Below is a note posted by the face book member; Creation Kenya, followed by a thread of exchange between me and them.
Is God Unscientific
Both of these viewpoints are accepted as assumptions ( and an assumption is accepted or rejected by faith). But once either position is accepted , certain conclusions also must be accepted . For example the naturalist assumes that there is no possibility of miracle. Everything in the naturalist's world must be explained on the basis of natural laws. This would include the universe , earth, life and emotions.
The supernaturalist must accept the possibility of miracles since he believes something other than matter exists. Therefore for a supernaturalist, His/Her world can include things that aren't explained on the basis of matter alone. His God , being outside of the material universe , could change the natural law since He created it.
Science is the study of the material world, and science always is searching for order/Laws in the universe . Because of this , it would not do to have God change the natural laws every time the scientists entered his laboratory . If God did this , no order ever could be found in the universe. Thus science must assume God either doesn't exist or He at least does not capriciously change the laws of nature. Experience tells use that God does not often interfere with the laws of nature. But can experience prove that God never interferes in nature , or that He doesn't exist?
As one see, science must assume that God is irrelevant to the operation of the universe on a day-to-day basis before it can insist that any order can be found in the universe. Some scientists argue that their natural laws always work; therefore , this consistency proves God has no place in this world. Actually, this line of argument is called tautology by philosophers. They assume God isn't involved in the universe and then, since their premise is accepted by themselves , they conclude that He really is not involved in it.
Science cannot prove that God is irrelevant to the universe. If God set up the Laws of Physics, He is Hardly irrelevant. However , each position is accepted by Faith. And if each position is accepted by faith, science has no right to throw stones at one who believes in God when the scientist simply chooses to believe differently.
Kelvin Kimathi M
These are very solid arguments and no doubt they have given me a lot to think about. And please, I hope you do not see me as one who is stubborn in my presumptions whether they are correct or not. I am very ready to be proven wrong. As I have said, I only seek the truth. However, I have to push yet more of my reason into action in order to truly understand what I believe or don’t believe. And I am sure that you agree that if this supposedly god-given reason is what it is, a gift from god, then exercising it is the will of god. In front of me I have a piece of scripture which you must be well familiar with. One can even call it the rudiment of faith and creation. John 1:1-3. ‘In the beginning the word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He was in the beginning with God. He creates everything there is. Nothing existed that he didn’t make.”
I remembered these verses when you talked about free will and sin. According to these verses, God (the word) predates everything including sin. Free will implies the ability to make a choice. A choice is a live phenomenon. For one to have free will they have to choose between two things that already exist. For example, a child born in the 19th century cannot choose between paying his school fees and buying a video game simply because a video game does not exist in his time. So my query is, if God created all that exists, then wouldn’t this mean that God thus created evil. We are taught that man fell because of the influence of the devil, fair enough. This makes reasonable sense that the curiosity of man would be preyed upon by a fiend that has a lot to gain from this abuse but again puts to question man’s free will. Now this fiend; where did he come from? Heaven, we are told. He fell from heaven when he decided to oppose God. So God cast him out of heaven into hell awaiting judgment on the final day. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the story. You say that atheists have a worldview, but the entire bible sounds a lot more like the plot of a Hollywood movie based in medieval Europe or Asia. But that is beside the point. My query is; what compelled Lucifer to rebel? If all was good at the beginning then what choice was there but to only be good? Does a child who has no experience have free will? Lucifer before he rebelled can be compared to a newly born infant whose entire experience is restricted to its environment. To this infant there is no alternative but what is presented to it within its immediate environment. A child born in a place where apples do not exist cannot choose to eat apples instead of the oranges it is offered. You might say that Lucifer was intelligent and the infant is not. But what is intelligence but the exercise of deductive skills based on experience? What is experience but the interaction of the mind with preexisting phenomenon? The existence of evil defies everything we are told about god.
I personally do not believe in free will. Only God can have free will because he is omniscient. Man CANNOT have free will. Free will means judgment without cohesion or influence. Man has never been capable of this. Free will can only exist in the human mind if it is provided with all data in existence. Then the mind would have to examine all this data, compare it and then come up with a clear selection of coherent conclusions. Take a simple example; the crucifixion of Jesus. Human beings did not have all the information in existence. In fact at this time, human beings had very little information all together. Their judgment was wholly influenced by their simple experiences. They had no way of knowing that this was the ‘son of God’. So it was not free will that led to the crucifixion of the messiah but the influence of the prejudices of the time. I anticipate a very strong reaction to the previous statements so I am going to draw parallels. In the dark ages and a good part of the Victorian age, scores of innocent women and children where put to death in the most horrific fashion buy the church and society as a whole in the name of mitigating witchcraft and devil worship. Today the church admits that this was the result of ignorance and prejudice. These ‘witches’ were usually cases of undiagnosed diseases, mental illness or just people who were anti-social as a result of traumatizing experiences such as rape, violence and the like. Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest by the church for teaching students at Pisa that the earth was round and it orbited the sun. The church called this blasphemy and would have had him put to death if they had the power. The man who proved the existence of irrational numbers was drowned at sea because mathematics had been accepted as the language of God and this would have to be the worst form of blasphemy. The list is eternal. What I am saying is that free will is a chimera. It cannot rationally exist in a human being. Every decision a human being makes is either forcefully or unconsciously influenced by preexisting circumstances. Free will is a concept invented to fill man with guilt and self loathing. The flip side of belief in free will is the vanity that leads men to thinking that since they have ‘FREELY’ chosen to adhere to the most POPULAR opinion of the times, then they are justified in judging others and persecuting them. This is the true origin of immorality and not the luck of faith as POPULARLY believed. Man is born moral but vanity and self righteousness leads him to think that one man is greater than another. All men are equal and have the need to pleasure themselves and survive. It is the mutual connection that would naturally keep human beings unified. The belief in free will negates this principle because it teaches that some men have more desirable will than others. And with this come hatred, anger, persecution and all rudimental evils. I say rudimental evils because I divide morality into two, morality of opinion which is completely dependent on popular culture- it surprises me that religion lays claim to this form of morality since it is popular opinion that defines it- and rudimental morality which is based on self preservation and general well being of all sentient beings. I will stop there so I can move on to my second question.
What is the point of hell? I have thought of this over and over and have come up with no rational explanation for the existence of hell. If I wanted to scare people into doing what I told them to do without question then hell would be a genius invention for me. This is why I say this. Religion teaches that hell is a punishment for the wicked and those who rebel against God. If Christianity does not take a worldview, then why should any Christian believe that punishment can exist beyond the human realm? I have concluded, after quite a fair bit of research that punishment has three motives;
1. Redemption of the object on to which punishment is meted.
2. Redemption of the witness to the punishment.
3. Retribution... See More
Hell has no redemption thus the ceaseless suffering of its inhabitants has no clear motive outside purely merciless misanthropy. Hell has no witnesses besides the claims of men with God’s insight –God’s insight seems to have an exclusivity that defies logic-, so those who have not yet been cast into it have no way of benefiting from its existence. An infinitely MERCIFUL, JUST and POWERFUL god has no rational reason to seek pleasure or satisfaction in the suffering of his own creation for whatever reason thus such retribution would be beneath him. He simply does not lack satisfaction. To claim that God seeks retribution is to claim that he lacks satisfaction and seeks it in some kind of vain malediction. Every part of the teachings of Christianity and the bible seems to have another part that completely opposes it. This, if you do your research, is the nature of every other political conspiracy in human history. This nature is not exclusive to Christianity but to every religion that claims power and influence.
Creation Kenya is yet to reply to my last message but if they do I will be sure to post it. This is not a competition to see who would win but simply laying out the facts from each side and trying to come up with a logical truth. Watch this space for more articles from me. If you have a minute, take a look at the facebook group: Kenyan atheists.
Creation Kenya
Correction 1: God Did Not Create imperfect Human Being. Sin Has Distorted The Origin Perfect Creation that God created.
Correction 2: The analogy that You ( Mr Kimathi) Have used of a father and His/her children is completely uncalled for. Reason is that the Father (God) Has NOT Blinded Us (The Children). The Father (God) Gave Us (Children) FREE WILL to CHOOSE to worship HIM (i.e Father/God). Without The FREE WILL that The Father (God) Has granted His Children then i would agree with you that He Blinded Us. But That is Not the Case.
Correction 3: Mr Kimathi you say that "all faith is based on credulity that is cultivated by the assumption that the creator exists. but on what does this assumption stand? Unlike other faiths; The Christian is not built on assumption. If u can read (Isaiah 1:18) which say "Come now, and let us REASON together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be white as snow.----- Christianity is the REASONABLE FAITH; and it alone has an effectual and infinite atonement provided in the person and work of Christ.... See More
Correction 4: Also unlike other Faith. The Christian Faith is NOT Built upon the assumption that God Exist. The Christian Faith presupposes the Existence of God.THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS HERE, RATHER THAN NOTHING, REVEALS GOD
A building proves a builder, and so Creation proves a Creator. (Heb 3:4 For every house is built by someone...).
Correction 5: I DO AGREE WITH YOU when you say that "science is the study of cause and effect which is widely accepted as the order of all existence" . What i fail to understand is how you make that statement bearing in mind that your worldview (atheists) fail to acknowledge the existence of The "uncaused First Cause" i.e the Creator who exists outside of the physical Creation He made. The law of cause & effect,which is the basis of the so called scientific method affirms that like causes produce like effects & that every effect must have an adequate cause.No effect can be quantitatively greater than or qualitatively divergent from its cause.Thus,regarding the personality of man as an effect,his intelligence requires a Cause possessed of intelligence,his power of choice implies a Cause possessed of volition,his moral consciousness must be explained in terms of a Cause possessed of morality. Similarly,the intelligibility of the physical universe implies a Designer.Thus the law of causality,through admittedly not philosophically impregnable,is at least strong circumstantial evidence of the existence of a great First Cause,a personal Creator-God.
Correction 6 : " faith seems to manifest effect without cause or miracles..." .Surely that Not Possible coz of the law of cause and effect. Suffice to say that its Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause.