Problems w/ Atheism

[srferdave]

Yes but it is not logical that the any miracles ever happened. But if god did miracles in the past why did he quit?

PS Please pray that god heals my friend Shorty the amputee he needs his legs back so he can dance to the lord god.

God did not quit working miracles. What makes you think that?

Please stop with the rude sarcasm. Its not helping your cause at all.

 

[SonofMonica]

Unfortunately, I haven’t read the God Delusion (one of these days I probably will, but I prefer to read books from positions that are opposed to mine), so I don’t know exactly how he presents the argument in it. I’ve seen a number of his debates, though, where he brings out the argument as a retort to his opponent’s claims about complexity implying God.

I wouldn’t waste time with The God Delusion. The man has much more credibility in areas of evolutionary biology. When it comes to theology and politics, and history, he gets his facts wrong much of the time.

But I celebrate and share your openness to reading “the other side.” I do the same thing, as is evidenced by the fact that I have indeed read all of Dawkins’ books and haven’t yet accepted him as the brightest mind on the planet.

EDIT: haven’t read his newest book that came out in the past month about evolution. So my opinion is qualified.

 

[gearhead]

Are you implying that the concept of infinite duration has no validity? This is a simple mathematical concept. Or are you really getting at something else?

Just that “eternal” is a function of time. Without time, it has no meaning.

I guess I was thinking about other ideas, not just eternity. I remember a quote from Hawking that went something like “asking what happened before time began is like asking what’s north of the north pole.”

I think that a lot of concepts like “eternity”, “before” and “causality” break down when they don’t have time available as a referent. We talk about the cause of the universe, but if this is also supposed to be the cause of time, I’m not sure what the term “cause” would mean in this context.

Getting back to the word “eternal”, when we use it to describe the cause of the universe, what does it mean? “Eternal” implies something like “existing forever”, but you can’t have “forever” without time.

 

[gearhead]

I wouldn’t waste time with The God Delusion. The man has much more credibility in areas of evolutionary biology. When it comes to theology and politics, and history, he gets his facts wrong much of the time.

I read Climbing Mount Improbable. I liked it. Part of me wishes that he wasn’t such a figurehead for atheism now, because the book would make a good introduction to evolution for a person who rejects it. Unfortunately, most of those people tend to be very religious who treat anything written by Dawkins with derision and suspicion.

But I celebrate and share your openness to reading “the other side.” I do the same thing, as is evidenced by the fact that I have indeed read all of Dawkins’ books and haven’t yet accepted him as the brightest mind on the planet.

I’m not sure how much you’ll celebrate when I tell you that I’m currently trying to get through the Book of Mormon.

EDIT: haven’t read his newest book that came out in the past month about evolution. So my opinion is qualified.

I’m actually looking forward to reading that one. He certainly knows his stuff when it comes to evolutionary biology.

 

[SonofMonica]

Just that “eternal” is a function of time. Without time, it has no meaning.

I guess I was thinking about other ideas, not just eternity. I remember a quote from Hawking that went something like “asking what happened before time began is like asking what’s north of the north pole.”

I think that a lot of concepts like “eternity”, “before” and “causality” break down when they don’t have time available as a referent. We talk about the cause of the universe, but if this is also supposed to be the cause of time, I’m not sure what the term “cause” would mean in this context.

Getting back to the word “eternal”, when we use it to describe the cause of the universe, what does it mean? “Eternal” implies something like “existing forever”, but you can’t have “forever” without time.

You’re thinking about a fun subject; one that I’ve thought about a lot and still like thinking about. I’m going to commit the cardinal sin of having you read the Wikipedia article concerning eternity so that we can approach it from a common angle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

I only recommend that you read it because there are several different meanings for some of the words you are using and I want to be sure of the one you mean before we discuss it any further. For example, eternal doesn’t have to imply “existing forever.” It can also imply existing without the concept of time. In our universe, time and space are (believed to be according to Einstein’s GToR) one in the same, such that to exist in space is to exist in time. Some definitions of eternal as it relates to God might say that when we say God is eternal, we are simply saying God exists outside time because he exists outside space (outside the universe). Good topic!

 

[AntiTheist]

Dokimas:

It makes far more sense that God is eternal vs matter and energy.

How, exactly? I mean, I’ll grant you that we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but it’s possible, isn’t it, that the “stuff” that preceded the Big Bang always existed?

Those questions don’t make sense??? Please just give me a science lesson. Thank you.

Those questions make perfect sense, but I have no idea why they’re relevant to the subject of the (supposed) “Problems With Atheism.”

If you’re just asking for the sake of asking, you can look up the answers on your own.

If you’re asking with the intent of making a point, just make your point already.

 

[rcscwc]

Taxonomists – biologists who specialize in identifying and classifying life on the planet – have named approximately 1.7 million species so far. Each year, about 13,000 more species are added to the list of known organisms.

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark’s dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That’s 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high!

ARK footprint 450 feet long, 75 feet wide = 33,050 square ft

FOOTBALL FIELD 300 feet long 150 feet wide = 45,000 square ft
Do the math how many animals can fit in a square foot.

Longest wooden ship ever built was about 300 ft long. They might, additionally, do the engineering and tell us how a 450 foot boat was ever built.

 

[cantheist]

Longest wooden ship ever built was about 300 ft long. They might, additionally, do the engineering and tell us how a 450 foot boat was ever built.

You see with god all things are possible. If there was not enough room he will shrink the animals if the ark will not float he will change some other law of physics. He lowered the mountains and added more water to the ocean. But do not forget why are loving god did this to purposely kill all his living creations.

Why did god go through all this trouble with the boat and flood when he could just create life again? Did he do it wrong the first time?

The main problem with atheism is it very logical.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You see with god all things are possible. If there was not enough room he will shrink the animals if the ark will not float he will change some other law of physics. He lowered the mountains and added more water to the ocean. But do not forget why are loving god did this to purposely kill all his living creations.

Why did god go through all this trouble with the boat and flood when he could just create life again? Did he do it wrong the first time?

The main problem with atheism is it very logical.

at least you admit religion makes no sense … I certainly can’t argue with that.

 

[cantheist]

Do you have a friend that can help you phrase and/or re-type what it is that you’re trying to ask? I’m not ruling out the idea that I lack the sophistication to comprehend what you are getting at, but in that case, it would be most helpful to the discussion if someone would translate the question(s) posed.

P.S. Mockery may make you feel superior to others, but I assure you, your lack of the ability to form cohesive thought or sentence structure makes up for it in the eyes of those around you. So, in other words, knock it off. Thanks.

I’ll get my mom to type this for me sorry. She is a christian there not as smart as catholics, but a lot smarter than an atheist.

Because god can heal people, he can help someone regrow there amputated legs. A loving god would not want them to have to go around in a wheelchair for the rest of there life.
So please pray for Shorty he has no legs.

 

[SonofMonica]

I’ll get my mom to type this for me sorry. She is a christian there not as smart as catholics, but a lot smarter than an atheist.

Because god can heal people, he can help someone regrow there amputated legs. A loving god would not want them to have to go around in a wheelchair for the rest of there life.
So please pray for Shorty he has no legs.

Ah, yes, the fallacious idea that a loving God would never allow suffering for any reason… quite tired and uninspired, actually. It’s folks with that mindset that end up raising spoiled brats with a sense of entitlement and nary a learned lesson. Please do not present the fact that humans suffer as some sort of “gotcha” objection to the validity of the Christian faith or a loving God; some of us are quite grateful for parents who did not hand everything to us or make life easy. We feel we are blessed with some perspective. Suffering is at the center of the Christian faith, and it is celebrated as leading to personal growth and holiness, as well as ultimate freedom. Please do a little research next time into the Christian concept of suffering. Being trite and coming to the table with a shallow and poorly thought out insult is not going to convince anyone with a true trust in God to abandon it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’ll get my mom to type this for me sorry. She is a christian there not as smart as catholics, but a lot smarter than an atheist.

It’s not “there not” … but rather “they’re not” (they’re abbreviates they are).

Because god can heal people, he can help someone regrow there amputated legs. A loving god would not want them to have to go around in a wheelchair for the rest of there life.
So please pray for Shorty he has no legs.

Unfortunately, amputees cannot naturally regrow their limbs (but I’m very sorry for your friend or relative). However, modern prosthetic devices can allow him to live a very good and normal life. Was he a service member injured in Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

The point the author was trying to make in this Bible passage is not so much the chronological order of which things were created, it is to point out that God was the creator of everything. You can believe that God took a mans rib to create women. But it is more important to understand that God created woman from man than it is to understand how it was done.

It is possible for a Catholic to believe in evolution. I do not. But the science of evolution does not contradict any Catholic teaching.

Well you can believe or not believe in evolution all you like, but that has no bearing on evolution being a fact. We did evolve.

And women were not made from men, so again this is incorrect.

 

[srferdave]

Well you can believe or not believe in evolution all you like, but that has no bearing on evolution being a fact. We did evolve.

And women were not made from men, so again this is incorrect.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

You can choose not to believe how woman was created, that is your right. But you can’t say that is incorrect without proof.

 

[gearhead]

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

For future reference to you or anyone else: when you say this, it has about the same effect as putting on a hat that says “I don’t know how science works” in big flashing letters.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

You can choose not to believe how woman was created, that is your right. But you can’t say that is incorrect without proof.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

That we evolve is fact, the theory explains the facts and explains the origin of species. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution, hence why it is taught at every real seat of learning on earth.

 

[srferdave]

For future reference to you or anyone else: when you say this, it has about the same effect as putting on a hat that says “I don’t know how science works” in big flashing letters.

Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

However, “evolution” is often used to include the following additional claims:
Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

Sorry for the confusion. But when I speak of evolution i am referring to the later of the 2 definitions of evolution. We have no proof that any specie has evolved from another. If there is can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Sorry for the confusion. But when I speak of evolution i am referring to the later of the 2 definitions of evolution. We have no proof that any specie has evolved from another. If there is can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.

No problem…

Observed instances of speciation…

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scientists have to shoulder a lot of the blame for this… It baffles me that they don’t make the public more aware or what is going on in the labs. You are not alone in thinking that we have never seen one species evolve into another, however the fact is we have seen this countless times…

 

[gearhead]

Sorry for the confusion. But when I speak of evolution i am referring to the later of the 2 definitions of evolution.

If you spell out what you mean by “the later of the 2”, that might be helpful.

Edit - I see the definition you added. Thanks.

We have no proof that any specie has evolved from another. If there is can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.

Here you go:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

It describes:

• 4 examples of speciation being directly observed
• 3 examples of incipient speciation (i.e. full speciation has almost been acheived and will happen very soon)
• 6 examples of ring species (i.e. where speciation is spread out in space instead of time)
• 4 examples of species that only live in environments that didn’t exist until relatively recently (which implies that they each evolved from another species that lives in a different environment)

And that’s just a small sample of the evidence we have for speciation. It doesn’t even go into the fossil evidence.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

Besides theistic attempts at devolving our society, evolution is well settled (far more well settled than the big bang you guys, for whatever reason, seem to be placing your bets on). Here’s a good article on this topic:

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-museums-adapt-in-struggle-with-creationism