Debates do not reveal facts or “truth”. Debates are won based on subjective analysis by the viewers. Typically viewers who do not have pre-conceived ideas will determine the winner based on charisma or on specific responses they find “interesting”. Debates are usually a waste of time except when I am trying to determine which person's ideas I like better.
Judgments between people. We can't make judgments of fact. We can't even argue fact, we can only argue opinion. "The boy ran fast" is an opinion. "The boy ran 100 meters in 6 seconds" is a fact.
Recently the Gaines center at the University of Kentucky presented a talk by a theologian and an atheist.
The theologian focused his talk on the idea that all scientific research should be conducted with a mind open enough to consider the traditional viewpoint of Christianity and Jesus. Not in my opinion and I will explain that later. Whatever.
The atheist was an idiot. A moronic idiot that had me laughing my butt off.
The atheist started his talk explaining that he was going to be “pugnacious” in his response. His response began focusing on the comments of the theologian. In fact he insists that he is going to rebut comments by the theologian. Lame, very lame. Instead of arguing for his belief he argues against the beliefs of an individual. Then he goes on give statistics on atheists in science. These are not arguments for atheism, they are ad hominid arguments. In other words “Everything he said is bullshit” and “these people believe the way I do so you should believe the way I do if you are smart”.
The reality is that both science and religion seek to answer similar questions in different ways.
There are two factual arguments that the atheist makes, one is that if you close your mind by refusing to abide in a pointless universe you are not a scientist. The second is that science is based on repeatable empirical observations by people that are substantiated through observations by other scientists regardless of their beliefs.
The atheist however does not stay in the realm of “fact” and instead continually references “truth”. What is “truth”. Things get murky when we talk about “truth”. Truth is a legal or philosophical term and it is actual subjectively determined. “Truth” is not a scientific term. The words “Theory” and “Fact” are scientific terms.
Get this straight, if a person uses the word "truth" they are not speaking in objective, factual terms or scientific terms. "Truth" is not science. "Truth" is for philosophers and theologians.
"Truth" is for lawyers who rely on a witness swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me whatever. Who cares if fifteen people all observed a situation, all have totally different stories and all tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Truth is the subjective analysis by a judge and jury of those very different accounts.
From a scientific viewpoint a person cannot take a position on a theory when undertaking an experiment. The atheist explains this in talking about “fooling yourself”. This was a hilarious bit of hypocrisy.
There is repeatable experiment that will prove to the observer that the divine does exist. The subjective and personal nature of revelation causes many scientists to discount the evidence of revelation. Personal revelation is statistical evidence of the divine even when it cannot yet be effectively communicated in a standardized method and does not prove the specific details of any religion. Duh.
Here is the really big arrogance attached to the atheists argument and it applies to any argument which attempts prove a negative.
We don't know everything.
We cannot prove a negative without making subjective “reasonable” assumptions. In other words we cannot prove a negative without exiting the objective and embracing a subjective, “reasonable” viewpoint. Darwin's "reasonable" and racist viewpoint about savages for example.
Science utilizes subjective reason and logic to prioritize experimentation. Science uses logic and reason to support theory. Science does not use logic or reason to identify facts. This is a huge issue and a lot of people who are not objective end up making terrible subjective decisions which result in huge mistakes and a waste of money.
You do not need logic to support a fact. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. No logic. No reason. Fact. "The boy ran fast" What is "fast"? That statement may be "true", but, it ain't no fact.
Okay, so we ignore the statistical evidence of religious revelation, miracle cures, etc. This exits the realm of science which demands that we not fool ourselves by ignoring the obvious, BUT, let's just pretend that we can subjectively ignore data we cannot explain and remain scientists. Can we now prove the non-existence of God by ridiculing the ideas of religion? No. Ridicule is not evidence of fact. Ridicule may be subjectively identified as "reason" or "logic", it is not fact.
Evolution of mankind has not been proved, it remains a theory. Even proved evolution would only prove that some religious viewpoints were incorrect. Absolute proof of evolution would not prove the non-existence of the divine.
How can we prove the evolution of mankind? We really can't. Scientific proof is in observation so until we develop a method of observation of the past we cannot prove the evolution of mankind. Even then the evolution of mankind is theorized to have taken millions of years and it would be a little difficult to observe, even using a “fast forward”. The best we can do is controlled genetic experiments which support the theory of evolution.
So the only thing I have proved is that the atheist is not an objective “scientist”, he is a subjective “non-scientist” or no more a scientist than a theologian is.
People are going to be subjective and we actually have to be in science. Suppose I am researching the metallic bonds between different metals. The direct sharing of electrons between copper and aluminum for example. I have to make subjective decisions to determine where the best area to apply the resources I have available is. Subjective analysis.
Suppose I use my religion to determine that metal bonds because God wants it to. There is no need for me to research the subject at all.
I am curious and objective though and I have researched the issue. That means I don't believe in God?
The video I watched finishes with a question about Darwin's racism. The atheist tells us that Darwin's racist “truth” was typical of his time and position.
Lame. I guess "truth" changes over time and I would be correct.
Some guy goes to prison based on the "truth" and ten years later the "truth" sets them free.
Science is about being curious and objective.
Sure, I can use statistical analysis of the existence of religious revelation to prove the existence of the divine in general.
I cannot use personal religious revelation to prove any details of religion until we develop a method of communicating these experiences accurately. That is no joke, eventually we will use Brain Computer Interfaces and Magnetic Resonance Imagery to record enough religious revelations and hallucinations that we will be able to document them.
When that happens some moron may yell, “look, we can't find a difference yet and we know everything so there must not be one, revelation and hallucination are the same”. The same scientific objectivity holds, we don't know yet.
In other words proving that an apple and an orange are both fruit does not mean they are not different. Until we can prove an observable difference we can (and probably should) take a subjective position that they are not different AND objectively refuse to state that they are the same.
Saying “We can't find a difference” is not the same as saying “these items are identical”. Before microscopy and ultra-accurate measurements I am sure many things were considered to be identical even though they were not. In fact they were not identical. We now know that no two things are exactly identical so we define the variation using statistical analysis. “This DNA is from the same person within a million to one probability”.
Eventually we will discover the variations between "religious visions" and "hallucinations". Eventually we can develop a form of communication that reduces the probability of mis-communication based on subjective understanding of language. "Political correctness".
I can use experimentation to prove or disprove the specific details of scientific theory. That is real objective science and it does not conflict with my religious views or any subjective "truth".