Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

You knew this was going to be a long response, right?"I cannot superglue the tennis balls on because I do not have the authority to do so."I'll admit my point was subtle, but you responded about how I thought you would. God, if he exists, has all the authority, power and imagination he needs. There is no reason he couldn't dream up a way to give us free will without helping us all use it to the best of our ability."About the article, I responded to its whole"No. You. Didn't. You responded to the intro. The first half of the first page. As it goes along the examples and proposed applications build right up to the "bigger picture"."It is not a "third impulse," as this defeats the entire purpose of what was said."Fine then, we'll use Lewis' exact words: "third thing." You still didn't answer my question, although you tried."If the Moral Law does not exist, why do we feel guilt, chemicals or no?"It's a bit like why we feel hungry when we don't eat, but more abstract. In both cases, it benefits our species."The only exceptions would be those with psychological disorders. "Which is part of the proof that moral law comes right from the brain, not some ephemeral soul concept. "However, as you insist on scientific proof"Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. In fact that's what I used to study before I switched over to science. But philosophy is basically about ideas, not facts. You are making a truth claim. To support or deny this claim we need facts. That is why science is a better tool for the job, although logic is important too, which is why I employ it when it's useful.Now for the video:While this video is well-produced and interesting, it is merely a collection of aging arguments that have been adequately disputed (and completely invalidated in several cases) for decades now. I will attempt to deal with each of the main points, but if you feel I missed something important, feel free to call me on it:(the timestamps are rounded, but they make adequate bookmarks. “The Negative Evidence”8:50 Miller-Urey ExperimentArguments against Stanley Miller’s famous experiment suffer from myriad flaws. The first is that they use smoke-and-mirrors to distract from the real point of the experiment: that organic molecules can arise abiogenically. The experiment was so simple that you can order kits online and make organic molecules in your own garage. And since then many researchers have tweaked the formula in a variety of ways. Not all of them yielded organic molecules, but several have, often producing different types and larger amounts than the original. Plus we have found organic molecules on meteorites, and we now even know that certain stars spit out vast clouds of the stuff. Organic molecules aren’t really all that rare in the universe, and can arise under a number of circumstances. So he may have had the wrong ingredients, but he still proved his point, and his opponents always steer the conversation away from that fact.Also, even when his recipe was debunked, some researchers pointed out that the entire atmosphere doesn’t have to be suitable for these molecules to emerge. You just need one or two spots for the possibility. And it is now widely accepted that volcanoes (both modern and primordial) can create microclimate conditions very similar to Miller’s recipe.But let’s say that his recipe couldn’t exist at all in the ancient atmosphere. There is actually another big flaw in his experiment, one that theists intentionally ignore: We shouldn’t be looking towards the atmosphere in the first place! There is insurmountable evidence that life began in the oceans (life has been around for at least 3.8 billion years, and has been on land only about 1/7th of that time.) Current theories make it quite clear that early life would never have been able to survive up here until it evolved quite heavily. Scientists prefer to research atmospheric experiments for two simple reasons: 1) we are even less sure about ancient conditions undersea than we are on land, 2) we don’t have the technology to properly simulate the speculative conditions, largely because of the water pressure involved. But when we learned that volcanoes made a great breeding ground for organic molecules, we realized that undersea volcanoes would be even better (Hydrogen has a harder time “floating off” under water, while other constituent elements would be clustered together for longer periods of time.) In fact, undersea volcanoes and steam vents almost certainly give us everything we need: Organic molecules, the heat needed to bond macromolecules together, the water needed to form lipid protobionts (which can reproduce pretty easily if they have the right arrangement) and free energy to simulate metabolism until such a process can evolve. Everything you need to form a sort of proto-life that would be subject to natural selection. Research in the area is very difficult because we can’t build technology to properly examine modern undersea volcanoes and steam vents. For all we know, proto-life is being created as we speak and being gobbled up by the extremophile archea that live in those conditions. Which is precisely why the theists are happy to keep the conversation atmospheric. 11:20 Dr. Jonathon Well’s “here’s how I know” test tube example.This has nothing to do with the origins of life. I can’t tell what living cell he is using, but it doesn’t matter because all modern living cells, even the simplest bacteria, are almost infinitely more advanced than the proto-life I described earlier. They are pretty well locked-in to specific forms now, so an irreversible reaction doesn’t say squat about their formation. Not to mention that his little test tube doesn’t account for dozens of factors that existed in the world at that time. Another case of smoke-and-mirrors that doesn’t address the issue at all.11:55 “Unsuccessful alternate theories.”We already dealt with “chance” and “chemical attraction” in previous discussions. These are not meant to be independent theories. They are observed realities that help refine the overall theories. And I’ve already explained why they are valid. As far as “biological seeding from space”: this really isn’t necessary from what we’ve observed. However, since organic matter forms naturally in the conditions of space, it is still a viable possibility. 12:50 Darwin’s Tree of life and the next few minutes.I think modern theists take Darwin’s work more seriously than modern atheists do. Of course his tree of life, and even his overall theory, had some flaws. The guy was working 150 years ago with limited resources and no knowledge of DNA or even atoms! The fact that the next century and a half of continual, global, research using steadily advancing technology has actually supported most of his theory is really astonishing and is a testament to his observational ability. When we find the errors he made, we correct them, and yet the basic theory remains quite solid. “Lack of transitional forms.” I noticed how they glossed over this, even though many creationists have been dogging this point for ages now. My guess is that they didn’t want to be in the position of defining what a transitional fossil really is. Because if they use even the strictest scientific definition, there are literally hundreds of perfect examples. And if they make up their own definition, they invariably end up describing things that a trained biologist wouldn’t look for. They talk about mythological chimerical fossils that genetics tells us could never happen. Ironically, when creationists are asked for an example of what would convince them that evolution is true, they examples they provide are examples of things that would actually destroy the theory of evolution in one fell swoop. And since those types of fossils aren’t found, evolution still stands. Regarding the Cambrian explosion, take a look at this (the response starts after about 1:40): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM&feature=channel And oxygen levels are just one of several good explanations for punctuated equilibrium. Numerous things were happening simultaneously that created the Cambrian explosion.The really poignant thing here is that when Dr. Wells talks about the Cambrian giving birth to all modern animal forms, he’s actually referring to the Devonian period (and even this predates almost all current families, but at least we started getting land forms and seed bearing plants), which started about 70 million after the Cambrian. I was tested on this in my entry-level college biology course, and is easily verifiable online. A man as well educated as Dr. Wells would not be likely to make such an obvious mistake. I’m pretty sure he’s lying through his teeth, probably because he makes more money selling lies in book form than he did promoting truth as a scientist. As far as parallel evolution, Dr. Wells was given an inch and took a mile. Recent findings do indicate that there was more than one common ancestor. In fact, that discovery helps solve the riddle behind the relationship between archea, bacteria and eukaryotes. It may not have been a “tree of life” but it certainly wasn’t a “lawn of life” either. It was more like a thorn bush. And phylogeny (both morphological and genetic) proves this. When he says “As scientists, it’s not our job to force the evidence into a theory that just doesn’t fit it,” he is brazenly ignoring the fact that that is PRECISELY WHAT HE IS DOING!“Positive evidence”20:20 Beginnings of the universeWe already dealt with this. However, when I hear this phrase: “this literally represents the origin of the universe from nothing”, I am compelled to point out that this only refers to what we can observe. We don’t know what, if anything, was “before” the big bang or is currently outside of the observable universe. It could be “nothing,” or it could be something that we don’t see because we live in an opaque fish bowl. As I mentioned in an earlier response, some quantum physics theories now propose that we are in a temporal cycle that didn’t have a true beginning because time might not be as linear as it appears. So that phrase is not really all that literal anymore. 23:35 Kalam cosmological argumentSince this argument has Muslim origins, it is appropriate to let a Muslim destroy it. Muhammad Iqbal said: “Logically speaking, then, the movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate; and the argument fails in toto… It is, however, obvious that a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds.”Plus this is just a watered-down version of the ontological argument, which itself is a non sequitur.“It sounds like the first chapter of Genesis to me.” But then there is the rest of Genesis, which describes everything after the beginning up to a few thousand years ago as happening in six days, but Mr. Strobel’s evidence flatly denies that postulation. Isn’t it sacrilegious to quote mine the Bible?“The evidence of physics.” 26:40 Universal constants, forces, etc.Let’s go to another video, shall we? (the response starts at 0:28) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg&feature=channel Further, life actually has more wiggle room within these constants than black holes do (and black holes appear to take up much more space than life does). If the universe was fine-tuned for anything, it would be them. And considering the temporal abnormalities surrounding singularities, it might be that black holes are indirectly responsible for everything anyway. We just got lucky that the "fine-tuning" benefited us too. Life is merely a side effect of reality. But the real kicker in all of this; the universal constants, Earth’s constants, the Cosmological constant; is that this analysis is all a result of backwards thinking. The forces that shape the universe and the Cosmological constant were a natural result of the Big Bang. The way energy functions is a natural result of those forces. Matter is a natural result of how energy functions. Stars and planets are a natural result of the interactions between the forces and energy and matter. The various paths that life has taken are all natural results of adapting to all of this. We define life based on what is possible within our universe. If the universe was different, we may not exist, but a completely different arrangement of life might. So we don’t need to rely on multiple universes, just like we don’t need to rely on extraterrestrial organic matter to account for the origins of life on Earth. Really cool graphics though! “Perfect solar eclipses”Another video, this one aimed at a different source. He talks about a different subject matter for a while, but starts addressing perfect solar eclipses after 1:46.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s&feature=channel As it turns out, our atmosphere is actually a mild hindrance to observing the universe, which is why the best telescopes are placed in space. As far as being in the right part of the galaxy to observe things, that could honestly be just luck. If life has evolved in a denser part of the galaxy, their observations might be more biased towards religion than science. So, pretty much the opposite of what this video is implying. 40:20 Evidence of biological machines and irreducible complexityWhen Irreducible Complexity was first trotted out, several examples were provided: the eye, the immune system, etc. You will notice that this video only discusses the cell. This is probably because every other example has been falsified on multiple occasions. Aside from different organisms having different varieties of these parts that tend to get more complex as the creature evolves, there is also the fact of exaptation, the idea that one structure may have had a different use than it does currently, which leads to simpler structures becoming part of more complex systems. The only reasons that cells are still considered fair game is that they are more complex than the other things and that we don’t have a perfect lineage of this in the fossil record. But then again, protobionts and simple unicellular life forms have a very hard time fossilizing, and fossils that small are obviously pretty hard to find anyway. However, even among living organisms (all of which are vastly more complex than the earliest life) we see a pattern of “leveling up.”All the principles still apply, especially since the time span of getting to modern cells is measured in billions of years. Irreducible complexity has not only never been proven, most examples of it are demonstrably wrong. The idea that Darwin falsified his own theory is, simply put, absurd. We have yet to find anything that could not have formed gradually over time. Nothing at all.Also, cellular structures look like human-made machines simply because form fits function. Many of our simpler machines were designed based on observations of natural occurrences.It is also worth noting that, Dr. Behe is arguably the biggest reason why Judge Jones ruled against I.D. being taught in school in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Despite aiming the opposite way, Behe ironically proved very well that I.D. is in no way a science, and very few legitimate scientists waste their time with him anymore, but creationists love him because he sounds smart. 49:35 the “language of DNA”Allow me to quote myself from a different argument on this site. This was in response to someone equating DNA with code, but it applies to the concept of language just as well.“…you are mistaking the ingredients for the recipe. It's a common mistake with this topic, but a very important distinction to make.If you take specific ingredients and cook them in a specific way for a specific amount of time you get specific results. Those results will be basically the same whether you use a recipe or not. The results aren't guided by intelligence, but the recipes used to duplicate them are.The same goes for DNA. We assigned the labels of A,T,C,G to represent different molecules. All molecules have specific attributes and ways of affecting other molecules that are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics. This establishes a chain of events that goes through a long and winding path between DNA and expressed traits. It is complex and astonishing, but complex and astonishing occurrences are not proof of intelligence. Our ability to make sense of it is. We were the ones who made the recipe, we put the word "code" in genetic code.Now let's say that a geneticist who happens to be adept at cryptography discovered that a specific strand of DNA represented a mathematical equation that predicted how many hours that the person who bore the code would live. And after testing numerous people, they all died exactly when the code predicted they would, regardless of it was natural causes, murder or what-have-you. Then the ingredients would be the recipe. That would be proof of intelligent design. I know the standards sound high, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. And in a world where all observable things have limits, a being that has no limits is as extraordinary as it gets.”As far as the ink and paper comparison, a professional microbiologist friend of mine had this to say on the topic when we had an online discussion a few months ago: “DNA isn't at all like the ink on a news paper ...for one more reason; you can put the news paper away and rest asure it won't multiply, generating offspring that uses alternate spelling, the alternate spelling offspring will not exhibit any adaptive advantages or disadvantages, etc... And the next day paper, what is it? Spontaneous generation?”53:20 Odds of first life. Ah, here we are talking about odds again. To get an idea why the odds of first life are almost always wrong, check out this page. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html Lots of examples here, but just reading two or three should give you the idea.This video looked nice, but all it offered were out-of-date concepts that have been destroyed repeatedly, some logical fallacies and even a few lies. This is NOT a very good science video, and the money used to produce it could have been better spent donating to the needy.