I have been in...um...."discussion" with Andrew (aka Askegg) concerning evidence for the existence of God and the evidence of the Bible being true. Sure tempers have flare and disputes come in but I think it's useful because if your worldview can't stand up to scrutiny then you need another scrutiny. In one of my salvos I fired off a link to a lecture from Dr. Hugh Ross concerning how astrophysics points to the God of the Bible. As always my comments are in red. My original link can be found here.
I have been listening to a lecture given by a Dr. Hugh Ross, who (according to the profile on his web site).
“… became convinced that the Bible is truly the Word of God!”
For those who can stand it, here is a direct link to the MP3 recording.
The lecture itself is filled to the brim with amazing scientific facts, interesting insights, and flawed thinking. Much of the sermon (yes, I am comfortable calling it that) points to the intricate details of the universe and how if any one of the cosmological constants were different, then life would not be possible. Somehow (for reasons he does not go into in any depth) this eliminates all other contender Gods, leaving Yahweh standing true. I cannot comment on the reasoning of this, because none is presented. Neither does Dr. Ross offer the obvious alternative that none of the God stories are true. God’s are myths and fantasy.
Andrew, I take this as a jab against the Bible. Why? Ross really didn't bring up any story in the Bible that you reject aside from Genesis chapter 1. Ross' point is that the universe is too complex and intricate to be developed by itself over billions of years. So are arguing with the fine-tuning or that it makes sense that all of it came out of no where on it's own with everything lining up that we just happen to be the logical resort?
Of course, this is an argument from design. Essentially, Dr. Ross is arguing that the universe we see is so complex and fine-tuned that it simply must have been designed for human life. It seems it has not occurred to him that life on Earth has evolved to fit the conditions here, or that there is no possible way that life may have evolved differently – without human life at all. Indeed, it seems for much of the universes 14.7 billion year lifespan it has done fine without us.
How do you know that life on earth evolved? You assert this without any proof what so ever. We have nothing to do with keeping the universe together now. Ross was in no way arguing that the Universe needs us.
Positing a God to solve the apparent problem of design does not actually solve the issue. If God is at all complex, then (by exactly the same argument) he must have been created as well. This obviously leads to an infinite regress which solves nothing. Theists just wave their hands and say “Well, obviously God was always here” as if that actually proves something.
I was hoping for better from you! Who says God has to have a creator? The universe - space and time - all have a beginning, which all scientists today agree (name one who does not) . We have no evidence that God had a beginning. God is infinite. Deal with it.
Interestingly, the only logical escape from this argument (as far as I have been able to determine) is that God is the least complex thing imaginable. I would assert that something which does not exist is absolutely without any attributes which require explanation; therefore God does not exist.
You are making assumptions for which you have no evidence.
How can it be that the same argument which proves God also disproves him? Oh yes – the concept of God is bullshit.
'Cause they ain't the same argument. And watch your language.
Those well versed in debating theology will recognise Dr. Ross’s second error – he is referring to life as we know it. That says nothing about the potential infinite number of ways in which other forms of life may have evolved, or the bio-chemical systems on which it may depend. Indeed, even within the framework of the chemistryr for the known universe some have theorised silicon based life systems (to name only one).
In order for this argument to work, you would have prove such life exist.
Near the end of this torturous lecture Dr. Ross addresses a number of common rebuttals to the argument he put forward. Unsurprisingly he manages to completely misunderstand them and offers horrible analogous straw men to burn before his devoted audience. In order to do them justice (and to limit the size of my blog posts after the last round of lengthy and boring tirades) I will be addressing each of these in separate and subsequent posts.
I'd like to see just how much justice you do, Andrew, because so far not very impressive. I was expecting new arguments and I am disappointed. I'll look at the next posts to see if it improves.
