Apologetics for the Masses #262

Topic

Dialoguing with an Atheist...fun, fun, and more fun...

General Comments

Hey folks,

In case you are not already aware of it, Aleteia.org is posting one or more articles from me on their site each week. You can see all of them here: http://www.aleteia.org/en/author/john-martignoni. If you read one of the articles, and you like it, would you do me a huge favor and click on the Facebook and Twitter links at the top of the article and take a minute to "share" that article - especially on Facebook. By doing so, you'll actually be helping folks to find out about the Bible Christian Society and hopefully come to the site and make use of the resources there. One of my latest articles: "Confessions of a TransProtestant" can be found at this link: http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/confessions-of-a-transprotestant-5221752808407040. I think you'll really like it...or really hate it.

Introduction

Okay, I've recently shared with you my dialogue with an atheist named Jules - Issues #256-258. Jules had sort of disappeared, but he popped back up a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, he had gone back to the rude and crude ways that he started our dialogue off with. He started posting things on the Bible Christian Society Facebook page about God being a "stupid god" and other such insults, and some of his friends got in on the "fun". Anyway, I responded to him and I am sharing the essence of that exchange with you below. I start off with my last response to him - that can be found in Issue #258 - and then give you his response to that and how the conversation went from there, with some of my comments thrown in from time-to-time.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John Martignoni (from Issue #258)

It seems to me there is a lot of “faith” involved in your belief about how the universe came into existence. I thought atheists didn’t buy into the whole faith thing? You said that you “believe” that in the “millions of trillions of galaxies” (and I think you meant to say “universes” here), “one of the “random assortments is bound to have an arrangement which supports life.” That is not a very scientific statement, is it? It is a statement of faith.

First of all, there is no proof, absolutely none, for the existence of “millions of trillions” of universes, or the multiverse, as it is commonly called. The multiverse is purely hypothetical. So to believe it exists requires something that atheists claim not to have...faith. In fact, to believe in a multiverse requires more faith than to believe in God, because there is at least evidence that God exists. But, even if the multiverse exists, then you still have the same problem of where all these universes ultimately came from? You haven’t answered the question, you’ve merely pushed it back one step.

Also, it seems rather coincidental that this multiverse hypothesis has appeared at about the same time that science was showing that the odds of life developing purely by blind random chance are astronomically small. So small, in fact, as to be statistically insignificant. In other words, all but impossible. So, when the possibility of life developing randomly in the universe is shown statistically to be all but impossible, all of a sudden folks start saying, “But, if there were billions and billions of universes, then the statistical chances of life developing in at least one of those universes increases greatly.” I don’t know, it just seems kind of “convenient” to me. And, the problem is, even with billions and billions of universes, the statistical probability of life developing purely by chance, is still really, really low.

And, speaking of statistics, you stated that the monkeys on the typewriters “would actually write the complete works of Shakespeare.” Do you have scientific evidence to back that up? I don’t believe you do, which means, once again, you are displaying a great deal of faith for an atheist. In fact, the monkeys would never write a single work of Shakespeare. Statistics bear this out (I highly recommend the science of statistics - it is fascinating).

I won’t get too much into the statistics, but I want to just give you a taste of them. A monkey typing letters at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a one in 676 (26 × 26) chance of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, it has only a one in 26 to the 20th power = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 chance of getting the first 20 letters right. The text of Hamlet has around 130,000 letters. The probabilities of it being produced randomly are so remote as to be essentially impossible.

You can do the math if you want, but even if every atom in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the theoretical end of the universe, you would still need to multiply that amount of time by 10 to the 360,000th power, to have just a 1 in 10 to the 500th power chance of success. In other words, trillions of gazillions of bazillions of monkeys, typing randomly for trillions of gazillions of bazillions of years, could not produce even one work of Shakespeare. Yet, life, particularly the very specific sequences of the letters of our genetic coding - infinitely more complex than a Shakespeare play - came into being by blind random chance within just a few billion years? Sorry, but it takes way more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God.

Now, as to purpose. You believe you have purpose in life because you want to be a lawyer. But, if there is no God, then your entire existence is purely accidental. Your being alive is merely the result of blind random chance. Can something that is the result of blind random chance be said to have purpose? Any kind of purpose? You might “think” you have purpose, but that is merely a random electrical impulse firing through your brain. A monkey wants to eat. So, he has a desire of getting a banana off the tree. Does that mean his life has purpose? Does your desire to be a lawyer mean your life has purpose? No, it doesn’t. Your desire to be a lawyer has no more purpose than a monkey wanting to get a banana (nothing personal intended).

Without God, all is chance. All is random. All is purposeless and meaningless. Just random chemical and biological reactions to environmental stimuli which are themselves merely random chemical and biological processes. We are biological robots without God, nothing more. Oh, we can fool ourselves into thinking we have purpose, but the atheist who is honest and consistent in his thought processes, has to admit that thinking there is purpose to a life that is randomly generated by blind purposeless chance, is believing in an illusion. Without God, your life has no more meaning then that of a worm's.

On the other hand, if God exists, then you were created for a reason. You are loved beyond comprehension by your Creator and His love for you gives your life purpose, meaning, and value.
What I am trying to do with all of this, is to show you that a lot of what you think and believe is: 1) based on blind faith, and 2) makes no sense whatsoever if there is no God. Christians are often accused of having blind faith (which isn’t true), but pretty much every atheist I’ve ever come across bases their entire belief system on a foundation of blind faith. The universe coming into existence from nothing. Blind faith. The completely random development of life. Blind faith. Life coming from non-life. Blind faith. And so much more. Also, most atheists claim to be moral people. But, if there is no God, then there is no such thing as good and evil, no such thing as morality. A lion killing a gazelle isn’t evil, is it? Then neither is Hitler killing Jews. How could one human animal killing another human animal be evil? We’re all just animals, and there is no morality in the animal world. Yet, most atheists believe in good and evil. They are inconsistent in that, just as they are inconsistent in their claim that they base what they believe on science, when actually a lot of their beliefs are nothing more than a pseudo-scientific faith.

Jules

Science is why I am able to comprehend those facts. Not "blind faith". A lion kills a gazelle because he needs to eat; Hitler killed for another reason. An incomprehensibly irrational one.

John Martignoni

You did not respond to my argument. Atheistic Darwinism, which is what you believe in, says that humans are simply a higher form of animal. In the animal kingdom, do you agree that there is no such thing as good and evil, moral and immoral? In the animal kingdom, there is simply the law of nature - survival of the fittest, right? Germany passed laws that said Jews were non-persons; that they were “sub-human.” So, by the law of society, what the Nazis did to the Jews was completely legal. Nature’s law says survival of the fittest. Hitler perceived the Jews to be unfit. So, he believed they should not survive. What the Nazis did to the Jews was, thereby, perfectly in keeping with nature’s law. So, tell me, why was what Hitler did to the Jews wrong? By what moral code was it wrong? Nature’s? Yours? Why would Hitler care about your moral code? Hitler’s moral code said it was okay. Germany's moral code said it was okay. So, can you give me an objective moral standard that Hitler violated? If you were to say to Hitler that he was wrong to kill so many people, then by your own beliefs, Jules, Hitler could simply say, "Who are you to impose your morality on me? Who are you to tell me what is good and evil?" And you would have nothing to come back with because by your beliefs there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or evil, there are simply the rules that any given individual decides to follow according to their natural instincts. Your truth is not my truth. Your morality is not my morality. What if I believe that all atheists are inferior human beings and need to be eliminated from this planet? Would that be an immoral belief? If so, why? Is a lion killing another lion over a territorial dispute immoral? If not, then why would one man killing another man over a territorial dispute between their yards be immoral? Or, killing another man over a monetary dispute, or a philosophical dispute - why would that be immoral? Without God, there is no such thing as good and evil.

A lion does indeed kill a gazelle because it needs to eat. And that isn't evil is it? In the animal world, there is no morality involved in killing. The argument is that if we are nothing but animals, as you believe, then there is no morality when one human being kills another human being. It is neither good nor evil. Without God, there is no morality. So, let's try this again: Was what Hitler did to the Jews evil? Yes or no? And, if it was, why was it evil?

Comments

Science is the atheists' god. And the fact of the matter is, they don't, for the most part, understand much of the science that they worship - as I'll show here with Jules in just a moment. And, just like many of the Protestants I deal with in these newsletters, atheists have a very hard time actually responding to an argument with a direct and coherent answer, so keep that in mind when you are talking to them. Jules says science is why he is able to comprehend those "facts." What "facts" is he referring to? That the universe randomly came into being from nothing. That life randomly came into being from non-life. Facts? Really?! Well, it just so happens that there is no scientific proof, or even a shred of scientific evidence, that the universe randomly came into being from nothing, or that life randomly came into being from non-life. Yet, he believes these things because of "science." Actually, he believes these things because of what people have told him, not because of science. So, when you believe something even though there is not a shred of evidence to corroborate your belief, but you believe it anyway based on what someone has told you - well, that's blind faith. Atheism is based, at its most fundamental level, on blind faith. Here is the entire atheistic argument for the universe randomly coming into being from nothing: The universe exists; we know that there is no God who could have created the universe; therefore, the universe randomly came into being from nothing. That's it! That's their "logic". The same with life coming from non-life: We know life exists; we know that there is no God who could have created life; therefore life randomly came into existence from non-life. Is there a single observation of matter coming into being from nothing? No! Is there a single experiment that shows matter can come into existence from nothing? No! Is there a single mathematical formula that shows matter can come into existence from nothing? No! And ask all those same questions about life coming into existence from non-life and the answer is the same each time...no! An atheist does not believe these things because of science, he believes them based on blind faith. That is why I quite often say that the average atheist has more faith than the average deist.

Jules
Yes [what Hitler did to the Jews was evil]. Because as humans we have a moral compass. I have a sense of what’s right and wrong without god! Because of ideas such as "do to others as you would be done by." Humans can be moral without religion! You can’t simply claim morality as a possession of god!! I'm sorry but that argument his doesn't stand up! So all atheists have no moral values then? That's what you're saying.

John Martignoni

No, that does not mean I am saying atheists are, by definition, immoral. Atheists can indeed be moral. What I am saying is that they have no objective basis for anything that they might call moral or immoral; good or evil. Without God, there is no such thing as objective good or evil. There is no such thing as objective morality. Each person simply defines for himself what is moral or immoral; what is good or evil. For example, your morality says homosexuality is good. My morality says it is evil. Are we both right? If not, who gets to impose their morality on the other? The strongest gets to impose their morality, don't they? Which is exactly what Hitler did. Hitler's morality said that killing subhumans was okay. The Jews were legally defined as subhuman. So, killing Jews was perfectly moral in Nazi Germany. By the way, I found it quite ironic that you stated: “I have a sense of what’s right and wrong without god! Because of ideas such as ‘do to others as you would be done by.’" You do know that the “idea” of “do to others as you would be done by” comes from the Bible, right? Your “sense” of right and wrong has been “borrowed” from Christianity. You do realize that, don’t you?

Comments

There is a crucial point made here that you need to bring up to atheists, and bring it up to them often, and that is: Their sense of "morality" has in large part been borrowed from Christianity. Why is it wrong to kill? Why is it wrong to steal? Why is it wrong to lie? Why is it wrong to cheat on your husband or your wife? Is there anything in nature that says these things are wrong? No, there's not. So, where does their overall idea of good and evil come from? Does the idea of good and evil come from nature? Does the idea of right and wrong come from nature? No, it doesn't. It comes from theists...from folks who believe in God. True, atheists reject bits and pieces of orthodox theist (Judeo/Christian) morality - just as Protestants (and Cafeteria Catholics) reject bits and pieces of Catholic theology - but the fact is that they have borrowed a lot of what they call morality from theists. I mean, look at the example he uses to show that he can be atheist and have morality - "Because of such ideas as 'do unto others as you would be done by.'" How ironic. I don't think he even knew that he was quoting Scripture.

Jules

Your arguments are illogical and I'm sorry but there is absolutely not one shred of evidence to suggest that god exists! If you do have any evidence, you may suggest it to me and indeed the rest of the world, because it is quite a big debate! I'm sure that you would receive a lot of praise for providing evidence! (You actually can't, because there isn't any.) And no, science, logic, and the rational are what make me think what I think, not "blind faith." Do you accept the fact of evolution? You're still just a clattered mong. Stupid god.

John Martignoni

Let's say you're walking in the woods, and you come across a soda can. Did that soda can just come into existence by complete chance, or did it have a creator? Is the fact that that soda can exists a sign that the soda can had a creator...yes or no? And, you keep walking and see a barn through the trees. Did that barn come into existence by complete chance, or did it have a creator? Is the fact that that barn exists a sign that the barn had a creator...yes or no? Now, between the soda can, the barn, and the trees that surround you in the woods, which is the more complex in structure? The trees are. Yet, you see a tree, and you know that tree is more complex than either a barn or a soda can, and you believe it had no creator...no designer. Really?! The more complex item is something that you believe came into being completely by chance!? The existence of complex objects tends to suggest evidence for a maker of those objects. Why couldn't a soda can have come into existence by random chance working through natural processes over billions of years? So, there is evidence for God, you just refuse to see it.

Jules
That's not evidence! That's wild conjecture!!! Those are man made objects.

John Martignoni

Actually, it is evidence. Again, you simply refuse to see it. I'm not saying it's "proof," but it is evidence. So, tell me, how did the universe come to be? Matter just popped into existence out of nothing, right? And that has been verified by science? I think not. Science depends on what is known as the scientific method. Observation and/or results that can be repeated in the laboratory. Has anyone ever seen matter just - "POOF" - pop into existence? Has anyone ever created matter out of nothing? No, and no. Yet, you believe it happened that way. And, out of your ignorance and arrogance, you say people who believe in God have blind faith. You are the one who has blind faith.

Jules

Well I'm sorry but so far you seem to think you are smarter than the thousands of agreeing evolutionary biologists who agree on the fact of evolution. Now, unless you can provide me with actual scientific evidence, and not some strangely misguided conceptions about evolution, that goes against evolution, I suggest you take this matter up with Richard Dawkins and the international scientific community. But you cant, because you believe in something that has as much proof for its existence as the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

John Martignoni

Well, regarding evolution - I have never said whether I do or do not believe in evolution. My belief for or against evolution has nothing to do with my religion. God can use evolutionary processes if he so chooses. Regarding Richard Dawkins, you apparently are unaware that there are a number of atheist scientists who believe he is a complete idiot, don't you?

Comments

Do you see what he's doing here? He's doing the doctrinal dance, atheist style. Instead of jumping from Purgatory to Mary to the Pope to Confession and so on, he's jumping from an argument about morality - which he cannot respond to in a consistent way - to one on evolution, and in just a moment to the Big Bang Theory. Ordinarily I would not answer anything else until he responded to these arguments about Hitler and morality, but being relatively new to dialoguing with atheists, I want to see how his mind works and where he is going to go with this. Although, I did refuse to answer his questions a little bit later on.

What else does he do here? He simply declares evidence for God as being non-evidence. I've come across a number of Protestants who do the same thing when presented with evidence for some Catholic teaching, they simply ignore it or dismiss out of hand, but they do not respond to the argument with a counter-argument. A lot - a whole lot - of similarity between the few atheist apologists I've dealt with so far and the Protestant apologists I've dealt with. The four "Blue Collar Apologetics" strategies I teach folks to use in dealing with Protestants, can most definitely be used in dealing with atheists as well. Finally, he keeps calling me a "clattered mong" - does anyone know what that is?

Jules

Sorry, stop ignoring my argument, and plus, you demand perfect proof for evolution and the Big Bang. If you want, you can go read the actual paper that was published about the Big Bang and verify all the calculations yourself. Support the "creation" of humans, as opposed to their evolution, with fact. Please do. Go ahead. Any scientific fact. I don't care whether any atheist scientists believe he's an idiot. I am asking you to provide me with proof that god created humans.

John Martignoni

The Big Bang is not the creation event. I thought you knew science? You are obviously completely and totally unaware that the Big Bang is the brainchild of a Catholic priest! A Catholic priest who believed God created the universe... C'mon, fess up, you didn't know any of that, did you?

Comments

This is what I was talking about earlier when I said that a lot of times atheists have no clue about the science they worship. I am talking about the creation of matter, and he thinks to disprove what I'm saying by pointing to the Big Bang Theory. First of all, the Big Bang Theory is still, and always will be, a theory. It has not been proven, and there are a number of physicists who don't buy into the theory. Secondly, he has no clue that the Big Bang Theory says absolutely nothing about how matter came into existence. The Big Bang refers to the expansion of matter (and time and space) after it was created. He wants me to read the "actual paper" about the Big Bang and "verify all the calculations," yet he has never done so. He can't. He even admits in a moment that he is not a physicist, and cannot tell me anything about the theory, or even about the man who came up with it. Yet, he believes in it with a religious faith...a blind religious faith.

Jules

I am speechless. What on earth are you on about? I am going to ignore the nonsense in what you have just said. And I am yet again going to ask you: Can you offer any evidence that god created humans? Because I can offer evidence to back up my "blind faith" in evolution.

John Martignoni

I'm not going to respond to your demands, until you first tell me how the universe came into existence. Give me the scientific evidence that all matter just popped magically into existence from nothing. And give me the name of the scientist who has repeated that in the lab?

Jules

If you're concerned about the scientific fact of evolution, you might as well be concerned about gravity or the laws of momentum. You are the most unintelligent, arrogant, nasty, ignorant, half witted piece of idiocy that I have ever encountered, and I hope that one day you stumble upon and read a biology textbook that provides you with fact and not some nonsense about mutilation of foreskins or homophobia or genocide or misogyny. Goodbye.

John Martignoni

This has nothing to do with evolution...this has to do with creation. Are you not aware that evolution relies on matter already having been created? Furthermore, answer my question about the Big Bang...you were completely unaware that it is not the creation event, aren't you? And, that the Big Bang is the theory of a Catholic priest?!

Jules

Oh my lord. I am not a physicist. Therefore, I am not able to tell you about the complex theory of the Big Bang. Lawrence Krauss could. Did you really need me to say that?

John Martignoni

Regarding the creation of the universe. I wish to correct an error that you seem to be operating under. You seem to believe that the Big Bang Theory was the creation event for the universe. It was not. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the creation of matter. The Big Bang Theory states what happened immediately following the creation of matter. It has to do with how the universe was formed, after it came into being - after it was created. So, it is not inconsistent at all - as you obviously believe - to believe that God created the universe, and to also believe in the Big Bang Theory. In other words, whether the Big Bang Theory is true or false (I believe it is true), makes absolutely no difference to the argument as to whether God created the universe or not. When you argue otherwise, you are showing that either you do not properly understand the arguments about God, or you do not properly understand the Big Bang Theory, or both. In your case, it is both. You are professing belief in something that you don’t even correctly understand. That does not make for a convincing argument. The fact that we are talking about two separate things here is why a Catholic priest - who believed that God created the universe - can also be the author of the Big Bang Theory. One does not negate the other. And, admit it, you had no idea that the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic priest, did you?

The same thing is true when it comes to your arguments about evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into being. It has to do with how life was formed after it came into being. If evolution is true, or if it is false, it has absolutely no bearing on the argument as to whether God created life or not. God could have created species entirely intact as they are now, or He could have created them in forms that evolved over the millennia. If evolution is true, or if it is false, either way makes no difference to the validity of my faith. You seem to think evolution has a bearing on the creation of life - it does not. You seem to think that if evolution is true, then my faith is false. That is a false dichotomy you have created. And you’ve created it because you don’t understand evolution nor do you understand my faith. You should know that about which you are arguing, or don’t argue it.

Jules

Well no I didn't know that [that a Catholic priest was the author of the Big Bang Theory]. So what? But it's not blind faith, because I know that if it hasn't been refuted by the scientific community, then it hasn't been proven wrong so far...U got an answer?

John Martignoni

So, the author of the Big Bang theory, who wrote something about the earliest moments of the universe, something that is so complex that you don't have a clue how to follow it, but something that you nevertheless believe in completely out of blind faith - believed in God and that God created the universe - and that is just a "so what" to you? And I'm supposedly the "unintelligent" one. That's rather pathetic, don't you think?

Jules

But again, stop being blind and show me any evidence for the creation of humans by god. Also that makes you an idiot because you don't believe it yet he is clearly more intelligent than both of us, and believes in god. So, show me the evidence.

John Martignoni

Who said I didn't believe in the Big Bang? Why do you keep making these unwarranted assumptions about what I believe? I have absolutely no problem with the Big Bang theory. You have assumed that I am some sort of fundamentalist Christian who doesn’t care for science, doesn’t believe in the Big Bang, doesn’t believe in evolution, and all of that. You think I have my Bible and that I know, and care, nothing about science. Well, sorry, but those are bad assumptions. I am a Catholic Christian, and Catholics and science fit together like a hand and glove. In fact, the so-called “Enlightenment” grew out of the Catholic environment of the Middle Ages - an environment whose underlying belief was that the universe was a universe of order and logic and rationality, because it was created by a God of order, logic, and rationality. To give you just a glimpse of what I’m saying about Catholicism and science, here are some scientists you may have heard of, all of whom were Catholic:

Bishop Robert Grosseteste - Father of the experimental method
Franciscan Friar Roger Bacon - Thought by some to be the father of the scientific method
Georgius Agricola - Father of mineralogy
Augustin-Louis Cauchy - Infinitesimal Calculus
Francois Viete - Modern Algebra
Renee Descartes - Analytic Geometry
Archdeacon Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentrism
Andreas Vesalius - Father of modern Anatomy and Physiology
Andre-Marie Ampere - Father of Electromagnetism
Antoine Lavoisier - Father of modern Chemistry
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli - Father of Biomechanics
Blaise Pascal - Probability Theory and Hydrostatics
Abbot Gregor Mendel - Father of modern Genetics
Louis Pasteur - Microbiology
Fr. George LeMaitre - Big Bang Theory

And I could go on and on and on. The Catholic Faith and science do not contradict each other, they complement each other. Which is why when you try to frame your arguments in a science vs. faith context, it doesn’t work with a Catholic, and you come across as being rather ill informed on the topic you are debating. Maybe your arguments would work with some Fundamentalists, but not with Catholics.

Jules

So you believe that god created the Big Bang? Again, please show me some evidence to back up your theory that god created humans. Why do you keep ignoring this question?!

John Martignoni

Sorry, but I have given evidence. The fact that matter exists, and matter cannot create itself, is evidence that matter had a non-material creator. Also, the scientific fact that something cannot come from nothing, points to the existence of a creator. Also, the existence of the laws of physics - ordered and rational - points to the existence of a creator. The fact that the statistical odds of life coming into being from pure chance - the statistics of which I have given you in an earlier conversation and which you did not even comment on - are basically zero, points to the existence of a creator. The fact that there is not a single shred of scientific evidence - none, zero, nada - that life "POOF" randomly popped into being from non-life. This is all evidence for a creator. You, however, have given me nothing regarding how matter came into existence. Is that another one of your blind faith arguments?

Jules

This is akin to reasoning with a brick wall.

John Martignoni

Just what I thought, you have no response to my arguments other than to attack me personally. Why is that? Because you cannot argue with reason. Everything you believe is based on blind faith, emotionalism, and arrogance. You cannot make any kind of effort at a reasonable and intelligent response, so you have to attack me.

So, where are we? First of all, I have given you rational, logical, and coherent arguments for why I believe God created the universe. Is it scientific “proof”? No. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. God is outside of the realm of science. It is, though, philosophical proof. You may not accept it, but you have no rational, logical, and coherent argument against it. Your response is basically that the universe, according to science, just “POOF” popped into existence without rhyme or reason and completely by blind chance. I have given you my arguments for the creation of the universe by God. So, I am asking you for counter-arguments - tell me where my arguments fail from a logical and rational point of view - and I am also asking you for your arguments as to how matter was created. How did matter come to be? How, and why, did something come from nothing? There is no scientific proof whatsoever that matter just randomly popped into existence out of nothing. Matter has never been observed popping into existence out of nothing. There is no mathematical formula that proves that matter can pop into existence out of nothing. There has been no lab experiment that has shown matter popping into existence out of nothing. So why do you believe it? Faith? Give me your arguments for the creation of matter out of nothing. And, remember, I am not talking about the Big Bang Theory and what happened right after matter was created, I am talking about the creation of matter out of nothing. Please give me the science. Please give me the philosophical arguments. Please give me the mathematical arguments.

Oh, and there actually is some science to my argument about God creating the universe. Science teaches us that every effect has a cause. So, if the effect is matter being created out of nothing, what was the cause?

Regarding evolution. Before we even discuss whether or not evolution is true, we need to discuss how life came to be in the first place. That is the essential question. According to atheistic materialism, life just “POOF” popped into existence from non-life. By pure random blind chance. Just like the creation of matter. Yet, where is the science to back this up? Has life ever been observed coming from non-life? Is there a mathematical formula that proves life can come from non-life? Is there a philosophical argument for life coming from non-life? Have there been lab experiments showing that life can come from non-life? Can you give me an argument, any argument, for how life came into existence from non-life? And, again, I’m not talking about evolution - which occurs after life comes into existence - I’m talking about how life began. Once you give me those arguments, then we can discuss evolution. But we first need to start at the beginning.

And, there is also a scientific aspect to this argument as well. I have shown you, in an earlier post, the statistical (mathematical) probability associated with monkeys typing randomly to produce Hamlet - it would take trillions of gazillions of bazillions of monkeys typing for trillions of gazillions of bazillions years to come to even a miniscule chance of it happening. Well, Hamlet has only around 130,000 characters. A strand of human DNA has the letters ACGT typed in a sequence that is over 1 billion characters long. So, the statistical probability of human DNA coding happening completely by blind random chance - with no intelligent agent, not even monkeys doing the inputting - is approximately 4 raised to the billionth power. In other words, pert near no chance that it was chance. Yet, in spite of the math, you believe it happens all by chance. Science, or faith?

Summary

One last thing - a very important thing A good friend of mine, and a good friend of Catholic radio - Doug Pearson - died last night as a result of cancer. Please pray for the repose of his soul, and pray for the comfort and consolation of his wife, Tricia, and kids and grandkids.

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!