Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[marksman007]

591

i highly disagree with this line

Faith is based on facts from the supernatural world which the average atheist cannot comprehend.

to be more specific i think you are misusing the word "fact". For there is no way to confirm these supernatural facts, except for simply wishing them to be so. Faith is a belief in something with an absence of facts or without facts.

I understand where you are coming from but you need to understand that it is not where I am coming from. My bible teaches me "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see. Because of our faith, we know that the world was made at God's command. We also know that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen. (Hebrews 11:1/3)

I don't wish the earth to be made by God's comand, it just was. That is what faith allows you to know. The earth to me is something that could not happen by chance because of its infinitely complex design which I see every day in my garden.

For us, faith is evidence because it gives us proof for what we cannot see. I did not see God create heaven and earth, but when I look at it I can see the result of his creation.

I am not telling you this to convince you to my way of thinking, only to illustrate that your way of thinking is not the only way. Until I am shown a more evident reason for creation, I have no reason to change my view. I have read several books about evolution but remain unconvinced. I find it hard to believe that nothing plus a blob equals everything.

 

[quatona]

1) Science cannot, by itself, explain why there is reason.
2) Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but atheists cannot explain why there is matter.
3) Atheists can explain the existence of the universe, but they can't explain why there is a universe.
4) Atheists can explain the existence of nature and the laws of physics, but they cannot explain why there is nature and the law of physics.
5) Atheists can explain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life.
6) Atheists can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.

Neither can you.
Instead of explaining all you give is ex cathedra truth claims that involve exceptional assumptions. Such are not explanations.
If exceptional truth claims would count as explanations I could explain all of the above easily.

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't wish the earth to be made by God's command, it just was. That is what faith allows you to know. The earth to me is something that could not happen by chance because of its infinitely complex design which I see every day in my garden.

oh no doubt, there is complex design. Its a design 3.7 billion years in the making. I would agree with you IF useful mutations where not selected through natural selection, and life did not reproduce. However it does and as it so happens complex design can happen under these circumstances without a intelligent designer. I think you will find that anything that replicates imperfectly, reproduces, and dies is subject to this design. If just one of these these things didn't happen, there would be no evolution.

For us, faith is evidence because it gives us proof for what we cannot see. I did not see God create heaven and earth, but when I look at it I can see the result of his creation.

I cannot agree that proof exists of things we cannot perceive. Faith used to be a passionate belief in what we could not understand. with the advent of the post modern eara that simply is not enough and so words like proof and fact need to be used in order to legitimize faith.

have no reason to change my view. I have read several books about evolution but remain unconvinced. I find it hard to believe that nothing plus a blob equals everything

.
no offense but "nothing plus a blob equals everything" sounds more like what a pasture would say who has not read any science books about evolution. if you remember do you think you could list some of the books you read?

I am not telling you this to convince you to my way of thinking, only to illustrate that your way of thinking is not the only way.

sure. there are many ways of thinking, but facts and proof are not apart of faith. it is the absence of it. These words are attributed to one way of thinking and faith is attributed to another way of thinking.

 

[Belk]

no offense but "nothing plus a blob equals everything" sounds more like what a pasture would say who has not read any science books about evolution. if you remember do you think you could list some of the books you read?

Maybe it leafed through it?

You know that most scientist are out standing in their field?

And one last one

It's because it started as a grass roots movement.

 

[tanzanos]

I have read several books about evolution but remain unconvinced. I find it hard to believe that nothing plus a blob equals everything.

Please post the titles of the books you read on evolution! (I challenge you)!

Also Evolution does not state anything remotely resembling what you say.

Now please list the books mate!

 

[allhart]

Neither can you.
Instead of explaining all you give is ex cathedra truth claims that involve exceptional assumptions. Such are not explanations.
If exceptional truth claims would count as explanations I could explain all of the above easily.

My point is that science isn't the only way to know reality!

 

[Tinker Grey]

My point is that science isn't the only way to know reality!

What other way is there? Explain how it works. If we don't come to knowledge of reality by studying it (science) does it magically appear in our brain?

 

[allhart]

What other way is there? Explain how it works. If we don't come to knowledge of reality by studying it (science) does it magically appear in our brain?

philosophy and reasoning isn't scientific, NOR IS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS or AWARENESS! science shows you your limitation!

 

[quatona]

My point is that science isn't the only way to know reality!

I fail to see how this could have possibly been the point of your post, seeing that you pointed out that science does not explain reality.

I agree that science hasn´t (probably won´t) be able to explain certain processes. I do not agree that this is a good reason to prefer an ideology that pretends to explain these processes, but actually doesn´t explain them any better.

Personally I prefer to say "I don´t know" if I don´t know. I find attempts to sell extraordinary claims as "explanations" somewhat fishy.

 

[allhart]

I fail to see how this could have possibly been the point of your post, seeing that you pointed out that science does not explain reality.

I agree that science hasn´t (probably won´t) be able to explain certain processes. I do not agree that this is a good reason to prefer an ideology that pretends to explain these processes, but actually doesn´t explain them any better.

Personally I prefer to say "I don´t know" if I don´t know. I find attempts to sell extraordinary claims as "explanations" somewhat fishy.

Just like in the reasoning of homosexuality and then to look at the scientific fact of it all. Intent is prior to content. People tend to pick and chose according to there opinion on the facts and it is only relative to their case in point!

 

[quatona]

Just like in the reasoning of homosexuality and then to look at the scientific fact of it all. Intent is prior to content. People tend to pick and chose according to there opinion on the facts and it is only relative to their case in point!

I see that you insist on changing the topic instead of defending your post against the arguments with which I responded to it. This is your prerogative, but it´s my prerogative to not play this game.

Your point was "Atheism can´t explain the origin of..." (implying that this makes a case for theism because it allegedly offers explanations).
My response:
1. Agreed, and atheism doesn´t even pretend to be able to explain it.
2. You and your theism don´t explain it either.
3. So regarding explanations of these origins atheism and theism are equally incapable, with the difference that atheims tends to be more honest about its incapability.

Address this point or leave it.

 

[allhart]

I see that you insist on changing the topic instead of defending your post against the arguments with which I responded to it. This is your prerogative, but it´s my prerogative to not play this game.

Your point was "Atheism can´t explain the origin of..." (implying that this makes a case for theism because it allegedly offers explanations).
My response:
1. Agreed, and atheism doesn´t even pretend to be able to explain it.
2. You and your theism don´t explain it either.
3. So regarding explanations of these origins atheism and theism are equally incapable, with the difference that atheims tends to be more honest about its incapability.

Address this point or leave it.

Sorry just differentiating between the fact of science and reasoning to (origin, meaning morality and destiny)and hoping you will see the difference! Hoping you will see that there is more than one way to explain reality, known reality. Which seems to be unknown to you!

 

[quatona]

Sorry just differentiating between the fact of science and reasoning to (origin, meaning morality and destiny)and hoping you will see the difference! Hoping you will see that there is more than one way to explain reality, known reality as well as the unknown to you!

You are invited to explain reality your way.
Claiming that you can explain reality doesn´t count for an explanation.
Be prepared that your attempts at explanations will be subjected to the same skepticism that any other attempts are subjected to.

 

[allhart]

There is a-lot to which is unseen that is important to you. You acknowledge them all the time, but you can't tell me where they come from! You differentiate between the seen and unseen with in yourself, but won't acknowledge the fact of intelligent designer all around you that is unseen to seen! Nothing comes from nothing!

 

[allhart]

You are invited to explain reality your way.
Claiming that you can explain reality doesn´t count for an explanation.
Be prepared that your attempts at explanations will be subjected to the same skepticism that any other attempts are subjected to.

So now we are back to relativism and what is in your opinion outside of the facts of origin again!

Back to the unseen your mind. Why is there mind? mind you lol

 

[quatona]

There is a-lot to which is unseen that is important to you.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but I think you don´t know me well enough to found your arguments on such a claim.
So get real. What are those unseen things that are important to me?

You acknowledge them all the time, but you can't tell me where they come from!

There are a lot of things the origin of which I can´t explain. I don´t even know if they have an origin and if they require to have an origin. That´s undisputed and has never been disputed.

You differentiate between the seen and unseen with in yourself,

Are you a psychic or what?

but won't acknowledge the fact of intelligent designer all around you that is unseen to seen! Nothing comes from nothing!

Ok, let´s start from "nothing comes from nothing". I can agree with this, while your idea that everything comes from a intelligent creator directly violates your own creed, in that this intelligent creator must have come from nothing.

 

[quatona]

So now we are back to relativism
and what is in your opinion outside of the facts of origin again!

Back to the unseen your mind. Why is there mind? mind you lol

This post appears to be cryptic in itself and doesn´t seem to make any sense as response to my post.
I´m sorry, I don´t understand what you are trying to say.
If it is supposed to communicate something important I suggest you reword it for me.

 

[MoonLancer]

Just like in the reasoning of homosexuality and then to look at the scientific fact of it all. Intent is prior to content. People tend to pick and chose according to there opinion on the facts and it is only relative to their case in point!

If you mean that a great deal of christian apologetics are based off what people want reality to be rather then the facts or evidence i think this is true.

Good science is done not to going out and prove something right. In science one does not start with the conclusion that something is right and find evidence to fit it. Usually science starts with a question and then seeks to answer it. Scientists are encouraged to prove contemporary ideas wrong. It makes them famous. They are anything BUT yesmen.

Creationists however start with the assumption something is true and then try to find facts that support that assumption. This is why creationism and ID always fail and science wins.

I find creationists project all their own flaws onto what they hate about evolution and science. its rather fun to see.

 

[MoonLancer]

posted this again to show that Christianity offers no answers to the questions it criticizes science for not yet having.

explain why there is reason.

God creates reason. Why does he do this?

explain why there is matter.

God creates matter, Why does he do this?

explain why there is a universe.

God creates a universe. Why does he do this?

explain why there is nature and the law of physics.

God creates Nature and the Laws of Physics. Why?

explain why there is life.

God Creates Life. WHY? I have never EVER heard Why God supposedly does the things he does. They do not answer anything. Goddidit is a meaningless and hollow answer.

explain why there is consciousness.

God creates consciousness. WHY?

Maybe you should not have used the word Why? Why did you use Why?

 

[allhart]

Look I love all you guys, but ya'll need to use the same reasoning in of your minds to look at consciousness(cause and effect) Which laws of nature and the laws of science and of reasoning show more than one parallel of reality, to reality! For the most part the Bible and the supernatural reveals itself in the Creator----God.