Hi again. By the way, I'd be happy to come on your broadcast and discuss any of this with whomsoever you wish, so your audience could benefit from a true debate...
Heard some truly amusing stuff on your program yesterday, "Defending the Truth".
An attempt was being made to "prove" the existence of "god" using "logic, science and intellectual" arguments.
1. If what you believe is actually TRUE, why would it need defending? It would be either self evident or it would be supported by evidence (in the scientific sense in this case). So, simply by calling the show "Defending the Truth" I get the impression that whatever you call truth REQUIRES defending. It sounds militant enough, just a bit ridiculous however, since, as I stated, the Truth should be easy to discern.
1a. If the tenets of Christianity were "true" why are there 20,000+ Christian Sects all proclaiming to know the truth and still calling themselves Christians? "Can't know the players without a program" it seems...(Oh, THOSE guys over there aren't "true" Christians (Mormons, Catholics, Snake Handlers, etc.))...but "WE" are, so send your checks to this address, soon and often.
1b. Since NONE of what you believe can be proven, in a legal or scientific sense, I would like to hope that our secular government would put Christianity on trial for fraud. Not that this could happen here, you are protected (as am I) by laws that preclude denying freedom to believe whatever we wish! How fortunate for you, since fraud is all that you spout!
2. I only caught a few minutes of the show on Friday, August 6, 2010, but am compelled to comment.
I'll stay with just ONE point, that of how protein molecules could "self assemble" and how unlikely that is...I think of the argument presented as a balloon filling slowly with very hot air...
A. There was some discussion about 10 to the 158th power and how many seconds are in several billions of years etc. As if chemical reactions can only happen 1 per second was the take away. What if, as was real at the time, the Earth had an ocean filled with chemicals (much as it does today!). There was no "self replicating molecule" that we now call life. However, in that chemical soup, not simply billions, but quadrillions or more chemical reactions could occur during each second. Not that this is anywhere as much as 10 to the 158th power, but it does seem slightly more likely that a molecule that could self replicate could occur.
However, none of that argument is even necessary to explain that life did occur here, without any miraculous or supernatural occurrences.
Just as a single needle punctures a balloon, the FACT THAT WE NOW ARE HERE shows that life began, however unlikely that may seem. It only had to happen ONCE, and the law of evolution proceeds...
IpSoFacTo...
The problem with your argument is fairly straightforward.
We're here now. Therefore WHATEVER happened to have us here now had to have happened. Period.
The truly fun part is how you insisted that Intelligence must have guided evolution or creation! That is so funny I am having trouble catching my breath.
Doesn't seem very intelligently designed to me...honestly.
B. On the question of life's origin: READ THIS AND REALIZE THAT THE CHEMISTRY AND ENERGY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME MAKES LIFE FORMATION INEVITABLE, NOT MIRACULOUS...
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-life Now that article doesn't claim to have the entire answer, but I believe it shows that the answer is forthcoming, through the vigorous application of scientific principles, in the near term.
C. Well, since you are so interested in the scientific, intellectual, and otherwise "truth" of god's existence, consider this logical, scientific, and unassailable logic proving there cannot be a "god".
1. Assume there is a supreme being, that is intelligent
2. Therefore, that being has thoughts.
3. That being is also capable, according to your mythology, of knowing everything there is to know (even our very own thoughts!) all the time!
4. Thoughts are information
5. Information is made up of data
6. Data requires a PHYSICAL substrate upon which to exist (there is no data in a vacuum for example).
7. There is a limit to the speed of which a particle can travel in this universe ("c" - the speed of light). Actually accelerating a particle to the speed of light requires infinite energy as I understand it, and therefore is not possible.
8. Yet, you maintain god knows all, about everything, everywhere, all the time.
9. Whatever physical substrate hold the thoughts of god must operate at odds with the laws of this universe, since it must travel at beyond light speed.
Therefore "god" as an omniscient "entity" cannot exist in this universe.
Sure, you can therefore maintain that god is SUPER-natural, which cannot be argued down by logic or science, since supernatural doesn't mean anything real!
They why bother trying to "defend your truth" with logic, science or intellectual postulates? Simply doesn't make any sense! Stick to the supernatural explanations, then no one can argue with you!
Getting back to the discussion yesterday, let's discuss the nature of faith!
(RELIGIOUS) Faith = a belief held without evidence. THERE CANNOT BE EVIDENCE IF GOD IS SUPERNATURAL.
However, and therefore the "Faithful" and the Non-Believer can agree: "No Reason For God!"
Knowing you will continue to spout prime comedic material, I look forward to my next commute home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
