Website: Answers For Atheists And Agnostics

[♦ ficino ♦]

I came across this website today:

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

 

It looks like the usual "spin" apologetics. Case in point: attacks the position that "the universe just created itself." Already the framing of the question looks like it's setting up a straw man.

 

Also resolves biblical contradictions, moral objections to the God of the Bible, etc.

 

Looks really deep. lol

 

I may come back to look at it more closely later on. Anyone already been on there?

[mcdaddy]

Typical bible quoting bullshit. "atheists are wrong because the bible says differently".

[bornagainathiest]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

2.

The second part involves setting up an impossible task and then drawing a false conclusion from the inevitable failure of the challenge-takers. It is (currently) an impossible task for any human to design a universe that has to operate within the parameters laid down in this website. The Christians know this. They know it and have deliberately set the bar impossibly high, knowing that nobody can succeed in meeting the challenge.

 

The challenge-taker is required to deal with the following issues:

1. Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?
    
   
2. What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?
    
   
3. How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?
    
   
4. What will you do with those beings who break your rules?
    
   
5. What laws of physics will you use?
   

The challenge-taker is required to deal with the following aspects of fundamental physics:

1. Strong nuclear force (keeps protons within atomic nuclei from flying away)
    
   
2. Weak nuclear force (responsible for phenomena within the atomic nucleus, such as radioactive decay)
    
   
3. Gravity (attraction between masses)
    
   
4. Electromagnetic force (which governs interactions of charged particles)
   

The challenge-taker is required to deal with the following theological issues:

1. Your universe must allow for the existence of sentient creatures.
    
   
2. These sentient creatures must have the ability to make moral choices.
    
   
3. Your universe must operate by physical laws that are reliable, so that the sentient creatures will be able to interact reliably with their surroundings and each other.
    
   
4. Your universe must declare your power and glory.
   

Further traps for the challenge-taker are laid out via these links:

• Does the Presence of Natural Evil Argue Against the Existence of God? Why Natural Evil Must Exist - This is an excellent place to start, since if you keep the laws of physics the same as they are now, you are going to end up with a lot of natural "evil."
  
• General Introduction for Non-Believers
  
• There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist?
  
• Atheists have Proven God Does Not Exist. Right?
  
• The Extradimensional Nature of God
  

So, even if someone can satisfy all 13 requirements successfully, the Christians have used these links to add a veritable minefield of philosophical, theological, cosmological and ethical points that they can use to catch the challenge-taker out with. (Stacking the deck as high as you can, huh? Which fruit of the spirit is that? Very "Christian" behavior, I'm sure!)

 

The false conclusion that the Christian's hope to draw, following the inevitable failure of anyone foolish enough to take up their challenge is that if you fail...

 

(and they've done their darndest to make sure you will!)

 

...then God MUST have designed the universe.

 

False conclusion!

 

The proper conclusion is that a proof of God's design of the universe does not rest with the success or failure of this stupid challenge. These two issues are not linked.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

It's a cluster of fallacies. I've sampled a few links and get nothing but garbage. Notice they don't put up feedback from anybody who knows what they are talking about? They don't want a dialog. They want to preach.

 

B.T.W. that website is a good example for the other thread about Christians being able to understand atheists.

[centauri]

I came across this website today:

 

http://www.godandsci...cs/answers.html

 

It looks like the usual "spin" apologetics. Case in point: attacks the position that "the universe just created itself." Already the framing of the question looks like it's setting up a straw man.

 

Also resolves biblical contradictions, moral objections to the God of the Bible, etc.

 

Looks really deep. lol

 

I may come back to look at it more closely later on. Anyone already been on there?

Having just read the section "Was Jesus God?", I found the evidence to be completely self-serving and superficial.

It contains the usual apologetics relying on circular logic, taking Old Testament verses out of context, and ignoring claims by Jesus and other New Testament writers that he was not God.

It also assumes -but never establishes- that Jesus was actually a valid king messiah.

The answer provided to this question was the equivalent of an empty calorie "Happy Meal".

[mymistake]

Unicorn doubters tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the unicorn doubters who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. However, recently, the "new unicorn doubters" think that they can prove the non-existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns through science. Although science cannot directly detect Invisible Pink Unicorns, it can examine unicorn creation. For example, the rainbow . . .

 

I bet the ideas on that website works just as well for supporting the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[♦ ficino ♦]

They say that to posit an intelligent creator is a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe than to posit a past-eternal multiverse or the like:

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

 

Here's an excerpt from the page linked above. I've bolded some stuff that strikes me as particularly dumb:

"Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expectedto produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it."

 

Demanding motives and wants of the super universe begs the question; it already slips in the anthropomorphic stuff that creation myths assign to their first cause. Appeal to God is not a simpler explanation; they merely assert that it is. Evidence for design - again, question begging. And I think Anthony Flew has not become a theist, as they sort of suggest.

[bornagainathiest]

They say that to posit an intelligent creator is a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe than to posit a past-eternal multiverse or the like:

 

http://www.godandsci...s_god_real.html

 

Here's an excerpt from the page linked above. I've bolded some stuff that strikes me as particularly dumb:

"Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expectedto produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it."

 

Demanding motives and wants of the super universe begs the question; it already slips in the anthropomorphic stuff that creation myths assign to their first cause. Appeal to God is not a simpler explanation; they merely assert that it is. Evidence for design - again, question begging. And I think Anthony Flew has not become a theist, as they sort of suggest.

 

Quite so, Ficino.

 

I should also point out that the name of this site is GodandScience.

So, where is it within the remit of natural science to arrive at a super-natural conclusion about anything? The answer is, of course, nowhere in bona fide natural science.

 

When science cannot provide a natural explanation for something, then the proper conclusion to make is that science cannot provide an answer. That and only that. That and nothing more. To go beyond that is to go beyond the remit and purpose of science, into metaphysics or religion. What science cannot and should not do is to draw a metaphysical or religious conclusion, either from scientific data or from an absence of scientific data. Science can only draw scientific conclusions - nothing more.

 

Also, the 'Appeal to God' as an explanation, is invalid within science, because science can only draw Naturalistic conclusions, not Super-Natural ones. As such, Occam's Razor can be applied to either science or metaphysics, but not this website's invalid hybrid of both.

 

BAA.

[mcdaddy]

Flew is a deist. I read his book.

[bornagainathiest]

They say that to posit an intelligent creator is a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe than to posit a past-eternal multiverse or the like:

 

http://www.godandsci...s_god_real.html

 

Here's an excerpt from the page linked above. I've bolded some stuff that strikes me as particularly dumb:

"Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable.

 

Actually, this is just not true.

 

The Multiverse can be tested for.

Cosmologists are looking forward to examining the data from the Planck satellite, which has been surveying the Cosmic Microwave Background since 2009. They have made predictions about this. That is the test which the Christians claim cannot be made. If their predictions are verified, this will be strong evidence for a Multiverse and the test will be deemed to have been satisfied.

 

However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this?

 

It doesn't.

 

As Ficino has pointed out, this is hopelessly anthropomorphic language. A hailstone doesn't 'know' that it has to fall to the ground. It does so when it's weight becomes too great for the air to support it. There is an interplay of blind forces at work here. Gravity overcomes air resistance and the hailstone falls. Neither gravity, nor the air, nor the hailstone had to 'know' anything. They are simply natural forces, interacting according to natural principles. That's all.

 

Science is the study of nature. Therefore, it's right and proper that science is the best tool for accurately describing how nature behaves according to it's natural principles. To have to appeal to super-natural causes and persons to explain the natural universe is to step outside of science and into metaphysics and/or religion. That is a definite no-no!

 

Nature is, by definition, inert, unaware and unconscious. To invest it with thoughts and intentions and feelings is to abandon science and embrace superstition. The site in question is called 'God and Science' and it's quite clear that the Christian's running it want to subvert science and force it to serve their superstitious beliefs. Is that really how it should be? On a level playing field, science and religion should be equal but separate players, right? Neither encroaching on the other's turf?

 

Why would it even want to do this?

 

Same answer as above.

 

Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expectedto produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it."

 

Demanding motives and wants of the super universe begs the question; it already slips in the anthropomorphic stuff that creation myths assign to their first cause. Appeal to God is not a simpler explanation; they merely assert that it is. Evidence for design - again, question begging. And I think Anthony Flew has not become a theist, as they sort of suggest.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[OrdinaryClay]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

You are clearly mistaken. You did not seem to read past the title. His challenge is for those who claim miss-design in the universe proves no God.

 

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God's involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

[TrueFreedom]

Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gapsreasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".^[12]

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.^[36] In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.

Additionally, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."^[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

[Spectrox]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

You are clearly mistaken. You did not seem to read past the title. His challenge is for those who claim miss-design in the universe proves no God.

 

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God's involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

To do the job properly OC we would clearly have to have 2 universes side by side, one with God and one without God. So it is impossible because we only have this universe.

Hence the reason that most ex-christians don't assert "there definitely is no God" only "we no longer believe in this Christian-flavoured God" or "none of the God claims I've heard about various religions are convincing." Most Christians I have encountered on the web try to shift the burdon of proof constantly. The burdon of proof (about any claim whether about God or not) is on the claimant (the theist in this case). Most people on this site have come to the conclusion that Christians and the Bible have utterly failed to meet that burdon of proof because they are unable to provide any good evidence at all as to why we should take their claims seriously. For centuries, people have been skeptical of God claims. This to me is evidence that religions have failed to satisfy that onus of proof. If God exists, why can't he be more clear about his very important message for mankind? Why rely on text written using languages that die out? Why rely on gossip and rumour? What's wrong with telepathy?

 

Your God, if he exists, is amazingly dumb at getting out his crucially important message. Maybe he doesn't care enough about that message? In which case, he's not worthy of me sucking up to him. I won't be a sycophant to an idea (and a bad one at that). The only things that will convince me are evidence, logic and reasoned argument.

 

The Bible is a basic failure in communication.

[OrdinaryClay]

Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gapsreasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".^[12]

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not.^[36] In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.

Additionally, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."^[37]

 

http://en.wikipedia....-tuned_Universe

 

Thank you, and I do understand the atheist arguments. Very well in fact. I'm also familiar with Stenger.

 

Stenger, and Dawkins, think everything is a "god of gaps argument.", which is simply begging the question on their part. They assume materialism to prove materialism. The question of the fine tuning of the universe is taken very, very seriously by many physicists, and they are perplexed. The science at the moment shows it is currently outside the realm of science to define why the universe has the parameters it does.

 

How do you know the universe is not the best one possible for life? Just because human suffering exists does not mean the design is not optimized given the constraints. All designs work under constraints. The website in the OP simply asks for a better design. If you cannot provide one then you cannot claim what we have is worse. For example, a self healing machine, which is what living organisms are, how would you design a self healing machine?

 

Stenger is very wrong on the carbon based life speculation. He should avoid biology as he is clearly out of his league. Biologists, and exobiologists do in fact believe carbon based life is the only option. The reasons are many, but mostly because of our recent discoveries of the inner machinery of life. The chemistry needed is only satisfied by organic chemistry.

 

Here are some further links ...

 

Teleological Argument

http://www.leaderu.c...docs/teleo.html

 

Robin Collins

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

[OrdinaryClay]

Here is the Craig/Stenger debate. Stenger is very unimpressive in this debate.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

You are clearly mistaken. You did not seem to read past the title. His challenge is for those who claim miss-design in the universe proves no God.

 

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God's involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

To do the job properly OC we would clearly have to have 2 universes side by side, one with God and one without God. So it is impossible because we only have this universe.

 

To demonstrate one can design a better universe simply requires designing one. No need for assuming God had anything to do with any of them. This is the challenge. Design a better universe.

[Spectrox]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

You are clearly mistaken. You did not seem to read past the title. His challenge is for those who claim miss-design in the universe proves no God.

 

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God's involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

To do the job properly OC we would clearly have to have 2 universes side by side, one with God and one without God. So it is impossible because we only have this universe.

 

To demonstrate one can design a better universe simply requires designing one. No need for assuming God had anything to do with any of them. This is the challenge. Design a better universe.

 

This is such a waste of time. Even if a genius designed another universe, using a supercomputer, how do we assess whether or not it's better? All we have to work with is this one.

 

Actually, I've just had a revelation about designing a better universe ... a universe that doesn't contain BS religious claims!

[par4dcourse]

WLC is just as big a moron as those who listen to his tripe.

 

http://www.infidels.org/ for some rational thought.

[bornagainathiest]

From that website, Ficino.

 

http://www.godandsci...andobetter.html

 

This is a two-part trap, relying on logical fallacies to trick the challenge-taker.

 

1.

"I Can Design A Better Universe Than God Did!"

This is simply 'begging the question'. http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

The 'fact' that God designed the universe is implicit in the challenge, which asks you to do better than him. Any challenge that uses such a logical fallacy is either incompetently worded or (more likely) deliberately seeking to bamboozle the reader.

 

You are clearly mistaken. You did not seem to read past the title. His challenge is for those who claim miss-design in the universe proves no God.

 

Okay. Here is your chance to design a universe that is better than the one we live in. Many people claim that the poor design of our universe and/or God's involvement or lack thereof results in a universe that is unacceptable. In order to present a thorough model, please address all the following issues:

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

 

YOU are the clearly mistaken one, my impetuous 'friend'.

 

Please note that I am not one one of the those, "many people".

Please indicate where in this thread that I said this universe was miss-designed.

Can't find where I said that?

 

That's because I never said it. Nor have I even said that I agree with it.

 

You've made the cardinal error of jumping to conclusions and erroneously lumping me with those, "many people".

 

Before we go any further in this thread, please categorically and unequivocally retract the falsehoods you've written about me... and then apologize for doing so.

 

I'm waiting!

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

Petitio principii. BAA and others do not claim that the universe is/was designed at all or that there is reason for us to posit a designer.

[OrdinaryClay]

So go ahead prove the universe is miss-designed. Oh, you claim it is too hard, well then you cannot claim the universe is miss-designed. Ergo his point shown.

 

Petitio principii. BAA and others do not claim that the universe is/was designed at all or that there is reason for us to posit a designer.

I never said he claimed such a thing.

[OrdinaryClay]

2.

The second part involves setting up an impossible task and then drawing a false conclusion from the inevitable failure of the challenge-takers. It is (currently) an impossible task for any human to design a universe that has to operate within the parameters laid down in this website. The Christians know this. They know it and have deliberately set the bar impossibly high, knowing that nobody can succeed in meeting the challenge.

 

The challenge-taker is required to deal with the following issues:

Here BAA said it was to hard to design a universe.

[Ouroboros]

The Universe was "designed" for black holes.

[bornagainathiest]

2.

The second part involves setting up an impossible task and then drawing a false conclusion from the inevitable failure of the challenge-takers. It is (currently) an impossible task for any human to design a universe that has to operate within the parameters laid down in this website. The Christians know this. They know it and have deliberately set the bar impossibly high, knowing that nobody can succeed in meeting the challenge.

 

The challenge-taker is required to deal with the following issues:

Here BAA said it was to hard to design a universe.

 

If you are going to quote me OC, do it correctly!

 

I never said that it was 'hard' to design a universe.

 

That is false. I never used the word, 'hard'.

Something that is hard to do is not the same as something that is impossible to do. A hard task is still a possible one. An impossible task is not hard to complete - it is impossible to complete.

 

Retract your false statement, "Here BAA said it was hard to design a universe."

 

I never said that... so retract it.

 

BAA