by Paul Ross
My recent conversation with a materialist over the existence of the universe.
[Note: His views are typical of the materialistic position. I know, I've been debating them for decades.]
Paul:
Mr Materialist, I have a question for you?
Materialist: Sure!
Paul:
Is Nature all that there is?
Materialist:
Yes! Nothing but Nature.
Paul:
Yes, of course, that's the materialistic position. Ok,
Where did Nature come from?
Materialist:
That's easy, Nature created itself.
Paul:
How did Nature Create itself? It would have had to exist before its existence? How exactly does Nature exist prior to its own existence? That's illogical nonsense talk!
Materialist:
Well, it's kind of complicated.
Paul:
I'm all ears!
Materialist:
Well, one theory is that it all emerged out of nothing.
Paul:
Oh, I understand, of course, that's what nothing does if left to itself.
Paul:
Sorry, not good enough, I'll need you to define this NOTHING?
Materialist:
Well, its quantum fields, fluctuations, a bubbling vacuum, variation principles and symmetry groups.
Paul:
I thought you said that it came from NOTHING?
Materialist:
It's not my fault if you don't understand what nothing is.
Paul:
I just don't understand evasive, dishonest and equivocal language that you materialists employ.
Paul:
Let's move on. Where did these quantum fields, fluctuations, a bubbling vacuum, variation principles and symmetry groups come from?
Materialist:
How would I know?
Nobody knows that!
Paul:
I find it extraordinarily dubious that the materialist cannot explain the origin of the laws of nature without INVOKING the LAWS of NATURE.
Paul:
You start out by asserting that Nature brought itself into existence, then you claim that it came from nothing, which in fact turned out to be a whole lot of SOMETHING which you have no idea from whence it came? I started out by asking you where Nature came from and you not only failed to prove that it created itself but you also employed deception in your dubious assertion that it came from nothing.
What's more, you have promised us that you will explain everything through a purely materialistic worldview, but to date, you have failed to explain anything of ultimate importance. The materialistic explanation of the universe explains nothing and makes sense of nothing, dogmas are merely asserted to keep in step with a purely godless materialistic interpretation of reality although reality itself has NEVER EVER been adequately explained.
You claim that there is no God but you've failed to demonstrate the OMNISCIENCE that would be required to PROVE that extraordinary conceited and outrageous claim — therefore your hubris pronouncement and pontificating about God's apparent non-existence is FRAUDULENT and blatantly bogus.
You assert that you materialists will eventually explain everything but to date you have no explanation for the origin of the laws of physics. You have no explanation for the origin of life. {To date, there is no known example that life of any kind was ever generated from a non-living source}.
You have no explanation for the origin of information, and you cannot even begin to explain how mindless matter and energy magically turned into thinking, rational, self-aware persons that can reason and argue about materialistic dogma.
Paul:
As a materialist, you talk about morals and values but I ask you how does non-moral energy, gravity and electromagnetism even BEGIN to bring forth moral conviction in a purely materialistic universe? Atoms and molecules don't generate guilt, conviction and conscience — energy does not dictate what choices we SHOULD make — gravity imparts no pain of conscience. Atoms, molecules and quarks are neither righteous nor unrighteous.
I understand in your worldview that if you give impersonal mindless dumb matter long enough it will start to think, reason, argue and exhibit moral conviction — and I also understand that this is the ENTIRELY unproven assertion made by the materialistic magician.
Paul:
I also understand that you want us to believe that our DNA, via dumb undirected mindless processes — for no reason and purpose whatsoever — just haphazardly so happened to underwrite the instructions to make our cardiovascular systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, immune systems, muscular systems, nervous systems, reproductive systems, respiratory systems, skeletal systems, eyes, hearts, lungs and ears — that in turn form into reasoning self-aware beings. It appears that the materialist has dumb mindless, accidental, undirected processes doing the most MIRACULOUS and IMPOSSIBLE things.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Paul:
Now, while we are on the subject of the miraculous as a materialist I understand that you have a particular problem with Jesus turning water into wine?
Materialist:
Yes, that's impossible.
Paul:
But yet you have no problem with a whole COSMOS with all of its law's, appearing out of NOTHING and for no PURPOSE whatsoever?
Materialist: SILENCE
At this point, the materialist is quiet and just listens, so I use this as an opportunity to speak to him frankly.
Paul:
Sir, I see that your problem is NOT with miracles per se, but only with miracles that owe their existence to an ultimate rational mind — God.
The truth is, you have your miracles — plenty of them — an absolute abundance.
In rejecting the existence of God, you don't ESCAPE from the miraculous. Retreating into the realm of purely naturalistic explanations in no way escapes the need to appeal to an endless list of improbable miracles.
In fact, all explanations,
no matter how far-fetched or bizarre are reasonable applicants as long as impersonal mindless forces and processes are ultimately responsible.
I understand that in your worldview all explanations that absolutely exclude personal agency — God — are the only ones that can EVER be valid.
I understand that when you are given the choice between miracles that arise from non-rational, accidental, purposeless forces, and between the miracles that are the by-products of a rational mind, you HAVE TO choose the former over the latter.
And I also understand that you have NO CHOICE because you have, a priori — in advance restricted yourself to only purely naturalistic explanations so as to remain a materialist — it's your religion, your philosophy — I get that.
PS.
As you can see the rejection of God is an 'a priori' philosophical position — a non- negotiable materialistic dogmatic doctrine that cannot be compromised. It's materialism through and through with absolute cultist fidelity towards the foundational principles of its own unprovable faith.
It's not science and has nothing to do with real science but is a philosophical opinion and interpretation in regard to what they think and BELIEVE ultimate reality really is. It's a faith POSITION and has nothing to do with real science.
-----