Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[allhart]

Why would you expect there to be evidence of evolution in archeology? You would accept it in archeology but not paleontology?

Once we get to men, we changed the environment, the environment didn't change us (basically). We build houses and make our lives easier. What force would be acting upon us to evolve physically?

You ignore the fossil record though. Why?

We would have seen other animals over coming and adapting. There is no evidence of in fossil records. Not unless you are looking at the elephant man!

 

[b&wpac4]

We would have seen other animals over coming and adapting. There is no evidence of in fossil records. Not unless you are looking at the elephant man!

Evidence in the fossil record:
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/introduction.html


You can't just cover your eyes and plug your ears and keep screaming that it doesn't exist. It is dishonest to do so.

 

[allhart]

Evidence in the fossil record:
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer


You can't just cover your eyes and plug your ears and keep screaming that it doesn't exist. It is dishonest to do so.

What evidence

 

[b&wpac4]

What evidence

Did you bother reading any of the three (of many, many, many, many) links I just posted?

 

[allhart]

The only thought to evolution is germs!

 

[b&wpac4]

The only thought to evolution is germs!

So, you are covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming it doesn't exist. I predict this comment will be met with "Yeah, well that's what atheists do about GOD!!!!" or some other foolishness.

 

[allhart]

So, you are covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming it doesn't exist. I predict this comment will be met with "Yeah, well that's what atheists do about GOD!!!!" or some other foolishness.

I give you that, but I was being honest and actually someone presented that thought to me the other day! And I'm looking at it from the love wonder perspective, not as a skeptical point of view.

 

[b&wpac4]

I give you that, but I was being honest and actually someone presented that thought to me the other day! And I'm looking at it from the love wonder perspective, not as a skeptical point of view.

Evolution doesn't suck the wonder from the world. As far as I'm concerned, learning as much as we can makes the world far more full of wonder than trying our best to be ignorant of the world at large. The more we learn, the less we realize we know.

Why do you want to be ignorant of the latest knowledge? To what purpose does it serve to not understand the world?

 

[allhart]

Evolution doesn't suck the wonder from the world. As far as I'm concerned, learning as much as we can makes the world far more full of wonder than trying our best to be ignorant of the world at large. The more we learn, the less we realize we know.

Why do you want to be ignorant of the latest knowledge? To what purpose does it serve to not understand the world?

I am giving you my pause, so how am refuting information, but I want the time to look at the evidence. Germs and our immune system is something interesting in deed, however; structure change is leaps and bounds, so let the finding of the facts speak for themselves.

 

[allhart]

It has some merit, but I am not a germ or cell analyst. There is a lot to consider. For like our blood can lives out side of oneself. Blood banks and transfusion....

 

[roflcopter101]

We look at both perspectives of reality in theory with science and laws, but "you" following the facts when it come to the supernatural falls short. You pull back, why? And I don't mean the spooky kind either.

What facts? Give examples.

For example, Can you see ones inner strength? How far one determination will go? Not just endurance. Do you see my point?

Ultimately, such traits can be observable, testable, and replicable. The creation of the universe by an omnipotent being is neither of the three.

 

[JediMobius]

I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.

Yet you conclude your post with "put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists." It is an interesting idea though.

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

Perhaps, but did anything else other than the history of the universe happen? How can this nothingness be said to exist if there was nothing in it to have existed?

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

How so? What is anything and everything? How is it infinitely probable? Possibility is not the same as probability. It's possible to roll a one every time a dice is rolled by anyone casting a 6-sided dice for the eternity of dice, but that in no way makes it probable - quite the opposite. Why must every possibility be fulfilled? There was certainly no universal law in effect to make this so. And, just to be picky, time is a phenomenon of this universe, so the idea of an infinite amount of time of nothingness before the laws of the universe came into effect is something completely unfathomable to beings existing in linear time, as well as an oxymoron.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

Who or what shows that the creation (not the best word to use from a counter-creationist standpoint) of the universe was spontaneous?

 

[JediMobius]

But see, my argument is that if there is nothingness, to the highest (or lowest, depending on how you look at it) degree of nothingness. Literally NOTHING. If there is no universe, there are no laws to govern it. Nothing requires energy to happen, because the law that makes that requirement possible is not in existence. I cannot fully explain how much NOTHING I actually mean by NOTHING.

There is, in fact, so much NOTHING that there are no laws to govern the NOTHING and thus, given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

In a (non)universe of nothing, only nothing would happen. Now, that nothing would happen without any law to govern it, but how many different kinds of nothing can there be? None. Nothingness is unquantifiable. So all the same nothings are non-existently doing nothing to/with/from/by/every-other-preposition any and every other nothing, and as a result, there is more nothing. Nothing is just nothing, it can't change because there are no laws governing change, nor can it be a catalyst, because there is nothing to cause to change. Anything and everything can't have come from nothing, it's not possible.

 

[tanzanos]

We would have seen other animals over coming and adapting. There is no evidence of in fossil records. Not unless you are looking at the elephant man!

You are obviously totally ignorant of the science of evolution. Evolution theory has been proven beyond a doubt. It is the most peer reviewed theory ever in the realms of science. You are being dishonest when you disregard evolution without ever bothering learning what it is.
Without Evolution biology makes no sense; hence medicine would not have progressed beyond witchcraft!

You should pay more attention to the hymn "Amazing Grace" and think how blind you are to science and how humans strived and even paid with their lives to better our knowledge.

Next time you are in need of medical care; don't bother going to a doctor or hospital, just pray your way out of it. Otherwise you may be branded a hypocrite!

Now Y'all have a nice day

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In a (non)universe of nothing, only nothing would happen.

I think the crux of the argument is precisely the opposite: anything can happen if nothing existed.

 

[JediMobius]

I think the crux of the argument is precisely the opposite: anything can happen if nothing existed.

How? If there is nothing, there is no such thing as anything. If there is nothing, there are no objects or ideas which can take place in any event. Nothingness is a complete lack of potential. Possibility is created by options. In nothingness, there are no options.

 

[tanzanos]

Possibility and probability are two different things. In an empty space devoid of matter and time the possibilities may be endless but the probabilities are finite. Thus for a singularity to expand into a new universe is extremely probable depending on the entropy existing. Whereas the possibility of the same happening with a deity involved is improbable given that the deity cannot be defined and thus cannot be included in any probability formula.

Possibility is like philosophy, where an abstract thought is considered to have some stochastic value.
Probability is based on conditions which have taken into consideration many definable concepts and formulas (be they hypothetical or not).

Unless one can define and thus make God falsifiable; he cannot be included in any birth of the universe model.

Believe what you may! Reality is a different ball game altogether!

Now Y'all have a nice day

 

[brinny]

Correct, it does not rule out G-d, but it does present an argument against the annoying creationists (who shall not be named due to forum rules) who say "Yadda yadda atheism is just 0 * 0 = 1 Derp Derp Derp". It's an alternative theory.

perhaps if one is "annoyed" at those who believe in a Creator and the fact that He "created" just as He said He did, a "Christian" site is best avoided.

 

[brinny]

How? If there is nothing, there is no such thing as anything. If there is nothing, there are no objects or ideas which can take place in any event. Nothingness is a complete lack of potential. Possibility is created by options. In nothingness, there are no options.

exactly. To "create" means bringing something into being that was not there before. It means "beginning". literally.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How? If there is nothing, there is no such thing as anything.

Which is why here are no limitations on what can happened. Obviously, once something's happened, we no longer have nothingness. Nothingness is just the absence of any thing.

If there is nothing, there are no objects or ideas which can take place in any event. Nothingness is a complete lack of potential. Possibility is created by options. In nothingness, there are no options.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. Some might argue that something is an option not if there is something else to compel it, but if there is nothing there to impinge it. So, in the absence of any thing, there is literally nothing to stop, say, the spontaneous generation of a universe. It doesn't require a cause, so it doesn't require any thing to actually exist.