50s Movie poster mad scientist style, by Glen Edelson, 8-30-08<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n This comes from another one of my gigantic discussion threads, that atheists have participated in with great vigor (331 comments in two days, as I write): underneath my post, Blind Faith? Dialogue w an Atheist<\/a>.<\/p>\n I would have preferred to have made a good dialogue or two from my exchanges there, but as usual, atheist replies went all\u00a0over the ballpark and strongly tended to gravitate towards\u00a0critiques of Christianity, whereas my<\/em> \u00a0interest was in their defenses<\/em> of their own<\/em> dubious premises, per the subtitle of my post: \u201cDialogue with an Atheist, Challenged to Produce Any \u201cPositive\u201d Rational Evidence for Atheism.\u201d<\/p>\n That \u00a0would make for rambling, far-too-lengthy dialogues and sleeping readers. Therefore, readers can check out\u00a0the complete exchanges at the link if they wish to, but here, for brevity\u2019s and concentration\u2019s sake, I will post only my own<\/em> comments. Because they are mine only, they will sometimes appear \u201cchoppy\u201d. Asterisks indicate a completely separate comment.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n I have no interest in being merely not-something-else.\u00a0I know what atheism\u00a0is. I\u2019m saying that it is inadequate as a worldview to merely be not-something-else.<\/p>\n If you lack belief in x [God], yet spend tons of time debating people who DO believe in x and seeking to shoot holes in their x-system of belief, does this mean you are seeking x in a roundabout way (desiring to be persuaded)? Or does it mean that you are justifying your non-belief in x and making yourself feel better and more warranted \/ justified to disbelieve in x by shooting down the believers in x?<\/span><\/p>\n If atheism is merely not-something-else or \u201cnot belief in an imaginary being,\u201d then why do atheists talk so much to Christians? What\u2019s the purpose<\/em> of it? To proselytize<\/em> others to your view of not- something-else?<\/span><\/p>\n *** Atheist vfilipch<\/a> said that whatever couldn\u2019t be proven or disproven<\/a> was in the \u00a0\u201crealm of fiction or hallucinations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Really? I didn\u2019t know that mathematics was fiction and hallucinations<\/a>. But I can see that your statement, which is the height of ignorance of epistemology, is that. Mathematics is a non-empirical, axiomatic, non-scientific field of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n [the atheist seemed to dispute this, so I wrote:]<\/p>\n Very well, then; find me some mathematicians who claim that mathematics is 1) empirical by nature, or 2) doesn\u2019t start with unproven, non-empirical axioms, or 3) is a species of science rather than logic \/ philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\n Mathematics is not an empirical thing, and starts with axioms, yet almost all thinking persons accept it.\u00a0I would contend that mathematical principles are eternal principles (like logic and absolute morality) that are grounded ultimately in the Mind of God. This is why they are already \u201cout there\u201d independently of ourselves.<\/p>\n So why the demand that Christianity must\u00a0<\/em>produce empirical evidence, as if that is the be-all and end-all of all epistemological inquiry? It\u2019s plain silly and stupid.<\/p>\n *** We have to know what a particular\u00a0atheist\u00a0considers good or compelling evidence and how he defines his terms, what his\u00a0epistemology is, and if he\u00a0applies a double standard of epistemology (which is very often the case with atheists): one for atheists and another for Christians.<\/p>\n [one atheist called this basic inquiry a \u201cgame\u201d]<\/p>\n The game is altogether on your end, not mine. You folks are the ones who inveterately refuse to accept any and all evidence and reasoning that we bring to bear on the topic. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable, in light of this relentless skepticism, to simply ask: \u201cwhat evidence would<\/em>\u00a0you find compelling?\u201d<\/p>\n I would contend that this is, of all questions to ask an atheist, the most sensible and straightforward of all. And you call it a \u201cgame\u201d: which is yet more proof that the problem in epistemology and acceptance of evidences is on your end in the first place.<\/p>\n *** There is a huge body of work from many serious thinkers arguing the theistic God; there is no such body of work painstakingly arguing in favor of Santa Claus (i.e., the mythical figure), the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids. That\u2019s why the theistic claim is a lot more credible.<\/p>\n This observation is not the fallacy from consensus or from authority because I\u2019m not claiming that God is true simply<\/em>\u00a0because these arguments exist, or that lots of people have made them. I am pointing out that there is a difference in kind<\/em> between the tooth fairy and the classical theist God. The latter has innumerable philosophical treatises devoted to His existence, whereas the former has none.<\/p>\n And this would be one way that the rational person could distinguish between the two: one has far more rational defenses that can be made in His behalf.<\/p>\n It has nothing to do with a critique of atheism. I have made that on quite other grounds. It\u2019s a reply to the nonsense that belief in the classic theistic God is no more rational or warranted than belief in good ol\u2019 leprechauns, tooth fairies, unicorns, the Easter bunny, the man in the moon, and all the rest . . .<\/p>\n *** The cosmological and teleological arguments do<\/em>\u00a0offer this empirical \u201cevidence\u201d that every atheist carps on about till the cows come home. They claim that empirical data is what it is due to being the effect of God; just as we can observe and test results from things that themselves are not directly observable or \u2014 oftentimes \u2014 not fully understood or dimly understood (e.g., effects of the Big Bang).<\/p>\n They show that it is much more plausible that the universe came about by the causal agency of God than by self-causation or random chance. We should accept the claims by virtue of the demands of rationality and plausibility, by which we also determine whether anything else is true.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I (and millions of others) claim that God\u00a0indeed has<\/em>\u00a0made His existence very clear. It\u2019s so clear that many millions of people are very sure that He exists, and contend that this knowledge is innate within us.<\/p>\n We believe that His existence is evident from observing the universe: His handiwork. This gets into the teleological (design) argument. It\u2019s also quite plausible and believable based on the universe being here at all (cosmological argument).<\/p>\n Now why is it that atheists casually, derisively\u00a0dismiss the evidence of many millions of people believing that God exists? Why is that not regarded as \u201cevidence\u201d by them? What if every human being who ever lived (except for a lone atheist) claimed that they believed in God? Would that convince the lone remaining atheist\u00a0that he must be lacking something to not also<\/em> possess this belief; therefore, he\u00a0would yield to everyone else\u2019s experience and claim and realize that his was\u00a0somehow deficient?<\/p>\n One atheist said that we should \u201cfeel his presence as surely as we feel pain or hunger or thirst\u201d when in fact that is precisely<\/em> what many millions would say. So why is it that atheists\u00a0ignore<\/em> all that evidence when it occurs in others, and only trust their own negative experience of not<\/em>\u00a0experiencing these things that\u00a0they\u00a0seek?<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n 1. \u201cdirect effect on the function of the universe\u201d is precisely<\/em> what is claimed to be the case in the cosmological and teleological arguments, which deal with aspects of the universe that are<\/em>\u00a0\u201cscientifically testable\u201d.<\/p>\n 2. \u201cA temporary suspension of natural law, what amounts to a miracle, would convince me of a higher power.\u201d<\/p>\n There are many thousands of reports (including scientifically verified) of exactly that. Why are they not good enough for you? How many do you require? A million? A billion? A trillion? Once we get to 1,000,000,000,001 then it is sufficient?<\/p>\n 3. Why is it that you are able to accept something like mathematics or logic: neither of which has the slightest empirical evidence in favor of themselves?<\/p>\n 4. How and why is it that you bring to bear science as the final determinant of all knowledge and existence when it itself<\/em> starts from axioms that are not absolutely proved? In order to do science at all (to even get it off the ground) one must accept a number of axiomatic propositions; e.g.,:<\/p>\n a) the external universe exists and is not illusory.<\/p>\n b) the universe observes scientific laws [is not chaotic].<\/p>\n c) these laws apply to all times and places (uniformitarianism).<\/p>\n d) these actual or potential realities are able to be observed and tested.<\/p>\n e) we can trust our senses to provide us reliable data with which to conduct these experiments, whose utility and epistemological relevance we assume without empirical evidence.<\/p>\n All of these starting premises were provided by Christianity, which is why modern science began in an overwhelmingly Christian milieu (medieval Europe), and why the overwhelming number of important scientists throughout history have been either Christians or some sort of theist (and saw not the slightest conflict between their belief in God and their scientific endeavors. They would have said (like Kepler) that they were \u201cthinking God\u2019s thoughts after Him.\u201d<\/p>\n 5. \u201cBut the whole point of faith is to not need evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n To the contrary, we have provided plenty of that; you reject it all out of hand, with mockery, and misrepresentation of what we have done. Therefore, the truth of the matter in your case appears to be the very opposite of what you claim: you are oblivious to any and all evidence, even though you claim that its presence will convince you. You simply deny that any of it exists. You\u2019re like the guy on a clear summer day at high noon, who firmly denies that the sun exists.<\/p>\n Thus, you are the one (if anyone is) who exercises a profound blind faith and disdain for any and all evidence that exists in abundance for you to examine.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The atheist typically makes the demand that empirical evidence be produced in order to believe in God. God has to do something absolutely compelling, like turning the Empire State Building upside down, twirling it around (360 degrees) 17 times, bouncing it up in the air 12 times, at exactly 13.2 feet, then transform it into a statue of horse manure in the shape of Kim Kardashian, with a necklace around her (it\u2019s?) neck, saying, \u201cI am God. I exist; I came to earth as Jesus Christ, and Kim Kardashian is a bimbo.\u201d<\/p>\n Then <\/em>the atheist, satisfied in his irrational and arbitrary demands, will gladly become a theist, and even yield his or her life over to Jesus Christ, happily ever after.<\/p>\n I want to examine this state of affairs all down the line.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve already discussed empiricism and the nature of science in earlier comments. Science starts with non-empirical axioms, that cannot be proven. They must be accepted without proof, in order to do science at all.<\/p>\n The Christian fully accepts this, knowing that for this very reason, modern science began and mostly developed in a profoundly Christian society (medieval Europe)<\/a>. And it was dominated overwhelmingly by Christian or otherwise theist Christians for at least 350 years: folks who started almost every sub-field in science. I\u2019ve documented 115 of these<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even today, theist scientists make up a good half<\/a> of the whole.<\/p>\n The Christian freely acknowledges that he starts with unproven axioms, and\/or faith in various things: a faith that ultimately transcends reason but is not contrary to it. But the atheist refuses to admit that he has an axiomatic philosophy, and starts with the self-defeating, viciously circular assumption that empiricism is all there is.<\/p>\n How is it circular? It\u2019s very simple. To say, \u201cempiricism gives us all true knowledge and, therefore, for me to believe in God, He has to prove Himself by empirical means,\u201d is itself<\/em>\u00a0a non-empirical statement, that cannot be proven or shown to be binding upon one and all. Thus, the atheist makes a non-empirical, completely arbitrary statement that all knowledge must come through empirical means.<\/p>\n One immediately inquires, then, \u201cwhy should anyone believe that such a demand applies to one and all; even to God: and a viciously self-contradictory statement at that?\u201d<\/p>\n If the atheist can make a non-empirical statement that all knowledge, including that of God and His revealing of Himself, must<\/em>\u00a0be empirical, why can\u2019t a Christian, by the same token, make a similarly non-empirical statement that God could also<\/em>\u00a0reveal Himself non<\/em>-empirically? At least the Christian is logical and self-consistent, whereas the atheist is not.<\/p>\n From whence comes this notion of \u201cGod must reveal Himself empirically?\u201d Well, it comes from nowhere. It\u2019s an arbitrary demand, trumped-up in a desperate attempt to shore up an unacknowledged kindergarten pseudo-philosophy, with the pretense that it is unquestionable, and which is in fact no philosophy at all.<\/p>\n It has to presuppose logic in order to be stated in the first place. Logic cannot be proven, empirically or any other way. The mathematics that underlies virtually all of science is also non-empirical and must be accepted. Most atheists accept both things, though most seem unaware that they are doing so.<\/p>\n Neither logic nor mathematics are concrete things. In effect, they are non-material things (putting the lie to materialism). Logic is merely the relationship of ideas to each other, whereas mathematics is the relationship of material objects to each other. These are abstract (spiritual?) concepts.<\/p>\n Moreover, there are additional absurdities inherent in atheist positions (or at least the majority of them). Most atheists are not only materialists, but also determinists. Therefore, their very thoughts (in their view) are determined by outside forces of randomness and mere chance, and inexorably tied to a physical brain. When this brain dies, so do their thoughts.<\/p>\n They (but who is the \u201cthey\u201d?) then use this brain to produce statements like \u201cempiricism gives us all true knowledge and, therefore, for me to believe in God, He has to prove Himself by empirical means.\u201d Now, why should anyone else<\/em>\u00a0believe such a thing? The person saying it has no basis in saying it in the first place, yet expects everyone else to bow to the arbitrarily dogmatic claim.<\/p>\n If it has come from random collisions of atoms in his brain, why or how is it that he deigns to think that these random occurrences have any bearing on anyone else, or the external world as a whole, let alone to God? Well, clearly he plays the game of presupposing logic, which, again, is a non-empirical, non-material entity that exists as a concept \u201cout there\u201d independently of him. He tries to pretend that he doesn\u2019t do this, but he does.<\/p>\n So the atheist presupposes logic, mathematics, and this curious notion that everything knowable comes to us through empiricism: all non-empirical and non-proven notions, and all (for the determinist) produced at random, and therefore, with no ultimate meaning.<\/p>\n Now, if the atheist can do all that: which makes no sense whatever, why is it that they claim that the Christian cannot possess an equally non-empirical knowledge that God exists and has made Himself internally known to them? It\u2019s goose and gander. If the atheist can hold axiomatic, dogmatic, incoherent, arbitrary, nonsensical, self-refuting, non-empirical notions and apply them to others, surely the theist can hold axiomatic, self-consistent, non-empirical theistic notions. The second thing is internally coherent and has as much justification or warrant as the atheist premise, while being consistent and coherent, as an extra bonus. Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga call this a \u201cproperly basic\u201d belief.<\/p>\n If the atheist says that God is an extraordinary concept, well, so are logic and mathematics and a science which is worshiped as an idol by so many atheists, and virtually put in the place of God.<\/p>\n It just depends which<\/em>\u00a0extraordinary axiom one adopts. The atheist thinks that the universe somehow created itself, or that nothing produced something, whereas the theist believes in faith (with much<\/em>\u00a0supporting rational and empirical evidence from the cosmological and teleological arguments) that God (an eternal spirit being) did it.<\/p>\n Atheists must<\/em>\u00a0believe (since they have nothing else) that atoms inherently possess all the remarkable powers that we say God possesses. They were, after all, able to create the entire universe (so we are told) without the help of God, even at the initial stages.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a pretty absurd or, at best, extremely implausible hypothesis, given what we know, and it can\u2019t be explained by current science, but that doesn\u2019t stop the atheist from believing it in quite a religious fashion, because he has<\/em>\u00a0to. He has no empirical evidence for it, but he believes it, having been limited to it and forbidden from considering any other option.<\/p>\n But the Christian believes that God created the universe, and can<\/em>\u00a0produce various empirical evidences that highly suggest this, and in a self-consistent, non-arbitrary way.<\/p>\n Thus, we conclude that if one strives to be consistent, coherent, logical, rational, pro-scientific in every<\/em> way (not just arbitrarily selected ways), and to follow evidence wherever it leads, and not just to where it \u201cmust\u201d lead (guided by the benevolent, arbitrarily dogmatic atheist hand), Christianity is the way to go.<\/p>\n That is the reason why I\u2019m a Christian, because I value and cherish reason, science, and consistency as much as I do faith. I could never adhere to a self-contradictory, nonsensical worldview. Thus I have never been impressed by atheism.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I just posted a long list of links regarding the teleological argument (from design)<\/a>. This goes along with a similar list for the cosmological argument<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"MadScientist\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/MadScientist.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n