TreesNightly

Christians are skeptical. Christians, and theists in general, are skeptical of life arising from non-life and the universe originating from quantum fluctuations they�ve never observed. They don�t feel inclined to believe that consciousness as deep and self-aware as ours can arise through random mutations that are built upon guided by selective pressure. Don�t make fun of them for this. They are right to be skeptical of these things. These are counter intuitive concepts with evidence that can�t be assessed directly by laymen and requires a large commitment to gain any competence. Make fun of them for believing in miracles. Where does that skeptical instinct they methodically apply to naturalism go in regards to virgin birth, resurrections, and transubstantiation? One one hand they deny living matter arising from unliving matter, but one the other they freely accept living matter arising from non-matter. It�s okay to be extremely skeptical of both--they are extraordinary claims that are ...

I see both atheists and theists finding a scientific study or paper from somewhere on the internet and posting it as a central support to their argument or claim. This study or paper might even be written by someone with a degree in a relevant field. That's great, but the internet is a big place and there are all kinds of people who use it. The interpretations of data and the conclusions to be drawn from them can vary as much as the agendas and biases of the article writers. The best thing to do is to only look at the data and apply your own encyclopedic knowledge gained from being an expert in the field to draw your own conclusions. Oh, that�s right, I�m not. I only know the broad strokes of evolution, TV cosmology and pop-quantum physics. In other words, I don�t know shit. I know a lot more than the average guy walking down the street, but it�s relative. If I know anything, it's my limitations. Which brings me to the conundrum. In order to talk about issues beyond my pay grad...

Many arguments for god(s) take something the apologist intellectually doesn't understand and compensates with an assumption that reinforces the belief they've been taught is true. Sometimes they disregard or deny the available information because it doesn't jive with their indoctrination (committing the fallacy of personal incredulity) and sometimes there is no information available in which case they are filling a gap in knowledge with their divine explanation of choice (called the god of the gaps.) Example time. Those who use the cosmological argument: "I don't know if the universe has an ultimate origin or what that might be, so let's assume there is and it's God." Those who use the fine tuning argument: "I don't know if the constants that apply to our universe could be different nor how different nor do I know if there are other universes or variables, but let's assume they can differ wildly and our universe is unique because God desig...