I began my research a little less organized than I should have. My process was typing into Google and YouTube, "Does God Exist?" I loaded several - I do mean several - videos and articles to use in my study. I will go through every single one with a very fine-toothed comb, checking their 'facts' and references. I will do my best to provide links to all sources cited for your own fact-checking. Please do not take my word for anything; do your due diligence and develop your own opinion.
However, after my first video, I am already discouraged. As I watched "Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1)," I paused the video to look up any article or books or people he referenced. While very obviously highly knowledgable, David C. Pack also has an uncanny ability to be entirely condescending in his conclusions. Such proclamations as, "no honest mind can believe otherwise," and "how utterly foolish to believe..." have, in my humble opinion, no place in a reasonable discussion such as this, and require a certain level of compassion and respect that these sorts of phrases lack. For now, I will go through my notes on this the first video in his series, however I'm not sure I'm going to be continuing the rest of his series. If Pack is incapable of acknowledging that an intelligent, rational, logical human may be capable of believing something he so thoroughly deems as foolishness, he does not seem open-minded enough to tackle the important questions I seek to answer in this study. Regardless of his inability to stay open-minded, I will overlook his strong opinions and focus only on what he claims as 'facts,' and decide whether or not they truly are facts.
It didn't occur to me that I should carefully choose the videos, books, and lectures I use as resources because I was under the impression that no matter the opinion given, if the facts checked out, their validity would be confirmed. Without even mentioning the video or pastor leading the video, I mentioned to my friends how many holes I've found already in this pastor's arguments and "Absolute Proofs" in this first part alone. They encouraged me to be cognizant of the validity of the pastor or speaker. So, today I looked him up.
Background on this Video
David C. Pack is Pastor General and the founder of The Restored Church of God. According to the "About Us" video on The Restored Church of God website, "The Restored Church of God explains the truths of the Bible with clarity and stands apart from the thousands of disagreeing sects and denominations of traditional Christianity." ... Hmm... soooo... it's a different interpretation of the Bible? I'm not quite sure what this statement actually means to them. Also, the video "A Look Inside The Restored Church of God" says they are committed to freely offering "the good news of the kingdom of God to all nations" however, nowhere does it actually explain what the "good news" or "biblical truths" are. I have a tiny issue with that. I cannot find on the site what their mission statement or actual doctrine is.
Right now, I'm not sure it matters much what the RCG believes as long as their facts check out. If they check out, I will examine their beliefs after. So far, in my limited observation, RCG sort of holds David C. Pack on a pretty high platform - a bit cult-like - and he seems a tiny bit narcissistic in his presentation of the "truths of the bible." But, like I said, if his facts check out, fine. I will take you through his first video in the "Does God Exist? ..." series, which does have many holes in it, unfortunately for them. I will then watch the second video in the series, and check his facts there, but if that one also has too many holes, I'll be moving on.
Video: "Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1)"
I started my study of this video on April 4th - precisely a week ago - and have concluded that I need to move on prior to actually finishing analysis of the entire video. I explain why in my conclusion, however, I do feel the information I gathered in this process is still very relevant to my study. Enjoy!
This Video's Claim
The video begins with an introduction to David C. Pack, who begins his lecture thusly:
"Most people assume evolution is true, just as millions assume God's existence... I learned it takes far more faith to believe the intellectually fashionable evolution myth, than that God exists. In fact, I learned evolution is based entirely on faith. No true facts or proof have ever been found to support it."
I could have done without the obviously biased comments like "the intellectually fashionable evolution myth," etc., but okay. This is the main thesis of Pack's first video of his "Does God Exist?" series. So, while I may go on a few tangents in this post, in order to properly address the validity of Pack's citations in supporting his claim that belief in evolution as a myth, I promise those tangents are all for the sake of eventually addressing this most important claim.
My Analysis
First Citation in this Video
The majority of this 28-minute video primarily focuses on an article published in the Wall Street Journal in 2014. In fact, Pack reads it almost word-for-word, understandably omitting the biased witticisms that Metaxas used for entertainment factor (e.g. "As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis - 0 followed by nothing.")
Resource Cited: "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God" from the Wall Street Journal in December 2014, written by Eric Metaxas.
Firstly, I looked up the credibility of Eric Metaxas. He is a writer, and tv and radio host, not a scientist. While this would typically not prove credibility, I will acknowledge that I am also not a scientist, and yet I am doing my own philosophical and scientific study of the existence of God and the origin of the universe. We shall let this slide for now.
In this article, Metaxas references Carl Sagan's claim in 1966 that
"... there are two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion - 1 followed by 27 zeros - planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion - 1 followed by 24 zeros - planets capable of supporting life. With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence... in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. ... But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. ... As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis - 0 followed by nothing."
Please allow me to make my own reference to the Fermi paradox, which states,
"The size and age of the universe incline us to believe that many technologically advanced civilizations must exist. However, this belief seems logically inconsistent with our lack of observational evidence to support it. Either (1) the initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, or (2) our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not detected them yet, or (3) our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the correct indicators."
I reference this paradox not to support or refute Metaxas' implication that finding no extraterrestrial intelligence may mean there is no extraterrestrial intelligence. I mostly think it is valuable to have this knowledge when broaching the subject. The idea that because nothing has been found does not explicitly disprove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. According to the Fermi paradox, it could actually mean we haven't done a good enough job searching. Or it could mean we're not technologically savvy enough to search successfully just yet. Or it could mean extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist. But we cannot know which it is.
Let us move on.
I reference this paradox not to support or refute Metaxas' implication that finding no extraterrestrial intelligence may mean there is no extraterrestrial intelligence. I mostly think it is valuable to have this knowledge when broaching the subject. The idea that because nothing has been found does not explicitly disprove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. According to the Fermi paradox, it could actually mean we haven't done a good enough job searching. Or it could mean we're not technologically savvy enough to search successfully just yet. Or it could mean extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist. But we cannot know which it is.
Let us move on.
To continue Metaxas' analysis:
"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces - gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the 'strong' and 'weak' nuclear forces - were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction - by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 - then no stars could have ever formed at all. ... Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stompingly astronomical that the notion that it all 'just happened' defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row."
Necessary Understanding to Continue
Okay, so far, my research is already referencing the sheer improbability that the universe could have come into existence all by its lonesome. Such examples as "tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row,"
and in New Scientist (November 1981),
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
More examples:
In the junkyard tornado, Fred Hoyle states, the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [referencing evolution] is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble of Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
So, yes, it is very clear that the universe originating and developing all on its own is HIGHLY improbable. However, IMprobable does not mean IMpossible.
In an email debate between Warrick Walker and Richard Carrier, Carrier refuses to acknowledge the improbability of the universe creating itself as even a possible implication of a Creator of said universe. In rebuttal, Walker analogizes the existence - and belief in - black holes with the existence - and belief in - God. He claims:
"This is simple cause and effect. The effect (i.e. the universe) is the result of a cause (GOD). Indeed, when I look at the wondrous universe that surrounds me, I have no problem in accepting a being that I can't fully explain. In short, we can easily apprehend God without completely comprehending Him.
I believe that the universe provides an interesting (though by no means perfect) analogy here in the shape of black holes. We are only "aware" of their existence by means of observing other phenomena. We have never, and may never, actually observed a black hole directly due to its peculiar characteristics. Most people today accept their existence, yet have never seen one let alone interacted with one in any way. Yet, can we say with absolute, 100% certainty that black holes exist? No! Do we have good reason to believe in their existence? Yes! I believe that a similar case is easily made for the God of the Bible. Naturally, as a Christian I believe 100% in God's existing. This is for the sake of analogy only."
So, yes, it is very clear that the universe originating and developing all on its own is HIGHLY improbable. However, IMprobable does not mean IMpossible.
In an email debate between Warrick Walker and Richard Carrier, Carrier refuses to acknowledge the improbability of the universe creating itself as even a possible implication of a Creator of said universe. In rebuttal, Walker analogizes the existence - and belief in - black holes with the existence - and belief in - God. He claims:
"This is simple cause and effect. The effect (i.e. the universe) is the result of a cause (GOD). Indeed, when I look at the wondrous universe that surrounds me, I have no problem in accepting a being that I can't fully explain. In short, we can easily apprehend God without completely comprehending Him.
I believe that the universe provides an interesting (though by no means perfect) analogy here in the shape of black holes. We are only "aware" of their existence by means of observing other phenomena. We have never, and may never, actually observed a black hole directly due to its peculiar characteristics. Most people today accept their existence, yet have never seen one let alone interacted with one in any way. Yet, can we say with absolute, 100% certainty that black holes exist? No! Do we have good reason to believe in their existence? Yes! I believe that a similar case is easily made for the God of the Bible. Naturally, as a Christian I believe 100% in God's existing. This is for the sake of analogy only."
It is clear I need to do a bit of research on black holes to ever claim this argument as my own should I plan to argue for the existence of God.
Back on the subject of statistics, Carrier denounces any, and all, of Walker's statistical claims:
"The first and most important thing everyone should be taught in high school mathematics is that statistics are routinely absued in every field, or misemployed by those who have an agenda, or lack ability, so we should not be surprised to find a lot of this sort of error, everywhere--not just in the creationism debate. Indeed, whenever statistics come up in any venue, we should always be at our most skeptical. And even more so in the present case. For we should expect something is up when the information needed for a correct statistical calculation doesn't even exist. We do not know what the protoboint was made of or how complex it was, nor do we know how many possible protoboints that can be manufactured chemically, yet both must be known before any calculation of the probability of the origin of life can be made."
Honestly, this is the first I've heard of a protoboint. More research is needed, like why they are necessary to calculate a probability of the origin of life.
I think I will table research on this source for a full blog post, rather than continue the tangent for this post on Pack's series. I think it deserves a post all its own.
Another Citation from Pack: Atomic Clock, Optical Clock, the Heavens
Until 1967, all U.S. clocks were set to the astronomical movements of our solar system. In 1968, Scientists built an Atomic Clock that uses Cesium 133 atoms because they vibrate at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This is accurate to one second every 30 million years.
In the interest of being even more accurate than the Atomic Clock, an Optical Clock was developed with mercury ions to measure time with light. Time is now measured in femtoseconds - a billion billionth of a second.
"Could such perfect order really be the result of an accident? With great time and effort, the world's finest watchmakers can at best devise relatively imprecise clocks... Can any... person believe the ... highly precise clocks - ... atomic, and optical clock - came by chance? Are we to believe very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, but clocks of far greater sophistication, precision, and design developed on their own?... You've seen absolute proof only the greatest watchmaker - God - could have devised these greatest watches."
While this is incredibly fascinating information on how our clocks have been developed, and a highly fascinating theory as to the validity of it all developing by chance, I have to disagree that this is "absolute proof" of it all being devised by God. Whether I believe God devised it or not, unfortunately for David C. Pack - and his continuing loss of my respect - his statement is still merely opinion, not proof.
"But What Is the Proof?" - David C. Pack
So, Pack will finally get to the 'proof,' right?
Unfortunately, here is where I decide to move on, because, let's face it, his version of 'proof' is not really what I'm looking for, nor is it helpful in my overall study because he seems to be making the same mistake I have been making my entire life in regards to this discussion. Namely, Pack is confusing 'proof' with 'evidence.'
So, what's the difference? In the real world, almost nothing can be truly proven. This is why the proper word to use is typically 'evidence,' especially in a scientific context. Evidence offers support to a hypothesis, but those conclusions are always open to change when new evidence is found. 'Proof' is conclusive, but 'evidence' isn't.
As defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Proof
1.
a : the cogency (the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity) of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2.
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
3.
: the quality or state of having been tested or tried
Evidence
Unfortunately, here is where I decide to move on, because, let's face it, his version of 'proof' is not really what I'm looking for, nor is it helpful in my overall study because he seems to be making the same mistake I have been making my entire life in regards to this discussion. Namely, Pack is confusing 'proof' with 'evidence.'
So, what's the difference? In the real world, almost nothing can be truly proven. This is why the proper word to use is typically 'evidence,' especially in a scientific context. Evidence offers support to a hypothesis, but those conclusions are always open to change when new evidence is found. 'Proof' is conclusive, but 'evidence' isn't.
As defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Proof
1.
a : the cogency (the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity) of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2.
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
3.
: the quality or state of having been tested or tried
Evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something (emphasis added)
Notice that in these definitions, evidence aids proof, and proof needs evidence, but once proof is established, evidence has already done its job. By definition, David C. Pack's entire video is made up of not "absolute proofs," but rather, "supposed evidence supported by
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something (emphasis added)
Notice that in these definitions, evidence aids proof, and proof needs evidence, but once proof is established, evidence has already done its job. By definition, David C. Pack's entire video is made up of not "absolute proofs," but rather, "supposed evidence supported by
Conclusion Regarding this Video
There are numerous examples of the improbability of the origins of life - both the universe and the existence of life on Earth. It is clear that prior to even exploring common or uncommon opinions on the existence of God and the origins of the universe, I must first study the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, and possibly even throw in study of black holes, protoboints, and the proper use of statistics in any of these discussions. I can't say that I fully understand the exact details of any of these, and it's very evident that most discussions on the subject of my study start or develop from understanding the claims of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution at the very least. It's clear that prior to my next video analysis, I must first research and understand these theories. Then I will have a basis of knowledge for continuing my scientific understanding.
In my true eccentric fashion, I have already been looking at the claims of several various other articles and videos in the process of Pack's video. I will post what I have found thus far, then halt for the continuation of my studies on BBT, and Evolution.
In any future research, however, I will be very diligent to discern between evidence and proof in my search for the truth.
In my true eccentric fashion, I have already been looking at the claims of several various other articles and videos in the process of Pack's video. I will post what I have found thus far, then halt for the continuation of my studies on BBT, and Evolution.
In any future research, however, I will be very diligent to discern between evidence and proof in my search for the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment