Update On “Discussion” with @ChallengeChurch
I recently engaged in a discussion with twitter user @ChallengeChurch, on this post which claimed “Science backs up Genesis 1”, among other considerable failings in rational thought. My feelings on this can be found here.
A further cringe inducing response was made by @ChallengeChurch, titled A response to “@gspellerchecker” (the irony) which is a rogues gallery of the usual fallacies put forward by the less informed theist.
I will address some of the “points” made. There is nothing new unfortunately, and each one falls into well established, rudimentary fallacy territory.
So if science sets out to disprove stuff, they have not YET disproved
the creation story
It is not the job of science to disprove every claim made. It is YOUR claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it. This is known as “The Burden Of Proof”. Please take time to educate yourself on how this means your claim lacks credibility.
For example, science is YET to disprove the existence of fairies. Does this lend credibility to their existence? This is precisely the strength of your flawed argument. For clarification, please see below:
I am still waiting to hear what actually caused the ‘big bang’ if it
wasn’t a greater being. What caused the collision?
We are all waiting. Except atheist are not among the group who have invented an imaginary friend to plug the gaps in our knowledge. See God Of The Gaps Fallacy. By your logic, if we don’t have a complete and full understanding of something, then God wins by default. This is intellectually lazy. Also, you have managed to dismantle your own argument, as you are unable to explain “what caused god”, leaving you right where you started, empty handed.
Exactly! If it is ‘non-random’ then something must being working hard? –
Strategic thinking, can non-random stuff happen by coincidence?
You clearly do not understand what is meant by Natural Selection. Non-random does not mean there must be a divine hand. This is a huge assumption, which only is not needed to explain complex life, but has no evidence at all.
if it all happened by
chance, how could coincidence put the life support machine
This again exposes your lack of education and level of understanding of Natural Selection. Chance is not the only alternative to a creator. Natural Selection provides an established understanding of complex life. Please learn what this means, before making these mistakes again.
The point of my statement
was the fact the world was created in the order of what science calls
evolution
Please learn what the word “fact” means. There is no supporting data for the assumption that the world was “created”, meaning it is a belief, not a fact.
As for the archaeological evidence for the Garden of Eden:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/eden.htm
http://ldolphin.org/eden/
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Archaeology/eden.htm
http://suite101.com/article/the-garden-of-eden-and-recent-excavations-a101150
I’m not sure where to begin with this nonsense. If there was credible scientific evidence for the existence of the garden of Eden, would that, in your opinion not be worthy of the nobel prize? I’m yet to see it receive one. This is not science, nor evidence. For something to be accepted as scientific fact, it has to be peer-reviewed. Can you point me to a peer-reviewed study on this subject? Good luck.
Maybe you can answer my oriniginal question: ‘Can chaos really come to
order if somebody doesn’t put it there?’
A quick glance through the hubble telescope will reveal a wealth of unordered chaos. To claim you can see a divine hand in this process is hubris of the highest order.
At the end of the day, truth is truth, and in even in the 21st century
it is widely accepted that if truth is told then no explination is needed.
Truth does not require an explanation? I think I may have finally put my finger on why you hold beliefs that do not conform to rationale, nor supported by evidence and come undone via the mildest of critical thinking.
Try harder
GS
@GSpellchecker
So are you saying, that it could all be true – fairies an all, if science can prove it?
I’m saying there is just as much evidence for fairies as there is for god, yet you don’t believe in fairies do you?
If there were evidence for fairies, this notion would not seem ridiculous to you. Yet, you don’t apply the same standard of logic to God. Just because something is a more popular belief, does not make it any more credible if it has the same amount of evidence, i.e none.
Your argument was that Science has not disproved the “creation story”. This statement was made with the implication that because something hasn’t been disproved, it is somehow credible. I have demonstrated this fallacy with my fairy analogy.
The faithfull can’t even prove they have the right god, let alone one exists. What sort of intelligent way of life is this?
It would be a more respectable (moderately) position if you simply conceded your beliefs hold no evidence, but it is what you choose to believe,
What is the evidence going to look like, for you, that proves / disproves God? Because I understand your what your saying, I just can’t see what you are looking for, that means you don’t see that what religion and science hold as two different names, are actually same thing. So please explain to me what the evidence will look like?
Firstly, you can’t disprove the absence of something. This is not how proof works. You cannot make such an extraordinary claim without evidence, then ask someone else to do the work for you.
The important question is what evidence do you have for the existence of god, if any? I’ll accept any credible evidence, regardless of it’s form. That’s what reasonable people do.
Ok, Here is another statement, I believe that athiests don’t actually know what evidence they are looking for to be convinced about God. Based on the fact that every athiest I have spoken too over the years (and not just out of statements I have made) not one of them have been able to give me a clear indication of what the evidence would look like that they need to convince them, This seems to be one of 2 reasons a) the evidence presented is true and convincing, but to admit this would mean to admit defeat (not in the athiest nature) or b) they really have no idea what they are looking for, so it is much easier to disregard all evidence as laughable, and keep asking for more because there is knowledge that not every question can be answered, and if you can’t answer a question, the argument must be flawed. When in reality, most religious people know that not every question can be answered this side of eternity.
And most reasonable people look at the argument from both side, and if they disregard evidence, they will replace it with something else completely different, not just something that is called the something else, but is actually the same thing i.e. calling red black just for the sake of it.
Firstly, this seems like an avoidance in presenting evidence for your claims. Atheist don’t need to dictate to you what evidence is needed. We will accept any credible evidence. Got some? This is YOUR claim, surely you already have some evidence worth presenting? We have established this with the burden of proof. What evidence which is “true and convincing” am I rejecting in order to avoid admitting defeat? This is still yet to be seen.
It’s not an agenda to dismiss god, it’s a position taken due to the lack of evidence. Present credible evidence and I will change my mind. This is the only reasonable position here.
Looking at the argument from both sides would be applicable if you had an argument. You are not providing any evidence for your claim. This is the reason hospitals are not practising voodoo to treat patients. Is this in your view a failure to see “the argument from both sides”, or simply an informed decision by medical practitioners based on evidence? Don’t forget, voodoo is a religion too, adhered to in parts of the world on as much evidence as your “faith”.
If you can’t provide even a minimal amount of evidence for such a huge claim, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
There are thousands of Gods you don’t believe in. Why is that? Atheist just go that one god further.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect athiests, not least because I also believe you have more faith the I do, It must take a lot of faith to believe the world came from vicious belch of the univerve. I don’t think i can have that much faith. It is just that it becomes frustrating and a little tiring as a Christian when you tell us everything we say is wrong, even when science is mirroring things like creation, The only problem is God himself, and I just don’t think any prove of God would satify.
Firstly, Medical world and Christian world are two different things. So to compare would be wrong. Yes?
To see evidence you need to believe you will evidence, if you don;t know what the ‘credible’ evidence is going to look like then how can you tell me I am wrong?
You have not exactly given anything apart from your disregard to what I said. You didn’t exactly tell me you could disprove my statement nor the what followed. All you have done is tell me black is not black because there was no evidence to support it.
And by the way, you can disprove something, it is commonly known as ‘I have proved it as something else’. Which you have yet to do against my statement or anything that followed.
And by the way, what was my orginal stement?
A cataclysmic cosmic event, which we have observable evidence for is unreasonable, yet a magic man in the sky is perfectly rational? I think we have exhausted the extent of our conversation. Either present evidence, or your claims will be dismissed. Look up the definition of evidence, If you can meet this criteria, it will be credible. Simple.
Do you think if you were born in Iraq, or ancient Greece you would be a Christian?
Your original statement was that genesis is supported by science, which is demonstrably false. You will not find genesis in any credible scientific text. Why is that? Is the majority of the scientific community blind to this “convincing truth” which you still haven’t presented? Are you smarter than an evolutionary biologist, or cosmologist? To say so would be incredible arrogance.
Do yourself a favour. Call it belief, not science. It would be more honest.
From the linked post by Challenge My Church: “The only thing you could argue is the timeline on which things happened. Genesis says 6 days, but historical facts tell us it happened over millions of years.” and “Then came the animals, well first attempt was the dinosaurs, possibly God didn’t like them, or thought that were too dangerous to be around a later creation.”
Firstly you are selling your God short here though it highlights the mindset necessary to understand your convictions. God is infinite thus not bound by the concept of time – God is the creator of time. Genesis was not written by God but by man.
Human religion also paints god as a ruthless emotionless killing machine, eg: non believers will not be saved, pity about children, lesser educated, those less fortunate than us westerners, other religions. Not to mention the dinosaurs, lets just wave the hand and nuke these creatures of free will into oblivion.
Secondly, if you want to challenge the concept of a creator to an atheist, it would be far more entertaining throwing around theories like Directed Panspermia and relating current human Synthetic biological advances in support of humans becoming Gods to lesser creatures than themselves. Prometheus appears to take this concept and apply it to creation or rather intervention into human evolution – though its not getting great reviews at the mo, maybe people are expecting a typical horror movie like Alien – who knows, haven’t seen it yet.
The point is, I think Ridley Scott has a better concept to human creationism than all of earths religions combined.
Was there any indication given that (s)he watched that video? Thank you for sharing that by the way, it is an impressive package summing up what an argument must be to qualify.
Pingback: More fun and games with Challenge My Church « @Gspellchecker's Blog
I seldom write comments, but i did a few searching and wound
up here Update On Discussion with @ChallengeChurch | @Gspellchecker’s Blog. And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you tend not to mind. Could it be only me or does it appear like a few of the responses come across like written by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting on other social sites, I’d like to keep up with anything new you have to post.
Would you list of all of your social pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?