Answers To Atheism

[Danyc]

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Atheists believe all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation) observational evidence for either belief. Atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

Could you reword that or in someway rephrase it more clearly? I just read that paragraph five times and I am not following you at all.

 

[jayem]

It is impossible because:

nonlife cannot produce life

nonintelligence cannot produce intelligence

impersonal cannot produce personal

chaos cannot produce order

If you were to pick up a watch and hold it in your hand, you would not say that it was produced as a result of natural processes (at least I hope you would not say that).

Natural processes can certainly produce a more ordered structure from one less ordered. Non-crystalline carbon under proper conditions of heat and pressure can become a diamond. And the simple can produce the complex. The Miller-Urey experiment almost 60 years ago demonstrated that water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen will produce amino acids when sparked with an electrical discharge simulating lightning. A more recent study of the same experiment found even more amino acids, which could have formed naturally from volcanic plumes. The 2nd Law argument doesn't apply to what was happening with the primordial Earth. Local entropy can be reversed when an energy source, like the Sun, is available. True, we're just at the very beginning of understanding the origin of life. You can believe in supernaturalism if you like. But I'll refer you to a recent book reviewing some current ideas of natural biogenesis.

Amazon.com: The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (9780521528016): Pier Luigi Luisi: Books

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you've witnessed something nonintelligent produce something intelligent?

Why would I have to witness this? What matters is if it can happen in principle.

But, yes, a sperm and an egg, neither of which are intelligent, combine and over time develop into an intelligent being. That is intelligence arising from non-intelligence.

You might try to counter this by saying: "Ah, but the parents are intelligent!" But that would be beside the point. DNA is not intelligent, and DNA is the relevant factor here.

You might attempt the line of argument: "Ah, but an intelligent God designed that DNA!" However, this is also beside the point. I would still have met your challenge.

You are a 45 year old man who no doubt thinks of himself as a smart man. How is it that you can maintain such a groundless position?

LOL! You are so funny.

Do you think I'm going to be intimidated by language such as this. Sorry, your Jedi powers don't work on me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I don't think we really know how the universe was created. I think there must be 'something' timeless that exists, I just find it hard to believe it is God.

Why do you feel the necessity to separate the 2?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here's another fun gaff: chaos cannot produce order

This is not a scientific principle. It's not even a particularly good philosophical statement.

Spontaneous order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And: nonlife cannot produce life

Again, not any principle that I give any credence as a "scientific law". And, no, I don't need to witness that with my own two eyes, since my epistemology is not a strawman of reason. What matter is if it is forbidden in principle:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak- YouTube

All of the statements you've mentioned are completely silly claims of what is impossible, with nothing to back them up but incredulity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Buy Bologna]

LOL! You are so funny.

Do you think I'm going to be intimidated by language such as this. Sorry, your Jedi powers don't work on me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Credits Will Do Fine - YouTube

 

[quatona]

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago?

Atheism doesn´t require you to believe this.

Atheists believe all things that begin to exist must have a cause.

This, also is not a tenet of atheism.

 

[Genersis]

Why do you feel the necessity to separate the 2?

I know it's not aimed at me but; probably because there's no necessity to combine the two.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago?

Having a beginning and beginning to exist are not the same!

Take for example a story. That story begins to exist when it is written or told, as measured by the world in which the story is being told. The beginning of the story is something else and it is measured by the storyverse.

Or simpler yet, take a piece of thread. Has a beginning and an end (or two beginnings if you will). And it probably came into existence at some point in time too. So beginning and beginning to exist are not the same here too.

Now if you wish to maintain that the beginning of the universe is the same as when the universe began to exist, I am afraid you'll have to make a case for that. Otherwise, it is plainly and simply is equivocation.

The problem is of course compounded by the fact that most sensible theologians think of God as existing outside of time and space. Which means this 'story' (=universe) cannot have began to exist. That is because, as I said above, a story begins to exist when it is written or told, as measured by the world in which the story is being told. That world however consists solely of an 'author' (=God) and there is no temporal dimension with which to measure a beginning to exist. God can still however be necessary for the universe to exist though, so no worries. But there is no way to conclude that from the fact that the universe has its beginning.

(And never forget, two wrongs do not make a right. )



On the upside, at least you are not a YEC or some such. You surely would have a fun time trying to get an agreement on whether or not the universe is most likely about 13.7 Billion years old with those of your brothers and sisters. LOL

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"[...]I also can’t believe that people like [/I]Stalin and Hitler are gonna go to the same place as Mother Teresa.”[

Saul/Paul.

*Shakes head.*

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

With such crooked thinking you can disprove each and every religion hundreds and thousand times over.

All beliefs are based on physical measurement of some kind? What about logical conclusions or contradictions etc? Or what about making stuff up? Humans are fairly good at that.

Hey, maybe I am not an atheist after all, huh?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Atheists believe all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation) observational evidence for either belief. Atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

Nope, Atheist are simply people who are not convinced that god(s) exist. That's it.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

www.carm.org

www.answersingenesis.org

Seriously?

 

[Gadarene]

Yes. I read it a couple of years ago. Along with Hitchens, Dennett & co. I saw no proof that God doesn't exist. No actual proof.

If that was the problem you saw with it, then you didn't read it properly.

But I've long since given up expecting Dawkins' detractors to have actually read (or accurately recall) what he wrote.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago?

No, for two reasons:

1) In an oscillating universe, the age might be far more than 13.7 billion years.

2) I don't believe that the universe (i.e., physical reality) "began to exist." At t=0 (the first instant of time) physical reality existed. There is no "before" t=0, therefore it would be inaccurate to say that physical reality "began to exist" at that point in time, as if it had popped into existence out of nothing.

Atheists believe all things that begin to exist must have a cause.

I'm sure that some do.

So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause.

Only if an atheist thinks that the universe began to exist and also thinks that all things that begin to exist have a cause.

Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon.

"Virtually all" isn't all.

It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God).

I'm not aware that this is a possibility in the sense that it could actually exist in reality. Not everything that I can imagine can exist. I can imagine the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that doesn't mean that an intelligent living flying creature made of spaghetti can exist.

Atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind.

There are no "rules of atheism".

You seem to be referring to some theory of epistemology. It is not one that I share. I am not scientistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

No, for two reasons:

1) In an oscillating universe, the age might be far more than 13.7 billion years.

2) I don't believe that the universe (i.e., physical reality) "began to exist." At t=0 (the first instant of time) physical reality existed. There is no "before" t=0, therefore it would be inaccurate to say that physical reality "began to exist" at that point in time, as if it had popped into existence out of nothing.

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.

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.)

Therefore, it follows, that nothing material existed prior to the singularity, for it is the edge of physical space and time. It therefore represents not only the origin of all matter and energy, but also of physical space and time themselves.

Quentin Persifor Smith (born August 27, 1952 in Rhinebeck, New York) is an American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has worked in the philosophy of time, philosophy of language, philosophy of physics and philosophy of religion. Smith has published over 140 articles and of his published books, he has authored three, co-authored two, and co-authored and edited seven. He is an editor for Prometheus Books and was the chief editor for Philo from 2001 to 2007.

He has this to say regarding the Big Bang event:

"It belongs analytically to the consept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The defintition of a singularity...entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity....This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some natrual process." (Quentin Smith, "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe", in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 120.)

Sir Arthur Eddington also states regarding the beginning of the universe:

"I feel almost an indignation that anyone should beleive in it - except myself." (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York Macmillan, 1933), 124.)

And:

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York Macmillan, 1933), 178.)

Some attempts have been made at trying to offer a naturalistc explanation in light of the above. Namely, Stephen Hawking's quantum gravity theory.

In Hawking's theory, time is finite but does not have a beginning point or edge. Unfortunately for Hawking and any other detractor of creation, his model cannot be an accurate description of the universe.

Why?

Well for one reason, Hawking presupposes that the universe does not exist in "real" time, but "imaginary" time. In his equations, he uses imaginary numbers for the time coordinate, numbers like √-1.

Such numbers are mathematical devices that are completely void of physcial meaning.

In fact, Eddington in 1920 dispelled the veracity of such attempts at using imaginary numbers way before Hawking was even on the scene.

He states regarding these numbers and calculations:

"it can scarcely be regarded as anything more than an analytical device." (Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation reprint ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 48.)

Imaginary time he says, was merely an illustrative tool, which :

"certainly does not correspond to any physical reality." (Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation reprint ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 181.)


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.

By definition, an infinite can never be traversed - it has no beginning or end. But since we have arrived at today, it follows that there must only have been a finite number of moments before today.

Once again, even the great skeptic David Hume states:

"The temporal world has a beginning. An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit it." (David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Chas W. Hendel (New York: Liberal Arts, 1955), 165-66.)

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.

Most people deny this simple truth because they have a pre-commitment to naturalism. This pre-commitment prohibits them from objectively examining the evidence and making objective inferences from it. If from the outset of your investigation, you presuppose the supernatural to be non-existent, then all of your findings are going to be interpreted in light of that view. This is not only bad science, but bad philosophy, for science is dependant upon philosophy.

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!

 

[Elioenai26]

Really, is that so?

Yes that is so. Would you care for me to elaborate? If so, specifically regarding what atheistic assertion?

I don't think that is totally true.

No not totally. But as several scientist themselves have admitted, they maintain the view they do because of their religious like pre-commitment to naturalism. Would you like some quotes supporting this?

I don't think we really know how the universe was created. I think there must be 'something' timeless that exists, I just find it hard to believe it is God.

You think that there is 'something timeless' that exists. Well this is a start!

What 'timeless' entity could cause the universe to come to be? Is it not reasonable, in light of all the evidence that we have, that God created it?

 

[Danyc]

Yes that is so. Would you care for me to elaborate? If so, specifically regarding what atheistic assertion?



No not totally. But as several scientist themselves have admitted, they maintain the view they do because of their religious like pre-commitment to naturalism. Would you like some quotes supporting this?



You think that there is 'something timeless' that exists. Well this is a start!

What 'timeless' entity could cause the universe to come to be? Is it not reasonable, in light of all the evidence that we have, that God created it?

I like how you took "something timeless" and immediately changed it to "a timeless entity".

Real subtle.

 

[Elioenai26]

Natural processes can certainly produce a more ordered structure from one less ordered. Non-crystalline carbon under proper conditions of heat and pressure can become a diamond.

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 120 mi) in the Earth mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth). Diamonds are brought close to the Earth surface through deep volcanic eruptions by a magma, which cools into igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites.

In other words, a diamond is a naturally occuring mineral found in the earth, just like any other mineral like quartz, rubies, mica, feldspar, and horneblend.

The above image is an example of diamond in it's raw, unfinished, form.


Minerals are inorganic; they are not alive and they are not plants or animals. An example of a rock that is not a mineral is coal. Coal is a substance formed from decayed plants and animals. Therefore, coal is not considered a mineral.


Minerals are found in the earth or are naturally occurring substances. They are found in dirt, rocks, and water. They are not made by man.

Minerals are chemical substances. Some minerals like gold or silver are made of only one element. Other minerals, like quartz and calcite, are combinations of two or more elements.

Minerals always have the same chemical makeup. For example, quartz will always consist of one part silicon (an element) two parts oxygen (another element).

Minerals are usually solid crystals. They have a number of flat surfaces in an orderly arrangement. For example, a crystal of quartz is always hexagonal because of the way the atoms of silicon and oxygen join together.
About 2,000 minerals have been found. Oxygen is part of many minerals. Minerals containing oxygen make up almost half of the earth's crust. Quartz is a common mineral. Other common minerals are feldspar, mica, and horneblend. Many rocks are made of these common minerals.
Some minerals are rare and expensive. They are called gems . Diamonds, rubies, and emeralds are good examples of such minerals. Gold and silver are also minerals. Together, these natural substances are used to make beautiful jewelry. Courtesy of: What is a Mineral?

The above image is one of a polished, handcrafted diamond made by a Jeweler. We would not maintain that the above object was created by purely naturalistic forces. We would maintain that a person was behind the design, and crafting of the diamond in the above picture.

If you were to discover a diamond exactly like the one in the above picture while digging a whole for a plant that you were planting in your backyard, you would not say: "Ahh, what a lovely multifaceted diamond that was made from mother earth which just so happens to exactly resemble a polished and chisled dimond in a jewlery store."

No no no my friend, you would more than likely say something like: "Hmm... some unlucky man or woman must have dropped this, and I bet they looked high and low for it."

You would not assume that it had just come into existence from random naturalistic processes.

And the simple can produce the complex. The Miller-Urey experiment almost 60 years ago demonstrated that water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen will produce amino acids when sparked with an electrical discharge simulating lightning.

This is oftimes quoted but is easily shown to be misleading for the simple fact that a scientist (a human being which is far from being simple in it's composition) applied the electric charge to set in motion the process. In other words, an intelligent being, with will, and purposeful intent applied an electric charge to those four elements to set in motion the process of amino acid formation. This experiment was conducted in a controlled environment by scientists. This is far from your naturalistic, unintelligent, impersonal environment in which naturalistic process are carried out!

Now, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe state that 10 to 20 amino acids are needed to form one enzyme (and remember if one desires to use this argument for the origin of life, at this stage of the game there is no natural selection and therefore no chemical evolution), and estimated the odds that the chances of one enzyme forming by chance is one out of 10^20, or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,00!

Now here's the kicker: there are 2,000 different enzymes made out of amino acids, all of which would have to be formed by chance, and the odds of that happening are one in 10^40,000!

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe state that the odds are so "outrageously small", that they could not be faced "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 24.)

And this is only the beginning!!!! It still remains for DNA to arise from proteins and for the complex machinery of the cell to arise. These issues are too complex to set numbers to.

A more recent study of the same experiment found even more amino acids, which could have formed naturally from volcanic plumes. The 2nd Law argument doesn't apply to what was happening with the primordial Earth. Local entropy can be reversed when an energy source, like the Sun, is available. True, we're just at the very beginning of understanding the origin of life. You can believe in supernaturalism if you like. But I'll refer you to a recent book reviewing some current ideas of natural biogenesis.

Amazon.com: The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (9780521528016): Pier Luigi Luisi: Books

Ah, ah, ah jayem. The scenarios that you are advocating, for numerous reasons, some of which have been given above, are not generally accepted any longer by the scientific community. Of course you have a couple who still want to hold on to that which has all but been abandoned. But abandoned, they have been, and the following help us to understand why:

In the book: The Mystery of Life's Origins, the authors point out that:

1. There is no good reason to believe that there was ever any so-called primordial soup, because natural processes of destruction and dilution would have prevented the chemical reactions that supposedly would have led to life.

2. The "window of opportunity" for life to originate by chance is becoming increasingly smaller due to recent fossil evidence that life may have orginated as early as 3.8 billion years ago. The window of opportunnity now is approximately 25 million years in which life could occur - which is far too short for these naturalistic scenarios.

3. Evidence also supports the position that the early earth had an oxygen rich atmosphere, the very opposite of the conditions required for these scenarios.

4. There was no way in which the products of chemical process could have been preserved for the supposed second step in naturalistic development. The same forces that would have helped form them, would have destroyed them.

5. There also would have been no viable way for nature to have harnessed the raw energy of the environment i.e. from lightning, or the sun to drive the chemical evolution forward.

(Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).

The above and more, have led some scientists to posit outlandish theories and explanations for the origin of life on the earth such as life originating elsewhere and being carried to earth via meteorites!

Of course such theories are purely imaginitive and leave scientists like Francis Crick admitting that the origin of life on the earth is: "almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, "In the Beginning...," Scientific American (February 19910, 125.)

 

[Elioenai26]

I like how you took "something timeless" and immediately changed it to "a timeless entity".

Real subtle.

Excuse me young sir, maybe I should rephrase it:

What "timeless something" could have caused the universe to be?

Is that better?