There is no God

[estesbob]

EnterTheBowser:

You fail to understand the structure of the argument. I’ve made a statement vey like the one I am about to make previously, so I guess you must have missed it.

The atheist does not need to prove that life actually arose through natural forces. The atheist needs to prove that life could have arisen through natural forces. This is enough to rebut theistic arguments from abiogenesis; it is enough to defend atheism.

Regarding “where did all the matter in the universe come from:” Where did God come from?

You have offered no scientific proof that life could have sprung from non0life. You have offered an un-proveable theory. In short you are asking us to accept this theory on “faith”

God always was and always will be. Now you may the same about “matter” but the POINT is both suppostions have to be taken on faith.

As is apparent in this thread Atheist demand a much higher standard of proof of God than they themselves can offer on the two propostions i have put forth

You believe that the complexity of nature is all the result of randomensss starting by an primordial universal explosion of matter you cant tell us were it came from and that somehow this matter you cant tell us where it came from spontaneously became life even though you cant tell us how. Now thats FAITH!

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

A: Law of large numbers. Even if abiogenesis is astronomically unlikely, there are trillions and trillions (and trillions) of stars; trillions and trillions of planets in this universe, and billions of years of time. It might be unlikely for life to arise here on Earth, but in the universe as a whole? Probably not.

this is a little vague. you should try to provide some statistical support for the point. for example, what are the requisite conditions for the existence of the molecules necessary for the generation of life? what are the odds for the existence of such a primordial soup? how many planets with such soups is it reasonable to suppose exist? what re the odds for the formation of the necessary molecules and polymers in such soups? how much time is required?

and so on. just saying “the law of large numbers makes it likely”, though presumably an expression of your own conviction, is no more helpful here than my simply stipulating that, to me, the idea of abiogenesis seems so breathtakingly, staggeringly, astronomically unlikely as to be utterly absurd.

EnterTheBowser:

B: All that is required for abiogenesis is the development of an imperfectly self-replicating molecule. Several of these are known and could have arisen from the conditions we expect to see on an early Earth. I’m going to post a link, again, because I am not a biologist and the article cites thoroughly and explains things quite well. talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

actually, you need a stable self-replicating molecule, or it won’t be able to replicate itself long enough to produce “life”; that is, you need it to replicate with at least the perfection required to reproduce the specificity needed to do the self-replicating in the first place. in other words, if it only replicates itself imperfectly, then it’s eventually only going to replicate a non-self-replicating copy of itself (i.e. without the mechanism that allows it to reproduce). and that’ll be that.

and here’s my link:

theory-of-evolution.net/

EnterTheBowser:

C: The conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premises. Even if it were true that life as we know it on Earth could not have arisen from stochastic processes (random chance) occurring on an early Earth, this does not lead us to conclude a supernatural designer. It might indeed be possible that there are other forms of life that arose in conditions where their arising is highly likely, and that these natural life forms seeded the early Earth with the things necessary for life as we know it to arise.

the argument, though, is that the spontaneous generation of life, period is monumentally unlikely; just saying that life could have been caused by living things begs the question.

EnterTheBowser:

D: Brute fact. Now, let’s admit, again, that it is astronomically unlikely for life to arise on Earth - or anywhere (see A). But given that, it is possible that it just happened. If we roll a billion-sided die, it is astronomically unlikely to land on a 1 (assuming that there are a billion different numbers on the die and that one of them is a 1). But if it does land on a 1, we probably shouldn’t conclude that someone fiddled with the die to make it land on a 1. So: life just happened.

perhaps. but if you roll a 1 about 10,000 times in a row, the hypothesis of “randomness” becomes a little less plausible, don’t you think?

 

[john_doran]

so why don’t we just drop it?

Drop what?

Drop defending the faith against people who try to slime it by asserting that secular morality produces better people than Christian morality?

…which they almost invariably do only in response to accusations of being immoral monsters by us.
Gilbert Keith:

And if so, what is your definition of apologetics? To apologize for being a Christian and to praise atheists for every absurdity they utter in this forum?

no. have you ever seen me do that?

i make what i continue to believe is the unobjectionable moral point that attacking people’s moral character is NOT the way to go. EVER.

if you want to start a discussion about the necessity of god for the objectivity of morals, then do so. but do it without making claims about the deficiencies in the moral characters of your interlocutors.

i understand that you believe atheism is both false and a moral plague that threatens to destroy the world, and that is as may be. but i seem to remember someone saying “love thy enemies”, and some of the stuff that some of us say to other people on this forum isn’t any kind of love with which i’m familiar.

 

[estesbob]

editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Why are atheists so much “smarter” than the rest of us?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Mathematically that is surely possible. We just need to construct a vector space with enough dimensions, and declare time to be an apropriate hypersurface in that space.

sure. and that may or may not be a workable mathematical model. workable mathematical model. but it’s not science, unless you do science by fiat.

AnAtheist:

The problems start with our perception of time as a linear in one direction flowing something. Hawking has written some clever stuff about the “time arrow” and has identified three “types” of it.

1. The time arrow in all current physical theories, which pretty much works in both directions, think of CPT invariance.
2. The time arrow involved in the 2nd law thermodynamics, i.e. denoting the direction where entropy rises.
3. The time arrow of human perception.
   2 & 3 are possibly the same, he argues that a memory might not work without the entropy arrow. Of course that is all speculation as long as do not have a theory on that 2nd law. nb: That “law” is an empirical observation, not a scientific theory.

i am familiar with some of hawking’s work on the unboundedness of time, and i believe that we’ve discussed it on occasion - the problem with his his model is that it reifies imaginary time, which just makes no sense.

basically, your responses - though doubtlessly interesting - are pure speculation, and speculation for which there is much less evidence than for the traditional, realist view. so why would anyone believe the former over the latter?

but that is as may be: it’s still not clear how your answer proposes to break the deductive relationship between “the universe has existed for a finite period of time”, and “the universe began to exist”.

i mean, the assumption is that the proposition “x began to exist at t” is true only if it something like “x exists at t, and there is some time prior to t at which x does not exist”. but why should anyone believe that?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

this is a little vague. you should try to provide some statistical support for the point. for example, what are the requisite conditions for the existence of the molecules necessary for the generation of life? what are the odds for the existence of such a primordial soup? how many planets with such soups is it reasonable to suppose exist? what re the odds for the formation of the necessary molecules and polymers in such soups? how much time is required?

and so on. just saying “the law of large numbers makes it likely”, though presumably an expression of your own conviction, is no more helpful here than my simply stipulating that, to me, the idea of abiogenesis seems so breathtakingly, staggeringly, astronomically unlikely as to be utterly absurd.

Frankly, science doesn’t fully understand what happened all that time ago (yet). Given that, it’s foolish to speculate on what exactly the chances of abiogenesis are. I wanted to point out that even if it is very unlikely to happen on a specific planet, there’s more than a few planets and more than a little time out there.

actually, you need a stable self-replicating molecule, or it won’t be able to replicate itself long enough to produce “life”; that is, you need it to replicate with at least the perfection required to reproduce the specificity needed to do the self-replicating in the first place. in other words, if it only replicates itself imperfectly, then it’s eventually only going to replicate a non-self-replicating copy of itself (i.e. without the mechanism that allows it to reproduce). and that’ll be that.

and here’s my link:

theory-of-evolution.net/

I’m reading through this stuff, and it seems odd: the author makes a point that the development of a modern protein under certain ideal conditions is unlikely. His response to the criticism “Well, we probably shouldn’t be talking about modern proteins” is to say “Well, these ideal conditions make the development more likely than it would otherwise be.”

theory-of-evolution.net/chap5/meteorites-2.html

Now, this seems to be a strange sort of response, because it’s not actually a response to the argument against his position. The other sections in the abiogenesis section also seem to take examples of modern proteins in idealized conditions. So I don’t really see how this supports your position. The odds calculated don’t actually have to do with abiogenesis.

the argument, though, is that the spontaneous generation of life, period is monumentally unlikely; just saying that life could have been caused by living things begs the question.

I’m curious how you would go about supporting the argument that it is extraordinarily unlikely for any form of life to arise. Your link - and I imagine most sources - talks about the probability of life as we know it arising in conditions as they exist on Earth. What kind of odds should we be looking at for different forms of life in other environments?

perhaps. but if you roll a 1 about 10,000 times in a row, the hypothesis of “randomness” becomes a little less plausible, don’t you think?

If you roll a die 10,000 times, it has to land on some sequence. A string of ones is no less likely than any given random string. Since the odds of rolling 10,000 1s is enough to make me conclude that something caused it, should the equal odds of rolling a given random string also make me conclude that something caused it?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

John Doran:

but that is as may be: it’s still not clear how your answer proposes to break the deductive relationship between “the universe has existed for a finite period of time”, and “the universe began to exist”.

i mean, the assumption is that the proposition “x began to exist at t” is true only if it something like “x exists at t, and there is some time prior to t at which x does not exist”. but why should anyone believe that?

The point is that finiteness does not imply boundedness, and in order for a thing to begin temporally, it must be temporally bounded.

Regarding that assumption: you mean to assert that a thing can begin to exist even if there is no time at which it does not exist?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Why are atheists so much “smarter” than the rest of us?

csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20numerum

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

The point is that finiteness does not imply boundedness, and in order for a thing to temporally begin, it must be temporally bounded.

i understand that’s what you’re saying: but why must something be temporally “bounded” in order to have a(n existential) beginning? can you give a non-question-begging analysis of “begin” and “bounded” that makes the entailment clear?

also, how can something have no beginning and not have existed for an infinite period of time?

“finite but never having begun to exist” strikes me as nonsensical at best, and self-contradictory at worst.

EnterTheBowser:

Regarding that assumption: you mean to assert that a thing can begin to exist even if there is no time at which it does not exist?

sure. i mean, one rought approximation of “begin” immediately suggests itself:

x begins to exist if x exists at t and there is no time prior to t at which x exists.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Frankly, science doesn’t fully understand what happened all that time ago (yet). Given that, it’s foolish to speculate on what exactly the chances of abiogenesis are. I wanted to point out that even if it is very unlikely to happen on a specific planet, there’s more than a few planets and more than a little time out there.

ok. so maybe abiogenesis will turn out to be proven impossible.

right now, however, it seems to me that you believe that it is more likely than not that it happened, and not undecidable, or 50% likely…on what do you base that conviction?

EnterTheBowser:

I’m reading through this stuff, and it seems odd: the author makes a point that the development of a modern protein under certain ideal conditions is unlikely. His response to the criticism “Well, we probably shouldn’t be talking about modern proteins” is to say “Well, these ideal conditions make the development more likely than it would otherwise be.”

theory-of-evolution.net/chap5/meteorites-2.html

Now, this seems to be a strange sort of response, because it’s not actually a response to the argument against his position. The other sections in the abiogenesis section also seem to take examples of modern proteins in idealized conditions. So I don’t really see how this supports your position. The odds calculated don’t actually have to do with abiogenesis.

read chapter 9 and chapter 15 for the quick-and-dirty…

EnterTheBowser:

I’m curious how you would go about supporting the argument that it is extraordinarily unlikely for any form of life to arise. Your link - and I imagine most sources - talks about the probability of life as we know it arising in conditions as they exist on Earth. What kind of odds should we be looking at for different forms of life in other environments?

the only life we know of is carbon-based, so the only biological science we do involves carbon-based lifeforms; we can’t do any science regarding lifeforms with biologies about which we haven’t any knowledge. including formulate statistical models for the likelihood of their spontaneously forming from inanimate matter.

EnterTheBowser:

If you roll a die 10,000 times, it has to land on some sequence. A string of ones is no less likely than any given random string. Since the odds of rolling 10,000 1s is enough to make me conclude that something caused it, should the equal odds of rolling a given random string also make me conclude that something caused it?

try that argument in vegas. and i hope you wouldn’t want it used against you in a court of law if you were accused of a murder and the DNA of the murderer didn’t match yours - “your honor, there’s a vanishingly small chance that the accused is guilty, but - hey - it’s equally unlikely that anyone is the murderer, so this guy’s as good as anyone else”…

 

[Alois]

You are a living and breathing example of my point that evolution encourages atheism.

I quote you on this:

Science is useful to the atheist,

Especially useful if he can misuse it … such as by supposing that evolution implies of necessity a godless universe.

You stated that atheists use evolution to imply the a godless universe. I stated that we use evolution as simply one of the reasons to logically assume the universe is godless.

Show me where the problem in this is.

 

[Alois]

kev7:

Yes… snip

So you agree to enter the realm of illogic.

Such a thing… snip

Irrelevant. Something does not need to happen to you for it to exist. It’s an argument from ignorance. It still has just as much of a chance of “existing” as God does.

The… snip

You believe. This isn’t rational or logical, and therefore discussion about the topic is impossible.

Furthermore, a theist claims in this thread that his God can be assumed to exist rationally, we have shown that this isn’t true, and you have admitted it yourself. If this were a structured debate it would already be over.

364 The human body shares… snip

I fail to see how this will add anything to the debate. It does nothing to further prove logical existence of a God.

Wrong… snip.

This isn’t a logical reason, this is a wishful reason. A logical reason must be based on either evidence, or truths that have been shown through evidence.

Again, your understanding… snip.

You have failed to prove the existence of a non-linier realm. You assume that there is one to then assume that there is a God. You have no evidence to base either of these assumptions on.

I am both a rational creature… snip

A human can make up whatever entities he/she wants to. That does not mean that we can assume their existence rationally. Our perspective may be limited, but you have failed to show that it is.

If you are willing to assert that another form of existence exists, then you are opening the doors for anyone to assert any form of existence and anything to exist in it. You can not debate, argue, or discuss with us while falling back on arguments void of logic and reason - they’re mutually exclusive points of view.

Show me one example in history of an atheistic society that didn’t murder people in the millions. Nazi german, stalin… etc.

I never thought I’d see this argument in the thread, but it looks like we’ve pushed you back to it, even if it has been refuted for ages now.

The Nazi’s (and German citizens under their rule) were mostly Christian. Why do you think the population was so willing to do away with the Jews? Did you seriously think they all had Hitler’s paranoia complex?

Stalin’s dictatorship and the rules he applied to it had nothing to do with atheism. Atheism was simply the easiest choice for his vision of society. That does nothing to falsify the position.

–

So, would you now like to explain the millions killed and tortured due to the Christian religon? I hate pushing that point, because it’s nothing but a farce of an agrument used when people can feel the ground faulting beneath their feet, but you opened the door.

Yep you have already convinced me that man should outlaw religion. After all man has this love thing under control. lol

lol, because I was suggesting that religon be banned, right? [/sarcasm]

Don’t even try to suggest to me that mans love is perfect love.

Please, perfect love is a creation of the religous. It’s nothing more than a hot-term you throw out so you can make an attempt at taking the moral high ground.

Define it.

Also show me an atheist who as said more about love then Christ himself.

What’s your point? How could I possibly know what any other atheists are saying about love at this moment? How could you possibly confirm what the Bible has to say about Jesus? It’s all irrelevant anyway, because this has nothing to do with what is in the universe, it’s just you grasping on to any argument you can.

Why do you put your faith in man?

You do too, everytime you use a device created by man. Everytime you think with the logic of man. Everytime you walk down the street next to man. Faith in the supernatural has gotten us nowhere, faith in what is has been the driving force to progress. It’s only reasonable to put your faith in man.

I don’t care to disprove you. If you want to believe that then do so. How it will lead you to eternal life is another question.

Because you can’t.

All I can do is pray for you. I can’t try to convince you with mans foolish sense of logic.

Thanks?

I have no burdern to prove anything to you… snip.

Heh, it’s odd when you see how close to cultism mainstream religon actually is.

Give me a reason why you should not try to show perfect love for your neighbour? Or do you also justify hate with your logic? the logic of man.

If I show him love, he will show me that love back. It’s the golden rule, the rule that runs society. It’s not a religous concept though, it’s one passed down for the benefit of life.

 

[Alois]

It was of course Marx and Hitler who opposed Christian morality. The evils they engendered were in the the name of Nogod, not God. Do you want to erase their memory from this board for the sake of calmer waters?

I think you mean Stalin, and he didn’t commit the crimes he did in the name of anything. He was insane, and any insane person regardless of religon will do horrible things. Hitler himself was a Deist and weak Christian, and he based his arguments for the killing of Jews on the Bible!

Explain to me why, per capita, there are exponentially more Christians in prisons than atheists. That’s some great morality they have, eh?

 

[Mijoy2]

Alois:

I think you mean Stalin, and he didn’t commit the crimes he did in the name of anything. He was insane, and any insane person regardless of religon will do horrible things. Hitler himself was a Deist and weak Christian, and he based his arguments for the killing of Jews on the Bible!

Explain to me why, per capita, there are exponentially more Christians in prisons than atheists. That’s some great morality they have, eh?

How does an atheist define the standard by which he measures morality?

Christians have a standard. Do some christians not live up to this standard? Of course. In fact no Christian has ever totally lived up to the standard (other then Christ Himself). The Christians claim is not that he meets the requirements set up by his moral standard. The Christians claim is simply that he has such a standard.

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

I guess for each scientist who believes the evidence points to God, there are at least two who believe the opposite.

I guess it depends on their definition of the term “God”.

AnAtheist:

1. If complexity requires intelligence, which is complex by itself (in most arguments of that sort complexer than the design designed by it), how could that intelligence have appeared?

Can you rephrase this a little better?

And what might your understanding of “intelligence” be?

I think it might be a good idea to come to terms on this point. Do you accept the authority of Webster? Would you accept the following definitions?

Intelligence : \Intel"ligence, n. [F. intelligence, L. intelligentia, intellegentia. See Intelligent.]

1. The act or state of knowing; the exercise of the understanding.
2. The capacity to know or understand; readiness of comprehension; the intellect, as a gift or an endowment.
3. Information communicated; news; notice; advice.
4. Acquaintance; intercourse; familiarity. [Obs.]
5. Knowledge imparted or acquired, whether by study, research, or experience; general information.
6. An intelligent being or spirit; – generally applied to pure spirits; as, a created intelligence.

Intellect : \In"tel*lect, n. [L. intellectus, fr. intelligere, intellectum, to understand: cf. intellect. See Intelligent.] (Metaph.) The part or faculty of the human soul by which it knows, as distinguished from the power to feel and to will; sometimes, the capacity for higher forms of knowledge, as distinguished from the power to perceive objects in their relations; the power to judge and comprehend; the thinking faculty; the understanding.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Do you recognize yourself having an intellect as defined above?

hurst

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

What’s your point? If anything, this is a check in Wikipedia’s favor. They monitor all edits and crack down on false information. The only thing left to opinion in a Wikipedia article are things that would be left to opinion in any encyclopedia article.

Even then, the context in which we cited Wikipedia would leave little to opinion, and could be verified in any physics textbook. It is simply easier to use that resource.

The point I was trying to make was that the Wiki is certainly infected with as much opinion as any other dictionary. My other point was, that being said, it is quite useful. And I agree about using it as a quick resource for something that is widely acknowledged.

What is observed. Essentially, what is. It’s the base of science.

How do we know what we observe is accurate?

 

[Alois]

How does an atheist define the standard by which he measures morality?

The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. It is a rule that has been passed down outside of religon for ages. Empathy is another trait that is not passed down through religon as well.

Christians have a standard. Do some christians not live up to this standard? Of course. In fact no Christian has ever totally lived up to the standard (other then Christ Himself). The Christians claim is not that he meets the requirements set up by his moral standard. The Christians claim is simply that he has such a standard.

Yet when (as was done earlier) you try to twist this into saying that you have more morality, it fails. You do not need a moral standard set by God to behave morally.

 

[Alois]

The point I was trying to make was that the Wiki is certainly infected with as much opinion as any other dictionary. My other point was, that being said, it is quite useful. And I agree about using it as a quick resource for something that is widely acknowledged.

I agree entirely. The facts on Wikipedia are not judged by opinion, but there is still some editorial there.

How do we know what we observe is accurate?

Because your life depends on it. When you hear a train and you’re standing on train tracks you don’t stand still and listen, you get off of them. When you see a cliff you don’t walk off of it, you walk away from it. Your life depends on what you observe around you. When you start doubting what your senses tell you, the results aren’t pretty.

Please notice the difference between doubting and questioning as well. It’s good to question what is, but once the line of questioning ends and your senses still hold strong, it is best to stick with those senses.

An example of this would be stopping for a split second on the tracks to judge whether or not the train is nearby. You’re questioning your senses and finding an answer, but you’re not doubting them and stading on the tracks to see if you’ll really get hit.

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

I agree entirely. The facts on Wikipedia are not judged by opinion, but there is still some editorial there.

The positive side being that when you spot editorializing, you can get rid of it. The negative being the various edit-wars.

Because your life depends on it. When you hear a train and you’re standing on train tracks you don’t stand still and listen, you get off of them. When you see a cliff you don’t walk off of it, you walk away from it. Your life depends on what you observe around you. When you start doubting what your senses tell you, the results aren’t pretty.

Please notice the difference between doubting and questioning as well. It’s good to question what is, but once the line of questioning ends and your senses still hold strong, it is best to stick with those senses.

An example of this would be stopping for a split second on the tracks to judge whether or not the train is nearby. You’re questioning your senses and finding an answer, but you’re not doubting them and stading on the tracks to see if you’ll really get hit.

Don’t get my wrong, I do agree, but it’s not quite what I’m looking for. “Because your life depends on it,” is a very good practical solution, but I meant more, how can we know what our senses are accurate. They may be accurate sometimes, but not other times. How can we verify that our senses are accurate? (Or is it impossible to?)

 

[harinkj]

Eileen T:

Believing there is no God means that I can lie cheat steal and kill whoever and whenever I want, especially those who REALLY, REALLY annoy me, as long as I can figure a way not to get caught doing it.

Believing there is no God means that if I do get caught, I can escape retribution by killing myself before someone else does it.

In fact, believing there is no God means suicide is the logical solution to ennui.

If I remember correctly, an English Lord embraced Darwin’s Theory of Evolution because it disposed of God who was “…so inconvenient, doncha know?”

Why does not believing in God lead to these various conclusions? Many atheists lead moral and ethical lives.

• Kathie :bowdown: