Atheist question

[Fliegender]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

You’re being unkind. People with Alzheimer’s have problems with their memory...and their memories. You say one thing to them and they forget it right away yet may remember things from their distant past with clarity.

[RickD]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

You’re being unkind. People with Alzheimer’s have problems with their memory...and their memories. You say one thing to them and they forget it right away yet may remember things from their distant past with clarity.

Are you saying that Kenny has Alzheimer's?

[DBowling]

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

A lot of them are theists too... so that isn't really a relevant argument.

According to PEW research center, only 33% of the scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, believe in God. I wouldn’t really call that a lot.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science does not come close to representing all the scientists in history or even in the world today.
That said 33% of the members of the American Asociation for the Advancement of Science still represents a "lot" of scientists and a significant percentage of that particular association.

But to answer your question, scientists who choose to be atheists are (for whatever reason) going in with a set of presuppositions that exclude the possibility of God.
So when they are faced with the overwhelming evidence of design, complexity, and structure that is found everywhere in science, they have to resort to all kinds of rationalizations to avoid the clear and obvious conclusion that the existence of an intelligent design means that there is an intelligent designer out there somewhere.

Ahh the ole “Conspiracy theory” huh?

Ahh the ole "lets tear down a strawman" huh?
I never said anything about any 'conspiracy theory'.
If you feel compelled to just make stuff up, that says something about the strength of your argument.

Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else?

I've already explained that, but let's try again.
Because they have a preexisting supposition that God does not exist.

And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

They have...
And those evidences are discussed on a regular basis at this particular forum.

[Kenny]

Ken: Ahh the ole “Conspiracy theory” huh? Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else? And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

This is Ken's fall back

Do you have an answer to this “fall back”?

- yet one that has been addressed redundantly.

Unfortunately “Dbowling” is not the first to come here with the absurd notion that scientific evidence leads to God. The other posters saw their arguments reduced to rubble, as will he.

And he knows that many scientists around the world believe BECAUSE of the scientific evidences.

I know this??? You are now claiming I am aware many scientists believe in the Christian God due to scientific evidence? You jokin’ right? Phil’s got jokes now because he can't be serious.

And that has been documented and explained relentlessly to him. Especially in THIS thread (viewtopic.php?f=33&t=41432)

The link you posted does not make your case. Though I didn’t go through all 20 or so pages, I didn’t see anywhere that scientific evidence pertaining to God was even mentioned in that link

where he spews one nonsensical answer after another! There is absolutely nothing new he can say or that we can say to him that's not been covered redundantly with him.

More like there is nothing new on this subject that has not already been dispelled by me. However, I would invite him to try for himself; perhaps he has something new that hasn’t been refuted already

[Kenny]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

I have learned a lot here. But just because I may learn from you, doesn't mean I will agree with you.

[Kenny]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

You’re being unkind. People with Alzheimer’s have problems with their memory...and their memories. You say one thing to them and they forget it right away yet may remember things from their distant past with clarity.

So we resort to personal attacks now? I noticed nobody cared to answer my questions; must be easier attacking me personally than to attack my arguments. (like I haven't seen that before)

[Kenny]

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

A lot of them are theists too... so that isn't really a relevant argument.

According to PEW research center, only 33% of the scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, believe in God. I wouldn’t really call that a lot.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science does not come close to representing all the scientists in history or even in the world today.

I’m speaking of modern scientists; not those from 1000 years ago. Do you have anything that shows the percentage of scientists TODAY that are theists?

That said 33% of the members of the American Asociation for the Advancement of Science still represents a "lot" of scientists and a significant percentage of that particular association.

33% is a good number, but it is nowhere near a majority. And that 33% does not represent Christianity; if I remember correctly I believe the majority of scientists who are theists are Islamic scientists. (don’t quote me on that; it isn’t something I can back up, I just remember reading it somewhere)

But to answer your question, scientists who choose to be atheists are (for whatever reason) going in with a set of presuppositions that exclude the possibility of God.
So when they are faced with the overwhelming evidence of design, complexity, and structure that is found everywhere in science, they have to resort to all kinds of rationalizations to avoid the clear and obvious conclusion that the existence of an intelligent design means that there is an intelligent designer out there somewhere.

Ahh the ole “Conspiracy theory” huh?

Ahh the ole "lets tear down a strawman" huh?
I never said anything about any 'conspiracy theory'.
If you feel compelled to just make stuff up, that says something about the strength of your argument.

My bad; it just sounded like a conspiracy theory to me; perhaps I misunderstood you.

Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else?

I've already explained that, but let's try again.
Because they have a preexisting supposition that God does not exist.

That’s what I’m asking! Why would scientists have a preexisting supposition that God doesn’t exist?

And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

They have...
And those evidences are discussed on a regular basis at this particular forum.

Are you saying there are established scientific theories pointing to the existence of God? This is new to me; can you provide the name of some of these theories?
P.S. I appreciate your response to my arguments rather than personal attacks.

[abelcainsbrother]

No offense, but when dealing with atheists such as Kenny it is futile to try to point them to evidence for God because they don't take evidence seriously like they claim.They choose to live out their life as an atheist like they are not accountable to a God(Faith) and have no evidence muchless proof they are correct.It is better to try to get them to realize the importance of evidence in determining the truth,instead of wasting time trying to point them to evidence they don't take seriously.I used to try to give them evidence too but I learned to use evidence strategically,that is to have evidence ready to show everybody else that you do have evidence for your faith in God and to point out it is they who have no evidence they are correct to live as an atheist.Point it out as you provide evidence and you'll see the atheist reject it and explain it all away,while they are not providing any evidence atheism is true,and they are just rejecting and explaining away the evidence you provide.You point it out as you're posting evidence,point it out and then point out they are providing none and are just rejecting and explaining away the evidence you provide.Then challenge them to provide evidence atheism is true.So that you show everybody else watching that you do have evidence for your faith and you'll win any debate by showing you are the only one who provided evidence,while they claimed atheists do not need any evidence,and they provided none and just rejected and explained away the evidence you provided. You won't convince them with evidence but you will everybody else who values evidence for truth.

The dirty little secret is the New Atheist movement was built on trolling Christians for evidence while they have atheist talking points ready to deny,reject and explain away any evidence you provide,while they sit there with no evidence for their atheism.It is a trolling game.

[Storyteller]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.

Maybe he is asking the same questions because no one has answered them yet in a way that resonates with him?
At least he's asking

[abelcainsbrother]

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

That is a good question, have you asked them?

Yeah; he said there is no scientific evidence for a creator God; thus refuting pretty much everything our friend said.

I suggest you ask the scientist why he rejects the Big Bang Theory and instead believes scientific hypothesis's that are not theories in science.Because one thing I've noticed about atheist scientists is they reject a real scientific theory The Big Bang and instead bring up scientific hypothesis's propping them up next to the Big Bang as if they are equivalent in science,when they are not.So the atheist scientists might be the majority but they are rejecting science in order to do it.They are focused on Multi Verses and Quantum Mechanics,etc that are not scientific theories like the Big Bang Theory. Atheists accept the Theory of Evolution pointing out theories are considered truth in science,yet reject the Big Bang Theory.They believe Biologists but reject Physicists.

[abelcainsbrother]

By the way I'm skeptical of modern day science because I'm learning that almost everything we have been taught is true has been lies and propaganda.Not only do the rich elite control the Governments of the world but they control science also,who gets grants,etc.However if you're going to believe the science of today then you should not be rejecting scientific theories for scientific hypothesis's. But once you tell one lie you have to tell more to keep the truth covered up.Our parents taught us this and it is something that applies to us today.

[DBowling]

Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else?

I've already explained that, but let's try again.
Because they have a preexisting supposition that God does not exist.

That’s what I’m asking! Why would scientists have a preexisting supposition that God doesn’t exist?

Because that presupposition is inherent to their world view...

Many scientists approach their disciplines with the presupposition that the totality of the functioning of the natural world can be adequately explained through repeatable, observable, natural processes.
By definition, the criteria of repeatable, observable, natural processes excludes 'supernatural' processes.
So the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God) despite what the evidence shows.

So when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

They have...
And those evidences are discussed on a regular basis at this particular forum.

Are you saying there are established scientific theories pointing to the existence of God?

I'm saying those scientists have provided many scientific evidences pointing to the existence of God.
Many of those evidences are discussed at the parent site of this forum
http://www.godandscience.org/

[Kenny]

Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else?

I've already explained that, but let's try again.
Because they have a preexisting supposition that God does not exist.

That’s what I’m asking! Why would scientists have a preexisting supposition that God doesn’t exist?

Because that presupposition is inherent to their world view...

Many scientists approach their disciplines with the presupposition that the totality of the functioning of the natural world can be adequately explained through repeatable, observable, natural processes.

Of course! That is pretty much the definition of natural science! Natural Science is the study of the natural world using empirical evidence from observation and experimentation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

By definition, the criteria of repeatable, observable, natural processes excludes 'supernatural' processes.

Yes! That’s because once you get away from the repeatable, observable, natural processes, and start getting into the supernatural, it is no longer natural science but something else.

So the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God) despite what the evidence shows.

Again; the study of the Supernatural cannot be a part of natural science; hence the name.

So when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

Again; anything that cannot be explained using empirical evidence is not natural science.
Now you might have noticed I have been using the term “Natural Science” rather than just science. Natural science consists of Biology, Chemistry, and physics. There are other disciplines like Sociology, economics, even Math; that are also put under the category of science, but these are not the type of sciences I think we are talking about here. If I am misunderstanding you; if you are referring to another science other than Biology, Chemistry, and physics, let me know so we can avoid talking past each other; otherwise I will assume we are on the same page concerning the type of sciences we are discussing here.

And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

They have...
And those evidences are discussed on a regular basis at this particular forum.

Are you saying there are established scientific theories pointing to the existence of God?

I'm saying those scientists have provided many scientific evidences pointing to the existence of God.
Many of those evidences are discussed at the parent site of this forum
http://www.godandscience.org/

Those are an awful lot of links! Can you be a little more specific?

[DBowling]

So the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God) despite what the evidence shows.

Again; the study of the Supernatural cannot be a part of natural science; hence the name.

So do we agree that...
"the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God)"?

So when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

Again; anything that cannot be explained using empirical evidence is not natural science.

Agreed... but the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.
Thus the many evidences found in the 'natural sciences' that point to 'supernatural' (and intelligent) causes (ie God).

Now you might have noticed I have been using the term “Natural Science” rather than just science. Natural science consists of Biology, Chemistry, and physics. There are other disciplines like Sociology, economics, even Math; that are also put under the category of science, but these are not the type of sciences I think we are talking about here. If I am misunderstanding you; if you are referring to another science other than Biology, Chemistry, and physics, let me know so we can avoid talking past each other; otherwise I will assume we are on the same page concerning the type of sciences we are discussing here.

oh...I have a hunch you understand exactly what I'm asserting

I am definitely referring to the many evidences that the 'natural sciences' (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) provide us regarding the existence of an Intelligent Creator.

I'm saying those scientists have provided many scientific evidences pointing to the existence of God.
Many of those evidences are discussed at the parent site of this forum
http://www.godandscience.org/

Those are an awful lot of links! Can you be a little more specific?

Browse... Enjoy!
Maybe the mods can provide some more specifics...

[Kenny]

So the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God) despite what the evidence shows.

Again; the study of the Supernatural cannot be a part of natural science; hence the name.

So do we agree that...
"the world view of many scientists and their fundamental approach to the scientific disciplines does not allow them to acknowledge the 'supernatural' (or God)"?

I am not going to claim to know what somebodies world view is, I’m just pointing out that their field of study limits them to the natural world; not the “supernatural” world. Natural science = natural world. Perhaps what you are looking for is something like supernatural science. (even though there is no such a thing)
IOW Regardless of their world view, Natural Science does not allow them to go outside the natural world. When they do that it is no longer science but something else.

So when faced with issues like the existence of matter in a finite universe, the basis for the laws of nature, the origin of life, the complex design of DNA in life today, etc... that cannot be explained by unguided natural processes, their preexisting world view does not allow them to acknowledge that the existence of intelligent design in the natural world is evidence of a 'supernatural' Intelligent Designer.

Again; anything that cannot be explained using empirical evidence is not natural science.

Agreed... but the natural sciences can (and do) exhibit a number of observable characteristics in nature that cannot be explained by unguided natural repeatable processes alone.

Such as…..?

Thus the many evidences found in the 'natural sciences' that point to 'supernatural' (and intelligent) causes (ie God).

When has this ever happened?

Now you might have noticed I have been using the term “Natural Science” rather than just science. Natural science consists of Biology, Chemistry, and physics. There are other disciplines like Sociology, economics, even Math; that are also put under the category of science, but these are not the type of sciences I think we are talking about here. If I am misunderstanding you; if you are referring to another science other than Biology, Chemistry, and physics, let me know so we can avoid talking past each other; otherwise I will assume we are on the same page concerning the type of sciences we are discussing here.

oh...I have a hunch you understand exactly what I'm asserting

I am definitely referring to the many evidences that the 'natural sciences' (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) provide us regarding the existence of an Intelligent Creator.

When has this ever happened?

I'm saying those scientists have provided many scientific evidences pointing to the existence of God.
Many of those evidences are discussed at the parent site of this forum
http://www.godandscience.org/

Those are an awful lot of links! Can you be a little more specific?

Browse... Enjoy!
Maybe the mods can provide some more specifics...

No; it doesn’t work that way. If you can’t make your point using your own words; your argument fails, and will be dismissed; deservingly so.