Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism




A letter to Christian Evolutionists at BioLogos:

If you are truly Christ-centered, then you have a responsibility to declare the glory of God’s works (Psalm 145:10-12) instead of invoking random and mindless processes to account for these. GOD’S ID is not simply Scripturally warranted (Rom. 1:18-20; Psalm 19); it is also rationally warranted:

1. God’s ID is the only adequate cause to explain the disparate phenomena of consciousness, freewill, intelligibility, fine-tuning, the origins of life, DNA, the cell, absolute moral principles, physical laws, energy, matter...

2. There is no scientific evidence that anything happens naturalistically. Instead of evolution, we observe de-evolution (a reality endemic to the 2nd law of thermodynamics), contrary to Darwinist expectations. One then can even talk about “naturalism of the gaps.”

3. Occam’s Razor (the law of parsimony) requires the simpler explanation over the more complex. Naturalism has to postulate many disparate explanations for the above realities.

4. It makes more sense that the laws of physics have a common ID origin than each existing immutably, independently and un-intelligently:

a. God’s ID can better account for their immutability than a naturalistic world having nothing more than molecules-in-motion.
b. The laws operate uniformly throughout the universe – not like a wave that looses it strength over time and distance – suggesting that they transcend the physical world.
c. They act in harmony – they don’t self-destruct – also suggesting ID.

5. Irreducible complexity is ubiquitous. The simplest life form depends on millions of bits of info coming together at one time. Even the building blocks – proteins – are only produced by living cells.

6. We have no experience with things coming out of nothing as naturalism suggests. Instead, they require a supernatural Creator.

God is therefore the best way to account for our observations.

25 comments:

  1. One thing I would like to see you do more is to include citations in the same manner that you cite the bible. When you quote the bible, no matter how commonplace the verse maybe, you are always careful to include citations so that there are no questions as to the manner of you are interpreting the scripture. Unfortunately, when it comes to scientific facts and statistics, you never cite your sources.

    When you said that Gods ID is rationally warranted, I noticed that you included a bible verse as evidence to prove that God ID is rationally warranted. Unfortunately, since the bible is just a couple thousand years old, and human civilizations have been around for much, much, much longer than that, the bible isn't really any sort of evidence that can prove Gods ID any more than any of the other much older religions. Not only that, but the bible was written by men, so those verses are no more authoritative than if I wrote in a notebook that God was black and buried in a ditch in the middle of the desert. The only thing that gives these men any sort of authority is the legions of superstitious followers that have past their beliefs down from one generation to the next. The reality is that any claim that God's ID is rationally warrented is a statement of fact that has no bases in reality other than that which is supported by the bible.

    Point #1: Claiming supernatural intervention for lack of scientific knowledge, and data, is the type of superstitious behavior and philosophy that kept humanity in the dark ages for so long. It wasn't until reason and understanding came that people started to rethink ridiculous notions of demon possession, and other superstition fueled phenomenon. Today, it would seem as though superstition has evolved, much like man. You seem to be at the forefront of superstitious evolution. You see God in everything. Your supernatural bias blinds you from the reality that God is beyond your understanding. God is beyond definition. God is beyond words. God is beyond thought. To think other is to place God, a entity beyond complexity, within the superficial grasp of an imperfect, finite, superficial creature.

    Point #2: This is yet another example of baseless statements of opinion masquerading as facts. You can't make statements like this without citing some sort of reputable proof, other than the bible. Secondly, you have grossly misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics discusses energy, not evolution, and where you got the idea that we are de-evolving from is beyond imagination. First of all, there is no scientific evidence to support your claims of de-evolution, especially thermodynamics, because it deals with energy, and not the evolution of species. You might want to get your facts straight. How you came to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence that anything happens naturalistically is completely beyond me. I guess your explaination for rain is Gods tears, and the wind is God blowing a kiss, and summertime is God giving us a big warm hug. There is no evidence that anything happens supernaturally. There is evidence that supports the latter. What you are having difficulty with is scientific discoveries that have just surfaced within the last 10-15 years. Of course, the reality is that you will always see God in every scientific discovery, and once DNA is explained, you will move on to another subject. How convenient of you to take advantage of a subject that is still in its infancy. You look for God in every little nook and cranny that can't be explained, or studied by scientific instruments today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dusk,

    This post had nothing to do with the Bible as God's Word. However, the two previous posts did deal with this subject. Did you find the evidence in any way convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Point #3: Although Occam’s Razor is referred to as law of parsimony, it is a metatheoretical principle based on the philosophical discussions of mathematical theories. It is by no mean a law, or evidence of any kind as to God being the reason that everything exists. If that were true, I could use Occams Razor to reason that the origins of existence are a magical red unicorn that leaves stars in its wake, and blinks sunshine. You can't use complex theories to reason superstitious christian philosophy that has only been alive for a couple thousand years.

    Point #4: This can't even be considered a valuable point, because it contains no real evidence, logic, theories, or facts. The only thing you included was eloquently versed opinions. If your going to provide scientific elements to support your opinions, the least you could do is provide some sort of reputable source that supports your statements of opinion.

    Point #'s 5&6: Yet another statement of baseless of opinion, religious oversimplification, and gross sensationalized religious superstition. If you intend to use science of any kind in your articles, at least be kind thorough enough to include citations of reputable sources that support your claims.

    This article, although well organized, is completely filled with baseless opinions, manipulated, and often misrepresented scientific theories and laws, and oversensationalized religious superstitions. The only thing you have proved in this article is that you are truly biased towards all reason and practicality. Unless there is some sort of supernatural explanation that leads back to God, you won't give any evidence any respect no matter how reputable. As long as it supports naturalism, evolution, and reputable scientific fact, you are completely opposed without any logical reasoning for your positions. You really need to research some of the scientific points you make before you decide to speak authoritatively on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Regarding Occam’s razor, God is sufficient to explain everything. No further cause is necessary. In contrast to this, myriads of natural explanations must be invoked in order to explain the physical phenomena of this universe. While Darwinism is invoked to explain the development of species, other naturalistic explanations must be sought out to explain the fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of DNA and life itself. With each additional force or explanation that the naturalist is compelled to pull out of his hat, naturalism becomes less likely. It’s like the womanizing husband who is forced to explain to his wife his extended “business trips,” mysterious phone calls, missing pay checks, and the bra found in his luggage. Although he has a “credible” explanation for all of these things, when put together, they become unbelievable.

    As you can see Occam applies to all theories, even the most mundane. It isn’t a questionable, far-removed hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For you to say the God is sufficient to explain Ocamms Razor, is to reduce God to nothing more than a theoretical mathematical formula. Not only Does that go against Gods very infinite nature, but it also attempts to supernaturalize the simplest of natural phenomenon. You said that "myriads of natural explanations must be invoked in order to explain the physical phenomena of this universe". This is a wide sweeping Generalization, based on source that yet again you have not chosen to include. So how can anyone check your facts? You can't go around passing off oversimplified, statements of opinion as facts without providing sources that can be checked by your audience. Once again, please show the same respect for scientific data that you show the bible, by providing links to studies, encyclopedias, or statements made by reputable, active scientists. What would also be helpful is if you started quoting some of this scientific data, because throughout this article you have included scientific theories, but I have found that they have either been misquoted, misrepresented, or completely manipulated to support ridiculous supernatural superstition. Anyone could manipulate scientific data support ridiculous claims, especially supernatural ones. Its not the first time someone has tried to do that before. That is often a practice adopted by some of our most notorious religious cults. Once again, you have written an article filled with baseless opinions. Basically, what you are trying to say is that something can't be explained as natural, if it is too complex, and the only logical concept to explain it must be a ridiculous, supernatural assumption based on a few thousand years of superstitions and religious traditions founded by religious zealots. Thats like the womanizing husband who explains to his wife that his extended “business trips,” mysterious phone calls, missing pay checks, and the bra found in his luggage are all pranks executed by the devil to realize his diabolical plan to sabotage their marriage. How can you refute that logic? The devil exists in the bible. He is a liar, and a demon. In the bible, demons possess people, talk in their ears, and even killed Jobs entire family and gave him a horrible disease. Whats more likely according to this supernatural theory you've introduced? Is it more likely that the business trips are him going to other states in order to have an affair or is more likely that he is going on a business trip and the devil is manipulating the wives suspicions in order to sabatoge their marriage? Is it more likely that all the missed phone are his mistress, or is it more likely that the devil made the phone ring in order to raise the wifes suspicions even more? Is it more likely that he the missing paychecks are signs of weekends with his mistress in a hotel, or is it more likely that the devil blinded the husband into misplacing the paychecks and now he can't find them? Is it more likely that the bra in the suitcase is from his mistress, or is it more likely that the bra was placed their by an agent of the devil in order to break up their marriage? By your logic, the natural assumptions are impossible. By your logic, the only thing that can explain these simple problems is a supernatural solution. That is exactly why what you say make no sense. Instead of using natural explanations to complicated phenomenon, you reason that complicated phenomenon can only be explain by intangible supernatural entities. That is very child like reasoning. That like my daughter pointing at the rain and saying that God is sad. By your logic, she's right, because the process involved to produce rain is too complex to be an explanation. Your theories of the supernatural only appeal to individuals who don't have the basic reasoning skills to understand basic science. If your looking for an audience, try the cult scene. Your theories are right up that alley.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dusk,

    Let me turn it around on you -- Please provide just one little piece of evidence that our laws of physics are natural and unintelligent, and not originating supernaturally in the mind of God!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dusk,

    One more thing -- have you checked out the two or three prior posts about some of the proofs for the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Let me turn it around on you -- Please provide just one little piece of evidence that our laws of physics are natural and unintelligent, and not originating supernaturally in the mind of God!" Let me illuminate the shear ridiculousness of this question. I could ask you, "provide just one little piece of evidence that our laws of physics are natural and unintelligent, and not originating supernaturally by a race of ancient alien lifeforms that utilize transdifferentiation and are virtually eternal. There is data that supports naturally occurring phenomenon. There is data that supports science. There is nothing supports your argument other than an old dirty book written by a bunch of guys with narcissistic personality disorders, and delusions of grandeur.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I haven't seen any proofs of any kind other than words written in an old broken down book by a group of superstitious religious zealots, thousands of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dusk,

    You haven't commented on the proof of the Jewish people!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dusk,

    ”There is data that supports naturally occurring phenomenon. There is data that supports science. There is nothing supports your argument other than an old dirty book written by a bunch of guys with narcissistic personality disorders, and delusions of grandeur.”

    While I have already given you much data supporting the Bible, you haven’t given me one shred of evidence that our laws of physics are natural and unintelligent.

    However, I have given you many reasons why a supernaturalistic paradigm is preferable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "While I have already given you much data supporting the Bible, you haven’t given me one shred of evidence that our laws of physics are natural and unintelligent" Like I have said before, lack of proof to disprove your point isn't proof positive, that is a classic logical fallacy and you aren't winning any arguments repeating it. What you are trying to reason is that God must exist because there no proof that he doesn't exist. That is the very definition of a logical fallacy.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dusk,

    You're neglecting the fact that I have already supplied many positive proofs for both God and His Word.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are forgetting the fact that the only positive proofs you supplied are those found in a book that was written by a species that was prideful enough to think that God was was within their physical capabilities to understand, people deluded enough to fool themselves into thinking that what they wrote was the words of God himself. You tried to provide scientific backing to support your outlandish faith-based, but unfortunately, you failed and actually ended up misquoting great minds, taking their words out of context, and manipulating their scientific findings to support your claims even though they had nothing to do with what you are trying so desperately to show. The reality is that you have tirelessly exercised the logical fallacy of "burden of proof". No matter how hard you try, you cannot validate your argument just because evidence to the contrary fails to exist. That would be like saying our universe is contained within a single kernel of popcorn, and because it cannot be proved because we cannot see outside our universe, it must true. That is why your reasoning is considered a logical fallacy, because it can be used to validate the most ridiculous of notions. What if you got arrested and charged with murder. By your reasoning, the judge could convict you without a single drop of evidence. As long as no one could prove you couldn't do it, you would be sent to jail. Lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. You've been beating that horse to death, it time to lay it to rest. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Paul here establishes the fact that guilt is predicated on our first rejecting God, and then God gives us the very darkness that we so desire." You conveniently left out the most important part. "Yet, BEFORE THE TWINS WERE BORN, OR HAD DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR BAD—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." You can turn that verse around all you want. No matter how you twist it, it was decide before they were born. The same goes for Judas. Judas' betrayal was predestined, before Judas was even born. He was a was an object of wrath, prepared for destruction to make the riches of Gods glory known to the objects of Gods mercy. I'm glad you cited James in defense of your point of view. You see, James only validates what Paul said. Who are you to question God oh man. You use this verse against Pauls under the understanding that for God to predestine a man to be evil is evil of God, but you completely lose site of Pauls point that God is only patient with the objects of wrath, prepared for destruction to make the riches of Gods glory known to the objects of Gods mercy. You cannot accuse God of evil desires because Gods goal was to make the riches of Gods glory known to the objects of his mercy. You can keep trying to disprove Paul all you like. The reality is that you are only trying to disprove yourself, because the bible is your belief. You can't manipulate your way around a simple sentence like "BEFORE THE TWINS WERE BORN, OR HAD DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR BAD". The decision was made before. There are multiple examples of predestination, and you can't twist them all. biblical Examples of predestination: (Genesis 21:12,13; Exodus 9:16;33:19; Deuteronomy 4:37;7:7,8;10:1)(1 Samuel 2:25)(Joshua 11:20)(Judges 14:4)(2 Chronicles 22:7)(2 Chronicles 25:20)(Genesis 21:12; Nehemiah 9:7,8)(Haggai 2:23)( John 13:18;15:19)(Romans 9:12,13)(Romans 16:13)(Galatians 1:15) You are trying to disprove a subject that is the foundation of Christianity. According to the bible, it was predestined that Jesus would be crucified. It was predestined that he would be betrayed. It was predestined that he would raise 3 days later. It was predestined that Judas would betray him. The book of revelations are predestinations concerning then course of humanity. It was predestined that God would flood the world for 40 days and nights. It was predestined. You keep trying to prove only one thing, that the bible is a liar. Keep going, because your only validating the point of atheists everywhere, that the bible contradicts itself, but you know, and I know, that it doesn't. You are just unwilling to accept the simplicity of the scriptures. You are trying to find metaphors, hypotheticals, and contradicting verses in a book that is supposedly infallible, just so that you can somehow escape the reality that God already has your life completely planned out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dusk,

    You can turn that verse around all you want. No matter how you twist it, it was decide before they were born.”

    I’ve already admitted to you that I too believe in predestination. However, you’re point is that predestination precludes freewill, which I deny. However, I do acknowledge that with our freewill, we all freely reject God. Therefore, God must draw us, and His salvation is a free and completely gracious gift to us.

    This is something so difficult for us to understand. I had believed for many years into my Christian life that there was something virtuous about me that required God to save me. How presumptuous!

    Instead of leaving me in my arrogance, God revealed the ugly truth about myself, that I didn’t even deserve a “thank you” from Him. I continue to thank Him that He woke me from my delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I’ve already admitted to you that I too believe in predestination." You can only have it one way or the other. Either we are free to make what ever decision we want, or God has predestined our every decision until the end of our lives. Freewill only makes God look less omnipotent because our actions would be unknown to him. But because God knows our every move before we even make it, it is only logical that God would have completely planned out our entire lives along with the lives of everyone in eternity before they are even an idea in someones head.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dusk,

    ”But because God knows our every move before we even make it, it is only logical that God would have completely planned out our entire lives along with the lives of everyone in eternity before they are even an idea in someones head.”

    Even though God KNOWS completely, He didn’t COERCE or FORCE completely, although I can understand why you’d associate the two. If He created everything – time, space, matter (interestingly, science claims that they all go together, that they’re all relative to one another) – then He is not limited by what He has created. His knowledge is therefore not limited by time.

    He therefore knows what will happen before it happens and can ordain outcomes by simply allowing certain things to transpire. He therefore can be in control without depriving us of our freewill.

    These things, of course, are just too glorious for me to understand. I admit I can only know in part – a very small part indeed. Nevertheless, I can rest in His protection, knowing that I am loved and that He has a wonderful plan for my life, even if it does entail suffering and failure. He has proved Himself many times before.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Even though God KNOWS completely, He didn’t COERCE or FORCE completely, although I can understand why you’d associate the two" Now I'll use your argument against you. What evidence do you have that anything occurs naturally? What evidence do you have that your freewill isn't an illusion of the reality of predestination?

    "He therefore can be in control without depriving us of our freewill." What evidence do you have that God doesn't deprive us of freewill? What evidence do you have to substantiate any of these claims? Since there is no evidence to prove anything you say, I can only assume that life is predestined. And since the bible supports predestination in the concept of prophesy, I can only assume that control is an illusion and we are just hurdling down a never ending myriad of predestined decision that ultimately end in God making the riches of his Glory known to the objects of his mercy. To claim that you have freewill outside of the control of God is to claim that your actions are capable of transcending God himself, and since nothing can transcend God, predestined life is only a logical concept. Whats odd is that you actually believe that your will is capable of transcending Gods master plan, a plan that according to the bible, has already been predestined. If life wasn't predestined, the bible isn't a book of prophecies, rather it is a book of stories that warn on the possible mistakes. By denying freewill, you rob the bible of this so called miraculous nature of prophecy. You make the concept of prophecy seem like nothing but a magic trick, an old witches warning. Thats fine if you want to do that. That only proves my point that the bible has no miraculous prophecies, and that it is just a book of superstitious beliefs and practices, scientific ignorance, and ridiculous assumption. Atheist believe only in freewill, contrary to what you believe. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/freewill.html
    http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9160.htm
    Whats funny is that you having been arguing against predestination, and so have atheists. So you have just been arguing an atheist concept. You've been siding with the other team, and you didn't even know it. Freewill is an atheist concept, predestination is a religious concept. So believing in freewill only means that you have more in common with atheists than you do with Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dusk,

    You ask about what evidence I have that freewill isn’t an illusion. Here are some thoughts I pulled from a former post:


    1. Your denial of freewill doesn’t seem to have an evidential basis. Simply because we can find many physical and psychological factors that tend to limit our freewill responses, these findings fail to prove that there aren’t some undetermined or freewill elements at play in the choices we make. Instead, it appears that your conclusion is driven by philosophical materialism/naturalism.

    2. I cannot deny my freewill without also denying other things that are equally obvious to me. If I’ve been duped about the perception of my freewill, then I have also been duped about my existence and my other sensory perceptions. It’s so obvious to me that I can freely choose between ordering a Big Mac or a cheeseburger. If I am mistaken about this seemingly free choice, perhaps I’m also mistaken about who and where I am? However, in order to live coherently, I have to accept my basic perceptions.

    3. I cannot deny our freewill and, at the same time, treat others with the dignity that I believe is inherent within them. By denying freewill, you are reducing us to mere robots, degraded objects undeserving of human dignity. I have heard teachers comment that when we treat our students as merely products of their environment, as opposed to free moral agents, we demean them in such a way as to interfere with their positive future adjustment.

    4. If I deny our freewill, I can’t approve of punishment. If they never had freewill and are instead pre-programmed to act in a certain way, then they aren’t responsible moral agents. Consequently, we have no right to blame and punish others for their behaviors. Just imagine that a friend maliciously ruined your reputation. You confront him and he replies, “Sorry about that – I just don’t have any freewill. My chemistry compelled me to do it! I’m therefore not guilty. Pick a fight with my chemistry!” If you don’t believe in freewill, at least to some extent, your worldview prevents you from accusing your friend of wrong-doing, and this discourages responsible, moral behavior. It would be like blaming your toilet for overflowing.

    5. Besides, if freewill is nothing more than a chemical reaction, then too our denial of freewill is just a chemical reaction and not a product of willfully assessing the evidence. Hence, the denial of freewill can be dismissed along with all considerations of truth.

    6. By denying freewill, you deprive yourself and others the privilege of taking full responsibility for your actions and the restoration and hope that results from a full confession of our misdeeds. This philosophical stance will have the effect of dumbing- down and depressing our lives and relationships.

    7. Without freewill, the rationale for moral persuasion – so critical for a healthy society – is severely undermined. What then is left to secure order and stability? Might-makes-right, the use of violence and coercion!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Your denial of freewill doesn’t seem to have an evidential basis." I am so glad you said that, because I have been strategically manipulating this conversation, just to guide you towards those exact words. I argued that predestination must exist because there is nothing to prove that it doesn't. That is the same argument you use in order to try to prove that nothing happens naturally, and that there must be intelligent intervention, if not design. Your exact words were "What proof do you have that anything happens naturally?" Not only have I proved that very statement is a logical fallacy, I have proved by your own words, that it is lacking any EVIDENTIAL BASIS. I don't believe in predestination, that is concept that is support by the bible, a book written by a bunch of men who were surrounded by superstition, and tradition. But I digress, as I have said before, although you are adamantly against predestination, your stance is not supported by the bible, because the bible supports predestination. (Genesis 21:12,13; Exodus 9:16;33:19; Deuteronomy 4:37;7:7,8;10:1)(1 Samuel 2:25)(Joshua 11:20)(Judges 14:4)(2 Chronicles 22:7)(2 Chronicles 25:20)(Genesis 21:12; Nehemiah 9:7,8)(Haggai 2:23)( John 13:18;15:19)(Romans 9:12,13)(Romans 16:13)(Galatians 1:15) You can deny that predestination exists, but you are only making atheist arguments even stronger, as I have already pointed out in the links I posted on atheist philosophies of freewill and the existence of God. Now you're no longer arguing against me on predestination, you are with me that the very notion of it is lacks evidential basis. Predestination is a ridiculous notion that is only supported by superstitious individuals, and religious zealots. Its nice to see that you are so willing to accept that the very notion of predestination is lacking evidential basis. In the end, I have cleverly manipulated you into making my argument against the bibles concept of predestination. The bibles stance on predestination cannot be argued because the very nature of prophecy depends on it. What I have managed to do today is coax you into dropping that book long enough to reason on your own how ridiculous the concept of predestination and prophecy is. So thank you for being so thorough by addressing the logic of why it is ridiculous to think that nature, mans will, and life itself is somehow under the thumb of an almighty puppet master.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dusk,

    I've told you many times that I endorse predestination!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I've told you many times that I endorse predestination" Here are quotes that make your denial of predestination evident:
    March 24, 2010: "To meaningfully deny freewill requires freewill, the very freewill that the atheist claims he lacks" This statement is against predestination and scolds atheists supposed belief in predestination.

    February 2, 2010: You wrote an article entitled, "Freewill, just an illusion?" You addressed atheists supposed denial of freewill. In the article you said, "By denying freewill, you are reducing us to mere robots, degraded objects undeserving of human dignity" You also said, "However, I think it would be mistaken to take Romans 9 as a denial of freewill." This is obviously a stance against predestination. You also siad, "Freewill itself is predestined" but this directly contradicts Romans 9 where it says that before they were born or had done anything right or wrong. It directly contradicts the concept of prophecy. If it is already predestined that you will be bad, then it is apart of Gods plan for us to be that way. This concept is supported by the bible in Romans 9 where it says Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? You don't support predestination, you are trying to assert that both predestination and freewill can occupy the same place at the same time, but that is obviously impossible since it contradicts the bible. There also many occasion on which you use the freewill as evidence that naturalism cannot account for. If you supported predestination then you wouldn't have made those comments which you obviously copy and paste over and over again.

    "There are so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, Freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws)" You have constantly addressed the supposed issue of atheist denial of freewill in many articles. Not once have I seen an article that supports predestination in the way the bible states in Romans 9. You say that you endorse predestination, but I would honestly like you to prove how you've done so in the past. I would like you to prove how you've done so in the scathing retorts you pose against atheists supposed stand against freewill. It was not until now that you entertained my theories of predestination, this is not the first time we have had this debate. Its just the first time I was successful in getting you to accept that it is biblically supported. So, if you truly support predestination, a concept that is biblically supported on many occasions, then why are all articles on predestination articles that support freewill and scold atheists for denying freewill. The odd thing is that you have written many articles on the subject of atheists supposed stand against freewill, but those articles are founded on a concept that doesn't even exist. You scold atheists for something that they actually support. The very definition of atheism is centered around freewill and the denial of predestination. You've been writing misinformed articles on a subject that you misinterpreted. Now, all of sudden, you endorse predestination, after all the scathing articles against those who supposed believe in it. I think that the only reason you are now endorsing predestination is because atheists endorse freewill.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I haven't read the previous comments, but thought I'd make my own on the points you (try) to make.

    1. Is an argument from ignorance. You've not provided a positive argument in favour of (your) God, you're simply saying "there is currently no scientific explanation, therefore God".
    2. Shows a lack of understanding of both the theory of evolution, as well as the laws of thermodynamics.
    3. Shows a lack of understanding of Occam's Razor (Supernaturalism postualtes an entirely new "entity" and is therefore not as simple as naturalism).
    4. Shows an a priori commitment to a "law giver".
    5. There are no demonstrated "irriducibly complex" features in biological systems, Behe's examples (blood clotting and bacterial flagellum) have been found seriously wanting. Research indicates that, contrary to ID claims, "unguided" evolution can result in an increase of information.
    6. The "Big Bang" doesn't claim "creation ex nihilo", it simply covers the development of the (visible) universe from a small dense region to what we see today. Prior to the initial state is speculative physics.

    Everytime I've read you making these claims (regarding Supernaturalism being superior to naturalism), I've made similar comments to the above. Thus far you've not supplied arguments and evidence to support your claims, and yet you continue to boldly make these unjustified assertions. That doesn't seem to be a rational position to hold, Daniel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see from the comments that Dusk makes many of the same observations as I do.
    You do seem to go off on some incoherent discussion that free-will (of the libertarian/contra-causal) variety is compatible with predestination (otherwise known as determinism), which, even if we accept libertarian free-will as a coherent concept (it's not), is an incoherent position to hold.

    You frequently seem to claim that "naturalism" cannot adequately explain certain features (DNA seems to be a favourite). I wonder why you think "supernaturalism" can better explain things - I'd like something akin to an academic paper from the sciences, such as you'd require to explain, for example, the formation of DNA. Saying "God did it" won't cut it :-)

    ReplyDelete