The Paradoxes of Atheism?!

Back in 2013 Neil Shenvi wrote an article trying to outline three things that he considers paradoxes of atheism. While the article is quite old, I think it deals directly with why I started this blog. After all, who knew that not believing in the gods could give rise to paradoxes?! It’s unfortunate that nonsense like this exists, and I want to address it. I think the main problem is that theists don’t have enough awareness of alternate explanations, and are always looking for ways to force everything into match their worldview.

According to Shenvi the following are paradoxes if you don’t believe in the gods:

  • truth-seeking
  • moral reflection
  • moral motivation

Truth Seeking

“If a truth-loving God doesn’t exist, then truth-seeking is neither intrinsically good nor morally obligatory. Therefore, paradoxically, the Christian has grounds to urge all people to seek the truth and to claim it is their moral obligation to seek the truth whereas the atheist has no grounds to urge others to seek the truth or to claim it is their moral obligation to do so.”

The first thing to come out of this is to ask the question: Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? It’s important to remember that reality itself doesn’t care what we believe, or how we act. Only those who have to deal with the consequences of our actions care about how we act. Since our beliefs inform our actions then what we believe has an impact on how we act. I think we do have a moral obligation to truth in the sense that if somebody wants to live around me, and I’m potentially affected by the beliefs, then I want them to believe true things, and not believe false things. I want the actions of others to be the least harmful to me that they can be.

I think it’s also important to point out that philosophy, literally the love of knowledge, arose sometime around 2600 years ago in ancient Greece. The people who first started exploring philosophy had no concept of a “truth-loving God.” It stands to reason that these first philosophers had reasons, other than their belief in the gods, as their motivation to determine truth. Why Christians think that they have a lock on truth seeking, when there were genuine truth seekers before Jesus, is beyond me. It’s not much different from the Christian who claims that science is an invention of Christianity. Christians developed science not because of their Christianity, but rather it was in spite of it, and I think the same holds true for truth seeking.

Truth seeking is ultimately an exercise in having a good understanding of likely consequences to our actions. This means that I perform actions that are likely to have desirable outcomes, and avoid actions that are likely to have undesirable outcomes. Once I understand outcomes, I can now take my values and try to make decisions that are consistent with those values. Remember, reality doesn’t care about what we think, or how we act, but other humans do, and we have to live with those people. If you don’t care what happens to you, or what the rest of us are going to do about you, then by all means, believe whatever you want.

Moral Reflection

Suffering and evil in the world is so prolific and horrendous that we instinctively avoid thinking about it to preserve our happiness. If Christianity is true, then all suffering and evil will one day be destroyed and healed. If atheism is true, suffering and evil are pointless and will never be rectified. So, paradoxically, a Christian gains the emotional resources to reflect honestly on suffering by reflecting on reality (as he perceives it) while an atheist gains the emotional resources to reflect honestly on suffering only by ignoring reality (as he perceives it).

This is a really poor argument, and I’d contend that it’s not much of an argument at all. If anything it points out the hypocrisy of some atheists who ignore the suffering of others around them, but this says absolutely nothing about the existence of gods. It’s simply an appeal to emotions to try and convince people that the best answer for suffering is wishful thinking, rather than ignoring reality.

There is real suffering in the world, and neither sticking your head in the ground, or any amount of wishful thinking about an afterlife, are going to do anything to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. The best way to deal with suffering is to have the best understanding of reality that we can. This allows us to understand the causes of suffering, and what can be done to stop suffering. Again, understanding and seeking of truth is the best way that we have to make real, and positive, changes in our world.

Do I do enough to reduce suffering in the world? Probably not. Do I claim to be morally perfect, and capable of stopping all suffering in the world? Definitely not. Is God perfectly moral, and capable of stopping all suffering in the world right now? Yes. Does God stop the suffering in the world? Not as far as I can tell. So why appeal to a being that doesn’t do anything to solve problems anyways? How does Christian theism actually deal with the problem of suffering? It simply doesn’t.

Moral Motivation

If Christianity is true, then all of our moral choices have tremendous, eternal significance. If atheism is true, then none of our moral choices have any eternal significance. So, paradoxically, the Christian gains the motivation to act morally by reflecting on reality (as he perceives it) while the atheist gains the motivation to act morally only by ignoring reality (as he perceives it).

This has to be one of the worst arguments for acting morally. The idea that without eternal significance to our actions that our actions are meaningless ignores the fundamental fact that our actions have real consequences now. I don’t know about Christians, but I care about what happens today, and what’s going to happen during the rest of my life. Maybe fantasies about a world of eternal bliss and paradise would be enough to make me stop caring about reality, but I’m not interested in fantasy. I’m interested in what our actions do today, and the consequences they will have for the billions of other humans, and other sentient animals, that we have to share our planet with.

I don’t need to know that my actions will have eternal consequences in order to act (or not act) in certain ways. Even if my actions only have consequences for a few seconds, I still want to act in ways that promote the well being of myself and the well being of others. This is simply a selfish policy because if I don’t give a damn about you, you’re not going to give a damn about me. I want to be alive, and having 8 billion other people not care about me isn’t conducive to me staying alive.

If you cannot understand that your actions will affect others, and their actions will affect you, then I don’t know what else I can tell you. It almost feels like some Christians are only moral beings because they’ve been told that if they don’t behave properly they’re going to be eternally punished. As somebody who’s been outside the Christian fold for decades, the mentality of some people seems completely foreign to me.

Why Christians think that articles, like the one I’m critiquing, are good support for their Christian views may remain a mystery for a long time. At least I will try to counter their points, and try to bring some sense back into reality. I do hope that they can at least see that we’re all connected, in some way, to everyone else, and that we need to live like we are connected if we want to survive.

“If Christ Rose From the Dead, Then, Game Over, Christianity Is True.”

Christian apologist Frank Turek wrote an article about a year ago where he makes the claim that:

If Christ rose from the dead, then, game over, Christianity is true. On the other hand, if he didn’t rise from the dead, then, as a first-century eyewitness by the name of Paul admitted, Christianity is false.

There are a couple of things wrong with this, and I want to take a minute to address them.  There are other problems in the article, but this seems the most serious.

First, Paul may have been an eyewitness to Jesus. We simply don’t know. Paul claims to have met Jesus after his resurrection, but we have no way to confirm that this is true. It seems rather unlikely to me that Paul was an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, or any other events before his death. I’m willing to grant that Paul probably had some experience, but I simply do not accept that we can call Paul an “eyewitness” to anything about Jesus.

The second point is much more serious. The assertion that “if Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true” is a non-sequitur. I can’t stress enough:  Even if Jesus did rise from the dead this in itself is not good evidence that Christianity is true, because you don’t know how Jesus rose from the dead. Turek is effectively making an assertion, as Christian apologists do, that Jesus rising from the dead can only be explained by Jesus being God, and I don’t know how one can make such a bold assertion.

I’ve written before about a possible supernatural explanation alternative to the resurrection. I don’t think my supernatural explanation is probable, but it is an alternative, and I don’t think it’s any worse than the Christian explanation. What makes this whole situation a problem is that we have no way to distinguish between which one of these explanations is better (or more likely) than the other. We don’t even have a way to know if either of these explanations are even physically possible!

My short point is that even if Jesus rose from the dead we still have no good reason to believe that it was because Jesus was God, or that any of of the other claims of Christianity are true. To do so is to succumb to superstition and ignorance, and that’s not a reliable pathway to truth.

10 Questions Every Atheist Must Answer Part 3 of 3

I’ve been examining 10 questions that a Christian apologists thinks that atheists need to be able to answer.  You can read part 1 and part 2 if you want to see the previous questions.  Most of the questions essentially point out that there are still mysteries in science (almost all of them related to cosmology). The fact that we don’t have answers does not, in any way, justify belief that any gods are necessary.

In this post I’ll be dealing with the last questions.  These ones deal with biology, which I actually have a better handle on than cosmology and physics, even though I’m not a scientist.

(7.) Despite several failed attempts, no scientist has ever been able to prove that life comes from anything except other life. Animals, plants, all organisms, all life comes from their own kind. In the only case of a claimed spontaneous generation of life, Louis Pasteur proved that this experiment was a hoax. By scientific evidence, Pasteur proved that life only comes from life which existed previously.There have never been any provable exceptions to this basic law of life. Not long after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Louis Pasteur challenged the idea of spontaneous generation. This hypothesis is the very foundation of evolution as the origin of life. Dr. Pasteur’s simple but elegant “swan-necked flask” experiments impeached the idea of organic life as originating from a non-life assertion. Since it is not possible for evolution to produce the first life, what process cause life to begin, if not God?

While the origin of life is a still a bit of a mystery to us, it’s not like we’re completely in the dark about what happened.  There are a lot of things we actually do understand, even if there are things we don’t.

I’d also like to point out that the question shows, once again, a misunderstanding.  Evolution wasn’t responsible for the origin of life, as evolution only takes over once life (something that is able to self-replicate) started.  Without some self-replicating molecules, like DNA, RNA, or some other molecule, evolution has nothing to work on.  The question should be asking how abiogenesis can produce the first life.

The idea that we only ever see life coming from other life may not be all that unexpected, and there are likely several reasons for this:

  1. Our environment today is quite oxygen rich, and oxygen has this nasty habit of being reactive with lots of other elements and molecules, and will oxidize many compounds.  At the time that life started (somewhere between 3.5-4 billion years ago), the atmosphere of our planet had almost no oxygen.  It’s quite likely that to form life naturally you need an oxygen poor environment.
  2. Since we don’t know how to start life naturally, we have no idea how long such a process would take.  If such a process took decades, or even centuries (which are tiny on geologic scales), the necessary molecules would likely be disturbed, or even consumed, by bacteria, which are just about everywhere.
  3. Life may actually have started multiple times, however, once life started the first time, any new life would likely have been out competed for necessary resources.

Aron Ra has produced an excellent video on abiogenesis, specifically what we do know about the process.  I recommend watching it if you’d like more background on what we know so far.

Frankly, the fact that we haven’t figured out how to get life started doesn’t concern me.  I suspect that even if we do reproduce some kind of living cell from very simple compounds, theists would just say that this is further proof that life needs intelligence to get started.

(8.)The only evolutionary process that has been proven by scientists is that certain species—when placed in harsh environments—have the ability to adapt themselves by certain changes that permit their continued survival. This type of limited evolutionary processes is assumed as evidence that greater evolutionary processes are also possible. What is falsely insinuated is that man could have evolved from the ape species. To the present day (2018), no scientific proof has ever been presented which would validate that man could have evolved from the ape species. No intermediate species have been discovered in the fossil record, though several fraudulent examples have been presented.The idea that all life forms originated from a common ancestor has no scientific evidence to prove that this has actually taken place, other than the limited evolution of certain species for the purpose of adaptation. The creatures, plants, and organisms that exist on earth, all follow a predetermined course for their existence that is fixed and unchangeable. Every animal appeared on earth fully formed as they now exist, and only under certain rare circumstances has any animal or plant changed slightly for the purpose of adaptation. There is no evidence that any species has evolved itself into a completely new species outside their original species. Since evolution of species has been scientifically disproven, how did life originate if not from God?

Once again, I want to point out that science doesn’t prove anything.  Science is an investigative methodology that allows us to determine natural causes for observed phenomena.

The evolution of humans from an ape ancestor has a strong degree of evidential support, and is very well accepted among scientists, and even among other Christians.  The Catholic church has no problem in accepting that evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory, and every mainline denomination also accepts the Theory of Evolution.  If you want the evidence that supports human evolution from an ape ancestor, there’s plenty of it over at Talk Origins.  I would also suggest looking at their index to creationist claims, or the 29+ evidences for Macroevolution.   The genetic evidence is very compelling.

Regarding the claim about intermediate species, we’ve found plenty of them.  Of course, as we fill in a gap, it creates two more gaps, which the creationist will then demand that we fill in.  Our understanding of whale evolution is pretty well understood.  If you have never gone through Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution“, you really should.  It’s a fantastic site.

The idea that “any species has evolved itself into a completely new species” is a misunderstanding of evolution.  Species cannot evolve into a new species by definition.  Populations, on the other hand, can evolve, and can become a new species that distinct from its parent species.

Further, if you think that “evolution of species” has been disproven, I’d invite you (or anyone else) to cite even a single article published in a reputable peer reviewed journal.  Evolution has never been falsified even once.  Such an event would be Nobel prize worthy.

(9.) When we think of evolution of the species in the sense of apes becoming man, this type of evolution has never presented evidence that would lead us to scientifically validate this kind of massive changes in evolution. Biology is based on taxonomy (classifications of species). This is the reason we see plants and animals with different scientific names. A species that occurs within an existing species because of adaptability is quite common. This new species within a species is not the same as evolution in the sense of creating a different animal or distinct kinds of organisms.

When different species attempt to produce fertile offspring by breeding, the resulting offspring are always sterile. When donkeys and horses breed, the result is a mule which cannot reproduce itself. This is due to the massive differences between donkeys and horses in their DNA as distinct species.

The difficulty in accomplishing the same outcome between apes and humans is not only difficult, it is impossible. Although attempts have been made several times to impregnate a female ape with a human sperm in order to produce a hybrid ape-man, this procedure has limits that are impossible to overcome. This is due to the impossible conflict that exists between the incompatibility of human and ape chromosomes and the genetic instructions necessary to create a hybrid.

Chimpanzees and human beings sharing 95% of their DNA sequence and about 99% of their coding DNA sequences. Because of this close proximity in these two, many have assumed that the boundaries are not impossible to cross.

One of the biggest obstacles in creating an ape-human hybrid is that humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48. Even in the event that a zygote should form, this difference in chromosomes will not permit the chromosomes to pair together correctly in order to cause pregnancy.

Finally, there is at least a 40 million base pair difference between the code of apes and humans that further make the chance of creating a living missing link impossible.

Chromosomes alone are not the key in this regard. The genetic code that is necessary to instruct cells on how to form living tissue, organs, and body parts is the key to making it possible for an ape and human to produce offspring. The genetic code for an ape is lacking 40 million characters.

Making human and ape genetic code compatible is a bit like trying to use the operating system of an iPhone to run a nuclear submarine. The genetic code of an ape is lacking the key instructions necessary to make a viable being between ape and human. This has never happened before, and it never will happen. Understanding these things, how could an advanced life form such as man, exist at all if not by the creation of an infinite Being?

Humans and other apes cannot interbreed because our DNA has significantly diverged over the last several million years.  We are no longer genetically compatible with our nearest species, the Chimpanzee.  Horses, zebras, and donkeys are able to interbreed because their last common ancestor was only about two million years ago, compared to humans and chimps which diverged between 6-13 million years ago.

The claim that humans, with 23 pairs of chromosomes, and chimps with 24 pairs, would not be able to produce offspring is actually not the reason why humans and chimps cannot interbreed.  Donkeys have 62 chromosomes and horses have 64, and yet they can produce offspring, but they cannot produce fertile offspring.  At present there have been a couple of occasions where a female mule has been able to produce offspring, but this is incredibly rare.

Now down to the question, which demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution, and how humans evolved.  Humans didn’t come about by interbreeding with other apes.  It’s almost certainly the case that humans descended from a population of other apes.  This original separation, from other apes, lead to various subspecies of the homo genus, including Homo Sapiens, Homo Abilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals, and of course, our own Homo Sapiens Sapiens (the only surviving homo species.)  We have a good understanding of how humans diverged from other ape species, and we don’t need to invoke any gods to explain the process.

(10.)The Bible presents us with scientific facts of the universe—precisely as they have existed since the beginning of the Cosmos. These facts of science were not placed into the Bible in order to prove that the text was scientific, but simply as comments about God and what He has created. By the inclusion of these statements, we see that the author of these texts must have known attributes of the universe, before these facts were known to science.

There is no question here, just a bunch of assertions. Frankly, there really is no science in the Bible.  The many authors of the Bible, while reasonably capable people in their day, were simply ignorant of what we know about the world in our day. The last 200 years of science has given us an incredible insight into our world, far exceeding what anybody could have thought when the various authors of the Bible wrote.  The authors of the Bible did the best they could to try to explain the world with the limited knowledge they had, but they got an awful lot of things completely wrong, and seem completely ignorant about a lot of other details.  This is not meant as a slight against them, they simply didn’t know.

The Bible isn’t a science book!  You can certainly try to contort various passages to make it comport with the science of today, but wishful thinking doesn’t make your book any more scientific.

10 Questions Every Atheist Must Answer Part 2

I’m currently exploring 10 questions that a fundamentalist Christian has posed for “atheists.”  You can read the first part, where I looked at the first three questions, but let’s continue.

(4.) The ratio between gravity and electromagnetism during the first picosecond of the universe was precisely set. If this balance was increased by only 1 part in 1040, there would never have been life on earth 13.7 billion years later. Cosmologist Paul Davies determined by calculation that a 1-in-1040 chance is equal to shooting and hitting a coin from Earth, at the far side of the universe. No natural or evolutionary force could cause this to take place, what caused this extreme low state of entropy, if not an infinite intelligence?

Okay, so what?  How did you determine that any other values for the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force are actually possible?  You’ve asserted that no natural force could cause this to take place, and I’m curious how you determined this? I would charge that you are simply arguing from ignorance (once again).  If your statement is true then we should be telling cosmologists, and other physicists look for a natural model for the early universe, that their efforts are in vain, and they should just stop and accept that a god is the answer.  It would also be Nobel prize worthy for the person who established this, so please, show me your Nobel prize.

(5.) The mass difference between a proton and an electron is 1:1836. This means that the proton is precisely 1,836 times larger than an electron. Despite this difference in size, both have the exact same electric charge. If we were to alter this electric charge by one part in 100 billion, every atom in the universe would self destruct. Since this mass/electric charge could not evolve, it must be precisely set first before life can begin. How could an evolutionary process achieve this precise ratio the first time?

Your question seems to assume that you’re free to alter one specific constant, and hold all the other constants the same.  I don’t know that this is even possible, given that many of the physical constants are dependent on the speed of light, and a few other fundamental constants.  I’m also going to, once again, reiterate that I do not have an answer to this questions because I’m not a physicist. You should be asking physicists, not atheists. If there are mysteries to physicists, that is not a reason to believe that any gods are necessary.  Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean by “evolutionary process” in this context. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life, not an explanation for the universe.

(6.) Our universe contains the precise physical constants that have the exact values that are required to allow for complex structures, such as galaxies, stars, planets, and people to exist. There are over 122 of these anthropic constants. How did evolution dial these constants in to the precise settings necessary for life and sustain them for 9 billion years, until the earth was formed? Evolution cannot produce precise settings all at once, yet all 122 of these constants had to be in place at the same time, before life could begin. Explain how this happened if not by an infinite intelligence?

This question is very strange, and I have to admit that I have trouble parsing it out for coherence.  There are quite likely plenty of values for the physical constants that would allow for complex structures.  These structures would likely be very different, but then again, you’re the one positing that these values can be changed.   A universe with different physical constants is almost certainly going to be very different from our universe, so many things about it are going to be very different.

You ask about evolution, but I’m curious what you think evolution has to do with cosmology?  These are two unrelated areas of science, and it makes your question difficult to understand.

Even if I cannot explain how this could happen naturally, it does not follow that your answer, that an intelligence is necessary, is correct. To make such an argument is to once again commit the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.  My inability to answer difficult scientific questions, when I am not a scientist, doesn’t mean that I should believe that any gods are required.

To be continued.

10 Questions Every Atheist Must Answer

I found the following 10 questions on the blog of Rob Robinson, a Christian apologist. Rob seems to think that I need to be able to provide answers to these questions in order to remain an atheist, or to be justified in being an atheist.  I’d like to start by saying that my atheism is, for the most part, no contingent on any of these questions.  Even if I cannot answer these questions it does not follow that God (specifically the Christian God) is the answer.

I’ll attempt to offer answers where  I can, and try to direct you to reasonable scientific resources where I can.  Before we start, I’d like to address a point he makes very early in his post:

The basic nature of the universe, earth, and human life, cannot be explained by any naturalistic process.

How did Robinson determine this?  All I see here is an argument from ignorance.  If science has not yet found a natural explanation for these things (I do reject the assertion that the Earth cannot be explained by natural processes, as we have a pretty good model for how solar systems form), this only means that there are gaps in our understanding of reality.  There will always be something we don’t understand, and if you want to jam your God into these gaps then your God will simply become less and less useful as science finds answers to these mysteries.  I’d also like to point out that we do not solve mysteries by appealing to even bigger mysteries. Not having natural answers doesn’t mean that supernatural answers are correct.

Now let’s get to the questions.  I’m going to break this post into three parts, due to the size of the content, and so that I can address the points better, and so that we aren’t dealing with too many topics at once.

(1.) Since time, space, and matter did not exist before the universe began, where did these things come from to make the universe?

I’m not even sure your question is coherent.  If time did not exist, how does the concept of “before” even make sense?  If space did not exist, how does the concept of “where” make sense?  I’ve written about the cosmological argument before, so you can read that if you want to know more about my position.  My short answer is that I don’t believe that the universe “began to exist”, so the whole question is nonsense.  Cosmological arguments aren’t terribly convincing.

(2.) Since there were no physical laws before the universe, what force controlled the universe to exact a specific outcome to allow for life? Gravity, electromagnetism, entropy, and the distribution of matter, all require precise control at the beginning or the universe would have collapsed back upon itself. If not God, and seeing that the laws of physics did not exist, what force acted upon these imperative forces to cause then to be set precisely where they needed to be to sustain life, 13.7 billion years later?

Again, I don’t know that the statement “there were no physical laws before the universe” is even a coherent statement.  This is really more of the same as the previous question, and asks us to evaluate more cosmological quandaries.

I’d like to point out that I don’t know if your statement that “gravity, electromagnetism, entropy, and the distribution of matter, all require precise control at the beginning or the universe would have collapsed back upon itself” is actually true. Cosmic Inflation Theory explains some of this, but not all.  No scientists will tell you that every mystery of the early universe has been solved, and even if we have no answer to these mysteries, appealing to an even bigger mystery does not help solve the problem.  Instead of one problem you now have an even harder problem to solve.

(3.) The universe began with an extreme low state of entropy. Mathematical Physicists, Sir Roger Penrose said that the only possibility that this could have taken place is if an intelligence acted upon the expansion to cause a low state of entropy. Given the conditions that were present at the commencement of the universe, scientists would have expected a very high state of entropy. How is this possible if the universe evolved on its own?

I have to say that I think it’s really interesting that you claim that Roger Penrose, who is an atheist, thinks that the only possible answer is an intelligence.  I strongly suspect that this is a quote mine, but since you’ve offered no sources, or even a quote for that matter, I can’t accept accept what you’ve stated.

I’m not a scientist, but if this is a puzzle it’s a puzzle for scientists to work out.  Jumping up and down claiming “God caused this” is little more than an assertion, and one that isn’t justified yet.  Again, even if it is the case the fact that we don’t understand something that is not evidence for any god(s), and is simply an argument from ignorance.

The first three questions haven’t been very interesting.  The first two seem to make the assumption that there was something “before” the universe, which I can’t even say is a coherent concept.  All of these questions, so far, would amount to a god of the gaps if you wanted to use them as arguments for any god.

To be continued…

Response to a Fundamentalist Christian Apologist

“I have published dozens of articles and two books on the scientific evidence for a universe that exists by intelligence. I would recommend that you read them but I have noticed that when I have suggested this in the past, you have ignored my encouragement.”  — Robert Clifton Robinson, in his reply comment to me in his post Slavery Can Be A Really Good Thing.

Frankly, Mr Christian apologist, the fact that you’ve written two books (anybody can write a book and get it published), and dozens of articles (I have a blog too), on the “scientific evidence for a universe that exists by intelligence”, is of little concern to me. I believe you lead the evidence to your preferred conclusion, rather than following it, as good scientists do. As yet there is no scientific consensus about what you claim, and scientists have yet to come out to say that the evidence tells us that any gods exist, or that the universe is the result of some supernatural intelligence.  Maybe they will one day, but they have not yet.

I suspect I know what you’ll say about the fact that scientists haven’t come out and admitted that the evidence doesn’t lead to your conclusion:  That the scientists are all atheists, and they’d rather sin than acknowledge a creator.  I’ve heard this too many times from fundamentalist Christians.

But please tell me how many of these articles have you submitted for peer review to scientists? How many of these articles have been published in credible, peer reviewed, journals?  For the record, I’m not talking about meaningless creationist journals like “Answers Research Journal“, or predatory pay-to-publish journals where anyone can publish their nonsense for a between $200 to $2000.  What have actual scientists said about your so-called articles?  If you ever submitted them, I’m willing to bet that they’d end up in the bin.

I’m also curious, Christian apologists, what credentials you have in the area of science.  You claim you’re using scientific evidence to establish that the universe required an intelligent creator, but I’m willing to bet that you’ve had very little, if any, scientific training.  What degrees have you earned, in what fields, and from what accredited learning institutions?  How many years have you worked in the field of science that you think you have enough background to even sit at the same table as scientists, or even try to contribute to science?  Looking at your “about” page, I see nothing about any of your credentials, even as a theologian.

So please tell me why I, or anybody else, should invest any time to consider your “scientific evidence” when you are almost certainly not an expert in the subject, or demonstrated yourself to other experts?