Season 5 Podcast 107, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Essential Attributes.”

Season 5 Podcast 107, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Essential Attributes.” 

Science talks more about laws than anyone, but understands less about their overall purpose because they don’t always apply the rules of classification and division. They do not recognize all the essential attributes.  They have reduced law to function or principle of operation, which is great for advancing technology, but not for discovering meaning or truth.  Identifying patterns is not a definition of what a law is, but a description of what a law does. Superficial classification and division make scientists great mechanics, but because they refuse to acknowledge essential attributes, they are very poor philosophers. They base all their conclusions on false analogy.  The man as machine image is only useful on the operating table.  

In fact, the greatest fallacies of theoretical science are false analogy, false assumptions, and hasty generalization. For example, the acclaimed physicist Stephen Hawkings, in his book, The Grand Design, makes the following statement:

“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop.”

The assumption is that evolution is responsible for free will. Such an assumption can never be proven or disproven? Mr. Hawking, like many today, simply assumed that evolution is our God, our creator, the origin of everything. It doesn’t appear to occur to Mr. Hawking that evolution cannot occur until after creation and life begin. To assign the cause of creation of life to evolution is beyond all science. The origin of species and the origin of life are as far apart as the earth is to the most distant star. It is guesswork with no foundation. Without death there would be no evolution. Without life, there would be no death. Christians have a better claim. They assume that the spirit is immortal and cannot die. They admit, at least the wise ones do, that their claim cannot be proven, that it can only be believed on faith. Science claims to offer scientific proof. That is a false assumption. 

Again, I quote Mr. Stephen Hawking from his book Grand Design.

“It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”

Again, consider the false assumption: Has it been scientifically proven that our behavior is determined by physical law? Can it be proven or disproven? No. Saying it is true by scientists does not make it true. That commits the fallacy of ‘appeal to authority.’ The fallacy Mr. Hawking has committed is called ‘begging the question’: “Our behavior is determined by law, therefore, we have no freewill.”  He assumes genetic determinism. He assumes that we are merely biological creatures without a soul. He assumes we are animals. He assumes we are robots or machines. Science is so confident in the virtually unlimited powers of evolution that they no longer must prove any assumption or any claim as long as it has the word ‘evolution’ attached. They assume that because some theories of evolution may be true that all theories of evolution, no matter how unproven, must also be true. 

He is trying to prove we have no freewill by assuming there is no freewill. It is circular. It is self-evident. Begging the question is an infallible argument except for the reality that it doesn’t say anything. It doesn’t go anywhere. 

Now, having given the circular argument, look at his next conclusion: “it seems that we are no more than biological machines.”  And from that circular argument, he commits another fallacy. ‘We are biological machines because we are biological machines; therefore, we have no freewill because biological machines have no freewill.” Science is on a merry-go-round, ever reaching for the brass ring. Ultimately they are