John Clayton

[hshatfield]

I was told that John Clayton could prove that god exists with science. I read his argument and he doesn't appear to know what he is talking about. His augment can be found here http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html . I am only in high school and I haven't done a lot of research on these topics, but he seems to have a lot of wrong information on things like singularity. He also keeps equating atheism with the belief that the universe is infinitely old.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/PastLife.html

I also read this. I don't know, but it seems like he became a christian for emotional reasons and then tried to use science to back it up later. I actually found this quite amusing. It sounds like he went from a confused little boy to a VERY confused stupid old man. I am not saying that all christians are stupid, I just think he has bad arguments.

I just wanted to see if other people agree with my assessment.

 

[Raithere]

Mistake #1: "If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be."

The error is known as a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy.

Mistake #2: "The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning"

This is simply factually incorrect. Many atheists belive that the Universe began with the "big-bang", for instance.

Mistake #3: "The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief."

No, that would be a concise statement of The Humanist Manifesto regarding matter and existence. A concise statement of atheistic belief would be, "There is no God." Of course, that in itself is misleading and incomplete as the majority of atheists hold no atheistic beliefs only disbelief.

Three errors in the first paragraph alone; I think we can safely say he has proved nothing.

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

hshatfield,

Welcome to sciforums.

Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

Lose heat and light to where? If the universe is everything then everything will have been consumed in the collapse. There is nowhere to lose anything to. Entropy would be reset to zero on each collapse, before the next cycle.

Why assume that the singularity was caused by anything other than a natural event?

Why assume that the singularity is the only one and that what we call a universe is not just one of an infinite number of them, just like bubbles in a bottle of soda pop.

We do not know what causes big bangs. We do not know how frequently they are caused. We do not know how many of them exist. We do not know if our bubble universe is cyclic or not. The article does not reference inflationary theory.

The speculation that a god started singularities is as arbitrary as any other idea except that it is less likely than most since it requires a supernatural realm which is an entirely additional issue to be proved.

The article seems to display significant ignorance concerning evolution and chance. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

There are no proofs here only baseless assumptions and twisted baseless reasoning.

As for being an atheist; perhaps his story his true however, the invalid assumption is made that his experience is what it is like for all atheists. Atheism has no universal set of beliefs, dogma, and rules. An atheist might be the worst that humanity has to offer or the best. The only thing in common between all atheists is they all lack a belief in a god, nothing more can be said. The reader is being asked to accept that because this man did terrible things because he was an atheist then every atheist behaves the same way. The article is flagrant Christian propaganda.

 

[hshatfield]

Thank you Cris and Raithere.

I was thinking many of the same things as I read those articles. My first post wasn't well thought out and I am sorry if I was to harsh. I did use too many ad hominems. Some of my friends and family recommend that I read things like this from time to time. I know they just want to help, but I have yet to read something that doesn't disappoint me. I was told that John Clayton is an expert on science and has excellent arguments. Neither was true. His site is also filled with articles on stuff like "you can have no morals without fearing god" and the usual nonsense. The reason I called him a stupid old man is because he seems to try to sound like some wise man that has learned the error of his ways, but he just sounds like a bad person that found a reason to behave himself and thinks everyone else needs it or they will be like he was. At least he is better than "Dr.dino."

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Mistake #1: "If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be."

The error is known as a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy.

He went on to say, "Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning."

Can you think of any other option?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield

I was told that John Clayton is an expert on science and has excellent arguments. Neither was true.

I think you are a tad bias. At your age, you should be more objective. It seems to me you are looking for like-minded people to comfort you, to ease your restless mind. What this chap is trying to do is to get you to examine all the scientific theories as they are, without trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, then you will see that all of them lead to an original (intelligent) cause.
It seems, that if any person who was athiest, or a scientist, comes to the conclusion that now they believe in God, they become illogical and ignorant (in your eyes).
This is simply silliness.
Be objective, if God does exist, any intelligent person would want to know.

The reason I called him a stupid old man is because he seems to try to sound like some wise man that has learned the error of his ways, but he just sounds like a bad person that found a reason to behave himself and thinks everyone else needs it or they will be like he was. At least he is better than "Dr.dino."

I think, the reason you called him a stupid old man, is because he not only believed in God, but was what you would call a rational, scientifically knowledgable strong atheist, before his belief, and therefore has firsthand knowledge of both subjects at his fingertips, and can easily defeat any argument you put before him.
He can easily reveal your true intention, and leave you standing naked in the cold.

He just pissed you off.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[SpyMoose]

I think he called him a stupid old man is because he is under alot of missconceptions about his opponents and science, he dosnt know some of the theorys whos names he uses, and he does not address theorys that cause problems with his arguments. among other things.

 

[coolsoldier]

It seems as though Clayton has done a reasonably thorough refutation of a particular opposing belief, but his basic assertion that "there are only two possibilities" is sort of ridiculous. There are never only two possibilities -- If you think there are, odds are you've overlooked something.

I think it's interesting that he asserts that philosophy has no place in society, when, based on that assertion, we have no practical need to know whether God exists or not.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
He went on to say, "Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning."
Can you think of any other option?

Sure. Here are two off the top of my head:

We don't actually exist.

or perhaps:

Time is 'spherical' (which makes the question of a beginning as meaningless as asking what is south of the south pole).

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I think, the reason you called him a stupid old man, is because he not only believed in God, but was what you would call a rational, scientifically knowledgable strong atheist, before his belief, and therefore has firsthand knowledge of both subjects at his fingertips, and can easily defeat any argument you put before him.

I don't know that I would call him an idiot but his arguments are terribly flawed. He hasn't even provided a sound argument, much less defeated opposing argument. His page is loaded with errors and the only opponents he has defeated are straw men.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Sure. Here are two off the top of my head:

We don't actually exist.

That is nonsense. We do exist.

Time is 'spherical'

Please elaborate.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Raithere
A concise statement of atheistic belief would be, "There is no God."

Or: "Belief in God is unwarranted."

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
That is nonsense. We do exist.

I do agree but logical proof or refutation of existence is a bit more difficult and it remains an option, our opinions notwithstanding.

Please elaborate.

Hawking does a better job than I can; I would recommend "The Universe in a Nutshell". Basically, it's the big-bang model except that the Universe never resolved into a singularity but instead 'rounds the corner' in a quantum indeterminacy.

http://www.meta-library.net/ghc-bb/hhbb-body.html

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Or: "Belief in God is unwarranted."

That is much better. Thank you.

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

Hshatfield,

Your opening post was fine and your opinions seemed relevant.

The man does not demonstrate any objectivity; his agenda appears to be to prove what he wants to be true as opposed to discovering truth itself. Neither does he demonstrate a scientific outlook. He starts from the assumption that a god exists and then selectively chooses aspects of some scientific theories and claims they prove his claim. He conveniently ignores issues that do not support his desire.

Also attempts to show that atheists have no hope and that only theism can be true is straight from the bible “The fools says in his heart, there is no god” (Psalms 14.1). This is a preaching technique that has been used for many centuries. It’s an old and tired tactic.

The article is pure Christian propaganda.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

I think you are a tad bias. At your age, you should be more objective. It seems to me you are looking for like-minded people to comfort you, to ease your restless mind.

You can think what you want, but that is not the case. From what I know about science, it seemed that Clayton's arguments were not valid. However, I am not an expert and I wanted to see if I was correct. I know that both theists and atheists post here and I thought I could get some useful opinions.

What this chap is trying to do is to get you to examine all the scientific theories as they are, without trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, then you will see that all of them lead to an original (intelligent) cause.

I am willing to examine all the scientific theories as they are and learn what ever I can from them. I just don't think he has valid arguments and therefore his conclusion in not necessarily correct.

It seems, that if any person who was atheist, or a scientist, comes to the conclusion that now they believe in God, they become illogical and ignorant (in your eyes).

That isn't true. I don't think that being a theist makes one illogical and ignorant. I don't think all atheists are rational either. Whether a person is rational or not depends on much more than being an atheist or theist. If he, or anyone, can give me a good argument for the existence of god then I would love to see it. However, Clayton has failed to do this.

Be objective, if God does exist, any intelligent person would want to know.

If god does exist, then I do want to know about it. I want the truth no matter what it is. I realize that I will never come close to knowing all that I would like to know, but I will learn all that I can.

I think, the reason you called him a stupid old man, is because he not only believed in God, but was what you would call a rational, scientifically knowledgeable strong atheist, before his belief, and therefore has firsthand knowledge of both subjects at his fingertips, and can easily defeat any argument you put before him.

First of all I shouldn't have called him stupid. It is nothing but an ad hominem and it was wrong. If you read my post, you would know that even when he was an atheist, I would hardly consider him "a rational, scientifically knowledgeable strong atheist." He said things like "I had always felt that science could ultimately answer all the questions that man had." Statements like that show that he didn't understand science as an atheist and it looks like he doesn't understand it any better now.

He can easily reveal your true intention, and leave you standing naked in the cold.

I doubt it. While my knowledge of science isn't outstanding, it appears to be superior to his.

He just pissed you off.

How do you know?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Yes, I feel your love. I don't care what you say about me, just please don't try to sugar coat it. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[Balerion]

hshatfield,

Don't apologize for calling this guy an idiot; becuase he is. Good topic and I'm glad you are open to listen to everyone.

Jan,

Ooooh, boy, where do I start with you?

I think you are a tad bias. At your age, you should be more objective. It seems to me you are looking for like-minded people to comfort you, to ease your restless mind.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Tell me, Jan, how someone like you, who believes in God, can reprimand anyone for not being objective? Theists are never objective, because if they were, they would see their flaw in blind faith.

What this chap is trying to do is to get you to examine all the scientific theories as they are, without trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, then you will see that all of them lead to an original (intelligent) cause.

Jan, how do you see that all roads lead to an intelligent creator? Raithere covered it already, so I won't get into it, but the fact is, there is more than one option here.

It seems, that if any person who was athiest, or a scientist, comes to the conclusion that now they believe in God, they become illogical and ignorant (in your eyes).

There is a reason for that...

Show me a scientist who believes in God and I will show you a man who lives in an oxymoron. There is no proof that God exists, nor is there any for the realm in which he would need to exist in. We have only evidence that contradicts the teachings of scripture, yet nothing supporting it.

I don't believe ignorance is a prerequisite for theism, but I firmly believe that there has to be a serious lacking in common sense. Sure, a scientist may believe in God, but it's becuase he hasn't applied any of the knowledge he has to the question of God. He hasn't studied any religion, or looked past what the preacher at church tells him to.

Jenyar is a great example of this. Jenyar isn't stupid, but he didn't even know the significance of the number 7 in ancient Hebrew. This is a man who has dedicated his life to worship of a god, and yet he didn't do any background research! Granted, he knows some things, but it's obvious his knowledge is all second-hand, through various filtered, biased sources. No doubt this is the same for you, Jan.

I can't make any judgement on your IQ, because I haven't seen you really get into a discussion, but I can promise you that you have never objectively put your knowledge (if any) of science against your faith. Again, I can't speak for your faith, because I don't know what you believe, other than it has to do with a creator.

You're not stupid, I'm sure, but you lack common sense, or refuse to see things objectively. I would put every cent I've ever earned in my life on it.

JD

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
I do agree but logical proof or refutation of existence is a bit more difficult and it remains an option, our opinions notwithstanding.

Withstanding or not, we do exist. This nonsense, to me, is something that people who have alot of time and a comfortable lifestyle, would waste their time with. It is not reality. So either we had a begining or we didn't.

As for the "time is spherical," Dr. Stephen Hawking admitted the shortcomings of his theory.
"Imaginary time may sound like science fiction......."
"The idea that time and space should be finite without boundary is just a proposal....."
A scientific theory is just a mathematical model: it exists only in our minds."

When there is sufficient evidence then come back with it, until then, we either had a begining or not.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
This nonsense, to me
...
It is not reality. So either we had a begining or we didn't.

Well gee Jan, if only we all had know that you were the final arbitrator and authority on logic, philosophy, and the nature of reality we could have saved a whole lot of wasted time trying to figure things out on our own.

Poor Plato, Descartes, Kant, et al., wasted their lives all for the lack of knowing you.

When there is sufficient evidence then come back with it, until then, we either had a begining or not.

LOL, okay. And when you have sufficient evidence for God you can come back with it. Until then, there is no God.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Well gee Jan, if only we all had know that you were the final arbitrator and authority on logic, philosophy, and the nature of reality we could have saved a whole lot of wasted time trying to figure things out on our own.

Do you exist, or not?

Poor Plato, Descartes, Kant, et al., wasted their lives all for the lack of knowing you.

You're sarcasm is a waste of time. I know i exist and if you think i'm delusional, then that is your business.

LOL, okay. And when you have sufficient evidence for God you can come back with it. Until then, there is no God.

There is evidence. Matter, on its own is bereft of any organizing capabilities, its only tendency is to increase disorder. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always increases.
How is it that this system is so precisely organised?
Because there is a consciousness behind it, and when we think of consciousness, we think of life. This consciousness, i refer to as God.
Can you point out any form or lump of matter that can organise itself. Preferably something that i can observe now, like a stone or an ironing board.

Love

Jan Ardena.



~Raithere [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield

From what I know about science, it seemed that Clayton's arguments were not valid.

What was invalid about his scientific perspective?

I know that both theists and atheists post here and I thought I could get some useful opinions.

I wouldn't have thought you needed any, as "you knew" his arguments were not valid.

If he, or anyone, can give me a good argument for the existence of god then I would love to see it. However, Clayton has failed to do this.

What would constitute a good argument, in your eyes/ears?

If god does exist, then I do want to know about it.

Then put aside what you think you know and start again. You're young enough.

I realize that I will never come close to knowing all that I would like to know, but I will learn all that I can.

How did this realisation come to you?
What would you like to know?

First of all I shouldn't have called him stupid.

I don't think you should have either, especially as you do not know him, nor have you dialouged with him. You should look into his claims before dismissing them (if you are sincerely looking for truth).

He said things like "I had always felt that science could ultimately answer all the questions that man had." Statements like that show that he didn't understand science as an atheist and it looks like he doesn't understand it any better now.

There are posters here who feel that way, it is not uncommon. I think if he was an athiest, you wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe i'm wrong, but from my experience of arguing with athiests on this board, i don't think so.
Why wouldn't he understand science, especially if he studied it? Your statement is irrational.

I doubt it. While my knowledge of science isn't outstanding, it appears to be superior to his.

Will you JUST listen to yourself?

How do you know?

Because you had no reason to call him a "stupid old man," even if you did not agree with him. Plus, now you realise you shouldn't have, so you're original statement was irrational and unreasonable, and looking at the subject matter, it is easy to see why.

Yes, I feel your love. I don't care what you say about me, just please don't try to sugar coat it. You are not fooling anyone.

Puh-leaze!!!

Love

Jan Ardena.