote Nietzsche which was funny, but the rest of it was incredibly wrong. The long of the short of it is what oddbird said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeboh Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 He starts out setting up this false dichotomy that either God exists or he doesn't and that's the only two options but it's not really the only two options. There's also the third option of pantheism, that God is the natural universe itself. Well, that is a dichotomy. If God is the natural universe, then god exists. Something is either exists or it does not exist. And yeah, I think that pastor needs to read up on some scientific literature. Because, in their insular circles, it proves them right. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Re the argument that "atheists just don't want to believe." We've had so many discussions about that one on these exC forums and it simply isn't true about those of us who have done the hard work of thinking our way out of religion--against our own wishes, will, or desires. We have deconverted for the sake of personal integrity; belief is not a choice FOR US. But almost all the Christians we encounter say they "choose to believe in [their] God," etc., and "I want to believe this or that." I conclude it's the xians who "don't want to believe" when it comes to anything Darwinian. Such people are obviously not out for truth (despite what they might say to the contrary) but to preserve certain traditional age-old beliefs for their own sake. Of course, neither do they want to think--I've heard far too many Christians denigrate thinking to come to any other conclusion. But god forbid that anyone call them stupid. I guess what they want is something called "respect." I may not have to openly mock them (not to mention that they mock us openly...what with that verse about the fool that calls us stupid) but it is not possible for me to respect that kind of mindset. I think they should be rebuked for their self-delusion when/if the time is right. It is probably not the right time to rebuke one's parents' preacher, especially if it could get you kicked out of the house, but discussing the inconsistencies on these public forums can possibly do some good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I get upset with the argument, "A design must have a designer." Because it's actually unknown to the person making the argument that they're refuting their own claim in a paradox called infinite recursion: Absolutely. And there's another problem with "a design must have a designer" which is how to define what a "design" is. The common way of setting up the design argument is something like this. "We look at a painting, and it looks like it was painted, so there must be a painter. When we look at a tree, it looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer." The problem is that it compares a painting to all the non-painting objects. All the non-painting objects are not painted and hence does not have a painter. So it would work the same for the tree. The tree looks like it is designed compared to all non-tree objects that do not look like their designed, so what happens then to all these objects? If we compare a painting to chaos, a painting is ordered and created, but it also means that the chaos is not, otherwise we couldn't even begin the comparison. Did that make sense? I don't know. I'm not sure I can explain it well. It's like the argument that there's a certain probability for the universe to be so ordered. The problem there is that you can't know the probability unless you have all the states of the matter to compare to. The probability of me having the same number of hair on my head as you can be calculated because we can make a comparison between other humans and their hair count. How can we establish a probability of the ordered universe unless we first accept a large number of non-ordered universes to compare to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Even if you accepted the premises of the design argument, it's still a false dichotomy because the question of design is a different question from the process of how life arose. Even if you accepted the universe was created by a designer, you still have to explain how that designer created the universe and saying "Goddidit" is not an explanation and the Genesis accounts are completely contradictory and irreconcilable with each other. There's no reason why a designer can't have created evolution and even creationists like Micheal Behe admits he believes in evolution when he's not speaking to creationist circles. The other problem is that even accepting the design argument, it doesn't prove who the designer is but Christians automatically assume the designer must be their god. They can't use the bible to prove it because that's circular logic and the bible is too contradictory to be the perfect product of a divine designer. The best the design argument can get you is to deism but anything else beyond that is making unreasonable assumptions. Even if we assume the Christian god is real, that doesn't mean God acts and thinks the way Christians assume it does. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 He then mistakenly claims that Earth is the only known planet in the universe capable of sustaining life but if he was keeping up with science news instead of reading out-dated and long since debunked creationist arguments, he would know we've already discovered an Earth-like planet in another galaxy. Even within our own solar system, we now know that Europa has the potential of sustaining alien life. I'm curious as to which planets you are referring when you claim that there are other known life-sustaining planets. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 He then mistakenly claims that Earth is the only known planet in the universe capable of sustaining life but if he was keeping up with science news instead of reading out-dated and long since debunked creationist arguments, he would know we've already discovered an Earth-like planet in another galaxy. Even within our own solar system, we now know that Europa has the potential of sustaining alien life. I'm curious as to which planets you are referring when you claim that there are other known life-sustaining planets. LNC I think he's referring to Gliese 581G, and he said "capable of sustaining life," not "life-sustaining." There's a difference begin capable of (possible to provide the environment for) and actually (knowingly) having it. I subscribe to a planet update software, and there's a new planet (or more) discovered about every month. Most of them are not habitable, but some are potentially having what we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think he's referring to Gliese 581G, and he said "capable of sustaining life," not "life-sustaining." There's a difference begin capable of (possible to provide the environment for) and actually (knowingly) having it. I subscribe to a planet update software, and there's a new planet (or more) discovered about every month. Most of them are not habitable, but some are potentially having what we need. I figured that was the set of planets to which he was referring. The problem is that it has not been confirmed that these planets are capable of sustaining life, or that they even exist. Here is an article (one of many that can be found with this info from a simple Google search) that says that the research team may have gotten their measurements wrong. We must be careful when making these sweeping assessments based upon sketchy research and data. Apparently, Neon was a bit premature in condemning this pastor and guilty of that for which he has accused others - not keeping up with the latest information. Whether or not these planets exist or have the requirements for sustaining life, it is always best to wait until other research has confirmed the findings before jumping on the bandwagon. In the case of this research, that has not happened yet. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Whether the new planet can possibly sustain life, we already know that Europa has the capabilities for sustaining life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Love Dog Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 There have been and still are, many creator gods in human history. All societies that believed in a creator god thought they "had it right". There's no reason at all to believe that Christians have got it right. Creator gods were themselves created out of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, in Christianity as in all other religions that had a creator god. If indeed, there is/was a creator god, which one is/was it? Will the real creator please stand up? No takers? Of course not. It's delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 My dad frequently would give evidence for Creation sermons at our church growing up. Its one of his favorite things. His information was always so off. He relied heavily on the bible and used the flood to explain all the inconsistencies with the evidence. As if that actually explained anything. He used the fine tuning argument too. Even as a kid I wondered how on earth they could give a probability for our universe existing. Its just a silly numbers game. I thought we'd found evidence that bacteria once lived on Mars but I could be mistaken. I don't follow these things as closely as I should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPhoenix Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think he's referring to Gliese 581G, and he said "capable of sustaining life," not "life-sustaining." There's a difference begin capable of (possible to provide the environment for) and actually (knowingly) having it. I subscribe to a planet update software, and there's a new planet (or more) discovered about every month. Most of them are not habitable, but some are potentially having what we need. I figured that was the set of planets to which he was referring. The problem is that it has not been confirmed that these planets are capable of sustaining life, or that they even exist. Here is an article (one of many that can be found with this info from a simple Google search) that says that the research team may have gotten their measurements wrong. We must be careful when making these sweeping assessments based upon sketchy research and data. Apparently, Neon was a bit premature in condemning this pastor and guilty of that for which he has accused others - not keeping up with the latest information. Whether or not these planets exist or have the requirements for sustaining life, it is always best to wait until other research has confirmed the findings before jumping on the bandwagon. In the case of this research, that has not happened yet. LNC The point is that the pastor was using the presumed uniqueness of earth's life sustaining qualities as supporting evidence of God's existance. With our limited resources, humanity has its own evidence that there are other planets with life sustaining properties. From a scientific standpoint, the uniqueness of earth has to be removed as an argument. I think Neon was dead on in identifying a poor argument in the pastor's position. Neon's point doesn't disprove the pastor, but it does remove the pastors argument from the mix. As athesists/agnostics/pantheists/wiccans/anything but christians, we aren't concerned with proving to anyone that god does't exist. We don't care what you believe, but you seem awefully invested in what we believe. Look at your bible. The 1st century church was concerend wtih recruiting, but if people didn't want to join, they just chalked them up as hell kindling and left the heathens alone. Did they try to stop the heathens from worshiping or not worshiping something? No. Did they try to prove their point over and over to them? No. All they wanted was to be left in peace and allowed to tell their story. That is a far cry from Christians today. If the churches just tried to get people to come and only pestered them once and then left them alone, no biggie. However, christians today aren't satistifed with that. They want to tell the rest of us who we can marry, if we can sell alcohol on a certain day of the week, who we can sleep with, etc. The list goes on and on. Worship who you want and leave the rest of us alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think he's referring to Gliese 581G, and he said "capable of sustaining life," not "life-sustaining." There's a difference begin capable of (possible to provide the environment for) and actually (knowingly) having it. I subscribe to a planet update software, and there's a new planet (or more) discovered about every month. Most of them are not habitable, but some are potentially having what we need. I figured that was the set of planets to which he was referring. The problem is that it has not been confirmed that these planets are capable of sustaining life, or that they even exist. Here is an article (one of many that can be found with this info from a simple Google search) that says that the research team may have gotten their measurements wrong. Yes, you're right. I remember getting that news now, when you mentioned it. We must be careful when making these sweeping assessments based upon sketchy research and data. Apparently, Neon was a bit premature in condemning this pastor and guilty of that for which he has accused others - not keeping up with the latest information. Whether or not these planets exist or have the requirements for sustaining life, it is always best to wait until other research has confirmed the findings before jumping on the bandwagon. In the case of this research, that has not happened yet. LNC Sure. But be ready anyway. The next five years might be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foolish girl Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 For the preacher...and anyone who cares. Carl Sagan explains the probability of life on other planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizened Sage Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 "...he would know we've already discovered an Earth-like planet in another galaxy." Actually, not so. Other planets, possibly earth-like ones, have indeed been discovered, but only in our own galaxy. The closest galaxy to ours is much too far away to detect any planets in it. However, on the whole, your post was very interesting, and, as you point out, that preacher is incredibly ignorant when it comes to science. How I would love to debate that dunce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 This "the uniqueness of Earth's life-sustaining capabilities" argument is contradictory in Christian theology anyway because according to Christian theology, there are in fact other worlds where life exists. There's heaven and hell which are other worlds where Christians claim God and Satan live forever. So either Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life and heaven and hell don't exist or there are other dimensions where supernatural beings live for eternity and Earth is not a unique home to life in the universe but Christians can't have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This "the uniqueness of Earth's life-sustaining capabilities" argument is contradictory in Christian theology anyway because according to Christian theology, there are in fact other worlds where life exists. There's heaven and hell which are other worlds where Christians claim God and Satan live forever. So either Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life and heaven and hell don't exist or there are other dimensions where supernatural beings live for eternity and Earth is not a unique home to life in the universe but Christians can't have both. Exactly. When Christians use the argument that this current world, this universe, is perfect and it couldn't have been created any other way. If that's true, that a world could not be in any other way, then Heaven and Hell must be exactly like this world. If they argue that Heaven is more perfect, then it just stops making sense. Something can be good, and something can be better, but you can never have anything better than best. So if this world is the perfect world (best), then Heaven can't be better. On the other hand, if Heaven is better or "more perfect" than this world, then this world is not perfect or best. It's quite simple, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This "the uniqueness of Earth's life-sustaining capabilities" argument is contradictory in Christian theology anyway because according to Christian theology, there are in fact other worlds where life exists. There's heaven and hell which are other worlds where Christians claim God and Satan live forever. So either Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life and heaven and hell don't exist or there are other dimensions where supernatural beings live for eternity and Earth is not a unique home to life in the universe but Christians can't have both. Exactly. When Christians use the argument that this current world, this universe, is perfect and it couldn't have been created any other way. If that's true, that a world could not be in any other way, then Heaven and Hell must be exactly like this world. If they argue that Heaven is more perfect, then it just stops making sense. Something can be good, and something can be better, but you can never have anything better than best. So if this world is the perfect world (best), then Heaven can't be better. On the other hand, if Heaven is better or "more perfect" than this world, then this world is not perfect or best. It's quite simple, really. Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Isn't the argument that it was created perfect (Eden) and we (humans) fucked it up? In regards to humanity and the idea of sin, life, etc, yes, but not the physical laws. I wasn't clear or explained that I was focused on the idea that this world has perfect physical laws. Everything is fine tuned, according to the argument, and it says that there are no other way a universe could be made. We wouldn't exist if just one little thingy was different. If that's true, Heaven and Hell as real worlds must be fine tuned the exact same way. But on the other hand, if Heaven and Hell are "fine tuned" in a different way, then our world's "fine tuning" isn't the only one possible, but there could be an infinite numbers of other ways of tuning a universe. There should at least be three or four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Even the Catholic church thinks the fine tuning argument is utter nonsense: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/13/2742484.htm But perhaps not too interesting, according to Dr Paul Collins, a former priest and now Church historian and Catholic commentator. He says a belief in extraterrestrial life does not necessarily contradict any basic tenets of the Catholic religion. "I would think that our response would be a positive one," he said. "I'm not infallible on this of course, but the reality is that I don't think it does contradict anything within Catholicism. "Essentially what the Christian faith generally is saying and certainly Catholicism specifically is saying is that God is the ultimate source of life, the ultimate source of reality." The views of the Catholic Church have shifted radically since the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating other worlds could be inhabited. The Vatican Observatory has been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science and today senior clergy openly endorse scientific ideas such as the big bang theory and evolution. And Dr Collins sees no problem with where aliens might fit in with the belief that man was created in God's image. "Every creature reflects the goodness and the creativity of God. Humankind, we certainly would argue that we represent that most fully and most completely," he said. "But all of creation represents God's creativity. So any extraterrestrial being would certainly represent that creativity as well and may be or may not be more developed than we are." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Whether the new planet can possibly sustain life, we already know that Europa has the capabilities for sustaining life. Do we really? I don't think that has actually been confirmed, only speculated so far. I think that at best there is speculation about liquid water under the ice, but no confirmation of that will be available for another 10-15 years when the Europa Jupiter System Mission is launched. So, no we really don't know that Europa has the capabilities for sustaining life, we only have conjecture. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 There have been and still are, many creator gods in human history. All societies that believed in a creator god thought they "had it right". There's no reason at all to believe that Christians have got it right. Creator gods were themselves created out of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, in Christianity as in all other religions that had a creator god. If indeed, there is/was a creator god, which one is/was it? Will the real creator please stand up? No takers? Of course not. It's delusional. There's no reason to believe that the God is Judeo Christianity is the wrong God simply because others have proposed differing ideas of God. There is no reason as well to believe that the God worshiped by Christians was created out of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is not necessarily the only type of knowledge or even the determining factor as to whether an idea is true. Scientists have also proposed incorrect theories and ideas over the years. For example, now there are many theories regarding the origin of the universe, should we conclude that because there are competing theories that they all are wrong? That would be an illogical conclusion, just as it is illogical to conclude that since there are varying understandings of who God is that they are all wrong. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts