Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

Super_Rational said:

.
I do wonder, however, why these same people arguing against abiogenesis never apply the same logic to the spontaneous formation of a all-powerful creator god. Talk about a staggering improbability!

Click to expand...

Your talking about "abiogenesis" but you really mean, "Chemical Evolution"..Which raises the question why is the named changed?? J/w

Rasta said:

It is perfectly reasonable of you to think that.

Click to expand...

Am I right?

WingsOfEagles07 said:

Your talking about "abiogenesis" but you really mean, "Chemical Evolution"..Which raises the question why is the named changed?? J/w

Click to expand...

I mean both. They are the same.

Rational sorry for calling you ignorant earlier, No comment further needed, But why has the name changed?

WingsOfEagles07 said:

Rational sorry for calling you ignorant earlier, No comment further needed, But why has the name changed?

Click to expand...

No sweat. Btw, are you asking if abiogenesis is no longer called chemical evolution? When referring to the origin of life, they are essentially the same thing. Chemical evolution is the process by which abiogenesis occurs.

Life could not come from non-living matter, In order to have Life something has to be living, If something is not living then non-living matter cannot produce life. The inconsistent probability of "Life" coming from one protein that could be formed by chance arrangements in amino acids is zero. Organic evolution has never been observed meaning that all observations have shown that life only comes from life, thus non-living matter cannot produce "life".

WingsOfEagles07 said:

Life could not come from non-living matter, In order to have Life something has to be living, If something is not living then non-living matter cannot produce life. The inconsistent probability of "Life" coming from one protein that could be formed by chance arrangements in amino acids is zero. Organic evolution has never been observed meaning that all observations have shown that life only comes from life, thus non-living matter cannot produce "life".

Click to expand...

Define life.

lol, Well I mean everyone should know what "Life" means.

juvenissun said:

I was an atheist when I was young. As far as I can remember, I did not have a good reason to be an atheist. Now, this question is becoming more puzzling to me than ever. Why would people want to be an atheist?

One does not have to be a Christian. But to my experience, one "should" have a religious belief. So, if you are an atheist, I would like to hear (and seriously consider) your reasons. I am not trying to debate you, but trying to understand you by a few questions.

So, please give me your best reasons of being an atheist. You may start with the most convincing one.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I was a believer in God and Christ as far back as I can remember. Why? I remember believing in God and miracles at a very early age. Miracles came then and still do. I thank God for many of them. It is a big puzzle why so many people are without faith.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

lol, Well I mean everyone should know what "Life" means.

Click to expand...

No. Define it.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

Life could not come from non-living matter, In order to have Life something has to be living, If something is not living then non-living matter cannot produce life. The inconsistent probability of "Life" coming from one protein that could be formed by chance arrangements in amino acids is zero. Organic evolution has never been observed meaning that all observations have shown that life only comes from life, thus non-living matter cannot produce "life".

Click to expand...

Now for those links I can finally post! Again, this site should provide a good starting point. And I stress "starting point," b/c there's certainly more info out there if you are interested. But don't just take their word for it, check out some of their references. Without trying to sound rude, I can tell you have read much or at all on the topic & that you are not familiar with it. If you truly are interested, it is always helpful to take a few articles from popular journals (nature, etc.) on the topic to get an idea & to especially take a look at their references. It just sounds right now as if you're attacking "straw-man" arguments commonly heard in creationist circles.

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Btw, "living" is not a clear-cut word when you when referring to abiogenesis. Any self-replicating system, even if much simpler than anything observed today, can still be considered living in a sense, even if it doesn't resemble dna, rna, a cell, whatever.

And to be fair, observing abiogenesis in a controlled setting is probably one of the most difficult experiments to ever undertake. It would be extremely intensive, expensive, & probably not quite that useful at first w/ regards to practical applications.

Before I post to further ado,I will come back with some answers. Maybe a post here and there but not with like yeah. lol

Stephen Kendall said:

I was a believer in God and Christ as far back as I can remember. Why? I remember believing in God and miracles at a very early age. Miracles came then and still do. I thank God for many of them. It is a big puzzle why so many people are without faith.

Click to expand...

Is it really that big a puzzle? Do you have faith in Ra, Atun, Zeus, Thor, Allah or Vishnu?

Isambard said:

No. Define it.

Click to expand...

If I may say so, I would like to have "Life" operationalized, rather than defined. This will give us a fighting chance and finding a clear dividing line between when there was life, and when there was not.

My answers will be within the (.....) The things I am stating are from the site you gave me :

Big Bang Cosmology Primer




The steady state theory of cosmology claims that the Universe simply exists without changing with time.


( So whenever we see a beautiful sunset, we can look at it and say, "You know that sunset, is just there because it exists." Seems very "logical" ..)

"This theory"

( This was stated in the very next sentence after the one at the top, about cosmology and it states it as the theory of cosmology, It does not say, The steady fact of cosmology, so when you believe this your putting your faith in something that is not even proved true, obviously since the site was created about 12-13 years ago. )

Evidence suggests that the Universe is expanding. While there are ways to explain expansion in a steady state universe, few astrophysicists believe this theory, because there is little evidence to support it.

( Now, which one is it? Is there "evidence" or "little evidence", because normally "evidence" means you have multiple evidences. )

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

( The big bang according to the site, says at one time there was nothing. So, If there was nothing at one point how do you (evolutionists) have evidence for such claims that the vacuum fluctuation occured since "nothing" cannot produce anything? Besides how did this Singularity form? Mass and Energy? To have energy you have to have time and space? Where did the mass come from? and Who?What? had the time to do it? Since they are both created. And just to supply more of the fact, according to the laws of conservation of energy, this Singularity and big bang does not exist, according to dictionary.



vacuum fluctuation
A spontaneous, short-lived fluctuation in the energy level of a vacuum, as described by quantum field theory. Although these variations are violations of the law of conservation of energy

Science vs. Science, cool contradictions that science has. Since you guys believe that the "Singularity" was as small as a dime, Show me the evidence that actually shows how you all could find such a claim that was ( by evolutionary worldview ) billions of years old? I mean you all can go back in that far amount of time, and show how exactly this universe was formed? I mean, think about here is the Mathematical equation of the days.

365 days in a year, 4 billion years ago; 4,000,000,000 x 365 = 1460000000000 days, Yeah seems very logical that you can go back in time by that many days. )



Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.


( This is very hard to acquire through genuine knowledge, How do you all know that there were large amounts of energy that was formed billions of years ago? J/w I mean you guys were not there, I mean some early people thought the earth was flat and they had their theories for this presupposition, just like you all have your "theories" for your presuppositions. I think it is weird how, everything you all say fits perfectly to the big bang as if you all created it yourself, because you all have to assume these things happened in order for their to be any kind presumption that it might be true. You all do not know "100%" that they are true. Give me evidence, that states and proves that the universe actually came from the big bang. Proves as in 100% knowledge that you all know it is not just the presumption that you assume that it is true. As you can see in the highlighted section, there seem to be a little bit of doubt, the word "seem" their is the doubting word, The "predictions" that fallible man has made, "seem" to agree, well what if they do not agree? What if people are just assuming that they agree? If this presupposition is assumed these predictions cannot be made true. )

After some period of time following the big bang, gravity condensed clumps of matter together. The clumps were gravitationally pulled towards other clumps and eventually formed galaxies. It is extremely difficult to model how this clumping may have occurred, but most models agree that it occurred faster than it should have. A possible explanation is that right after the big bang the Universe began a period of exaggerated outward expansion, with particles flying outward faster than the current speed of light. This explanation is known as inflation theory, and has widespread advocacy within the astrophysics community because it reconciles theory with observation. It should be noted, however, that inflation theory is not directly verifiable.

( LOL & LOL )( After some period of time, How much time? Evolution should be able to specify at least the periods of times, otherwise it is just an assumption that takes faith to become believed in. Since it extremely difficult, the explanation as stated, Is just an assumption, because it says "a possible" explanation, meaning they do not know, This is just an assumption and only takes faith to believe in, but either way Science goes against science, since this inflation theory goes against the theory of observation. Even the assumption that was made, is not verifiable as stated at the end. LOL )



Whether you believe inflation theory or not, galaxies did form. And since they formed from matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly.

( Matter was rapidly moving, then they also move rapidly, LOL, What is this? An Error? Hmmmm. !LIGHTBULB! )

When we observe the redshift of galaxies outside our local group, every galaxy appears to be moving away from us. We are therefore lead to the conclusion that our Universe is expanding.

( Has it ever appeared to you guys that If by this assumption that Galaxies may be moving away, but what if were moving away from other galaxies, since we have our own galaxy called, "The Milky Way" ..?? Not very reasonable. )

Here's a subtle point that you may have wondered about: If we look out into the Universe and every galaxy we see is moving away from us, doesn't that mean that we are at the center of the Universe? The obvious answer seems to be 'yes', but actually the answer is 'no'. Hopefully the following analogy will explain why. Image a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. As the bread bakes it gets bigger, and every raisin moves away from every other raisin. Now imagine that you are sitting on one of the raisins (ignore the heat of the oven). All the other raisins are moving away from you, so you might conclude that you are at the center of the loaf of bread. But if you were on a different raisin you would also see every raisin moving away from you and would also conclude that you are at the center of the loaf. The same thing is happening in the Universe. No matter where you are in the Universe, every galaxy you see is moving away from you. That's why astrophysicists say that you shouldn't talk about the center of the Universe; there really is no center of the Universe.

( There is only one problem that I see here, What if it is not the other galaxies moving away from us, but us away from them? We cannot know since were here on earth. Just because we are moving also does not mean that the universe is expanding either. Like the loaf of bread example, If the expanding theory were true, then why does the loaf of bread stop expanding? How do we know that the universe is not like the loaf of bread? )

The oscillatory Universe model claims that the Universe started with a big bang, and that it is currently expanding. Eventually, however, the expansion will slow, stop, and then the Universe will begin to contract. The contraction will continue until all of the mass of the Universe is contained in a singularity, a process known as the big crunch. The singularity then undergoes a big bang, and the process begins afresh. Although we shall discuss reasons why this is probably not the case, it does explain what happened before the big bang.

( Where is the evidence for the "big crunch" ?? )


The question of whether the Universe will collapse in a big crunch or continue expanding forever hinges on knowing the density of the Universe. Density is defined as mass divided by volume. One can measure the density of the universe by observing the local group of galaxies and assuming that the Universe is all the same. One can also calculate the density required such that the Universe will eventually stop expanding. That density is called the critical density, and the ratio of the observed density to the critical density is given by the Greek letter omega. If omega is less than one the Universe will continue expanding until it is so large that it dies a cold death. If omega equals one the Universe will eventually stop expanding but will not collapse. In this case the Universe will also die a cold static death. But, if omega is greater than one, then the Universe is doomed to collapse under it's own gravitational mass, and will die a hot, fiery death in a big crunch. But don't worry, the ultimate fate of the Universe is atleast ten billion years away.


( What about distant groups of galaxies? "assuming" what a word, If someone assumes something it takes "faith" to believe in. Give me evidence of how the universe is able to die. Notice all the "if's" in the the following paragraph, Since the paragraph says you can find the density of the universe, which is called critical density by the letter Omega, We should know already the fate of the Universe, Well, What is the Fate?? All the If's show that they do not know, So then how could calculate that density? The hot fiery part, that is in the bible and you know what? It is also going to end by fire also, so From the paragrapgh we could "assume" it is greater than 1 because the bible says that it will end in fire, and evolution does to so two and two don't go together? Ten billion years, LOL, YEAH RIGHT! )

Ah, I love this line of reasoning:

"We don't know the answer, therefore: magic!"

Best argument for God and the Supernatural ever - NOT.

2 King said:

Am I right?

Click to expand...

I don't know if you're right. I'd guess you're wrong, based on my disbelief, but I grant the possibility.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

( So whenever we see a beautiful sunset, we can look at it and say, "You know that sunset, is just there because it exists." Seems very "logical" ..)

Click to expand...

But this doesn't apply when you or someone else is talking about god, right? You see the irony?

"This theory"

( This was stated in the very next sentence after the one at the top, about cosmology and it states it as the theory of cosmology, It does not say, The steady fact of cosmology, so when you believe this your putting your faith in something that is not even proved true, obviously since the site was created about 12-13 years ago. )

Click to expand...

Please learn what a scientific theory is. You're making the typical "just a theory" mistake. Remember, theory is generally a privileged term in science, & it also the explanation behind some phenomenon.

Evidence suggests that the Universe is expanding. While there are ways to explain expansion in a steady state universe, few astrophysicists believe this theory, because there is little evidence to support it.

( Now, which one is it? Is there "evidence" or "little evidence", because normally "evidence" means you have multiple evidences. )

Click to expand...

You have to include the rest of the paragraph for context. "As the first widely held theory about the Universe it is included here for historical completeness." There is a smaller amount of evidence to support it, & when taken by itself could suggest the earlier model. This is pretty standard procedure in regards to updating theories with new information. This is similar to the case of the atomic model.

( The big bang according to the site, says at one time there was nothing. So, If there was nothing at one point how do you (evolutionists) have evidence for such claims that the vacuum fluctuation occured since "nothing" cannot produce anything? Besides how did this Singularity form? Mass and Energy? To have energy you have to have time and space? Where did the mass come from? and Who?What? had the time to do it? Since they are both created. And just to supply more of the fact, according to the laws of conservation of energy, this Singularity and big bang does not exist, according to dictionary.

Click to expand...

If you are not a scientist, or especially a physicist (which you are not, I can safely assume), you are wading into very deep waters here. Check out some of the references. The information is there, but it won't be easy to understand. This is nothing new to physicists.

Science vs. Science, cool contradictions that science has. Since you guys believe that the "Singularity" was as small as a dime, Show me the evidence that actually shows how you all could find such a claim that was ( by evolutionary worldview ) billions of years old? I mean you all can go back in that far amount of time, and show how exactly this universe was formed? I mean, think about here is the Mathematical equation of the days. 365 days in a year, 4 billion years ago; 4,000,000,000 x 365 = 1460000000000 days, Yeah seems very logical that you can go back in time by that many days. )

Click to expand...

Find it yourself. You haven't even tried to look (& it's out there...probably in an elemetary astronomy text). You've got to walk on your own two feet at some point. But you won't, b/c you'll just keep mining for a sentence that sounds strange to you b/c you are not familiar any of the science.

( This is very hard to acquire through genuine knowledge, How do you all know that there were large amounts of energy that was formed billions of years ago? J/w I mean you guys were not there, I mean some early people thought the earth was flat and they had their theories for this presupposition, just like you all have your "theories" for your presuppositions. I think it is weird how, everything you all say fits perfectly to the big bang as if you all created it yourself, because you all have to assume these things happened in order for their to be any kind presumption that it might be true.

Click to expand...

The big bang was not always assumed, it was discovered. It radically changed explanations.

You all do not know "100%" that they are true. Give me evidence, that states and proves that the universe actually came from the big bang. Proves as in 100% knowledge that you all know it is not just the presumption that you assume that it is true.

Click to expand...

The researchers are relying on the best possible, & very convincing evidence. What's wrong with that? Again, go look for it. You'll learn more that way than if you're spoon-fed.

( LOL & LOL )( After some period of time, How much time? Evolution should be able to specify at least the periods of times, otherwise it is just an assumption that takes faith to become believed in. Since it extremely difficult, the explanation as stated, Is just an assumption, because it says "a possible" explanation, meaning they do not know, This is just an assumption and only takes faith to believe in, but either way Science goes against science, since this inflation theory goes against the theory of observation. Even the assumption that was made, is not verifiable as stated at the end. LOL )

Click to expand...

Why would you think evolution would describe the big bang? When did they start teaching astronomy in biology? I don't know what you're saying here. It was a natural phenomenon, but of course carrying out that experiment again would be impossible. So it's therefore modeled using what is currently known. You see? Don't you think the experts in this field understand the limitations? But their "faith," as you describe it, is backed by tons of evidence & theory. Yours says "god did it, see Genesis."

Whether you believe inflation theory or not, galaxies did form. And since they formed from matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly.

( Matter was rapidly moving, then they also move rapidly, LOL, What is this? An Error? Hmmmm. !LIGHTBULB! )

Click to expand...

Yes, an error in your reading. It's referring to both matter and galaxies (where they = galaxies). If a whole bunch of junk is moving fast in the same direction, & it aggregates, then the aggregate will move fast. What's so difficult?

( Has it ever appeared to you guys that If by this assumption that Galaxies may be moving away, but what if were moving away from other galaxies, since we have our own galaxy called, "The Milky Way" ..?? Not very reasonable. )

Click to expand...

It's difficult to understand what you're saying b/c of your writing, but are you saying our galaxy is moving while all others are stationary? Give me a break. You think you're the 1st person to think of this? Don't invonvenience yourself to search for the evidence.

( There is only one problem that I see here, What if it is not the other galaxies moving away from us, but us away from them? We cannot know since were here on earth.

Click to expand...

We have more advanced technology than simple glass telescopes these days, you know?


Anyway, by now you should see that it's not quite as simple as you think, & you can't even begin to get a clear picture by just skimming a few websites & pointing out things you don't understand. People spend their whole lives doing this, so there's much more information on all your questions than even you & I are aware, not even considering the other science/math background you'll need to have in-depth understanding. Thinking that the scientists are relying on faith, poor assumptions, or just haven't thought of what you are proposing is just so wrong it's laughable. Seriously, if you honestly check out some literature or textbooks on these topics, you'll understand what I mean.

Yeah whatever.

Super_Rational said:

But this doesn't apply when you or someone else is talking about god, right? You see the irony?




Please learn what a scientific theory is. You're making the typical "just a theory" mistake. Remember, theory is generally a privileged term in science, & it also the explanation behind some phenomenon.



You have to include the rest of the paragraph for context. "As the first widely held theory about the Universe it is included here for historical completeness." There is a smaller amount of evidence to support it, & when taken by itself could suggest the earlier model. This is pretty standard procedure in regards to updating theories with new information. This is similar to the case of the atomic model.




If you are not a scientist, or especially a physicist (which you are not, I can safely assume), you are wading into very deep waters here. Check out some of the references. The information is there, but it won't be easy to understand. This is nothing new to physicists.



Find it yourself. You haven't even tried to look (& it's out there...probably in an elemetary astronomy text). You've got to walk on your own two feet at some point. But you won't, b/c you'll just keep mining for a sentence that sounds strange to you b/c you are not familiar any of the science.



The big bang was not always assumed, it was discovered. It radically changed explanations.



The researchers are relying on the best possible, & very convincing evidence. What's wrong with that? Again, go look for it. You'll learn more that way than if you're spoon-fed.



Why would you think evolution would describe the big bang? When did they start teaching astronomy in biology? I don't know what you're saying here. It was a natural phenomenon, but of course carrying out that experiment again would be impossible. So it's therefore modeled using what is currently known. You see? Don't you think the experts in this field understand the limitations? But their "faith," as you describe it, is backed by tons of evidence & theory. Yours says "god did it, see Genesis."




Yes, an error in your reading. It's referring to both matter and galaxies (where they = galaxies). If a whole bunch of junk is moving fast in the same direction, & it aggregates, then the aggregate will move fast. What's so difficult?



It's difficult to understand what you're saying b/c of your writing, but are you saying our galaxy is moving while all others are stationary? Give me a break. You think you're the 1st person to think of this? Don't invonvenience yourself to search for the evidence.



We have more advanced technology than simple glass telescopes these days, you know?


Anyway, by now you should see that it's not quite as simple as you think, & you can't even begin to get a clear picture by just skimming a few websites & pointing out things you don't understand. People spend their whole lives doing this, so there's much more information on all your questions than even you & I are aware, not even considering the other science/math background you'll need to have in-depth understanding. Thinking that the scientists are relying on faith, poor assumptions, or just haven't thought of what you are proposing is just so wrong it's laughable. Seriously, if you honestly check out some literature or textbooks on these topics, you'll understand what I mean.

Click to expand...

Yeah whatever.

Click to expand...

This is what happens when you try to argue facts based on beliefs, rather than beliefs based on facts.