Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[Starboard Tack]

Before I go further, I want to say that I entered this conversation thinking that you were working from a broad theistic standpoint, taking as assumptions only the existence of a powerful and morally-good/perfect God. But your responses seem to be oriented toward the Christian Bible. It isn't a problem or anything, I just want to know which standpoint you're coming from. In any case, the following points are applicable to a bare theist:

The argument that science may advance faster if the possibility of God existing remains whatever the orientation of a particular person. But you are correct, I am a Christian theist, and as a scientist would take the biblical exhortation to test everything as well as to entertain the falsifiability of the resurrection seriously. Having said that, there may be a reason why science flourished and advanced in the Christian world, but tended to flourish then stultify elsewhere. Islam, for example, characterizes Allah as capable of changing his mind about how the universe works. The Christian god is taught that the laws of the universe are constant. If reality can change and the laws of physics are not immutable in this space time, then it might be possible for a devout Muslim to have less enthusiasm about finding out how God did things since how he did it one day might not be the reality he imposes another. I don't want to turn this into a debate on whether Buddhists, who disbelieve in fixed reality, or Muslims who believe in the doctrine of abrogation can make good scientists. Clearly they can.

1. Given only the existence of a good God etc., we have no reason to think that God would create DNA as an act of special creation rather than any other way.
2. God might well have set things up in such a way that humans evolved from other creatures; his moral perfection entails nothing about how humans came to exist in the universe.
3. Insofar as moral perfection entails his reducing unnecessary pain and suffering, he would create functional DNA. But since there appear to be gratuitous evils, if God exists then we are not in a position to know beforehand whether he's likely to create functional DNA. After all, he's allowed genetic diseases and the Bataan Death March.

It seems like you are mixing up some concepts here. The existence of evil can be understood from a Christian perspective as manifesting itself in two forms - moral and natural evil. Moral evil stems from man's free will to behave nicely or not, e.g. the Bataan Death March. Natural evil stems from the laws of physics and entropy, e.g. genetic diseases. I believe God imposed the laws of physics we have. They appear not to be able to vary at all in order for life to exist anywhere in the universe. So the question of natural evil is why God doesn't intervene to prevent the consequences of hurricanes, earthquakes, disease, etc. I have no clue, just some presumptions based on faith. However, that doesn't apply to this conversation since the processes of natural evil will continue, and we should continue to learn from the world to try to prevent them ourselves. That is what the scientific method is for, and as a Christian believing what I believe, I would assume that God meant it when he said we were in charge of this planet. So we are responsible for finding the answers to and ways to mitigate natural evil.

To be honest, I don't understand your statement about DNA or what the point was you are making. Sorry.

I want to confirm with you that you're arguing from a biblical standpoint. If that's the case then I will start generating my own predictions from the bible and compare that with the evidence.

Yes, that is correct. However, if you wish to make predictions from the Bible you should be prepared to reference the centuries of scholarship that has gone into exegesis and hermeneutics. Ad hoc interpretations of passages may not be helpful and divert the conversation into a "is the bible true" argument. I probably won't engage in that since it isn't the topic at hand.

To the quote above, though, I would say that there is no place where God states he designs things in similar fashion to humans; Isaiah 55:9 implies the very opposite. Given bare theism, we have even less reason to think we know how God would create biological organisms, or even whether he has design preferences about the matter at all.

Isaiah 55:9 merely says that God's thoughts aren't ours. My thoughts aren't my kids either because he is young and has a skull full of mush, but I wouldn't expect him to design a go cart with the wheels on top anymore than I would.

I also want to point out a contradiction implied by your arguing from divine biogenesis and fine-tuning. The fine-tuning argument works by pointing out that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the all-natural abiogenesis of life ie. that the universe is designed in such a way to maximize the probability that abiogenesis would occur. The argument from DNA etc., however, depends on abiogenesis being massively improbable. But if God were to just create life as an act of special creation, then there is no reason to expect fine-tuning. We might as well have expected him to create all of the necessary elements for biology in the same manner (instead of just waiting for them to arise naturally after the first few star-generations). There's also no reason to expect he would create a universe beyond that required by biological life on Earth- all we need is a star and some strategically placed planets.

No, I don't think you quite have this right. The fine tuning argument is that the universe cannot be any different than it is in order to be able to support advanced life. It says nothing about how life started. That is a separate question that I would argue is an intractable one based on what we know of early earth chemistry and how rapidly life appeared. Regarding why God didn't create just the solar system if he wants to have earth exist, it goes back to the laws of physics. For any earth to exist anywhere in the universe, you need all that stuff. In fact, based on the weak anthropic principle, you not only need all that stuff but all that time as well, since you can't have advanced life emerge anywhere in the universe any earlier than it did.

This is rather revealing. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect God to act in such and such a way ie. we don't have grounds for thinking he wouldn't act that way. But that's not the question. The argument assumes that God would act in such and such a way, so we actually do need some grounds for thinking God would act that way.

I would argue that religious texts provide insight into how God thinks. In fact, at least in the case of the Bible, they go into excruciating detail on how God thinks. So, no, I don't think it unreasonable to presume that we can make some assumptions on what God would, or would not do.[/u]

[McCulloch]

I don't know why God chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws ( a concept by the way described in the Bible and denied by every other religion).

Challenge 1:
Please show where in the Bible that this concept is described.
Were there fixed laws in place that unleashed the genocidal flood?
Does this sound like the a universe operating under fixed laws?

[font=Georgia]Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.
[/font]

Challenge 2:
Please show how every other religion denies this concept. If time does not permit you to answer for every other religion, then demonstrate it for just these five:

1. Unitarianism
2. Wicca
3. Judaism
4. Bah'
5. Buddhism

[Starboard Tack]

I don't know why God chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws ( a concept by the way described in the Bible and denied by every other religion).

Challenge 1:
Please show where in the Bible that this concept is described.

Jer 33:25 This is what the LORD says: If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth,

Were there fixed laws in place that unleashed the genocidal flood?

I'm happy to have a conversation with you, and if I pass gratuitous judgments on atheists in my responses, please call me out. I expect the same respect from you.

Does this sound like the a universe operating under fixed laws?

[font=Georgia]Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.

While you are entitled to disbelieve it, or chalk it up to delusion, there are millions who will attest to the power of prayer. However, the challenge is irrelevant, since by definition the direct intervention of God in parting waters, healing your bunions or creating the universe requires action that either transcends the laws of physics, or manipulates to produce a result. The laws of physics may be used in healing, for example speeding up the immune response, or they may be suspended as in the disappearance of cancerous tumors. That is an interpretation of the meaning of these events, which do happen, but you are entitled to reach another conclusion on their origin.

Challenge 2:
Please show how every other religion denies this concept. If time does not permit you to answer for every other religion, then demonstrate it for just these five:

1. Unitarianism
2. Wicca
3. Judaism
4. Bah'
5. Buddhism

Judaism uses the same Bible Christians do, so there is nothing to demonstrate there. I have no clue what Unitarians believe in, and suspect they aren't sure either. Bahai is inherently illogical because it posits that religions with conflicting truth claims are each true, in violation of the law of non-contradiction, which is not something we see in nature. Wiccans are pantheists who if they have a guiding orthodoxy, I have no clue what it is. Buddhism has variants, but to the extent there is orthodoxy, it is that what is observed is illusion, which is not a particularly strong basis for empirical research.

[Adamoriens]

It seems like you are mixing up some concepts here. The existence of evil can be understood from a Christian perspective as manifesting itself in two forms - moral and natural evil. Moral evil stems from man's free will to behave nicely or not, e.g. the Bataan Death March. Natural evil stems from the laws of physics and entropy, e.g. genetic diseases. I believe God imposed the laws of physics we have. They appear not to be able to vary at all in order for life to exist anywhere in the universe. So the question of natural evil is why God doesn't intervene to prevent the consequences of hurricanes, earthquakes, disease, etc. I have no clue, just some presumptions based on faith. However, that doesn't apply to this conversation since the processes of natural evil will continue, and we should continue to learn from the world to try to prevent them ourselves. That is what the scientific method is for, and as a Christian believing what I believe, I would assume that God meant it when he said we were in charge of this planet. So we are responsible for finding the answers to and ways to mitigate natural evil.

To be honest, I don't understand your statement about DNA or what the point was you are making. Sorry.

I think that the value of moral freedom is grossly overestimated, such that moral evil is still a problem for theism. But I don't want to take off on that tangent so much as point out the implications of natural evil:

Given the existence of a powerful and good God, and given the existence of inexplicable natural evil, it seems we are ignorant about the goods and evils associated with natural evil. If that's the case, then functional human DNA might well have ended up nonfunctional. This undermines reasoning from "functional human DNA is a natural good," to "this makes the existence of a good and powerful God more probable."

I want to confirm with you that you're arguing from a biblical standpoint. If that's the case then I will start generating my own predictions from the bible and compare that with the evidence.

Yes, that is correct. However, if you wish to make predictions from the Bible you should be prepared to reference the centuries of scholarship that has gone into exegesis and hermeneutics. Ad hoc interpretations of passages may not be helpful and divert the conversation into a "is the bible true" argument. I probably won't engage in that since it isn't the topic at hand.

Genesis 1 seems fairly clearly to be a cleaned-up example of ancient near-Eastern cosmology. In that light, it certainly generates false predictions. There doesn't seem to be a better reading ie. one that doesn't take modern cosmology into account and try to cohere the two.

To the quote above, though, I would say that there is no place where God states he designs things in similar fashion to humans; Isaiah 55:9 implies the very opposite. Given bare theism, we have even less reason to think we know how God would create biological organisms, or even whether he has design preferences about the matter at all.

Isaiah 55:9 merely says that God's thoughts aren't ours. My thoughts aren't my kids either because he is young and has a skull full of mush, but I wouldn't expect him to design a go cart with the wheels on top anymore than I would.

So much for scholarly exegesis and hermeneutics. The verse:

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.(emphasis added)

Moreover, the question is not about how many designs there are to create a go-kart, nor about how many ways there are to create humans, since humans are not an intrinsically good design, but rather instantiate certain goods such as (perhaps sentience). There might well have been other ways God could've created life and sentience, ways without DNA structures. Thus the hypothesis that God->DNA structures is unsuccessful.

No, I don't think you quite have this right. The fine tuning argument is that the universe cannot be any different than it is in order to be able to support advanced life. It says nothing about how life started. That is a separate question that I would argue is an intractable one based on what we know of early earth chemistry and how rapidly life appeared. Regarding why God didn't create just the solar system if he wants to have earth exist, it goes back to the laws of physics. For any earth to exist anywhere in the universe, you need all that stuff. In fact, based on the weak anthropic principle, you not only need all that stuff but all that time as well, since you can't have advanced life emerge anywhere in the universe any earlier than it did.

There's some logical tension in the quote above. Compare this:

The fine tuning argument is that the universe cannot be any different than it is in order to be able to support advanced life.

With this:

In fact, based on the weak anthropic principle, you not only need all that stuff but all that time as well, since you can't have advanced life emerge anywhere in the universe any earlier than it did.

The fine-tuning argument works best if life emerges on its own. If God had to assemble DNA to create life, then that begs the question:

If the universe required at least one act of special creation for biological life to exist, then why shouldn't we expect more? Why shouldn't we have expected God to create all of the essential elements and energy instead of allowing them to arise from prior conditions? In short, it seems that acknowledging special creation, such as divine biogenesis, undermines the prediction that we would, in fact, find fine-tuning. There seems to be no reason to expect an enormous universe or the incredible amount of time it took for life to appear on the scene.

Now, it doesn't totally undermine fine-tuning (I overstated the dichotomy earlier); the four fundamental physical forces would have to remain the same for the universe to support life, but pretty much all the other variables that scientists and apologists bring up are only relevant insofar as life arose naturally. If life arose by special creation, then we didn't in fact require generations of stars pumping out the elements necessary for biology.

Hopefully this clears up where I'm coming from.

[nygreenguy]

To start I read "Penrose and Hawking; The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. 314, 529-543 (1970): If the universe contains mass and if general relativity reliably describes cosmic dynamics, then space and time must be created by a Causal Agent transcending space and time." And I couldnt find that statement. I tried searching (crtl+f) but the document (pdf) isnt formatted as text, so I couldnt find it. Do you know what page its on?

I couldn't access the full text either, so I went to the source where I read that quote. It looks to me like the quote is not from the paper, but is a summary of the implications from someone else. The paper does find a cosmic beginning of time and space, which requires causality from outside time and space, so I can live with the characterization but won't use quotes anymore until I know whether this is in the paper, is a quote from Hawking or Penrose after the paper, or a summary by someone else. Thanks for the correction.

No problem. Anytime there is a quote (even if its one I agree with) I tend to check it out to get context. I did find the paper, I just couldnt find the quote, and you explained why above. The paper looks to be open access and you (or anyone else) can download it here.

The Vilenkin, Guth and Borde paper reached a similar conclusion. Vilenkin wrote in "Many Worlds in One" the following, and this is a quote from him: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." The paper from which the "proof" comes does allow for some universes without a beginning, and while the math goes over my head, Vilenkin has said that these alternates present more and hairier problems than the presumption that our universe is past finite. I think this all goes to whether you believe that the singularity existed past infinite in zero dimensions before expanding into singularity. I believe this is a theoretical argument, but I don't think it has any empirical support.

As I said before, I am still not sure what to make of all of this. I understand it as when the singularity expanded, time was created with it, so you cant really say anything about "before" the singularity.

It is hard to say. I would argue it depends on the level of "unknown". Thinking about this, if you substitute something unknown, have you really added any information? Let me try to format my reasoning differently:
Information content (knowledge) of supernatural being = zero
So if we ADD the theoretical information content of a supernatural being as a solution, we have not changed anything.

Im not saying this wouldnt warrant examination of an outside being, I am stating that we must first gain information ABOUT this supernatural being before we can posit it as an explanation.

I think I understand what you're saying, but if that is the standard for science, where does that leave theoretical physics? Empirical evidence for the multiverse doesn't exist, but isn't noodling through those various models considered science?

Deductive approaches to science happen. Take for example dark matter. We know what gravity does and how it works, however when we look at the universe it doesnt seem to be moving the way it should relative to the observed mass. This means there bust be something that accounts for this discrepancy, which we call dark matter. So we start with the theory, and THEN find support for it. However, it is STILL based on some inductive measurements and observations. We still have limits to the things we propose and they can still be falsified.

This multiverse idea is one of those instances. We know, from experience, that we are not that good at observation. We used to think the earth was all there is. Then the solar system. Then the milky way. Then the universe. Now, they are adding one more level. Apparently it has mathematical support. Now, I dont think this idea is being put out there as "truth", but because of its deductive nature (start with the theory) it takes on the appearance of knowledge. So it is something still in "testing".

I think I would tighten the constraints on that observation a bit. If causality exists, and the universe has a beginning, it has a cause from outside the universe that brought it into existence. That causal agent can only be personal and living or non personal and non living. Since we have no empirical evidence for either conclusion, on what basis would you exclude one from consideration as a founding principle of science?

How can you limit the causal agent to those boundaries? Now, going past that part, I dont think thats necessarily how science operates. I think we tend to operate more on inclusion than exclusion.

A common example I use is one where I have 2 populations of plants. One control and one that I fertilize. So I do my thing and water and fertilize. In the end, I collect my data and do an analysis. I find my treatment had a statistically significant effect on the growth of the plant. This means (depending on my analysis) the chance of the increased growth being sue to something OTHER than my fertilization is quite small. So the evidence points to fertilization being the cause. Now, I can exclude that god didnt somehow make them larger mostly because I dont know how a god would operate. I cant test, nor can I falsify that idea. Outside of that, I can say im pretty sure it was the result of the fertilizer so other possible explanations are ruled out by default.

Read the Stenger paper carefully that Goat posted a link to. There is no more vocal opponent of the concept of fine tuning, but if you read what he wrote he acknowledges it exists, but then comes up with arguments against it that don't hold much water. He makes an argument against the fine tuning in the Cosmological Constant that relies on quintessence, which in turn relies on a universe that is not flat. However, all the measurements we have indicate that the universe is most likely flat. For a listing of scientists who have commented on this, here is a link from a Christian website with some of the quotes:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

I will check it out when I get time. Pretty busy week(end)....(yet I find time to post here. clearly my priorities are out of order)

Well, as I sort of mentioned earlier, for something to be an explanation, it has to actually...explain. Since our knowledge of superntural being = zero, using god can never actually explain anything. There is simply no information contained in the concept which can be applied.

I would again argue that there are areas of inquiry recognized as scientific that also don't pass this test - theoretical physics being one. I am not arguing that we can prove God from science, since ultimately science can't "prove" anything. What it can do is arrive at models that best explain the data, and on that basis, the existence of God seems to work best to explain a range of intractable problems.

Well, only sort of. A lot of theoretical physics DOES deal in proofs because of its mathematical and deductive nature.

Here is an example of a scientific proof (although simplified):
All trees have roots.
This (touching a tree) is a tree.
Therefore, this tree has roots.

Ok, I know its lame but it is a general outline of what I mean.

Now, when we build models those are build much more on the inductive side of science which is observation, testing, etc... and like you said, its about BEST describing the data.

Now, the problem with God is it must rely on assumptions. Above, my assumption relied on ALL trees having roots. One tree without roots falsifies my entire argument. So from a deductive standpoint, one cant base a premises on god because there are no valid presumptions. Now, if we want to take the inductive route, how would we conduct a test for god? How can a god explain something, if the nature of god is unknown? Anyone can create something in their mind which can fit all the unknowns of the universe, so how would we decide whose idea is more valid? The supernatural can escape all explanation and any attempt at falsification.

If the pseudogenes were NOT remnants, and were in facts related to being created by god then we would suspect there to be some sort of evidence for this. SOMEWHERE in all of our observations and analyses something should have popped up.

But doesn't evolutionary theory hold that as major changes in morphology and functionality occur, the genes guiding discarded processes can remain in the genome for a very, very long time? If this is so, then the trend towards finding functionality where we never expected to see it would appear to be the evidence you are looking for.

Ok, I read that paper and AFTER reading it, if anything, it appear to support evolution more than anything. So, we have this gene, DHFR. We know that one of the copies of this gene work. There are 5 copies, on different chromosomes. What is unique about the 4 "pseudogenes" is their lack of introns. This is odd because otherwise they appear identical. Well, if you remember your genetics, mRNA splices out all the introns as it is copying the DNA. So what appears to have happened here is the mRNA was inserted into the genome. What is interesting is this appears the same way for these genes in primates, and no where else. This indicates this "merge" began with primates. There is another difference in that one of these is ALSO missing the promoter. This is only found in humans, indicating this mutation is recent.

Now this "pseudogene" is a copy of the gene we KNEW to have function (DHFR). However, we were unable to detect its activity. Modern instruments are able to pick up these differences much more efficiently now. This "pseudogene" is very similar to the functional copy except it does have some base substitution and its efficiency is -30%. Along with that we found the functions you described.

So we have this gene, which has been copied in primates and passed to humans. We noticed that one copy retained some function and has slightly mutated.

So we dont have a case of what we though was unknown junk turning out to be useful, we have a gene that was duplicated and passed down and because of the nature of the gene and its product, we didnt discover its function until now.

Sorry, but the fossil record doesn't show that. Autotrophic organisms have much more complex bio-chemistry than heterotrophs, yet autotrophs appear first.

The fossil record can only show what has been fossilized. The predominant theory is heterotrophs came first.

Not only do they appear first, but they appear as complex life forms the instant they could possibly be supported on earth. Photosynthesizing life signatures can be found in the Isua rocks in Greenland dating back to 3.83 bn years ago. The earth have barely cooled from the LHBP at that point, so where is the march from simple to complex there?

I believe those rocks were deemed contaminated.

I would look at the Cambrian explosion as an example not of a random event, but one in the record that is completely inexplicable from an evolutionary perspective, and from that perspective, would be totally random.

Except it isnt random. We still see plenty of life and transitional fossils BEFORE that event, i was, despite its name, a long period of time. In what way is it inexplicable?

Even Wikipedia place the duration at less than 50 million years, and this research from China places the duration at less that 10 million years.

http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios458/Shu1.pdf

Again, I don't think the amount of diversification of body types that occurred during this period can be supported by the evolutionary paradigm.

Thats right re: time. 50 million years. So other than your opinion, what makes you think it cant be explained? What exactly limits it?

I would refer you to the Long Term Evolution Experiment at MSU. There, an e coli population was subjected to pin point selective pressure to come up with a relatively simple adaptation - the ability to pass citrate through the cell membrane where existing function could metabolize it. It took 4 quadrillion individuals before this occurred. You couldn't get more specific selection pressure applied to a critter than this, but random processes, while they eventually were successful in generating a microevolutionary change (a process i don't dispute), are not capable of explaining the massive number of collaborative mutations required to create fish from multicellular colonies in the duration of the Cambrian explosion.

I will perhaps try to respond to more later.

[Clownboat]

Yes, that is correct. However, if you wish to make predictions from the Bible you should be prepared to reference the centuries of scholarship that has gone into exegesis and hermeneutics. Ad hoc interpretations of passages may not be helpful and divert the conversation into a "is the bible true" argument. I probably won't engage in that since it isn't the topic at hand.

It is not logical that a god would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone and then require Theologians to interpret and explain the book.

[McCulloch]

Challenge 1:
Please show where in the Bible that this concept [ God chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws] is described.

Jer 33:25 This is what the LORD says: If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth,

Thanks.

Were there fixed laws in place that unleashed the genocidal flood?

I'm happy to have a conversation with you, and if I pass gratuitous judgments on atheists in my responses, please call me out. I expect the same respect from you.

I am sorry if I have offended. My intended point was simple. If the god chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws, why are there exceptions? One such glaring exception is the Great Flood. According to the Biblical narrative, it was not the consequence of fixed laws. It was the result of the direct action of the god. Its intent was to remove all life except a select few, hence genocidal.

Does this sound like the a universe operating under fixed laws?

[font=Georgia]Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit. [/font]

While you are entitled to disbelieve it, or chalk it up to delusion, there are millions who will attest to the power of prayer.

The truth of the claim made by James is irrelevant. The point here is that the god described by James did not create the universe and let it run under fixed laws. The god that James believes in regularly intervenes in the operation of the universe, the fixed laws are not sufficient.

Challenge 2:
Please show how every other religion denies this concept. If time does not permit you to answer for every other religion, then demonstrate it for just these five:

1. Unitarianism
2. Wicca
3. Judaism
4. Bah'
5. Buddhism

Judaism uses the same Bible Christians do, so there is nothing to demonstrate there.

The Bible used by the Jews does have some common elements with the Christian Bible, however, to call Christianity and Judaism the same religion would be an error.

I have no clue what Unitarians believe in, and suspect they aren't sure either.

Thank you for that admission. However, you did make a claim about the Unitarians in debate. You specifically stated that they deny the concept that God created the universe and let it run under fixed laws. Please demonstrate your claim or withdraw it.

Bahai is inherently illogical because it posits that religions with conflicting truth claims are each true, in violation of the law of non-contradiction, which is not something we see in nature.

From where I sit, Christianity is inherently illogical because it posits that there is a single entity (God) that is three persons, in violation of the law of identity, something we do not see in nature. How does your claim that Bah' is illogical prove your claim that it differs from Christianity with regard to God's involvement in the laws of the universe?

Wiccans are pantheists who if they have a guiding orthodoxy, I have no clue what it is.

Thank you for that admission. However, you did make a claim about the Wiccans in debate. You specifically stated that they deny the concept that God created the universe and let it run under fixed laws. Please demonstrate your claim or withdraw it.

Buddhism has variants, but to the extent there is orthodoxy, it is that what is observed is illusion, which is not a particularly strong basis for empirical research.

I don't think that Buddhism has quite so many variants as Christianity. However, since the teachings of Buddhism, at least to me, seem to be deliberately unfathomable, I will not hold your feet to the fire on this point. Feel free to substitute Jainism, Sikhism or Zoroastrianism.

[Starboard Tack]

Challenge 1:
Please show where in the Bible that this concept [ God chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws] is described.

Jer 33:25 This is what the LORD says: If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth,

Thanks.

Were there fixed laws in place that unleashed the genocidal flood?

I'm happy to have a conversation with you, and if I pass gratuitous judgments on atheists in my responses, please call me out. I expect the same respect from you.

I am sorry if I have offended. My intended point was simple. If the god chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws, why are there exceptions? One such glaring exception is the Great Flood. According to the Biblical narrative, it was not the consequence of fixed laws. It was the result of the direct action of the god. Its intent was to remove all life except a select few, hence genocidal.

I don't see this as an exception. On the rare occasions when God directly intervenes the fixed laws are suspended. If God isn't suspending those laws, then they exist, with the only exception being when the creator of those laws chooses to accomplishes his purposes directly.

Does this sound like the a universe operating under fixed laws?

[font=Georgia]Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit. [/font]

While you are entitled to disbelieve it, or chalk it up to delusion, there are millions who will attest to the power of prayer.

The truth of the claim made by James is irrelevant. The point here is that the god described by James did not create the universe and let it run under fixed laws. The god that James believes in regularly intervenes in the operation of the universe, the fixed laws are not sufficient.

Again, the laws are fixed. Prayer to God may result in God's intervention. From a Christian perspective, this is to be expected, and apparently widely experienced. If martial law is declared because of natural disaster, the existing laws don't become random, they are merely suspended for a set period of time. I really don't understand why divine intervention equals no fixed laws for you. The two seem perfectly compatible with one another.

Challenge 2:
Please show how every other religion denies this concept. If time does not permit you to answer for every other religion, then demonstrate it for just these five:

1. Unitarianism
2. Wicca
3. Judaism
4. Bah'
5. Buddhism

Judaism uses the same Bible Christians do, so there is nothing to demonstrate there.

The Bible used by the Jews does have some common elements with the Christian Bible, however, to call Christianity and Judaism the same religion would be an error.

I didn't say that. We use precisely the same O.T., which is where a lot of what we are talking about is defined.

I have no clue what Unitarians believe in, and suspect they aren't sure either.

Thank you for that admission. However, you did make a claim about the Unitarians in debate. You specifically stated that they deny the concept that God created the universe and let it run under fixed laws. Please demonstrate your claim or withdraw it.

You'll have to point me to where I said that.

Bahai is inherently illogical because it posits that religions with conflicting truth claims are each true, in violation of the law of non-contradiction, which is not something we see in nature.

From where I sit, Christianity is inherently illogical because it posits that there is a single entity (God) that is three persons, in violation of the law of identity, something we do not see in nature. How does your claim that Bah' is illogical prove your claim that it differs from Christianity with regard to God's involvement in the laws of the universe?

Science is an enterprise that acknowledges that something cannot both be true and not true at the same time. Since Bahai believes that all religions are essentially true and creates and amalgam of them even though they have directly contrary truth claims, their faith seems inherently contradictory to the rational basis of scientific inquiry.

Wiccans are pantheists who if they have a guiding orthodoxy, I have no clue what it is.

Thank you for that admission. However, you did make a claim about the Wiccans in debate. You specifically stated that they deny the concept that God created the universe and let it run under fixed laws. Please demonstrate your claim or withdraw it.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. Please point out where I said anything about Wiccans.

Buddhism has variants, but to the extent there is orthodoxy, it is that what is observed is illusion, which is not a particularly strong basis for empirical research.

I don't think that Buddhism has quite so many variants as Christianity. However, since the teachings of Buddhism, at least to me, seem to be deliberately unfathomable, I will not hold your feet to the fire on this point. Feel free to substitute Jainism, Sikhism or Zoroastrianism.

Zen Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Dharma Buddhism are all as different from mainstream Buddhism as Islam is different from Christianity. But what's the point of the comment? All believe in the lack of concrete reality, which is hardly the mindset of the average scientist.

[McCulloch]

Starboard Tack has asked where he made claims about other religions.

As noted above, I don't know why God chose to create the universe and let it run under fixed laws ( a concept by the way described in the Bible and denied by every other religion).

Presumably this means that Starboard Tack asserts that God's provision of fixed laws is known to be denied by every non-biblical religions, such as

1. Wicca
2. Unitarianism
3. Bah'
4. Buddhism
5. Jainism
6. Sikhism
7. Zoroastrianism

Now, I am not quite so brave as Starboard Tack. In debate, I have learned not to make general claims about the beliefs of such a widely diverse group as every other religion for fear that someone might ask me to support such a claim.

Science is an enterprise that acknowledges that something cannot both be true and not true at the same time. Since Bahai believes that all religions are essentially true and creates and amalgam of them even though they have directly contrary truth claims, their faith seems inherently contradictory to the rational basis of scientific inquiry.

Actually, it is logic which asserts that something cannot both be true and not true. But logic is a foundation of the sciences, so Starboard Tack is essentially correct. One of the essential teachings of Bah' that of progressive religious revelation. The result is that they accept the validity of most of the world's religions, whose founders and central figures are seen as Manifestations of God. Religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed. Specific religious social teachings (for example, the direction of prayer, or dietary restrictions) may be revoked by a subsequent manifestation so that a more appropriate requirement for the time and place may be established. I don't quite see how this is a whole lot different from the dispensational viewpoint held by many Christians, who teach that God's laws given by Moses are not to be applied to modern Christians.

Wiccans belief about the gods' interventions into this world, are very close to the one expressed by Starboard Tack. Things go along according to fixed laws, unless some god or other can be convinced to intervene.

Starboard Tack's assertion about what is denied by every other religion remains unsupported.

[Filthy Tugboat]

It does not have to be. Is there any evidence that the creative agent is personal? Wouldn't Occam's razor imply a non-personal agent?

The best evidence, IMHO, presented for a personal causal agent are the design features of the universe. These are dismissed by some as unremarkable under the theory that regardless of the odds against something happening, it becomes unremarkable once it happens. That is called the fallacy of necessity. However, once one looks at the odds against a life supporting universe existing at all, the only out seems to be the multiverse, which I would argue is not the 'simpler' explanation.

I find it funny, in the very sentence where you suggest that the only response to the argument of fine tuning is the multi-verse theory, you discuss the notion that this universe is not another universe that you seem to think it could have been. The argument of fine-tuning rests on the multi-verse theory, it depends on the notion of things being different in order to suggest that we are lucky to be in a universe where everything is the way it is. As I have previously suggested, working within the constraints of the fine-tuning argument, we don't know any other different conditions that the fine-tuning argument proposes and can't honestly suggest that life could not exist in them. You discuss possibilities while counting unknown factors, it's nonsense.

The fine tuning argument does not rest on the multiverse theory, but on the observable universe we can interact with and measure.

Tell yourself that all you want. I will note that this is the only comment addressed to this point, you never even tried to show that it was not based on the multi-verse theory, you just declared it. I can explain my position on this matter more clearly if you would like.

Opponents to fine tuning arguments suggest that if a vast ensemble of universes exist, then they may have different laws of physics and we naturally exist in the one supportive of life because we are here to make the observation.

*Some Opponents of fine tuning.

If this were true, then opponents of fine tuning could accuse supporters of fine tuning as possessing observation and selection bias, negating their viewpoint.

Indeed they could.

However, if only one universe exists, then no observation and selection bias can be invoked and you have to deal with the fine tuned nature of what we observe.

Not really, the universe is capable of sustaining life, how and why have no answer, some people think magic, I see no reason to agree with them.

You suggest that it is nonsense to suggest that life couldn't exist in a universe even slightly different from our own. That opinion is not supported by what we know of the requirements for life.

Requirements for life on this planet*

You have demanded proof, but I suspect like others when I provide you with proof that your statement is invalid, you may demand proof in some other, unspecified form. Be that as it may, here is what Brandon Carter, mathematician has to say about the impact of possible variants to selected physical constants on the possibility of life:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 2.000.html

While Carter focuses on physical constants, fine tuning exists in the local environment as well.

He has far from demonstrated fine tuning, the cited section of his essay does not support the notion in the slightest. It discusses the constraints within the universe and what changing them could cause. It does not discuss anything of a fine-tuner, it is simply looking at things the way they are and working to see what it would be like if things were different.

Here is a list of some of those local features that must be fined. If any of these parameters to not perfectly align, no life:

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/teleo ... ng-faq.htm

OK, so you gave me a list of things that allow for life. Pray tell what should I be doing with this?

For a complete list of fine tuned characteristics necessary for advanced human civilization to exist, Hugh Ross' compendium of 140 dependent factors with over 340 scientific references supporting their inclusion may be helpful:

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium ... _part1.pdf

I'm glad that you finally specified life to advanced human civilization because it seems to me, that is what you've been referring to in this whole thing. But again, another list, what should I be doing with this list?

You should feel free to posit life on universes without the characteristics of our own. The only problem is chemistry, because chemistry will support life only within very specific and narrow parameters, all of which are dependent on the environment the life exists in.

Well, that's not really a problem because the constraints of chemistry could be different. In any infinite amount of possible universes, completely different from our own, there could be any number of different forms of life. So when the fine tuning argument suggests that, "if the universe were different life wouldn't be possible." It's really talking out it's ass because the only examples we have for life are on this planet, we don't have any other examples and we certainly don't know what different conditions could be or whether they could support life.

In other words, imagine life all you wish in a universe without stars and galaxies, but you will be hard pressed to describe its viability.

Why do I have to, you as an advocate of fine tuning have taken the affirmative stance that life could not exist in a universe different to our own(or universes with certain changes made to them).

Another problem is the complete lack of evidence that such alternate universes exist at all. There is one experiment under way now that is awaiting data from the Planck satellite that may confirm at least level 2 multiverse. If it fails, the multiverse will remain what it is today - reality only in the minds of those who believe in it.

If it fails, the teleological argument will no longer have anything to hide behind, the notion that we're lucky to be in a universe that can support life would be recognized as false because we wouldn't be lucky, this is the only way things could have been.