Sunday, June 01, 2008

God is Imaginary: #11 Notice that there is no Scientific Evidence

Notice that there is no Scientific Evidence.

This one is full of bullet-pointed lists of links. Since the links go to others of the fifty reasons, I won't address any bullet points that contain a link. Either I've already addressed them, or I will address them in due time. Or, in the case of the last link in the "Understanding the Rationalizations" box, it links you back to the same article. Now that's some great citation.

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

I'm not sure what they're getting at with this one. If they're referring to the activities of God, the evidence is measured in thousands of cubic miles. In this instance, it becomes obvious that the issue isn't evidence. For more on the subject of evidence versus interpretation, I refer you to Answers in Genesis. It doesn't really matter what you read on their site, the distinction comes through in most articles.

If they're referring to the physical existence of Christ, other than a physical body (as he rose from the dead) we have as much evidence, if not more, of his existence than we have of just about anyone in pre-modern history. Christ is the most influential person in history. Aside from those who follow him, he pops up in references by numerous secular sources. If they are denying that Christ physically existed, they have left the realm of rationality. They can deny his divinity, but the nature of the question is physical.

If, however, they're referring to some miraculous sign, they would use the rationalization, which they used at the end of the article, "Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet." [emphasis in original]. So whatever physical evidence is cited, such as the remarkable level of the development among the farthest known galaxies, the answer will be the same.

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

Look at how carefully this is phrased. To modern man. Any appearance to anyone not in modern times is discounted. Despite the testimony of the early church in Acts 1:3 "
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." their testimony is discounted.

There example is also very carefully chosen. If God appears to only some modern people, they would be dismissed as religious kooks. If God appeared to people who were undeniably atheistic prior to the appearance, the use of hallucinogenic drugs, or some other disorder, would be blamed. Even if neither of those circumstances could be blamed, we can fall on the all-purpose rationalization at the end:
"Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet." Even the testimony of modern man would be discounted.

What they want is something both universal and easily recordable. However, this appearance can also be rationalized--some Christian group has created a worm that infected the world's broadcasting media to create this message. There is nothing about it that cannot be easily rationalized away. Thus even their example could be discounted.

The only way God could speak to modern man in a way that would satisfy them--a way that could not be rationalized--is, unfortunately, when Christ returns, at which point it will be to late.

Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

This is the theodicy problem. I answered this in my Responses to the Ten Questions: Number Two.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".

I'm going to take the Job approach to this one. I will question you and you will answer me. Assume, for the sake of argument--just as I take on the assumptions of evolution to answer--that the history reflected in the Bible is accurate. That God did create. That there was a global flood. That the world's peoples congregated at Babel and were divided. Now. Using the scientific method, prove it. You cannot. Even if it happened, as we assumed for this question, you cannot prove it because it was a historical event, not a scientific event. All one can do is construct a model which matches the evidence more or less well, but cannot be tested.

Similarly, evolution cannot prove a historical event, even if I, on my part, assume that it happened. All that can be done is the construction of a model. And because the model of evolution is infinitely malleable, matching the model to the evidence is easy. That which does not fit is reshaped until it does.

This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops.

Do you know what a landmark is? It is a feature, either natural or man made, to which a geographic meaning is assigned. When I went mountain biking in the Zambian bush, I navigated my way by the termite mounds. I ascribed a new meaning to them, though they already existed. That I used them as landmarks did not mean that I created them for that purpose. In a similar manner, God ascribed a new meaning to the rainbow. Though some have argued, based on Genesis 2:5-6, that there was no rain prior to the Flood, the context is that it had not rained during the first days of the creation week, prior to the creation of Adam. God's having set his bow in the clouds is only problematic if one assumes that God created it at this point (though that is not impossible, just unlikely given what we know of God), and was not simply ascribing new meaning to it.

Back to the Fifty Reasons.



Post a Comment

<< Home