Atheist
I just watched the news about this atheist filing another lawsuit for having our bills written "in God we trust" (or I think it was something like that. I don't remember.). And the guy mentioned that he is with the science only foundation or something. I just thought it is very weird that there is a huge conflict between Atheist and the Theist. I'm very greatful for God to teach me so many wonderful things in my life yet I just wanted to share something that disturbs me greatly.Atheist wants to use Science, Logic, and morality as their basis of disproving or "unproving" (according to Gorden Stein) the existence of God. Yet, Atheist cannot even explain the very foundation by which they use Science, Logic, and Morality. I would like to ask the Atheist, by what empirical reasons or proof can they justify that Science, Logic, and Morality is the "only way" to disprove or unprove the existence of God? Can they safely say that by the use of Science, science itself disprove the existence of God?
Theist maintains a position that without God, Science, Logic, and Morality has no meaning whatsoever. Theist also maintains that Science, Logic, and man's consciousness of morality points us back to God. Atheist tries to say that the Solar System has an inherent laws by which planets orbit around the strongest gravitational pole (in our case, Sun). This "law" by which the Solar System operate is abstract (cannot even be tested that Solar System revolves around the Sun. It just does and they cannot explain the reasons why.), unchanging (the law is always constant. The planets do not by any chance get out of their orbit.), Universal (the law of Solar System applies to the entire Space.) entities. By it, in the Atheistic worldview, there cannot be abstract, unchanging, universal entities for this alone contradicts the very beliefs that we live in the Evolutionary Universe, which all things are "random." In the Atheist worldview, they cannot even account for "laws" in general.
Atheist must first explain the reason why there are laws in this universe and why they are abstract. Once dealing with this particular question, they can actually do a scientific explanation but without it, they are pressupposing that "laws" exist and they must be invarient entities. But this pressupposition itself destroys the Atheist for if the laws of Gravity (for example) are invarient, how can they reconcile a connection between forever changing universe and the unchanging laws in particular? In logic, this is in fact called contradiction. It is saying, I have a pencil in front of me but it is not the case that the pencil is in front of me. If Atheist remains consistent with their worldview, they cannot account for laws.
So, who is the Atheist who talks against God? They are the one who is foolishly thinking that they have found the magical key that says there is no God when in particular, their own position is in itself by faith! I say by faith because Atheist has never justified the reason why they have laws. Without laws, this Universe would lose the very thing we are constantly dependant upon. If by any chance this World is by random processes, there would be enormous eruptions of "natural effects," planets constantly crashing, Sun would inflate a lot quicker, the planets would fail to be in "space" or in the "right place."
In short, Atheist cannot account for laws and thus, laws are the many reasons that without God, this world is irrational.
Prove to me that there is "laws" and how you can justify that law in your worldview. How can you make any connection with your changing worldview against mine.
posted by Discipleforce0 @ 10:12 AM
3 comments
links to this post
3 Comments:
Couple things:
One, not all scientists are athiests.
Two, science can only report what it finds based on the scientific method.
I will save you the trouble of looking up the first steps on Google:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Just based on this alone, you can certainly see where there would be a purely logical break between parts of theology and science.
This is in fact where the break is between those that would like to teach ID along side evolution in a science class.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, why stop with science class? Why not geometry?
In Second Kings, we're told that the circular alter in Solomon's temple is nine cubits in diameter and 27 cubits around the rim. Fine, except that makes Pi an even three-point-zero. Whoops.
Again, you are missing the point.
A scientist sees the Sun in the sky. Based on what they can see and test, they can tell us about the Sun.
The age, the temperature, how far it is away from the Sun we are, etc..
Philosofically, we can have the discussion about where God fits in all this.
But that's not science.
I have to ask you a question, and it is not meant as an insult, but is English your first language?
Because I am having a very difficult time with your writing.
The best I can get out of it is that you feel the earth and universe are constant (which they most certainly are not) and that scientists seem to be trying to disprove God.
Staying relatively local in the whole stellar side of things, we can measure very accurately the age of the sun and of the earth. They both have very finite ages.
Getting further out, we can also measure the distance of stars from us, from our galaxy and further THEIR age.
We can also see the universe expanding.
God may have created all of this, but what science can show us, is that which can be observed and tested. That's it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home