Still don't get the point?
<< 1. It is one thing to say that faith is believing
(actually it is more than that but that's besides the point) and
quite another to say that the question of origins boils down to a
matter of belief. And it did not take me long at all. It seems that
you are a relatively new-comer to this thread, but if you have
bothered to look at my past postings you would have realised that I
have long said this.
2. Then why do you keep insisting that I prove God's existence
scientifically?>>
I
think if you understand the point, then you have to look at whether
you are dismissing Atheist's views that evolution exists or just
atheists in general. Like I mentioned from the start, atheists in
general do not believe God exists. That does not conclude they
agree to Darwin's theory on evolution. And most atheists adopt a
false until proven true approach to their views. They do not need
to believe in anything being the cause, but rather, they can choose
not to believe in anything until someone proves it. To give an
declaration that God created the world as Truth, you are already on
the wrong track since you lacked proof that they believe. They are
open to all concepts, provided proof is provided.
Your declaration of truth is easily dismissed as you already
mentioned your "God" as immaterial. To most atheists, they do not
believe in spirit or immaterial nature. In fact, they won't
recognise it. They recognise proof that can be re-created or
designed.
When
you suggested archaelogical evidence and scientific evidence, these
are not proofs of existence.
Let
me show an example:
In a
new building, where there is only one entrance, (it is the crudest
construct where there is only 1 opening, no windows, leaks, cracks
etc.) there are paw prints of a dog. However, installed on the
entrance is a camera and on the records of the camera, no one or
nothing bring the dog into the building but there were paw prints
of a dog.
Group A suggests that the dog is invisible to naked eye and left
the paw prints. They also insist that during the construction of
the building, there were no dogs trapped within as verified by
witness X, Y and Z.
Group B insists that the prints may not be from a dog as there is
no evidence of the dog as justified by witness X, Y and Z and the
camera.
Now, think at this situation. Why does Group B have to provide an
answer to why there were dog paw prints if the evidence does not
prove a dog's presence even though Group A believes it was caused
by a dog?
Now
read the situation again. Why does Group B has to be inquisitive in
nature when they do not believe or are not bothered by the
results?
Your
argument from the start is that because the dog paw print exists,
that's why the invisible dog exists is truth. Now, that is
subjective truth and to insist the other party ignorant is rather a
useless feint.
<< 3. So you are mocking because I am dogmatic about
there being a cause whereas you take a non-committal approach? But
which makes more sense, that the universe has a cause or that it
does not? There's nothing wrong with insisting on a cause, so long
as it is reasonable and justified. Your neither-here-nor-there
position does not give you the right to judge those who have
reasons for belief, much less to mock and scoff. >>
I am
mocking you because you think without faith, their actions are not
justified, their lives are meaningless and thus, hopeless. I am
mocking you because you think that their view is wrong even though
you cannot prove them wrong. I am mocking you because regardless of
how much information you put forward, you are still not seeing the
main reason why they don't believe. The answer is simple for these
people: There is no proof. You can insist you don't need to prove
God's existence because he's omnipresent, blah blah blah, but you
cannot see that these people only believe in proven truth or their
alternate views which you cannot prove them wrong. You can claim as
much as you want that your decision is an informed decision but
there is no proof that the other decision, choice, view, is wrong.
Am I mocking you for believing? No, I never mocked the belief. I
mocked your insistence that the other side is wrong.
<< 4. Why should faith be opposed to truth? Besides, what
makes you think I have not perceived their worldviews? Again had
you bothered to read my postings you would have realised that I had
mentioned the worldviews of atheism, theism, pantheism and how only
theism makes better sense of the world. It is not condescending at
all if I can back up the assertion that the atheists are ignorant,
which I did. >>
The
key point here is proof. It makes sense to you does not mean it
makes exact sense to them because there are many dubious, illogical
concepts to them which cannot be proven such as ressurrection,
turning sticks into snake etc.
<< 5. If you agree that the Bible is supported by
scientific, historical and archaeological evidences, then the
statement that the Bible is unprovable information is FALSE. One
cannot detach the events with the causes. The very first verse of
the Bible speaks of God creating the universe, an event which
science has only recently caught up to acknowledge that there is a
beginning. Sure I cannot prove that God did it, but I have very
good reasons to believe that God did it. What do you have to offer
besides the sneer and scoffs?
6. Wow, my beliefs based on information gathered you simply
dismissed as mere opinions? Like that everything is opinions! The
argument that God created is either a good argument or bad
argument, faith is not really the issue here. In the final analysis
yes it is a matter of belief for both the theist and the atheist,
but as of now I am talking about evaluating the
arguments.>>
Detaching events with causes, nice way to defend but still a failed
answer. Go back to the dog analogy. You cannot prove the historical
events is caused by God. You can only insist your answer is better
than other answers because no one had proof to say your answer is
false. No one can prove the leading causes to the event does not
mean your answer is absolute. The dog analogy applies here.
<< 7. I also never accuse you of saying that faith is
irrational, no need to be defensive. How can you say that
my arguments lead to nothing? People who believe in science
must first be able to account for why it is possible to even do
science in the first place, why the laws of nature are uniform and
who established them. Again only theism provides the preconditions
for intelligibility. >>
The
dog analogy applies here again. They do not believe because they
prefer making a decision over proven records. Similarly, if it
makes it easier for you to accept the laws of nature being uniform
is due to a creator, then it does not mean that the non-believer is
less intelligent.
<< 8. If we are to abide by your "prove me wrong"
standard of proof, nothing will take place at all and
all arguments will be moot. You are being absurd here. We
only need to give REASONS and cogent arguments for what we
believe, supported by the data/evidences/facts so interpreted.
People who believe in aliens or parallel universes must first show
us why we should believe that as well. There is no obligation for
me to prove them wrong when they should be the one to supply
reasons for believing these things. >>
Similarly, the ground of non-believing is that the data, evidences
or facts you had provided so far is incomplete, you can feel as
much as you want that you made a good judgement. Go back to the dog
analogy.
1. In what way am I guilty of dismissing the atheist's views?
Mind you I actually INTERACTED with their views to show how
flawed/false/deficient/bankrupt atheism really is. Maybe you really
need to start reading my posts from the beginning.
2. You show me an atheist who does not believe in evolution and
I will show you someone who is confused about what atheism entails,
deal? Here's the undisputed fact, an atheist MUST be an
evolutionist. Think also about why Dawkins said that evolution made
it possible for him to be an intellectually-fulfilled
atheist. BTW, how many theories of evolution are there? As far
as I know, only Darwinian evolution reigns in secular academia.
3. Atheists adopt a false until proven true approach? Well, do
they apply this approach to their own atheism? I guess not. Like it
or not, this is simply an a priori bias, not a sound methodology to
knowledge. In the first place, an atheist already does not accept
the idea that theism can be true, so any proof to them is really
moot. A person who says that nature is all there is leaves no room
for the supernatural. They will always explain it away as unknown
natural causes that science will one day uncover. Sounds familiar?
Anyway you are wrong, atheists BELIEVE in many things, even
the cause of the universe. I already said it, they believe nothing
caused everything. It can't be God, so it must be nothing, nobody.
Atheists don't have much options really. Truth claims can
be evaluated on their logical coherence, not just by
demanding proofs for this or that.
4. Your dog analogy fails flat. The objective facts
(in the example) are that there are dog paw prints. Effects
must have a cause. Group B is not entitled to dismiss the evidence
though they may dismiss Group A's explanation. What alternative
cause does Group B offer as cause for the paw prints? Don't tell me
they do not have to offer any explanation hor! Group A cannot prove
the existence of the invisible dog, but at least they recognise
LOGICALLY that something must have caused it, perhaps an invisible
dog. I mean, once you rule out all other possibilities, you are
left with little else, and you should go where the evidence leads,
even if it makes you uncomfortable. Group A is right to be
inquisitive. Group B is INDIFFERENT, bo chap. They have no answer
so they dismiss everything and hide their heads in the sand and
pretend not to see, it's being wilfully ignorant. In addition I
would say that their Intellectual honesty and integrity is zero.
BTW, you also buy into the truth is subjective nonsense?
5. You are making a mockery of yourself here for making a false
accusation. For the umpteenth time I say this: it is not that
atheists have no morals or no purpose for life, but that atheism
cannot account for such things. Yes, atheists have morals and
purpose, but that's not BECAUSE of atheism but in spite of it.
Where do atheists get their basis for meaning and purpose, by
borrowing it from theism. And it's not that there is no proof for
God's existence, but that the atheists REJECTS and SUPPRESSES the
evidence. Is there design in nature? Yes, but atheists like Dawkins
attribute it to an illusion or appearance of design and call those
who disagree with him as deluded religious folk. Perhaps
you should mock your own double standards by insisting that I
cannot be insistent that others are wrong.
6. You keep harping on proof, but do you know there are many
kinds of proof? But atheists seem only fixated with scientific
proofs, but is scientific proofs the ONLY determinant of what's
true? There are mathematical proofs, logical proofs etc. In any
case, these atheists are not consistent with themselves for they
entertain many beliefs for which they do not demand such rigor of
proofs or standard of proofs. Again historical matters are not the
subject of scientific proofs since the past cannot be replicated
and tested repeatedly, if you fail to understand this then again
the mockery is on you.
7. Again you keep harping prove this prove that but shows an
utter lack of understanding here. No one is saying that the
existence of God has been empirically proven. At the very least the
Christian apologist is arguing that the case for the existence of
God is logically sound and is a better explanation than atheism.
Why can't I insist that the atheist is wrong on logical grounds if
both theist and atheist are not capable of proving their beliefs?
Mind you, do you consider it intelligent to believe that the laws
of nature made themselves or they just appeared uncaused
miraculously so that life as we know it just miraculously happen?
From what I know, atheists do not believe in miracles. Or maybe
they do, just so long as God isn't behind them.
8. Citing lack or incompleteness of data is one thing, saying
there is NO data is another. Make up your mind, which is which? And
how much is enough? And I have shown why your dog analogy is
flawed. No bones for you.
