I found an interesting podcast today and heard the following statement, "According to Science, Pluto needs 200 some odd years to orbit around the Sun. We haven't even known about Pluto that long in Science so how do we know that or that it will ever will orbit the sun? We don't know... but we have the math, the science and the evidence that confirms this former planet is conforming to the laws of gravity, the laws of physics that govern the universe that are consistently reliable. It's not like science stops working on occasion. There is a reason why there is no documentation for a miracle because these are violations of natural laws. They just don't happen." —Matt Dillahunt, The Atheist Experience Podcast.
I turned to my fellow brother in the battle, SouldeSaenz and emailed him to ask him how many contradictions and refutations he can find in the quote. I found his response brilliant! Here it is:
"His presupposition is that because the other planets orbit around the earth, then Pluto must do so as well. He first needs to address the problem of Induction. Just because it has happened once in the past that does not mean that it will happen again in the future, that is Induction.
Next, his evidences are not proofs of it happening. Just because you have evidence or rather, data, that is not proof of anything. What kind of data do you have regarding Pluto anyway? It's mass? It's position in Space? What is that proof of? That says noting about it's orbit of the Sun.
Finally and this is the biggy, on what basis can this clown even begin to make an assertion as to Natural laws? [They are] are immaterial, universal, abstracts. How can these materialist who hold to the creation of the universe through material means account for the immaterial? Why does he commit a category error in assuming that miracles are proven by the same means as the orbit of a planet around the Sun. This is what Dr. Greg Bahnsen called the "crackers in the pantry error". One does not prove that there are crackers in the pantry by the scientific method just as you do not prove the validity of miracles by whatever means he claims are invalid. He also never demonstrated that miracles violate natural law. How does Jesus curing a blind man a violation of natural? Which law of nature does that violate?
Lastly, there is plenty of documentation of miracles—it's called the Bible! In the end, he is left with the being guilty of what he himself is accusing the Christian of! There is no proof that Pluto orbits the Sun, only evidence that it may.
Well put my brotha! And may I add, doesn't the Atheist at some point have to account for the Big Bang? [hypothetically speaking]. Did it happen naturally? If they believe this, how can they know?
Next, his evidences are not proofs of it happening. Just because you have evidence or rather, data, that is not proof of anything. What kind of data do you have regarding Pluto anyway? It's mass? It's position in Space? What is that proof of? That says noting about it's orbit of the Sun.
Finally and this is the biggy, on what basis can this clown even begin to make an assertion as to Natural laws? [They are] are immaterial, universal, abstracts. How can these materialist who hold to the creation of the universe through material means account for the immaterial? Why does he commit a category error in assuming that miracles are proven by the same means as the orbit of a planet around the Sun. This is what Dr. Greg Bahnsen called the "crackers in the pantry error". One does not prove that there are crackers in the pantry by the scientific method just as you do not prove the validity of miracles by whatever means he claims are invalid. He also never demonstrated that miracles violate natural law. How does Jesus curing a blind man a violation of natural? Which law of nature does that violate?
Lastly, there is plenty of documentation of miracles—it's called the Bible! In the end, he is left with the being guilty of what he himself is accusing the Christian of! There is no proof that Pluto orbits the Sun, only evidence that it may.
Well put my brotha! And may I add, doesn't the Atheist at some point have to account for the Big Bang? [hypothetically speaking]. Did it happen naturally? If they believe this, how can they know?
4 comments:
Oh Snap!
I have a "finally" and a "lastly"... if it was finally, why then the need for lastly?
I guess i sorta rambled
-j
And yet... both SouldeSaenz and you would bet money on the "fact" that Pluto orbits the sun. You use science when it suits you. Thank "goodness" science doesn't care if it suits you or not - it just is.
Science assumes induction. Yet atheists cannot account for it. And, you thank "goodness" because you "feel it" in you to thank something or someone.
The reason you have that is because you, like all humanity are made in God's image.
Atheists always complain that Christians use the "God of the gaps" theory to fill in the holes that science cannot explain.
However, atheists are just as guilty when they assert, "it just is". How is that scientifically relevant? Where's the emperical data for "it just is?"
Oh my God.
And I mean that most sincerely.
Would that there was a time machine to send you guys back to medieval age from which you came.
I do think it would be best for all concerned if you spent lots of time praying. Don't even think about reproducing, and handing off those genes to a new generation.
Post a Comment