Paul has commented on one of my previous posts, Science Needs a Spanking (arguing against the scientific materialist notion that there is no evidence for the existence of God), thusly:
"I have yet to hear a reputable scientist make this claim. Most scientists who are atheists do not believe that the nonexistence of God can be proven, but that it is unreasonable to believe in God without having any evidence to go by. So the paradox is, how can an atheist not believe in the existence God because of a lack of evidence, while there is no evidence to support the nonexistence of God. However, if you take an objective look at that paradox it becomes clear that the theist reasoning is flawed. If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, why would one assume that it does exist. I presume that you don’t believe in Thor, of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though there is no evidence that they do or do not exist.
To quote Steven Hawking, “What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”
Science and history also shows that it is very possible for society to create gods and for religions to spread like a disease."
Ouch! Indeed, perhaps I am the one upon whose tail a paddle might be more meritoriously applied. Nevertheless...
My point was that by assuming that all physical phenomena are caused by the “laws” of science, scientists have thereby defined out of existence any evidence that could lead to any conclusion other than an impersonal universe (because such evidence would lead to an unacceptable conclusion ). Any such “evidence” would be described as an “anamoly” and deemed unworthy of future study (except to find out which “laws” were responsible for the phenomena) because “miracles” by definition do not regularly repeat themselves . Then they turn around and, after having defined such evidence out of existence, make the claim that “there is no evidence for the existence of God”. It’s circular reasoning.
Another point that I haven’t raised until now: even if it were proven that the way the universe (and life) began where determined by the laws of science, so what? Where did these ‘laws’ come from anyway? Steven Hawking also said, “Even if we came up with a complete description of the universe, all we would have is a description, which would still not explain why the universe came to be in the first place in order to be described.”
Carl Sagan said “Now that we no longer need God to push the planets around in their orbits, what is there left for him to do?” My answer is, “Yes, He does, and you have described just how He does it with admirable mathematical precision”. After all, if not God, then what exactly is it that “pushes the planets around”? The “law of gravity”? After all, the “law of gravity” cannot cause anything to happen. Where is this “law” located? Is it made of matter or energy? How much does it weigh? A “law” of science is simply a description that simplifies our observations in order to make a mass of data comprehensible to a human mind and allow us to make predictions. Although it is useful, it ultimately “exists” only in the minds of those who comprehend it.
With regard to your last point, although I am a Christian, I agree with you that religion (including so-called “Christianity”) is a virus and a disease (see the post Pop Bible Quiz and the page of my other website entitled A Surprise for more on this and on why this blog’s title contains the words “lunatic”. I see evidence around me everyday… (=:).
By the way, Thor the Flying Spaghetti Monster happened to be one of my best friends (until I ate him). So I agree that Thor does not exist (anymore!).
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME! Plus I don't mind being disagreed with - it always gets another article out of me...
No comments:
Post a Comment