6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

[mo.mentum]

And you were telling me to read up on Hawking, well one area of science that shatters the materialist myth and gives positive evidence for theism is quantum physics.

Quantum physics deals with matter's tiniest particles, also called the "sub-atomic realm." In school, everyone learns that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus and several electrons spinning around it. One strange fact is that all of these particles take up only some 0.0001 percent of the atoms. In other words, an atom is something that is 99.9999 percent "empty."

Even more interestingly, further examination shows that the nuclei and electrons are made up of much smaller particles called "quarks," which are not even particles in the physical sense; rather, they are simply energy. This discovery broke the classical distinction between matter and energy. It now appears that only energy exists in the material universe, and that matter is just "frozen energy."

There is a still more intriguing fact: Quarks, those packets of energy, act in such a way that they may be described as "conscious." Physicist Freeman Dyson, when accepting the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (2000), stated that:

Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.(1)

In other words, there is information behind matter, information that precedes the material realm. Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology and authored The Science of God, makes a number of important comments on this subject. In his more recent book, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, Schroeder explains that quantum physics-along with other branches of science-is the tool for discovering a universal wisdom lying behind the material world. As he puts it:

It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter.(2)

John Archibald Wheeler, professor of physics at Princeton University and recipient of the Einstein Award (2003), explained the same fact when he said that the "bit" (the binary digit) of information gives rise to the "it," the substance of matter.(3) According to Schroeder, this has a "profound meaning":

The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning. Science may be approaching the realization that the entire universe is an expression of information, wisdom, an idea, just as atoms are tangible expressions of something as ethereal as energy.(4)

This wisdom is such an omniscient thing that it covers the whole universe:

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.(5)

This means that the material universe is not a purposeless and chaotic heap of atoms, as the atheist/materialist dogma assumes, but instead is a manifestation of a wisdom that existed before the universe and that has absolute sovereignty over everything that exists. In Schroeder's words, it is "as if a metaphysical substrate was impressed upon the physical."(6)

This discovery shatters the whole materialist myth and reveals that the visible material universe is just a shadow of a transcendent Absolute Being. Thus, as Schroeder explains, quantum physics has become the point at which science and theology meet:

The age-old theological view of the universe is that all existence is the manifestation of a transcendent wisdom, with a universal consciousness being its manifestation. If I substitute the word information for wisdom, theology begins to sound like quantum physics. We may be witnessing the scientific confluence of the physical with the spiritual.(7)

Quantum is really the point at which science and theology meet. The fact that the whole universe is pervaded by a wisdom is revealed in many Scriptures.

(1)As quoted in Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 7
(2->7)H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 138 (1980): 138

 

[Mephster]

I do find it interesting that we are discussing Evolution, when the point of the thread was to disprove Atheism. You have said that Evolution is Not atheism, and have been told how it Does not support Atheism either.

Ditto

 

[Truncate]

The 747 analogy is false because you expect the parts in the yard to turn into an object that you choose yourself (747 aeroplane).

Evolution did/does not work that way. It's about survival of the fittest, the environment around us, mutations, and the biggest part: we did not evolve from a common ancestor to become human, the fittest survived, some mutations helped us, the right environment at the right time, some chance/"luck" thrown in, and we eventually just happened to evolve, over a long time, over many generations, what is now known as "homosapiens."

Look at all the other planets in our solar system, most of them do not have the correct atmosphere that is needed to sustain such varied life as the earth did/does. Our planet had a better atmosphere than other/most planets, so we had the ability to survive and eventually evolve. Whales did not have a bet between themselves to guess which species they would evolve into, ie "Homosapiens or (modern) canines."

Theoretically, the parts in the yard could become a certain vehicle or other mechanical system, but it is illogical to expect the parts to become something specific and modern (such as a 747).

 

[Truncate]

I do find it interesting that we are discussing Evolution, when the point of the thread was to disprove Atheism. You have said that Evolution is Not atheism, and have been told how it Does not support Atheism either.

I agree. Science and the study of the past, present, future has a major impact on the belief or lack of belief for an atheist, but that does not equate evolution with atheism at all.

Acceptable evidence to "disprove" atheism, would be evidence for the existence of a deity or deities.

Atheism (Noun): "A lack of belief in the existence of god or gods"

or "The doctrine or belief that there are no gods."

Keep it simple; not about evolution, unless you can absolutely prove (or atleast provide some evidence, to start) that macro evolution could not/can not happen, and that a creator was needed.

 

[Philosoft]

And you were telling me to read up on Hawking, well one area of science that shatters the materialist myth and gives positive evidence for theism is quantum physics.

That's nice. Now go and actually read Hawking, then report what he thinks quantum physics tells us about the origin of the universe.

 

[revolutio]

...
2- The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion. But try to blow up a mountain and let me know if a perfectly ordered appartment building comes out of it. Physics has discovered that this "explosion" was highly controlled and designed. It's so perfect, that, if the rate of expansion of the Universe was 1 billionth billionth of a degree smaller, it would have grown, and if it were bigger it would've spread out too much. (that's a 0 followed by 18 zeros, talk about PRECISE)

....

5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not). All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment. You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage. That is proposterous. [see my other posts for more info against EViLUTION]

Okay someone else has probably mentioned this but both of these points or moot if the Many-Worlds interpretation is correct. Yes only a handful of universes out of billions and billions would have those correct conditions. Awfully lucky of us to be in one, eh? Wrong.

Sentient life could only exist in those universes in which those criteria were met. The very fact that we are here debating right now proves that we had to have been in one of those universes.

Like the guy before who said he proved theism wrong, you are being incredibly arrogant to think you have found something that millions of athiests have overlooked.

 

[mo.mentum]

Ok, lets say that we have a species of bugs, that have variations in their species of their color. Now lets say that we have a Lizard that uses Color eye sight to find and eat these bugs.

Basic Natural selection will "select" the bugs that can live long enough to procreate, over those that dont.

Bug Species Variation A, has a color that blends into the leaf it sits on.
Bug Species Variation B, has a color that stands out against the leaf it sits on.

Our lizard friend will more likely Eat Variation B. Thus Variation A will more likely live to procreate and thus will be "selected" by a mechanism of Evolution.

HAHAHAHAHA And how did the bug species develop into different cultures in the first place? If it was a progressive shift, wouldn't the lizard have eaten them all in their in-between colors stage? Or they all woke up one day split into 2 groups?


"Did any sperm ever go into a woman's body, then return to the man's and tell the testicles how to build the sperm in order for it to survive the hostile environment in the vag-ina (didnt wanna be censored)?"
No. Just another example of Natural selection. Since I went in depth above, I wont here.

Ummm if this process didn't work from day 1, no species would have procreated. How can it be natural selection then? And how could the female and male versions of the same species evolve totally compatible reproductive systems?


"The way the sperm is designed and built is enough to show that evolution doesn't work. The sperm's head is endowed with 3 layers of armor, each with its own purpose, each removed at a specific stage. The tail falls off at a specific point. It is built in the testicles as though on an assembly line. Yet, no sperm ever explored the vag-ina and came back to tell about it. So how do you explain this and other stuff?"
Just another example of Natural selection. Since I went in depth above, I wont here.

I'm telling you about a biological process that is intriciate and complex, and ur telling me that this process was worked on and perfected through eons of trial and error and some success. Yet if this process didn't work from day 1, nothing would have reproduced.

Continue to dismiss my arguments, or focus on insignificant details. You're doing a good job of avoiding the issue at hand.

And yes this thread is about dislodging atheism, and my whole point was to show that scientific fact is what will remove all doubts about Creation in the coming years. It will be a Second Renaissance.

We're talking more about evolution because this is one of the 6 elements i stated in my first post and on which ur obssessing.

 

[mo.mentum]

Okay someone else has probably mentioned this but both of these points or moot if the Many-Worlds interpretation is correct. Yes only a handful of universes out of billions and billions would have those correct conditions. Awfully lucky of us to be in one, eh? Wrong.

Sentient life could only exist in those universes in which those criteria were met. The very fact that we are here debating right now proves that we had to have been in one of those universes.

Like the guy before who said he proved theism wrong, you are being incredibly arrogant to think you have found something that millions of athiests have overlooked.

Atheists have overlooked many things, thank you very much.

Atheism has existed from ancient times, the rise of this idea actually began in eighteenth-century Europe, with the spread and political effect of the philosophy of some anti-religious thinkers. Materialists such as Denis Diderot (1713-84) and Baron d'Holbach (1723-89) proposed that the universe was a conglomeration of matter that had existed forever and that only matter existed. In the nineteenth century, atheism spread even further afield. Such thinkers as Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72), Karl Marx (1818-83), Friedrich Engels (1820-95), Friedrich Nietzsche (1884-1900), Emile Durkheim (1859-1917), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) applied atheist thinking to different fields of science and philosophy.

The greatest support for atheism came from Charles Darwin (1809-82), who rejected the idea of creation and proposed the theory of evolution, which gave a supposedly scientific answer to the question that had baffled atheists for centuries: How did human beings and living things come to be?

This theory convinced a great many people that there was a mechanism in nature that animated lifeless matter and produced millions of different living species from it.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, atheists formulated a worldview that "explained" everything: The universe had not been created, for it had no beginning and had existed forever. They claimed that it had no purpose, that its order and balance were the result of chance, and that Darwin's theory of evolution explained how human beings and other living things came into being. They believed that Marx and Durkheim had explained history and sociology, and that Freud had explained psychology on the basis of atheist assumptions. However, twentieth-century scientific, political, and social developments disproved these views, for ongoing discoveries in astronomy, biology, psychology, and social sciences nullified the bases of atheist suppositions.

he past two decades of research have overturned nearly all the important assumptions and predictions of an earlier generation of modern secular and atheist thinkers relating to the issue of God. Modern thinkers assumed that science would reveal the universe to be ever more random and mechanical; instead it has discovered unexpected new layers of intricate order that bespeak an almost unimaginably vast master design. Modern psychologists predicted that religion would be exposed as a neurosis and outgrown; instead, religious commitment has been shown empirically to be a vital component of basic mental health…

Few people seem to realize this, but by now it should be clear: Over the course of a century in the great debate between science and faith, the tables have completely turned. In the wake of Darwin, atheists and agnostics like [Thomas Henry] Huxley [1825-95] and [Bertrand] Russell [1872-1970] could point to what appeared to be a solid body of testable theory purportedly showing life to be accidental and the universe radically contingent. Many scientists and intellectuals continue to cleave to this worldview. But they are increasingly pressed to almost absurd lengths to defend it. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis.

Science, which has been presented as the pillar of atheist/materialist philosophy, turns out to be just the opposite. As another writer puts it: "The strict materialism that excludes all purpose, choice, and spirituality from the world simply cannot account for the data pouring in from labs and observatories."

In short, atheism suffered a sudden collapse in the last quarter of the twentieth century at the hands of the very scientific and sociological concepts from which its adherents had hoped to receive the most support.

 

[mo.mentum]

Keep it simple; not about evolution, unless you can absolutely prove (or atleast provide some evidence, to start) that macro evolution could not/can not happen, and that a creator was needed.

What macro evolution?? Geological and environmental conditions change, species die off in huge numbers. Conditions restabalize, and boom a new explosion of species. Thats what keeps popping up in the fossil record.

bah im going to bed..

 

[Arikay]

If you dont understand Natural Selection (which it appears you dont) then you need to do more research.
I would recomend, since you are here, a good place to go is the science forum, and Ask Questions. Be humble about it, and you can learn a lot. I have.

So far you arent doing a great job at dislodging atheism or Evolution.

So, have you at least learned that a tornado in a junkyard making a 747 is Not a good or correct example of Evolution?

[snip]

 

[mo.mentum]

If you dont understand Natural Selection (which it appears you dont) then you need to do more research

This is getting old. This is the best you can do after everything I've written? To tell me I don't understand Natural Selection?

Ya great way of debating your ideology, keep it up.

Oh, you don't understand english, go research it.

 

[mo.mentum]

Since all you can do is mock my facts, let's see you explain this way with more than just a stupid remark that would've passed as an argument in high school.

if Evilution is the only available explanation, it must have way to explain the sperm cell.

Let's examine it shall we?

First of all, the sperm is produced in your testicles along an assembly line about 500m long. Each component of the sperm are brought together and built. Briefly, these consist of the tail, the engine, the head.

The tail is a perfect locomotive organelle for the environment needed, it can provide the sperm with speeds the equivalent of a speed boat.

The engine is designed to run on fructose which, oh my God, happens to be present in the seminal fluids.

The head has 2 layers of armor, and a sack of enzymes to help it borrow into the egg cell.

Each layer of armor is used up at progressive stages as it borrows, revealing the enzymes beneath when the time is right. Eventually, the DNA cargo within is also exposed after the layers of armor are worn off.

Also, the tail suddenly breaks off. If it didn't, the constant motion would destroy the egg cell internally.

Let's not forget that the environment the sperm are released into is highly acidic and hostile. Yet the seminal fluid ejected with them contains a base solution to counter this.

To track the egg, the sperms have chemical sensors that detect hormones released by the egg.

Despite the fact that no sperm, in the entire history of sperm had the opportunity to visit this environment, get back into the male body and report what it saw.

If this system was not fully functional from day 1, then no species would have procreated. There is no trial and error, there is no slow development.

How did our testicles learn how to build the sperm's armor, and it's engine and to make it run on fructose.

These are serious questions that cannot be answered with genetics. But if you can, please do!

I presented a brief outline of the complexity of this process. But every other function in our bodies or any other biological system is just as complex yet harmonious, and if any part were to be removed, the whole system would break apart.

By demonstrating such complexities within our bodies and in the natural world, I try to show that atheism is not a logical philosophy to have. But go on and tell me to do more research, it seems to be the only thing working for you lately.

 

[Arikay]

I would debate more, but you keep saying you have researched this and love researching, so I would figure I would tell you to keep looking, I even gave you a place to go find information at. When someone comes here and makes very boastfull claims like you have, but they dont live up, I would suggest to them to do more research. If someone approaches it a bit more humble, I am more willing to help (and im sure most other people are too )

And now you fall back on Complexity. Complexity does not equal an inteligent designer.

Just because You dont understand or refuse to understand Natural Selection or the Theory of Evolution, doesnt mean its not true.

Again, I told you, its natural selection. In the most basic form, natural selection keeps around what works and gets rid of what doesnt. Our sperm and us are complex and work the way we do because they are a result of Many Many natural selection events. How do sperm know how to have "armor" because the sperm that was more protected was more likely to get to the egg, passing on its design. Very simple.

Ok, now tell me, if we are Designed, why all the flaws?

Like for example, Why do we have Blind Spots in our eyes?
Why do we have residual Tail information (cumulating into the rare but interesting baby born with a tail)?
Etc.

We may be complex but we do have many flaws.
The expected answer to this, is of course that we began to degrade after Original sin. But that doesnt answer the question.

 

[mo.mentum]

And now you fall back on Complexity. Complexity does not equal an inteligent designer.

Sure it does. Has anything complex ever been designed by humans without the application of intelligence? Are we to think that natural processes are more intelligent than we are? Despite all our skills and technology, we cannot create 1 living cell. Yet nature perfected this and nailed it after a few trials and errors. Because nature is conscience right? anyway....

Just because You dont understand or refuse to understand Natural Selection or the Theory of Evolution, doesnt mean its not true.

ya ya ok there

Ok, now tell me, if we are Designed, why all the flaws?

Like for example, Why do we have Blind Spots in our eyes?
Why do we have residual Tail information (cumulating into the rare but interesting baby born with a tail)?
Etc.

We may be complex but we do have many flaws.
The expected answer to this, is of course that we began to degrade after Original sin. But that doesnt answer the question.

I don't believe in Original Sin. And we degrade out our own doing. The things we're doing to our environment and to ourselves is the cause of these genetic defects. Any anatomist will tell you that our spine is uniquely shaped and it could not have had a tail at any point.

What about the perfection in the human body. It's all perfectly to scale. The length of your arms, finger to finger is equal to your height. Your nose is exactly 1/6 the length of your face. You can fit a third eye between your two eyes perfectly. Let alone the symmetry in design.

Human joints are unique in that they contain lubricating glands between the bones. These are squeezed when tension is applied, this in turn allows for greater dexterity and mobility. You can apply varying degrees of force to your grip, or perform all manners of physical activity. No other animal is capable of this. Even chimps who play with tools, never actually have a firm grip on these objects.

Oh yes, of course. i dont understand natural selection, but you can't explain how natural processes could bring about such characteristics.

What about your fingertips? Have you looked at your prints? How unique they are. Are they some useless feature that nature give us because it served us well or some ancestor had them and they allowed him to survive?

Come on, use your intellect.

 

[Arikay]

"Has anything complex ever been designed by humans without the application of intelligence?"

A couple scientists Evolved a Radio on accident. Does that count? Complexity does not Require inteligence.

"Despite all our skills and technology, we cannot create 1 living cell."

100 years ago we could not split the Atom. Our lack of ability is not proof of anything. We have however been able to create "life" from non life. It is not a cell, but its the very beginings of the building blocks that eventually became a cell.

"Any anatomist will tell you that our spine is uniquely shaped and it could not have had a tail at any point."

Really? Then I shall have to tell the kids that were born with vertebrate tails that they didnt really exist.

Interesting, I have not looked into how it is thought that fingerprints came around, I shall have too.

[snip]

 

[Blessed-one]

Forum rule reminder!

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

 

[David Gould]

In what sense do any of these arguments relate to atheism? Atheism is lack of belief in a deity.

Atheism is not materialism, for example, although a lot of atheists are materialists. Atheistic buddhists are not materialists.

Atheism is not evolution.

Atheism does not rely on the notion that the universe be eternal.

Atheism does not deny the existence of information in the universe, although I personally have some issues with what people mean when they talk about 'information'.

In short, none of your arguments appear to have anything to do with disproving atheism (by which I assume you mean falsifying the proposition that a deity does not exist, which is not precisely atheism but will do).

 

[Jet Black]

Hi

Many of you know me not. But heck, if you ever have a heated debate with an atheist, here's some arguments you can use.

1- An important aspect of atheism in the 19th and early 20th century was the supposition that the Universe was infinite and eternal. Everyone thought that the Universe was stationary and unchaning.

Atheism says there is no God. it says nothing about the universe

2- The Big Bang is sometimes described as a huge explosion.

by people who are wrong, heh. and the rest of your point can be covreed by the fact that all observed phenomenon must be compatible with the existance of life.

3- The Anthropic principle is an another cool feature of the Universe. Atheists believe in a random Universe. Everything came into being by chance. Scientists have called this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”. That is, every aspect of the universe is designed with a view to human life.

if it was any different would we be here discussing it. there could be billions, trillions, indeed infinite other universes with no life. our universe has life, and we only know about our universe. the fact that our universe has life says nothing about the existance or nonexistance of God.

4- With Quantum Physics, or the study of the very very smallest subatomic particles and their interactions, we see an order that is mind boggling. It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, the basis of matter is energy, that matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy, which in turn forms the basis of matter. The matter/energy relationships, the quantum wave functions, have profound meaning.

I smell that you are making things up - because you don't know what energy is, clearly. Relativity wasn't discovered by Einstein either. he had a large part in it, but most of the thanks goes to Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger and others.

5- Evolution is a fairy tale. The mechanisms that scientists argue are behind it don't work in the lab (millions of years or not).

they do, and they have been done.

All life forms are unique and specifically adapted to their environment.

because the ones that weren't so well adapted died and didn't reproduce.

You can't tell me that a moth observed the color/texture of a tree of years before its descendants learned how to mimic the color on their bodies as camouflage.

strawman alert!!!!!!

moth evolution:

moth on tree has babies. some babies are a similar colour to the tree, some are less similar. the less similar ones get spotted by cute little birdies with ripping talons, sharp beaks and empty tummies. the ones that look less like the tree are more likely to get eaten, so the ones that reproduce will have offspring that look successively more and more like the tree.

6- Most significant has been the exposure of Freud’s views of religion as entirely fallacious.

what has freud got to do with atheism. Just because an atheist is wrong about something doesn't mean atheism is wrong.

An atheist denies God,Ask me more!!!

.M

I'd rather not.

 

[Jet Black]

What macro evolution?? Geological and environmental conditions change, species die off in huge numbers. Conditions restabalize, and boom a new explosion of species. Thats what keeps popping up in the fossil record.

bah im going to bed..

yeap. so how do you argue it then? I will start on the assumption that you believe in the worldwide flood. how did noah fit all the animals on the ark, as we know for a fact there isn't enough room.

 

[Philosoft]

Oh yes, of course. i dont understand natural selection, but you can't explain how natural processes could bring about such characteristics.

I don't have all the answers. Why don't you ask someone who explains these things for a living?

What about your fingertips? Have you looked at your prints? How unique they are. Are they some useless feature that nature give us because it served us well or some ancestor had them and they allowed him to survive?

Yadda yadda. What about male nipples? Body hair? Muscles that cause goosebumps? Cross-wired optical nerves? Fingernails? The esophagus/trachea jury-rig? Sexual organs that double as waste-removers?

Your examples are of the kind, "Gee, I can't think of an evolutionary purpose or mechanism, and since I know everything, they must be designed by God!" So, explain my examples using God, would you?

Come on, use your intellect.

No. I won't do it and you can't make me.