Political Crossfire Forums

[CursedLemon]

Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

[John]

Can information arise from non-information?

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp


There you go...please explain how it can.

[CursedLemon]

John wrote: Can information arise from non-information?

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp


There you go...please explain how it can.

...That's a complete opinion. :\ And regardless, existence is not informative.

All arguments like these can very easily be summed up by the "what came before God" argument.

If God is the result of human cognition, then God absolutely cannot be "beyond" the scope of understanding. Otherwise, you have absolutely baseless claims to what people think God represents.

And ALSO, a conscious being (which is what God NEEDS to be) cannot create something consciously separate from itself. So that means either God doesn't exist, or the universe IS God.

Try not to be "wowed" by every person with a philosophical statement out there.

[wormwood]

Quote: All arguments like these can very easily be summed up by the "what came before God" argument. Oh that's non-sense. That argument solves nothing and I'll prove it. What came before the universe? Unless you have an answer that I will accept, your opinion is untrue and invalid. See how reasonable that sounds?

Quote: If God is the result of human cognition, then God absolutely cannot be "beyond" the scope of understanding. Otherwise, you have absolutely baseless claims to what people think God represents. For the most part yes. If you believe in any of the countless revelations recorded throughout human history, you would have at least SOME idea of what God is like, or at least what is acceptable and unacceptable. By most of the texts own admission, God himself is virtually unknowable.

Quote: And ALSO, a conscious being (which is what God NEEDS to be) cannot create something consciously separate from itself. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Quote: So that means either God doesn't exist, or the universe IS God. That would explain how God could be everywhere and be in everything. What did you have in mind, an anthropomorphic being?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: existence is not informative.

For a lot of people this is true. :-D

[CursedLemon]

Quote: Oh that's non-sense. That argument solves nothing and I'll prove it. What came before the universe? Unless you have an answer that I will accept, your opinion is untrue and invalid. See how reasonable that sounds?

It's not nonsense. It's not supposed to "solve" anything, but rather it just ruins the logic that the "infinite chain of cause and effect" can end somewhere.

Quote: For the most part yes. If you believe in any of the countless revelations recorded throughout human history, you would have at least SOME idea of what God is like, or at least what is acceptable and unacceptable. By most of the texts own admission, God himself is virtually unknowable.

Then nobody on this planet can pretend to know how God exists, and thusly, cannot pretend to come up with illogical explanations FOR his existence.

Quote: How did you arrive at this conclusion?

It was less of its own point, rather than a subtle sarcastic remark. But in pure philosophical logic, a conscious entity cannot "split". You also cannot prove that other conscious entities even exist...in rationalist thinking, you are the only conscious entity in the universe.

Quote: That would explain how God could be everywhere and be in everything. What did you have in mind, an anthropomorphic being?

No, that would explain that we are not independently conscious, but rather we are just another part of God. God is not in us; we are in God.

Of course, that DOESN'T explain why the universe was created at all. But that's another debate.

[wormwood]

Quote: It's not nonsense. It's not supposed to "solve" anything, but rather it just ruins the logic that the "infinite chain of cause and effect" can end somewhere. It doesn't ruin anything. That is what I was trying to point out. Since you don't know the answer, you must be incorrect in whatever your assumption is, using your own logic. It proves nothing, it ruins nothing, it is a debate that is without any real substance, as you offer no proof for your position other than attacking the other position.

Quote: Then nobody on this planet can pretend to know how God exists, and thusly, cannot pretend to come up with illogical explanations FOR his existence. No one has to explain God's existence. People don't have to know why Good exists in order to believe in him. I don't know why you exist, but I am pretty sure you are real. As you point out here:
Quote: You also cannot prove that other conscious entities even exist...in rationalist thinking, you are the only conscious entity in the universe. I don't KNOW that you exist, but I am pretty sure and that is good enough. I don't have to rationalize why I believe that, or why I think you would exist in the first place.

Quote: It was less of its own point, rather than a subtle sarcastic remark. But in pure philosophical logic, a conscious entity cannot "split".
That's not philosophical logic just so you know. You are basing your assumptions on the thought that all conscious beings would be subject to the same laws of possibilities, while offering no proof, or even indication of why you feel that way.

Quote: No, that would explain that we are not independently conscious, but rather we are just another part of God. God is not in us; we are in God. If you say so. This seems to be a common new age belief, but I know entirely too many human beings to think that. Most religions do believe that humans have a piece of the divine in them.

[CursedLemon]

Quote: It doesn't ruin anything. That is what I was trying to point out. Since you don't know the answer, you must be incorrect in whatever your assumption is, using your own logic. It proves nothing, it ruins nothing, it is a debate that is without any real substance, as you offer no proof for your position other than attacking the other position.

So what you're telling me is, until I can prove that God DOESN'T exist, I should accept any faulty logic thrown at me to the contrary?

Quote: No one has to explain God's existence. People don't have to know why Good exists in order to believe in him. I don't know why you exist, but I am pretty sure you are real. As you point out here:

Until you can explain God's existence, it's pretty hard to support his existence at all.

Quote: That's not philosophical logic just so you know. You are basing your assumptions on the thought that all conscious beings would be subject to the same laws of possibilities, while offering no proof, or even indication of why you feel that way.

In case you haven't noticed, all of philosophy deals in personal opinions. God is a philosophical object.

[ChuckBerry]

God exists beyond time and space, and cannot be proven in a scientific sense to exist, since science is limited to observing strictly physical phenomena. At the end of it all, you have to have faith, which is the prerequisite for proof of a metaphysical force that, more than how is the why behind the existence and action of things.

[mODULAR mAN]

CCD wrote: God exists beyond time and space, and cannot be proven in a scientific sense to exist, since science is limited to observing strictly physical phenomena. At the end of it all, you have to have faith, which is the prerequisite for proof of a metaphysical force that, more than how is the why behind the existence and action of things.

How do you even know if something exists when it is outside of time and space? How would something that has no relative association to finite beings within time and space, relate to them from his position outside of time and space?

This is absurd.

You might as well say "growhow hdvouhvou oasudvhohv sdvjkdv".

As for John's Appeal to Personal Incredulity. It is a fallacy. Simply because you "can't imagine" how the universe began, doesn't mean you cram your Creator into the gap.

The concept of god has changed dramatically over time becuse science keeps pushing the concept out of the gaps. All the theists have now is personal revelation. The Teleological Argument justs finds a comfortable home in every question raised by science, then scurries into the next dark corner when science answers the question.

Do we need to bring up the long history of the church supressing scientific thought, only to find that,once again, god was not found in the gap?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: You also cannot prove that other conscious entities even exist...in rationalist thinking, you are the only conscious entity in the universe.

That is solipsism, not rationalism. In fact, it is extremely irrational, even psychopathic, to believe you are the only conscious entity in existence.

[ChuckBerry]

mODULAR mAN wrote:
How do you even know if something exists when it is outside of time and space? How would something that has no relative association to finite beings within time and space, relate to them from his position outside of time and space?

I already said that it is a matter of faith. I don't know how God does what He does. Or why.

There is an aspect of the human makeup that is called a soul. It is the element of our being that exists outside of time/space that is our connection to God. I am aware of this aspect of myself and I can perceive it being subject to a power not of my making.

Do I have a photograph of this soul or a vial full of it to submit to you for labaratory testing? Nope, and I never will. The religious search is one that cannnot take place inside a lab, or a classroom, or an internet forum. You have to meditate and be by yourself and attempt to grasp the reasons why you are here. In the stillness, you can begin to perceive what I am talking about.

I'm not trying to provide any proofs for God, because I don't have any. Unless you are on a spiritual search yourself, then we cannot come to any understanding.

[wormwood]

Quote: So what you're telling me is, until I can prove that God DOESN'T exist, I should accept any faulty logic thrown at me to the contrary? No, what I'm saying is that until you can prove your perspective, don't throw your faulty logic around as undeniable fact. I personally don't care what you believe, but if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously, you can't use "logical" negation of one unprovable premise, in order to support another. You might have come across more accurately if you had said something to the effect of; " all arguments like this are comparable to asking what came before God, neither is more likely than the other, so neither can be used as proof or strong evidence". When you start asserting that one unprovable concept is true, and all others are false, you are not better than the religious people you condemn.

Quote: Until you can explain God's existence, it's pretty hard to support his existence at all. :lol: If you say so. So how do I explain humanity's existence? I guess I shouldn't believe in humanity. This makes no sense.

Quote: In case you haven't noticed, all of philosophy deals in personal opinions. God is a philosophical object. Philosophy is not just spouting opinions. You must have a logical argument that flows into a logical conclusion, usually with some basis to believe that the premise and conclusion are factually correct.

[wormwood]

Quote: How do you even know if something exists when it is outside of time and space? How would something that has no relative association to finite beings within time and space, relate to them from his position outside of time and space? That's a good question. Unfortunately I am not Stephen Hawking, so my explanation will be limited, but there are mathematical equations to "prove" the existence of multiple dimensions. As particles disappear from our dimension, or before they spontaneously appear in it, they are moving to or from other dimensions which we can not experience in any direct way, but which still seem likely to exist.

Quote: The concept of god has changed dramatically over time becuse science keeps pushing the concept out of the gaps. All the theists have now is personal revelation. The Teleological Argument justs finds a comfortable home in every question raised by science, then scurries into the next dark corner when science answers the question. How has science "pushed the concept out of the gaps"? Do you have any idea how complex the mechanisms for our natural world are? I never believed in God until I started studying higher level sciences, although I know many who had the exact opposite experience. There is nothing that scientifically disproves God. You are confusing superstition about God and nature with actual religious doctrine I believe.

[John]

CursedLemon wrote: John wrote: Can information arise from non-information?

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp


There you go...please explain how it can.

...That's a complete opinion. :\ And regardless, existence is not informative.

All arguments like these can very easily be summed up by the "what came before God" argument.

If God is the result of human cognition, then God absolutely cannot be "beyond" the scope of understanding. Otherwise, you have absolutely baseless claims to what people think God represents.

And ALSO, a conscious being (which is what God NEEDS to be) cannot create something consciously separate from itself. So that means either God doesn't exist, or the universe IS God.

Try not to be "wowed" by every person with a philosophical statement out there.

You say you have open ears...

Let's see if that is true...Click here...


Click here..

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote:

...That's a complete opinion. :\ And regardless, existence is not informative.

All arguments like these can very easily be summed up by the "what came before God" argument.

First of all my friend John is merely using fact as circumstantial evidence to the question of God's existence, something YOU are asking for and he does not need. The FACT that it a modern physicist would agree with Aquinas by simply saying NOTHING can be made from NOTHING is hardly earth shattering.

You can not state that there is no logic behind the belief of the existence of God and then negate logical evidence that points in that direction, it is not intellectually honest. It does not mean that you have to ADMIT God does exist it simply means that your premise is faulty. Which it is by nearly any standard.

As a former strong atheist who could not have been further from a believer than you can possibly imagine, I know your premise to be false by my own experience. It was when i began to look into the history and facts and stopped accepting what I assumed as fact that I very slowly began to change my mind.

It is actually the LOGIC and theology of Christianity in general and Catholicism most specifically, which over years convinced me I had been mistaken not only about the possible existence of God, but most specifically about the life of Jesus Christ.

But believing that God or even Jesus Christ exists DOES NOT make you as a Christian. That does take a bit more doing and by definition ANYONE who adopts a new philosophy must CHANGE (religious or not consider Buddahism, Scientology or moving from Repulican to Democrat) and most likely has a particular event which pushes one past the moment of indecision. If you want to call that a "revelation" then so be it but within Chritianity it is not "required" to be a moment of high drama or anything more spectacular than figuring out something you had been thinking about one way should be viewed another way.

CursedLemon wrote:
If God is the result of human cognition, then God absolutely cannot be "beyond" the scope of understanding. Otherwise, you have absolutely baseless claims to what people think God represents.

Your logic is perfect in your statement ONLY IF you are a non believer of course. IF you believe in the Christian God then your statment is empty and meaningless. God, if the First Cause can NOT be a result of human cognition and in fact the unique ability of human reason has been an argument FOR belief in God for as long as the debate has existed.
CursedLemon wrote:

And ALSO, a conscious being (which is what God NEEDS to be) cannot create something consciously separate from itself. So that means either God doesn't exist, or the universe IS God.

Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
First of all my friend John is merely using fact as circumstantial evidence to the question of God's existence, something YOU are asking for and he does not need. The FACT that it a modern physicist would agree with Aquinas by simply saying NOTHING can be made from NOTHING is hardly earth shattering.
Not true. Modern physics actaully does claim (and has shown) that somehing can come from nothing.

Vaccuum fluctuations and Virual Particles have been discovered.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Quote: You can not state that there is no logic behind the belief of the existence of God and then negate logical evidence that points in that direction, it is not intellectually honest. It does not mean that you have to ADMIT God does exist it simply means that your premise is faulty. Which it is by nearly any standard.
Remember, the claim of a god is yours. YOU have the burden of proof, not "burden of possibility".

For example, why do you deny the existence of Zeus? Or Thor? Or Quetzecoatl? Do you need to disproe them, or do the people who claim their existence need to prove to you they exist?

An extraordinary claim must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

Quote: As a former strong atheist who could not have been further from a believer than you can possibly imagine, I know your premise to be false by my own experience. It was when i began to look into the history and facts and stopped accepting what I assumed as fact that I very slowly began to change my mind.
As a strong atheist which arguments were the most powerful for supporting your atheism? I'm sure, you must have been aware of many.
The Problem of Free Will? Non-Cognitivism? Problem of Evil? The Impossibility of Divine Intervention?

How did you reconcile those Logical Arguments?

Quote: It is actually the LOGIC and theology of Christianity in general and Catholicism most specifically, which over years convinced me I had been mistaken not only about the possible existence of God, but most specifically about the life of Jesus Christ.
OK, I'm worried. Faith, is taught in the Bible, not logic. Plus, the Catholic Church has denounced Intelligent Design

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/

Quote: But believing that God or even Jesus Christ exists DOES NOT make you as a Christian. That does take a bit more doing and by definition ANYONE who adopts a new philosophy must CHANGE (religious or not consider Buddahism, Scientology or moving from Repulican to Democrat) and most likely has a particular event which pushes one past the moment of indecision. If you want to call that a "revelation" then so be it but within Chritianity it is not "required" to be a moment of high drama or anything more spectacular than figuring out something you had been thinking about one way should be viewed another way.

What do you mean by "God"?

Quote: Your logic is perfect in your statement ONLY IF you are a non believer of course. IF you believe in the Christian God then your statment is empty and meaningless. God, if the First Cause can NOT be a result of human cognition and in fact the unique ability of human reason has been an argument FOR belief in God for as long as the debate has existed.


Quote: What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine

Quote: Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

Be very careful when you mention Flew, he catagorically denied the existence of a Xian God. He is swayed by the argument for a Spinozian God (that is, a Prime Mover). PLus, most scientists who have looked at Flews reasoning, they are not convinced he understands the biology completely. Plus, it would be an argument from authority - which is a fallacy. (Flew could be wrong)

BTW, after he claimed AfDesign showed a God, he said this:
Quote: In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005[10], Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions. (from wiki)

Anyhow, you are bouncing between using logic and faith to make your point. You claim logic brought your to God, then claim logic can't help you understand God.

Which is it? Perhaps BAD logic made it comfortable to accept a god hypothesis, which you can't logically reconcile, but are happy to fill in the gaps with faith?


BTW, i'd be interested in your take on this.
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/

[John]

Quote: Be very careful when you mention Flew, he catagorically denied the existence of a Xian God. He is swayed by the argument for a Spinozian God (that is, a Prime Mover). PLus, most scientists who have looked at Flews reasoning, they are not convinced he understands the biology completely. Plus, it would be an argument from authority - which is a fallacy. (Flew could be wrong)

Why be careful?

The point of this debate isn't about Jesus...it's about the existence of God in general. Nobody believes in the Christian God before first accepting the possibility in the general existence of God.

Funny though that people seem to get their feathers ruffled over Jesus and little easier than just God in general. It isn’t difficult to see why that is….belief in a Spinozian God type still separates any personal responsibility to that God. Where believe in Jesus means that there will be a time of accountability.

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote: Quote: Be very careful when you mention Flew, he catagorically denied the existence of a Xian God. He is swayed by the argument for a Spinozian God (that is, a Prime Mover). PLus, most scientists who have looked at Flews reasoning, they are not convinced he understands the biology completely. Plus, it would be an argument from authority - which is a fallacy. (Flew could be wrong)

Why be careful?

The point of this debate isn't about Jesus...it's about the existence of God in general. Nobody believes in the Christian God before first accepting the possibility in the general existence of God.

Funny though that people seem to get their feathers ruffled over Jesus and little easier than just God in general. It isn’t difficult to see why that is….belief in a Spinozian God type still separates any personal responsibility to that God. Where believe in Jesus means that there will be a time of accountability.

I am aware that theist's love to use any quote or source to make their point at the time, but ignore the larger context.

Certainly, we all aspire to intellectual honesty here, and if you hold Flew in esteem here, I expect you to rebut his opinions fully when you talk about a personal god.

I am saying be careful, becuase I am aware of Flew's position. I also have his latest book and he does not make a logical case for his position. As of now, it is based on a self-admitted ignorance of the latest science.

What Flew has done has pushed the possibility of god to the farthest reaches of our understanding (the Beginning). It is, even from the great logitian he is, an Argument from Personal Incredulity.


I would like to say, it appears that Flew is getting old and possibly suffering from the onset of dementia.

Quote: Update (March 2006)

During the course of 2005, Flew cut off all correspondence and now refuses to speak to any member of the press. When Matt Donnelly, a reporter for Science and Theology News, asked him for permission to read and quote his letters to me, Flew refused, and insisted that even his phone conversations with Donnelly not be used. A friend and eyewitness whom I trust reported to me that he and another prominent secular humanist spoke to Flew in private during his recent visit to New York for the 25th Anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism in October of 2005. They found him to be philosophically incoherent. He affirmed his belief in an uncaring, uninvolved, unconscious (yes, unconscious) Jeffersonian Deity, but despite half an hour of questioning as to why, he could not give any specific reason for this belief.

In the meantime, Flew wrote "My 'Conversion'" for the Autumn 2005 issue of Think (pp. 75-84), the only article Flew himself has ever written about his conversion. This article is so confused and unclear that in it he fails to affirm belief in any God and actually suggests he is still an atheist. Flew claims to set the record straight about his, as he himself puts it, "putative conversion from atheism to some form of revealed theistic religion." Because of the massive press attention, "it seemed to me," Flew writes, "that there was a need ... for me to explain myself" (p. 75). Yet nowhere in the entire nine pages of the article does he explain himself.

Flew starts with a few autobiographical paragraphs explaining that he was an "atheist" in the same sense that someone would be "apolitical," so he didn't believe in God simply for lack of evidence, not because God's nonexistence could be demonstrated. He explains that because of the nuance of this distinction, after the first edition of God and Philosophy he "was mistaken to be a very positive opponent of the Christian religion." Then, he says, his new introduction to God and Philosophy "reveals my present position." But it doesn't. The rest of his Think article proceeds to quote that introductory chapter largely verbatim. But neither that chapter nor this article ever says anything about what he believes or why. Though in both he surveys some of the cutting edge issues in the debate between theists and atheists, he offers no conclusion as to whether any of these new arguments succeed in refuting or confirming theism. And in both, he never once voices any opinion or conclusion about what he himself believes.

The closest he ever comes to such a revelation seems to assert that he is still an atheist, though surely he can't mean that. Flew writes, "I can here say only that I myself, having read" Victor Stenger's book Has Science Found God? "cannot but agree with his negative conclusions" (p. 78). Since Stenger's conclusions are "No, science has not found God," and Flew says he agrees, ordinarily this would mean Flew remains an atheist, affirming there is still no evidence to warrant believing in God. But given his personal affirmations in New York, all I can conclude from this sentence is that either Flew does not believe any scientific evidence supports his belief (which leaves us completely in the dark as to what evidence then does) or Flew didn't read carefully what he himself wrote. Neither possibility inspires much confidence.

In the Think article and the new introduction to God and Philosophy Flew does offer some encouraging words for Aristotelian Deism, but he never affirms his belief in it nor says whether he considers any arguments for it successful. For instance, he says things like "the expectations of natural reason must surely be that an omnipotent Creator would be as detached and uninvolved as the gods of Epicurus" (p. 81, my emphasis), not "that an omnipotent Creator is as detached and uninvolved." Flew never actually says in this article or in the new edition of God and Philosophy whether he believes an omnipotent Creator exists, only that "if" he did "then" he would be "detached and uninvolved." Then Flew repeats his belief that "there is an enormous yet very rarely recognized difficulty with the very conception of 'A person without a body (i.e. a spirit)'" (p. 81). He quotes Gaskin favorably as concluding "the absence of a body is therefore not only factual grounds for doubting whether a person exists" but "also grounds for doubting whether such a bodiless entity could possibly be an agent" (p. 83). Flew even cites his own books, The Logic of Mortality (1987) and Merely Mortal (2001), against the possibility of disembodied existence. So Flew seems to think there is still insufficient reason to believe a disembodied spirit like God can even exist. He never explains how, then, or why, he still believes in such a god, nor does he even mention that he does. Flew concludes by saying that Swinburne's book Is There a God? offers only a "religious hypothesis" that "cannot in principle be either verified or falsified by any experience" (p. 83).

Anyone who knew nothing about Flew except this one article would conclude that Flew is currently an atheist. That's odd for an article that is supposed to explain his conversion. Instead, he calls the claim of his conversion merely "putative," states no belief in a god of any kind, presents all the new debates as unresolved stalemates or as unsolved problems for theism, affirms his belief that science has not found God, cites even his own past work in defense of the conclusion that spirits (divine or otherwise) cannot exist, and suggests that God's existence "cannot in principle be either verified or falsified by any experience." Nevertheless, Flew claimed this article "explains himself" and "reveals his present position." I shall leave it to my readers to decide what is going on here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update (May 2006)

In recognition of his "conversion," Antony Flew was awarded the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth at Biola, an Evangelical Christian university in La Mirada, California. Flew accepted it in person (see Former Atheist to Receive Award at Biola). I have received communications from several eyewitnesses in attendance who all confirm that Flew appeared to sleep through most of it, said little, and what he did say was difficult to understand. James Underdown, Executive Director of Center for Inquiry-West recorded the whole event, including a personal interview with Flew afterward. Underdown's article reporting briefly on this affair will appear as "One Flew Over Biola" in the August-September issue of Free Inquiry, which should come off the presses by the end of July.

Underdown was kind enough to give me an advance look at his article and discussed the experience with me. Flew gave a roughly ten minute acceptance speech to an audience of over a hundred, in which he said nothing new. He declared he was a Deist and believed in a God who "is neither interested in nor concerned about either human beliefs or human behavior." According to Underdown, the only clear reason he gave for this belief was "that since we’ve not yet solved how the first form of life came about then it must have been God that created it," even though Flew admitted to the same audience that he lacked any expertise in chemistry. Flew already abandoned his prior claim that science has no viable hypothesis for the origin of life (since he renounced that to me in writing, as noted above), so it appears he has retreated and is now resting his belief in God solely on an invalid "God of the Gaps" argument: merely because no scientific hypothesis of biogenesis has been confirmed, therefore God exists. I doubt any Evangelical with a Ph.D. would endorse such an argument as valid. Underdown said Flew also tried to make some argument about evolved life being too complex for evolution to explain, but it wasn't clear how Flew determined something to be "too" complex or how he determined that evolution hadn't or "couldn't" explain it. In short, it does not appear to me that Flew presented any sound argument for his position at this event, and Underdown and other witnesses agreed.

Apart from being unsound, Flew's belief might also be incoherent, since it is unclear why a God who was not "interested or concerned" would go out of his way to "intervene" in nature specifically to start life on earth and "intervene" repeatedly again to increase its complexity. What could possibly have motivated a disinterested God to do that? What was His purpose in doing it? By what mechanism did He accomplish it? Why that life instead of some other? Why didn't this God simply make the universe capable of producing life and complexity in the first place? That is, why did this God create a universe incapable of producing life, and then change his mind billions of years later and alter the laws of physics just to put life on one planet, and then continually alter the laws of physics again to increase that life's complexity toward some mysterious end? Flew consistently ignored me when I asked him such questions before. He avoided answering Underdown's questions, too. And he still has offered no answers to this day. I can only conclude he has no answers. It seems as if Flew has no clear understanding of what he means by "God" and is basing his belief in this "God" on entirely unsound reasoning. That this is what a Christian university praises and rewards perhaps tells us something about the epistemic values of Evangelical Christians.
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

[Random Evil Guy]

John wrote: Can information arise from non-information?

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp


There you go...please explain how it can.

let me ask you this, how do you define information?

for example let's say there was a camera set up in the middle of a crowded street. wouldn't that recording be information?

here's talkorigins refutation of this particular claim:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html