Happened upon this quote on an atheist Twitter feed.
All I’ve got to say is:
Me too, Isaac!
Let the evidence speak!
The wild and ridiculous claim that
this universe exists without a Creator
needs to be accompanied by some
observation and
measurements and
confirmation by independent observers.
Bring it on!
I’ll believe anything!
UPDATE:
Wasn’t looking for this.
Probably God wanted me to see it.
Evidence that He’s real!
The woman in the video is asking the same question I did.
“How can I be a reasonable atheist?”
The atheist response: “…just take my word for it…”
Excellent foundation for a building a worldview.
36 Responses
I love you, John. You rock. You go, guy. I am a neonatal nurse and I can say that the MIRACLE of life is proof that we have a Creator.
Babies…proof of a Creator. Anybody want to argue with that?
Yup. My wife is a neonatologist, and the horrible conditions and syndromes and diseases that children end up with is not proof of a creator. At least not proof of a benevolent one.
Whew! I thought we’d lost you, NotAScientist. Glad you’re sticking around!
You’re not allowed to use words like ‘horrible’ or ‘benevolent’ while maintaining an atheistic worldview. Nature is neutral.
Nature is neutral. I am not. And I’m not beholden to what you think an ‘atheistic worldview’ is.
I think an atheistic worldview is belief that nature is the only reality. There is no supernatural. No God. Is that incorrect?
Those are certainly positions a person who is an atheist could hold within their worldview, yes.
None of those things have anything to do with your earlier claims, however.
For the record, my worldview is theistic. I think there is a supernatural mind that created the natural universe. That is the sum essence of my earlier claims. You need to actually state what you believe. You are beholden to those definitions. So what IS your worldview?
I don’t know if my worldview has a name. It includes agnostic atheism, skepticism, many progressive and liberal views, a love of science and freedom and understanding humanity based on the evidence.
You still seem reluctant to plant your flag in a specific spot. Skepticism, love of science, progressiveness, liberalism and freedom are not excluded by theism. You haven’t specifically stated that you don’t believe in God which kind of surprises me because I thought that was a cornerstone of your philosophy.
“Skepticism, love of science, progressiveness, liberalism and freedom are not excluded by theism.”
And none of them require theism.
I said I was agnostic atheist, and included that in my worldview explanation.
I don’t know what ‘agnostic atheist’ means. Do you believe that there is a god or not?
I don’t.
‘Agnostic atheist’ is a very specific term used in an attempt to be as clear as possible, and to show that there is a difference between having a belief and claiming knowledge.
Okay. Thank you.
I’d like to return to your previous statement, “Nature is neutral. I am not.” Are you separate from nature?
In what way?
I can take actions that are not natural, or against nature…suicide, for a particularly morbid example.
Nature is ‘neutral’ means that events that occur within it are neither ‘good’ not ‘bad’. Science can describe what nature does. It doesn’t have opinions about the morality of nature’s activity.
I submit that it is impossible to take actions that are ‘against nature’. Nature has well defined rules that have, thus far, proven to be unbreakable. Everything that takes place in nature is automatically a natural occurrence. You would be hard pressed to give a single example of any physical event that can be described, scientifically, as ‘unnatural’. (This is NOT saying that things can’t be ‘unusual’ or ‘unexpected’.)
While I agree with you that suicide is morbid, we can’t make that claim without appealing to something higher than nature. What gives you the authority to say suicide is ‘morbid’ or birth defects are ‘horrible’?
“Nature is ‘neutral’ means that events that occur within it are neither ‘good’ not ‘bad’.”
According to nature. That is correct.
According to humans, we can call things good or bad as it pertains to our wellbeing.
“we can’t make that claim without appealing to something higher than nature.”
No. We can’t make that claim without appealing to something other than nature. And we are that other, thanks to our evolved sentience.
I think I can agree with you that human sentience separates us from the rest of nature. I will claim that sentience is a ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ in mankind. Our sense of right and wrong could come from that spirit. Though I have no proof of that. In the same way, there isn’t any proof that our sentience evolved.
You are suggesting that our sentience is something higher than nature. I’m saying I agree with you but I’m a creationist. My worldview allows (rather it requires) an intelligence that transcends nature. Agnostic atheism isn’t afforded that luxury. It is inconsistent to claim that nature is the only reality while simultaneously claiming that human morality (or sentience) is ‘above’ nature. That’s impossible. In atheism, we’re just evolved sludge. What we call ‘intelligence’ is a meaningless illusion. We’re no better than apes, slugs or an Ebola virus.
I’m suggesting that you’re on the right track. There is something special about you (and me, but let’s talk about you). You’re a unique individual with thoughts, dreams and hopes. My worldview says you’re more valuable than you currently believe. Your passions seem real and important because they are. It matters that you were born. You have cosmic, eternal significance. You’re not an accident.
Deep down inside, where science can’t probe, this seems true, doesn’t it? Do you feel like an accident?
” In the same way, there isn’t any proof that our sentience evolved.”
There’s plenty of evidence. I wouldn’t call any of it ‘proof’, but the evidence certainly looks that way.
“It is inconsistent to claim that nature is the only reality while simultaneously claiming that human morality (or sentience) is ‘above’ nature. ”
I didn’t claim it was ‘above’ nature. It is separate and in many ways unique in nature.
“We’re no better than apes, slugs or an Ebola virus.”
According to whom? You’re looking for someone’s opinion of ‘better’ other than your own. There is no other person whose opinion you need to defer to.
We’re demonstrably more intelligent than the other apes, and have many demonstrable advantages over slugs and viruses.
“this seems true, doesn’t it? Do you feel like an accident?”
No, it doesn’t seem true to me. And even if it did, what ‘seems’ true has no impact on whether or not something is ‘actually’ true.
An accident? No. A result of both random and non-random events over the course of millions and billions of years? Yup.
This is from my worldview:
“All the elements in your body were forged many, many millions of years ago in the heart of a far away star that exploded and died. That explosion scattered those elements across the desolations of deep space. After so, so many millions of years these elements came together to form new stars and new planets. And on and on it went. The elements came together and burst apart forming shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Until, eventually, they came together to make you. You are unique in the universe. There is only one [you] and there will never be another. ” – Neil Cross
Beautiful.
Full circle now. There isn’t any evidence for these claims. It’s pure speculation. Forgive me, a religious statement.
Shoes, ships, sealing wax, cabbages and kings, we’re all the result of the same process. Yet somehow, Mr. Cross is still compelled to (unscientifically) proclaim that you’re unique. He goes on to make another claim for which there is no evidence: “there will never be another”. The consistent response from an atheist (agnostic or otherwise) is, “So what?” Firstly, there is no evidence that an exact duplicate of you won’t exist in the future. In fact, there may be another ‘you’ on the other side of the Universe right now. Secondly, you’re going to die and the molecules will break apart and form something else and on and on it goes. Your uniqueness is utterly meaningless.
Many published works of atheists arrive at this conclusion. It’s not just ‘creationist mumbo-jumbo’. Every honest atheist admits that the best we humans can hope for is despair.
The New Testament speaks about ‘counting the cost’ of Christianity. Believing in Jesus has consequences. Before you become a disciple, you need to consider the consequences. How is this belief going to affect me? What does it cost?
Every belief (worldview) comes at a cost. Many atheists don’t count the cost before jumping on the unbelief bandwagon. You’re arguing against your own position when you assert that you’re not an accident but rather “…random and non-random events over the course of millions and billions of years”. What’s the difference between a random event and an accident? And while we’re at it, what is a ‘non-random’ event?
“There isn’t any evidence for these claims.”
If you’re referring to the quote, you’re wrong. We have a great deal of evidence. Sit down and have a conversation with some astrophysicists some time.
“Mr. Cross is still compelled to (unscientifically) proclaim that you’re unique.”
How is that unscientific? We’re made of the same things, but your genetic code is unique to you as an individual. And no one will ever have exactly the same experiences you have. Making you…unique.
““there will never be another”. The consistent response from an atheist (agnostic or otherwise) is, “So what?” ”
No. The consistent response is “I better make it worthwhile to myself and the others I interact with”.
“Your uniqueness is utterly meaningless.”
Meaningless to whom? Not to me. I don’t care if it has meaning to anyone else.
“Every honest atheist admits that the best we humans can hope for is despair.”
No. Some atheists think that. I think they’re short sighted and sad.
“What’s the difference between a random event and an accident?”
One has a negative connotation in our language, and the other doesn’t.
“And while we’re at it, what is a ‘non-random’ event?”
Egg and sperm combine. That isn’t random. For one example.
Haven’t “sat down” with any astrophysicists. I have read a few articles though. The notion that you and I are the result of random events over billions of years is speculative. There are astrophysicists who have concluded that sentient life in the universe cannot exist without a supernatural catalyst. This too is speculative. Either position requires a leap of faith.
Apparently, in your view, human value is determined by the individual. Here’s a revelation. You aren’t really an atheist! You do believe in god. It’s you. You determine what’s good and bad. Your intellect defines all reality. You give meaning and purpose to your own existence!
“You give meaning and purpose to your own existence!”
To my own, yeah. Not to anyone else.
And no, I don’t believe I am a god. I just don’t believe any gods exist at all, and that we should get along with living our lives on reality’s terms.
The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss both touch on this topic. Are either of those the kind if evidence you will consider?
These are hypothesis and certainly worthy of consideration and discussion. They aren’t the sort of evidence that Mr. Asimov was asking about as they cannot be observed, measured and confirmed by independent observers. That’s my only point here. Any hypothesis about the origins of the universe (and more specifically, intelligent life) is based on faith, not science.
So you are claiming that none of the work done by these scientists can be observed or measured?
I am claiming no such thing.
Dear, Notascientist.
Because you felt compelled to engage. That is why you need to present evidence.
Why do atheists feel the need to disprove something they insist is not there?
This question is rhetorical, sir. I am not interested in your answer.
“you’ve already been presented with piles of evidence and it just makes you laugh”
Nope. I’ve been given a handful of bad arguments that have been called evidence. Don’t think I’ve ever seen any good evidence at all, let alone piles.
“My post is asking you who believe the universe exists without a creator to present compelling evidence for that belief.”
Why? There’s no good reason to assume the universe has a creator, so what reason do I need to present evidence that it doesn’t exist?
Ah, a handful of bad arguments. Silly creationists!! I get it. YOU get to decide what constitutes evidence.
If a translucent, blue orb appeared in your yard, would there be any reason to assume there’s an explanation for how it got there?
If a universe appears from nothing and you’re going to claim ‘there’s no good reason to assume it has a creator’ then how do you assume it got here?
(Please re-read Isaac Asimov’s quote.)
If a universe appears from nothing, then there’s nothing there to create it.
Nope. That’s not where we’re going to go in this discussion. My guess is that you’ve already been presented with piles of evidence and it just makes you laugh. Silly creationists!
My post is asking you who believe the universe exists without a creator to present compelling evidence for that belief.
“I’ll believe anything!”
Clearly. For example, you’ll believe that the universe has a creator without any supporting evidence.
The above post is a plea to folks (like yourself?) who believe a creator is unnecessary to explain that position when the evidence for a creator is overwhelming. Your comment doesn’t respond to the post. If you have a response, please share it. Just calling my position naive isn’t very compelling.
“when the evidence for a creator is overwhelming. ”
This is a claim. I’d love to see some evidence for it.