Counter-argument to the free will apologetics

[ClareTherese]

Everything?

Everything came from the big bang. It's not my theory, but it's the theory that science is able to explain through math and actually looking at the universe around us. How and why the big bang happened, no one knows yet because the information is incomplete.

It's important to understand that the information is incomplete though, and instead of jumping to conclusions like God made the universe, keep searching for answers. That is the difference between you and us. You give an answer that cannot meet the burden of proof. We give answers that only have already met their burden of proof.

You want to check the claims that science makes? Look them up. They can be sited in refereed journals that have been checked over and over again for accuracy.

Evidence or GTFO. Bottom line.

In the past thirty five years, scientists have been stunned to discover that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. For many scientist, this points in a very compelling way toward the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Here are some of the data gathered by scientists, both Christians and non-Christians, that point toward complexity and orderedness at the beginning of the universe: Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100, life could never have developed. For comparison, there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. There are about fifty constants and quantities. For example, the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, the proportion of matter to antimatter. That must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible. For organic life to exist, the fundamental regularities and constants of physics must all have values that together fall into an extremely narrow range.

The probability of this perfect calibration happening by chance is so tiny as to be statistically negligible. Collins puts it well: "When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are fifteen constants...that have precise values. If any of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people." Some have said that it is as if there were a large number of dials that all had to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits, and they were. It seem extremely unlikely that this would happen by chance. Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Astronomers are discovering a whole new dimension of evidence that suggests this astounding world was created, in part, so we could have the adventure of exploring it. As astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards, who wrote the book "The Privileged Planet," elaborates. Total eclipse of the sun, which yield a treasure trove of scientific data, can only be viewed from one place in the solar system where there are intelligent beings to view them. Also, earth's location away from galaxy's center and in the flat plane of the disk provides a particularly privileged vantage point for observing both nearby and distant stars. Another example, earth provides an excellent position to detect the cosmic background radiation, which is critically important because it contains invaluable information about the properties of the universe when it was very young. Because our moon is the right size and distance to stabilize Earth's tilt, it helps preserve the deep snow deposits in our polar regions, from which scientist can determine the history of snowfall, temperatures, winds, and the amount of volcanic dust, methane, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The findings of scientists that our world appears to be designed for discovery have added a compelling new dimension to the evidence for a Creator. And, frankly, their analysis makes sense. The finely tuned universe can compel only one reasonable conclusion, a supernatural agent must be responsible for it.

Every time I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com or the words "I love you" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did the writing. Even if I can't see the couple who wrote "I love you," you don't assume that the words randomly appeared by chance of the the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that written communication. And what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. I'm not saying this because I'm a writer; scientist will tell you this. We use a twenty-six-letter chemical alphabet, whose letters combine in various sequences to form all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. For me, that's reason enough to believe this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes: In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more that fifty years of DNA research have provided the materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Source:
Nearly every scientist agrees that the universe had a beginning. The most widely accepted explanation is the Big Bang theory or some variation of it. The question is: What made the bang? If you hear a noise you look for the cause for a little bang, then doesn't it also make sense that there would be a cause for the big bang? Stephen Hawking states, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." The philosopher Kai Nielson says, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."

Maybe you've heard Christians denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory because they believe it contradicts the Bible's revelation that God created the world. But well-meaning, Bible-believing Christians have different views on the issue. For example, William Lane Craig believes that the Big Bang is one of the most plausible arguments for God's existence. Adds astrophysicist C.J. Isham: "Perhaps the best argument... that the Big Bang supports theism [belief in God] is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists." Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted that, although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. You may have seen the bumper sticker that reads, "The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and Bang! It happened." It's a little simplistic, but maybe it's not so far off.

"In the beginning there was an explosion," explained Noble Prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg in his book The First Three Minutes, "which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing part from every other particle." The matter rushing apart, he said, consisted of elementary particles, neutrinos and the other subatomic particles that make up the world. Among those particles were photons, which make up light. "The universe," he said, "was filled with light." Interesting, that's what the Bible says too.

Obstacles to the formation of life on primitive earth would have been extremely challenging. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it. And that would only be one protein molecule, a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.

There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity, the laws, of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experiences, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories. Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David and Bertrand Russel, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, "Well the future has always been like the past," Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it by faith. There have been many scholars in that last decades who argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in a all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. I can always say, "We don't know why things are as they are." As a clue for God, however, it is helpful. I can surely say, "We don't know why nature is regular, it just is. That doesn't prove God." If I don't believe in God, not only is this profoundly inexplicable, but I have no basis for believing that nature will go on regularly, but I continue to use inductive reasoning and language. Of course this clue actually doesn't prove God. It is rationally avoidable. However, the cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God.

[ClareTherese]

Everything?

Everything came from the big bang. It's not my theory, but it's the theory that science is able to explain through math and actually looking at the universe around us. How and why the big bang happened, no one knows yet because the information is incomplete.

It's important to understand that the information is incomplete though, and instead of jumping to conclusions like God made the universe, keep searching for answers. That is the difference between you and us. You give an answer that cannot meet the burden of proof. We give answers that only have already met their burden of proof.

You want to check the claims that science makes? Look them up. They can be sited in refereed journals that have been checked over and over again for accuracy.

Evidence or GTFO. Bottom line.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/

http://www.gci.org/science/debate1a

[Hijiri Byakuren]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/

http://www.gci.org/science/debate1a

As I stated in the other thread: These are not reputable scientific sources. They are religious opinion pieces.

[Berati]

My entire time on this forum people have been demanding burden of proof from me. To which I reply telling them I can't provide it and they already know I can't but they still ask. Non-believers can't prove God doesn't exist either. So, both sides of the discussions are at an impasse. All we can do is have our reasons as to why we believe and why we don't. We can together contemplate many of the same universal questions on God that we all can't find an answer for too. Other than that, how can anyone provide objective evidence regarding the spiritual? All I've heard is that there's no historical evidence to prove Jesus and God's existence. But, there's only proven historical evidence on Jesus's baptism and crucifixion. There's Saints who were able to perform miracles, bilocate, receive the stigmata, etc. Many things that God did through them to help build faith. Those actions were witnessed, examined and proven to be legit. So, there's many other ways besides personal that gave and increased my faith.

You didn't address my point at all and continue with the same mistake as though I said absolutely nothing. That's kind of ignorant and dismissive of you and this is why people are getting annoyed.

I explained why "I'll end it with I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?" is illogical.
The name for your mistake here is called Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. It is a common logical fallacy and you stepped right in it.
If you took a class in logic and answered a question about burden of proof with "we both share the burden of proof" and your professor rightfully did not mark this as correct, would you demand he mark it as correct because "I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?"

So, it's clear you cannot grasp the concept that arguments must follow the rules of logic or else they fail.
For example, even after I gave you a very specific example of a logical fallacy:

"All wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood!"
This is a logical fallacy. There is no debate or belief involved in it not being true.
What you are doing is saying.
"Hey, you think the above statement is false and I think it's true. We are each allowed our beliefs. K?"

But no, you are not allowed to make this kind of mistake or else no reasonable discussion can follow.

In the very next post (see below) you just continued on in a dismissive manner and simply ignored everything I said. Not a very nice way to engage in conversation.

Non-believers can't prove God doesn't exist either. So, both sides of the discussions are at an impasse.

Non believers don't have to prove god doesn't exist in order not to believe. That's the part that is not sinking in.

Do you understand at all what I'm getting at? Please just be honest and tell me if logic and the discussion around it is not your strong suit.

[ClareTherese]

You didn't address my point at all and continue with the same mistake as though I said absolutely nothing. That's kind of ignorant and dismissive of you and this is why people are getting annoyed.

I explained why "I'll end it with I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?" is illogical.
The name for your mistake here is called Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. It is a common logical fallacy and you stepped right in it.
If you took a class in logic and answered a question about burden of proof with "we both share the burden of proof" and your professor rightfully did not mark this as correct, would you demand he mark it as correct because "I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?"

So, it's clear you cannot grasp the concept that arguments must follow the rules of logic or else they fail.
For example, even after I gave you a very specific example of a logical fallacy:
In the very next post (see below) you just continued on in a dismissive manner and simply ignored everything I said. Not a very nice way to engage in conversation.
Non believers don't have to prove god doesn't exist in order not to believe. That's the part that is not sinking in.

Do you understand at all what I'm getting at? Please just be honest and tell me if logic and the discussion around it is not your strong suit.

Non-believers don't need proof in order to not believe. But, to say that God doesn't exist (which I've been told by many who said they were Atheist) then I say to them "What's your evidence?" and they'll say "Lack of evidence" to which I say "It doesn't prove anything to me" etc. When I say both parties share the burden of proof I mean if it came down to one side trying to prove God existed and the other tried to God didn't neither would succeed.

[ClareTherese]

You didn't address my point at all and continue with the same mistake as though I said absolutely nothing. That's kind of ignorant and dismissive of you and this is why people are getting annoyed.

I explained why "I'll end it with I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?" is illogical.
The name for your mistake here is called Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. It is a common logical fallacy and you stepped right in it.
If you took a class in logic and answered a question about burden of proof with "we both share the burden of proof" and your professor rightfully did not mark this as correct, would you demand he mark it as correct because "I believe we both share the burden of proof and you disagree. K?"

So, it's clear you cannot grasp the concept that arguments must follow the rules of logic or else they fail.
For example, even after I gave you a very specific example of a logical fallacy:
In the very next post (see below) you just continued on in a dismissive manner and simply ignored everything I said. Not a very nice way to engage in conversation.
Non believers don't have to prove god doesn't exist in order not to believe. That's the part that is not sinking in.

Do you understand at all what I'm getting at? Please just be honest and tell me if logic and the discussion around it is not your strong suit.

Believers and non-believers are at an impasse. I cannot provide the burden of proof and you know this and until I do then there is lack of evidence to which makes you an atheist, right? So, it's not that I'm dodging what you're asking or saying. It's more I don't know what more I can say. It's spiritual and cannot give objective evidence.

[PickelledEggs]

This thread, in a nutshell.

[the_antithesis]

Lol I'm choosing not to stop believing in God because I believe in God.

Ha ha ha, asshole.

Stop being a pussy and just prove you actually have that ability to choose by choosing to not believe.

Are you afraid god will punish you or is it that you simply cannot do it. I suspect the latter because you know your bullshit is bullshit and won't do anything but be an evasive cunt, which is the worst kind.

Now, kindly fuck off, you waste of our time.

[ClareTherese]

Ha ha ha, asshole.

Stop being a pussy and just prove you actually have that ability to choose by choosing to not believe.

Are you afraid god will punish you or is it that you simply cannot do it. I suspect the latter because you know your bullshit is bullshit and won't do anything but be an evasive cunt, which is the worst kind.

Now, kindly fuck off, you waste of our time.

"Just prove you actually have that ability to choose by choosing to not believe" Lol. Anyway, I suggest you find and talk to someone who was a believer and chose to become an Atheist or someone who was an Atheist then became a believer. Ya know why? They chose to :D

[the_antithesis]

"Just prove you actually have that ability to choose by choosing to not believe" Lol. Anyway, I suggest you find and talk to someone who was a believer and chose to become an Atheist or someone who was an Atheist then became a believer. Ya know why? They chose to :D

You're being an evasive cunt again.

Doesn't matter, anyway because choices made in the past are irrelevant. If you were to go fetch me an atheist who had then become a christian, for your assertion on free will to hold any water, they would need to then choose to not believe in god anymore.

You know, for the sort of dishonest cunt that you are, you aren't doing very well. You could have simply lied and said "OK now I don't believe" and then type "lol" like a salted, dried out cunt, but you can't even do that much right.

Not that it would matter, anyway. Obviously even if you could choose to change your beliefs there would be no way for you to demonstrate it to others. The point was to show you how full of shit you are.

-We have free will to choose to believe.

- Then choose to not believe.

- I don't choose to not believe.

- Don't? Or can't?

I think you don't choose to not believe because you cannot choose to not believe. You believe not because of any choice or whim on your part, but due to the life experiences and mental architecture that has led you to these conclusions. You are a slave. A programmed robot. You make the choices your biology compels you to make, which is not a choice at all.

[ClareTherese]

You're being an evasive cunt again.

Doesn't matter, anyway because choices made in the past are irrelevant. If you were to go fetch me an atheist who had then become a christian, for your assertion on free will to hold any water, they would need to then choose to not believe in god anymore.

You know, for the sort of dishonest cunt that you are, you aren't doing very well. You could have simply lied and said "OK now I don't believe" and then type "lol" like a salted, dried out cunt, but you can't even do that much right.

Not that it would matter, anyway. Obviously even if you could choose to change your beliefs there would be no way for you to demonstrate it to others. The point was to show you how full of shit you are.

-We have free will to choose to believe.

- Then choose to not believe.

- I don't choose to not believe.

- Don't? Or can't?

I think you don't choose to not believe because you cannot choose to not believe. You believe not because of any choice or whim on your part, but due to the life experiences and mental architecture that has led you to these conclusions. You are a slave. A programmed robot. You make the choices your biology compels you to make, which is not a choice at all.

Ok, I don't believe anymore. No, wait I do. No, I don't. Well, I have more reason to believe so I choose to believe. I have a friend who was a hardcore atheist all his life but a couple years ago he came to believe in God. He realized how much science and God are linked. 36% of scientists believe in a divine creator.

[Solitary]

Were they Christians before becoming scientists? I have a friend that is an engineering physicist that admits he can't prove God exists or not, but believes because it makes him feel good. I can't understand how believing in a God that destroyed all of mankind accept Noah and his family, or can send someone to hell that doesn't placate Him is something to be worshipped or bring comfort. An imaginary friend and a pillow can bring comfort to a small child, but aren't we suppose to be God's adults? Oh crap, you're correct, we are God's children.  :fU: Solitary

[ClareTherese]

Were they Christians before becoming scientists? I have a friend that is an engineering physicist that admits he can't prove God exists or not, but believes because it makes him feel good. I can't understand how believing in a God that destroyed all of mankind accept Noah and his family, or can send someone to hell that doesn't placate Him is something to be worshipped or bring comfort. An imaginary friend and a pillow can bring comfort to a small child, but aren't we suppose to be God's adults? Oh crap, you're correct, we are God's children.  :fU: Solitary

So, you would believe in scientists who were atheist first then came to believe in God? If that's so, then would you believe an ex-atheist scientist who is now a believer if he provided scientific evidence in a divine creator?

[Solitary]

I would believe any scientist, atheist or believer, that could prove God exists with any kind of reliable evidence. It hasn't happen in over 2,000 years of recorded history. This should get good. Solitary

[the_antithesis]

Ok, I don't believe anymore. No, wait I do. No, I don't.

Too late for that.

Well, I have more reason to believe so I choose to believe.

I know. You are a robot. Beep. Boop.

I have a friend who was a hardcore atheist all his life

I have a friend who is a hardcore christian.

He's a fucking cunt.

... but a couple years he came to believe in God because for reasons science couldn't prove him wrong about. He realized how much science and God are linked. 36% of scientists believe in a divine creator.

So what?

None of this means anything to this free will argument, which is that god allows bad shit to happen to not interfere with free will, but not interfering does interfere with free will, the way pretty much everything interferes with free will. So the argument is invalid.