Absolute Proof That God Exists

[Interested Atheist]

Here's another little exchange - two emails he sent me, one on a book of miracle accounts and the other a swipe at evolutionary theory. I've included my responses.

 

 

DAVID:

Rowan:

This is a book that deserves to be read. A German man named Kurt Koch, an expert in Demon Possession travelled the world and counselled with thousands of people. He witnessed miracles, not like modern day fakes, but real miracles. There were evev people raised from the dead by the power of God. That should be evidence enough. I have read this book and was fascinated. One of the greatest was an evangelist from China, John Sung. It seems that the only way that God can reach the primitive peoples of the world is by signs and wonders, even raising people from the dead. The stories are fascinating and witnessed by more than one. You should try to get the book.

 

ROWAN:

I might be interested in the book, but not enough to go out and buy it. Let me explain why: If it is indeed possible that miracles are real and occur (something, like the existence of God, that I do not deny, but simply consider unproven) then I am not the person who should be told about it.

If this is true, if amazing events like this actually happened, then there are two things I can think of.

One, James Randi has a million dollars waiting for you or your associates (a longstanding challenge for anybody who can prove they possess paranormal or supernatural abilities - Christian miracles would certainly qualify).

Two, scientists would love to examine these miracles and - if they thought there was any truth in them - would dive onto them. Once this has happened, and once you can direct me to some reliable, peer-reviewed scientific articles that claim these miracles to be genuine, then I'd be willing to re-evaluate my position. Until then, it's just anecdotes.

 

DAVID:

Just a quick note! There is an ever increasing movement in science away from Darwin. Intelligent creation is even being considered as an equally plausable science here in the U.S. Some school systems even have books on the subject merely because of the science behind it. These are not Christian schools but public schools. The feeling is that Darwin's theory is only that, a theory with very serious problems that can be explained better with the model of creation. So, you can see, we are not just ignorant Bible thumpers, some of us are quite educated and scientific in our views.

 

ROWAN:

Well, I don't suppose either of us would like to get into a debate on this, so I'll just state my opinion quickly. If I may say so, you seem a little misinformed, and I hope this will help.

 

I've certainly been following the Intelligent Design movement with interest for a while, and what I see I find disturbing. It appears to be an attempt to get the concept of God taught in a science class, where it has no place, due to the First Amendment which prevents the state from endorsing religious positions. This wouldn't be a problem if there was evidence of supernatural activity, but all this is backed up by is Paley's old watch in the desert argument, which has been proven faulty many times - as have the variations propounded by the Intelligent Design activists.

Now you may say this is just so much secularist rhetoric, so here are my reasons for saying this:

 

1. The Intelligent Design movement has not been conducted in a scientific way. In order for a theory to be accepted as science it should have research done (what research is possible in ID) and publish articles in peer-reviewed journals (this is certainly possible, but very few have been published). In fact, the backers of Intelligent Design are almost all non-scientists - and in the case of the few who do have respectable scientific credentials - Michael Nehe springs to mind - their arguments have been thoroughly refuted.

What the Intelligent Design movement has been doing, rather than try to get it's theory proven and accepted by science, is to go straight to the public and present their arguments to an uninformed audience using emotion, rhetoric and debating tactics. These are not the hallmarks of an hinest scientifice movement.

 

2. If you believe that the evolutionary theory is being challenged, I invite you to visit this link, which nicely illustrates just what proportion of scientists support evolution. If you have an alternative list of scientists who do not support evolution, then i would ask a simple question: How many Steves are there on it?

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/artic...e_2_16_2003.asp

 

3. Finally, returning to Intelligent Design, it seems that if we are to settle the debate it would be best to find an intelligent and informed judge and let both sides make their claim. This has in fact happened, and the judge's summing up of the case can be seen here:

 

In it, the judge found that:

The ID attack against evolutionary theory had not managed to show that evolution was not science, or indeed in any doubt at all

The ID proponents had entirely failed to show that ID was in fact science

ID is a religious-based movement, and as such it is unconstitutioanl to teach it in schools

And perhaps, most importantly, that the ID supporters and witnesses had lied frequently in their attempts to win the case.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections...zmiller_342.pdf

Evolution is not a theory in crisis - it is a theory in danger from people who see the scientific results as an attack on their religious views.

 

 

I see I made a little mistake - forgot to include the link to the Dover trial. It was:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections...zmiller_342.pdf

[Interested Atheist]

This is getting a little funny. I just received this email (my response included).

 

CHRISTIAN: As usual, I don't have much time. I can only say that being allowed to express what one believes is guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution says that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiging the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. The courts have construed this to mean just the opposite of what it actually says. Government is actually telling us what we can and can not believe in the schools and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The clause has nothing to do with separation of church and state in the sense that the state stops the free exercise of religion. It only means that there can be no state run religion like in England where the Church of England is also connected to the government.

 

MY RESPONSE: David: I believe you have misunderstood the situation.

You say that government is "telling us what we can and cannot believe in schools". This is not true. The point of the first amendment is that you can believe anything you like in schools. You are quite free to believe that Yahweh whipped up the earth like a chef making a pudding if you like. Just as other religions are free to believe that Allah made the world, or Odin, or Brahma, or a giant fairy. However, the government is responsible for what children are taught in schools; and to teach creationism on religious grounds would quite clearly mean that the government is favouring a religion.

 

If it could be proved that creationism had scientific evidence - which is what Duance Gish and Kent Hovind say, and recently the new incarnation (evolution?) of ID - then that could be taught in schools, in the science class. It can't be proved that creationism has scientific evidence, therefore it can't be taught.

 

You might want to be grateful for the wall between church and state (a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, who helped create the constitution) since it not only protects us from being forced to learn your dogma, it protects you from being taught Catholicism, Islamic beliefs or anything else.

 

 

CHRISTIAN: Believe me, if the proper leaders are elected in this country, that will be changed by a constitutional amendment. Our early leaders were all very vocal in expressing their belief in God and they even said that without a belief in God the republic could not survive. So much for the wrong interpretation of liberal godless judges.

 

MY RESPONSE: I do believe you. And it worries me. It is possible indeed that the right politicians could come to power, amend the constitution so that all American children can be taught Hebrew myths as fact, and even that they may be able to override the objections of those of different or no religion. Yes, it's certainly possible - there's no law from history that tells us disasters can't happen.

 

Your earlier leaders were indeed vocal in their belief in god; they were Christians, agnostics and deists, largely - and they had a very clear picture of the kind of havoc that could be wreaked on America if they allowed religion to get its hands on political power, having just escaped from it in Europe and Britain - the Thirty Years War springs to mind. All we can do is thank God that they took steps to restrain that violence, and pray that Christians of today are unsuccessful in undoing their work.

 

 

Following this, I received a link to this website:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

 

Oh dear! Such a weight of compelling, rational scientific evidence! What can I possibly do against it!

 

Maybe I'll see if I can answer some of the "twenty questions for evolutionists..."

[Interested Atheist]

This is what I wrote in reply. I don't know that much about evolution, but I've picked up enough on websites like this to see that his twenty questions aren't that difficult to answer.

 

 

"I'm sorry, David, but if you really do believe the weight of scientific evidence is on the side of Creationists you are quite mistaken. 9By the way - not that this is an important objection, but it interests me - what is Dr. Walt Brown, who has qualifications in engineering, doing writing about evolution and geography? Couldn't Creationists find a scientist who had the relevant qualifications to write about these fields who agreed with them?)

 

Anyway, if you do believe that creationism is valid science then (although I'm not a scientific expert myself by any means) I'll be happy to do my best to answer your questions.

 

First of all, let me direct you to:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

Which should be able to answer any questions you have.

 

In the online book you sent me, it begins by asking twenty questions for evolutionists. Some of them I'm not at all qualified to answer, but I'll give the others a shot:

 

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6–8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.)

 

RESPONSE: There is only evolution; I believe that "macro" and "micro" were invented by creationists. There's nothing to say that a land mammal can't evolve, given the right conditions, to swim and live in the water - as is exactly what happened with whales. As for the other questions, such as how a reptiles leg could evolve into a birds wing - this really just means that the questioner was too lazy to find the answer - or didn't want to find it.

 

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 13.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 19.)

 

RESPONSE: Bacterial motor, huh? I see someone's been reading too much Michael Behe. His questions have also been answered. And yes, scientists do realise how complex living things are - and the argument from incredulity ("It's so complex, how could it possibly have evolved by chance?") doesn't cut it here, because it didn't evolve by chance. For a good explanation of this, see Richard Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable."

 

3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)

 

RESPONSE: First, fossils are rare. It takes special conditiona to form a fossil, and most of the time organisms don't become fossilised at all. And if they do, it's no guarantee that, millions of years later, they will be found. Having aid that, we do still have a huge amount of fossils, with relevant transitional forms. See Talk Origins.

 

A brief look at these questions shows me that they are easily answered, if you have the right knowledge of evolutionary science - or if someone can tell you how to answer them - or if you have access to a good website, like Talk Origins. So if you are really looking for answers, then as I said before I'll be happy to provide them.

 

If, on the other hand, you just believe what you believe because you believe it, then there is not much point in my discussing whether or not evolution is sound science, because you're not going to believe a word I say.

 

What do you think?

 

See you!

 

Rowan."

[godlessgrrl]

I love how he seems to think that his book will convince you of The Truth ™, even though a book allegedly written by God didn't.

 

Ah, sweet irony...

[Interested Atheist]

I'm afraid this conversation is almost over - and sorry if I've posted too much on it! But I'd like to include this, which might well be the last exchange we have. Goodness knows my replies are going to be wasted on my correspondent:

 

CHRISTIAN: I must tell you that I really don't consider you to be serious about evolution. No one with any education at all could swollow that compilation of intentianal hoaxes desiged to undermind God and the Bible account of creation. Sorry, my friend, but nothing that you have said makes one bit of sense when one knows the real facts.

 

ATHEIST:It's really a little funny when you use words like "science" and "facts". What do they have to do with your way of life? You believe that the earth is six thousand years old (give or take). This is something you KNOW to be true. Is there anything that science could do to invalidate your theory? No. Because you're not interested in finding out the truth. You have the truth and anything else is false. As Henry Morris put it, when science and scripture conflict, it is scripture that should take precedence.

 

If science were to discover some phenomenon that provided irrefutable proof that the earth was really very old - say, for example, that the sun leaves an identifiable trace once a year in the rock strata, which we can count to show the number of years it had existed for - there would still be people of your way of thinking who would think that this contradiction with God's word had to be false, and set out to find a way to prove it.

 

Why bother pretending to be interested in science? Why not just say it honestly - God said it, I believe it, and I'm not interested in any other possibility.

 

If you wish me to take you seriously in saying that you're interested in finding out the truth - in what actually happened, no matter what you or I think about that - then why not tell me what could prove you wrong. Because a person who says that they simply can't be wrong, no matter what, is divorced from reality.

 

 

CHRISTIAN: I don't think that you realize that all your reasonings of the mind mean nothing. It might as well be that you are standing in the middle of the ocean giving me the greatest logic about why you are standing on dry ground in the desert and it would never even get my interest, You see, I know God and He talks to me. I talk to him. He is my dearest friend. I am a life-time servant of Jesus Christ. It is not fiction or mythology, it is reality. I fear that the only wan that you will be convinced is to go to the other side and see the power of evil. Kurt Koch, about which I have written to you was a counselor of people that had problems with Demon possession and was also an expert on the occult. The phenomena of evil spirits is well known, especially in the more primitive societies. It is when then come to a personal knowledge of the Father of Spirits, God, that they become changed people because they experience real love for the first time. I pray that your stubborn acceptance of the mythology of evolution and other satanic lies will not put in a bondage will eventually put you into a bondage that you can't escape from. I can assure you that anyone that has experienced the jaws of evil deeply appreciates Christ's yoke which is easy.

 

 

ATHEIST:The thing is, David, I could talk to any similarly sealous member of any other religion and get basically the same answer. I KNOW I'm right. I KNOW you're wrong. Stop being stubborn! See the world around you - isn't it obvious that God made it?

 

When it comes from a person such as yourself who doesn;t actually seem to know much about the evolutionary theory he derides, or the atheists he condemns, and holds views about serious current topics such as homosexuality, abortion and democratic government that can only be called extreme, I have trouble taking the spiel seriously.

 

(probably) goodbye.

 

Rowan.