Quote# 106579

Recently, atheist Richard Dawkins appeared in a short video titled “Mr. Deity and the Atheist.” In this very mocking video Dawkins speaks with a character playing God named “Mr. Deity,” and gives reasons why God doesn’t exist. “Mr. Deity” replies to his accusations, but his answers are even more mocking than Dawkins’ claims and are clearly attempts to make fun of God.

Dawkins tells Mr. Deity, who clearly is supposed to be representing the biblical God, “You know, it seems to me that if you really want to be useful you could do us all a favor and simply vanish.” Dawkins’ rationale for this is that, “The whole of your precious creation was made by evolution and you didn’t have to lift a finger to help it along. You’re completely redundant, not just lazy. Even if you weren’t lazy, there’d be nothing for you to do.” Dawkins claims that evolution has destroyed any need for God because we don’t need a Creator to get us here because everything can be explained naturalistically. Really, Dawkins has placed his faith in his religion of evolution and millions of years.

He adds, “And what’s more, we have science now, making you completely unnecessary.” By “science” he, of course, means evolution, which is historical science. This kind of science deals with the past and is therefore not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. Now, to prove his point that science has made God unnecessary he says, “Do you know that we just used science to do something truly amazing and quite difficult? We landed a probe on a comet.” Here he has done what so many secularists do. He’s used a bait-and-switch. He says that “science” (unobservable historical science) has made God redundant, but then he uses an example from “science” (observable, testable, repeatable operational science) to prove his point! But historical science and observational science are not the same thing!

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet. You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview. But there is a Creator, and He set the laws of nature in place at the beginning. And we can trust that these laws will work the same tomorrow as they did today because our unchanging God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3).

Dawkins’ comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years. They are opening the door to compromising with the rest of God’s Word. After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?

Ken Ham, Around The World with Ken Ham 53 Comments [2/23/2015 4:31:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Chris

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Dan Onymous

Well yeah, Dawkins is a bit of a dick. But so are you.

2/23/2015 4:33:52 AM

whatever

Creation is evidence of a creator. That does not prove that the God of your Bible is that creator.

2/23/2015 4:36:13 AM

niv

the only difference between the science behind evolution and the science behind the space programs, is that YOU didn't find biblical reason to object to space exploration.

2/23/2015 4:39:18 AM

Goomy pls

Your distinction between historical and observational science is totally meaningless! It is the same science, just looked at through the lens of last and current events. And by the way, evolution has been observed. One example is by Richard Lenski in his experiments with E. coli. But I bet you will get into another meaningless distinction: "macro-" and "microevolution."

If we couldn't study the past, how would we know about it? The whole field of forensics becomes useless. And how can we verify the Bu¥Bull?

2/23/2015 4:40:26 AM

anothga

This kind of science deals with the past and is therefore not directly observable, testable, or repeatable.
Doesn't Bible talk about things from the past? Therefor, isn't Jesus' existence not directly observable or testable? Then, where's your proof Jesus actually existed?
This kind of an argument is problematic, because it might lead to a conclusion that historical documents are not reliable at all. That's even more problematic when your religion's holy text is supposed to be a "historical" document, meaning that by using this argument, you invalid your own religion's teachings.

He says that “science” (unobservable historical science) has made God redundant, but then he uses an example from “science” (observable, testable, repeatable operational science) to prove his point!
Science. You keep on using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

2/23/2015 4:43:40 AM

MK

The last two sentences shound win the "So close and yet so far" award.

2/23/2015 4:44:42 AM

anevilmeme

Do Ken Ham and Ray Comfort have some sort of weird bet going to see which one can say the most insane things without getting locked up in the looney bin?

2/23/2015 4:54:24 AM

commonbloodysense

"After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?"

Our point exactly.

2/23/2015 5:01:26 AM

Dyz

I like how in the last paragraph he admits that it's not about beeing correct; it's about not beeing able to maintain the unreasonable faith against all that evidence.

2/23/2015 5:07:01 AM

Ebon

But historical science and observational science are not the same thing!

Yes, they bloody are and all your constant strawmen do not change that.


@ Goomy:
A week or so ago, I mischaracterised you as Islamaphobic. I had somehow got you mixed up with DFM (who IS Islamaphobic). I'd like to apologise for that unintended slur. So: sorry.

2/23/2015 5:07:56 AM

D Laurier

The sun rose thismorning.... therefore BLARGLAPHT, Slupth blug glepep nurga lapth vlog.

2/23/2015 6:01:20 AM

Doubting Thomas

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet.

Trying to shoehorn God into science are we?

You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from?

They were always there, it just took man's intellect to discover them. And you just prove Dawkins' point that God is irrelevant and redundant in science. Because frankly, if we have laws of science, why do we need a god to explain anything?

2/23/2015 6:18:15 AM

Mister Spak

"After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?"

Now take the next step . . .

2/23/2015 6:25:36 AM

Canadiest

One problem here Ken, and that is Science has been proven over the years to explain things once attributed to your God, predicted outcomes better and debunked Biblical assertions to establish truthful knowledge.

We won't accept your infinitely regressive argument as you can't prove item one of it. Your denial of evidence IS ALL YOU OFFER, not evidence against scientific conclusions.
The last paragraph is a plea to the flock to keep that denial up, don't listen to the others, eyes front to the pulpit, just believe.


2/23/2015 6:31:05 AM

the_ignored

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet. You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview. But there is a Creator, and He set the laws of nature in place at the beginning. And we can trust that these laws will work the same tomorrow as they did today because our unchanging God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3).

Eesh. Ham really has drunken the Sye-Ten Kool-Aid hasn't he?

Here's the thing: It's with a "creator" who can manipulate the laws of nature that you are going to have trouble assuming that the laws of nature are going to be consistent all the time.

"Miracles" anyone?

Look at how often creationists have to play hob with the laws of nature in order to make sense of the observations around them.

ie) speed of light problem, pictures of distant galaxies colliding, etc.

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/miracle_henke.htm

2/23/2015 6:40:30 AM



As Sam Harris has said, I would challenge anyone to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Rational people can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way, where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science, and by moral progress, and by secular progress generally. And I think that’s not an accident.

2/23/2015 6:45:46 AM



Ham’s comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with religious ideas of creationism. They are opening the door to compromising the rest of science, logic, and reason. After all, if you can’t trust science and reason, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust the science of evolution, then why should we trust the science of gravity? Why trust the science of modern medicine? Why trust any science at all?

2/23/2015 6:51:43 AM

KittyKaboom

Goomy: Absolutely. It's pointless to discuss evolution with creationists because they automatically go into 'macro vs. micro' BS.

I can be a bit of a jerk about that, admittedly. This type of purposeful stupidity tends to bring out my inner sociopath.

2/23/2015 6:59:19 AM

whatever

@#1767575
"If we can’t trust the science of evolution, then why should we trust the science of gravity? Why trust the science of modern medicine? Why trust any science at all?"

Because experiments can be conducted and the results can be tested.

2/23/2015 7:00:34 AM

Prager

"If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?"

So close and yet so far.

2/23/2015 7:04:26 AM

Arctic Knight

If this so called "historical science" is so unobservable and untestable, then every murderer who was ever convicted through the use of forensic science needs to be released now. The very same scientific methods used to recreate a crime are the ones used to understand evolution.

2/23/2015 7:36:59 AM

dionysus

Science DOES make God irrelevant. Science can cure disease, explain the universe, and make predictions that come true consistently. And no, God had nothing to do with landing a probe on Rosetta. That was also science.

You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview.

Why do I get the feeling you think there's some cosmic rulebook that tells comets they must circle around the Sun and stars that they must shine? In reality, those are all physical interactions. Comets orbit stars, not because they'll burn in hell if they don't, but because they are pulled toward a larger body: the Sun. That's all gravity is: larger objects pulling on smaller objects. No magic, and no bearded man required. As for starshine, that's just energy released from a nuclear reaction in the core. See, this is why your lot love to poeticize and mystify everything. If you actually see what's happening behind the veil you'll realize there is no man behind the curtain.

2/23/2015 7:41:59 AM

dionysus

After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?

*Puts on Christian hat*

Because the Bible is full of allegory. Or did you think in Matthew 18:12 Jesus was talking about literal sheep? If so, that's quite a random change in subject. You can gain a deep, spiritual understanding of the message without believing in goats fornicating in front of rods and literal talking snakes.

*takes off Christian hat*

Even if we didn't already know your worldview was extraordinarily unscientific, that last bit you wrote should prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Science not only allows us to question everything but it implores us to. Yes, even the Theory of Evolution. Scientists simply tire of DISHONEST criticism. And scientists have kicked other theories to the curb when they failed to stand up to scrutiny or new evidence threw a wrench in them. Whereas you just admitted that not one part of your holy book can be questioned or debunked lest the whole thing crumble to dust. Then again, that explain why creationists think finding one issue in any science (i.e. not knowing where the third toe of the four-toed black-striped sloth came from) destroys all of modern science (including the Big Bang, star formation, planetary formation, the age of the Earth, natural selection, common ancestry, and abiogenesis). What they don't realize is that science isn't anything like a holy book and you can discard volumes while the rest stays intact. We can prove Darwin to be absolutely wrong today and common ancestry would still be true.

2/23/2015 7:49:09 AM

Nemo

The last paragraph is far more condemning of your religion than any of Dawkins antics, Ken. You advocate that people believe in creationism, not because it is true, but ultimately because of a perceived consequence of not believing.

As for the second to last paragraph, "the atheistic worldview" doesn't have to answer where magical laws came from until you can demonstrate that the universe has an inherently chaotic, random nature that has to be held in check by magical laws.

We can trust that gravity, inertia, et al will work the same tomorrow as today largely because the god of the fundamentalist Bible does not exist. The Bible quite clearly teaches that the various forces of nature act however Yahweh is in the mood for them to act. Science, if such a deity truly existed for real, would be impossible. This particular presuppositionalist argument is as bad as claiming that Moses is responsible for Hammurabi.

2/23/2015 8:04:25 AM

msd

It really is staggering that in 2015 in an advanced nation this charlatan is allowed (and openly supported by many elected politicians) to poison children's minds with this dangerous, infantile, ludicrous and fact-free nonsense.

2/23/2015 8:42:45 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page