Discussion between Atheist and David Stratton

5:01 AM

Actually, "Macroevolution" isn't a term made up by creationists... talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html It was also mentioned by none other than @Atheist in quoting an article on the peppered moths, yesterday. That's a side issue, however. And I am exteremely aware of everything you're saying about minor changes over a long period of time.

However, the dwawing at macalester.edu/~montgomery/GrayWolfExtra.html is just that - a drawing, made by someone who assumed that evolution is true. Someone who assumed that similarity proves common ancestry. Similarity can equally be caused by a common designer, pure and simple.

Yesterday, @Atheist asked me: Well, what would constitute "evidence based on anything other than faith"? I'll answer that fo rnow and then I, too, have to get to bed.

The original statement that started the conversation that I am defending is the statement that Naturalism != Science. I would accept any answer that does not eventually lead to the assumption that in order for something to be fact, it has to have a naturalistic (non-supernatural) origin. For example, an argument that two balls, each weighing a different weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. that can be answered via a simple demonstration.

An experiment. It's demonstrable, repeatable, testable, and verifiable without resorting to an unproven assumption.

The fact that the universe is the result of the Big Bang is based on very few pieces of solid evidence. 1. the universe exists. (I agree) 2. The universe is expanding (I agree) 3. At the end of our ability to observe the known universe, we are picking up cosmic background radiation. (I agree).

I fail to see how any of these observations prove that the universe began in a big bang X billion years ago. Every answer comes back to "It's either the Big Bang or else you have to resort to the Supernatural."

What you're saying is that, taking JUST the Big bang as my current target: We have a big difference in how we're looking at it. I'm saying "I agree that the evidence can be interpreted to support the Naturalistic Big bang view. I also can see that the evidence is not sufficient to make an absolute statement that it's true, therefore I'm willing to accept that it might not be the only answer."

Your argument, however, falls back to the same thing, time and time again. "You can't claim that elves, fairies, or some made-up-God created the universe. it's not possible because it's not scientific." So I ask, why is it not scientific? And your answer (paraphrased from all of the objections), because it delves into the supernatural.

So the key difference is that I'm willing to accept that there may be a Natural explanation. I don't happen to buy it because it has flaws... (Gas "clumping" to form stars is ridiculous.) I also accept that there may be a Supernatural Creator to the universe, and that all of the miraculous order to it suggests a designer, just as a painting suggests a painter, or a building a builder. there's too much order in the universe, in even the simplest form of DNA to have happened randomly.

While you're saying "No, we can't accept that there may be something supernatural. We refuse to believe that there could possibly be something outside of the realm of naturalistic (non-supernatural) experience". In other words, you're holding to the flawed view that if you don't know about something, it doesn't exist.

I just looked up and saw my typo on the word "drawing". I put "dwawing". Somehow I think typing like Elmer Fudd isn't going to help my case.. My train of thought is shot now.

At any rate, that refusal to accept that it's even possible (not for the sake of argument, but that it's really possible) for God to exist is the bias I'm talking about. You won't consider that God might exist because he doesn't fit the definition of "Natural".

If you really hold to Descarte's insane view of "I refuse to believe in anything that hasn't been proven to me", then you should be rejecting the idea of a God AND the idea of a Big Bang, and the entire theory of origins because it hasn't been proven to anyone.

Isn't that what you link to off your profile?

Well that's a differnt sory. I'm barking up the wrong tree then.

Stating that it's possible for God to exist, but I just don't believe it is a completely defensible viewpoint.

I agree with that statement.

I agree with that as well.

I would argue that we would know if he remained interested in his creation if he chose to make himself known.

Yes.. It's too small for me to tell what it is here...

Can I just go back and ask if you're willing to admit that he just hasn't made himself known to you in a way that you can experience?

I see your point, of course. "You can make up anything you want and claim it's true, but it doesn't make it true."

I know you're probably already sick of hearing this, but you sound very much like I did several years ago. You're not saying anything I didn't believe with every fiber of my being at one time.

I don't know if I could put my finger on one thing. There were so many things that eventually changed my mind.

We could set aside the entire "naturalism" debate because that's really a very small part of it. For me, the whole naturalism debate simply opened me up to the idea that there MIGHT be a "god". (And not necessarily the one of the Bible.)

Hang on.. .Thinking of some things.

Well, actually, let's start with another sore point that I know you've railed against on CSE...

(Maybe not railed) - the idea that the God of the Bible is immoral... I believed exactly, everything you said.

I'm having a hard time figuring out where to start, exactly... I haven't verbalized this before.

that's what I've never taken the time to verbalize before.. I'm not sure where to start. I have this tendency to ramble and not make sense if I rush.

Can I take this back up tomorrow? It's 12:47 AM here and I need to get up at 6;00 to get the kids going for school. I'll hang on to hear exactly what you do believe.

No, I'll wait to hear exactly what you believe. I can stay up a few minutes longer.

David Stratton

6:03 AM

Yep.

Thank you for sharing that. I will try to honor that by giving you the best answer I can to the question of what changed my mind. J

OK. Later. Again, thank you.

3 hours later…