• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
That's the problem with your approach. The science does not lead to God. It cannot lead to God. It must not lead to God... not because of how "science" does it, but how "theology" does it.

What you propose is the ultimate black box. You disregard the mechanisms that are observed and the hypotheses that are extrapolated from that, because you disagree with them. In exchange, you propose a solution that is completely unobservered, completely unobservable, excluded from "natural means"... and is simply defined as "being able to do that, don't ask any further questions".

Sorry, but that is not science.
cannot lead to God ... mmmm very interesting. Why would you say that? Is it because of a mental block that wont allow it? But all the science does lead to God that is what is so fascinating. You think this is something new and different and yet I have debated you already hundreds of times. Your thoughts your ideas I debated inside myself before I began to formulate the arguments. Then I tested the ideas out on scientists. Now I have catalogued and categorized your arguments down to 50-8. To 50 arguments within 8 categories. So that I can teach others how to do what I do. Because it is not hard.

I don't have to be a scientist and for the record I am not one. But I can several as my friends and I know they can't me the same. We have these debates and they are baffled because they have a serious problem. The science is not on their side. I don't have to be a scientist to debate them. Because the science is on my side. Without science you only have blind faith. The Christian has blind faith and science which to me is hilarious because the average Christian does not know the science and yet the science and the math is on their side. If they knew the science ... wow.

I am developing a website to teach them. I am involved because I care. And because I know. I was an atheist and I know what that belief system leads to.

You think you are free ... you chained to an unimaginative process that leads so many to despair and causes problems. I want to free you so you can see the real science but I am truthfully looking beyond you and me to trying to make a way for others to free others. I can't do much but I can do a little.

In that way maybe this "random bag of molecules" can be of some purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,532
God's Earth
✟270,796.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I was not explaining like that go back and look at what I said. I was talking about Quantum Physics in the natural way. In other words we have to look at things a bit ... well a ton different when we explain quantum physics that's just well obvious. Its not to the natural way of thinking ... it is not something that comes natural lol. Its "spooky stuff".

Much of physics is counterintuitive. But the models accurately predict actual phenomena.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It turns out that quantum physics is entirely natural - we, and everything we experience around us, is quantum mechanical. Everyday experience is what quantum mechanics is like at a macro scale.

But at micro scales, quantum mechanics is counterintuitive, it doesn't behave in ways we're accustomed to. It doesn't feel natural because we're only familiar with natural phenomena in a very limited range of scales. But exactly the same applies to other aspects of the natural world that are beyond our everyday experience; e.g. relativistic phenomena, the scale of the universe, deep time, etc.

Ok this is interesting and you will take me somewhere different I like it. I have a theory about that ... I don't think you will like and no one shares have put it up the flag pole and no scientists agree so whatever but here goes.

What we see on the Quantum level is just that something we see on the Quantum level but does not coorilate to what we see on the macro level. So you can for example have entangled objects on the quantum level but not necessarily on the macro level. So the Idea of the cats is simple ... you put the cat in the box and its alive ... why because on a macro level the math is working on a macro level. For example if you were to abandon the box with the cat and live out your life and the cat were to escape then the cat later on has kittens and one of them bites you doesn't that mean that the cat was always alive?

Now then the scientist will say no it can only mean the info wave was alive.. but that has a problem because that means that something was alive.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No. Instead, I'm replying to the specific things that you yourself have said. I quoted your post and responded to those specific quotes.


Here, note the bolded part:



You claimed that people are saying that to you in "debates".
So I asked you where you heared such, because I have personally never met anyone who claimed such....



Why would I have to prove claims that I'm not making?
I don't know how the universe came about.
Ok that was wrong on my part to put that other part in there. I should have left it at "evolution is a fact" and not have gone on from there. You are correct to point out my flaw. And it is important and you are completely correct. I will thank you for pointing it out. We learn nothing if someone honest will not show us the way. Also we need to be able to acknowledge their truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,218
10,104
✟282,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Each researcher accepts that there is no God. I will accept that to some extent.
Do as you please in regard to their beliefs. They are not relevant. What is relevant is the evidence, their interpretation of the evidence and the provisional conclusions they form based on the evidence.

Each researcher accepts that there is no God. I will accept that to some extent. Actually many of them had doubts long before and many more are having doubts now. Many of them like me are converting from Atheism. We don't know what to do. We don't necessarily want to go to religion we don't even like the idea of God but we know the science and we are not afraid and will not back down. So now what? Well that is something different.
This reads like waffle. When I make a determined effort to extract meaning I get this from you:

"I don't know. Things are all mixed up. Science is trying to tell us something. Yeah, maybe there is a God. I know lots of scientists feel this way."

It that is not approximately what you are trying to say then you need to work on your writing skills.
Meanwhile, your references to the thoughts of other scientists looks like projection to me.

But as far as the claim you made that everyone accepts evolution its a bit more complex then you think when it comes down to the people that are actually doing the work.

They do not all accept what you think of as evolution. They have many debates about this or publish peer reviewed papers where they will call into question different problems. Like the Molecular clock connecting to the Deep Divergence or the probability of the math behind a new protein fold. And then they begin to question the entire theory itself. They begin to question something key like common descent.

What if I told you that some scientists are now questioning that?
Do ... wait ... just stop for a second ... process that.... this is big.

If we do not have common descent or universal decent its over in my mind and in others. But at the very least without common decent we have a serious problem with the fundamentals of the operating system in the first place.

Darwin would have said the same.
Really. I believe I have a reasonable idea of what the scientists doing evolution research are doing. I did a quick check of my library data base and I see I have in excess of one hundred books related to evolution and a further 300+research papers on one or other aspect. In none of these do I see what you see.

Of course, there is debate that is the nature of science. Of course theories get modified. That is the nature of science. But evolutionary theory is being strengthed by the debate and the modificaitons. Tomorrow, some researcher may come up with rabbits in the Cambrian and we shall have a true Khunian paradigm shift, but not today. Not on the current evidence.

As to common descent, some researchers have looked to see if they could find evidence that life arose multiple times. The last time I looked the conclusion, based on gene analysis, was it had not, or if it had only one strain had survived. Around a decade ago another team concluded, I think using Bayesian analysis, that almost certainly life arose multiple times, but that only one strain survived. [I'd love to give you citations, but neither paper interested me enough to take a copy.]

I share the view that we may well find, in some obscure environment, a lifeform that arose independently from all other life on Earth. That would have fascinating implications for anyone running the Drake equation, but it wouldn't do anything much to evolutionary theory.

The importance of hybridisation is, I think, being given more weight, but again that does nothing to the fundamentals. Oh, look! The Tree of Life is more like an intertwined, self-grafting bush than a tree. Quel suprise!
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why would I have to prove claims that I'm not making?
I don't know how the universe came about.

If you are an atheist you do have to do something. You have to do the same thing I did. You have to test that belief out. Was the Universe designed? Is the life you see now possible without intelligence on some level ... either at inception or by guiding or by anything?

If you can honestly look at the evidence and say that everything you see would be able to come about without intelligence then you have done your due diligence at least. If you can't do the work then you are very curious.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,218
10,104
✟282,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Fine accepted and noted but also note this.
Miller already went back on the experiment with Uhler. The scientific community including the one of the original participants has actually moved on. Its ridiculous that this experiment is still talked about or mentioned in textbooks lol.
I take it Uhler= Urey.

You completely miss the point of the experiment:
1. It demonstrated, for the first time, that prebiotic chemicals could arise naturally. In the absence of such a demonstration abiogenesis would have been highly questionable.
2. It established, for the first time, that abiogenesis could be investigated experimentally, not just theoretically.

We still, rightly, talk about Galileo's experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa. The Miller-Urey experiment has even more credentials in that it did actually occur.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Ok this is interesting and you will take me somewhere different I like it. I have a theory about that ... I don't think you will like and no one shares have put it up the flag pole and no scientists agree so whatever but here goes.

What we see on the Quantum level is just that something we see on the Quantum level but does not coorilate to what we see on the macro level. So you can for example have entangled objects on the quantum level but not necessarily on the macro level. So the Idea of the cats is simple ... you put the cat in the box and its alive ... why because on a macro level the math is working on a macro level. For example if you were to abandon the box with the cat and live out your life and the cat were to escape then the cat later on has kittens and one of them bites you doesn't that mean that the cat was always alive?

Now then the scientist will say no it can only mean the info wave was alive.. but that has a problem because that means that something was alive.
That all sounds a bit confused, and I've not heard a scientist say that last bit - perhaps they weren't familiar with quantum mechanics.

Schrödinger's Cat was a thought experiment to point out the absurdity of the 'conscious collapse' version of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM - a version now generally considered untenable. There are a number of other interpretations (including Bohr's original Copenhagen interpretation) all of which have no problem with Schrödinger's Cat. Part of the issue concerned what was meant by an 'observation' or 'measurement' in QM, something that still causes confusion.

Probably the most popular view is that an 'observation' is an interaction with another quantum system that involves decoherence - the dispersion of its quantum information into the wider environment. This would explain why quantum effects are not seen at macro scales unless care is taken to isolate the system in question from the environment.

Other interpretations are available; the only requirement is that they are consistent with the quantum formalism, i.e. the mathematical description of QM.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I don't know how we got life from non-life but all the evidence we have gathered so far point towards a natural cause.
Ok I am going to walk you through this because this is very important and we have not done this yet in this debate. I do not fault you on this one I blame the education system that has let you down. And it is with them that I will judge.

Ok in order for evolution we need a few things right/?
1. Random mutations
2. Selection through natural processes.
3. Time.

In order for life to come from non life you can not invoke evolution because of number 2.
You would have nothing to select from. There is nothing to select before life. So I will play the devils advocate and tell you what we have so far.

We can either
(A) go with random processes completely
(B) go with some unknown mechanism of organization that we have yet to prove
(C) combination
All of these three will need lots of time.
I will get into to the leading theories we have right now and the fundamental flaws based on science later as I was knew we would get there at some point.
Its best not to rush this because once we get into that it gets a bit heavy.
 
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
32
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok I am going to walk you through this because this is very important and we have not done this yet in this debate. I do not fault you on this one I blame the education system that has let you down. And it is with them that I will judge.

Ok in order for evolution we need a few things right/?
1. Random mutations
2. Selection through natural processes.
3. Time.

In order for life to come from non life you can not invoke evolution because of number 2.
You would have nothing to select from. There is nothing to select before life. So I will play the devils advocate and tell you what we have so far.

We can either
(A) go with random processes completely
(B) go with some unknown mechanism of organization that we have yet to prove
(C) combination
All of these three will need lots of time.
I will get into to the leading theories we have right now and the fundamental flaws based on science later as I was knew we would get there at some point.
Its best not to rush this because once we get into that it gets a bit heavy.

Sounds good as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what your point is but I'm hoping you're getting to it.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
cannot lead to God ... mmmm very interesting. Why would you say that? Is it because of a mental block that wont allow it? But all the science does lead to God that is what is so fascinating. You think this is something new and different and yet I have debated you already hundreds of times. Your thoughts your ideas I debated inside myself before I began to formulate the arguments. Then I tested the ideas out on scientists. Now I have catalogued and categorized your arguments down to 50-8. To 50 arguments within 8 categories. So that I can teach others how to do what I do. Because it is not hard.

I don't have to be a scientist and for the record I am not one. But I can several as my friends and I know they can't me the same. We have these debates and they are baffled because they have a serious problem. The science is not on their side. I don't have to be a scientist to debate them. Because the science is on my side. Without science you only have blind faith. The Christian has blind faith and science which to me is hilarious because the average Christian does not know the science and yet the science and the math is on their side. If they knew the science ... wow.

I am developing a website to teach them. I am involved because I care. And because I know. I was an atheist and I know what that belief system leads to.

You think you are free ... you chained to an unimaginative process that leads so many to despair and causes problems. I want to free you so you can see the real science but I am truthfully looking beyond you and me to trying to make a way for others to free others. I can't do much but I can do a little.

In that way maybe this "random bag of molecules" can be of some purpose.
Sorry, but that is just a bunch of empty hot air.

You keep claiming that science is on your side, that you have the science, that you want to lead people to the "real science"... yadda yadda yadda... but in all this rant you never managed to even come within a lightyear of my points.

See... what your "real science" does is nothing but to propose an untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, unobservable and unobserved solution that is defined to fit any problem.

You might have seen the Robert Ince clip about creationism. This is what your "science" is, all that it is: "Magic Man Done It!"

Every question about how and why and when and HOW! is answered with "Magic Man Done It!"... and Magic Man can do everything, be everything. It is phrase that doesn't answer any question, it stops any question.

No, you are not a scientist. You don't have any idea what science is all about. You don't understand the little science you have come into contact with.

Keep lying to yourself. Perhaps you will manage to get into the Flat Earth Club soon.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Several things are wrong with your objections.

The most obvious being that you can not take present day life, which is the result of (at least) 3.8 billion years of evolution, and project such a developed and evolved cell as being what abiogenesis researches should be looking for.

Secondly, nobody is claiming that what happened in the Miller experiment is THE way by which the building blocks of life HAVE originated on this planet. Not at all.

The reason this experiment is important, is quite simply because it demonstrated that there ARE pathways by which such complex organic molecules CAN arise through natural processes....

It acts as a red flag for whenever someone wishes to claim that a certain thing is "too complex" to come about naturally.

The Miller experiment demonstrated one way on how such complex chemistry can occur naturally. And ONE such way, is enough to demonstrate that it's not only possible but also plausible.

All in all, your entire objection seems to center entirely around personal incredulity.
Ok very very strong argument. You are thinking on a higher level. You are correct that the miller experiment did show how we can get a macro molecule from a random process. But the problems after that are extreme and that is why Miller himself backed away from the results later on in life and why Scientists no longer look at this experiment to deeply. We can also for example put all the ingredients together in a way to get other results or molecules but to get RNA.

Well that is where this debate is heading. And that is where the fun begins.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ok that was wrong on my part to put that other part in there. I should have left it at "evolution is a fact" and not have gone on from there

Evolution is a fact as well :)

There's the fact of evolution (like genetic factual common ancestry of species) and then there's the theory of evolution (which explains the mechanism, the process).
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for the positive comments. I will try not to feel patronised ;)

The problem I see with concepts like the supernatural, the paranormal, and spirit worlds/realms, is that they are generally undefined, ill-defined, or incoherent.

The definitions (if provided) are vague and nebulous, or attempt to define them by what they are not. This gives plenty of wiggle room, but some problems are intractable, such as the problem of interaction, the idea that the non-physical or immaterial (again, an attempt to define something by what it isn't) can physically act on the physical world; this seems to want it both ways - to both be and not be part of the physical world. This kind of contradiction also seems characteristic of 'magical thinking', such as superstition.

We do seem to have an unfortunate tendency to reify our imaginings on the flimsiest of 'evidence'. I blame HAD (Hyperactive Agency Detection).
Ok critism duely noted and internalized ;)
But you do know there could be some that might take issue with one of your statements?

the idea that the non-physical or immaterial (again, an attempt to define something by what it isn't) can physically act on the physical world; this seems to want it both ways - to both be and not be part of the physical world.

I understand what your saying and agree to some extent but there is a problem. In quatum physics we have a clear interaction between the non-physical and the physical with duel slit experiment. So we can see that consciousness can have an effect on matter. Further we can see that matter can effect matter with no direct link as yet we can detect with entagled objects.
Even crazier and this is the one that really fries my brain is the unaccountable energy and information that can instantly be transmitted across the entire universe.
So there is that.
But having said that I know what you are saying and I struggle because I feel much like you do about this.
And yet ... quantum spooky stuff :(
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is a fact as well :)

There's the fact of evolution (like genetic factual common ancestry of species) and then there's the theory of evolution (which explains the mechanism, the process).
Evolution is not a fact. The genetic information coming out is horrible for TOE and causing serious problems. Common ancestry itself is now in doubt.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you are an atheist you do have to do something

Why? And what do I supposedly "have to" do?


You have to do the same thing I did. You have to test that belief out.

Haaa. I see the confusion. You think atheism is a belief.... Well, it isn't.
Theism is the belief. Atheism is the word used for those people who don't have theistic beliefs.

What beliefs an atheist DOES have, can't be concluded from the label "atheist".
The word "Atheist" only refers to what belief the person does NOT have.

Was the Universe designed?

I have no reason to think it was.

Is the life you see now possible without intelligence on some level
In the sense of bio-diversity: absolutely. And we discovered the process that produces this bio-diversity more then a century ago.

... either at inception or by guiding or by anything?
I have no reason to think it is required.

If you can honestly look at the evidence and say that everything you see would be able to come about without intelligence then you have done your due diligence at least.

I don't know how everything came about and I have no reason to assume some intelligence did it or that it was required somehow.

YOU are the one who's claim that such an intelligence did in fact did it and/or that it was required. Your claim, your burden of proof. Don't ask me to do your homework.

You're the one who's making suggestions here, not me.

If you can't do the work then you are very curious.

I'm a software engineer. My job is to write software, not to unravel the mysteries of physics, bio-chemistry, etc.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ok I am going to walk you through this because this is very important and we have not done this yet in this debate. I do not fault you on this one I blame the education system that has let you down. And it is with them that I will judge.

Ok in order for evolution we need a few things right/?
1. Random mutations
2. Selection through natural processes.
3. Time.

In order for life to come from non life you can not invoke evolution because of number 2.
You would have nothing to select from. There is nothing to select before life


Nobody here, on our side of the table, has ever suggested that evolution addresses the origins of life. In fact, if anything, we will have said the exact opposite.

We can either
(A) go with random processes completely
(B) go with some unknown mechanism of organization that we have yet to prove
(C) combination
All of these three will need lots of time.

"lots of time"? How?
To unfold as a process? Or do we require "lots of time" to work out how exactly life came about?

If the first: how do you know?
If the latter: why is that a problem?

I will get into to the leading theories we have right now and the fundamental flaws based on science later as I was knew we would get there at some point.
Its best not to rush this because once we get into that it gets a bit heavy.

I will advice you to inform yourself a bit on these topics first, before getting "into" anything.
Because it kind of sounds that you don't understand how evolution theory is about the origins of species and not about the origins of life itself.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No. Gen2 remembered the question. You didn't. The question was not "Can you name one", the question, phrased as a challenge, was "Go ahead. Name three, with citations to the papers wherein this serious problem is revealed. Heck, just name one, with an appropriate citation."

After I prodded you, you did come up with what you considered to be an answer, but your first effort was either incompetent, or insulting, depending on whether you didn't understand what I was asking for, or thought you could get away with the nonsense list you posted. I understood you wanted a serious discussion. If so, get serious.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't know how you arrived at your former atheism, but your remarks to Gene2memE suggest it is not how most atheists and agnotics reach their worldview. Just for the record I was raised in a Christian environment, attended Church on a regular basis and made a regular study of the Bible. Family and friends, observing my behviour and interests presumed I would enter the ministry.

I recall giving an impassioned talk to fellow students about the importance of faith when I was 15, or 16. However, as I reflected on that position over the following years, it became less tenable. (I remarked to another member last week that I have no faith in faith.) I was not seduced away from Christianity by science, or by the "bright lights", but driven away by its inherent contradictions.

From what I have seen on this forum to date most of the atheists or agnostics have comparable stories, or simply never became influenced by theistic thinking.

Ok so is it papers time?
Sorry that's how I refer to this point in a debate. It will always happen. I'm not mad and I am not judging this is normal and healthy as everyone should want there to be some backing if someone is giving an argument. I mean if not then you are just talking out of your ice cream cone or what ever (I'm keeping it cool for those that want this G rated).
My reluctance on giving you the "papers" is not because they don't exist ... its just that it will bore most people.

Most people are not into this stuff like you and me.

But it is time and so papers must be produced and so forth.

Please allow me 30 minutes from time of this post.
I will begin to download my notes off my tablet and then begin to upload them.

Please be advised that I would rather not. There are too many of them but I only do so because you have rightly called me out. To duck out of this request from you would be cowardly. I That is something I wont do.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.