Well said.

The general public, thanks to the internet especially, is more informed and better educated than any generation past. That doesn't make us more faithless, but it does make us more critical of religious institutions that have tended to rely on the old simplistic views of the world. The church needs to "get with the times" put in place pastors, deacons, and sunday school leaders that can intelligently address the myriad of questions that today's youth are going to have. To say you simply must believe isn't good enough. Even back in biblical times God and Jesus wrought miracles for the people to behold. Today's Christian leaders must adapt their teachings in order to help young people comprehend that their vast knowledge of the world around them due to scientific discovery and advances in information dissemination, must be coupled with a depth of understanding of the source of these natural beauties and mysteries. Parents should and must make every effort to bring themselves up to speed in order to answer these questions posed by their young ones as well. This effort by parents would likely answer many of their own questions as well.

As we continue to advance our knowledge and capabilities as a species, we must make every effort raise our level of wisdom in tandem.

"Faith is not belief without proof - it is trust without reservations."

The only reason to believe ANYTHING is because you are convinced it is objectively true. I got involved in a discussion a few weeks ago with a few atheists and a few Christians. The atheists were totally sure they were correct - and there is nothing more condescending than an atheist who wants to describe Christianity as a fairy-tale. (I have taken to using the term "Atheist Creation Myth" whenever one of them refers to a "Christian Creation Myth." The more clever ones soon figure out that they're not dealing with someone who will back down from their ridicule or doesn't know how to challenge their truth claims with facts and logic.)

Most Christians will back down in the face of ridicule because they don't know how to present the case for Christianity, so atheists rarely have any experience arguing in favor of the truth claims of their faith, either. I've never met one who was very good at it once they realize they have to come up with arguments rather than ridicule.

The Christians in the discussion, however, offered no certainty at all. The best they could come up with were platitudes about how Christianity makes them feel better or gives them guidelines to live by. Faith grounded in feelings is a thin reed, I fear, and few churches bother with Christian Apologetics (in layman's terms: the scholarly study of the truth claims of Christianity) anymore.

NONSENSE I SAY! The ONLY question that matters is, "Is this true?"

I said so, and laid out some of the evidence for the truth claims of Christianity. The atheists went berserk, of course. Apparently it's okay for me to believe fairy tales (according to them), but it's NOT okay for me to say that they are true in public. (Needless to say, I tore their arguments apart.)

On the other hand, they are free to believe in all sorts of things that don't stand up to scrutiny, and not only get to claim they are true, but they get to ridicule people who have done their homework and seen the falsity of having faith in an atheistic worldview.

I cannot judge the sate of a man's soul, and perhaps Mr Hitchens saw the light in the moments before he died. I hope so. What I do know is this: one way or the other, Christopher Hitchens is not an atheist anymore.

Excellent!

We should weep for fools and honor the wise.

Can't say it any better than 1 Corinthians 15,

"17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead..."

Part of the problem is Hollywood and the school system. It is the parents resposibility to teach their children about God. But, as soon as they start kindergarten in the public school system they are indoctrinated by the liberals. They are told that praying in school is wrong and then they are told that God doesn't exist in science class. Then you have the celebrities that denounce God and for some reason the youth in this country hang on every word that comes out of the mouths of celebrities. Parents need to make sure that their childrens faith is strong before they send them to school and out into the world. However we need to vote out the liberals who allow the non believer Athiest movement to influence the school system and send a message to Hollywood that God is very real and that they need to stop telling our children that he doesn't exist. Let's put a stop to the Athiest and the ACLU, teach our children the truth about God, take back our schools and comunities, and make Glorifying God the center focus of our nation, not Lady Gaga.

Army Officer (Ret)

You make an excelent point. Athiest claim that we can not prove that God exist, but, they absolutely can not prove that he does not exist. Their "science" is full of holes that they can not explain.

But, if they want proof of his existence here you go. I have known Christ since I was 7 years old. He is my Savior. A few years ago I was diagnosed with a disease that was being caused by a benign tumor that was wrapped around my pituitary gland. In order to cure me of the disease the tumor had to be removed through a surgery that had been performed by a team of surgeons several times but it was still very risky. The doctors were skeptical about being able to remove the entire tumor, and the way it was positioned very close to the optic nerve and the base of my brain there was added risk and it was going to be a long surgery. A week before my surgery two of my cousins met with me, placed their hands on me, and prayed to the Lord to cast the disease from my body. A group from church also came by and prayed for a swift and successful surgery that would fully cure me. I prayed as well. On the day of the surgery which was expected to last at least 6 hours I wasn't in there any more than 4 hours. The neurosurgan was pleasantly surprised to find the tumor floating straight out from my pituritary gland perfectly positioned for him to simply pluck it and remove it in a matter of minutes with a high degree of certainty that he had been able to remove the entire tumor. Years later I have had absolutely no symptoms of relapse and the surgeons said that they had never had a surgery go so well and quickly. My Faith in God and the Faith of everyone around me was seen by God and The Lord Blessed me. I have felt the presence of Jesus in my heart ever since I was 7 years old. He loves each and every one of us and we are all here to serve and glorify God. He was with me the day of that surgery and made sure that I was healed that day. I did not need proof of God's existance but he sure affirmed my beliefs that day.

Trying to disabuse a person of something he's convinced of is a fool's errand.

Believers will believe. There is a momentum to cognition. Disputation creates unwelcome discomfort as it takes more effort to change our belief system than to change facts to suit our beliefs.

Shedding religious faith has been the most liberating thing of my life and opened my eyes. It has involved a full embracing of reason, full responsibility of my choices, and the urgent joy of living life to its fullest. I need no threat of hellfire to encourage my ethical/moral behavior. No promise of a heaven will coax me into bondage or suffering.

When I was a young man, I had arguments with the religious, and relished dismantling and befuddling the proselytizers that came to my door. Time and wisdom have brought a deep tolerance of others' beliefs. I don't need you to change others mind's. To each their own. I'll judge you by your actions, and hope you'll judge me by mine.

The atheists spoken of in this article (and lately very much lionized in the media) do not represent me.

Mr. Sipe: one cannot prove something does *not* exist. Only that which does. Your logic has a hole.

Oathkeeper Scott,

I did not say that you can not prove that something does not exist, I said that you can not prove that God does not exist and you can not. That is not my logic, it's the truth. It saddens me that you have shed your religious faith and that you now feel liberated. Like it or not there are consequences for every one of your actions and you have to accept responsibility for them. Saying that you relished in trying to dismantle and befuddle those who who have Faith in God means that you have some very dark demons that you are dealing with and that you need to look to God and ask for forgiveness. Let Jesus back into your heart and he will heal it. God did not do anything to hurt you so why are you trying to hurt Him and those who Love and Believe in Him? Let God truly liberate you. I have never known a Christian or a Jew who felt like their Faith caused a feeling of bondage or caused any type of suffering. God does not want us to suffer, but The Devil does. If you felt like Faith In God was bondage it is because Satan got a hold of you and instead of seeking Gods help you simply turned your back on Him and followed Satan in sin and felt a false sense of liberation. Turn away from Satan and follow God. My prayers are with you.

Oathkeeper Scott,

While I appreciate that you are not one of those atheists who feels the need to denigrate theists, I can't help but point out one of your self-contradictions:

"Trying to disabuse a person of something he's convinced of is a fool's errand."

directly conflicts with this,

"Shedding religious faith has been the most liberating thing of my life and opened my eyes."

You admit that at one point you accepted the truth claims of some religion, but that you changed you mind. SOMETHING convinced you to do so. Even if you posit that you, personally, were not truly convinced, there are millions of others who WERE truly convinced both for and against all sorts of truth claims, and changed their minds. Indeed, anyone who is intellectually honest about ANYTHING changes his/her mind when presented with compelling evidence.

Non-theists change their minds all the time, too. I would argue that when they do it it involves "a full embracing of reason, full responsibility of (their) choices, and the urgent joy of living life to its fullest."

My faith in a theistic First Cause does not run contrary to my reason - it is fully consistent with it, and I have taught Critical Thinking at the graduate level in a program accredited by a well-respected secular university. I may assure you that any proselytizers you succeeded in befuddling were not students in the Christian Apologetics class I taught in my church, who are well-trained in answering objections to Christian truth claims, as well as pointing out the holes in the truth claims of the atheistic faith system.

As for your objection to Mr Sipe: while I agree that he did not frame his statement in the best possible way to sway an atheist, your response is flawed. The Law of the Excluded Middle applies when there are only two comprehensive and mutually-exclusive possibilities. In such cases, proof that one is correct is proof that the other is not, and if the question is of the existence versus the non-existence of something, and it can be shown that observable conditions preclude the existence of the thing, it's non-existence is thereby proved. Atheism fails that test, which is unsurprising because it is VERY hard to prove a negative. Theists don't have to, since we're not trying to prove the non-existence of something that cannot be measured. Therefore Mr Sipe's assertion (although correct) is not a valid discriminator between these two competing truth claims. THAT, not the reason you stated, is why, "You can't prove God doesn't exist" is bad as an argument.

Either something created the Universe or it did not. Since the physical universe demonstrates properties that preclude it being either 1) eternal or 2) capable of self-creation, and Spontaneous Generation of living organisms from a sterile environment has been thoroughly debunked since at least 1859, we have sufficient evidence to accept the existence of a Universal Creator exclusively from things observable in the laboratory. I simply do not have enough faith to accept Atheistic Cosmology.

Anyway, I'm glad we're all keeping this civil. We've both seen it turn ugly, no doubt, and I think one area where we CAN agree is that acrimony stifles productive debate.

Army Officer (Ret),

Thank You for seeing the point that I was trying to get across. I have not studied how to debate with an Athiest. I just know what I believe and have experienced. I come from a family with very strong faith and pretty much everyone I know believes in God. I have only met a couple of people who were Athiest or questioning their Faith. Those who were questioning their Faith are much easier to reason with because they had not completely turned their back to God and through Love and Prayer they reached out to God for the answers and He took their hand. I try not to argue with Athiest's instead I just rely on my Faith and try to show them The Lords love through me. I know that God exists every morning when I look in the mirror because I would not be here and The Sun would not rise if He didn't. Molecules did not come from nothing, they were created. I know, Athiests say that God had to come from somewhere. Well, God is The Beginning and The End and if Athiests want to know where He came from then they will have a chance to ask that question when they are judged, but they are the ones who need to be prepared to answer questions. I think that they think that it is easier just to not believe because they think that there are no consequences then. That is a very bad and false idea that is going to have greater consequences than they know.

I appreciate your well-wishes, Mr. Sipe. I am at peace.

Army Officer (Ret), I shed religious faith as a means to knowledge and embraced reason fully. No one argued me out of it. I came to it with study and reflection over time.

"...sufficient evidence to accept the existence of a Universal Creator" seems akin to what St. Thomas Aquinas tried so hard to do: using reason to prove the existence of God. As I understand it, he gave up, ultimately realizing that one must just use faith.

God said it,I believe it, that ends it.I'm a simple man and I leave the higher level discourse to army and the other more adept at apologetics-however I can hold my own,but try not to "cast my pearls before swine"

Hello America,

Thank you Mr. Murchison. What an enlightening article for the light that is Christianity. I think the Apostle Paul made his argument for the existence of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit in Romans 1: 18-23. Although speaking about Roman gentiles, it is applicable through the ages.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

He goes on to say that he gives these kind of people over to their foolishness to think foolish thoughts and do foolish things. In the end of course they immediately realize the folly of their self-idolized wisdom that amounts to nothing but 'building castles in the sky'. Of course then it is too late. Thank you again Mr. Murchison.

The Turban Torpedo

My, my, what a bunch of garbage. I've heard better arguments from 2 year olds. If you fail to understand enough about science, then of course you have to leave the bigger questions utterly unanswered, as there's no basis for an answer save reasonable common sense. Unfortunately, there's not much of that going around lately, and it seems there's less every day. Once you get the actual facts about what's physically possible and what's not, and specifically those facts related to Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle", it's both impossible and impractical, and, I might add, inappropriate, to avoid the somewhat obvious implications of those facts. Because one simply cannot learn every fact the universe has to offer because it's inherently impossible to do so, that takes omniscience out of the category of possible, and leaves the vast majority of the information about the universe utterly and forever unattainable. To think that a being exists that could break all of the laws of physics on a mere whim is bad enough, but to postulate any kind of "god" with any of the typically ascribed abilities (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) is just ludicrous. The discoveries made by Heisenberg aren't things that are going to get flushed down the drain the next time someone advances physics with better science. They're one of those things that just is, and isn't ever going to go away.

You need not merely take my word for it - do the research and think for yourself. What you choose to believe may be entirely your own choice, but to be motivated to such a choice by an organized group when the facts simply cannot support the existence of a "god", is intentional stupidity when the facts are known. Heisenberg feared for his life, and thus significantly delayed the publishing of his work due to the far too strong influence of religion over all of society in his time. Bottom line is, believe in snake-oil if you wish, but buyer beware.

Final note: I don't debate facts, as there's no useful progress to be made when two or more people disagree as to what the facts are. Until such time as you've actually researched the relevant material and accepted the facts for what they are, don't expect a reply to a response to this post, as I won't be drawn into foolish banter.

Steve: I appreciate you stooping down to briefly banter with we intellectual toddlers.

Guys like Steve are the reason I don't take atheists very seriously. He did not even attempt to answer a single one of my counter-arguments about the atheist cosmology myth. Instead he threw out something irrelevant about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (based on what he wrote about it I'm guessing he heard the phrase while watching the SitCom "Big Bang Theory" on TBS and thought because he didn't understand it none of us would realize he was spouting nonsense.)

So he simply declares us all to be simpletons and runs away like a child after throwing a tantrum - too scared to debate, you know, facts.

His idea of debate is, "You agree with all my suppositions before we start, then we can discuss how right I am."

Well Steve, one thing you wrote is true: you won't debate facts. Actually, it seems you have no use for them at all.

Oathkeeper,

Bravo, Sir! I know how much it pains me when someone on "my side" of a debate makes such a ninny of themselves. I was going to query you further about your change of heart, but it's late and we both got distracted by the troll. Perhaps later.

Well. You are respectful and forthright in your portrayal of Hitchens. You obviously do not admire him (and you're under no obligation to do so), but you refrain from gratuitous insult and you do not egregiously mischaracterize his views. This attitude, sadly, seems all too rare among religious bloggers. So kudos.

You also, I think, cut right to the heart of the problems of modern Christianity: its factuality. But factuality is not something to be insisted upon, at least not at first. Factuality is, instead, something to be *proven*, if not with certainty then at least beyond a reasonable doubt; only after a fact is proven can it be insisted upon.

Thus I think you go wrong when you say the factuality of Christianity, especially the factuality of the resurrection, is something to be insisted upon. First, it must be proven, and that's the real problem. The resurrection is not just a dubious claim, it's a claim that actually contradicts a whole body of knowledge we have -- or think we have -- about the world. Yes, we might be mistaken about what we think we know about the world, but it's too much, I think, for anyone to insist we discard an extremely useful and well-established body of knowledge to accommodate what otherwise appears as rank superstition.

As an atheist, I'm willing to let Christianity be a choice, a *private* choice. I mean "private" not in the sense of secret, but in the sense of purely individual. New Atheists, i.e. Atheists like myself, certainly dislike all religion, but we are moved to act not by this dislike but by the insistence of the religious that their beliefs and practices are granted social, political, economic, and intellectual privilege.

You essentially assert intellectual privilege here: under ordinary circumstances, a proposition must be proven to be insisted upon. If I were to assert that Christians had organic mental deficiencies, or were traitors planning a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States by force; if I were to assert that atheists were mentally superior and indeed the only ones fit to participate in civil society; you would justly demand proof. Not only would you demand proof, you would justly lay the burden of proof on me as the claimant. If I demanded that you prove me wrong, you would justly dismiss me out of hand as irrational.

I have investigated the claims of Christianity for more than a decade. I have read apologetics and theology, academic, professional, and amateur. I am open-minded -- I have been convinced of some pretty weird things, such as quantum mechanics -- and if something is provable, I'll believe it, even if it contradicts my deepest intuitions. But I have never seen positive evidence for any religion that even gets off the ground, much less proves the truth of any religion beyond a reasonable doubt.

When you can prove it, feel free to insist on it. Until then, I can see religion only as delusion, and recognize only that while intellectual integrity demands the abandonment of delusion, everyone has the political right to choose to be deluded.

Army Officer, do you have a website, blog or email? You email me safely at dcampell1243@gmail.com

Army Officer, do you have a website, blog or email? You email me safely at dcampell1243@gmail.com

Check your inbox, Sir.

PatPost: I got DJC_1946's message, so feel free to pull this post and the two above it if you have a policy about posting personal information or e-mail addresses.

Check your inbox, Sir.

PatPost: I got DJC_1946's message, so feel free to pull this post and the two above it if you have a policy about posting personal information or e-mail addresses.

DJC_1946, gmail kicked my response back. The message was that that account does not exist. Typo?

Response to Steve regarding his misapplication of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

Part 1

_________________

I realize not everyone knows about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (hereafter HUP) Steve referred to as proof of the non-existence of God. He challenged us to “do our homework” on the subject. Since I did my physics homework a long time ago, and am well aware of the HUP, I knew that Steve was talking out of his hat. I’m going to offer this to my fellow readers, not because Steve is going to sway anyone, but because people like him who peddle nonsense like he did can introduce unjustified doubt into people who are not familiar with the subject. This is going to get a little technical – I hope people will indulge me as it is inevitable. I’ll try to keep it relatively simple.

Steve committed a series of errors, but the biggest one is to suggest that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle precludes the existence of God. Steve is a poster child for the saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” as his knowledge of the implications of the HUP betrays the level of understanding of a high-school kid who just encountered Heisenberg for the first time in Senior Physics. In short, he’s either trolling or he’s ignorant, although we certainly cannot rule out the possibility that he is both.

Before I go into the technical reasons why Steve is wrong about the implication of the HUP, let us first do away with his risible assertion that Heisenberg was shy about publically touting his discovery because he feared persecution by religious people. Heisenberg was a brilliant physicist who rubbed elbows with such luminaries as Erwin Schrödinger, Louis de Broglie, Neils Bohr, Paul Dirac, and Wolfgang Pauli. He very publically took on the Schrödinger contingent who espoused the “wave” theory of quantum mechanics in opposition to the “matrix” theory he himself favored. It was after Schrödinger showed that the two theories were not mathematically contradictory, but basically different ways of getting the same answers to the same questions, that Heisenberg discovered an anomaly he couldn’t solve. His discovery was that the greater your ability to determine the position of a particle, the less accurately you could determine its momentum, and vice-versa. This became known as the “uncertainty principle” or the “principle of indeterminacy.” Clearly NOT in fear for his life, he published his findings in short order to world-wide acclaim that continues to the present day. If you don’t want people to know you thought of something, the last thing you do is publish your work for the entire world to see.

Now that we’ve done away with Steve’s silly attempt to dig up the Inquisition and install it into early 20th Century Physics Departments, let’s get to why Steve’s simplistic understanding of the HUP falsely leads him to believe it precludes the existence of God.

Another way to express the gist of the HUP is to say that the behavior of an object is influenced by the fact that it is being observed. It is true of people (there are things you do alone that you would not willingly do with thousands of strangers watching.) But while it is BEHAVIORALLY true for you and me (and even Steve); it is LITERALLY true for electrons, which is what stymied Heisenberg and his colleagues. They wanted to measure the position and momentum of electrons around atomic nuclei, but the only way they could do that was to bounce things off them. The problem is that electrons are VERY SMALL THINGS, and anything you bounce off it, even a stream of photons, will affect its movement. You can increase your ability to measure its position by increasing the wavelength of the photon stream, but by doing so you decrease your ability to simultaneously determine its momentum. Conversely, you can use a lower-frequency photon stream to determine momentum more accurately, but that decreases the precision of your ability to pinpoint its location at that instant.

Heisenberg decided that the problem was not with the experiment, but rather with the nature of the particles themselves. They are so small that is literally impossible to physically measure both the position and momentum of an electron beyond a certain level of accuracy, as any physical means of observation impacts the particle enough to introduce error into the result.

Response to Steve regarding his misapplication of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

Part 2

_________________

Steve takes that to mean that, since the position and momentum of an electron cannot be simultaneously known beyond a certain level of precision, and going for better accuracy on one causes greater inaccuracy in the other, that it is literally impossible for a being to know that. Hence it is literally impossible to know everything. Since one of the attributes Christians commonly attribute to God is omniscience (literally – “knows everything”), and the HUP shows that such things are literally unknowable, Steve believes that he has satisfied the proof requirements to prove a negative – Nothing can be omniscient, and since God must be omniscient there is no God.

Probably without realizing it, Steve misapplied something known in logic as the “Law of the Excluded Middle.” That law stipulates that in a situation where one of two things MUST be true, and only one of them CAN be true, demonstrating that one is true proves that the other is false. His argument looks like this:

1) Either there is a God or there is not.

2) If there is a God, He must be omniscient.

3) The ability to precisely determine the location of an electron is inversely proportional to the ability to determine its momentum, which renders that information unknowable.

4) Since there are unknowable things, omniscience is impossible.

5) Since omniscience is impossible, there is no such thing as an omniscient being.

6) Therefore there is no God.

That’s quite a leap, but Steve thinks his high school physics textbook gives him all he needs to prove all of us to be, “dumb as a box of rocks.”

Not even close, Steve.

Heisenberg’s problem was one of epistemology, which is the study of the origin and limits of HUMAN knowledge. Heisenberg was not suggesting that the information he wanted to acquire did not exist, but rather that there was no physical way to derive it. He was certainly correct – given the technology of 1927 there was no way to get the data he wanted. There is STILL no way to get it. Steve tells us that there will NEVER be a way, although it seems to me that a guy denying the existence of the supernatural should avoid declaring himself to be a prophet.

But where Steve runs aground (again) is where he assumes that God acquires knowledge of things by the same means that you, and I, and he, and Heisenberg do – physical means. If God exists, which is the question Steve is purporting to answer, then He is supernatural (literally “above nature”), and there is no reason to believe that he relies on photon streams to figure out where things are and how fast they’re moving. A non-physical means of knowing, which a sentient non-physical being MUST possess, would not affect Steve’s wandering electrons at all. It is PHYSICAL observation that renders the information unknowable TO US, since we are physical beings. It is ABSURD to insist that a being that is, by definition, non-physical, cannot exist because a physical being cannot share an attribute that the non-physical being must possess.

Of all the arguments I’ve heard against the existence of God, this is both the most convoluted and the goofiest. Steve knows little about physics, less about logic, even less about philosophy, and nearly nothing about God, yet he thinks WE’RE the ones who need to do our homework.

I pray for him.

Edit:

The sentence that reads,

"You can increase your ability to measure its position by increasing the wavelength of the photon stream, but by doing so you decrease your ability to simultaneously determine its momentum"

should read,

"You can increase your ability to measure its position by decreasing the wavelength of the photon stream, but by doing so you decrease your ability to simultaneously determine its momentum."

By the way, Steve (since I'm pretty sure you're still reading): I've done my homework and answered your unfounded assertion. Now it's your turn to do your homework and answer mine:

1) Describe the creation of the material that makes up the physical Universe, given that the First Law of Thermodynamics precludes the creation of matter from nothing. What laboratory experiment showed that this happens?

2) Describe the genesis of life from non-living material that must have occurred if your worldview is correct, given that Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation in 1859 and the Miller-Urey experiment was an abject failure. What laboratory experiment has demonstrated that life springs from non-living material?

Failure to supply references for valid scientific experiences that demonstrate the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing and the spontaneous creation of life from non-living material will be proof that you do not know enough about science to enter this debate. (Of course no such experiments have ever been successful, although plenty of people have tried. But if you wish others to consider your "arguments" to be factual, I demand proof that what you posit is at least not physically IMpossible.)

Your turn.

Well done!! Army Officer (Ret).

I am a biologist and if you press the Darwinists (i.e. Materialists) about evolution and how proteins came together in a primordial soup to create life, they can't reproduce or explain that leap, much less, that all life on the planet came from that first organism. Even natural selection only explains changes in a trait or a variety. It never has explained life from one singel cell to mankind. I am very weary of anti-theists. They truely don't think well.

Thanks Max,

Crushing atheist appeals to Naturalism is SO EASY, since all one has to do is demand they meet the same standard of proof they require of us. That effectively does away with their "Just-So" attempt to frame the debate on their own terms (like Steve tried to do with his statement that he doesn't "argue facts," - puhleeeze!). Then its just a matter of applying inductive reasoning, where they cannot win because the facts and logic are just not there.

Once you strip away the "just-so" aspects of the Materialistic worldview and the circular nature of their arguments, all they're left with is screaming invective from guys like Steve and a bucket of lifeless sterile tar in Miller and Urey's laboratory.

Hint to people who think like Steve: if your belief system is unfalsifiable you don't get to demand that your opponents accept your conclusions before beginning the discussion. You can try, I suppose, but guys like me and Max will call you on it, and you will end up looking VERY silly - like Steve did.

I have to hand it to you, Max, I had a much harder time with biology than with physics.

Army Officer (Ret) - Thank you very much for your cohesive arguments, I have seen your posts at other times and have always been impressed. It gladdens my heart to see other Christians willing to take on the hard parts of apologetics.

Oathkeeper Scott - Thank you for your civility and cohesive arguments. Many Atheists are unwilling to confront actual logic (like many Christians), and you deserve congrats.

I'm glad there are people on both sides of the issue willing to study science and to actually read each other's arguments. In my area, logical debates are scarce and people just repeat the same rhetoric.

Steve - If you are still reading, I hope that you will follow Scott's example and try to use logic and consider the logical arguments of others instead of calling out names.

a few quick notes:

Those who ridicule others by using "myth" as a synonym for "fairy tale" do not know the actual meaning of the word, "myth." A "myth" is a tale intended to illustrate Truth. (Even most fairy tales have a point, although they exist mostly for fun. Entertainment need not lack value.)

Faith is a gift. Apologetics can be useful in understanding the content of belief, but faith is not about facts and science. IMO, it is the result of encountering the Person Who IS. However a one comes to believe, faith is a gift.

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Scheen said that he felt sorry for "those who have no Invisible means of support."

Truth is not responsible for the behavior of those who believe it. That said, Chrsitianity should positively effect believers. On the other hand, Jesus said that it is the sick who need healing. The trusim is that, "we are not perfect (yet - we are called to be) but forgiven."

Merry Christmas to y'all!

Army Officer (Ret) - Thank you very much for your cohesive arguments, I have seen your posts at other times and have always been impressed. It gladdens my heart to see other Christians willing to take on the hard parts of apologetics.

Oathkeeper Scott - Thank you for your civility and cohesive arguments. Many Atheists are unwilling to confront actual logic (like many Christians), and you deserve congrats.

I'm glad there are people on both sides of the issue willing to study science and to actually read each other's arguments. In my area, logical debates are scarce and people just repeat the same rhetoric.

Steve - If you are still reading, I hope that you will follow Scott's example and try to use logic and consider the logical arguments of others instead of calling out names.

Barefoot Larry,

You post just popped up for me, otherwise I would have responded earlier. That has happened to me a few times as well - I'll hit the "submit" button and it shows up many hours later instead of right then.

Either way, I'm glad you wrote in. You also, "refrain from gratuitous insult and you do not egregiously mischaracterize ... views." Kudos back: that is a very rare thing among atheist bloggers as well.

I don't "empty the magazine" on people as long as everyone is willing to be rational and weigh the facts without reverting to name-calling or making unreasonable demands, such as - 'I won't discuss this with anyone who doesn't accept that I'm right and you're wrong because anyone who disagrees with me is a brainwashed simpleton' - which is essentially what Steve did. Sadly, I see this sort of thing a lot.

I suppose I should be grateful the opposition is usually represented so poorly. I've been known to take fellow Christians to task for being bombastic and insulting. In addition to being rude, it is also counterproductive.

But when a guy who has no idea what he's talking about writes pseudo-intellectual claptrap and starts telling us we're stupid and ill-informed, I will crush him. Not by calling him names, but by gleefully pointing out his inconsistencies and lack of knowledge and reason. If someone makes a reasonable case I will debate the facts in a reasonable manner, but it is important for people without extensive training in science / logic / philosophy to know when an intellectual fraud is pretending to be an authority on the subject. I'm not trying to be mean - really I'm not - but I do not shy away from making him feel uncomfortable in his views and approach. And I'm also writing primarily for the vast majority of people who read these sites but do not join the discussion. I want to show them that Christians need not be afraid of facts and logic - they are weapons in OUR arsenal.

Mike, I agree with you in principle, but apologetics has a critical place in the Church, too. As you and I know, from the first day of public school until the day we draw our final breath, Christians are told (by authority figures) that what we believe is factually, objectively irrational. Fact is, if I were not convinced by years of inter-disciplinary study that the truth claims of Christianity were factually, objectively true I would be a totally selfish lout - there would simply be no rational reason NOT to be. If all I have is my time here on this mortal coil, anything that does not maximize my total lifetime pleasure is literally a waste of my time. The pull toward serving the self is brutally strong anyway: a rational understanding that some things are true - and that some truths are immeasurably important - adds to the armor. Ephesians 6 declares the most important piece of spiritual armor to be the shield of faith - but why would anyone want to have faith in something that is not objectively true? Like I started my first post in this thread, "Faith is not belief without proof - it is trust without reservations."

Time to go, "Big Bang Theory" just started.

Oh, don't be too quick to praise me, cap'n. It doesn't take much to unleash the floodgates of my invective. I will say, however, that while it doesn't take much, it always takes something, and I never insult anyone entirely gratuitously. ;)

In any event, as I mentioned before, I've studied a lot of apologetics, and I find it not only unpersuasive, but devoid of consistency, rigor, cohesion and cohesion.

Obviously your mileage does indeed vary. The comments section is not a good place, but if you want to discuss the issue in detail (and get your ass handed to you), feel free to come over to my blog. Since you have clearly mastered English composition, I would very probably want to highlight your contribution as its own post. This is, of course, an invitation and not a demand, so I will feel no injury if you refuse.

Barefoot Larry,

What's your blog address? It sounds like someplace I may like to visit, although I'll probably lurk a bit to see if the other denizens rely on logic or inventive when faced with sound counter-arguments. I've been at this for a lot of years and have yet to meet an atheist who has even scored more than a point or two in debate (usually due to my typing faster than is wise), much less handed me @$$, but as long as nobody will try to go all "Hitchens" on me, I'd love to spread a little education to your readers.

;-)

Larry,

Never mind about the web address: I found it and took a look around. Thanks, but I'll pass. Any site that puts an avatar of a screaming face with its hair on fire and a bold-face tag that says, "The Stupid, It Burns!" in response to a legitimate question lacks the rigor required for serious debate.

It's ok, Cap'n. I didn't really expect you to have the stomach to debate someone who can actually read and think.

Just out of curiosity, what's the "legitimate question" you're referring to?

Larry, if by "I didn't really expect you to have the stomach to debate someone who can actually read and think," you mean I don't care to exchange insults with people rather than facts, I guess you're correct. The question I'm referring to was a guy who asked about what atheists use as a source of morality. I have spoken to many atheists about this at great length over the years (and they seemed to able to read and claimed to be able to think) and I ALWAYS back them into a corner when I take their arguments to their logical conclusions, at which point they ALWAYS revert to name-calling (like you do with your idiotic "The Stupid, It Burns!" tag).

You put the tag next to it rather than even attempting to answer a question that you and I both know has no logical answer, and your readers just piled on. If you have no answer, just say, "That's a good question for which I have no logically-consistent answer" and leave it at that. But I guess you and you oh-so-erudite readers would rather throw insults. It's your blog, and you can sit in your echo chamber all you want, but I'm not going to argue with people who think insult is a valid substitute for argument.

Larry,

I was pressed for time when I responded last, and now I have a bit more of it, so I'll expand on my thoughts. I'll give you a couple of hints for what to do if you actually want a debate between "people who can read and think."

First of all, if you think I'm not going to post on your blog because I'm afraid of legitimate debate, you're not nearly as perceptive as I have been giving your credit for being. Quite the contrary: people who can read and think are the ONLY ones I care to debate with. But you and your readers like to throw around the term "stupid" quite a lot. I simply see no point in dealing with people who cannot and/or will not argue intelligently. Hint #1: if someone asks a legitimate question and you and several readers refrain from answering and just call him "stupid," you forfeit the right to number yourselves among people who act as though they "read and think."

I routinely debate atheists who are quite a bit more capable of reading and thinking than the people who post on your blog. I actively seek out "people who can read and think." I beat them like a drum - but I'm more than willing to spend hours discussing things - as long as they're will to act like adults. Serious blogs don't put "The Stupid - It Burns" next to questions they would rather not contemplate.

Over the years I have noticed a pattern, though. When I force atheists to defend their positions when taken to their logical conclusions, they INEVITABLY result to insults. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. The only real variable is how clever they are. The less clever ones (Like Steve and the people on your blog) just lead off with insults. The more clever ones start off sounding rational until I spring the logic trap they invariably jump into, THEN they result to insults. No matter how it starts, it always ends the same.

Since your blog starts with "You're stupid," as the default position for anyone who disagrees with you, there's no point in my going there, since they don't seem willing or able to "read and think" beyond the most superficial level.

But I said I'd try to help you, and I will. If you want to create a site that attracts "people who can read and think," you need to ban the use of the word "stupid," which means you have to stop using it as your go-to response yourself. Oh, and lose the reflexive snarkiness while you're at it. While calling names and being rude may be what passes for "reading and thinking" on an atheist blog, I can assure you that all you're doing is talking among yourselves and the occasional non-athiest who wanders over to ask a legitimate question only to have you and your fellow-believers call him names.

If you ever create such a site - one that has atheists who are actually capable of "reading and thinking" beyond the level of "Stoopid christians be stoopid" - let me know and I'll be more than happy to join you there.

edit:

"to able" should be "to be able."

"result" should be "resort." (Twice)

"will" should be "willing."

...Typing too fast again.

Sorry ArmyOfficer (Ret), but you seem to have your thinking cap somewhere other than on your head. If you don't have something akin to the typically ascribed powers commonly associated with a god, then what you have isn't reasonably capable of such feats as "non-physical means of measurement" for sufficiently small particles (such as photons, electrons, and other subatomic particles), at which point I have to ask what is going to qualify as "god" from your perspective. The typical claim for god is all I'm willing to respond to, so if you're looking to define it as something considerably less miraculous, then there's nothing to differentiate such a god from a sufficiently technologically advanced life-form, and once again I would assert that you and I would waste our time attempting to communicate under those circumstances.

If you're going to demand proof that there must be something non-god that "spontaneously" created life from non-life, in order that I demonstrate the capacity to participate in this conversation, then I conclude you have already failed to qualify. Life has had billions, and potentially even trillions of years to develop. To require a god for a process with that kind of timeframe available is an unrealistic and unnecessary requirement, and the lack of proof that a specific chain of events can occur is grossly inadequate to prove otherwise, so you don't even have a logical case to justify your position that I'm not qualified. Apparently, mere knowledge is indeed dangerous. You don't appear to know how to think, much less make use of the information available.

To be honest, of all the idiotic posts that call me out a ninny, yours was the most coherent, albeit defective, of them all. It's no wonder I don't debate facts. You've justified my reason why just by posting...

And finally, for all the other posters, even those on my "side" who still called me out as bad news of one sort or the other - I'm not interested in how the posting public perceives me personally - I honestly do not give a rat's you know what one way or the other. I do, however, care a great deal about ensuring that people have the right NOT to be subjected to other people's religion in public. I'm not foolish enough to think that atheists should be demanding that we eliminate things like nativity scenes, or the pledge of allegiance. Those things don't promote religion, despite what some people think. It's the special privelege enjoyed by religious organizations that promote the foolish belief and are then rewarded by governments with special tax breaks and such that I object to most. Fixing that problem is largely a matter of getting people to realize the snake-oil nature of religion. That requires getting people to think. Sometimes it happens when I post, sometimes it doesn't. Too many people don't really like to have to think... the human race is surprisingly lazy in that regard. However, that won't stop me from sending the message. Some will get it, some won't.

Steve,

I just happened to look back through some old threads and saw that you responded to me about a week and a half after the last previous post.

I notice you still have not responded to my questions, which tells me that you do not have any answers.

You threw out the HUP as proof of the non-existence of God, and I demonstrated that your argument was flawed in both fact and logic. I responded to your assertion rather than change the subject like you're trying to do. Then I gave you the opportunity to counter my assertion by responding to these two questions:

1) Describe the creation of the material that makes up the physical Universe, given that the First Law of Thermodynamics precludes the creation of matter from nothing. What laboratory experiment showed that this happens?

2) Describe the genesis of life from non-living material that must have occurred if your worldview is correct, given that Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation in 1859 and the Miller-Urey experiment was an abject failure. What laboratory experiment has demonstrated that life springs from non-living material?

I responded to your point without changing the subject - the least you can do is return the favor. I will not respond to the additional (invalid) points you made on January 3 until you respond to the questions I put to you on December 22 after I responded to your assertions about the HUP. Once again I challenge you: either answer those two question without changing the subject or admit that you have no evidence for your belief system.

Still your turn...