An Idiosyncrasy of Atheism

[EarlyActs]

I am trying to explain to you that evolution is a scientific theory about the "origin of species" and the "continuity of Earth's biodiversity." It is not about the origin of life, or the origin of the solar system, or the origin of the universe, much less the origin of everything. I have several evolutionary science textbooks from which I can cite and quote relevant experts to that effect.

I understand that there are atheists who talk about the origin of life or the universe in evolutionary terms (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Jerry Coyne, etc.) THEY ARE WRONG, TOO. But they are handicapped by their atheism, so they have little choice in the matter. God has given them over to a reprobate mind, so they are ever more enslaved to their delusional thinking.

As Denis R. Alexander said in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (2008; emphasis mine):

​

... [T]here is nothing that I can see in evolutionary theory that supports atheism. Of course, if we view evolution through an atheistic lens, we shall inevitably interpret it within an atheistic framework, as Dawkins does when he writes that in evolution he sees "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." How could it be otherwise? The conclusions are built into the starting presupposition. This is what the atheistic worldview delivers; it is not what evolution itself delivers." (p. 182)​

​

No scientist (including atheist ones) so definitively says that the universe is imbued with life. They suspect it is, hope it is, even expect it to be, but they all admit that they have no idea. They speak in terms of probability (e.g., "could easily have, and maybe has")—even high probability—but never certainty.

And I have no idea what this "Farrellian probability" is supposed to be, and neither does Google.




Your opening post targeted atheists in the context that such people who "[believe that] biological life is explained by evolution" use it to cast aspersions on God.

My criticism of your opening post made two points:

(1) Hardly anyone (including atheists) believes that biological life is explained by evolution. The theory explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. It was my hope that you would amend your argument to take that into consideration—because if accurately representing the opposing view causes your argument to fall apart, then your argument is fallacious. So, either amend your opening post or admit that it would fall apart if you did so.

(2) Your opening post hits a larger target than perhaps you realized, since the vast majority of Christianity—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant—believes that the origin of species is explained by evolution, yet they are not rushing out to cast aspersions on God. There is something amiss with your argument, and it was my hope that exploring this with you might expose where the error lies—since doubling down on atheists can only lead to a No True Scotsman fallacy.

In both cases, I am trying to HELP your argument.

I wonder then why the excellent series featuring some 20 Ph.D.s hosted by R. Carson is not titled ATHEISM’S ACHILLES HEEL? Its title is ‘evolution’s’…. So after you get word back from him, let us know!

The Farrellian doctrine of improbability was discussed by Gonzales and Richards in THE PRIVILEGED PLANET documentary. It says that if the odds of an outcome are more than x(20th), it is impossible.

Google also says there is no evidence of a global flood.

 

[EarlyActs]

I asked you to provide an exact quote of what Kraus said. There is no exact quote in your response here.

I also asked you to cite the source, so the quote and context can be verified. You have barely done that, too. There is no title of the debate, no link to it, no date, no indication of where in the debate the quote can be heard, etc.

Do you know how to use a search engine like Google ? With select and paste you can find things.

Krause is actually pantheistic and it is too difficult to explain how that is a form of atheism, so best if you hear the whole thing. The whole plasma cycle of Buddhism , of the 360,000 year cycles, etc. resulting in the meaningless icicle of this cycle. Which he says more than once.

I did read a text years ago for my thesis , I think, about evolution being the same entity as Bhuddism’s ‘splitting and splitting’of God. Do you know that doctrine?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I wonder, then, why the excellent series—featuring some 20 PhDs and hosted by R. Carson—is not titled "Atheism’s Achilles Heel." ...

Me, too.

So, after you get word back from him, let us know!

In order for me to get word back from him, he would have to register at this site and post something.

The Farrellian doctrine of improbability was discussed by Gonzales and Richards in The Privileged Planet documentary. It says that if the odds of an outcome are more than x(20th), it is impossible.

At first you called it the "Farrellian probability," and now you're calling it the "Farrellian doctrine of improbability." Are you quite sure you know what it is? Perhaps you have forgotten what it was called?

I own a copy of the book, The Privileged Planet (Regnery Publishing, 2004). I had a look in the index and I don't see any mention of the word "Farrellian." Can you direct me to the page, or at least the chapter, where they mention this probability doctrine?

Google also says there is no evidence of a global flood.

At least Google knows the term "global flood" and to what it refers.

It does not know the term "Farrellian," however. If that term existed anywhere on the internet, Google would be aware of it.

Do you know how to use a search engine like Google? With select and paste you can find things.

It is your responsibility to support your claims—in this case, that Lawrence Krauss said the universe is imbued with life. That means quoted material that is sufficiently cited for someone to verify that he said it and its surrounding context (e.g., Buddhism).

You are, of course, at liberty to shrug off that responsibility. That affects your reputation, not mine.

Krauss is actually pantheistic and it is too difficult to explain how that is a form of atheism, ...

Good, because that is not relevant anyhow, either to the opening post or to whether or not Krauss said what you claim he did.

I did read a text years ago for my thesis , I think, about evolution being the same entity as Bhuddism’s ‘splitting and splitting’of God. Do you know that doctrine?

I am familiar with Buddhism, having been raised by a Theravadin. I was more interested in Mahayana, personally.

So, I can tell you there is nothing in Buddhism that resembles "splitting and splitting of God." Buddhism does not have a concept of God; Theravada in particular is explicitly atheistic.

 

[makesends]

It does not know the term "Farrellian," however. If that term existed anywhere on the internet, Google would be aware of it.

Lol, while you may be right, I doubt very much that Google tells everything it is programmed not to tell. Or, perhaps knows everything it is programmed not to look at.

I'm not saying that Farrelian is one of either of those things, but that Google is not historically a dependable source for all truth.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

At the risk of validating the charge that I am officious—"volunteering one's services where they are neither asked nor needed" (Merriam-Webster)—and after giving up on EarlyActs ever providing a properly cited source for this so-called "Farrellian probability," I want to submit that I suspect he was talking about Borel's Law (1965). For several decades, creationists have eagerly appealed to this law as if it said, "Any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is considered as having a zero probability (i.e., it is impossible)." See for example Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Books, 1997), page 123. They misunderstand and badly misrepresent this law, but I cannot get into that here because it's not relevant to the opening post. I just wanted to identify the "doctrine" to which EarlyActs was likely referring.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Lol, while you may be right, I doubt very much that Google tells everything it is programmed not to tell. Or, perhaps knows everything it is programmed not to look at.

I'm not saying that Farrelian is one of either of those things, but that Google is not historically a dependable source for all truth.

Granted. However, in this case you're taking "Google" too literally. It is merely a shorthand for referring to what's on the internet. Personally, I don't use Google for my searches because, as you indicated, it is not exactly reliable.