Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

Hi, Truman here,

RE: "Truman has to depend on the uniformity of nature to make his case. The foundation of all science is that things can be tested and demonstrated to be true. In order to test something, you must assume that nature is arranged in such a way that is uniform and fixed. The Christian can account for such by appealing to God's word(Gen 8:22), Truman, on the other hand, must once again borrow from Steve to make his own points. "

Scientists think nature is uniform, to the extent it is (not all things always uniform), based on evidence. For example with carbon dating, it is known that the ratio of carbon in the air is not uniform due to nuclear testing. But we have no reason to suspect the speed of light changes (other than when traveling through different mediums such as space or water). So no Bible needed at all.

Conversely, the Bible says you can't trust your senses, depending on how you interpret it. For example, if you believe God literally made Adam fully grown, then you can't say Adam grew like everyone else, from a child. If that miracle event is true, then it is possible that everything was created just seconds ago, with our memories just implanted (as Adam would have many things implanted into him, such as knowing how to talk and think as an adult without training). Steve thinks that it is most likely true that Adam was made that way, rather than the alternative of evolved.

So, I'm not borrowing from Steve or the Bible at all. The Bible is worthless for science or philosophy. It is only good for learning about ancient religious practices such as making animal sacrifices to appease angry gods... which Jesus is supposed to fulfill.

When I was a Christian, I really appreciated Steve's Revelation book. Awesome for creating open minds in eschatology. But I've moved on and just see it all as Christian mythology now.

Feel free to engage me here.

[TrumanSmith]

I think Truman sounded like someone addicted to certainty.

Not at all- just that there's overwhelming evidence to support evolution. People like Steve says there's no evidence but he doesn't know the evidence being presented. He's relying on 'experts' that agree with him, but these 'experts' he relies on are a tiny minority, outside the vast scientific consensus that agrees that humans evolved from other animals.

I used to be partial to young earth creationism, then old earth, then ID, then evolutionary creationist... now atheist and evolutionist. I think the diff. with Steve and I is that I've studied it much more in depth than he has.

[steve7150]

I used to be partial to young earth creationism, then old earth, then ID, then evolutionary creationist... now atheist and evolutionist. I think the diff. with Steve and I is that I've studied it much more in depth than he has.









You did a good job Truman, for an atheist. Just kidding you did well. Maybe i have not seen the light but i have no idea why evolution if true disproves God. Can God use a gradual method if he wants rather then sudden action? I do think the universe and earth are most likely billions of years old but in macro-evolution what i don't see is enough transitional fossils to seal the deal. I know there may be some but in many cases the number is very small. BTW i'm not Steve Gregg and he is not me either.

[CThomas]

Hi, Truman. I haven't read your booklet, but I listened to your discussion with Steve the other night. I just wanted to say that I was impressed with you that you came across as a sincere and friendly person. I do have to say that, as someone who myself is open to evolution-compatible readings of Genesis, Steve's point -- which time must have prevented you from addressing -- that your contentions on the first issue even if true would not support your conclusion was well taken. I personally found your views on the second point less coherent even by their terms (and again Steve's point about the consequences of your contentions if true are, with respect, correct).

If you feel like engaging one substantive point, I do think you are confused in your contention that scientists believe in the uniformity of nature "based on evidence." To the contrary, data only serve as evidence for any scientific hypotheses to the extent one begins by assuming the uniformity of nature. That predicate fact can never be evidentially established or even supported. This isn't a Christian point. It's been nearly universally accepted at least since David Hume. The point about the fact that the atheist worldview illicitly borrowing from the Christian worldview in its acceptance of science is, in fact correct. But I do mean it when I say that I appreciate your friendly demeanor during the show. It was a welcome contrast to a number of others I've seen who share your worldview.

Best regards,

CThomas

[brody196]

Scientists think nature is uniform, to the extent it is (not all things always uniform), based on evidence. For example with carbon dating, it is known that the ratio of carbon in the air is not uniform due to nuclear testing. But we have no reason to suspect the speed of light changes (other than when traveling through different mediums such as space or water). So no Bible needed at all.

You're missing it bro. The reason scientist can base anything at all on evidence is because of the uniformity of nature. You and all other scientist assume uniformity of nature and base your lives around it, but cannot account for it. Are you certain that the laws of nature that exist today will operate the same tomorrow? If you do, you're living with faith in the unknowable.

Conversely, the Bible says you can't trust your senses, depending on how you interpret it. For example, if you believe God literally made Adam fully grown, then you can't say Adam grew like everyone else, from a child. If that miracle event is true, then it is possible that everything was created just seconds ago, with our memories just implanted (as Adam would have many things implanted into him, such as knowing how to talk and think as an adult without training). Steve thinks that it is most likely true that Adam was made that way, rather than the alternative of evolved.

Your argument in the above was not very well thought out. Are you suggesting that the God of scripture may be changing the game up, so to speak? If so, you still have a major crisis, namely that God does exist! You really shouldn't step into the Christian worldview to try and disprove it, because doing so assumes the very things you deny. For example, at no time our little dialogue here will I assume the atheistic worldview, to do so would undermine any attempt to reason on a logical basis.

So, I'm not borrowing from Steve or the Bible at all. The Bible is worthless for science or philosophy. It is only good for learning about ancient religious practices such as making animal sacrifices to appease angry gods... which Jesus is supposed to fulfill.

Deny it all you want, but when you assume certain metaphysical laws like logic, morality, and uniformity of nature, you are assuming the Christian worldview. Your atheism cannot account for such things.

When I was a Christian, I really appreciated Steve's Revelation book. Awesome for creating open minds in eschatology. But I've moved on and just see it all as Christian mythology now.

Perhaps you moved too far?

[wwalkeriv]

I also posted this on the media section of the forum in case anyone missed it or can't find it elsewhere:

http://theos.org/media/category/146/

Jarrod

Thank you Jarrod.

[TrumanSmith]

Maybe i have not seen the light but i have no idea why evolution if true disproves God. Can God use a gradual method if he wants rather then sudden action? I do think the universe and earth are most likely billions of years old but in macro-evolution what i don't see is enough transitional fossils to seal the deal. I know there may be some but in many cases the number is very small. BTW i'm not Steve Gregg and he is not me either.

Thanks for telling my you aren't Mr. Gregg because I would have assumed so. Good foresight.

What do you mean by "gradual action?" Do you mean biological evolution, human descent from other animals? The problem with god-guided evolution is that it makes "the problem of evil" (theodicy) much worse, since evolution is violent and "red in tooth and nail." Does that sound like a design process an all-loving God would come up with? Not at all. Theodicy is a problem for theology; but it becomes a greatly magnified as a problem if a Christian accepts evolution.

When I was a Christian, I loved CS Lewis' idea of evolution being a part of gospel... (I think last chapter called "Mere Men" or something like that in "Mere Christianity"). Becoming a spiritual born-again person can be seen as a stage in evolution. But going deeper, it brings up many problems (people that die in childbirth, etc), no chance to evolve.

[TrumanSmith]

CThomas said: "If you feel like engaging one substantive point, I do think you are confused in your contention that scientists believe in the uniformity of nature "based on evidence." To the contrary, data only serve as evidence for any scientific hypotheses to the extent one begins by assuming the uniformity of nature. That predicate fact can never be evidentially established or even supported. This isn't a Christian point. It's been nearly universally accepted at least since David Hume. The point about the fact that the atheist worldview illicitly borrowing from the Christian worldview in its acceptance of science is, in fact correct."

By the way, I also appreciate Mr. Gregg's demeaner too. I happened to see a clip of him and James White in a debate and Gregg wanted to interact with him but White complained about entrapment. I'd be on Gregg's side in that debate... and I would also enjoy a conversation with Gregg as he attempted with White, but the moderator didn't think it was a wise format. Maybe Gregg and I agree that a heartfelt conversation would be more beneficial and educational. Maybe in a different forum... I've been doing some Google hangouts lately (maybe a possibility). FYI: White is funny how he likes to push his doctorate degree but his institution is quite questionable... slightly better than a diploma mill.

As for uniformity. We should use specific example to clarify thinking. Speed of light. Why assume it is constant? Maybe the distant stars aren't as far because in older days light went faster (I know a creationist who says this). The reason why it is assumed is because you have to start somewhere and there's no evidence to the contrary. Then there's data from other fields that might also corroborate with it. The more evidence, the stronger the belief system gets. For Christianity, I assert there's zero good evidence to believe it. Zero. Feel free to name something.

Mr. Gregg says his personal relationship with god is the best evidence better, better than science. I also felt the leading of the holy spirit, fellowship with god, etc. I now see it as a delusion.

[TrumanSmith]

Brody196 said:"Deny it all you want, but when you assume certain metaphysical laws like logic, morality, and uniformity of nature, you are assuming the Christian worldview."

I think you are misusing the term 'metaphysics'. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy having to deal with 'being' and existence; ontology.

Ethics (morality) is also a branch of philosophy. If you want to ask "what is good or bad" that is morality. If you ask "does good and bad exist objectively" that could be bringing-in metaphysics into the discussion. Another metaphysical question would be "do numbers really exist, or are they just a human conception?"

For morality, you are probably following what is known as "Divine command theory." I don't. I look to consequentialism, individual rights, and reciprocity. No god needed. The three things I listed have the effect of making a peaceful community. If you want to discuss further, pick a certain moral subject, but some are hard and some are easy; not at all "one size fits all." By the way, most brilliant thing ever, written on morality:
"The Moral Instinct" by Prof. Steven Pinker
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

[CThomas]

Thanks, Truman. I'm happy to engage your example. What basis is there on your worldview to believe that the speed of light will be tomorrow what our best determinations have indicated that it has been up until now? What evidence can you adduce for this expectation that does not presuppose the uniformity of nature? You can say that we have good evidence that it has always remained the same so far, but lots of previous instances say nothing about what will happen next time unless you assume that the future is likely to resemble the past, which is the very point under consideration. So citing evidence from previous scientific observations cannot support an expectation of the continued uniformity of nature without begging the question. This is a critical point and I hope to get you to concede it. In fact you come close at one point when you say that "you have to start somewhere." Maybe you do, but that's just saying that science is impossible without assuming the uniformity of nature. But that's our point. We have a rational basis to support this critical expectation, while I think you will admit that your worldview provides you with none. If you accept the uniformity of nature without any logical or evidential warrant, but rather because you have to start somewhere, then you have no rational basis to believe it even if you think it would be very helpful if it is true. Moreover, it follows that everything else you believe that depends on the uniformity of nature as a premise -- which happens to be not only all of our scientific knowledge but also virtually everything we take for granted in our everyday lives -- is similarly removed of any rational warrant within the atheist worldview. Strange as it may seem, adoption of the atheist worldview removes any rational ground for believing almost anything at all.

CThomas