Examining the stuff inside the box

Some say that the question of our origins is answerable through science. Isn’t that circular reasoning? It’s like using the stuff inside the box to explain the box when we can’t even fully explain the origins of the stuff inside the box. We like to think “outside the box”, but what we are really doing is thinking about thinking outside the box. None of the theories are independently verifiable since we are all inside the “box”. We may better understand the “stuff” through observation but that has no direct bearing on its origin. The foundation of the theoretical claim cannot be accepted as absolutely true, because the very foundation is in dispute.

We will never have direct, observable, testable, and independently verifiable evidence for things that exist outside of the natural universe. To require that kind of evidence is to assume that non-material things can be found in the material itself which is a logical inconsistency. If no non-material things or no non-material causes of material things exist, then we are left with circular inside-the-box explanations of material origins, the very foundations of which are in dispute. Why is it in dispute? Because the materialistic philosophy of “all I see is all there is” is not rooted in science. It’s rooted in faith.

Atheists have effectively left an intellectual hole while leaving nothing to fill the hole with. Yet, we are encouraged to believe this is somehow not a problem. Faith in the hollow promise of a future answer is no foundation for rejecting faith in a Creator.

11 thoughts on “Examining the stuff inside the box

    1. Well said. I would add that science has a pretty good record of allowing us to make accurate predictions about things we can’t observe based on things that we can.

      Irrelevant Axiom is a good name for this blog; the post above is predicated on the idea that certainty is a reasonable standard for scientific theory.

  1. Correct. For darwinists to write up a bunch of anecdotal evidence based on assumption in order to fill in the gaps is just fine. As long as they are willing to accept other reasonable assumptions based on predicting something we can’t see (or can’t see happening) from what we can see.

  2. Too funny! Creationists seem to forget that life DID happen at least once and we can trace our lineage back to very early times. When you can show that biological life is chemistry in action, the Crick’s quotation makes very good sense to answer the creationist’s charge that abiogenesis is equivalent to the religious sense of the word ‘faith”:

    “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.”

  3. If it was too long, too diverse, too numerous and too feeble, the problem is not demonstrating how it happened but that it happened at all.

  4. You’re correct; some issues are outside of the scope of science. My question: How does faith in a non-material being that interacts with material beings and objects not thought into a circular or closed loop of reasoning?

      1. On the issue of faith in God: If God is ominpresent and omnipotent, then why do we humans have to do the work of believing in him before he reveals himself to us? A being like God should not require faith to give him power and presence. In this way I see faith as a way to material a nonmaterial being without that being having to do the work people claims he can do. I believe in equality: If I have to prove myself to others, then God has the same responsibility to bear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s