Answering Askegg via Twitter part 11

Andrew again responded to my blog so I will respond in kind. My response is in red.

No matter how things are.

// July 20th, 2009 // Blog

In Marcus’s latest reply he fails utterly. Again.

In no way does Ross say that God could not choose different constants! God chose the constants we have so that the universe would be as we find it! That is Ross’ argument. Try another straw-man argument.

This argument is pointless and silly because it simply cannot be proven false. You see, it does not matter which cosmological constants God apparently selected (although I have already shown that these values are our way of describing the universe, which simply just exist independently our mathematics) – Marcus and Dr. Ross simply claim that God selected those values with no evidence that this is actually the case. What’s more, it doesn’t even show which potential God out of the thousands throughout history choose these values.

Even if God did choose different values, exactly the same argument Dr. Ross is proposing would hold true. Even if we devised another mathematical framework which only required 3 constants the argument would hold. If we demonstrate that the values could not have been any other way due to some deeper understanding of the universe obtained through observation and experimentation – the argument would hold. You see, the argument holds in every case, which means it is valuable in none.

Care to try again, Marcus?

Andrew, trying to poke holes without offering anything viable in return are we? The fine-tuning argument is not based on 3 constants but hundreds. I can name six without even looking them up:

1. The Radius of the Earth
2. The distance of the earth from the sun

3. The distance of the earth from all the other large bodies
4, The size of the proton
5. The size of the electron
6. The charge of a proton.

If any of these were different, life as we know it would not be possible. Not to mention all the other numbers and quantities involved. How is that we have this? Exactly the right everything to exist and not just exist but to be able to observe the universe and see just how special it is? It has to be designed. There is no other rational explanation. Either that or your twitter portrait really is explains more than you intended.

Andrew, no where does the Bible teach a earth-centric universe. No where! Yes the catholic church in Galileo’s time taught that and persecuted scientist who opposed it. So what? That is not what the Bible says. The church acted contrary to God. No surprise there – they were people just like you and me.

How about these for a start?

“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” – 1 Chronicles 16:30

“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” – 1 Samuel 2:8

“Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” – Job 9:6

“The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it.” – Psalm 75:3

Seems like the authors believed the Earth did not move. Seems reasonable as our senses do not give that impression, but it’s still totally wrong. Even if you disagree with the stable, motionless Earth interpretation these verses indicate, you must admit it is possible to interpret them in this way. When a verse can be interpreted to mean both a fixed and in motion, then it too is worthless.

Writing these passages off as poetry, allegory, or symbolic in way way vindicates your view. For centuries the official position of the world’s religions (and that of science) was a fixed, immovable, flat Earth. To say otherwise put you in mortal peril from the bishops, priests, and Kings in power. Only after careful investigation, observation, experimentation, record keeping, and deep thought did the evidence for alternate views become so overwhelming that the truth could not be suppressed any longer. The Catholic Church (the first organised Christian sect) officially recognised a heliocentric solar system 350 years after Galileo figured it out. How’s that for divine guidance?

The verses you cited are not talking about the earth being fixed. If you want to interpret it that way, fine. But who is it talking in those verses? Not God but people. The Bible is recording what people said in those circumstances not what God says about the nature of the earth. God can inspire poetry and metaphor to prove a point. The relative motion of the earth to the sun had nothing to do with those verses. Another point is that the same man who said the words you cited in Job 9:6 also said Job 26:7 which says:

⁷ He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Sounds like Job knew that the earth really did not sit on pillars.

It’s exactly the Christian theistic argument that God created the universe to achieve a purpose(s). It’s not unknowable. It is being revealed to us. The Bible does give insight.

So you have no idea what the purpose is, if any. You simply have faith that your God has created a universe in which we are an inexplicably small part. One which, to spite its immense size, would kill us instantly if we were to materialise in some random place. One which has another galaxy hurtling on a collision course with our own. One in which our sun will explode in a massive supernova, killing all life forever. One which is expanding and cooling leading unalterably to heat death where life as we know it will be impossible – anywhere. And somehow this is designed for us? You need you head read.

I said the Bible tells us what the purpose of creation is.

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15-20

The other thing is that according to Revelation Jesus will return before the universe ends in heat death or before andromeda collides with our MilkyWay. But you are making my point for me concerning Romans 8:22-25.

²²We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Sunday Quote: Nelson Glueck on Archaeology - Apologetics 315

Here is another great quote from the Apologetics 315 blog. It concerns the Bible and Archaeology. I love this quote. Thanks, Brian author of Apologetics 315! Great Quote!

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

- Nelson Glueck

Sunday Quote: Nelson Glueck on Archaeology - Apologetics 315

Answering Askegg via Twitter part 9

Here is Askegg's response with my comments (in red)

Get a grip on reality.

// July 19th, 2009 // Blog

Marcus McElhaney simply won’t give up, I guess because he assumes he’s right. He’s not.

In his latest rebuttal Marcus makes a number of statements displaying his ignorance and stupidity for the world to see. The first is a response to my explanation that the cosmological constants are a representation or reality, and that reality would simply be the way it is without any man made “laws” for it to follow:

I think that you are confusing “law” with “theory” A scientific law is based on models that not just describe realiity but predict reality! Things like the Gravitational Law and the Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics are really things I’d like to see you prove need changing. Now if you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, I agree with you. The theory will change when people wise up.

No Marcus – it is you who is confused, and given your statements about being “well educated in science” at the prestigious Berkeley University. Apparently you “2 degrees in Engineering and 1 degree in information technology.” I am stunned. What are they teaching you there?!

A scientific theory, as you should know, encompasses and explain multiple, observable, and verifiable facts. A scientific law does not include a model or explanation – it is simply an observation. Objects fall at a rate of 9.8 metres per second squared. This is the Law of Gravity. An Observation. It makes no mention of how gravity works (that would be a theory), or where it came from.

Laws of Physics are not simply observations. Look at Newtons 2nd Law of motion: Force is change of momentum over time or

OR what about Gauss' Law. It has a mathematical equation describing real life. We do have Newtons Law of gravitation (this is the law of gravity not that objects fall at 9.8 meters/second squared; this is an observation this number is relative to location and only good relatively close to the earth's surface):





These equations can be used to fairly accurately calculate all kinds of things. Like how the celestial bodies orbit one another and interact. If a sucker is spherically shaped I can do just about anything with it. By the way, I didn't define any of my variables in the above equations because anyone with even the rudimentary knowledge of Physics knows what they are. Do you even know how to use the above equations to show that acceleration close to the earth is about 9.i8 m/s^2. Surely you know what assumptions you can make and why, Andrew?

If you are going to malign my credentials you should provide your own, What have you got?

As for evolution, it is both a fact and a theory. We know life has changed over time – you just need to look at the fossil record to see that. How it has changed and why is explained by evolutionary theory, which is beyond the scope of this post. I recommend you pick up a copy of “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne and “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins (when it’s released), or many of the excellent web sites detailing the evidence (not the apologists who cling to their comforting delusions).

Well at least this time you provided a couple of books. However many scientists disagree for good reasons just like there are many who agree. Not all scholars who disagree with macro evolution are theists. They just don't see that there is enough evidence to accept macro evolution.

OK, let’s move on

No other religion, with the exceptions of Islam and Judaism say that the universe was created ex nihilo. They discount themselves.

Firstly, we have not yet shown that the universe was created ex nihilo – you are simply assuming that for the benefit of your theology. Secondly (assuming your statement is true for a moment), you have not satisfactory explained why Islam and Judaism have been ruled out. And lastly, you have not shown why the alternative option of an eternal universe is not possible (aside from saying “all scientists believe it started somewhere, so it must be true.”).

I never said that Islam or Judaism is ruled out when it come to discussing God creating the universe. I provided the evidence for how science shows the universe came out of nothing. Your post is supposed to be a rebuttal against the very man who is making such an assertion and you provide nothing as a rebuttal. Pathetic. Simply pathetic. Dr Hugh Ross covered the evidence for ex nihilo creation of the universe. Rebutt it if you can.

Let me give you a tip – when scientists say “the universe began with a big bang” is shorthand for “to the limits of our current ability, it seems the universe was once very small and condensed. We simply do not know what the universe was like beyond a certain limit except by extrapolating the mathematics towards the absolute values of zero and infinity.” It’s really not that hard to understand.

Who says I misunderstand. And that's a fine definition. It doesn't bother me at all. But that is what scientists are saying about the math pointing to the universe being out of nothing

When you look a the attributes of the universe, the creator must be omnipotent and omniscient in order to make it all work!

Why is it absolutely necessary for a creative force to be all powerful and all knowing? Surely being just powerful enough to create the universe and knowledgeable enough to design it would suffice? (although not so knowledgeable that he could predict the results of granting us “free will”). As complex as the universe is, I do not believe the very next step up must be the ultimate expression of power and complexity, so it seems you have some work ahead of you.

Can anyone propose a level of power and knowledge greater than what it takes to create the reality we experience? Such a creator would have to be all that. Again, you keep bringing up "free will" why? I've never said we had free will. If you truly had free will you could choose to obey everything in the Bible without failure. No one can so there is no free will.

And God care about all of his creation. (sic)

Simple question then – where did Hell come from if it were not from God? Remember, according to you bronze age mythology, there was nothing before God was bored on Monday morning.

Um the first day of the week is not Monday. God created Hell. I never said He did not. The question you need to ask is why people and demons are going to hell...they are going to hell because they do not want to be with God. They don't want to love or submit to him. God is just giving you what you want...and what you deserve. If you don't want to go to hell then repent and submit. It's really simple.

Christians do not believe that God cares only about humans and not the other parts of creation.

I know what you believe, I am asking why you believe it.

I believe it becasue the Bible says so and the way God has intervened in my personal life. He has shown me that He loves me and cares.

God demands worship not because of vanity but because He deserves it. No less. If you wrote a song or invented a car would you not deserve credit? God is responsible for our very existence, why would you not worship Him. To do otherwise is stupid.

I won’t torture you forever if you don’t like my song, or won’t drive my car. He deserves to be worshipped for threatening people in such ways? Your God is a monster. Thank goodness he does not exist.

It isn't a threat its a promise. When cancer cells attempt to kill a person, we kill those cells because they threaten healthy cells by their inability to do what they are supposed to do in the body. When a person is infected with a contagious disease, we quarantine them so that they don't infect others. That is what hell is like. We are the monsters not God. HE condescended so He could save us all though He knew some people would spit back in His Face.

You haven’t suggested an position equally tenable. You failed to do so. I only agree with you on one thing. The best Ross can argue is that there is a God who created everything.

Then you have not even listened to the lecture you sent me yourself. Numerous times Dr. Hugh Ross says these things prove the God of the Bible above all others. Now you are down playing the very people you send me who claim to have undeniable evidence of Yahweh.

Then why don't you believe Dr. Ross? I'm not down playing anything but explaining that God is ultimately know through personal relationship with Him. I agree with Ross there is plenty evidence for God's existence.

To get the God of the Bible you need revelation to know more of His character – what He is about. This what the Bible says:

Revelation is not something that can be reproduced, or verified. Only the person why has received revelation could claim divine intervention, and even then they cannot be sure they were not hallucinating, mistaken, or just plain crazy. When these apparent revelations are told to another person, they have no way of knowing if they are being lied to, or if the person genuinely believes what they are saying – and even if they do believe it it does not make it true. Many people swear black and blue they have seen Elvis, or UFO’s, or Michael Jackson in a tree stump, or the Virgin Mary in a pile of bird shit. Doesn’t make any of it true.

Revelation can be verified. Does it square with evidence. None of the Bible can be shown to be wrong or false. If it could be you would have done it by now. Appealing to hallucinations, and folk tales does not change the fact that you can't provide a single proof that none of the stories of the Bible are false only that you can't believe them.

Answering Askegg via Twitter part 7

Although, Andrew said that he will not responding to me again apparently he really likes me. My comments are in red. Here is part 6 from him.

Marcus misses the point (again)

// July 19th, 2009 // Blog

Well, Marcus has posted a “rebuttal” to my refutation of Dr. Ross’s horrible argument for the existence of the God of the Bible. I will try and keep comments in context, which is difficult at times due to the nature of these multi-threaded conversations. Let’s see what he has to say:

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?

Actually I was not singling out the God of the Bible for special treatment here, but all Gods and deities that have ever existed through out human history. They are all bogus.

Second, just because some musty old book begins with “In the beginning” means nothing. We are not even sure there was a beginning to the universe. The 14.7 billion years since the big bang may not be the true age of the universe. We have no idea what the universe was like before the Planck length and may never know. To say a supernatural being spoke it into existence is a statement of pure faith.

Are you willing to say that the prevailing scientific understanding is that the universe is eternal? If you are, what are your sources?

As for the remainder of your points regarding the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe, I address these later. Perhaps you should actually read the entire article before shooting your mouth off?

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.

How do I know life on Earth evolved? Because of the massive amount of evidence there is to support it.

Who was saying the universe needs us? I was pointing out that for the overwhelming majority of time since the big bang (14.7 billion year) that universe did just perfectly fine without humans being present at all. When some religious nut job decides to bring about Armageddon with the technology science has delivered us, the universe will go back to existing just fine without us. Thanks for proving my point.

You misunderstood. I did to. We agree that the universe does not need us. You seemed to miss my whole point. God does have a purpose more than just our existence. I think that if there is someone who causes a nuclear war or a plague through bioengineering it will not be someone who is a Bible believing Christian.

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.

The argument from design makes the assumption that complexity requires a designer. If God is in the least bit complex then (by exactly the same argument) God must also be designed. The “fact” something had a beginning, or is infinite, is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant at all. If you could prove that the universe is eternal, then you prove that the Bible is wrong. You win and I will surrender. You won't prove it because the universe is not eternal.

If you simply assert that “God does not require creation” without providing some logical reason why, then I can simply assert that “the universe does not require creation”. Where does that get us? Now we seem to have two hypothesis of apparent equal value. How should we determine them apart? How can we decide which one is true, and which is not?

You can't assert that the universe does not require a creation because it does. It is not eternal. It has a beginning and an ending. If something has an end it has a beginning. Even reknowned atheists such as Christopher Hitchens agree that the universe is going to end according to the evidence. The means it's not eternal. Simple logic. God however has no ending or beginning. Do we have emprical and observable scientific proof of God's eternalness? None that I've seen. Do we have evidence that God is eternal? Yes. The fact that time exist at all shows that who ever made it is not bound by it.

I can already hear your rebuttal (pathetic as it is) – the universe had a beginning, therefore must have been created. Let me put aside the fact that no one knows the origins of the universe for now (least of all some ignorant, illiterate, desert dwelling, goat herders). It’s entirely possible the universe originated from an even greater multidimensional universe. Perhaps our reality is the echo or shadow of some greater physical reality? Perhaps the big bang is just a “local” event in an even more massive universe? There are a great many possible explanations one could put forward without ever invoking the supernatural.

All your conjecture does not change the fact that the universe is finite. Your ideas have no proof and I have heard all of these ideas before now. How do the author's of the Bible know the origins of the Universe? God told them. It's so simple.

The reason you have no evidence of God having a beginning is simple – you have no evidence of God at all. Oh, and simply stating “God is infinite” does not make it so.

In order for this argument to work, you would have prove such life exist. (referring to silicon based life)

For someone claiming to be a logical I am flabbergasted by this comment. Just what do you go around doing all day (besides posting junk on the internet?). Who the Hell employs you to be an Engineer or scientist, or whatever it the you do? Do they know what sort of pseudo scientific and illogical nonsense you spew? ‘Cause I’ll tell you now – if you worked for me I would fire you on the spot. Not because your a Christian. Not because your religious, or spiritual. Not because of your beliefs. But because you have demonstrated a complete lack in critical thinking skills, rational thinking, and reasoned conclusions. I would fire you because you could not be trusted to make realistic decisions based on the information in front of you.

Setting aside the unfounded personal attacks, it's hilarious that you make all these unkind and uneeded personal attacks and provide no evidence of other forms of life. I'm not saying that one day we won't find any such life all I pointed out is using the supposed existence of lifeforms that are not carbon-based to disprove God's is sily if you can't prove such life exists.

No one can claim complete and total knowledge (excluding your fantasy concept of God). You do not know for certain that Leprechauns do not exist, or that Martians are not controlling your brain waves from a secret base on the moon. It is not up to others to look under every four leaf clover and chase every rainbow to disprove Leprechauns, or forensically examine every square millimetre of Mars and the Moon to disprove your fantastic ideas. That’s not a productive use of time and anyone with a background in science (as you have claimed you have) would know this.

I'm not arguing or even care if Martians or Leprechauns exists. It's not the point. You said you wanted evidence that the Bible is true and I have provided it and you have not interacted with it. The point is you can't prove God does not exist or that the Bible is wrong. If it comes to either agreeing with you fantasies of macro evolution, and non-carbonbased life, I will follow the evidence that we do have and trust God.

As you yourself have said “any claim worth anything must stand on its own” (or words to that effect). Then you turn around and say something like this. You’re mentally ill. Seriously. Get some help.

Say something like what? I don't see a point being made.

Responding To Attempted Rebuttal to Hugh Ross (Part 3)

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.

Refuting Dr. Ross (part 3) – Useless Stars

// July 17th, 2009 // 0 comments // Blog

Dr. Hugh Ross cites Stephen Hawking’s book “A brief history of time” as the source for the first refutation of his argument from design:

It’s incorrect to refer to Stephen Hawking as an atheist. He’s not. He’s a deist. He concedes that you need a God to get the beauty, and the elegance, and the mathematics. But he insists that it’s not the God of the Bible. Why? Because he says “the God of the Bible was a God that does not waste miracles and therefore God would not create one hundred billion trillion useless stars. He would simply make one star, one planet, the moon, oh yeah you need the four gas giants, you need some asteroids and comets, ah but the rest of it’s useless.” he claims.

Dr. Ross’s “refutation” (I kid you not) is that:

“… Stephen Hawking himself proves (in his own research) that it takes that many stars to make one planet possible given the laws of physics in the universe. You can’t have an Earth unless the universe has a mass equivalent of one hundred billion trillion stars. If the mass of the universe were different by one part in quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion. So those stars are not useless. They are all critical, an necessary in order to make possible the existence of one planet on which life could exist.”

Naturally, Dr. Ross completely ignores his knob twiddling God for his refutation to stand. He assumes the cosmological constants cannot be changed, not even by an omniscient, omnipotent being who can create the splendour of the universe ex nihilo, and breath life into a pile of dust, and fashion a women from a rib. Why is Dr. Ross’s God limited in this way?

In no way does Ross say that God could not choose different constants! God chose the constants we have so that the universe would be as we find it! That is Ross' argument. Try another straw-man argument.

Surely it would be trivial for his deity to twiddle up new values which supported a universe consisting of one planet, and one star. Hell, we could even have the star spin round the planet just as the Biblical authors assumed – a position which was vehemently defended by the church for centuries.

It’s interesting to note that only after centuries under the crushing weight of evidence and scientific advancement did the Catholic Church finally and officially concede that Galileo was right – on the 31 October 1992, some 350 years after he died.

So it seems Stephen Hawking’s assertion that “God does not waste miracles” still stands, unless Dr. Ross cares to admit that the universe must have been this way to achieve some higher, ultimately unknowable, purpose. I sure would like him to provide evidence for that!

Andrew, no where does the Bible teach a earth-centric universe. No where! Yes the catholic church in Galileo's time taught that and persecuted scientist who opposed it. So what? That is not what the Bible says. The church acted contrary to God. No surprise there - they were people just like you and me. It's exactly the Christian theistic argument that God created the universe to achieve a purpose(s). It's not unknowable. It is being revealed to us. The Bible does give insight.

¹⁸I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. ²⁰For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹that^i]">[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

²²We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25

You need better arguments, Andrew!

What Hollywood Believes - Lisa Whelchel

Lis Whelchel said:

"The Lord takes us seriously when we call upon Him, even in Desperation. He began to answer me every time...and he would give me an idea."

I have found the same thing in my own life.