Answers To Atheism

[Davian]

It is impossible because:

nonlife cannot produce life

...

Please provide a definition of "life" that might make this statement coherent, and show the science behind it.

 

[Elioenai26]

Please provide a definition of "life" that might make this statement coherent, and show the science behind it.

You will have to visit the physical and life sciences forum to discuss this subject in depth. To do so in depth here, is to detract from the oringinal intention of the thread.

 

[Davian]

You will have to visit the physical and life sciences forum to discuss this subject in depth. To do so in depth here, is to detract from the oringinal intention of the thread.

Were you under the impression that the "nonlife cannot produce life" argument has not crashed and burned in depth in that forum?

If you are not capable of establishing the premise of an argument, don't use it.

As for the intention of this thread, I did ask what "Atheist Myths" were, but did not get a response.

 

[Davian]

I gather you are maintaing then, that the universe is eternal.

This position cannont be scientifically or philosophically justified for several reasons:

1. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy, like a car running on gas will eventually run out of gas. Since the universe is running down, it must have at one point, began this process of entropy; just like at one point, there was a full tank of gas which began running out as soon as the engine began to use it.

As he was referring to the universe, and not the cosmos within it, this does not apply.

2. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler observe regarding the Big Bang:

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation out of nothing." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 442.)

I looked up that book on Amazon, and their statement is based on (as in title of their book) the anthropic principle, which, as was pointed out in your other thread, is flawed as an argument for a "designed" cosmos.

Therefore <snip irrelevant text>

Note also Mark, that you said this is your "belief", and so it is for every other non-theist. You believe in what you do and in light of the evidence and arguments that show your position to be the least objective, you have great faith in these theories and hypotheses and beliefs. I dare say you excercise greater faith than us theists!

I always chuckle at the theists' argument of "your faith is like ours or worse".

In the light, as you say, of the weakness shown in the arguments you have presented in your own threads, I see no reason to consider the possibility of deities.

 

[Elgibbor]

Were you under the impression that the "nonlife cannot produce life" argument has not crashed and burned in depth in that forum?

If you are not capable of establishing the premise of an argument, don't use it.

As for the intention of this thread, I did ask what "Atheist Myths" were, but did not get a response.

Sorry, i meant to get back to you earlier. Well, these are the most common atheist myths:

There is no fine tuning of the universe
The Universe just created itself out of nothing
Atheists have proved God does not exist
Religion is the cause of most of the worlds problems
Most wars are the result of religious belief
Christianity is a made-up myth written by the Disciples
The universe just happened without any need for a designer

There are many more of course.

 

[Davian]

Sorry, i meant to get back to you earlier. Well, these are the most common atheist myths:

There is no fine tuning of the universe
The Universe just created itself out of nothing
Atheists have proved God does not exist
Religion is the cause of most of the worlds problems
Most wars are the result of religious belief
Christianity is a made-up myth written by the Disciples
The universe just happened without any need for a designer

There are many more of course.

But none of these statements are specific to "atheists" or "atheism", so the the term "atheist myths" is a misnomer. Is that explained in the book?

 

[Elioenai26]

As he was referring to the universe, and not the cosmos within it, this does not apply.

This is the second time you have insinuated that the cosmos and the universe are two different entities.

Davian, would you mind explaining to us this position of yours, it is quite novel to me, as I have never heard it espoused before.

I looked up that book on Amazon, and their statement is based on (as in title of their book) the anthropic principle, which, as was pointed out in your other thread, is flawed as an argument for a "designed" cosmos.

Tisk tisk tisk, Davian, it is clear that the quote has nothing to do with the A.P, but rather their research and observations regarding the Big Bang Model. You are grasping for straws now, no?

 

[Elioenai26]

Were you under the impression that the "nonlife cannot produce life" argument has not crashed and burned in depth in that forum?

If you are not capable of establishing the premise of an argument, don't use it.

As for the intention of this thread, I did ask what "Atheist Myths" were, but did not get a response.

Maybe you have heard of a gent named Louis Pasteur?

Maybe you have heard of his simple experiment conducted in the mid 1800's?

For centuries, at least back to the 4th century B.C., until the late nineteenth century (and surprisingly even today as is evidenced by some on this forum), people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by 'spontaneous' generation.

Today we know that all apparent spontaneous generation of life has an explanation. We also know that what was thought to be simple life was extremely complicated life. What we have learned is that life comes from life!!! And as if we had to learn it!! Haha!

 

[Davian]

This is the second time you have insinuated that the cosmos and the universe are two different entities.

Davian, would you mind explaining to us this position of yours, it is quite novel to me, as I have never heard it espoused before.

Perhaps you should read some Victor J. Stenger.

"Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it had a beginning an infinite time ago"
—Victor J. Stenger

Tisk tisk tisk, Davian, it is clear that the quote has nothing to do with the A.P, but rather their research and observations regarding the Big Bang Model. You are grasping for straws now, no?

Is an eternal universe compatible with the claims for the existence of a 'designer'?

 

[Davian]

Maybe you have heard of a gent named Louis Pasteur?

Maybe you have heard of his simple experiment conducted in the mid 1800's?

For centuries, at least back to the 4th century B.C., until the late nineteenth century (and surprisingly even today as is evidenced by some on this forum), people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by 'spontaneous' generation.

Today we know that all apparent spontaneous generation of life has an explanation. We also know that what was thought to be simple life was extremely complicated life. What we have learned is that life comes from life!!! And as if we had to learn it!! Haha!

As I said, if you are not capable of establishing the premise of an argument, don't use it.

With apologies to the OP for participating in this derail, this is from a post I made in the sciences forum a few days ago, a lecture by Professor Robert M. Hazen , Ph.D., Harvard University:
Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Lifes Origins - YouTube

I have also purchased and have been going through this lecture of his:
The Great Courses - Origins of Life

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps you should read some Victor J. Stenger.

"Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it had a beginning an infinite time ago"
—Victor J. Stenger

LOL, ok, is this something that is meant to be serious, or is it sarcasm?

Is an eternal universe compatible with the claims for the existence of a 'designer'?

The universe is not eternal Davian. I think we can get past that now. If not then, well, nothing is going to change your mind!

 

[Davian]

LOL, ok, is this something that is meant to be serious, or is it sarcasm?

The universe is not eternal Davian. I think we can get past that now. If not then, well, nothing is going to change your mind!

I do not claim that the universe is eternal or not. What I am pointing out is, can this be known?

 

[Elioenai26]

I do not claim that the universe is eternal or not. What I am pointing out is, can this be known?

Of course it can be known. Have you not read and studied the research conducted over the past 100 years regarding this?

And the philosophical arguments that are simple yet so profound in their conclusions that the implications cannot be ignored?

 

[Illuminaughty]

I fear death as well and often wonder if there will be a continuation of personal consciousness after death or not and if so what it will be like. The fear doesn't motivate me to accept anything I don't have sufficient evidence to believe though. I really can't force myself to beleive in a religion simply because I fear death. The fear of death causes me to search but it doesn't automatically provide me any easy answers as to what I should believe. It would be a bit of a stretch to say " I fear death thus Christianity is true." That's kind of how I take the no atheists in a foxhole thing.

 

[Davian]

Of course it can be known. Have you not read and studied the research conducted over the past 100 years regarding this?

The science on this topic, yes.

And the philosophical arguments that are simple yet so profound in their conclusions that the implications cannot be ignored?

Perhaps the profundity of the conclusions for those philosophical arguments, as you have presented them, is countered by the faults in their premises.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I gather you are maintaing then, that the universe is eternal.

No, I am not, and I don't see how you got that out of what you were responding to.

Perhaps it was the observation that the universe may be oscillating. This does not say anything about whether the universe is eternal or not. An oscillating universe could be thought to have undergone either an infinite number of oscillations or a finite number. So, it could be thought to have an infinite past or a finite past. I lean towards the view that its past is finite.

I don't see how you could get that out of my other point, where I mention "t=0". Perhaps I could have been clearer, but "t=0" is my way of referring to the first instant of time/change.

Incidentally, while I don't trust your scientific arguments for a finite universe, I agree with the following:

2. Philosophic reasoning tells us that an eternal universe could not exist for the simple fact that there could not have been an infinite number of days before today; otherwise today would never come.

This is precisely why I reject the idea of an infinite universe. Incidentally, that doesn't mean that I take Stephen Hawking's precise views, and I don't know why you even brought him up since I didn't mention him at all.

So you see Mark, if you maintain, as you do, that the universe did not begin to exist, then you do so inspite of the evidence, not because of it.

You are making one critical mistake. A beginning to time doesn't imply that the universe began to exist. It suggests that time/change had a start.

It is my view, which is in no way contradicted by scientific evidence, that the universe (i.e. physical reality) did not begin to exist, in the sense of popping into existence out of nothing. Rather, change had its start a finite "time" ago. Physical reality existed at the beginning of change, and so there was no "nothingness" that had preceded it, or ever a "time" in which no-thing had existed.

So, you are presenting a false alternative -- either the universe popped into existence out of nothing, or it was created by something that wasn't the universe. (Your approach seems to be "If I disprove option one, you must accept option two", a classic but flawed debate tactic.) I'm presenting option three as an alternative to your option two.

Note also Mark, that you said this is your "belief"

Not all beliefs are alike. I have also stated that this is a philosophical conclusion that I have drawn, held tentatively since I can't prove it directly on empirical grounds. Is that what you are calling "faith"? If so, it is a heavily watered down version of the concept.

You believe in what you do and in light of the evidence and arguments that show your position to be the least objective, you have great faith in these theories and hypotheses and beliefs.

I don't have to have faith to see how weak your arguments are, or that you seem to misunderstand my position.

I dare say you excercise greater faith than us theists!

You may dare to say whatever you like, but statements like this are entirely gratuitous posturing. It is not a beautiful trait of character. It's just a way of trying to put others down. I have to imagine that you are doing this for the "audience" because you believe that putting others down with such dramatic language makes for good theater, but you should reflect on what you are doing for your own sake.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Look, time is perfectly simple: You set a zero point and measure from then. Now makes a convenient zero. All observed phenomena are in the past. Since the dimension that three dimensional space is expanding in is time, from now, zero time, from any point in space we can look out at an expanding universe. Now is the boundary of time. You can call it the beginning of time or the end of time. It doesn't matter. Time is the direction of the expansion of the universe, and it is the same from every point in space. You can regard time as positive or negative, it merely requires shifting from a right-hand to a left hand vector space or vice- versa. It is positive or negative as you prefer, but it is not both.

 

[TheTalkingSnake]

The universe is not eternal Davian. I think we can get past that now. If not then, well, nothing is going to change your mind!

I don't think anyone would disagree the universe in it's current form isn't eternal. It's current form started with the Big Bang.

However, the singularity that the Big Bang arose from may very well have been eternal for all we know.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Look, time is perfectly simple: You set a zero point and measure from then. Now makes a convenient zero. All observed phenomena are in the past. Since the dimension that three dimensional space is expanding in is time, from now, zero time, from any point in space we can look out at an expanding universe. Now is the boundary of time. You can call it the beginning of time or the end of time. It doesn't matter. Time is the direction of the expansion of the universe, and it is the same from every point in space. You can regard time as positive or negative, it merely requires shifting from a right-hand to a left hand vector space or vice- versa. It is positive or negative as you prefer, but it is not both.

^This. If I could be somewhere though space is infinite, I could be somewhen though time is infinite.

(N.b., I recognize that space isn't currently believed to be infinite. I'm just noting that people don't seem to have a problem with certain types of infinity.)

 

[Elioenai26]

The science on this topic, yes.

Perhaps the profundity of the conclusions for those philosophical arguments, as you have presented them, is countered by the faults in their premises.

I challenge you or anyone else here to present a good argument as to why any of the premises in the arguments supplied should not be seen as more plausibly true than their negation.