VenomFangX, AKA “Shawn,” is one of youTube’s most prominent young earth creationists. He has managed to attract a fairly large internet following by plagiarizing Kent Hovind’s arguments for a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and arguing other aspects of Christian “science”. I have been following these videos for a while now, and admittedly, they were part of my motivation for starting this blog. They represent a clear example of ignoring almost all aspects of modern science in an effort to confirm one’s preconceived notion of how the world came to be and how it operates.
Recently Shawn has attempted leave Hovind’s umbrella, creating even more irrational and intellectually bankrupt arguments of his own. At the core of his extensions lies the idea that God exists outside the natural world and is not only unbounded by the laws of physics but also cannot be reached by observations and tests conducted within the natural. He then goes on to argue that because our five sense are limited to the natural we have to “think outside our little science box” in order to see the “obvious” conclusion that God does indeed exist. Basically, Shawn is claiming that God is outside the realm of science and as soon as we stop trying to find him using that framework his existence will become obvious.
Although he never states it directly, I guess we are to take it as given that his God will emerge as the glaringly obvious candidate. After all, Shawn has thrown out science and, by extension, logic, so how else am I to conclude that his god is the correct God? Or am I allowed to use logic once I accept there is a god and am then faced with the daunting task of picking one? Or better yet, I can pull out the old wheel-o-god and leave it up to the now clearly existing fates.
It’s easy to see that Shawn’s ideas don’t get you anywhere useful by any reasonable metric of utility. It is fine to postulate but once this is done, for any progress to be made, one has to have some method for verification. How else to you decide if your postulate is correct? If you suddenly allow your position to be outside the realm of evidence then you have no way to independently check its merit. What’s worse is that once you begin accepting postulates without evidence you immediately adopt a self-refuting position. You have provided a position for which you have no evidence and proclaimed it true. I can now immediately claim that it’s not and provide no evidence. Both positions meet the “evidentiary” standard. How on earth do you decide which is correct?
Another aspect of this line of reasoning that has always puzzled me is this: God is reported to have performed miracles witnessed by many. It is obvious that this idea of God has an observable effect in this world and therefore there are aspects of his existence that are now in the domain of science. Even if you invoke a sort of partial interaction, where God only interacts with this world when he wants to, there is still a tangible, observable and testable set of outcomes that provide a means to extend our observing power to the question of his/her existence. Just like we cannot see electrons but we can test their existence by observing their influence in the macroscopic world, we should be able to test God’s existence through the influence that his “miraculous acts” have. Many historians and scientists have tried this very thing by testing the historical accuracy of the bible  or examining the impact of prayer on the sick . How does one reconcile this idea with Shawn’s assertions that “God lies outside the reach of science?”
Like so many theists, Shawn wants to suspect the standards we hold every other assertion to when it comes to the question of God. I know he will likely never see this post and even if he did, it would have little impact on his thinking. However, I hope this might be of some use to others. At the very least, it might help a theist understand why atheists won’t accept such assertions.
 It’s not very accurate.
 It doesn’t work. Praying for sick has produced no statistically significant benefit for it’s subjects. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/