God & Atheism

I had a little discussion about God with this 23 year old American atheist on youtube. This is one of the most interesting and most articulate atheist that knows his stuff that i've encountered so far. So i'd like to share this little discussion with you guys. :)

People always ask me how to answer questions pertaining to Christianity. Well, read up this whole episode and I'm definitely sure you'll learn something from this discussion of whether it is rational to believe in God.

Here goes the chunks of brain juices phrased out in words...

Me: Hey :) Regarding your reply

Atheist: "I fully agree that we are machines of meet and bone, and we must depend on our highly developed sensory organs to make sense of the world around us. The machine observes the sun going around the Earth, but that doesn't mean heliocentric theory is false. Humanity projects design. The god you're proposing is simply a god of things we don't understand yet. It seems you're discouraging research under the catch-all banner of 'GOD DID IT', and that's what pisses Dawkins off in the video."

Me: I'm not saying that these observations are false. Yes, the machine observes the sun going around and it doesn't prove the heliocentric theory false. The point i'm making is this: The robot would never have arrived at the point where he understands it well enough to call it "heliocentric theory". Because it's understanding is limited.

Atheist: "It seems you're discouraging research under the catch-all banner of 'GOD DID IT'"

Me: Research is always highly encouraged by atheists and theists alike if not we'd still be living in the stone ages! haha..The God did it part is how everything came to be. How do you think everything around us comes about then? "The god you're proposing is simply a god of things we don't understand yet" If we're to understand everything inside out, we'd be more amazed at how such complexity can even come to be. Take something for example that we can almost fully understand - Photosynthesis. Do you know how it fully works? And you're one person who really takes Bible verses and intepret them out of context. May I know all ur inaccurate, ungrounded accusations of the inaccuracies of the Bible? I'd like to know. Even famous non-Christian philosophers and anti-Christian theologians didn't manage to poke a hole in the Bible and you, a small fry wanna try something like that? haha... Try me. it'd benefit my Bible knowledge too :) Next time, if you wana shoot the Bible, shoot the Holy Quran first. It's got much more inerrancies. And if you fault it publicly, you'd better go into hiding. haha...

So yup, awaiting your reply :) Hope we can learn something from each other. :D

Me: Hey:) Thanks for taking time to reply me..haha..

Atheist: "I have no idea where you're going with this. If the machine has the capacity to build other machines and interperet data, then it could easily arrive at the same conclusion: otherwise, the robot you're talking about is not a 1:1 correlation with man. "

Me: Ok. We're still at this analogy. Hmm...You see, the way the robot inteprets data is different from the way we intepret it. The robot inteprets data as a result of the algorithm programmed into it. We, humans intepret data with emotions, feelings etc...E.g. A small girl hugs a robot. The robot may be programmed to reply "Thanks, I love you too." but it doesn't actually understand what love and emotions are. It just reacts to the physical pressure put on him by the kid and it responds according to program. As for us, humans, we understand what love is and we respond with understanding, not just a plain programmed reply. Get the difference? So the point I'm making is this: The robot will never fully comprehend the ways of the inventor - us humans. It is limited to its wires and chips and thus can never fully understand us. Same with US - HUMANS. We will never fully understand God. we can only find out so much about Him and the rest is outside of our sphere and realm of understanding. Thus, we cannot ask the question "Who created God?" It'd be invalid. :)

Atheist: "Howzabout an oscillating universe? Y'know, an eternal string of Big Bangs and Big Crunches? See, this is called a 'parsimonious theory', in which the least likely explanations are removed."

Me: Many atheists pose me this reply and i pose them this reply which none have yet to answer: "In physics, i'm sure you know the many constants the many laws of physics are so precise that if any of those 'cosmological' constants are tweaked or changed by one 1 in a 1000,000 the universe wouldn't be in existence. So how do these nos. come about? By chance? Surely not. Well maybe there's explosions going on everywhere in the universe and one of them's bound to create a universe like ours. And walah, there we have, our universe. Question is, how can rocks, asteroids, materials, gases in our atomsphere, atoms, or anything that made earth up even come about in the first place? Where did these matter come from? These matter have to present before the Big Bang can work. So where do these matter come from? And matter isn't just matter: It's made up of protons, neutrons electrons with all the right energy levels for it to become ONE ATOM. And one mass of rock is made up of BILLIONS of atoms. So the probability of it coming to be is multiplied. And who gave the two rocks (asteroids) the force to BANG into each other to form the universe? Etc..etc... Your 'parsimonious' theory has many assumed conditions and thus cannot be considered a theory in the first place. Whenever u want to use this 'parsimonious' theory, think of this analogy: I take apart a watch and put all the 'ingredients' (nuts, bolts, screws, quartz crystal etc..) into a box and i ask you to shake them and cause a mini "Big Bang" in the box to make the watch back. You think it will ever happen? I've given you all the assumed conditions where all the materials needed to create the watch is present, gravity is present, frictional force is present, molecular laws are present etc..But you still cannot shake the watch back together! Same for Big Bang. Utter bullshit. It's just a sound-good explanation that's likely to happen to tingle our ears.

And wow, you really have a load of questions against the Bible. haha.. Give me time, after my exams i'll get back to you :)

And may I know how old are you and where you reside in? It's been interesting exchanging pointers with you and I'd like to know your age. :) I'm 19 and reside in Singapore :) Hope to hear from you soon! :D

Me: Hey:) Sorry for the 3 week break. haha..Had 2 weeks of exam and 1 week of holidays. haha..Hope you're doing fine in Bulgaria. :) And there's no need for personal attacks; even against other Christians. Remain kind, humble and gentle :D haha... Regarding your reply:

Atheist: "I'm afraid your analogy is a bit flawed. The impulse to physical pleasure and child defense are already programmed in the brain. The classic example is the sexual impulse: we feel romantic love because we have an evolutionary urge to propagate the species; this does not imply that we blindly act on impulse, however, because we subvert the evolutionary impulse by putting on a condom prior to the physical act of love. Human beings have developed the capacity for creative thought, so we can analyze our evolutionary impulses."

Me: Yes, i get it. Our actions are also a result of programming. Programming by who? If you see a robot, you'd assume it to have an inventor right? No one in the right frame of mind would assume, "O the robot was a result of evolution", or "O the robot was a result of an explosion in a factory". Why because the robot is an utterly sophisticated machine altogether that speculating absurd possibilites other than a creator would be dumb. Such intricate programming can't possibly come by chance can it? Or by evolution? Which in essence, is a chance theory? Or Big Bang which is also a chance theory? Chances of these theories are so slim that the probabilities of it actually happening are nearly 0. These theories only show how science could've brought the universe together. But who created science? Science isn't just science my friend. It has to have a beginning. I'll elaborate more later. So yes, our actions are a result of a brilliant programmer, by which we term "God".

Atheist: "Positing a creator, however, also posits a darker, more negative force. If a deity created everything, he or she must necessarily create 'evil', since the idea of virtue automatically sets up a binary--a term of negative description. This would imply that God also created the emotions and independent thought necessary for a misguided adult to rape the child following his or her embrace of that child. Any being arbitrarily creating evil would not be worthy of worship. It's much easier and more comfortable to imagine that pedophilia is a misfiring of the evolutionary impulse, and that the pedophile in question's brain is misinterpreting external stimuli (i.e. fetishism)."

Me: Yes God created everything. But He didn't directly create evil. Evil is a result of our doing. Yes God "created the emotions and independent thought necessary" to sin or to do something which we term morally wrong - 'rape' which you cited. So by creating that allowance does it mean He is evil? If God eradicated our capability of doing evil, we'd be no better than all-good doing robots. We'd no longer have FREEWILL. God created us with freewill. The result? Wrongdoing. So is God evil? No, He is abiding by His law of freewill which he chose to give us.

Atheist: "Human beings anthropomorphize. We see the inherent complexity of nature, and we narrowly assume that someone has to have made it, because we are an animal species that has developed the ability to make things. The problem is, this isn't a scientific theory based on hard evidence, like God's registered trademark: it's an argument based on beauty. Furthermore, regardless of whether you like it or not, life did originate on a planet out of an infinite, uncountable number due to the proper chemical conditions: we weren't here, and now we are. That's chance. Even if a designer did exist, it's still chance as to whether that designer would decide to create a particular kind of life (e.g. hobbits versus people), or rather make himself a big, tasty ice cream cone. Life originated by chance either way."

Me: Anthropomorphize means to attribute a human form or personality to things that are not human. So, i think the word you used is inaccurate. Perhaps 'assume' or 'speculate' is the word you're looking for? haha. Scientific theory based on hard evidence? They're based on theories. Theories like you said, maybe wrong. It may be reformed or changed etc. So it ain't really hard. To argue about a creator or no creator, there are never hard evidences. For if they were, freewill again would be eradicated. I shan't elaborate this point unless you want elaboration. haha. As for your chemical reactions. Do you know how complicated a chemical is? Take for example water - H20. The 3 atoms that make the water molecule is so complex! The electrostatic forces that keeps the electrons, protons, etc. together are so fine tuned that for it to exist in the first place is a BIG MYSTERY. So who created these chemicals? Who created the atomic structure? Who made the electron round and carry a negative charge? Chance? Enough of that misused word. haha. Yes, of course life originated by chance. The decision that God would create humans is His divine choice.

Atheist: "They're called 'vacuum fluctuations'. Quantum field theory has observed electrons, positrons, and photons effectively appearing out of nowhere, existing for a short time, and annihilating. This leaves no net creation of mass or energy. For more information, read into the Casimir effect. According to quantum theory, then, something CAN come from nothing. No deistic influence is needed here: science is unravelling these sorts of mysteries all the time, and we don't have to leave it all to an anthropomorphized, omnipotent entity in order to explain how matter gets here."

Me: Wow. I've never heard of the Casimir effect. Interesting. Yes, no deistic influence. Same question I'd pose. The appearance of photons, electrons and positrons. They are all uber-complicated stuff. Random appearances of it doesn't solve the problem. Someone has to create such complicated electrons, photons, positrons etc. with such accurate energy values for it to even exist and appear all over in the first place! No deisitc influence? Yup. But there's deistic creation. Besides, these random appearances can't possibly create much of anything at all. For if it could, we'd see many things created around Earth. But no, nothing created from these random appearances. You might say "O it happens somewhere in the whole of space." If it can happen elsewhere, why doesn't it happen around Earth? If it were that easy to create a super-complex Earth, it'd be easier to create smaller things and planets etc right? If it's so easy, it'd be happening all over the place! But no. It's not.

Atheist: "Thus far, you haven't yet addressed my own personal favorite theory: the oscillating universe. The universe expands, then contracts, only to expand once again. This creates an infinite circuit: there's no need for a deity to create a universe with what amounts to magic." I dont get you here. Haha. Please elaborate your point and how the oscillating universe theory works. :) "Your 'watch' argument is a variation of the discredited 'DC-10' example so frequently cited in religious literature. It's discredited first on the basis of using a clearly artificial object to discuss a non-artificial object (i.e. the universe); it secondly fails on the basis that you're using an isolated space (i.e. the Earth's atmosphere) in comparison to an infinite space, which is bound to different physical principles. Finally, you're assuming that the 'Big Bang' (a derisive term coined for the idea that matter was denser earlier in time by Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a staunch opponent of the theory) was an explosion in space, rather than a description of the expansion of space-time. I cannot address your argument, because you're not describing the Big Bang accurately."

Me: An analogy is never a 100% representation of the original example cited. Duh. It takes the logic behind the example and applies it to a somewhat similar scenario which is logical in this context. Since you say that such a SUPER-COMPLEX universe can come about by energy and masses of rock (which are not just rocks - they are also super complex when you look at it under the microscope), why can't we assume these conditions to an inferior scenario? The watch is less complex than the universe right? Then why can't we create it in our time and space? Unless you're saying that the conditions in outer space are much more conducive for something to be created. Which is definitely not. It is much, much, much easier to create something in isolated space such as ours where gravity is present, mediums by which energy can be transmitted (e.g. air, water, etc.) are present, etc...In outer space, none of these are present! There's no water, no air etc.. So how can it give rise to this planet Earth which has something the outer space doesn't have? It's entirely illogical. And the Big Bang is the "expansion of space-time"? I thought the expansion and contraction began only after the explosion? So it is an explosion in space! haha. Once again, for the explosion to take place, matter must first be present. Who created matter? AGAIN, matter isn't just matter. It's a combination of billions upon billions of atoms with all the right energy forces and attractive forces for it to link together to form a chunk of matter in the first place. Tell me, where does all these intricate, complex and mind-boggling material come from?

Atheist: "If the Big Bang proves to be incorrect, science can always take what's useful from the theory and apply it to the better, newer theory, since science is a process of deduction. What's not parsimonious is to imply a supernatural origin for natural stimuli, then defend your inductive theory against all contradictory evidence. The problem with intelligent design of the universe is simple: if science does find the origin of the universe, then the theory is entirely discredited, and has contributed nothing to scientific literature; if the Big Bang is disproven, it will be disproven on the basis of evidence--which currently is rather scanty."

Me: Yes, science is ever evolving. Why? Because it is the study of what we observe around us. We are trying so hard to understand all these things. Remember, science doesn't disprove God, in fact, it proves God much more than it disproves Him! Science are just laws made up by human beings who study the Earth. The next question is - Who created these laws? Once again, laws aren't just laws. They are numbers so super- ultra precise (pardon my vocab. HAHA) that these laws can't possibly come by chance. For if you speculate chance, the possiblity of it coming to pass is ZERO. For numbers are infinite.

And here's the answer for 2 of your Bible accusations. As for the rest of your seeming Biblical inaccuracies, i need you to elaborate on them - Citing the chapters and/or verses. :)
Leviticus 19:19 "Obey my laws. You must not mate 2 different kinds of cattle or sow your field with two different kinds of seed. You must not wear clothing made from two different kinds of material mixed together." (NCV) My dear friend, read the verse again. This verse is telling farmers not to sow 2 kinds of seed into the field AT THE SAME TIME. The verse didn't say "Do not sow a different kind of seed after sowing the first." There is no order of sequence cited in this verse! The latter part of the verse states "You must not wear clothing made from 2 different kinds of material mixed together." The whole point of this verse is to tell us not to mix 2 things together and not disprove crop rotation. -__-" hahaha. This is a good Bible joke. :D
As for your quote saying we shouldn't defend ourselves in court in Matthew 5:40, let us read the verse IN CONTEXT to the meaning of the whole chapter. Matthew 5:38-40 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But i tell you, DON'T STAND up against an EVIL PERSON. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also. If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also." V.39 states that we only do not press charges against an evil person. Why? Because to prove him wrong in court is useless - the evil person wouldn't change his ways. It would be waste of time. So leave him a blessing.

So yup, it really has been nice discussing such stuff with you. :) Hope to hear from you soon. :D

Me: Ahoys :D Just came back from another 3 day school camp and a few days of thinking. haha. We've discussed really far and i'll be addressing only a few of your claims by which i see as the 'basis for all of our other arguments'.
And i really must say. Respecto! Haha. The depth of your thinking and your search of the answers really intrigue me, as some of your responses even I have never thought of before. So yup...here goes the hefty chunks of words:

Atheist: "Creating the capacity of evil is exactly the same thing. If we get into Christianity, then one can see that God creates the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:17), which he may have very well chose not to put in the Garden of Eden. If we look at it independently, anything that predates or pre-exists God invalidates him of his position, since God must by necessity supercede all things; God would've had to create evil, or his position as a monotheistic creative force would be challenged by an equally powerful monotheistic creative force. So, by creating a morally objective 'evil' in order to give humans the capacity to falter, God would certainly be an evil being."

Me: As much as God knows that by putting the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' there, Adam would have sinned, God in His sovereignty still chooses to put it there. For whatever the reason maybe. Even if the tree wasn't 'knowledge of good and evil' - let's say it was the "inedible tree" - The ACTION of Adam taking the fruit and DISOBEYING God's instruction is already wrong or "evil" in the first place. So God didn't need to create evil (in the form of a fruit) for evil to exist. It exists naturally as a result of freewill. So He didn't create it. Then you might say "O. God in His foreknowledge, knowing that Adam will disobey and sin shouldn't put the tree there in the first place." So then, by ensuring that He isn't an 'evil' God, He has to forfeit His SOVEREIGN FREEWILL by not being able to put the tree there. So God would no longer have freewill in trying to be good! If He has no freewill, He is not God! How can it be? I have also grappled with questions as these such long long ago. The main point of this whole argument is this - Why DID GOD PUT THAT TREE THERE?! As quoted by you as well "which he may have very well chose not to put" - Here we're questioning God's choice of putting the tree there. We are trying to understand God. Which is impossible for us. For if we ever reach a point of being able to understand God's decisions on that level, WE'D BECOME GOD. Thus, we cannot question anything pertaining to how God works or how God existed etc.. For if we ever come to understand the entirety of the answers that God will give us, we will become God. And that'll never happen. Why? Because we are finite beings. God is INFINITE. We can never understand Him FULLY. Our limited and finite brains cannot comprehend things that TRANSCENDS our realm of understanding.
God so chooses to reveal Himself and aspects of His character through His Word and Holy Spirit. So the Bible sums it up in Isaiah 55:8-9 "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.' declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." And we know we can still trust in God because it is stated in Jeremiah 29:11 " 'For I know the plans i have for you' declares the Lord 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.'
So to question God's actions is not the solution to the problem. Men still chose to disobey - the first act of sin. So God did not create evil.

Atheist: "Again, you're positing a God that exists in the gaps. .... While I may not know how a specific molecule came about, I can rest easy in the comfort that somebody is out there working on that same problem, and I'll be able to read scads of masters' theses on the topic by the end of the year. The problem with intelligent design is that it leaps about from one scientific mystery to the next under the auspices of 'irreducible complexity', but never sticks around long enough after enough natural causes have been proposed to invalidate supernatural authorship. " "God exists in the GAPS".

Me: My friend these so called "GAPS" are the very reason why science is even established. Science assumes that all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING. And with that BASIS, goes on to form "theories" such as "Big Bang", your favourite "Oscillating theory" etc...Science has ignored the basis of all these beginnings! And you call these GAPS! My gosh. If all these irreducible complexity can be explained, it'll give me 50% more reason to become an atheist. "enough natural causes have been proposed to invalidate supernatural authorship" All these natural causes that are proposed are also BASED on the ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE that "all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING". "Where? How does the absence of evidence prove a deity? See, this is another problem with intelligent design theory: the bold, inductive assertation that there is deistic creation leads only to something science doesn't understand yet, and ignores contrary data once it comes out. Again, you're in 'God of the gaps' territory here." "and ignores contrary data once it comes out" - has there been any contrary data? The Bible has never run contrary to any scientific theory and neither has the intelligent design theory.

Atheist: Once again, some bright astrophysicist will submit a peer-reviewed paper talking about the alternate reality or the extra dimension that that electron comes from, and you'll say, "But that alternate reality has to be CREATED!" So, science will march on, posting more papers, and God will continue fleeing from established scientific theory."

Me: Yes, science will march on - for infinity. Science will never reach a point where the question of existence and origin (of matter, time, space, etc.) can be explained. Why? Because it will take something far more complicated to create what already exists (e.g. matter). And the 'alternate reality' will get more complicated. And to explain the current alternate reality, it would take an even more complicated alternate reality to create the first alternate reality! And this will also result in an infinite number of alternate realities! So i don't think God needs to flee from scientific theory! For it is not even a threat! So give up waiting and hoping on science.

Atheist: "Science can neither prove or disprove God. It's a matter of faith: your lack of evidence and your proposal of God's intervention at every mysterious physical phenomena doesn't prove God any more than it proves Galactus. You're again using imprecise wording with your 'who' questions that presuppose a creator, and you misunderstand that the laws of physics only represent how things work in this universe AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM AT THE PRESENT TIME. Science allows for being turned on its ear and following down that new road to something that more accurately describes the universe. Religion does not." How does religion not describe the universe? Of course religion won't accurately describe the universe as accurately as a science textbook does. Because its focus is not to talk about science! It's focus is to tell us how to live our lives best in light of eternity. And your claim 'at the present time' - The time will never come when science explains everything. As i already explained earlier. "your lack of evidence and your proposal of God's intervention at every mysterious physical phenomena doesn't prove God any more than it proves Galactus."

Me: Once again, science can't prove all these mysterious phenomena at all! For science "assumes that all matter, time and space came into existence OUT OF NOTHING." Your conclusion is also apt "Science can neither prove or disprove God" Since science can't answer the question of existence and origin, what then is the answer?
So what's the next most REASONABLE CONCLUSION to DERIVE AT? There is a creator. If you still disagree that there is a creator, i really have nothing to say. It either shows that you're a closed-minded and stubborn atheist, you have failed to understand whatever i have explained, or some parts of what i have explained is flawed. I'm leaning toward the former 2 reasons IF you still disagree that a creator is the most SOUND, LOGICAL and REASONABLE conclusion for life. For science can't defend your atheistic stand as well. What then are you explaining your atheistic stand with since you also can't answer the question of existence and origin?
So yup. I've really learnt alot about science and other stuff from you. It has been great taking time off to discuss such issues with an intellectual guy such as you. :) May I know your name? I'm Jonavan. :D Look forward your reply(ies) :D