Citing a skeptic:

<< Science now has the theory for why things are for almost everything. We cannot re-create the objects but have a good understanding of how it got here. And none of the answers includes God. There is no God, never was and never will be. Why are people today still hanging onto this prehistoric view of the world when all the facts point to a man-made God? >>

 A Christian responded:

"Let's start with one phrase at a time: "Science now has a "theory" for why things are for almost everything - yes and science corrects itself all the time...Aristotle was a scientist, and he was wrong...DesCartes was a mathemetician and he was wrong...there is nothing concrete yet in terms of the origin of the world or the way things "are"."

Thorn replies:

While it may indeed be the case that Aristotle might have been wrong on certain scientific matters, any determination of his inaccuracy would most likely be the result of an accurate scientific assessment of the matter in question. As you correctly note, science indeed is self-correcting. But one should practice caution here to avoid a hasty generalization. We say that science is self-correcting, not because it is fundamentally flawed, but because our knowledge base is continually growing. The scientific method will produce no better results than the knowledge base it assumes. There have been thousands of discoveries about reality since the time of Aristotle or DesCartes. Those discoveries have produced new knowledge of which Aristotle, DesCartes or their contemporaries were unaware. It is only logical that the conclusions of earlier scientists be reviewed in light of such new knowledge when it is relevant to the issues in question. A good 'fer instints' is the primitive belief that bunnies chew their cud. While it may be excusable for the primitives who wrote the Bible to have thought that bunnies were ruminants, later discoveries, new knowledge and application of scientific scrutiny reveals that this is not the case, that bunnies do not chew their cud. (See the following link for more details on this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/2/2chew95.html)

However, one finds it difficult how early primitives could conclude that the color patterns of livestock could be controlled by placing striped sticks in front of mating breeders. This is exactly what some early bible author supposed when he wrote the following:

From Genesis chapter 30 (NIV):

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

 The Christian also stated:

"We have a good understanding of how things got here....just no consensus. Take evolution...it doesnt work the way it was originally conceived so we come up with "punctuated evolution" to fill in the chasm....but of course the only proof we have for that is that we know the original concept isn't possible."

Thorn responds:

Again, the same principle applies: older theories put under the microscope in light of new knowledge will often require some revamping. That is only logical. However, notice that the discovery of new knowledge has only helped to develop evolution theories rather than undermine and refute them, in spite of what so-called "creation scientists" argue. (Again, I point to the Genesis passage above to illustrate an example of what "creation scientists" defend as "science".) In the future, as scientists continue to study the same questions and discover yet new knowledge, the present theories may undergo even more development. However, it is difficult to see how any new knowledge could topple many of the principles established by research into evolution at this time, if that's what you're hoping.

 The Christian stated:

"None of the answers includes God...well of course someone's answers include God or we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Thorn asks:

How does positing 'god' answer anything? How does positing 'god' explain anything?

The Christian states:

"And it's a copout to say that no one credible includes God" because there are those with PhDs in the hard sciences who still believe...you'd have to give me reason to reject them all)"

Thorn responds:

On the contrary, positing 'god' or any other magical being is nothing but a copout. In fact, it's a complete blank out on the use of one's mind as well as a recommendation to others to do the same. If you're looking for a good reason why one should reject them all, I merely point out that all primacy of consciousness assertions are invalid since the primacy of consciousness is invalid. Existence cannot be explained by 'something prior' to it. Furthermore consciousness presupposes existence (for quite a few reasons) rather than existence presupposing a form of consciousness, as the position that a 'god' exists would have to stipulate. Additionally, there are numerous other problems that the theist puts onto himself when he attempts to go outside reality in order to explain reality. For instance, the traditional Judeo-Christian story of the creation of the earth and sun say that God simply willed these things into existence somehow. Such a proposition is patently untestable and therefore unscientific. Just how did God 'create' these things? How can the theist argue that this is science when he cannot reproduce such conditions in a laboratory? Quite clearly, such assertions must be taken blindly, on faith, without any reference to reality whatsoever. Hence, the biblical concern for faith rather than reason.

Another problem that most biblicists seem to gloss over without much concern is the notion of God's purpose in all this. What is God's purpose? But even more important, how can a being said to be both perfect and immortal even have a purpose? A perfect being is lacking in nothing and wanting in nothing. Quite simply, a being that could be said to be perfect would have achieved any and all applicable purposes if indeed it could identify one to pursue. In other words, having and pursuing a purpose necessarily presupposes an unmet goal, and therefore, purpose-wise, imperfection. And if God is said to be perfect in every way, sense or aspect, then already the theist faces an insurmountable problem. Similarly, a being said to be immortal could not pursue its own purpose, since it stands nothing to lose. If you consider man, a mortal being, a being that is constantly faced with the fundamental alternative live vs. death, you can see why purpose is so essential to his being: he must think and act in order to survive and exist. Thus, man is capable of holding and pursuing values as his purpose; indeed, the purpose of values to man's existence is vital. An immortal being, however, does not face the alternative life vs. death; in fact, it is difficult to see how an immortal being, if there were one, could be said to be a living, conscious being. We see in nature that every being that could be said to be conscious is conscious for the purpose of its survival. Whether it be a fish, a reptile, a domesticated animal or man, in each case consciousness serves the purpose of its host's survival needs. Thus, in each case of consciousness in reality, consciousness is tied to mortality, not immortality, and necessarily so. An 'immortal god' would have no need for either consciousness or purpose, since its existence would be assured (somehow...) and thus could not face any kind of danger to itself. So, together the claims that 'god' is perfect and immortal conflict with the notion that such a being could have a purpose.

Of course, believers are not expected to ask such questions. One must "have faith" and simply believe that all these things are true and that's that. As one pastor said, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" Now, if all men were to go around with that mentality, where would we be now if not stuck in the Dark Ages? Certainly with this mentality we would have neither science nor the technological achievements which science has made possible. Look at the old superstitions regarding man's first attempts at motored flight: "If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings." Well, some men didn't wait around for a 'god' to issue wings to man. Instead, he gave himself wings and with this the ability to fly. It would not have been possible for pioneer aviators to invent machines that make it possible for men to fly if they had adopted a policy similar to the one exhorted by biblical doctrine. That's why I find it ironic when Christian apologists like Billy Graham and William Lane Craig fly from city to city on elaborate proselytizing campaigns. Many Christians do not see the contradiction here, and indeed will do anything to try and cover the contradiction. Their efforts, however, are grotesquely humorous when offered as serioius explanations.

 The Christian states:

"Those who reject Creation or who don't beleive in God reject it, but others do not...that isn't really a proof. Also, none of the midieval contructs of the universe included anything past what we could see...but it didn’t make them right...We learn as we grow."

Thorn responds:

On this last point, correct, we do grow when we discover new knowledge, and certainly that growth must be predicated on a set of principles that is capable of incorporating new knowledge and the implications new knowledge has on prior conclusions and assertions. As for "those who reject Creation...", the question is: Why would anyone accept such a position as knowledge? Belief that the universe was 'created' (how, it is not explained) necessarily implies that at one time the universe did not exist, yet, how would anyone set out to establish this? Endless arguments about the impossibility of infinite regresses, thermodynamic heatdeaths and other such stretches prove nothing, and often, if as contentions to the fact that the universe is eternally existent they may have any legitimacy whatsoever, would most likely apply to whatever being the theist is positing to exist as well. Quite simply, no rational argument is going to get the theist from this world to the next. The authors of the Bible were at least wise enough to recognize this, for there are no arguments for the existence of such a being as 'god' offered in its pages. Instead, bible authors simply resigned the matter to faith, not reasoned discourse.

The Christian states:

"There is no God, never has never will be....well, that's ur opinion."

Thorn responds:

Certainly, this is my opinion, but it is based on a sound assessment of reality. Existence is not contingent, neither on non-existence nor on a form of consciousness. I do not accept the claim that a god, as described in Christian doctrine, exists because I do not accept the claim that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness (primacy of consciousness fallacy). This position offers the proper rational foundation for rejecting all god-belief claims.

 The Christian states: 

"You cant prove a negative...so you cant prove that."

Thorn responds:

You're right. That is why the atheist bears no onus to prove any claims in this regard. The onus rests squarely on the shoulders of the theist, for this is his assertion, not the atheist's. I do not believe that Santa Claus exists, yet I bear no onus to construct elaborate proofs that such a being does not exist. The same is my position in the case of the tooth fairy, Peter Pan and Blarko the wondergod. For the same reason, the same principle applies to the Muslim god, the Jewish god and the Christian gods.

The Christian states: 

"I can't prove there is a God by taking u over to His place for a cup of Chai, but i cant really prove to you anything in Physics either...it's all substantial evidence. i mean, really, show me an atom or better yet...what is it? a quork?"

Thorn responds:

I believe it's called a quark, and your point is noted. However, there are a few things here that should be pointed out to clarify why the claim that God exists and the claim that a quark exists are not equivalent assertions. First of all, the claim that a quark exists does not attempt to posit anything supernatural; such claims are offered within the context of reality, not outside reality. Second, the nature of what is being claimed is not parallel. While 'god' is said to be incomprehensible, infinite, perfect, conscious, alive, omniscient, unknowable, etc., quarks are not claimed to be these things. Quarks elude our ability to perceive them visually only because, if they do exist, they are beyond microscopic in size, not because they are by nature beyond human understanding and reasoning. Also, assertions of such things as atoms and quarks are testable, while god-belief claims are completely untestable and unverifiable.

The Christian states:

"Why are people today still hanging onto this prehistoric view of the world when all the facts point to a man-made God?....okay, umm, what facts and which God? All gods right? Okay, could u pls outline for me in three points the "facts" that prove that all gods are manmade? You can use more points if necessary."

Thorn responds:

Well, that's not hard at all. First of all, all claims positing the existence of a god come from men. At no point can one say that they heard about god from god himself; instead, we all learn about god-belief claims from other humans. All holy books are the product of men, not spirits, angels or deities. Clearly these books, like the Bible or the Qu'ran, were authored by men, copied by men, edited by men, translated by men, collected by men, interpolated by men, distributed by men and created for the consumption of men. Man's participation in the authoring and spread of religious beliefs is self-evident and undeniable.

Second, comparative review of different god's and god-belief systems show some remarkable similarities, suggesting a natural cause and effect between such assertions and their logical consequences. Why is it that virtually all western monotheism is accompanied by claims that gods are unknowable, beyond man's ability to comprehend, infinite, immortal, perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.? Could it be so that all such claims can safely evade any inquiring scrutiny that non-believers might use in examining them?

Another point would be that all claims about the existence of a god are couched in what appears to be nothing better than tales and myths. Let's face it, stories that include such unrealistic elements as talking snakes, burning bushes that utter voices, virgin births, zombies crawling our of graves and men taking up venomous serpents and ingesting poisonous substances without harm are obviously hallmarks of fiction, not 'ultimate truth'.

Certainly many, many more points could be offered that would support the assertion that god-belief is an invention rather than a matter 'revealed' to man from his 'maker'. Can the theist prove that 'god' is not a human fabrication? An old addage quips: "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

 The Christian states:

"Finally, your argumentation rests on the shoulders of the scientific community, most of which deny any ruling on God because it's "out of there realm". Also, we know science is not absolute and we know that in time we will rediscover or discover things totally unknown to us now which will alter our conception of the universe...so i think this is a burden the scientific community neither wants nor is equipped to handle."

Thorn responds:

I would say that this statement is a bit off the mark, and, judging from the overall context of our debate in general and the statement's source, quite suspect. Are you implying that science has not achieved certainty in any area under its concern? Are you suggesting this so that you would feel justified in thinking that science could not rule out the existence of a god? How can the scientific method apply in the context of a god-belief, if knowledge is to be accepted on faith?

And one more question, Why does the theist want to convince the atheist so badly that his particular variant of god exists?