Debating an Atheist

[mattrose]

If I am going to put my trust in a faith based worldview, I figure I might as well go with the one I find most convincing. Yes Prophecy can be explained away, so can the other gifts of the spirit, and the testimonies found in the scriptures of men and women over the ages. My own personal experiences with God can be dismissed as mind tricks as well. But if I have to rely on faith to be an atheist anyway, I choose to put my faith somewhere that I find both convincing, and good. I have found that no worldview has stronger evidence than does the Christian worldveiw, and nothing stretches me further for good than does following Jesus.

I like this a lot. It is very similar to some of the thoughts I've been reading in a book by Daniel Taylor called 'the skeptical believer'

[steve7150]

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

Excerpt from “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawkins and Leonard Mlodinow









Hawkins may really like "The Emperors New Clothes."

[TrumanSmith]

I have found that no worldview has stronger evidence than does the Christian worldveiw, and nothing stretches me further for good than does following Jesus.

Please tell me the best evidence for the existence of God. Please just one, the best. I'll then show you how it is probably a logical fallacy of some sort. I would have remained a Christian if I could have just found even a thread to hold on to.

[mattrose]

Please tell me the best evidence for the existence of God. Please just one, the best. I'll then show you how it is probably a logical fallacy of some sort. I would have remained a Christian if I could have just found even a thread to hold on to.

This quote is very telling

1. It suggests that you are not really in a seeking mindset when it comes to truth. Your mind is made up. You didn't ask for more evidence so you could weigh and consider it, you asked so that you could toss it aside.

2. You then admitted that you'd prefer the Christian worldview and would adhere to it if given the slightest reason to. Even this preference suggests an emptiness and a yearning that could, itself, be taken as an argument for the Christian worldview.

[steve7150]

TrumanSmith wrote:Please tell me the best evidence for the existence of God. Please just one, the best. I'll then show you how it is probably a logical fallacy of some sort. I










Hmm this quite a challenge, i really have to put my thinking cap on. Ok here is one. How many cells are in every human, several hundred million i think? They each have DNA within them which makes each and every cell highly complex plus they all have to work together. Each and every cell has a job to do so it's not only the complexity within every cell but the overall design of the human being using all the cells to function.

The mathematical possibility of DNA evolving to this level of complexity by itself IMHO is zero but then multiply that by about 300 million cells in each human and then multiply that by the 50 billion people who have ever lived.What do the mathematical odds come to? ZERO squared by 300 million squared by 50 billion.

Of course after this calculation we have to move on to the DNA in every single living thing that's ever existed so we then have to square the chances of it creating itself by trillions X trillions.

The next choice is a Designer commonly known as GOD who created everything. Atheists may call this approach "God of the gaps" but i would call it Logic 101 or simply common sense.

[SteveF]

Atheists may call this approach "God of the gaps"

Just to be clear, “god of the gaps” was a concern first raised by Christians, not atheists. Their concern was God was relegated to only being responsible for the things science can’t explain and not ALL of creation, including the things science CAN explain. Hence, using the "gotg" approach the more science explains the smaller and smaller God’s role becomes. I find that a strange approach and so have other Christians over the years.

Unfortunately, so many Christians take this approach it leads many scientists to falsely assume they are explaining away God as they grow in their understanding of creation.

Here’s a brief summary of god of the gaps:

http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

[TrumanSmith]

TrumanSmith wrote:Please tell me the best evidence for the existence of God. Please just one, the best. I'll then show you how it is probably a logical fallacy of some sort. I


Hmm this quite a challenge, i really have to put my thinking cap on. Ok here is one. How many cells are in every human, several hundred million i think? They each have DNA within them which makes each and every cell highly complex plus they all have to work together. Each and every cell has a job to do so it's not only the complexity within every cell but the overall design of the human being using all the cells to function.

The mathematical possibility of DNA evolving to this level of complexity by itself IMHO is zero but then multiply that by about 300 million cells in each human and then multiply that by the 50 billion people who have ever lived.What do the mathematical odds come to? ZERO squared by 300 million squared by 50 billion.

Of course after this calculation we have to move on to the DNA in every single living thing that's ever existed so we then have to square the chances of it creating itself by trillions X trillions.

The next choice is a Designer commonly known as GOD who created everything. Atheists may call this approach "God of the gaps" but i would call it Logic 101 or simply common sense.

Steve7150- it isn't speaking truthfully when you talk about probabilities, because they haven't really been accurately calculated. Probabilities are a branch of math called statistics... it isn't something that someone can claim because of feelings.

So this statement of yours is a falsehood: "The mathematical possibility of DNA evolving to this level of complexity by itself IMHO is zero but then multiply that by about 300 million cells in each human and then multiply that by the 50 billion people who have ever lived.What do the mathematical odds come to? ZERO squared by 300 million squared by 50 billion. "

As an example, if I pull out a bunch of cards and ask you the probability of pulling out an ace of hearts, you might even say the odds are 1 in 52. But that's assuming it is a standard deck. Your assumption could be meaningless. If in reality, all the cards where aces of hearts, then the probability would be 100%. If that ace of hearts were removed, then the odds are really 0%. Any calculation you are referring to, is based on assumptions, like the example, making it truly meaningless.

What are the odds of life arising from non-life? No one knows. It may be high or low probability. This is not evidence to sway an opinion either way.

[TrumanSmith]

Atheists may call this approach "God of the gaps"

Just to be clear, “god of the gaps” was a concern first raised by Christians, not atheists. Their concern was God was relegated to only being responsible for the things science can’t explain and not ALL of creation, including the things science CAN explain. Hence, using the "gotg" approach the more science explains the smaller and smaller God’s role becomes. I find that a strange approach and so have other Christians over the years.

Unfortunately, so many Christians take this approach it leads many scientists to falsely assume they are explaining away God as they grow in their understanding of creation.

Here’s a brief summary of god of the gaps:

http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

I agree 100% with what you wrote... only I also think there is no god.

[steve]

Unfortunately, so many Christians take this approach it leads many scientists to falsely assume they are explaining away God as they grow in their understanding of creation.

I have never encountered a Christian who takes the god-of-the-gaps approach. They may exist, but they don't seem to write books or participate in debates that I have encountered.

The naive atheist accuses all theists of taking this approach. They imagine (quite possibly accurately, but they are still guessing) that pagan religions arose from the primitive fears and superstitions of prescientific humans who were trying to make sense of the inexplicable forces of nature. As scientific knowledge increases, of course, there are fewer and fewer forces of nature that require superstitious explanations. Thus, the god who was created to fill the gaps in human understanding gets squeezed out as the gaps close in on him.

If there is anything true in this speculative narrative about the origins of religion, then the sooner all the gaps close, the better. The world will be a much better place without gratuitous gods (or the gratuitous exclusion of gods, for that matter). Whatever may be the truth-value of this narrative, however, as near as I can tell from our knowledge of history, it has nothing to do with the origins, basis or validity of Christianity or the Judeo-Christian God.

Christians worship the God whom no man would imagine, but who had to reveal Himself. We know the kind of gods that humans imagine, because the world's religions are cluttered with them. They are really human beings—ruled by the same lusts and petty grievances that rule humans—but simply endowed with supernatural powers and privileges. The gods of the Canaanites, the Greeks, the Romans, et al, were not critical of human immorality (how could they be? They engaged in the same behavior themselves). They were projections of human desires, reflecting the character and behavior that their worshippers imagined that they themselves would enjoy, were they endowed with the privileges of gods. The pagan gods were human in origin, and created in the image of their worshiper.

Israel's God was not the kind of deity that men would create as the higher authority to whom all men must answer. He was critical of most of the behaviors that they enjoyed most (selfish and sensual people that they were). They did not create Him to fill gaps in their scientific knowledge. He intruded into their world with unexpected (and often unwelcome) visitations. As likely as not, when He showed up, the predictable results would be a body-count.

I have been a Christian, in Christian circles, for more than 50 years. In that time, my experience has never brought me into contact with anyone who followed the "god of the gaps" approach to belief in God (with the possible exception of small children). Every thinking person I know who has embraced Christ has done so not because they lacked information, but because they gained it. They investigated and learned the historical facts upon which the gospel rests. These facts can be denied, but have never been refuted.

It seems to me that most notable conversions of atheists to Christianity or to theism were not the result of the sudden onset of ignorance on the part of the subjects, but were owing to the increase of information they obtained. Even the leading atheist philosopher and debater of the twentieth century, Anthony Flew, became a believer in the reality of a Creator as a result of increased scientific knowledge. He was never an ignorant man concerning science, even as an atheist. However, he says that he was forced to abandon atheism by his realistic contemplation of the newer discoveries of the Big Bang and of the information-content of the genetic code—both of which came along in his adult lifetime.

Atheists may say that belief in God is a result of the "god of the gaps" thinking, because it is their narrative. I have recently discovered in debates how little atheists care whether their narrative fits any historical reality or not.

[steve7150]

Steve7150- it isn't speaking truthfully when you talk about probabilities, because they haven't really been accurately calculated. Probabilities are a branch of math called statistics... it isn't something that someone can claim because of feelings.

So this statement of yours is a falsehood: "The mathematical possibility of DNA evolving to this level of complexity by itself IMHO is zero but then multiply that by about 300 million cells in each human and then multiply that by the 50 billion people who have ever lived.What do the mathematical odds come to? ZERO squared by 300 million squared by 50 billion. "







We have to agree to disagree. As someone once said "we hold these truths to be self evident." I'm sure the odds of trillions of DNA strands coming into existence by random chance could be statistically measured and the probability would be zero.
Once again you like to position yourself as an impartial seeker of truth and anyone who sees this differently as guided by "feelings" , this is the real falsehood.
You have given us nothing but your opinions over and over again, simply repackaged.