THEIST INITIAL EMAIL:

I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts.

Science good.
Bible good.

The Western mind explains much but understands little.

I don't believe that science and the biblical text contradict each other. If anything,
scientific theories are usually inherently flawed. That is why theories change and
scientific "laws" can become obsolete overtime. For example, for centuries, up until
1945, it was thought that the atom was the smallest known particle. Then the atom is split
and the atomic bomb is created Once man landed on the moon, and examined moon
rocks, the Cosmic Dust Theory was abandoned in favor of the Big Bang Theory.
Something to do with the age of the earth and moon probably being the same. What is a
law today, may not be tomorrow. Don't be afraid to change.

The nature of scientific evidence as it relates to creation of the universe and to the
evolution or development of man is such that it is completely impossible to draw any
hard and fast conclusions that are not going to leave us with unanswered questions. The
problem with scientists like Dawkins is that they want to draw finite conclusions from
what is probably an infinite source of data. On top of that, I would bet he doesn't know a
word of Hebrew or what the Biblical text actually says about creation of the universe or
the creation of man. Sadly, I suspect the good Father's abilities are limited in that area
also. But at least he doesn't totally throw the baby out with the bath water.

On more of a nonempirical note, it is my opinion that attempts by people,

scientists or non-scientists, to unequivocally deny the existence of a first cause, primary
source for the existence of the universe and life is due an aversion (subconscious perhaps)
to being held accountable for their actions. That is, something might be required of them.
That is the spiritual dimension of life. The natural and the spiritual coexist. They form a
unity. Whatever their reasons, I would think that agnosticism would be preferable to
atheism.

MY RESPONSE:
A few questions and comments of my own,

“If anything, scientific theories are usually inherently flawed.”

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that scientific theories are inherently

incomplete, rather than flawed? Continuing the atomic example, after the discovery of
subatomic particles atomic theory wasn’t abandoned, it was expanded, and it was further
expanded after the discovery of even smaller particles i.e. quarks. Obviously atomic
theory remains incomplete, but it doesn’t seem accurate to say that it is therefore
inherently flawed. Wouldn’t you agree?

Inherently flawed theories are abandoned. Although today this is very unlikely to
happen given the extreme difficulty of taking a hypothesis to the level of theory!
Anything flawed is unlikely to ever become a theory. (We should hope anyway, and we
have good reasons to believe this is true.)

“The problem with scientists like Dawkins is that they want to draw finite
conclusions from what is probably an infinite source of data.”

I think what actually happens is that scientists like Dawkins only want to draw
conclusions that are directly supported by data. Although an infinite source may in fact
exist, it is not known in its entirety, and therefore wouldn't it be a mistake to draw any
conclusion that is not directly supported by known data from the set? (I am of course
excluding those conclusions that are not purported to be true, in as much as anything that
is proven by science can be said to be true e.g. hypotheses and mere conjectures. While
these things are valid as tools, we acknowledge that what they intend to reveal is not
meant to be taken as "true"--yet.)

THEIST:
I think flawed is a good word. It can also mean fragment. That is, it used to mean
fragment. But it really hasn't been used in that way since around 1755, according to
Webster. (That was over 250 years ago! Hey, wasn't that slightly after the dawning of the
Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason?). That meaning of the word is now considered
obsolete. I don't know why they still list it as a meaning for flawed if its obsolete. I
guess it's like some people hanging onto the concept of God, just in case they might need
it someday. Anyway, I digress.

Yes, I agree that inherently incomplete (half-done, partial, fragmented) is also an

accurate description of most scientific theories. But I bet the scientist always thinks he's
nailed it.

No, I think some scientists and Dawkins in particular want to draw very specific
conclusions outside of the data. What was the point of the whole video? He "knows"
there is no need for a god, or gods for that matter. Ipso facto, there is no God. God is
superfluous (exceeding what is sufficient or necessary) they both say in the video. And
that is where he desires to take the argument. But No Need for God is different than No
God. That is outside the data, outside the provable hypothesis.
MY RESPONSE:
“I think flawed is a good word. It can also mean fragment. That is, it used to mean
fragment. But it really hasn't been used in that way since around 1755, according to
Webster. (That was over 250 years ago! Hey, wasn't that slightly after the dawning of
the Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason?). That meaning of the word is now
considered obsolete. I don't know why they still list it as a meaning for flawed if its
obsolete.”

Talk about ambiguous!

Unless you intended to use the word flawed as it was sometimes used hundreds of
years ago, I think it is an inaccurate description of scientific theory.

If you still disagree and insist on using flawed to describe scientific theories, can I
insist that you provide an example of an inherently flawed scientific theory, rather than
one that is only incomplete?

“But No Need for God is different than No God. That is outside the data, outside the
provable hypothesis.”

“There probably is no God.” is the default position, and it is also Dawkins position. It
is the correct response to the thus far unsubstantiated claim that God exist.

If someone claims that leprechauns exist, the default position for anyone not making
the claim is that leprechauns probably don’t exist.

Still, it is indeed impossible to prove the nonexistence of leprechauns. To claim to

have definitively proven the nonexistence of leprechauns would be to make a claim
outside the data, outside the provable hypothesis.

But their existence is highly improbable, and without evidence, the correct belief to
adopt is that leprechauns probably don’t exist. In my opinion the best way to live your
life is as if leprechauns don’t exist at all, lest you exhaust yourself chasing the end of
every rainbow!

Do you know of any evidence that God exist?

The claim that God is superfluous is in response to evidence that has historically been
offered in defense of the God hypothesis. In particular Dawkins and Father Coyne were
discussing the creator/designer God. Evidence that was once thought to support such a
God has been shown to be false. A designer is not necessary to explain the complexity in
our universe, and people that continue to assert that God is necessary in spite of the
existence of proven explanations that don’t require God, are adding a superfluous and
capricious layer of complexity to our explanations—occam’s razor anyone?

THEIST:
First of all, when you start comparing the existence or non-existence of God to the
existence or non-existence of leprechauns, it is a not so subtle way of belittling the person
who has taken the opposite default position. At least that's how it is usually perceived.
Now, if serious people, far more intelligent than you and definitely me, have devoted
their lives to trying to understand the universe, I think it is probably a serious
undertaking. We can both agree that leprechauns don't exist. And we don't need any
science to reach that conclusion. The same with the tooth fairy. But God is a problem.
Because the concept of God changes lives. People will die for it and people will kill for
it. It happens, happens all the time. It happens in a real material world. There's data on
it. It may be coming to a town near you. Do people kill for leprechauns or die for them?
Scientists should want to find out why, especially if it is a function of biology or
chemistry. Is it caused by something other than matter?

Why do you call it a default position if its just a position similarly based on no
concrete evidence? Is agnosticism a third default position? Dawkins has no evidence that
God doesn't exist, he is just making an a priori argument.

Science tries to figure out how things work. Some scientists then use that somehow as
leverage that there is no God. But up to this point in history, it is just so much
circumstantial evidence. A believer in the God of the Bible can come up with an equal
amount of circumstantial evidence and argue a priori the other way. Give me something
concrete, not a belief that there is no God.

Oh what, I can't use a word as it was used a couple of hundred years ago? I guess that
means you want to take away the Hebrew text as a source for my apologetics. Those
words were written over 4000 years ago and what they say would harmonize with any
currently popular, trendy, Neo-Darwinist inherently "incomplete" theory on the market
today. How did Moses do that? Can I use the science of archaeology which will support
the veracity of the biblical text infinitely more than any evidence of transformism that
Darwin's disciple's so boldly proclaim? Is incomplete a Darwinist synonym for faith?

Now we say that God is not superfluous because he is a simple unity and the source of
all things. He is not added on to matter but the source of all matter. The cosmos is
dependent upon His will. Creation is not an act in the past which continues
automatically. The process of Nature represents the unceasing functioning of the divine
creative power.

Two inherently flawed (probably will always be incomplete) theories are:

 1. Transformistic Theory
2. Spontaneous Creation

MY FINAL RESPONSE:
But God is a problem. Because the concept of God changes lives.

No one is arguing against the obvious—that what a person believes influences their
behavior and their lives. This is something most of us have known since we discovered
how to tell a lie. If my mommy believes my sister did it, she will punish her and not me.
Therefore I can influence my mother’s behavior by influencing what she believes.

We are discussing whether or not what is believed to be true is actually true, and more
importantly whether or not those who make the claim that God exist, can provide any
evidence.

Do you know of any evidence that God exist?

“Why do you call it a default position if its just a position similarly based on no concrete
evidence?”

Because that is what it is, the default position. The position everyone has prior to being
convinced—hopefully with evidence and reason—that a claim contrary to that position is
true. It is not a similar position based on no evidence; it is the default position opposite
the person who carries the burden of proof.

You must prove your assertion that God exist.

Anyone not making that claim should take the default position that God probably does
not exist i.e. they should be skeptical until convinced by reason and evidence. What if
people acted as though denying an unsubstantiated claim was equivalent to making an
opposite and equally unsubstantiated claim!? Ludicrous-

Your claim that to take the default position is to make an equal claim without evidence
appears to me to be a misunderstanding of the burden of proof.

That was the point of the leprechaun analogy, not to belittle you.

“Oh what, I can't use a word as it was used a couple of hundred years ago?”

Of course you can, I even enjoyed the tiny expose of the words history. But it is being
ambiguous to use a word in a context that clearly calls for its modern rendering, have me
say that it doesn’t work in that context, and then claim that not only does it work, but it is
also in agreement with what I said so long as I take its meaning from several hundred
years ago.
 Flawed in the context that it was original used by you clearly meant that scientific
theories are inherently susceptible to being invalidated due to error, and that isn’t true.

My challenge to you, because you insist that scientific theories are inherently flawed, is
to find an inherently flawed scientific theory, and that challenge still stands.

1. Transformistic Theory
2. Spontaneous Creation

These are not theories. (Also, why are you being obscure? (Transformistic!? In relation to
evolution or abiogenesis?) If most scientific theories are inherently flawed, as you claim
they are, why not just choose something most of us--who are not scientist--would be
familiar with?)

Some examples of scientific theories—

Theory of evolution-
Atomic theory-
Theory of electromagnetism-
Theory of relativity-

None of these theories is at risk of being invalidated due to error e.g. you're not going to
wake up tomorrow and discover that some other process besides natural selection is the
reason for the diversity of life on earth. Scientific theories are not inherently flawed.

“Give me something concrete, not a belief that there is no God.”

Atheism is the absence of belief. Your attempt to redefine the term to mean belief—just
of a different kind—is like trying to draw a square circle.

The burden of proof is on you.

“Can I use the science of archaeology which will support the veracity of the biblical text
...?“

If you are claiming that the science of archaeology will support the authenticity of the
supernatural claims in the bible, then by all means yes, use it now!

If however as I suspect, you only mean that archaeology has verified prosaic details, then
at the risk of offending the thin skin of the religious, may I say so what?

It would be more extraordinary if the bible had nothing to say of real people, real places
and real events. That is to say, it would be more amazing if archaeology could not verify
anything in the scriptures. The fact that it verifies the perfectly ordinary might even be
expected.
“Now we say that God is not superfluous because he is a simple unity and the source of
all things. He is not added on to matter but the source of all matter. The cosmos is
dependent upon His will. Creation is not an act in the past which continues
automatically. The process of Nature represents the unceasing functioning of the divine
creative power.”

I am going to assume that this is an example of the eastern (?) minds ability to understand
things it can’t explain. You did say in your first email that the western mind could
explain much but understand little. I’m unsure as to how someone can explain something
they don’t understand, but alas, this is only half as amazing as your allusion to the ability
of some to understand things they can’t explain!

Is this in fact a proof of what you said in your first email?

Or, can you explain what you have said here?

It is perfectly ok if you don't. I am more interested in returning to the problem of the lack
of evidence for the existence of God.

Should I expect that you’re going to provide evidence that God exist?

What are these words of Moses that you talked about? That sounded interesting.

THEIST LAST RESPONSE:

Why does your line of reasoning seem so skewed in your favor? You seem to be the only
one who can use reason and argue from one precept to another.

Yet on the other hand, you could, if you wanted, say the world was created by a big
bang, and then turn around and say that wasn't a supernatural event. Happens every day I
guess.

Atheism is the absence of belief yet you concur that what a person believes influences
their behavior. I didn't redefine the word atheism. Quoting Webster:

Atheism: 1a: a disbelief in the existence of diety b: the doctrine that there is no diety.
2: ungodliness, wickedness
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.

The Transformistic theory includes evolution. Evoultion means change. (At least I think
it did). It's not obscure.
Theory or hypothesis, neither one is proof positve of anything, yet always in your favor.
You can sit back and not prove anything.

"None of these theories is at risk of being invalidated due to error"

Good as a scientific law I guess. But why isn't it?

I'm not going to wake up tomorrow and find out evolution is verifiable either.

The default position is the position everyone has prior to to being convinced, unless that
postion is they are not sure.

You seem to be a master of specious reasoning and sophistry.

Or perhaps you're employing a wear'em out strategy?

I don't think Plato and Aristotle did it this way.

If you can't handle paradox, then you wouldn't enjoy the God of the Bible.

Here's some more Eastern wisdom for you:

He who knoweth and knoweth that he knoweth is a wise man-

Learn from him.

He who knoweth not, and knoweth that he knoweth not, is a student-

Teach him.

He who knoweth not and knoweth not that he knoweth not is a fool-
Avoid him.