Do you have enough faith to be an atheist? Take this simple quiz and add up your score to find out:1. (T/F) Matter can sponaneously arise from non-matter.
True: +1
False: +0
2. (T/F) Living matter can arise from non-living matter.
True: +1
False: +0
3. (T/F) Order can spontaneously (i.e. without assistance) arise from non-order.
True: +1
False: +0
4. (T/F) If the letters from the word "artichoke" are jumbled up every 30 seconds (forming gibberish such as cartohike, etc.), then, given enough time, the words "zebra," "apricot," and "fountain" will inevitably be formed eventually.
True: +1
False: +0
5. (T/F) It is possible to reach the end of an infinity.
True: +1
False: +0
Scoring:
5 = Hardened Atheistic Evolutionist
4 = Common Atheistic Evolutionist
3 = Agnostic
2 = Theistic Evolutionist
1 = (Unsure) Creationist
0 = (Confident) Creationist
31 comments:
I think I got a 5 or 5.
We argued to a standstill on #1.
I believe we left it at an argument from ignorance.
You agreed to #2
#3 is a scientific fact. (For all closed systems).
#4 Not really sure what you're getting at. But hey, if you want to do a strawman, go for it.
#5 you said yourself, doesn't say anything about god.
Since you said that all these conversations lead to agnosticism, I guess that makes you a 3. Only two away from me. But you are on your way. Just need to study some more and hang out at the library a little.
"We argued to a standstill on #1.
I believe we left it at an argument from ignorance."
Personally I believe this issue alone leaves a damaging hole in naturalism.
"You agreed to #2"
No, I acknowledged that you had a less ridiculous theory than spontaneous generation, I never said that abiogenesis was a good replacement, but it is a replacement nonetheless.
"#3 is a scientific fact. (For all closed systems)."
I would still like to know where that leaves room for the second law of thermodynamics - i.e. what is being added to the equasion to overcome it?
"Not really sure what you're getting at. But hey, if you want to do a strawman, go for it."
Mutations (the building blocks of evolution) jumble up the existing DNA code, rather than adding new information.
"#5 you said yourself, doesn't say anything about god."
No, but it does say something about naturalism.
"Since you said that all these conversations lead to agnosticism, I guess that makes you a 3. Only two away from me. But you are on your way. Just need to study some more and hang out at the library a little."
I am not an agnostic, Steve. To build off of our conversation on your blog, you might say that I've "met Jane." That changes things.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
By the way, not to pull a Ray Comfort on you or anything, but you're going to need to start capitalizing "God." I'm posting a rule about it. Sorry, man, type it on your blog however you want to, but I would appreciate if you would show a little respect on mine.
#1 Ok, I'm not gonna beat a dead horse with you. You have nothing, so this is just desperation at this point. Say what you want.
#2
Call it ridiculous if you want, but it's a major project in some universities with people much more intelligent than you Matt (o me for that matter). As I recall, you said you didn't even know what abiogenesis was until I told you. So maybe you should learn about it, read some R. Hazen books, before you criticize it.
#3
Ok, I'm gonna go basic on you. (I made a mistake, its true for all *open* systems.) Order arises in open systems, entropy occurs in closed systems.
Entropy has to do with heat exchange. A glass of ice water will turn to room temperature over a period of time. But how did the ice freeze in the first place? It was in an open system (ie a refrigerator) in which energy was being applied.
#4
You don't understand information creation. Jumbling DNA, by definition is information creation.
Take my name steve.
Jumble it.
steev
This is a new name.
You also can get new letters (if you will).
Here's a good video for you
DonExodus
#5
Ok , when you make a connection to your God, let me know.
"#3
Ok, I'm gonna go basic on you. (I made a mistake, its true for all *open* systems.) Order arises in open systems, entropy occurs in closed systems."
That made a difference, I was pretty confused when you said closed systems.
"Entropy has to do with heat exchange. A glass of ice water will turn to room temperature over a period of time. But how did the ice freeze in the first place? It was in an open system (ie a refrigerator) in which energy was being applied."
Yes, I understand this, you misunderstand me, however. You see, I do not see how the universe can be viewed as an open system.
"#4
You don't understand information creation. Jumbling DNA, by definition is information creation.
Take my name steve.
Jumble it.
steev
This is a new name.
You also can get new letters (if you will).
Here's a good video for you
DonExodus"
Which brings up something that's been on my mind for a while: there's a nasty rumor floating around that Don Exodus is a Christian, and since you seem to be so attached to him, maybe you can clear up for me whether or not it's true?
"#5
Ok , when you make a connection to your God, let me know."
Yes, and I'll ignore everything you said about the bears mauling children in the Bible because you never made a connection to evolution. Did it occur to you that my focus with that question was YOUR beliefs, not mine? Are we only allowed to question my beliefs, but never yours?
"...(ie a refrigerator) in which energy was being applied."
Yes, I understand this, you misunderstand me, however. You see, I do not see how the universe can be viewed as an open system.
Energy was applied to the Universe at the Big Bang. That set the clock ticking. We are now essentially in a closed system. You may have heard of Heat Death.
"...
Here's a good video for you
DonExodus"
Which brings up something that's been on my mind for a while: there's a nasty rumor floating around that Don Exodus is a Christian, and since you seem to be so attached to him, maybe you can clear up for me whether or not it's true?
Nice subject change.
Yes, he's a Christian. He says so in his videos. So what?
"#5
Ok , when you make a connection to your God, let me know."
Yes, and I'll ignore everything you said about the bears mauling children in the Bible because you never made a connection to evolution. Did it occur to you that my focus with that question was YOUR beliefs, not mine? Are we only allowed to question my beliefs, but never yours?
Fair enough. Evolution doesn't equal atheism (so I don't need to make a connection). But whatever.
What question? I'm confused here.
Feel free to question my beliefs. Which one did you have in mind?
"Fair enough. Evolution doesn't equal atheism (so I don't need to make a connection). But whatever.
What question? I'm confused here.
Feel free to question my beliefs. Which one did you have in mind?"
I'm questioning the plausibility of naturalism, as there is no naturalistic explanation for what may possibly be the most important event in the history of... well, history: the origin of matter.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
"I'm questioning the plausibility of naturalism, as there is no naturalistic explanation for what may possibly be the most important event in the history of... well, history: the origin of matter."
This is your last bastion of theism. You have systematically avoided or retreated from every other argument. Rightly so. You failed your own test, and every other one for that matter.
About the origin of matter.
We don't know what caused X, therefor G caused X. Argument from ignorance. You said you didn't agree with that fallacy.
STOP straw-manning me, Mudskipper, I'm really getting tired of it. You've accused me of this fallacy over and over again, and it's not true. I never said that because we don't know, that proves that God is behind it - YOU said that, YOU put those words in my mouth (over and over and over again). You demand an explanation for everything that I believe, yet you believe that matter can spontaneously appear from nothingness, and I'm not allowed to question that without being accused of a fallacy.
Sometimes I think you don't even read my comments, you just have this imaginary debate going on in your head between us in which I say the stupidest and most idiotic things imaginable and you respond to them - after all, most of your comments have nothing to do with my questions, and then you accuse ME of changing the subject.
Hey Matt,
Take it easy. I can see how you feel that way.
I do get a little too logical sometimes. My ex-g accused me of that (I then proceeded to tell her she was using the logical fallacy of emotional appeal. Then she slapped me. J/K haha.)
What do you want me to do? Give me your best argument, prima facia, with a complete logical beginning and conclusion. Ex. have your premises and your conclusions.
When you just have your premises, you leave me to fill in your conclusion. Then you get frustrated. I'm just trying to make it a complete logical argument.
Example (Incomplete argument);
My Car is blue
It has four tires.
...
So what?
What does that mean???
Go here: http://dailyreflections-matthew.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-beginning.html
Try not to get too nit-picky, I haven't fine-tuned it yet, particularly the phrasing in certain areas (I plan on getting to that sometime within the next week - I've certainly put it off long enough), but the general principal is a pretty good outline of what I've been trying to say, with a few minor differences.
I'm only referring you here because I don't want to double post basically the same information.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
Says "page not found"
Try including it in a href HTML tag
nevermind.
included last "tml" part in the url
Ok,
Looks like what we went over about a month or two ago. Same stuff.
We argued to a standstill on all your 3 points.
The 3 options you listed;
Option #1 - Self-Contradictory
Option #2 - Plausible
Option #3 - Impossible
Are dead ends. The only point you would consider is 3, which you say is outside the realm of science. Your exact words where "Plausible, but unprovable (not within the jurisdiction of science)" That leaves us nowhere.
Like I said before, this also leaves us well short of your deity. since you can't even get off first base, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
Elegant but exigent.
sorry *point 2*
BTW,
Side note.
Colleges frown upon plagiarism.
Oh, hey, BTW,
Don Exodus posted 2 new videos on why he's a christian.
Not convincing to me, but hey, you asked, so I thought you might care.
"BTW,
Side note.
Colleges frown upon plagiarism."
If you're going to make that accusation, you're going to need to be more specific. Show me what I have plagiarized, and I will either rephrase or give credit where credit is due.
"Like I said before, this also leaves us well short of your deity. since you can't even get off first base, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
Elegant but exigent."
This is where I need to be more clear in this article. You don't seem to understand my goal with that article (I don't blame you, it wasn't clearly stated). The goal is not to prove the Genesis account to be true, but rather to cast doubt upon naturalism, as there is no apparent room for a naturalistic explanation as to the origin of matter, thus hypothesizing that the existence of matter is unnatural/supernatural.
When an atheist argues that Bethlehem did not exist at the time of Christ's birth, thus attempting to disprove my beliefs about Him, I do not reject his arguments simply because he can't prove HIS beliefs about Christ (namely, that He never lived, as most who use this argument are asserting). The reason for this is that if one attempts to disprove another's theories, I do not believe that it then becomes the responsibilty of that individual to replace the disproven theory with a proven one. Likewise, I am frustrated when an atheist requires proof of my beliefs before they will accept evidence against theirs. I've attempted to make this point several times, but hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now.
Yo Matt...I got a 0. I guess I don't have enough faith to be an atheist! I guess that makes me a Confident Creationist...which is EXACTLY what I am. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). Just think of it this way...when YOU stand before God to be judged ask him these questions, I am sure His answers will be undisputable!
OK,
Fair enough Matt. Then you should preface your argument with what you just said.
It looks like you take your arguments from CARM and venomfangX. You should give them credit if you are going to use their stuff.
I agree, God cannot be proven away, and neither can many things. Like you said, no one could ever PROVE that Jesus never existed. This is called Russells Teapot.
There is a thing called pragmatism, a belief that has use for the person holding that belief. I have pragmatic atheism. (Don't confuse this presuppositionalism, because I know you listen to Matt Slick).
Pragmatically, it is more useful for sentient beings to view the world as if naturalism was true, even though, I suppose their could be aliens running the whole show. That doesn't help our discovery of truth though. There are exactly 10 Trillion thins we can't PROVE.
You can't prove that the next time you jump off a building you will not fly. Pragmatically speaking, I don't suggest you test my hypothesis.
So cast doubt, you won't get anywhere. We already know what we don't know. I don't think you are going to shake the foundations of naturalism because scientists already know that we understand practically nothing as far as knowledge goes.
"It looks like you take your arguments from CARM and venomfangX. You should give them credit if you are going to use their stuff."
Actually, no, if others have drawn the same conclusions as myself, you shouldn't assume that I have plagiarized them. I do believe I used an article from CARM in one of my posts, but I gave credit in that case.
"There is a thing called pragmatism, a belief that has use for the person holding that belief. I have pragmatic atheism. (Don't confuse this presuppositionalism, because I know you listen to Matt Slick)."
No, I don't "listen to Matt Slick" I've looked at his site before, but, though I'm sure it's important to your ego to deny this, I am a free thinker.
"Pragmatically, it is more useful for sentient beings to view the world as if naturalism was true, even though, I suppose their could be aliens running the whole show. That doesn't help our discovery of truth though. There are exactly 10 Trillion thins we can't PROVE."
Yes, but most of them have been observed. Naturalistic generation of matter from a state of nothingness is not one of them. An atheist's greatest gripe on Christianity is that we ask him to believe something without evidence, yet you ask me to believe in spontaneous generation of matter without evidence.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
P.S. - Who is "venomfangX"?
If 99.9999% of what you see conforms to the rules of naturalism, it is a safe (pragmatic) assumption that the 0.00000001% also conforms.
Just because we don't know what the 0.00000001% is, doesn't mean we should go out on a limb and start making fantastic claims.
Modern cosmologists don't say "nothing" as the origin of the universe, so I don't even understand what the problem is. We don't even know what was before the big bang, much less "nothing." If you want to be more accurate, you could say...
X caused two membranes to collide, thereby releasing the energy needed to create the universe.
We don't know what X was, but like all things in science, we are still looking.
But, I guess not knowing is what is stopping you.
Do you know what the name of my first dog was?
No? well welcome to the club of people who say "I don't know."
PS.
Venomfangx was a creationist on youtube who recently gave up, so I guess that doesn't matter anymore, kinda like Matt Slick. Just leather jackets in Walmart.
"Modern cosmologists don't say "nothing" as the origin of the universe, so I don't even understand what the problem is. We don't even know what was before the big bang, much less "nothing.""
Okay, allow me to attempt once more to clarify the issue as I see it:
1. An endless regression of events equal in size (not infinitely small, as is the case with Zeno's Paradox - every second is equal in size) is a mathematical and logical impossibility, therefore there must be an initial event.
2. Naturalism would seem to require an endless regression of events in order to be plausible, but because such an endless regression is not plausible, naturalism is not plausible.
This, as you have pointed out 4 or 5 times already, does not prove that my beliefs are true, because it focuses primarily upon your beliefs and not mine - a reversal from many of our previous topics.
"But, I guess not knowing is what is stopping you."
Two things:
1. I don't need to know what X is, because X would require Y to cause it, and Y would require Z to cause it, and Z would require AA to cause it, etc. etc... which is exactly the problem I am addressing.
2. I'm not sure where you keep getting this idea that the flaws I see with naturalism have anything to do with my belief in God.
You could develop a flawless theory in support of the hypothesis that apple trees don't grow in the Midwest, but even if I can't find any flaws in your theory, I will still always reject your theory on the grounds that I happen to have several apple trees growing in my front yard (which, in fact, would mean that I HAD found a flaw in your theory, and a fatal one at that). Likewise, even if you could develop a flawless theory in support of naturalism (which no one ever has), your theory would fall on its face for the simple theory that I have personal experience of the supernatural. Now you, of course, have every right to turn your nose up in the air, clamp your hands over your ears, and scream to the heavens, "You're lying!" or, "There must be SOME other explanation!" or, "You're insane!" for the simple reason that you don't share these same experiences (which, by the way, if you did share them with me, you certainly WOULDN'T doubt them, trust me on that), but you should know that after the things I've seen (and yes, I have 'seen' - with my eyes, before you ask), heard (again yes, I have heard - and yes, with my ears) and felt (both physically and spiritually), I would be the greatest fool who ever lived if I were to embrace the theory of naturalism.
I'm praying for you, Steve. Really, I am (it's not just one of those things we say as a general greeting).
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
"Modern cosmologists don't say "nothing" as the origin of the universe, so I don't even understand what the problem is. We don't even know what was before the big bang, much less "nothing.""
Okay, allow me to attempt once more to clarify the issue as I see it:
1. An endless regression of events equal in size (not infinitely small, as is the case with Zeno's Paradox - every second is equal in size) is a mathematical and logical impossibility, therefore there must be an initial event.
Ok, there was an initial event. What caused that event?
2. Naturalism would seem to require an endless regression of events in order to be plausible, but because such an endless regression is not plausible, naturalism is not plausible.
This, as you have pointed out 4 or 5 times already, does not prove that my beliefs are true, because it focuses primarily upon your beliefs and not mine - a reversal from many of our previous topics.
So why do we debate it? You are supposed to prove that something supernatural happened. So far, I haven't seen any alternative evidence.
"But, I guess not knowing is what is stopping you."
Two things:
1. I don't need to know what X is, because X would require Y to cause it, and Y would require Z to cause it, and Z would require AA to cause it, etc. etc... which is exactly the problem I am addressing.
Why is the supernatural thing you are positing exempt from those rules? P.S is it OK if I call IT "supernatural thing" from now on, since you don't want me to call it the "G" word? I'll shorten it to ST. Why is ST exempt from the rules?
2. I'm not sure where you keep getting this idea that the flaws I see with naturalism have anything to do with my belief in God.
I know there are flaws in naturalism, like everything else. What we know is primitive. So when are you going to use something beside arguments from ignorance to demonstrate ST?
You could develop a flawless theory in support of the hypothesis that apple trees don't grow in the Midwest, but even if I can't find any flaws in your theory, I will still always reject your theory on the grounds that I happen to have several apple trees growing in my front yard (which, in fact, would mean that I HAD found a flaw in your theory, and a fatal one at that). Likewise, even if you could develop a flawless theory in support of naturalism (which no one ever has), your theory would fall on its face for the simple theory that I have personal experience of the supernatural. Now you, of course, have every right to turn your nose up in the air, clamp your hands over your ears, and scream to the heavens, "You're lying!" or, "There must be SOME other explanation!" or, "You're insane!" for the simple reason that you don't share these same experiences (which, by the way, if you did share them with me, you certainly WOULDN'T doubt them, trust me on that), but you should know that after the things I've seen (and yes, I have 'seen' - with my eyes, before you ask), heard (again yes, I have heard - and yes, with my ears) and felt (both physically and spiritually), I would be the greatest fool who ever lived if I were to embrace the theory of naturalism.
Apparently you didn't research the Russell Teapot. Nevermind. What is this physical evidence you speak of? I predict that you are going to offer something that cannot be verified. Show me and quit telling me. SHOW ME.
I'm praying for you, Steve. Really, I am (it's not just one of those things we say as a general greeting).
That's really nice. Thanks Matt. I'm glad you care. Likewise, I hope you are doing well (no sarcasm).
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
BANG!
@Steve
"Ok, there was an initial event. What caused that event?"
That's my point. You see, I am suggesting that the very existence of matter itself is unnatural, as it requires that something exist which we know is not possible: an endless regression of time.
Even though this conversation is beginning to get rather exasperating, I think we're finally getting somewhere, as I suspect that you are now finally beginning to at least see where I'm coming from. I call that progress!
"So why do we debate it? You are supposed to prove that something supernatural happened. So far, I haven't seen any alternative evidence."
As I've just stated above, I am suggesting that the presence of matter is one of my strongest pieces of evidence.
"Why is the supernatural thing you are positing exempt from those rules?"
Because "supernatural" would, by its very nature, be unnatural. It would be contradictory to suggest that something "supernatural" abided by natural laws.
"P.S is it OK if I call IT "supernatural thing" from now on, since you don't want me to call it the "G" word? I'll shorten it to ST."
Fine by me. After all, I was really wanting to focus more on "LINT" (Logically Impossible Natural Thing) in this debate anyway.
"What is this physical evidence you speak of? I predict that you are going to offer something that cannot be verified. Show me and quit telling me. SHOW ME."
Of course you can't verify my personal experiences, and it is this attitude which causes such reluctance for me to share any personal experiences with you. However, as I recall, many of your questions focus more on why I believe something, not why you should believe it, and my personal experiences are a rather excellent explanation in my opinion. The only way you can "verify" 'ST' is to experience 'ST' yourself, and even then you have only verified it for yourself, so of course you can't verify MY experiences.
"That's really nice. Thanks Matt. I'm glad you care. Likewise, I hope you are doing well (no sarcasm)."
I am doing quite well, actually, thank you for that.
@Anonymous
"BANG!"
??????? - What is this - ???????
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
"the very existence of matter itself is unnatural"
How do you know? We know next to nothing about what happened before the Big Bang. You begin with this endless regress assumption (that's it's impossible), then you gloss over the fact that ST would also need a cause. You fail to prove anything, I just play along with your silly arguments you got from CARM, we get nowhere and you just rely on arguments from ignorance going down whatever rabbit hole instead of being a man and admitting you failed.
"it requires that something exist which we know is not possible"
Like ST? ST is exempt from the rules, right.
"I think we're finally getting somewhere, as I suspect that you are now finally beginning to at least see where I'm coming from. I call that progress!"
I've known exactly where you are coming from for a long time. Argument from ignorance, etc same old stuff.
"Because "supernatural" would, by its very nature, be unnatural. It would be contradictory to suggest that something "supernatural" abided by natural laws."
This is just a semantic argument with no validation. There's no way to even test this, even if it were a valid argument.
I need to pray and all of a sudden all your silly arguments will make sense, right? Not even God can fix tat. If there was a God, I'm sure he would make things a lot clearer than you do.
Any way,
I've been wasting a lot of time on this. I need to study other things. So this is it for now.
See ya.
Fine by me, hurl your childish insults and then leave, I have better things to do.
Yo Mudskipper...Sorry to pop your balloon...BANG!!! Genesis 1:1-2:25 is one of the most AWESOME BANGS ever recorded in history. The other is when God came down in the form of a man, Jesus Christ. He paid for all my sins when He died on the cross for you and me. You see, I won't argue with you so save your words...God bless you (God believes in you even you don't believe in him).
(On the off chance that Mudskipper is still reading) I think it's safe to say that you have at least two people praying for you, Steve (three, if your brother is as well). That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, because the choice is still up to you, but it's encouraging to me, at any rate.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
Post a Comment