An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

1. Topic: Is an Atheistic Worldview of such things as the origins of: The universe including planets; earth; Humankind; abiogenesis; macro-evolution; etc. (based on naturalism and materialism...) the logical conclusion one can make given, the scientific evidences both sides (Atheists and Christians) have?

2. Freodin will begin and will argue the affirmative;
TheyCallMeDavid will respond arguing the negative.

3. There will be three alternating rounds, a total of 6 posts.

4. The time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course. (Note: Formal debate is a 'Moderated Forum', so this time limit applies not from the point in time when the post is posted, but from the time that it is approved and made visible by a moderator.)

5. The maximum length for each post is 5000 per post, per round.

6. Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule, but the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

7. The start date is April 20th, 2014.

Note: Debaters may not post in the peanut gallery discussion thread until after the conclusion of the debate.

Peanut Gallery is located here: Peanut Gallery - An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

 

[Freodin]

The point of this debate is very general and all-encompassing, so I’d like to start with some words of clarification.
Our moderator phrased the topic as “Is the atheistic worldview… … the logical conclusion…?”
Dave in his proposal wanted to show that “…the traditional Atheistic Worldview… …is […]THE least logic conclusion…” and challenged his opponents to show that it is “…at least a reasonable view…” – by which phrasing he shows his real opinion that it is not reasonable at all.
So I will be trying to show that the atheistic worldview (hereafter shortened to AW) is a) reasonable, b) not less reasonable than other worldviews and c) perhaps the worldview that fits the existing evidence best (at least in my personal opinion).

To start with, I want to clarify just what this position is that I am defending. I assume that Dave will make a number of arguments against “the traditional atheistic worldview”, and I will try my best to find out if he is indeed arguing against a real position and if that is my own position. If he thinks that my arguments and positions do not reflect “the traditional view”, as he sees it, I will perhaps have presented an even more reasonable and logical position. Or at least compel him to answer my position and not some strawman of his own making.

Atheism is always a counterposition to theistic claims, a position of doubt, disbelief or outright denial. It needs a theistic claim to analyze and, ultimately, reject. To complete the AW, alternative explanations for theistic claims have to be included – these can be based on forms of materialism and naturalism.
Neither materialism nor naturalism are atheistic per se… there are theistic systems of materialism, which can even be found on this forum, but we will ignore that for now, as their definition of “God” does mostly not go conform with the standard theistic definitions.

The philosophical debate between materialism in its various forms and its idealistical counterpositions is irrelevant here – the two important points of materialism in short:
- There is an extant reality outside of the consciousness, which allows as well as forms the foundation of perception of that reality. Most theists, especially “traditional” Christians do not deny that.
- “Material” – organized and consistent existence – forms the basis of this reality. “Non-material” existences – concepts and ideas – are based on the material and don’t have an independent existence.
Theistic claims now include the existence of a conscious and active being that is “outside” of the materialistic system of existence and the cause of this system.

This is what the AW has to deal with. Now can we show that “given the scientific evidences both sides have”, as Dave said it in his debate proposal, AW is reasonable and logical? Yes, we can do that.
The scientific evidence that we – both sides – have is always materialistic. That’s a limit of a method of scientific naturalism. But for the sake of our debate, it is enough, because most – I assert: all – of what we will discuss is materialistic.

So the first argument for the validity of the AW is simple: every piece of scientific evidence that we have - and can have - points to a materialistic explanation for everything, because it cannot point to anything else. There can be no scientific evidence for a non-materialistic explanation. On the other hand, the materialistic explanations that exist give a positive and unrefuted model for the AW.

The second is the inability of the theistic side to provide positive scientific evidence for their claims. It might be theoretically possible to give evidence for the impossibility of materialistic-atheistic claims, but that only can lead to the exclusion of such an explanation. It does not provide any evidence for the existence of a deity of the theistic model.

These two alone allow the validity of the AW to doubt and disbelieve in theistic claims. The third argument might lead to the conclusion of superiority of an AW over theistic views.
Basically every scientific, or philosophical, argument that can be made against atheism and for theism rests on a general materialism. It is unavoidable… humans cannot make any argument that goes against their own understanding of existence. So every general argument made for a deity in the theistic sense can equally be used for an AW. Arguments for a theistic deity must come from special situations… and here the explanation of a generally known materialistic source tops an unknown and unknowable supernatural source.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Thanks to Freodin for being willing to participate in what promises to be another spirited debate on a vital topic.

Regardless of how the Moderator structured the Debate Title, I would like to confirm how I stand on the issue of Atheism being a reasonable worldview before I continue so there are no misunderstandings : I believe that it can be readily shown that the traditional Atheistic Worldview which has Materialism and Naturalism at its catalyst for the origin of the Universe , for the sustenance of the Universe, for first life on Earth and all biological systems that exist subsequently ..... to be utterly unreasonable / untenable / a complete hoax / and a View which No One has enough faith to honestly believe in when unbiasely unpacking the scientific evidences and realities that exist ... thus making it a convenient charade to follow for nothing but aesthetic reasons . Further, I assert there really is no such thing as a 'true honestly believing Atheist' when it comes to the atheistic Worldview because it demands too much unreasonable faith for our reality having occurred this way ; therefore , such a Person is really a Theist albeit incognito , or, a Person who simply doesn't want to admit to a personal intelligent Theistic Creator due to the enormous implications thereof to his personal life . This declaration also lines up with what the Bible has to say on the issue of professed atheism. I trust that was emphatic enough on how I stand on this issue .



Next, I would like to confirm what I believe is Freodins stand on atheistic Naturalism and Materialism based on the limited explanation he has given for each and what a typical traditional atheistic worldview looks like . I need him to affirm these basic defintitions so I can remain on the right track :



Materialism : The theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action (taken from Widipedia) . Additionally, Materials and Chemicals are all that the Universe is made up of , and, which are responsible for the Universe coming into existence / the sustenance of the Universe / and First Life that arrived on Earth. Typically, a Materialist is also a Darwinist when it comes to explaining how First Life graduated to the many millions of vastly different Life Forms we have today including Humans.



Naturalism : The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws. (taken from Wikipedia) . Additionally, a Naturalist believes only in Natural Causes and we live in a Universe void of any Intelligent-based Causes which would strongly imply an Intelligent Superior Being .



Im going to assume you are in agreement to these expanded definitions to each , and so it will be from these foundations that I will continue . If these definitions need modification to best represent your personal philosophy , then please indicate ,so I can avoid any semblance of subsequent Strawman arguments which is never my intention .


The realities that Modern Science embraces that are common to both the Atheist and Theist alike, are hereby listed :


1. A universe that exploded into being from nothing . This includes EVERY molecule, chemical, all mass and energy forms , the unchanging Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics , etc... which came from a Singularity ... that is.... time, space, and matter came into existence and before this Singularity ('the Big Bang') occurred ..... there was no time , space, or matter. There was nothing before the Singularity .
2. A Universe with over 150 fine tuned , life enabling constants for this tiny, remote planet called Earth which is incredibly suitable for our sustenance in addition to the established Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Mathemetics all working in delicate and in astounding unison ; Some of these life enabling Constants are to the 120th decimal point critical tolerance (or leeway) with most at a 50th decimal point maximum leeway or higher .... otherwise we arent here (partial list upon request) .
3. Life that has been observed to arise only from existing life and which has never been observed to arise spontaneously (as in the atheistic Abiogenesis theory) . Life that consists of thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable specified complexity (videlicet, information messages in DNA) and is therefore more than just the nonliving chemicals it contains. Life that changes cyclically and only within a limited range. Life which cannot be built or modified gradually (ie: irreducible complexity) . Life that is molecularly isolated between basic types (theres no ancestoral progression at the molecular level). And life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.


I have listed above 3 scientifically confirmed realities that the greater Scientific Community acknowledges as established fact . Therefore, to hold to a traditional atheistic Worldview One must believe :


A. Something arose from nothing (the origin of the Universe ) .

B. Order as we have it today arose from chaos (the design and engineering of the universe).

C . Life arose from non-life (which means non-material intelligence arose from non intelligence / personality arose from non personality / free will , moral oughtness , abstract thinking, reason, logic, (videlicet, Consciousness) ... all came ultimately from materials) .


Please explain how raw materials and chemicals, in collaboration with Naturalism ... account for 1 thru 3 and A thru C , above ? In your answer, please only deal directly with the 3 listed emphirical evidences (realities we both have) and refrain from departing into unproven speculations and wild theories as some are accustomed to doing ; instead...drawing on the processes of Materialism and Naturalism that you believe is responsible for everything , explain the specific process of how each categorical Issue above ,arrived , without a shred of intelligence/will/direction/or end purpose in mind .


Thank you. David

 

[Freodin]

David’s starting paragraph was emphatic… and of course also quite insulting. Attacking your opponent’s honesty is not a good way to start a debate. If nothing else, it leaves you open to attacks in a similar vein, if your opponent is not a person of rather high moral standards.
But that is a discussion about the validity of the AW, and if David thinks it can be “readily shown” that atheism is all that he asserts, I will gladly see his arguments.
Just one comment on his initial paragraph: the assertion that atheists deny a belief in a “personal intelligent Theistic Creator” because of the consequences to their personal life is obviously incorrect.
There aren’t necessarily any such consequences. These consequences only appear if you propose the existence of a very limited and special kind of “Theistic Creator”… and not even all theists believe in this.
Of course one can postulate that all those – not only atheists – who don’t believe in this special creator do so only because of the “personal consequences” such a belief would have. But then this could be too easily countered with the claim that those who do believe in this special creator, and thus not in any contradicting concepts, do so only because they fear the consequences of such a different belief.
But all that is based only on personal attacks, petty bickering and without any shred of “scientific evidence” at all. I would strongly advise anyone not to use arguments of these kinds.

Let’s continue with his definitions of the term used in our debate. In both cases, I can almost agree on those.
Many opponents of materialism have a very limited view on that topic, and the question of what exactly is “Materials and Chemicals” is a bit more difficult than it may seem. But for the sake of this limited debate, I agree on these terms.
Naturalism is a little more complicated. The main problem is to define what is “natural” and what is “supernatural” or “spiritual”. Naturalism does not deny “any Intelligent-based Causes“… it just denies that such causes are independent from „natural“ sources. So there might be an “intelligent creator” even outside of the known universe… it would just be “natural”.
But for the sake of this debate, we can use the concepts of “natural” as relating to an observable universe, and “supernatural” to anything “outside” of that.
Also it needs to be said that naturalists usually talk about the laws of nature as “describing” the universe, not “governing” it.

The next part of his presentation is a mixture of half-truths and erroneous conclusion.
1.“Modern science” does not propose and has never proposed “A universe that exploded into being from nothing”. That is, at best, a layman’s simplification of the current cosmological theories, at worst, a creationist warping and lie. Some fault for that concept of “explosion” can be sought in popular representations of these theories, which are limited by the ways they can be presented at all… but that does not excuse deliberate misrepresentations.
The real problem though comes from the term “from nothing”. That implies that there was a change from a state of “nothing” to a state of “universe”… and that is incorrect. David said it himself: the “Big Bang” is supposed to be the beginning of time itself, thus there was no state “before” where something could come from.
“Nothing” itself presents an even bigger challenge for his arguments. Not only do we not have any scientific observations about “nothing”, but there isn’t even a philosophical consensus about what that term is exactly to mean. Theists like to present one ancient philosophical statement “ex nihilo nihil fit” as absolute and undisputable fact – which it isn’t – but they also ignore that the base of that statement – the underlying observations – are limited to the materialistic world.
Basically, we don’t know what “nothing” is, and what might come from “nothing”. There are philosophical speculations that haven’t any problems with “something from nothing”… but as David did not want to hear arguments based on speculations, I will limit it to the scientific / materialistic.

The AW does not say “something from nothing”, but rather “something from something else”. David’s point 1) is a strawman.

2. The “fine-tuning” of the universe – even in its overblown and exaggerated form that David presented – is an interesting topic for cosmologists. It is not certain, and very dependent on the mathematical model used, how many independent universal constants there are… a lot less that 150 though. It might be as few as six, or even only one. The question of why they are that way and not different is on where the answer is completely unknown and open to speculation. But an atheistic answer of “these constants are inherent properties of existence” is not more unreasonable or illogical than the often used theist’s explanation of things “It is God’s nature!”
There is no problem for an AW in the answer it proposes. But on the other hand, there is an inherent contradiction in the theistic explanation. An argument of “fine-tuning” of materialistic “universal constants” only makes sense within a materialistic framework. Without the assumption of such a framework, the argument loses its context and meaning.
That means that the “universal constants” are either inherent in “material” existence – whatever form that may take – or do also exist “outside” of that material existence.
An “intelligent creator” supported by this “fine-tuning” argument would thus be bound by a materialistic framework in the same way as we are… which contradicts the common theistic view of the “creator” as well as leads to the question where this creator came from, if intelligence, life and “fine-tuned” systems need to be intelligently created.

“Fine-tuning” does not lead to a necessary conclusion of an “intelligent creator”, and it does even contradict the common theistic view of such a proposed “creator”.

3. “Life that has been observed to arise only from existing life” is another of his misrepresentations, half-truths and strawman arguments.
Many forms of life that have been observed did arise from previously existing forms of life... that is correct, and that is how “life” works: it reproduces.
But that does not lead to the necessary conclusion that the origins of “life” are not from forms that we would not classify as “life”. All “life” is based on materialistic sources, and there do exist observed mechanisms for the formation of “complex life” from simpler forms. There are observed mechanisms for the formation of the building blocks that “life” is formed from.
Again, on the other hand, life has been observed to arise only from existing materialistic life”. There are no observations showing life to arise from non-materialistic sources. While one may say that this places an atheistic materialistic origin of “life” on the same level as a theistic non-materialistic explanation, there are observed mechanisms and possible explanations for the materialistic view. There are no such observations or even proposed mechanisms for a non-materialistic source.

If “life always comes from other life” is meant to have any validity, it also shows that the proposed “intelligent creator” is also a form of materialistic life… which again contradicts the common theistic claim.

The “3 scientifically confirmed realities that the greater Scientific Community acknowledges as established fact” are distortions, but even in their correct form rather contradict the theistic view, thus supporting the atheistic doubt and denial in such a view.

As for his three points that “a traditional atheistic Worldview […] must believe”.
A) Something from nothing is not a necessary belief in an AW. But if one wants to, it is not more unreasonable than other positions.
B) Order from chaos is not a necessary belief in an AW. Complexity from simplicity would fit better here, which is supported by observations and mathematical theory. But also order from chaos is not more unreasonable than other positions.
C) “Life” from “non-life” is not a problem at all. If we assume that “life” is just an emergent property of certain systems of “non-life”, there is no reason not to accept the initial assertion. And an emergence of “x from not-x” is supported by observation and mathematical theory.

And finally, as for his request of a naturalistic explanations for… all kind of things: I am not going to enter an in-depth discussion about specific scientific topics here… I don’t need to, and I’d say David does not really want to open that can of worms.
If he wants to see explanations without “unproven speculations and wild theories”, I’d like to see him present an explanation of his own… without all these.
Materialistic explanations might rest on speculations and theories… but these are always based on positive observations. They might all be wrong, but they are still valid and based on reality. The theistic system has no alternative to offer. There are, as I said before, no observations of "non-materialistic" sources.

But before he now accuses me of evading his points: this is not a debate about the correctness of an AW. I don’t have to prove that it is true. I only have to show that it is possible.
I have presented the arguments to show that it is, based on existing scientific observations. In order to show that it is illogical and unreasonable to believe in an AW, David would have to show that these arguments are wrong, that the explanations are impossible, that all the proposed “speculations and theories” cannot work.
If he cannot do that, he has failed in his claims that such a position is “utterly unreasonable / untenable / a complete hoax”.
It would be shown that the atheistic position is at least on the same ground as the theistic one.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

PART 1 of 2. Response :

I regret that you found my opening clarifying Statement offensive ; I find the very concept of Atheism a profoundly deep offense both to myself and certainly to the Creator of us All regardless of whether the Atheist doesn't care for him to exist . I personally do not believe that sharing Ones viewpoint by way of critical thinking is 'an attack' on those that ascribe to a particular philosophy or Belief System ... nor do I believe drawing conclusions based on reason , rationale, and truth-testing in accordance to reality something to be avoided. Evidentally, the CF Moderator to this Debate Forum didn't think so either since I didn't receive correction. Nor does the Bible remain silent on the Atheist Worldview or those that feel a need to refuse the very obvious evidence before them every day of their lives .


I read over your response three times very carefully , and it is obvious from your replies on the scientific evidences presented that this particular topic is something that is not your strong point ; its apparent that you have not been keeping up with the latest scientific discoveries and conclusions of the Cosmology and Micro-Biology scientific Community ; In addition, you have commited a couple of common atheist fallacys which ill bring to your attention for consideration. But before we launch into these things, I believe we need to re-examine what your obligation is regarding entering into this Debate with an affirmative position :



The title of this debate to which we both agreed to is : ' An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not ?' With you representing the affirmative view that it is indeed so, it is encumbant upon you to prove WHY it is reasonable and logical to embrace / to cogently explain the mechanism or process which makes it provable and thus compelling / and to back it up with levels of scientific evidence . External evidence showing that your atheist model is something that has simular repeatability by drawing on examples found here on earth .... is something that would be considered supportive too . According to the Debate Title , it begs you to show its correctness as a model that is quite reasonable and logical , and something that any reasonable Person should consider embracing ; to think all you need to do is show that an A.W.' is possible' because you believe it is ... is a failure . Your position in this Debate is to conclusively demonstrate why the A.W. is compelling enough for you to personally put your trust in as well as millions of others worldwide to place their confidence in. It is quite common for the Atheist to demand the Theist show why his creation model is tenable and to categorically illustrate why this is so --- the shoe is now on the other foot with you needing to do the same with your Model. This Debate is NOT why the Theist Model is superior to the Atheist Worldview Model , nor am I expected to give specific address to that evidence to prove Theism correct ; but what I have offered are some neutral scientific facts by way of the Cosmos and Biological Systems which you need to show fits in well with the A.W. model . Further, it is not enough to assert the atheistic model of Materialism is true because we have some material effects as a reality ---- while we have some materials , we also have as a reality NON-material entities .... therefore , you need to cogently address how the inanimate came from the animate (consciousness from raw material) which is an integral part of your Model. Additionally, while I may believe that the A.W. is utterly unreasonable / untenable / a complete hoax ... it is not up to me in this Debate to show why...rather it is up to you taking the affirmative position to show why this is not so . Lastly, it DOES require you getting into the specific scientific topics which I purposely layed out since this is a neutral foundation from which you are being asked to explain your Model for being credible ---- we both champion scientific objectivity being rationale People and the battle-cry from the Atheist Community has always been that science shows the A.W. to be credible ., so, let us both discuss the A.W. using these unbiased established Scientific evidences . Summarizing .... it is YOU that has the burden of proof to thoroughly explain why your atheistic Model is something that any reasonable and rationale person could accept without being dishonest to himself. I trust that as we continue, you will become more focused in attempting to do that because so far, all I have seen is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning / declaring because something exists (material) that your Model is therefore completely tenable without addressing the non-material entities we have / and presenting a reverse god-of-the-gaps view: (ie: "The supernatural doesn't exist (or if it does, it certainly had nothing to do with creating life from non-life), therefore some natural process must have caused life to come from non-life" as an example for this common fallacy . So , ill be holding your feet to the fire for the duration of this Debate by policing for logical fallacys presented and insist that you show some hard proof which shows the A.W. to be compelling as a very rational, reasonable, and logical Model which Atheists have always maintained it is.



Next . I had posted 3 scientific facts regarding the Origin of the Universe, the Design Parameters of the Universe which allows earth and life on earth to exist , and I touched on origins for First Life on Earth . While I could launch into a lengthy dissertation giving supportive evidence for each categorical point since these cummulative facts are represented by the Scientific Community even though Freodin lacks knowledge on some of these as indicated.... he has given me enough information in his statements to capitalize on and to challenge his A.W. as being credible in conjunction with other personal insights he shared on Materialism and Naturalism . I would however, like to encourage you ,Freodin, to do additional research on the facts I presented because you will find there is common agreement thruout the great majority of the scientific community that these 3 posted categories are strong realities ; but suffice it to say that you have admitted agreement to at least some of these (albeit not entirely) . These facts can be readily accessible by a google search under : The Universes Singularity , Does our Universe occupy Anthropic Principles / and Has Life ever been seen to come from non living life ( i.e. Is abiogenesis a proven fact ) .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Part 2 :

I shall now move on some specific challenges for Freodin based on some of the statements he made . And so they don't get overlooked or ignored (as what occurred in our last debate on Male Homosexuality) , I shall put the questions in bold black letters :



1. Big Bang Cosmology says that the entire Universe, that is.... all space, time and matter , came from a Singular event bringing into existence all of these things and before that event there was no material , space , or time ; the Universe having a definite beginning is now a proven concept by 5 common lines of scientific converging evidences . It is now known that the universe is not eternal according to the experts in this Field . Therefore since you believe the First Cause for the Universe coming into being is what you refer to as a Natural Cause : Explain what this 'natural cause' was / explain how material might have been this cause even though material had not existed yet (if in fact you believe the first cause was material based) / and explain why we have something which didn't need to exist or in other words...explain why something can come to exist without it being willed to exist ? If you don't believe we started with Nothing before the Universes arrival and that we started with 'someTHING' ... what was that something ?



2. Concerning the Design Parameters of the Universe/Solar System/Earth which are life enabling Constants that occupy such enormous precise fine tuning by way of maximum operational leeway , that it boggles the mind . What these Constants represent are the glue that allows Earth to be a planet that is suitable for us to live on . In addition to these scientifically discovered and measurable Constants, there exists many specific mathematical Laws of Physics which are in place and MUST function in a very very narrow specific way in order to provide the setting for Earths existence and our sustenance . You wont find much talk about these on atheist websites for the simple reason that they serve to be a nail in the coffin of the A.W. ... in fact they pose a serious problem for the Atheist , but you will find them listed and discussed by Theist and Agnostic Scientists who specialize in this area of Cosmology because they are an established reality which lends great credibility toward there being a Designer which is always required for a Design ... a premise that has never been controverted and is shown to have repeatability daily on Earth . Youll find many agnostic experts in the Field including Stephen Hawkins that wont deny the extreme precision of the Universe and in fact has contributed greatly to this design model ; for instance, he brought us the Constant Parameter of the Universes expansion rate at the time of the Big Bang to be within a maximum leeway of 1/1,000,000 th otherwise our Universe with all its life enabling constants and Laws of Science would not be here . Add to that astounding fine tuning example the commonly discussed Fine Tuned Parameters which are listed at the top of this link , The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning , and the 36 additional Universe Parameters found at the bottom of the page ; if we want to examine the specific incredible fine tuned Parameters just for our Solar System , then here is another 68 for consideration found at the bottom of this link just on that subject : The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System . If you peruse the Source Info at the end of each link for this Link information, you will see that these facts are widespread across the Scientific community . A logical reasonable Person should deduce that there exists remarkable parameters by way of deliberate design but not so the Atheist who must maintain his apriori-philosophical commitment to Materialism at all cost. Please explain how the many Laws of Physics/Chemistry/and Mathematics along with dozens and dozens of incredibly precise fine tuned Physics Constants for life enablement 'became inherent to our Universe' from a Natural non intelligent Cause when anything remotely similar in our daily life on Earth would be viewed as a no-brainer willful act of Design from a Designer even occupying just 2 or 3 intelligent designed parameters (such as a football , golfball, or pecan pie) ? Further, while these Fine Tuned Parameters often involve materials that they act upon , please show how Materials themselves ORIGINATED these Laws that act upon these material entities ?



3. I agree that life comes from other life forms...but that doesn't explain how the very first LIFE FORM originated ; and that would be a life form (according to the common A.W.) that was of the so called 'simplest variety' amoeba or living cell . This would need to occupy DNA and RNA which we now know are near unimaginable specified complexity by way of deliberate informational messages taking place within the cell structure with end purposes in view. Even atheist Biologists such as Zoologist Dawkins admits that the 'simplest of cells' has to the equivalent specified information in it that if it were written out , it would fill 1,000 complete volumes of encyclopedias . Further, it takes DNA to make DNA which means that the original life form on earth has to have come from a DNA life form . Yet the traditional A.W. supports abiogenesis that life originally came from non living chemicals within our atmosphere . You said : ' there are observed mechanisms and possible explanations for the materialistic view' in regards to first life appearing on earth , so Please tell us what non living Material Source or Cause was responsible for bringing into existence a first life form which had pre-progammed instructions ... deliberate informational messages to fill 1,000 encyclopedias (DNA) ..... and was capable of inherently providing a blueprint within its cellular structure for how the cell was to develop ? How did the animate come from the inanimate (as in human consciousness) ?



Additionally, you stated that 'complexity arose from simplicity' and that 'order arose from chaos ' . Please explain why this doesn't contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics called Entropy which is an established Law of Science that has never been controverted , and applies to all Material and Biological Systems within our Universe ? Further, if your premise is true, would we ever come to expect something of order and complexity coming about from repeated acts of simplicity/chaos such as an infinite amount of dynamite sticks being tossed on a small pile of required materials used in the construction of a very basic dog house ? (surely this example is far less complicated than the Universe or the first life form on earth) .



You said : 'If we assume that “life” is just an emergent property of certain systems of “non-life”, there is no reason not to accept the initial assertion. And an emergence of “x from not-x” is supported by observation and mathematical theory' . Prove that life is an emergent property of certain systems of non life , and, provide any scientific research paper giving a mathematical equation showing that this is the way it occurs . Further, who has observed life arising from non life ? Please provide the persons name and date this occurred .



You remarkably declared : 'Materialistic explanations might rest on speculations and theories… but these are always based on positive observations. They might all be wrong, but they are still valid and based on reality'. Why should anyone conclude as you do that the A.W. is a logical , reasonable, and a rationale one ... when it rests on speculations and unproven theories ? How is a speculation and unproven theory 'observed' --- if something is definitively observed then it is no longer a speculation or theory because it became an observable reality ? How is something that is based on reality (truth) considered wrong ?



You said that I need to show why all these atheistic speculations and theories that make up your A.W. model don't or wont work ; I don't need to show ANYTHING --- but your affirmative position that the A.W. is reasonable , rational, and full of logic demands that you show by a great preponderance of the evidence that it is something that is correct to embrace. You have not only failed in that achievement , but you offer the conceding statement that it rests on speculations and unproven theories that could be very well, wrong ! So much for the confidence you have in your own A.W. belief system.



So far, Readers will not have enough faith based on good reason to be an Atheist as I don't. And I truly don't understand why you do either based on what you've conceded here .



David

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT...

Just a friendly reminder that while this is a "Christian" website, everyone is to be treated with the utmost respect. I've been modding debates for some time, and based on my observations and experience, kind but well founded responses carry more weight.

A reminder of one of our rules:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Remember, we debate sides of a topic, that is why we have threads titled such as this one; we do not debate individuals, or we would have threads titled "Jimmie vs Louie".

Thanks for reviewing this, and please keep it in mind.Mark

 

[Freodin]

We seem to be at a bit of an impasse with our respective positions in this debate.

I am trying to show that atheism, especially an atheism based on materialism and naturalism, is a reasonable and logical position to hold.
In order to do so, I present arguments based on sound reasons and reasonings. I also try to structure my arguments as consistent with formal logic. That is what “reasonable” and “logical” means.

David now claims that this atheism is not reasonable or logical.
I would expect him to go against my arguments, show that my reasons are unsound or that my logic is faulty. But he doesn’t… he even denies that he is supposed to do so.
He could show that my position is untenable because a contradicting position has been shown correct. He also denies that he should do that. Yet that is what he tries to do, in a very roundabout way.
He presents me with a couple of “challenges” and “questions”, implying that, if I don’t answer these to his liking, my position is shown wrong and his position right by default. That is an erroneous inference.
The questions – and his presentation of “scientific facts” these questions are based on - are riddled with errors and erroneous conclusions. They are not based on sound reasoning.
So in his attempt to show that my position is unreasonable and illogical (“utterly unreasonable” and “a complete hoax”), he relies on an approach that is in itself unreasonable and illogical.
Let’s go backwards through his argumentations.

He bemoans that the AW “…rests on speculations and unproven theories”. That shows that he doesn’t understand how science with its approach of methodological materialism works. It also, deliberately, ignores and changes my own post, which said “…speculations and theories… …based on positive observations” and nothing else.
Theories are never proven, they can only be disproven. They are not “observable reality” in themselves… they are a system of inferences or conclusions made from “observable reality”. Every piece of evidence – the “positive observations” – need either to comply with the theory, supporting it, or going against it, thus weakening or disproving it. And they can be disproven, provided their initial premises can be shown wrong or contradicting evidence comes up. But as long as their premises stand unchallenged or no contradicting evidence exists, they are reasonable and logical.
An example: Our outdoor thermometer was found broken on the floor. I speculate that it could have been thrown down by those pesky neighborhood cats.
Observable facts: there are a number of cats in the neighborhood. Cats have been seen previously climbing around our fence, where the thermometer was placed. Cats are known to interact with objects.
My position of “cats done it” is reasonable and logical. It could still be wrong though. It could have been martens or birds or the wind or a material defect. But all these speculations, based on observed facts and sound reasoning also makes it reasonable and logical to doubt and reject a claim of “it fell because of a battle between angels and demons”… which is not based on any observations.

His questions about “life as an emergent property” are in the same way unreasonable and illogical. He asks for proof – which science doesn’t deal in, “mathematical equation showing that this is the way it occurs” – which I did never claim exist, and “observed life arising from non-life” – which is not necessary for a reasonable assumption.
The definitions of biological, materialistic “life” - the attributes used to distinguish it from “non-life” -are all (potential) behaviors. In these definitions, life is necessarily an emergent property. There can be no behavior without something that behaves.
Mathematical models show all the time that systems can have properties that their individual components do not have… they emerge due to the make up of the system. You don’t need a research paper for that… any school book will do that.
The observation of “life from non-life” will most likely never happen in the way he wants to have it… because his expectations are incorrect. But even in the existing scientific hypothesizes, such an observation is not necessary to show that these systems are reasonable. There are enough observations in existence to show that all these systems are possible, and nothing to show that it is impossible.

In a similar way his question about the origin of cells and DNA is unreasonable and illogical. First, he seems to assume that “cell” is the simplest form of life that exists, and that this “simplest of cells” had to spring fully formed from its “non-life” origin. This is incorrect. Cells or amoebas are already highly evolved systems. Earlier systems are based on simpler components. These simpler systems have been shown to be able to form by materialistic means. Also, there are forms of “life” still existing today that do not use cells or DNA.
A primer to start with would be the University of Berkeley’s site. It gives a good introduction into the theories about the origins of life and the observations and experiments that have already been made.

His reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is something that he really should know better not to use. The common rebuttal to his claim should be enough: that the 2LoT refers to the overall entropy of a closed system. But it is his mention of the 2LoT as an “established Law of Science” which “applies to all Material and Biological Systems within our Universe” that shows the illogic of his arguments.
We see the emergence of complexity from simplicity all the time in “Material and Biological Systems”. If the 2LoT forbade this, life would not exist. Every single endothermic reaction would not exist. But we see them existing.
His reasoning here is “The 2LoT forbids this, therefore it must be a supernatural explanation.”… precisely the logical fallacy he accused me earlier in his post of committing (which, BTW, I did not).
On the other hand he completely ignores that, while the 2LoT allows for loss of entropy in certain systems, the configuration of this system plays an important role. You don’t have to have only the correct matter, but also the correct energy. If you accelerate (put energy in) flour, water and eggs, you will get a mess. But if you heat it (put energy in), you will get a cake.
The more reasonable explanation for these apparent contradictions and misconceptions: his interpretation of the 2LoT and its consequences are false.

The “fine-tuning” argument now is a really interesting one, and would deserve a better presentation than the one David gave here.
I will not go into depth here with the nonsensical parts, the website he cited about the “incredible design of the Earth”. A simple reminder of Douglas Adam’s famous puddle should suffice.
The question about “many Laws of Physics/Chemistry/and Mathematics” is also rather weird. As I said earlier, the laws of nature do not determine how something behaves, they describe it. If they were different, they would not describe the system they do now. These laws just cannot be different.
For the natural constants, this question is open. We just do not know if a different setting is even possible. But even if we assume that, this in no way “serve to be a nail in the coffin” of the AW. It isn’t that this phenomenon isn’t known – there are enough non-theistic hypothesizes out there that try to give an explanation.
Yes, these are unobserved speculations. But in this they are not different from the hypothesis of a supernatural creator… and this speculation has a major flaw in my view.
I already said this in my previous post, only to have it completely ignored. But it is an important argument: the idea that certain values have to be just so, in order for the whole system to work only makes sense when you already have a whole system for it to work in.
We can only say how footballs, golf balls or pecan pies need to be, because we know the existing framework of the universe that have to exist in. If we hadn’t this framework, we couldn’t make these statements.
That means a designer of a materialistic system must work from an already existing materialistic system.
I don’t claim to know the answer to David’s question. Maybe all these constants are inherent in existence… they just cannot be different. Maybe they are different, and we are in the position of the puddle… we are “here” and not “there”, because “here” allows us to exist and “there” doesn’t. Or maybe we are just lucky… the constants are arbitrary, but by chance are just this way.
I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean that my position of doubt in a theistic position is unreasonable or illogical. I presented David with two ways to show that, but he has chosen not to go that way.

His last set of questions, the questions about the “Big Bang” again show his overly simplistic approach to both the cosmological as well as the philosophical questions of that topic.
All his talk about “the experts in this Field” agreeing ignores the real points they are agreeing on: what we see now came from something quite different, a long time ago. What this “something quite different” exactly was is unknown. Even the famous “singularity” is a hypothetical construct… our current models of physics do not work at such a proposed state (So much for “fine tuning”).
But there are potential explanations for such an event, and certainly someone as proficient in science as David knows them all. All of them are based on naturalistic, materialistic systems… none of them proposes a supernatural creator.
His questions show that he is unable to even consider those explanations, and that he has to introduce his own “speculations and unproven theories” into a scientific topic. Talk about that “which didn’t need to exist” or “being willed to exist” are philosophical/theological speculations that are unevidenced, contested and not conclusive.
The general answer to his questions here is also much simpler: we have a lot of existing evidence for things “arising” from natural means. That even includes the things that humans do, which are not simply “willed into existence”. For such a method of origin, we do not have a single piece of evidence.
Even if the exact causes remain unknown, David’s questions do nothing to show that such an assumption is impossible or unreasonable. They do nothing to show that an alternative explanation is correct. Having refused to use the two methods that could indeed make his point, he fails to show the naturalistic explanation as unreasonable or illogical.

Now I don’t think that my explanations here are compelling David (or any other reader) to become an atheist. This wouldn’t be the intention of this thread. Nor is the intention to present reasonable or logical arguments for converting to atheism.
But to hold to an atheistic worldview is reasonable and logical. It is based on sound reason and solid logic. David has not shown that it is not.

And to close this interesting debate for my part, an idea for our next debate: in part 1 of his latest post, David mentioned that “while we have some materials , we also have as a reality NON-material entities”. I challenge this assertion that he made without any evidence. If he makes such bold claims, it should be no problem for him to support it.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

In this last post, we will examine if atheistic Materialism/Naturalism is credible and if One would be reasonable in placing their trust in it. The forthcoming summary will be a compilation of Freodins latest reply and some previous ones :



1. He submitted that the A.W. is based on the foundation of good reason and logic. Reasons require that the universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design and truth. But order , logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things. To say something is unreasonalbe, the atheist must know what reasonable is. To say something is NOT designed they must know what design IS . Like all non-theistic worldviews, Materialists borrows from the theistic worldview in order to make its own view intelligible . Things like intellect, free will, objective morality,human rights, reason, logic , design, and truth can exist only if there is a like MIND that exists (viz. God) . The theory of Materialism isn't made of molecules ..likewise...someones thoughts whether they be of love or hate , are not chemicals. For, how much does love weigh or what is the chemical composition of hate (?) These are absurd questions because thoughts, convictions, emotions, logic, reason, etc...are not completely material based. Therefore, Materialism makes true reason, an impossibility.



2. Lets briefly look again at the 3 neutral scientific issues I presented which are embraced by the scientific community today..regardless of religious or non religious persuasion ..and see if Materialism is reasonable :



A . The first neutral issue layed out was the origin of the Universe in which Freodin said must have been a 'Natural Cause (non intelligent Force, etc...)' . Scientists today now know that natural forces, indeed all of nature, were created or were brought into being at the Big Bang . The Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe . Time, space, and matter came into existence at THAT point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a Cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the BIg Bang. Therefore, something OUTSIDE of nature had to do the job. And that is what supernatural means. It is highly ILLOGICAL to believe that a Natural Cause outside of the Universe provided for the Scientific Laws we have, the existence of all matter where there was no matter before, as well as such things as actual time and space. It is sheer desperation to conclude such illogic . Rather, when we examine what we do have by way of effects from the Creation event (our reality today) , we can get a very accurate idea of what the First Cause had to be ; The First Cause must be self existent, timeless, nonspatial, immaterial since the First Cause created time, space, and matter and he is without limits and is infinite . The first cause of anything that becomes finite, must be infinite or outside of what is created much like a Painter is to his Painting. The First Cause would have to unimaginably powerful to create the entire Universe out of nothing and supremely intelligent to design the Universe with incredible precision . The Cause would have to be personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, for, an impersonal force has no ability to make choices. These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics ascribe to God and they are NOT someones religion or subjective experience...rather they are drawn from the scientific evidence which IS our reality . This conclusion is based on logic and good reason...and not the kind of illogic that an A.W. demands we believe in .

B. The next neutral scientific fact layed out was that our Universe , solar system and earth are uniquely designed and engineered to incredible close tolerances that there just doesn't leave any leeway for it to be off...not even ever so slightly. Freodin calls the present scientifically confirmed Life Enabling Parameters (anthropics) 'erroneous' and 'half truths' .... yet even the most notable noble prize winning Cosmologists of our time are convinced based on the evidence , that the Universe didn't just come about willy nilly as from a 'Natural First Cause' as we are being asked to put our faith in. Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias , co-discoverer of the radiation glow from the Big Bang, said : 'Astronomy leads us to a unique event....a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide the conditions required to support life....one might say , a supernatural plan' . Popular Cosmologist Ed Harrison says :' Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God....the design argument of Paley-- updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of design' . Sir Fred Hoyle had his atheism shaken because of the discovered anthropics and wrote :' A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as chemistry and biology...and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature' . Another nobel prize winner, Cosmologist Prof. Alan Sandage (former atheist) who discovered the radiation echo of the Big Bang declared :' The world is too complicated in all its parts and inter-connections for it to be by chance alone. ...unless there is some type of organizing principle --- an Architect' . The only reason why a Person would feel the need to pooh-pooh the discovered Design Parameters of our Universe is because they come to the table with an apriori-philosophical commitment to Materialism at ALL cost (even maintaining an illogical view that flies in the face of objective scientific evidences) . Freodin infers that we shouldn't be surprised or concerned that we have we have such Laws of Sciences , close Parameters that govern our Universe/Solar System/and Earth and which he painstakingly gave dissension toward ; this unreasonable conclusion of his can be illustrated by a simple example herewith :


Suppose you were standing before a firing squad of 50 trained Marksmen who were all aiming directly at your chest from

a short distance away. You heard the order 'ready, aim,and fire' , but you didnt feel anything. You remove your blindfold and youre

still very much alive. Not one bullet hit you. Now, you wouldnt allow the Skeptic to simply dismiss the situation by saying ; 'Oh well, if they had

shot you, you wouldnt be here to comment on the sitation' . No....the circumstances are still surprising and they would still demand an

explanation. Did they conspire to miss you ? Was this a mock execution ? And the same thing is true for the fine tuning of the

Universe --- it still demands an explanation. But, its an explanation that certainly smells of intended design and engineering....something that strictly goes against an unwilled , purposeless , without meaning Universe inherent to the A.W. of Materialism.

C. The final neutral scientific fact I layed out , was to do with First Life on Earth. He said : '“observed life arising from non-life” – which is not necessary for a reasonable assumption" . But he never gave us the reasonable answer how fist life ...the tiniest of living amoeba having to the equivalent specified complexity information in it of 1,000 complete volumes of encyclopedias, occurred. He never posited HOW this life-enriched DNA form arrived nor from where. Instead, he quickly got onto the subject of replicating cells from already present life . The challenge to the A.W. is to show how life arrived in the first place before moving into the realm of unproven Darwinnian Evolution which now has close to 50 scientific reasons of it being a total impossibility -- Darwinnian Evolution has such huge problems that there exists a website called Dissent From Darwinism which hundreds of the worlds top PHD Scientists have signed to express their doubt . The Unreasonable assumption of an A.W. for origins for First Life on earth is the unproven speculation that a life form arose from non living chemicals within our atmosphere...a mantra that says ' the atmosphere was rich with life giving molecules and chemicals and there existed just the right conditions to make the first living life form possible ' . Everytime I hear that said on a NOVA TV presentation, I have an amusing chuckle to myself due to the sheer ignorance of just how complex the smallest of living cells are ------ some MicroBiologists descriptions include :' Equivalent to the infrastructure of a major U.S. City with generating stations, waste stations, prescribed information, processing centers, highways of connections , and one way streets in the operation and development of the cell' . Yet like so many other astounding examples of reality we have today....it must all be downplayed by the person who simply cant afford to feel threatened by any semblance of a masterful willful intelligent Designer/Creator. Yet the same Person if he were to find a golf ball in the grass, wouldn't dare be so audacious to declare 'it was made by natural forces and just happened to be there' .



3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most proven Laws in existence today. It effects every known biological system and mass in the universe . For Freodin to discount this established Law , is quite astounding . This Law completely discounts the popular mantra that the simpler gave way to the more complex . In fact, Sir Fred Hoyle commented on this mantra being used for justification of blind random Darwinism as : 'Equivalent to a Boeing 747 being assembled in a junk yard by a Tornado from the materials therein' . That is how much chance chance had of a Human Being with 60 major anatomical systems , 206 bones, 600 muscles , and a Brain that compilations of accidents gave us (yet the most talented Biologists cant begin to duplicate...but unwilled accidents without an end purpose, could) . Not even Atheists have this much faith .... a desperation to say they believe in it , yes .



4. His last post either past completely over many of the posited questions I had put in big black bold letters , or, he addressed them making only a general reference to a few of them . But he never specifically gave answers that the questions begged for . I think he realized this when he concluded that 'Now I don’t think that my explanations here are compelling David (or any other reader) to become an atheist' which also means that the A.W. isn't compelling enough to believe in as well ! It would seem like this is a conceding statement for a Debater to say when he took the challenge to show that the A.W. is something that is rationale, reasonable, and logical for the average Person to embrace. Afterall, that is why People embrace anything ...because it is rational and tenable .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Let me conclude by taking all 3 of Freodins posts and try to shrink them into a reasoned deductive argument using the information which he himself provided and taking into account the scientific facts we know about our Universe ; it would look something like this :



A. The Causality of the Universe --



Everything that had a beginning had a Cause., which is the established law of causality.

The Universe had a beginning.

The Universe has within it many examples of material and NON material animate entities such as Human Consciousness --------- emotions, personality, abstract thinking, reason, logic, will, etc..

Therefore, the Universe had a cause from a Natural non willed / non reasonable / non logic mind-less Cause.



B. The Design of the Universe ---



Every design had a Designer ; a Designer is always a Being with a Mind and Will and never anything differently.

The Universe according to modern Science confirmations and measurability shows highly complex design so the Universe itself can exist, stay in existence, and so Earth can be here for us to live on.

Therefore, the Universe didn't have a Designer ... but had a Natural and Mindless source.



C. Life in the Universe----



Every life form came from a previous life form which is a Law of Biology .

The first simplest example of a living cell had a near incomprehensible density amount of information within its DNA (filling 1000 volumes of encyclopedias per atheist-guru Richard Dawkins).

Therefore, the very first life form cell came about unwilled from non intelligent / non information dead matter.



Does this sound like a Worldview that is well reasoned and logical ? Natural Law or...Divine Awe ?! The answer is certainly obvious.



5. Dissecting the A.W. a bit more... we see that Materialism is not reasonable because :



A. The messages found in DNA cannot be explained by non intelligent natural laws any more than the messages in both our Postings could be explained by the non intelligent laws of ink and paper.



B. Human thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials. Chemicals are certainly involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts. The THEORY of Materialism isn't made of molecules.



C. If we are nothing more than materials (which we aren't) , then we'd be able to take all the materials of life which are the same materials found in dirt and make a living being. We cannot. Theres something clearly beyond materials in life. Explaining consciousness is a great problem for atheists .



D. If Materialism is true, then everyone in all of human history wo has ever had any kind of a spiritual experience has been completely mistaken ; this would include the hardest of criminals who have been truly inwardly transformed into loving Souls who don't hate anymore. While this is possible...given the vast number of spiritual experiences, it does not seem likely at all. This would mean that such great Scientists such as Kepler, Newton, Pascal, as well as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ himself were all wrong and deluded. If just ONE spiritual experience in the entire history of the world is true, then materialism is false.



E. As pointed out , if Materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if the mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is really true including the theory of materialism. Chemicals cant evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react. Reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces.





6. Finally, if the A.W. were true....then it carries with it the following sad / grave repercussions :



a. There isnt a shred of purpose or reason to this life ...even though we as Human Beings contradict that every day of our lives by how we live.

b. We are just a little above the animals of the Forest in value and dignity., and essentially are on the same order of importance as an earth worm.

c. Everything is purely accidental including morals and ethics...and it is silly to hold to such in any form and to any level. There is nothing that is absolutely and objectively wrong therefore...and it doesnt even make sense calling the extermination of 6 million Jews and Christians in Nazi Germany 'wrong' , for it is just opinion to do so if morals are accidental and there is no higher objective Moral Law Provider (God) . In fact, there is no objective reason for Mother Theresa being 'better' than Stalin or HItler.

d. Everything is utterly futile by placing any value on it, for, nothing in an accidental Universe could have any deliberate value. Therefore, we have no intrinsic value ...and we are no different than the Bird in the tree who struggles to survive in a valueLESS reality. A human baby we see arrive into the world is completely void of any value whatsoever and if it dies there should be absolutely no anquish or sorrow shed. In a futile world, there is no room for regret .

I could on..but suffice it to say that carried to the end....belief in No God (atheism) is THE most illogical unreasonable and devastating to society faith-based Secular Religion ever to be devised by Man. While some might enjoy having a World without ultimate meaning , purpose, and no moral accountability.....no one would want to have these concepts visited on them by Others with such an ill agenda , for, it is the making of anarchy .



Well, we have reached the end of the debate and id like to finish with how one very prestigious Evolutionary Geneticist from Harvard University sums up the A.W. of Materialism ; bear in mind that this is a prominent multi-award winning Professor who has dedicated his entire life to the teaching and researching of Materialism . May I call your attention especially to his final sentence which IS the ultimate motive behind this popularized hoax :



‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door' . Source : Prof. Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.


David.