An Atheist Turns

7 days Creation physical universe from nothing. Take Hashem's word (Torah), or ask how science confirms until lagging 'scientists' will reach high enough level to be able to admit true.

Why important?
if old universe, creation far removed, easy to obscure truth, hard to prove, casts doubt on Torah.
If recent complex Creation how can one deny Creator and confirms Torah as only origins theory 100% consistent with factual science.

Ask those who left Egypt early who were off by just 30 years and perished thinking 400 years from Covenant between the parts vs Birth of Isaac as intended.

40 days, how even 1-3 day mistake of Moses time on Sinai allowed golden calf tragedy.

70 years,
Read handwritting on wall or recall Belshazer who did not last another 24 hours after error in calculating end of Galut Babel.



In addition to accepting truth of recent 5768 years since 7 day complex Creation appears to be opportunity given us to atone for Golden Calve by not accepting other appolgists who allow for mistated time frame.

Another major failure w/ Tanin in Gan Eden also attoned for by not being misled by those who say dinosaurs were from millions of years ago. We coexisted till Mabul. Isn't it great we have this test we can pass before obious and no opportunity for effort once Mahiach clarifies?

It is 5768, start caring.

rmpcta@aol.com for proof and sources

As an Orthodox Jew and a scientist, when I examine the debate between those advancing "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science" and atheists who attempt to use science to attack religion, I see flaws in both sides' standard arguments. One the one hand, pure science, being the investigation of our universe through observation, experimentation, and analysis, will obviously not point directly to a Creator of the universe. Our universe is finite, and therefore everything within the universe in which our science operates is also finite. G-d, according to Judaism, however, is infinite, which is beyond a finite perception. Therefore, G-d is hidden. Imagine, for example, that you are a cartoon character in a newspaper's comic strip. The cartoonist creates the comic strip character and its cartoon world, defining all of the parameters and boundaries, yet the character itself has no awareness of any world outside of its created world. Any tools or science it uses to examine its world will operate solely in that world, and thus the cartoonist who created and maintains that world will remain hidden. I, as a religious person therefore, do not lose sleep over the notion that a scientific analysis of our universe fails to directly find G-d.

On the other hand, it is extremely arrogant to assume that our human capability to observe, theorize, and experiment accounts for everything there is and can be, and that nothing outside the bounds of what we can observe affects us. The more one truly studies the universe using science, the more he or she realizes how little we know about it. Indeed, some may say that if there are things out there that we cannot possibly perceive, then we shouldn't be concerned about them. I dispute the notion, however, that we are incapable of perceiving them. They may lie outside of science, but we have the ability to ask questions, and our questions are unfettered by the boundaries of science. Many atheists, however, seem to bristle when these types of questions are asked. It is perplexing why they should be threatened by such questions; if it doesn't matter, if we're all going to die anyway, then why get so angry if someone believes in G-d? One answer, I think, is that the atheist does not want to be `enslaved' by a moral code that he or she believes to be man made but peddled as G-d's. Deep down, the objection does not stem from the believing, it stems from the doing. The questions, therefore, become critically important, because just as a painter cares about his painting, if we are living in a universe created by G-d, then it's highly likely that G-d cares about this universe and has opinions on how things should be run.

So, if G-d is beyond our physical senses, how do we get off the fence? How can we possibly answer such questions? Personally, I have arrived at two different solutions. The first solution is to ask specific questions, since vague questions yield vague answers. For example--

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that over billions of years, molecules through random processes did successfully coalesce and become a functioning cell. Why did that cell divide? Fundamentally it is a drive felt by all life from the single cell organism to the human being. I'm not asking why it is necessary. Reproduction is the bread and butter of development, of evolution. Without it there would be no life. Why though is it here?

Suppose I was a newly born sea turtle, emerging for the first time out of my sandy nest to look upon the open beach. I observe the sand and its properties, the water and its properties, the air, the sky, but nobody else is around. I have never seen a human being, and do not know that they exist. I then look and see a footprint in the sand. How did that footprint get there?

The second solution relates to the idea that if we are indeed living in a universe created by G-d, then G-d would care about how this universe should be run. We do have access to a moral code, the Torah. Is it from G-d, or is it man made? By studying it closely, we can perhaps answer that question. We may not be able to detect G-d's `fingerprints', but we can detect man's. Man is finite, after all. In my own personal study of Torah, I have yet to come across any fingerprints of man.

The notion of six literal days of creation is so insignificant in the broader scheme. One should not deny the scientific history of the world, of the basics laws of physics -- that is idiotic. The debate, as eloquently highlighted by Dr. Schroeder, is truly one of theology and belief. By the same token, force-fitting science to conform to a religious world view is counterproductive. As new science is discovered, the real challenge is to see the hand of the Divine in the more complex understanding of the world, rather than to dismiss the complexity itself.

The salient point is: why do people feel so compelled to discredit arguments for G-d's existence so as to use petty arguments like character assasination?
Other than believing in G-d is there any 'other' evidence that a man who yesterday was their oracle is today dubbed senile?
Some reporters should review their Socrates: wherever truth may lead!

Do newspapers, universities, public schools, etc. discuss anything religious without any ridicule, let alone comment? This is a religious website and most of us are thankful for that. There's plenty of secularism around. If not for Torah there would be no Jews, no Aish Hatorah, no Aish.com. Go look for atheism anywhere else, gezunterheit.

I suggest you read Genesis and the Big Bang, by Dr Schroeder, where this is discussed at length

I frankly do not understand the second part of the article. What does it have to do with Anthony Flew? It has nothing to do with the science or arguments used by Flew. Is Schroeder trying to say that the very fact of existence proves a creator? That may well be true but it takes a lot of research to arrive at this conclusion. Otherwise it's just an appeal to ignorance argument. As Schroeder phrases it, the argument is basically unfalsifiable.

I'm really surprised that anyone thinks this article is persuasive.

How about an article by Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or good old Tom Paine

If nothing else, this story simply shows how modern science and Torah connect more than one might think.

It is an honour & a privilege to worship the living Creator God. For me a mere mortal with scant knowledge of the scientific world, the play of light as the sky changes in the morning and the evening displays the hand of a magnificent colourful God. And I ask, who can create a painting as magnificent, real and colourful as our God? Welcome to the real world, Antony Flew!

The Biblical wording, written for a pre-scientific World, uses "day" with refference to the periods of creation. Was it a 24-hour day? What about the "first day", when the 24-hour day had not yet been created? Was it a "day" or a period of time? What would be the problem, if one would switch the terms?

That's why G-d invented death of course!

In the comments, Marc Milton-Talbot has "nothing but contempt for atheists who suddenly find God as they near the end of their mortal life.They want an insurance policy in case they're wrong." Does Milton Talbot *know* that that was the case with Antony Flew, or is he just theorizing, and perhaps hoping, that that was the case.

It's smug and angry writing such as Schroeder's that turns off most Jews in the world to Torah Judaism. Puregoldj has it right, keeping religion out of public policy HELPS religious freedom.

No Malice Intended but I always wonder how it would be if one lived a life of denial of the existence of a creator inspite of all the present universal evidence just to go to the other side and find G-D waiting

What do we tell those other religions, is only Judaism right or Christianity and all its different sects, ie Mormoms, Lutherans etc.

What many people don't seem to realize is that the intent of science is not to be "anti-God", it is to explain what physically happened. Scientists can eventually do a good job of determining what physically happened, but they can not show whether or not God exists, or what he did or did not do -- and they don't try.

So what are "... the obsessive lengths to which the anti-God community will go to maintain its control over what is taught in schools"? I went to an Orthodox Jewish high school, and we learned about evolution and the big bang theory in science class. We all saw both theories as scientists' explanation of what physically happened, and Genesis as explaining that God did it. OK, so what's the problem?! None of us had a problem with that, and nobody complained.

As I see what my children learn in public school science class, I still don't see any conflict between science and religion, and I don't see any "anti-God" business in the science books. Keeping religious instruction out of the public schools, and in general maintaining a separation of church and state is not "anti-God". It is the only way man has found to protect freedom of religion.

I am happy there is some one to challenge

The English preacher of atheism

Wonderful and very important article. As a univesity professor I get in touch with this type of argument almost in a daily basis. Science and Religion are twin sisters. With love and tolerance we must show the truth and let the other people decide. Our
G-d is all powerfull to open the mind of the genuine truth seeker; as happened with Anthony Flew
Shalom aleichem,
Dr. IGS

First about scientific objectivity: The greeks didn´t think it was necessary to test their theories. Now,scientists think you have to. There are lots of examples where scientists believed in two opposite things: like, for instance, Einstein accepting then rejecting the Cosmological Constant. Then there are things like Occam´s razor: the simplest of all hypothesis must be the right one. Scientists choose names like "quark" - what possible objectivity could exist in that? Let´s not forget that even physicists accept the anthropic principle: The universe seems to conspire to create conditions favourable to life etc. So, my point is: Science can not predict or explain everything. Besides, people like Newton, Leibnitz, Pascal were scientists and believed in G-d. To this day, many scientists believe in G-d. So, what´s wrong with the others? Is it scientific to reject the idea of G-d (a simple and reasonable idea, if you come to think of it, which could explain lots of historic events and even the unified field theory) just because you don´t like it?

Skeptics come and go, but while the skeptics beat the anvil with hammers(the recorded word of God), its the anvil that wears the hammers out.

Rabbi Levi Meier wrote an article six years ago and Aish HaTorah published it titled "The Light of the Life Force" and the commentators of that article, physicist/biochemist gave a similar conclusion to this article -- that that light force is what gave life to creation and nothing was made without that light -- and Aish also wrote article about that light being special since HaShem did not make the sun, moon or stars until the fourth day.

For Antony Flew, the miracle of creation came to light when in his pursuit of truth, he came to know the Master, The Almighty! How beautiful that Mr. Flew shared his new revelation to the world.

I as an atheist myself,I have nothing but contempt for atheists who suddenly find God as they near the end of their mortal life.They want an insurance policy in case they're wrong.Getting their passport stamped,as my dad used to say, on watching the brainwashed fools entering church every Sunday.[Christians that is:I have more respect for Judaism,the real Christianity,to use an oxymoron perhaps.]Michael Muggeridge did it too at the same stage of life.He converted to Roman Catholicism as Saint Tony Blair has recently done [after being responsible for countless innocent deaths in Iraq.]Have the guts to stand by your life's convictions.If God does exist after all,at least He'll give you credit for that.

Very inspiring and informative.

The article above does not address the most important question - how does the existence (or lack thereof) of God affect one's daily life.
The fact is that speaking about God without speaking about how we perceive God, how he affects us, is a waste of time.
Our greatest Hachamim and Mekubalem tell us that we cannot experience God but we can experience the "thought of creation" - which is His providing infinite good to His creations or in short "The desire to give". We were created as 'The desire to receive" which is 180 degrees oposite of the "desire to give". Just as the moon cannot be seen when it is 180 degrees out of phase in the line with the earth and the sun, we cannot feel His thought of Creation as long as we are totally out of phase with Him.
That is to say that unless we can fix out "desire to receive" and build on top of it a desire to give, we cannot perceive the Creator. We can talk about him, philosophize about him but we cannot feel him. By changing our attributes (in the same way that one tunes a radio) even by the smallest amount, we can begin to perceive the Creator.
Our Hachamim tell us that this and only this is the purpose of Tora and Mitzvot - not for gaining knowledge but to provide to us the "light" that we need in order to make these critical changes withi ourselves so that we are capable of revealing within ourselves the true light of creation. At that point we are no longer talking about philosophical issues. We are talking about man's ability to connect himself and experience perfection, shleimut and nitzchiut.

But why do we need to name him?
'God' is offputting to rationalists

Flew tells us that he follows the creed of Socrates, "I go to where the truth leads me." Recall that his original argument was presented at Oxford's Socratic Club.

The answer is in the wings. If there are people who maintain, steadfastly, that there is NO God, that they are atheists, and if there are also agnostics and true believers in this world, then God created a story, so we could discuss and think about this matter in depth. It is the friction itself that produces the "fire" and what powers us all is dialogue in this search for truth. Others have written extensively about truth in diversity (Jonathan Sachs). Perhaps the world HAD to be constructed this way or what would we be doing here?

Now I also feel there is a "Proof" and it is elegant. The proof lies in massive ongoing synchronicity or coincidence and I am experiencing and recording this.

God wrote a story and it involves us all. For some there is no doubt, because this is truly about a miracle and even science has not "arrived" in trying to explain this away. For those who are enlightened and who seek truth, the answer lies in the letters themselves. I found it truly interesting to read the language analysis above.

I am unclear. Did G*d clothe adam and eve in skin, in clothing or in both? I like the concept of their being clothed in light in the garden and then in skin when they left. I also can assume the clothes in the garden were metaphorical and became physical when they left. If this an accurate assumption using the translations of aleph and ayin?

Prof Schroeder is a cogent spokesman for truth and reality

In these months of Adar1 and 2, we are commanded to "zachor"-remember-Amalek,who not only tried to wipe out the Jewish People time and time again-(and still is),but also that the origin of atheism is to create doubt "sofek" the source of the word Amalek. So, Amalek is not only responsible for trying to destroy us physically,but worse than that-it tries and unfortunately has been to a larger extent successful in creating a spiritual destruction through doubt and scorn. We see the effects of a world where those in control scorn the idea of a Creator because it would cause them to be accountable for their lives and their choices. That has always been the greatest threat and challenge to us,the Jewish People and also to the rest of the world at large.