[Basilissa]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The atheist will not accept the Bible as literally true, and he will not accept the ten reasons given in the first post as proof of the existence of God. As far as I can see, the only way to convince an atheist of the existence of God, is to begin by discussing the question within his framework of knowledge.

In other words, you believe that it is our Christian duty to lure people to God under false pretenses?

And what happens when they discover that you've been lying to them?

The Holy Bible is our only source of knowledge about God, and about what He wants us to do. If you want to bring atheists to religion, you cannot take the Bible out of the equation.

As Sister Mary has noted, people have to accept God with their hearts, not with their minds. God is not a big supporter of logical reasoning:

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

You cannot use logical reasoning to bring people to God. We are supposed to be laughed at as dumb fools, backwards, and anti-science:

1 Corinthians 4:9-10
9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

Therefore, at this point I'd be more worried about your Salvation rather than of the atheists. You need to repent and stop flirting with science NOW!!!

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Science of this world is foolish in the eyes of God. Big Bang and evolution are in stark opposition to the account of the creation of the world in Genesis. Bible tells us that earth has been created in six days, it has corners, and stars are nothing but lights fixed in the firmament which separates the waters of the earth from the waters of the sky.

Finally, God wants people to be Saved through foolishness of preaching, and not through logic and wisdom:

1 Corinthians 1:19-21
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Are you ready to repent now?

I'll pray for you.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Even after his conversion, Father Strittmatter recalled that von Neumann did not receive much peace or comfort from it as he still remained terrified of death.

Yup, that's definitely a true believer, no question.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

...so this fellow ended up in HELL. My patience is just about running out watching you try to convert the gullible and easily duped who come to our friendly forums seeking Christ. You will cease with the conversion tactics if you wish to maintain your posting privileges here.

It is not up to you to decide who will go to hell. It is up to Almighty God. God alone will decide who will be saved. Yes, I have been receiving a lot of infraction notices, so I guess it is only a matter of time before I am banned. I hope I will be allowed to post here, but that decision is one the moderators can make as they see fit. I appreciate the your indulgence of allowing me to give my point of view, at least up to this point.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

He was completely agnostic all his life, but in the end, he was convinced of the truth of Catholicism and converted.

Yes, and according to online sources, that happened when he was already dying. So he chickened out thinking about death and decided to do a variation of Pascal's wager. And, according to people who knew him, he was already delusional at that time:

Some of Von Neumann's friends, having always known him as "completely agnostic", believed that his religious conversion was not genuine since it did not reflect his attitudes and thoughts when he was healthy. As Dutch-born American physicist and science historian Abraham Pais reports: [23]

“He had been completely agnostic for as long as I had known him. As far as I could see this act did not agree with the attitudes and thoughts he had harbored for nearly all his life.”

Even after his conversion, Father Strittmatter recalled that von Neumann did not receive much peace or comfort from it as he still remained terrified of death.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

He was completely agnostic all his life, but in the end, he was convinced of the truth of Catholicism and converted.

You made my point, dear. Catholicism isn't about letting Jesus into your Heart, so this fellow ended up in HELL. My patience is just about running out watching you try to convert the gullible and easily duped who come to our friendly forums seeking Christ. You will cease with the conversion tactics if you wish to maintain your posting privileges here.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

This is a foolhearty plan and one that has been shown over and over again to fail.

Not true. Have you heard of John von Neumann? He was a "mathematician, physicist, inventor, computer scientist, and polymath. He made major contributions to a number of fields, including mathematics (foundations of mathematics, functional analysis, ergodic theory, geometry,topology, and numerical analysis), physics (quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics, and quantum statistical mechanics), economics (game theory) ,computing (Von Neumann architecture,linear programming, self-replicating machines ,stochastic computing), and statistics.He was a pioneer of the application of operator theory to quantum mechanics, in the development of functional analysis, and a key figure in the development of game theory and the concepts of cellular automata, the universal constructor and the digital computer. He published over 150 papers in his life: about 60 in pure mathematics, 20 in physics, and 60 in applied mathematics, the remainder being on special mathematical subjects or non-mathematical ones"
"Von Neumann was a child prodigy. As a 6 year old, he could multiply and divide two 8-digit numbers in his head,[ and could converse in Ancient Greek....By the age of 8, von Neumann was familiar with differential and integral calculus,[16] but he was particularly interested in history, reading his way through Wilhelm Oncken's 46-volume Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen.
(quotes from Wikipedia).
He was completely agnostic all his life, but in the end, he was convinced of the truth of Catholicism and converted.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

As far as I can see, the only way to convince an atheist of the existence of God, is to begin by discussing the question within his framework of knowledge. That is why I recommend the book:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert Spitzer.

As we have already established in another thread, the author of this book has no authority whatsoever in the field of science. Instead, he's a theologian trying really hard to fit science within a religious paradigm. The only atheists who can be convinced by this book are the ones who know about physics and astronomy even less than Father Spitzer. Based on your previous exchanges with Professor White, I assume you are in that category of people with very limited knowledge about the universe?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The atheist will not accept the Bible as literally true, and he will not accept the ten reasons given in the first post as proof of the existence of God. As far as I can see, the only way to convince an atheist of the existence of God, is to begin by discussing the question within his framework of knowledge. That is why I recommend the book:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert Spitzer.

This is a foolhearty plan and one that has been shown over and over again to fail. No atheist will reason his way into the faith. Jesus does not say He will live in your Brain. No, He promises to live in your Heart (Ephesians 3:17)! If you think about it, losing the Heart of the Faith is what makes a person an atheist in the first place.

No dear, if you want to show an atheist that God exists, you must appeal to his emotions, to his fear of mortality and fear of being watched and judged at all times.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

I am going to ask you one more time to look at the Big Picture.

I don’t see how QM and evolution would disprove the existence of God.You claim that Einstein never accepted Quantum entanglement, but I suspect that you are referring to the Copenhagen interpretation involving spooky action at a distance. Actually, quantum entanglement is simply statistical correlation in quantum language. The novelty in qm which does not appear in classical mechanics is the appearance of a phase factor associated with the probability of the quantum state. Combination of two states by linear superposition to produce a mixed state is what is responsible for the entanglement of the two states. There is nothing spooky about it.

You have brought up chaos theory claiming that chaos theory implies that you cannot predict the outcome of your actions. Actually, unlike QM, chaos theory is a deterministic theory. The novelty in chaos theory is the extreme sensitivity of the outcome to the initial conditions. Most theories are robust, in the sense that if you slightly alter the initial conditions, you will only slightly affect the outcome. Chaos theory differs in that the outcome will vary drastically if you only very slightly alter the initial conditions. This is seen for example in the case of the Lorenz attractor. You still have determinism with chaos theory in the sense that if you know exactly the initial conditions, you will know the outcome.
As far as pi is concerned, the Bible gives a rough approximation of pi to the nearest integer. Actually, there is no known exact value of pi. The closest value to pi that I know about is accurate to within about 3 trillion digits, but it is still not an exact result.
The atheist will not accept the Bible as literally true, and he will not accept the ten reasons given in the first post as proof of the existence of God. As far as I can see, the only way to convince an atheist of the existence of God, is to begin by discussing the question within his framework of knowledge. That is why I recommend the book:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert Spitzer.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I don't know what he would recommend, but I would recommend soaking in cool water for several minutes.

36 hours after the original question, it's probably a little late for that, isn't it?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian™ Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

I don't know what he would recommend, but I would recommend soaking in cool water for several minutes.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian™ Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

Mr. Much, the person who is always ready to seize the prey of doubting Christians in his atheist fangs! Please refrain from seducing this poor fellow. As for your question, I'll humor you. Prevention is always the best method to avoid any condition, including flogistonic accidents. The way to prevent burns is Prayer!

Psalms 39:13
O spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more.

I've prayed. I've been spared. Every day it's a miracle that I've not had any severe burns. However, were it to happen, I'd use more Prayer!

Hosea 6:1
Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.



Of course, many atheists and agnostics will try Praying in their despair but they will fail, which is another manifestation of the True Nature™ of the Bible!

John 9:31
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

There we have it: A simple way to crush atheism! No need to recite pompous equations or refer to methylation of guanine causing epigenetic effects. We can just look at the atheist. Have they been able to pray away any sickness? Obviously not and the explanation for that is in plain sight in the Bible.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Didymus Much]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian(tm) Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

I am going to ask you one more time to look at the Big Picture. We started this conversation by you stating that you could easily crush atheism with some simplistic assertions, such as the one that "something cannot come out of nothing" and that "the evolution of consciousness requires supernatural intervention". These are just some examples, and the Big Issue is that you are cherry picking the results of methodological naturalism, which is an issue that no educated atheist is going to miss. Please remember that we're on your side and just trying to help you debate the well-informed atheist who can see through your argument within the secular context.

I am ready to admit that your posts were the first time I saw the Gish Gallop applied to a discussion on Quantum Mechanics. It was nice to see, and it used to be quite a good strategy but ultimately you're now just listing some obscure and complex names of equations and theories without actual substance but avoiding the questions how all this applies to our only source of knowledge on Jesus, i.e., the Bible. I am once more going to assess that. The first thing to remember is that you're disregarding data on QM that does not fit your preconceptions. It is close to the strategy of Creation Science (we'll get to that) but not adequate when you debate an atheist. You've chosen some interpretations of QM that fit your world view but the other possibilities have not gone away. None of these have been totally proven (nor will be by 100% as that is the Way of the Methodological Naturalism, so different from the Way of Jesus; John 14:6). Essentially, you're using the paradigm of testimonial-based True Religion™ in the field of natural sciences, where you should use the paradigm of also considering (and especially considering) the data that do not fit your theory. In addition, without this and proper references you're just presenting opinions, and the atheists will soon pick that up.

Let us look at my previous request:

Please...
1. Be informed that "many people" is not an authority (as I state above) but a fallacy.
2. Asses the issue of Catholicism accepting atheist Salvation and evolutionary theory with its problems with theodicy and how the cosmological ideas of atheists are just a tiny bit away from those issues.
3. Do not hide behind the smoke screen of the philosophical dimensions of Q physics, when the actual issue is that following methodological naturalism leads, really, to the God of Gaps. The theory of QP is just an example. It is not the actual issue...
4, Please, inform us about your position regarding the Bible as a reliable source of historical events including Creation (Genesis 1:1) and the Fall (Genesis 3:6), etc. Do you accept these as historical facts? If not, how do you discern between facts and myth?

Let us also take a look at your response:

For one thing, let me take the issue of deism and the contention that countering atheism can only lead to deism. I think that this is true, but not something to worry about because it is likely that an atheist will be converted in steps to theism, and not right away. As I see it, the path of conversion from atheism may involve the atheist first turning to agnosticism, then deism, and then theism.
Unfortunately, I have been receiving a lot of infractions and so I don't know how much longer it will be until I am banned from this forum. I will try to respond and answer as I can. For another example, that of Quantum entanglement, this is really a non-issue philosophically because since QM involves the statistical methodology, and quantum entanglement is nothing more or less than statistical correlation described in quantum language. At the present time QM is the right theoretical framework to describe our universe, but it is the interpretation of QM which is dubious. In QM, the probabilistic amplitudes are complex numbers and the probability of a state is given by the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. The novelty here is that the complex phase of the complex number will show up when you calculate the probabilities of different mixed measurements, even though they do not appear in the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. Almost all states in the Hilbert space description of QM are entangled because they are mixed states, i.e., they arenontrivial complex linear superpositions of different tensor productstates. If two subsystems have interacted sometime in the past, they will most likely emerge in an entangled state. So there is...

We're not worried about atheists but about you, as the process of assessing the Bible through methodological naturalism that is cherry-picked inevitably leads to insecurity about the reliability of the Bible and the characteristics of God. I'll look at this in more detail later.

The infractions comment is unnecessary and just an example of the ad misericordiam fallacy. I'm assessing the content of your posts and not the emotional ballast.

And... please, do not hide behind the fancy words. We'll soon be ready to assess the problem points of the naturalistic world view that you've partly endorsed. To do that, I'm also referring to your post in another thread. Please do not hesitate to correct me if I've mistaken, but it seems that you're endorsing something like ID/TE regarding the emergence of biodiversity and man and something like the standard cosmological model when it comes to the shape and fate of the universe, and giving God a role in some "crucial" points of this development, including initiation, major evolutionary turning points, etc.

But how would a materialist explain human consciousness and the ability to abstract knowledge from the real world and to use that knowledge to create new knowledge and new artifacts? It is difficult to see how consciousness and self reflection would arise from a purely materialistic theory [appeal to incredulity]involving a complex configuration of atomic particles [straw man].As far as Christianity is concerned, one of the most important teachings is the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The New Testament indicates that the apostles witnessed [appeal to authority] the resurrected Lord.

OK. Evolution. Do the atheists have explanations to all the problem points? Fortunately, they don't but, unfortunately, they have too many to refute within methodological naturalism. I've already covered the case of abiogenesis in my previous post but here are some highlights:

• A simple molecule, formamide of meteorite origin, can produce RNA without conscious intervention and, lo, you'd have genes.
• Metabolism can arise spontaneously and easily, including complex pathways needed for the synthesis of amino acids, nucleotides, etc.
• The early synthesis of RNA would have been feasible with a simple machinery preserved as a genetic relics and simple ribozymes.
• tRNA arose from anticodons with primal stereo-chemical affinity between amino acids and the (future) tRNA triplets.
• The origin of the ribosome and the genetic code can be explained with relative simple chemistry.
• A single mutation is adequate to produce multicellularity.
• Similar pathways are available for the development of flowering plants, the placenta, and even the quinine resistance of the malaria parasite, the outdated ID argument. Look them up. You need to learn data searches.

Language? The one thing that is partly different between us and other Created Kinds (Genesis 1:28) is according to the atheists the result of a single mutation of FOXP2. With language you can start off the technical innovations that ultimately lead to motorcycle maintenance and the names of the mathematical and physics equations that you revere so much that it seems to be more than how much you revere Jesus.

Probability? Well-meaning ID proponents and even some liberal YEC-colleagues calculate the probabilities of a hemoglobin molecule arising by chance, and you use the same rhetoric in your "complex configuration of atomic particles". What they should be trying to calculate is if it is feasible by simple, robust physicochemical reactions to produce a molecule that has more affinity to oxygen than simple fluids. They (and you) would have to take into account all possible molecules that can do that even by a tiny degree and the number of possible reactions taking place simultaneously in the primordial atheist Earth "billions of years" ago. Please, calculate that and present that result to the atheists. They will ask you that!

Now it's time to see how this affects faith®.

If you accept the billions of years (do you?) you...

• Make God a trial-and-error tinkerer who was unable to do it right the first time, unable to set the initial conditions well enough to proceed without His meddling.
• Have to find an explanation to the mindless suffering of organisms during all this trial and error.
• Pinpoint the actual points of progress where evolution stalled and God had to intervene.

I've only given you some examples of issues that were once thought to be impossible but are now quite easily explained within the atheist mindset. Other examples include the Ubx and Abd-A mutations that can produce a six-legged (insect) arthropod from centipedes, and the "fact" that the path from a "common ancestor" of chimpanzees and humans has only required 150-200 positively selected genes in humans and slightly more in the chimp "lineage", much less than needed to refute, e.g., Haldane's dilemma (Bakewell, Margaret A; and, Zhang, Jianzhi (July 2008) Positive Selection on Genes in Humans as Compared to Chimpanzees. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. DOI:10.1002/9780470015902.a0020856, probably open access but I have the full reference here in any case).

These are all things that do not require intervention if you accept the naturalistic methodology. Including consciousness. You're comparing the endpoint (modern culture) with modern animal behavior but you can only do that by disregarding a vast amount of atheist literature. They won't let you do that, and I'm here to help you, so I won't let you do that, either.

On to cosmology: if you accept only your own favorite parts of QM, how can you justify it? We have the uncertainty principle that again undermines God's Omnipotency (Revelation 19:6). You're subscribing to the (Tomist in your case?) notion of God not being able to do logically impossible things? Why not? What for? He's outside and within this Creation and where in the Bible is it stated that He should follow mundane logic (hint! It is not Exodus 3.14)? All miracles and interventions are illogical and violate natural laws. If He wishes, He could make 2+2=5 and it would be just the way things would be from then on. Do we have proof of Him meddling with "logical mathematics"? As a matter of fact, we do! Praise Jesus!

1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Thus, Pi was exactly 3 on that occasion. If you don't accept that, you will have to answer the following questions:

• Did the Bible lie in this case? Where else does it lie?
• Were the scribes wrong in this case? Where else did they err?
• If that cannot be trusted, is there any more reason to believe Resurrection.

Next: More cosmology. Not only the uncertainty but also the fate of the Universe. Do you accept the effects of QM here, such as the possible proton decay? Of course, you have alternatives: Heat death after proton decay and the matter condensed into black holes slowly evaporating due to Hawking radiation; the Big Rip with vacuum energy finally winning over strong nuclear force and the elementary particles (in the realm of QM) flying all apart; the Big Crunch and all was in vain unless you believe the Bible but why should you with all the mindless eons of suffering and uselessness after the proton decays, the last star is extinguished, the final black hole is evaporated due to quantum effects that cannot be predicted because of the nature of the Creation? Do you think that the Book of Revelations is accurate? Is its eschatology correct? If it is, we have to dismiss the standard model. If you think that it is wrong, then we have again the question of which other parts of the Bible are wrong and how can to tell them apart?

Next: Chaos theory, the butterfly effect! You cannot predict the outcome of your actions. Thus, out goes the free will defense and you no longer have the freedom to do good but only to do things that you think might lead to consequences that you feel are good. Only way out, not QM but the Bible (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Your stand on Christianity: Here you accept second-hand eyewitness testimonial. Now we're cherry picking Big Time. If you endorse QM and TE/ID you dismiss the eyewitness testimonials of Genesis 1-3, Genesis 6-9, Job 40, etc. Why would they be less reliable than the "many unknown authorities" of 1 Corinthians 15:6? I can see why you like the "many people" defense. I also like it because of this very verse. But the atheists don't buy it. If you accept the methodology of naturalism when it comes to fossils and cosmology, do you still accept it when it comes to the historicity of Jesus? There is much less secular evidence for a Jesus having been among us than there is for the evolution of man according to natural selection.

The atheists call this special pleading. You're using it all the time. It's a fallacy when it comes to methodological naturalism. Different criteria for assessment for the things you like and for the things you don't accept.

OK. There are some things you can do.

First option: Study! Do your homework. Look at the data that do not support your ideas and do not dismiss it. That is methodological naturalism without special pleading. If you take that path without taking into account the Bible, you will lose it all. Jesus will become improbable, Creation will be plausible without God and you will no longer add "extra" entities to these phenomena based on Occam's razor. Instead of an atheist slowly accepting Jesus through Deism, it is you who is going to go opposite way. This is hard work and requires lots of reading. The research on abiogenesis alone during the last decade means thousands of well-formulated papers. This is the way of looking at "objective evidence" first and then dismissing the parts of the Bible that do not fit it. The result will be that the Bible will not remain.

Second option: Choose Jesus without conditions or reservations. Take the path of Creation Science. We take the Bible first and accept it totally. We look at evidence thereafter and choose the correct observations based on our assessment if they fit God's Word. The rest is Delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it,

Dear Pastor Elmer G White. You have brought up a lot of interesting points and I am going to try to answer each one of them. I see that in addition to knowing the Bible very well, you have a good knowledge and understanding of the atheist positions on various issues. I believe that each one of the atheist points you have referred to can be countered with a more reasonable solution. For one thing, let me take the issue of deism and the contention that countering atheism can only lead to deism. I think that this is true, but not something to worry about because it is likely that an atheist will be converted in steps to theism, and not right away. As I see it, the path of conversion from atheism may involve the atheist first turning to agnosticism, then deism, and then theism.
Unfortunately, I have been receiving a lot of infractions and so I don't know how much longer it will be until I am banned from this forum. I will try to respond and answer as I can. For another example, that of Quantum entanglement, this is really a non-issue philosophically because since QM involves the statistical methodology, and quantum entanglement is nothing more or less than statistical correlation described in quantum language. At the present time QM is the right theoretical framework to describe our universe, but it is the interpretation of QM which is dubious. In QM, the probabilistic amplitudes are complex numbers and the probability of a state is given by the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. The novelty here is that the complex phase of the complex number will show up when you calculate the probabilities of different mixed measurements, even though they do not appear in the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. Almost all states in the Hilbert space description of QM are entangled because they are mixed states, i.e., they arenontrivial complex linear superpositions of different tensor productstates. If two subsystems have interacted sometime in the past, they will most likely emerge in an entangled state. So there is nothing mysterious about quantum entanglement once you realize how QM is formulated in the context of Hilbert spaces.