Are Dawkins and Krauss Really that Confused? 😬

“He is not so blind as he who refuses to see.”

Okay… I guess I’ll apologize for my title…  But, I will say, I am asking a sincere question.  You see I just couldn’t figure out a better way to put things without muddling up what I am trying to get at.  It’s just that I am so fired up I could spit! 😣  For the umpteenth time, while debating an atheist I was told, “There is no good evidence that he[GOD] existed.”  And to be candid, I’ve had it!  (😬 Again, so so sorry…). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this fishy excuse by atheists.  And scientists like Dawkins and Krauss (and all atheist scientist) know better.  But this phrase – “There is no good evidence that GOD ever existed” – continues to part of their farfetched mantra.  Here’s is what really chaps my hide.  All day every day countless scientists across the globe use the same exact type of evidence – available to prove GOD’s existence – to prove their scientific theories.  It’s what could be called indirect empirical evidence.

As many of you know empirical evidence is information acquired through observation. Scientists record and analyze this data. This process is a central part of the scientific method. Direct observations involve looking at the actual behavior or occurrence rather than a result of that occurrence, which would be an indirect observation. For example, Zoologists can study lions by observing them directly.  They also use empirical evidence gained through indirect observations to study a pride.  They will examine carcasses left after a kill, an abandoned den, even stool samples to collect indirect empirical evidence.   Anthropologists can also use direct observations when they study contemporary societies.  But they use indirect empirical evidence (like archeology and ancient documents) when studying ancient peoples and cultures.

Let’s look at how one scientist, we’ll call him Anthro-Bob does his work. Anthro-Bob can observe modern Canada and its people. (But, why would he? Really.)  He can directly observe their behavior, their family mannerisms, and their cultural dynamics. But if Anthro-Bob wanted to study the ancient Hutus, he would have to discover ancient archeological artifacts or writings to piece things together using indirect observation.

Now, let’s talk about Physics-Bob.  Quantum physics is the study of the subatomic world.  We’re talking electrons, and protons, and quarks, and Boson particles, and the list goes on and on and on.  Virtually all the evidence used to prove quantum physics is indirect empirical evidence.  None of these particles is observed directly – yet physicists use extremely massive and complicated machinery (like the Death Star) in conjunction with off-the-chart mathematics to create theories, do experiments, and prove or disprove their hypotheses.  All this science occurs through indirect observation and collecting indirect empirical evidence.  And let’s not forget that you yourself believe in things by indirect observation.

Magnetism is a fantastic example.  We cannot sense the force of magnetism directly through any of our five senses.  The earth has a magnetic field that you never sense.  (Unless you’re Magneto). Ah, but get a magnet and put it close to your fridge and you can stick Fido’s picture on your refrigerator.  You are experiencing the effects of magnetism as it is attracted to metal objects.  Do you see, feel, touch, smell, or taste gravity?  No, but you see its effects. Scientists didn’t even know dark matter and dark energy existed.  We can’t perceive it directly.  But when we calculated the expansion rate of the universe and crunched the numbers we concluded there was more mass and energy then we could detect directly.  Finally, the theory of Evolution is all based on indirect observation.  Scientists have never seen the actual process of Evolution happen in real time.  It’s too slow. So they collect a ton of indirect empirical evidence and then deduce things.

So maybe you now understand why I’m so hacked-off.  Atheistic scientists know when they say, “There is no good evidence that GOD existed” that they are not really shooting straight. Every single day they do science constantly collecting indirect empirical evidence and use it to do science.  How then can they ignore the nearly infinite amount of indirect empirical evidence proving the existence of GOD?

I remember going to the 40th anniversary celebration of Woodstock in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.  Me and a couple of friends went there to do some street preaching.  As we walked down a trail to enter the park, we bumped into a young kid who had ATHEIST emblazoned on his T-Shirt.  I looked him up and down and said, “No you’re not.”  He said, “Yes I am!” I repeated, “No.  You’re not.”  He repeated himself,  then said this, “There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of GOD!”  I replied, “Yes there is.  You’re standing on it!  It’s called the universe.” In a good natured way, he laughed.  He knew I had a point.

GOD has made Himself plain and obvious through His Son, His Word, common collective spiritual experiences, and indirect empirical evidence.  In fact, we know He exists because of the nearly infinite amount of indirect empirical evidence around us – the existence of the universe, it’s engineering marvel, the 98% of people who believe in GOD, and list goes on and on and on. I have direct empirical evidence of GOD through my spiritual connection with Him. I have 2.2 billion Christian brothers and sisters who testify to the same thing.

If you’re not a believer, open your eyes friend. The evidence is all around you.

~Peace

Liked it? Take a second to support Apologetics Dojo on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: