![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/DarkEnergy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added in June 2017\u00a0in a combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my\u00a0rules for discussion<\/a>, but (unlike him)\u00a0provided detailed\u00a0reasons<\/em><\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0it was justified.<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds.\u00a0On 6-30-19<\/a>,\u00a0he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 70 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on\u00a012-21-20:\u00a0\u201cI love people who can make cogent arguments against mine or point out data I hadn\u2019t considered before. What I dislike (and ban) are $#&*%@s who . . . refuse to learn\/adapt . . . ignore compelling arguments against their position, and so on.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, follow this link:\u00a0\u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d<\/a>\u00a0or see all of them linked under his own section on my\u00a0Atheism page<\/a>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his post, Defending 10 Atheist Arguments (4 of 5)<\/a> (2-1-21), Bob opines:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 7. What is God made of?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Atheist argument:<\/em>\u00a0\u201cThere is no evidence that spiritual energy exists, so we can conclude that psychics, ghosts, and gods are non-existent. Otherwise, God has nothing to be made of.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Christian response:\u00a0<\/em>\u201cNot this again. An immaterial being, by definition, is not made of material.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n My response:\u00a0<\/em>Not this again. You can\u2019t just magic something into existence with a definition. Do you think \u201cGod is an immaterial being\u201d is a spell that will create such a being?<\/span><\/p>\n Don\u2019t waste our time with, \u201cWell, God\u00a0might<\/em>\u00a0exist\u201d or \u201cYou haven\u2019t proven he\u00a0doesn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0exist.\u201d God\u2019s existence is the topic here, and you need to show it. Yes, I realize that the atheist is making the argument and you\u2019re responding, but responses need evidence, too. Your response is no more compelling than \u201cBecause I said so.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not going too quickly here, am I? God is not made of anything. God is spirit. God is spirit, but he\u2019s not made of spiritual energy. He\u2019s immaterial, so this is a straw man.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n God is not made of anything, least of all spiritual energy, but he\u2019s made of spirit? Or he\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0spirit? Or something?<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cNot made of anything\u201d\u2014that sounds like your rhetorical weapons. And it sounds like they\u2019re loaded with not-evidence. This is the problem with just handwaving stuff into existence. Your embarrassing ad hoc arguments will mean you\u2019ll no longer be able to sit at the adult table.<\/span><\/p>\n So God is not made of matter or (heaven forbid!) spiritual energy\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. but he\u2019s made of something, right? You\u2019re the expert\u2014if not \u201cspiritual energy,\u201d then what? Don\u2019t play Simon Says, just tell us. And whatever you say God is made of, show us that it exists.<\/span>\u00a0One atheist<\/a>\u00a0responded, \u201cCan someone tell me what the word \u2018spirit\u2019 means without saying what it is\u00a0not<\/em>?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n How intensely ironic<\/em> (the last sentence)! It\u2019s our beloved atheist critics who are constantly informing us lowly, ignorant Christians that atheism itself<\/em> is, alas, not a formulated position<\/em>, but only the absence<\/em> of a position (belief in God). It\u2019s not a worldview, etc. I wish I had a dime for every time I\u2019ve heard that<\/em>. It\u2019s not true (see just one reason of many<\/a>, why<\/em> I think it isn\u2019t), but we hear<\/em> it all the time. <\/span><\/p>\n Yet lo and behold, now we are immensely privileged enough to witness an atheist complain that we can\u2019t define spirit in a way other than what it is not (matter). <\/span> It\u2019s precious and a double standard for the ages, for sure. We are \u201cembarrassing\u201d<\/span> and can\u2019t \u201csit at the adult table\u201d<\/span>: so sez Bible-Basher Bob (ever the charitable and fair-minded one), but atheists making the exact same sorts of arguments<\/em> somehow are not<\/em>. Maybe one day, some kind atheist will deign to explain to me what the profound logical difference<\/em>\u00a0is. Or some logically consistent one can save my sanity and patience alike by conceding that these \u201carguments\u201d (i.e., actually, bald assertions) are dead wrong<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s one thing to challenge theists with producing arguments in favor of the existence of God (we\u2019ve produced dozens; none are ever good enough for hard-core atheists); quite another to make the \u201cargument\u201d that a spiritual being (the very category<\/em> or notion or hypothetical) is absurd. The latter is what is taking place above, but Bob, logically clueless as usual, couldn\u2019t resist inappropriately mixing in a little of the first question, too (<\/span>\u201cYou can\u2019t just magic something into existence with a definition<\/span>\u201d \/ \u201cGod\u2019s existence is the topic here\u201d \/ \u201cAnd whatever you say God is made of, show us that it exists\u201d). <\/span> The initial argument, that Bob himself framed (see above), had the following logical structure:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Spiritual energy is nonexistent.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2) Gods as well as ghosts consist of such spiritual energy.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3) Therefore, God cannot exist, since he is said to consist of a thing which itself doesn\u2019t exist.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or, more broadly, as a purely logical thought-experiment:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) X<\/em> is non-existent.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2) Y<\/em> is allegedly entirely composed<\/em> of X.<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3) Therefore Y<\/em> doesn\u2019t exist.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One thing at a time . . . I am dealing with the question of spirit and the above<\/em> formulation of Bob\u2019s, not God\u2019s existence per se. He<\/em> may not be able to comprehend the difference, but I trust that the vast bulk of my readers can<\/em>. I won\u2019t play the game of bouncing back-and-forth between entirely distinct topics. That\u2019s child\u2019s play and not serious philosophical \/ theological \/ scientific discussion.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As usual, the atheist is merely assuming<\/em> that certain things aren\u2019t true; can\u2019t possibly<\/em> be true. They habitually do this with miracles and the supernatural. But this is blind faith and not reason. They also do it with the question of whether there is something other than matter. They are philosophical<\/span> materialists<\/a> and physicalists<\/a>, as opposed to<\/span> dualists<\/a>. Well, most<\/em> of them are. <\/span> Some<\/em> atheists (and in my opinion, the sharper and more thoughtful ones) are actually dualists. I always mention the brilliant atheist philosopher<\/span> David Chalmers<\/a> (four books with Oxford University Press and one with MIT) \u2014<\/span> who looks like<\/a> he ought to be the lead singer of a rock band \u2014 as one prominent example. His Wikipedia page states about him:<\/span><\/p>\n Chalmers argues for an \u201cexplanatory gap\u201d from the objective to the subjective, and criticizes physicalist explanations of mental experience, making him a\u00a0dualist. Chalmers characterizes his view as \u201c<\/span>naturalistic<\/a>\u00a0dualism\u201d: naturalistic because he believes mental states\u00a0supervene\u00a0\u201cnaturally\u201d on physical systems (such as brains); dualist because he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But now to the heart of my objection. I shall turn the table by using a scientific analogy (I love<\/em> doing both things in my apologetics, so I\u2019m having a grand ol\u2019 time).<\/span> Bob had a field day mocking Christians for believing that God is a spirit, immaterial, composed of spirit, which isn\u2019t a physical thing (with atoms, etc.). Once again, Christians are made out to be anti-scientific ignoramuses, dummies, and imbeciles. It\u2019s Bob\u2019s constant methodology and what motivates him (and his legions of rah-rahing sycophants in his ranting, pathetic comboxes) to get out of bed every morning. I hope he had his fun. Now we shall have ours<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Please keep the above\u00a0<\/span>in mind as I make my argument now (as my entire argument is an analogy). Scientists are currently quite excited about new phenomena called dark energy<\/em> and dark matter<\/em>. The very notions have only made their appearance over the last 25-30 years or so. The term dark energy<\/em> was coined by cosmologist<\/span> Michael Turner<\/a>\u00a0in 1998: which is more recent than the life of this blog<\/em> (1997). But \u2014 recent or not \u2014 it\u2019s now widely accepted and represents the cutting edge and most fascinating field of study in cosmology and astronomy (superseding black holes). A NASA web page<\/a> comments upon it as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n What Is Dark Energy?<\/strong> More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe\u2019s expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that\u00a0roughly 68%<\/a>\u00a0of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest \u2013 everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter \u2013 adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn\u2019t be called \u201cnormal\u201d matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein\u2019s gravity theory, the version that contains a\u00a0cosmological constant<\/a>, makes a second prediction: \u201cempty space\u201d can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, \u201cempty space\u201d is actually full of temporary (\u201cvirtual\u201d) particles that continually form and then disappear. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this \u201cquintessence,\u201d after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don\u2019t know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues. (\u201cDark Energy, Dark Matter\u201d, no date)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A similar National Geographic<\/em> page<\/a> adds in befuddlement:<\/p>\n Now that we see the expansion of the universe is accelerating, adding in dark energy as a cosmological constant could neatly explain how space-time is being stretched apart. But that explanation still leaves scientists clueless as to why the strange force exists in the first place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So it\u2019s considered to be 68% of the universe, yet it is almost a complete \u201cmystery\u201d and scientists are \u201cclueless\u201d about its origin. And \u201ceverything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter \u2013 adds up to less than 5% of the universe.\u201d So if this is true, it turns out that science in all its glory (the atheist\u2019s epistemological \u201cgod\u201d and religion) has been dealing with a mere 1\/20th of all that there is in the universe.<\/p>\n Likewise, dark matter (thought to make up 27% of the universe) is \u201ccompletely invisible to light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, making dark matter impossible to detect with current instruments\u201d (National Geographic<\/em><\/a>). The EarthSky<\/em> site<\/a> adds to the collection of \u201cduh!\u201d comments from science on dark energy:<\/p>\n In this case,\u00a0dark<\/em>\u00a0means\u00a0unknown<\/em>\u00a0rather than literally dark, as is the case with\u00a0dark matter<\/a>. . . .\u00a0Dark energy is one of the great unsolved mysteries of cosmology. . . .\u00a0Dark energy does behave like Einstein\u2019s anti-gravity force, but its nature and origin remain unknown. One of its greatest mysteries is why dark energy started to dominate the rate of expansion of the universe at a particular point in time billions of years after the Big Bang. If it exists now, why wasn\u2019t it there all along?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And yet science is to be regarded as our final appeal<\/em>, authority-wise? Some think dark energy is \u201ca property of space.\u201d Others think space is \u201cfull of temporary (\u2018virtual\u2019) particles that continually form and then disappear.\u201d Some appeal to Greek philosophy and call the mystery \u201cquintessence.\u201d How interesting. So we have this phenomenon, and it is serious science (which I am not doubting at all<\/em>; sure, bring it on!). The admitted ignorance is extraordinary.<\/p>\n Yet all that is fine and dandy, while Christians are mocked and derided and considered simpletons simply because we have believed all along that God is an eternal spirit, Who created the world? What is the difference<\/em>? I\u2019d love for some atheist to tell me and come dialogue, but I know they are very averse to that: having just been banned again from Debunking Christianity<\/em> because I had the gall to ask someone in the combox if Dr. David Madison (the big cheese on that site, along with John Loftus, who has ignored 23 of my critiques<\/a>) should or would make any attempt to answer my 44 critiques of his anti-theist bilge<\/a>, posing as supposed \u201carguments.\u201d<\/p>\n Moreover, we see that Bob Seidensticker \u2014 after directly challenging me<\/a> to make them \u2014 has ignored 70 (yes: seventy<\/em><\/strong>!) of my counter-replies, and that Jonathan MS Pearce<\/a> has just decided to start ignoring my critiques (five or six unanswered now) as well, whereas just a few weeks ago he was gung-ho in debating me. How the mighty have fallen . . .\u00a0 All four of these men are very prominent, influential, and \u201cvocal\u201d anti-theist atheists online. So any serious, point-by-point reply to this paper is highly\u00a0unlikely<\/em>, but it would be nice<\/em> to engage in serious interaction on a matter like this (pun half-intended).<\/p>\n Lastly: if there is any reply at all, we\u2019ll almost certainly be told that \u201cdark energy is just now<\/em> being investigated by science. Give it time; science always discovers and explains things in due course.\u201d I don\u2019t disagree all that much. Science does<\/em> do that: though not as completely<\/em> as the average atheist would make out (it being his or her religion and idol and [usually] sole epistemological guide).<\/p>\n But even if dark energy and dark matter are<\/em>\u00a0adequately, plausibly explained and much better understood by science in the near future, it makes no difference at all as to my present argument<\/em>. The fact remains that conventionally understood matter makes up only 5% of the universe: so they tell us. Science has had up till very recently, literally\u00a0nothing<\/em> to tell us about 95% of the universe: all of which is other (spirit? energy?) than what we have known up till now as \u201cmatter\u201d: with protons and neutrons and the whole nine yards.<\/p>\n And yet Christians (along with many reputable philosophers through the centuries, and virtually all religious views) are faulted for having believed that there is such a thing as a non-material Spirit-Creator, for 2000 years: following the ancient Israelites, who believed it for some 18 or more centuries before we did? Obviously, non-material entities or whatever we call them, have been a far more important aspect of the universe than we (least of all materialist atheists) had ever imagined.<\/p>\n And so God fits into this \u201cnew\u201d schema very well<\/em>, just as He fit into Big Bang cosmology<\/a>, and even quantum mechanics<\/a>, examined more closely, as well as something like irreducible complexity<\/a>. Present-day scientific consensus is perfectly consistent with the biblical teaching of\u00a0creation out of nothing<\/a> too.\u00a0 I think the Bible and Christianity are doing pretty darn good<\/em>, in terms of being consistent with science, as the latter advances. It seems that Christianity understood things (derived from revelation, communicated by God) for 2000 years that science has only recently come to figure out.<\/p>\n Albert Einstein and most scientists in the 1940s believed in an eternal universe (steady state). Einstein initially opposed the findings of the originator of the Big Bang theory: a Catholic priest. Now virtually no scientist denies that the present universe had a beginning (although some posit prior universes, with no hard evidence). Christians had said that the universe came into existence (by God) from nothing all along. And now science seems to be confirming that non-material spirit or \u201cenergy\u201d is awfully important in the scheme of the universe as well: to the tune of 68% of all that exists. Better late than never . . .<\/p>\n In closing, I\u2019ll mention another debate that was going on long before dark energy was posited: the nature of light: is it a particle or a wave? This has to do with the question of possible non-physical entities as well (the very thing that Bob mercilessly mocked above). And so a scientific web page<\/a> dealt with this question, throwing out several competing theories as to what light even is<\/em>\u00a0(all bolding in original):<\/p>\n Answer 1<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [ . . .]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not sure if I would call light matter or not, however. Certainly it can do some of the things you would think only traditional matter can do \u2013 like carry momentum and transfer it in a collision. But it certainly has some properties that are fundamentally different than the stuff that makes up traditional matter (things that are made of atoms).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Answer 2 Light is not matter. Light is just light \u2014 it has its own qualities.<\/b>\u00a0Light is made up of \u201cthings\u201d called\u00a0photons<\/b>, and these photons can possess some of the properties of matter. For example, they are always moving, and when they move, they can exert a (usually very small) force on an object (just like moving matter can). But most of the time, light is just light.\u00a0It is not matter as much as it is energy.<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Dave: how is this a\u00a0whit<\/em> different from Christians saying, \u201cGod is not matter. God is just God \u2014 He has His own qualities\u201d?]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Answer 3<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Light is a form of energy, not matter. Matter is made up of atoms. Light is actually electromagnetic radiation. <\/b>. . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Answer 4<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a fun question. There are two main theories of thought about light.\u00a0The first is that light is a photon and the second is that light is a wave.<\/b>\u00a0Neither theory has been proven wrong. It would seem that photons would be matter whereas the waves wouldn\u2019t.\u00a0It turns out that for both theories light isn\u2019t matter.<\/b>\u00a0A photon is not matter because it has no mass. This is different from matter such as electrons and neutrons which have masses. I hope this helps.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yep. Light ain\u2019t matter, it seems pretty clear. Nor is 95% of the universe matter as we have known and loved it from our chemistry and physics classes (me, I had a chemistry set when I was 12). So the notion of a merely spiritual, immaterial God seems all the more possible and even likely, doesn\u2019t it?: just based on what science<\/em> tells us: before we even get to philosophy and religion.<\/p>\n Why then is Bob prattling on as if matter (good old-fashioned matter before we get to dark matter and dark energy) is all there is<\/em>? He needs to crack open any scientific textbook written since Einstein and get up to speed before embarrassing himself (and atheists along with him) further. Who\u2019s<\/em> against science? Christians have nothing to fear from it at all. It has always confirmed \u2014 or has at least been harmonious<\/em> with \u2014 our views, and today it is doing so more than ever.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>AnandKz<\/a>\u00a0(8-11-17)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d\u00a0He added in June 2017\u00a0in a combox:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":54568,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112,172],"tags":[525,4126,660,1367,12955,12958],"class_list":["post-54559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-cosmology","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-dark-energy","tag-dark-matter"],"yoast_head":"\n