Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Rasta]

Third option, the universe has always existence eliminating the need for a cause.

I think what theists mean by this is explaining "what caused the big bang."

 

[Isambard]

I think what theists mean by this is explaining "what caused the big bang."

Anything from a Big Crunch to branes touching. The reason is irrelevant as any answer given will assume that all the "stuff" comprising the universe today has always been around, it just changes shapes and forms.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Prove the universe has come into existence. Better yet, show me anything which "began" to exist that hadn't previously.


Third option, the universe has always existence eliminating the need for a cause.


You mean like God?


Talk about being selective.

The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It can if you a second to remember that time only begins to "move forward" with the big bang (or expansion of the current incarnation of the universe.

"Goddidit" is no more an answer than simply saying "magic" to any given question.

If the necessary conditions for the cause of the univers have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy...and the universe would have been formed an infinetly long time ago. But this can't work since it would mean that the universe would have already run out of usable energy by now. Not to mention, the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Anything from a Big Crunch to branes touching. The reason is irrelevant as any answer given will assume that all the "stuff" comprising the universe today has always been around, it just changes shapes and forms.

just refuted that..good job bro.

 

[Rasta]

Anything from a Big Crunch to branes touching. The reason is irrelevant as any answer given will assume that all the "stuff" comprising the universe today has always been around, it just changes shapes and forms.

I do agree, just sayin.

 

[Rasta]

If the necessary conditions for the cause of the univers have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy...and the universe would have been formed an infinetly long time ago. But this can't work since it would mean that the universe would have already run out of usable energy by now. Not to mention, the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now.

Um, this is not a refutation. This is the same argument we responded to, which you din't respond to . . . .

 

[Isambard]

If the necessary conditions for the cause of the univers have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy...and the universe would have been formed an infinetly long time ago. But this can't work since it would mean that the universe would have already run out of usable energy by now.

No.
You quoted the second law of thermodynamics, yet have no idea how it works, or how it applies to systems. An eternal universe(s) assumes that the system (whether its one or a multi-verse) is a closed system. Energy is not destroyed, but transfered to the growing expansion of a universe. Contraction happens when a universe reaches a certain level of expansion wherein its energy no longer out-paces the growing presures of gravity acting on it, collapsing all the matter-energy, fueling the cycle.

Not to mention, the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now.

I've already answered this. Don't pull a WingsOfEagle on me.

 

[PT Calvinist]

So the universe..which is comprised of matter and energy cannot be infinetly old in it's present form or any other form.. so how did it and ultimatley we get here?

We all know that Athesim can't help us here. As I mentioned before, there are two options...impersonal and personal. now that we'ved covered impersonal let's take a look at the other option...the Personal Cause. If there is a personal influence which means a personal being that acted upon the universe then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain......A rock dosen't suddenly change from being a rock into let's say an axehead unless acted upon by something else. For matter an energy to change and form something new they must be acted upon from the outside. So WE must ask..."what acted upon that matter and energy? and caused the universe to exist?"......Whatever did this, whatever caused the universe had to exist before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision. In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation for the existence for the universe, of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being, who would be called..."God".

 

[PT Calvinist]

It's certainly been fun..

 

[Isambard]

So the universe..which is comprised of matter and energy cannot be infinetly old in it's present form or any other form.. so how did it and ultimatley we get here?

Ok, I'm not repeating myself for a third time. Actually read the reply I gave you, or I'm lumping you in with Wings.

We all know that Athesim can't help us here. As I mentioned before, there are two options...impersonal and personal. now that we'ved covered impersonal let's take a look at the other option...the Personal Cause. If there is a personal influence which means a personal being that acted upon the universe then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain......A rock dosen't suddenly change from being a rock into let's say an axehead unless acted upon by something else. For matter an energy to change and form something new they must be acted upon from the outside. So WE must ask..."what acted upon that matter and energy? and caused the universe to exist?"......

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation for the existence for the universe, of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being, who would be called..."God"

What external action made God, or pushed him to his actions which sparked creation? This is twice you've dodged the question.

Whatever did this, whatever caused the universe had to exist before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new,

The contents of the universe wouldn't be new.

That said, as the contents of the universe pre-date the Big Bang, they would also pre-date time itself as it only begins when the present incarnation of the universe starts expanding. I'm not going to explain the sequence of events that would continue the cycle of I've already done it and seem to have happily glossed over it.

 

[Rasta]

Also we don't know that our universe is the only universe.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Ok, I'm not repeating myself for a third time. Actually read the reply I gave you, or I'm lumping you in with Wings.



What external action made God, or pushed him to his actions which sparked creation? This is twice you've dodged the question.


The contents of the universe wouldn't be new.

That said, as the contents of the universe pre-date the Big Bang, they would also pre-date time itself as it only begins when the present incarnation of the universe starts expanding. I'm not going to explain the sequence of events that would continue the cycle of I've already done it and seem to have happily glossed over it.

First I'd like to say you are beyond help..you might as well claim you don't even exist with the logic you use...

The point of my posts wasn't to show whether or not Atheism can offer us anything on existence. It can't..it can only offer us ignorance and guesses.

As for what brought God into existence...The answer is simple Nothing brought Him into existence...He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Now just take a momment to think about it. YOU CANNOT HAVE An infinete regression of causes..it's like having an infinite amount of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinetly in time to try and find the first domino that started it all. ...you'd NEVER find it. Because..you'd have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to that which is impossible to do. It also means, that you can't have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean that there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can't be a second or a third and so on. And you wouldn't have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling there had to be a first cause...that itself...was un-caused...that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past.

So it is with the universe, it was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The un-caused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in psalm 90:2, "is from everlasting to everlasting"

 

[Rasta]

First I'd like to say you are beyond help..you might as well claim you don't even exist with the logic you use...

Strawman.

The point of my posts wasn't to show whether or not Atheism can offer us anything on existence. It can't..it can only offer us ignorance and guesses.

This is called honesty. Atheists only claim knowledge, when we have it.

As for what brought God into existence...The answer is simple Nothing brought Him into existence...He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Now just take a momment to think about it.

This is simplistic reasoning, but actually adds a layer of complexity. See Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be uncaused?

YOU CANNOT HAVE An infinete regression of causes..it's like having an infinite amount of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinetly in time to try and find the first domino that started it all. ...you'd NEVER find it. Because..you'd have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to that which is impossible to do. It also means, that you can't have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean that there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can't be a second or a third and so on. And you wouldn't have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling there had to be a first cause...that itself...was un-caused...that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past.

That makes no sence. When was god created?

So it is with the universe, it was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The un-caused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in psalm 90:2, "is from everlasting to everlasting"

This also postulates an infinite amount of time, which is subject to the same critisizm you raise. Can you see that?

 

[PT Calvinist]

Strawman.

It most certainly is.

This is called honesty. Atheists only claim knowledge, when we have it.

Then call it truth.

This is simplistic reasoning, but actually adds a layer of complexity. See Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be uncaused?

I already explained why previously. And in this post you've read.

That makes no sence. When was god created?

This is why you can't be helped...(allow me to call a strawman on what I just said so you don't have to)
I explained that. But you can't see it. I don't know how/why you cannot see it. I'm pretty sure I put it as plainly as I possibly could yet retain intellectual benefits. Forgive me for not being able to help.

This also postulates an infinite amount of time, which is subject to the same critisizm you raise. Can you see that?

I see what you are saying perfectly.
Have a good life.

 

[Rasta]

Then call it truth.

By what standard?

I already explained why previously. And in this post you've read.

You've explained your belief, you did not respond to this question.

This is why you can't be helped...(allow me to call a strawman on what I just said so you don't have to)
I explained that. But you can't see it. I don't know how/why you cannot see it. I'm pretty sure I put it as plainly as I possibly could yet retain intellectual benefits. Forgive me for not being able to help.

No you did not explain it. You just said what you believe. You did not explain why your critisizms (if valid) do not apply to your own argument. If your critisizms are not valid, then . . . you do the math.

I see what you are saying perfectly.
Have a good life.

Ignoring reality does not make it go away.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

fal·la·cy (f

l

-s

)
n. pl. fal·la·cies 1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

fallacy - definition of fallacy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

First fail


Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myself and others have given ample evidence to the efficacy of ToE. Ironically, you are the one claiming Creationism is true because the Bible says so. Then claiming the bible is true because it says so.

Second fail


Creationism is inconsistent with reality what with it saying insects of four legs, bats are birds, and pi is a round number. This alone is reason to take anything said by creationists as fanciful nonesense.


You said there is no such thing as dragons, unicorns, and magic, then claimed the bible doesn't mention any of these things. This just goes to show that like ToE, you have absolutely no idea whats in your own scripture.

Third Fail


As mentioned, your "questions" are little more than ignorant rants than when answered, you either shift the goal-post, or ignore it and continue on to ask the same stupid question.

Fourth fail



Not entirely right, but better than your previous definitions of ToE as

"In order for Evolution to make any Argument against the origins of the Universe it has to be wrong, because they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make an argument that makes sense, and only in the biblical worldview does this these preconditions of intelligibility make sense and at the same time stay rational and internally consistent. "
"Man, Look at how beautiful these pictures [of mountains] are by the amazing facts of evolution by random chance processes. Just amazing, truly is."
Notice how you manage to completely contradict yourself.

Fith Fail

Google Image Result for http://www.ou.edu/class/pheidole/General%20Bacteria.jpg

None of these have blood, therefore they aren't alive by your definition.

Sixth fail


Clearly not as I'm already aware of your phobic aversion to evidence and facts.

Dictionary.com

fal⋅la⋅cy

   /ˈfæl

ə

si/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fal-uh-see] Show IPA Use Fallacy in a Sentence

–noun, plural -cies. 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness. 4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obsolete. deception.
A misconception is the same thing as "misleading". I know what a fallacy is Isambard.

First fail.

I can careless what fallacy it is, but I know it is the biggest fallacy believed in the world today.

Second fail In which I will prove later.

You are wrong, scientists are now figuring out that whenever you take evidence and look at through the biblical creation worldview it makes sense and lines up with the bible.

Third fail.

You said I do not even knwo whats in my scriptures. Well, that is where you are assuming that I have read the whole bible and know everything there is in it, therefore you cannot make such a claim. You have not learned "everything" about evolution there is to be. Your assuming this which makes it wrong.

fourth fail.

You say my questions are ignorant rants according to you and your evolutionary worldview, because you know you cannot give a logical explanation for such claims that evolutionists make without being irrational and inconsistent within a worldview because it is based upon the assumptions of scientists who were not there. But my basis are truly account of your ignorance, according to 2 Peter 3:3-7. it says people are willingly ignorant of these things just like you all are being.

Fifth fail.

You say i contradict myself, but I am really suprised at how faulty your reasoning skills are because if you had good logical interpretation of words you would know that I do not contradict myelf, because if you have ever heard of "sarcasm" then you would know that I do not. I was showing the absurdity of evolution.

Sixth Fail.

You say plants have life, but they do not.

"The Hebrew word nephesh chayyah—it’s referring to living souls, and the Bible doesn’t apply that to plants. Plants you can think of as biological machines. They’re not alive in a biblical sense, animals are and human beings are." -- Jason Lisle (AiG)

Seventh fail.

If you knew all the things wrong with Evolution you could see that Creation is correct. You all have to oppose creation so the evolutionary philosophy does not fail. Evolution is just absurd. Matthew 13:14:15 describes evolutionists. By your faulty reasoning i can also see again. How and why you guys do not understand anything from the creationist perspective or the words stated thereof because Isambard and Rasta totally miss my points as whole and it just flew over there head, In one ear and out the other, just like when Isambard said i was contradicting myself. No I was not, if he had reasonable interpreting skills he could see the points I make clearly and see where I am coming from but he has totally ignored the facts of the Bible and the claims I make because he is totally focused on one thing, the Evolutionary worldview.

 

[PT Calvinist]

This is called honesty. Atheists only claim knowledge, when we have it.

You've just admitted to the possibility/fact that you...who have been taught and learned yourself, Are able to be corrupted with lies. Same with me. Just because you learn something....does that make it true? Or if your taught something? does that make it true? Am I strengthening your Atheism right now?

You could be given corrupted knowledge and not even know of it because you go by what you have.

 

[PT Calvinist]

besides that.....what "IF" the Bible where true?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Being confident you are right, doesn't actually make you right.



Oh really?
Facts About Evolution ...............
SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like you are actually going to read any of these . . .



This is completely unfounded.



I know plenty about "creationism". I used to be Christian, I used to believe what you believe. Now I have a broader perspective based on what I have learned. Knowledge is more accurate than belief.

1. I never said I was right Rasta. The BIBLE is right.
2.You are assuming that i do not check out the stuff you all post. Well, yeah I do actually.

"The facts of evolution................." site is totally unreliable. It is out to date information, I found one claim that was claimed back in 1979. Now how reliable is that? After all the years of evidence being found? Evolutionary theory changes according to the evidences found. But the Bible does not. Another inconsistency.

"The scientific facts about evolution" contradicts itself. I found this inside the site.

"It is obvious that the wonders In our world were made by the Creator."

Scientific facts of evolution or creation which one is it to you guys? You can't accept both.

And Of course the ole Big Bang from "wikipedia" seems the correct place for everything since it can be "edited". But as I read through this page, I kept on reading the word(s), "Idea" "considerations" "explanations ---(assumptions)" Note just because the words that come from scientists does not mean what they say is true. They do not know the past, they were not there to see it. No one in the world was there to see it. But yet again whenever I use this principle it goes right over your head. I will be proving some things in about weeks time.

You said you used to believe and used to be a christian, well if you now believe there is no GOD then you were never a christian anyway.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Strawman.



This is called honesty. Atheists only claim knowledge, when we have it.



This is simplistic reasoning, but actually adds a layer of complexity. See Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be uncaused?



That makes no sence. When was god created?



This also postulates an infinite amount of time, which is subject to the same critisizm you raise. Can you see that?

That was not a straw-man argument.

lol, Atheists only claim knowledge "when" they have it? So there are times they do not have knowledge. That is kind of odd. Don't you think? If there was not GOD, then Atheists would have to come from a random set of processes that are made from chemical reactions. If this is true, then our brain is made up of these chemical reactions by random processes therefore we can conclude that atheists do not even know if they are even here or if they ask the right questions to people because it is just a random process.

The reason it cannot be un-caused because there was first an effect.

You show him a claim that you have no basis for so why ask? Also, you ask him if he can see that, but you cannot see the illogical fallacies of inconsistency within the evolutionary worldview that is based upon the assumptions of scientists not "facts"