Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

...
As for this:

If life always needs to stem from other life than God is not exempt from that rule except by you committing a fallacy of special pleading.

I think you should quit using the fallacy arguments TitenS as they making your arguments weak and ineffective.

As for the rules, how could God be a subject to the rules he created? It is as if he's a prisoner of his own making. No, it can't happen that way. He is not bounded by them but knows how to work with them and around them without violating any of them. It's similar to a potter who is not subject to rules he's using to create his pots and vessels from. So, try if you may it's not a special pleading but just the reality of the matter.

Hence what you said next I agree.

P1 All biological life must have its origin in a supernatural life we call God
P2 Biological life exists on Earth
C Life on Earth was created by God

Absolutely correct. Just like the potter is vastly superior to the clay pot he created. God is infinitely superior to his creations, hence he can do as he wills according to his purpose. That is why I agree:

P1 All biological life must have its origin in a supernatural life we call God

Again I cite the scriptures as a way to state my premise, that indeed the origin of life is supernatural.

[Gen 2:7 ASV] 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This verse tells me that although endowed with intelligence, we don't have the ability and capability to create life from inanimate things. But we can create life from existing life. Confirming again that life can only come from life.

As the scripture says "man" was formed from the "dust of the ground" (elements of the earth) but the source of his "life" - the breath of life - was the Living God - Yahweh / Jehovah - Life.

Now obviously the truth of any conclusion is based on whether or not the premises are valid.

But my premise is valid because (in addition to the scriptures) it is also based on sound logic and compatibility with the scientific evidence.

To use you own words, I can say...

.... biological life cannot have emerged on its own from the very chemical processes that make up its foundations

because Supreme Intelligence is required to make a life out of it.

It's not an assertion but just stating the facts based on confirmed evidence and experiments already made. That is:

That only life can give life.
That a pre-existing life must have existed for life on earth to emerge/begin with.
That a non-living thing can't produce life - especially on its own.
That humans lack the supreme intelligence to transform inanimate matter into life.

I have seen no attempt from you to prove the soundness of your first premise here.

In addition to what I already said above, and what I already stated in the OP, what else to say but that atheism has nothing to put forth other than false assumptions and philosophical evidence.

In other words, you have no real tangible testable evidence to counter and disprove my evidence that:

Life cannot emerge from non-living matter - especially on its own.
Life can only come from pre-existing life.
It's illogical to claim that nothing created the universe.
It's logical to conclude / infer based on evidence that there's a mind behind intelligence.
It's logical to conclude / infer based on evidence that law requires a lawmaker.

Thus, Atheism, from what I can see is a belief system based on a view that nothing created the universe. A belief that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter. That accident, chance event, blind chance, the law of gravity, quantum vacuum, something no one knows was responsible for everything.

In my opinion, it's a delusion to believe such things as there is no evidence other than philosophy to support them.

Now, if you can't see the logic in what I said, then it's not logic that is the problem. Atheism is the problem.

originally posted by: edmc^2
In my opinion, it's a delusion to believe such things as there is no evidence other than philosophy to support them.

Now, if you can't see the logic in what I said, then it's not logic that is the problem. Atheism is the problem.

LMAO. It's a delusion to believe such things as there is no evidence other than philosophy... YET YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OUT OF PURE FAITH with ZERO evidence. So you basically just called your own viewpoint deluded. How do you not see this?

The problem is that you aren't using logic. Logic itself is not the problem here, your failure to comprehend it is the problem. Not atheism, not theism. YOU and your biblical literalism is the problem.

I'm sorry I know I said I was done with this thread, but that little tidbit cracked me up and I couldn't resist.



Anyways, resume the preaching, I'll try to stay out of your way to convert as many people as you can. I hope it works out for you.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
In my opinion, it's a delusion to believe such things as there is no evidence other than philosophy to support them.

Now, if you can't see the logic in what I said, then it's not logic that is the problem. Atheism is the problem.

LMAO. It's a delusion to believe such things as there is no evidence other than philosophy... YET YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OUT OF PURE FAITH with ZERO evidence. So you basically just called your own viewpoint deluded. How do you not see this?

The problem is that you aren't using logic. Logic itself is not the problem here, your failure to comprehend it is the problem. Not atheism, not theism. YOU and your biblical literalism is the problem.

I'm sorry I know I said I was done with this thread, but that little tidbit cracked me up and I couldn't resist.

Anyways, resume the preaching, I'll try to stay out of your way to convert as many people as you can. I hope it works out for you.

I see your special pleading there Barcs.

So if atheism is believing in something you don't know - would that be blind faith?

a reply to: edmc^2

From the perspective of an atheist (or at least in my perspective and that of many other atheists I know, I won’t presume to speak for all atheists), the possibility that god exists, is so remote as to be completely irrelevant in daily life, and can therefor be treated as if it is a 0% chance.

As an atheist, I agree that we can not scientifically 100% DISPROVE the existence of god, just like we can not disprove 100% the existence of the tooth fairy, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster, or tiny invisible elves living in our refrigerators.
But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.

a reply to: edmc^2

Since by definition anything that could create the universe must be more complex than the universe the existence of this divine, supernatural, ultimately complex deity would be an extraordinary claim.
Atheists by and large are skeptical of all claims, and even more so with extraordinary claims. The saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” comes to mind here.

Since there is no need for a divinity to explain what we can see in the universe, and the claim of a deity is an extraordinary one, and there is no scientifically verifiable evidence of a deity, the skeptical, rational approach is to assume that there is no “god” until evidence comes to light to change that view.

While this does not “prove” atheism is correct, or that deism is “false”, it is how I and many other atheist look at the subject. It is also, in my view, the simplest explanation (and as I have mentioned before Occam’s Razor is an idea that I try to follow, since it generally leads down the right path).

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

From the perspective of an atheist (or at least in my perspective and that of many other atheists I know, I won’t presume to speak for all atheists), the possibility that god exists, is so remote as to be completely irrelevant in daily life, and can therefor be treated as if it is a 0% chance.

As an atheist, I agree that we can not scientifically 100% DISPROVE the existence of god, just like we can not disprove 100% the existence of the tooth fairy, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster, or tiny invisible elves living in our refrigerators.
But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.

EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science. Really?

What great faith you have in science.

The Bible says - we were created in God's image, hence we reflect his qualities.

So if "EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science", then how would science explain ethics and morality?

originally posted by: edmc^2
So if atheism is believing in something you don't know - would that be blind faith?

Atheism is not believing in something. It is LACK of belief in something. It would only be blind faith if they believed it as absolute unwavering truth that there is no god.

But, most atheists are atheists for the primary reason that there is no evidence of god, therefor could be convinced if objective evidence were found to suggest he/she/it exists. I know I would if science backed it. I also almost never see atheists claiming there view is absolute truth, but for religious folks like you it is your prime directive.

The only truth of the matter is that atheists, theists AND agnostics all cannot determine for sure whether god exists or does not. But, the absence of belief in something that does not have evidence is the logical standpoint.

Since your thread is supposed to be about logic, I figure it is worth mentioning.

a reply to: edmc^2

As for the rules, how could God be a subject to the rules he created?

This is irrelevant.

You are attempting to establish a logical reason for believing in God. To that end you say, "life must come from other life" but you throw this immediately out the window by saying that this even more complex even more amazing lifeform - GOD - doesn't follow the rule you just set up.

Pointing out your broken logic doesn't make MY argument look weak Edmc, it is simply pointing out the problems with your thinking. You still refuse to admit that your statement makes no sense simply because you BELIEVE that God doesn't need to be subject to the rules (I assume your source there is just FAITH in the Bible).

How can you extrapolate - "life must come from life" to "prove" God if God can violate that very rule? Obviously it's not an actual rule then, you are willing to make an exemption for God. In your view life on Earth is so complex that there MUST BE a designer, but God, the greatest possible being in existence, requires no such designer - because the Bible says so? Or because God is defined in such a way that he can break all the rules (that's what special pleading is).

Life on Earth is far less complex than your God would have to be to have created the Universe. For me life is not some magical process that requires there to be a supernatural designer, it's chemicals interacting in complex ways. Why MUST there be some ghost in the machine to drive life? Because life must come from life? Well then how can you rule out there being an UBER-GOD that created your God? How could you possibly ever claim to know that your God is not the product of an even greater being?

You can't, you have to take things on faith.

As an atheist I am open to the possibilities, I don't take things on faith. I can honestly admit I have no idea about the true fundamental nature and origin of the Cosmos beyond the things we've discovered so far and even those conclusions are tentative at best.

There could be a God.

There could be a God that created that God.

There could be an endlessly infinite array of interdimensional supernatural gods hopping to and fro from Universe to Universe, Multiverse to Multiverse the fundamental reality outside of our Universe might be utterly incomprehensible and completely indescribable within the human linguistic framework. WE DON'T KNOW Edmc.

And so I'm sorry, I'm sorry that I see folks who cling to the ancient writings of the past as if they are true as a bit intellectually lazy and self-deceived.

You are trying to tell me that a God who wanted the entrails torn out of bulls to appease him is the same God that created a billion billion galaxies.

Life cannot emerge from non-living matter - especially on its own.

And what makes you think that supernatural life can? Aside from the fact that you've provided no evidence for the CANNOT part of this premise you've also not addressed the issue of special pleading. The dead horse I have to beat until you decided to grasp basic logic and address it is that God, even if supernatural, is also ALIVE and must be far more advanced than the microorganisms that Earth-life evolved from. How can your God exist on its own without an Uber-God that created it and how could you possibly ever rule out the idea?

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

As we've already been through the evidence at hand disagrees with you. Life is ALREADY made from non-living material. Life is just complex organic chemistry. The first self-replicating molecules were likely very simple and sure as heck don't require invoking supernatural agency. To do so is a bizarre argument from ignorance.

It's illogical to claim that nothing created the universe.

I've already agreed with you on this. We've also already broken down the difference between what Krauss and Hawking mean by Nothing and what the average person thinks of when they hear the word nothing.

It's logical to conclude / infer based on evidence that there's a mind behind intelligence.

I have no idea what you mean by a mind behind intelligence. Intelligence is entirely relative. Compared to a mouse my intelligence is pretty great, but compare that mouse to a bacterium. The first life on this planet was not intelligent by our standards, or by any standards really, to say that a mind had to be responsible for sparking the evolutionary process, a process which we know works from the bottom up and not the top down, doesn't fit the observable evidence.

Thus, Atheism, from what I can see is a belief system based on a view that nothing created the universe

See here is the thing edmc, you've been a nice guy for the most part, this has been a fairly polite discussion and I appreciate that... but when you say things like this you come off as a total troll. You know, and have admitted, that atheists do not believe in gods and that is the only thing that unifies atheists. They can believe ANY number of things about the origin of the Universe, or, like me, they can have no belief one way or another and just admit they do not know. So to characterize a disbelief in gods as "the belief that nothing created the Universe" is utterly disingenuous and makes you look like a troll.

It would be like if I characterized theism as "the belief that gods created the Universe" when I know full well that not all theists believe in multiple gods. The question "do you believe in a god or gods?" has two answers, if you answer yes you are a theist, if you answer no you are an atheist.

You don't get to redefine a label and make stuff up.

Atheism is the problem.

The problem is that you seem closed-minded.

I am open to the possibilities but not so open than I just accept whatever comes along or whatever has an ancient pedigree with a few colorful myths attached to it.

If there turns out to be a God and it was proven, but it isn't your God, its some vastly different being, will you reject that being and cling to the myths you would then KNOW are false? Because at that moment I would be in a position to go where the evidence leads, to subject the discovery to skepticism but to ultimately accept it if it meets the burden of proof. I'd like to think you are in the same position, and not merely clinging to the Bible for no good reason.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

From the perspective of an atheist (or at least in my perspective and that of many other atheists I know, I won’t presume to speak for all atheists), the possibility that god exists, is so remote as to be completely irrelevant in daily life, and can therefor be treated as if it is a 0% chance.

As an atheist, I agree that we can not scientifically 100% DISPROVE the existence of god, just like we can not disprove 100% the existence of the tooth fairy, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster, or tiny invisible elves living in our refrigerators.
But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.

EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science. Really?

What great faith you have in science.

The Bible says - we were created in God's image, hence we reflect his qualities.

So if "EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science", then how would science explain ethics and morality?

ETHICS AND MORALITY...You are defending the bible for ethics and morality. Where in the bible does it says child abuse is wrong, what about rape, slavery, genocide and the list goes on and on...I think you have just confirmed your 'TROLL' status (I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt)

"So if "EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science", then how would science explain ethics and morality?"



Ethics and morality were created by humans. Humans societies have developed of moral rules and expect their members to conform as part of the price paid for the benefits of society. Everyone cannot do what they want. There is enough evidence to suggest that religions may have adopted them from society. In any case, even if some moral notions were introduced by religious leaders, that does not mean their origin is supernatural.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

Since by definition anything that could create the universe must be more complex than the universe the existence of this divine, supernatural, ultimately complex deity would be an extraordinary claim.
Atheists by and large are skeptical of all claims, and even more so with extraordinary claims. The saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” comes to mind here.

Since there is no need for a divinity to explain what we can see in the universe, and the claim of a deity is an extraordinary one, and there is no scientifically verifiable evidence of a deity, the skeptical, rational approach is to assume that there is no “god” until evidence comes to light to change that view.

While this does not “prove” atheism is correct, or that deism is “false”, it is how I and many other atheist look at the subject. It is also, in my view, the simplest explanation (and as I have mentioned before Occam’s Razor is an idea that I try to follow, since it generally leads down the right path).

Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is often correct.

Sure in certain circumstances but in others, simplicity is not the ONLY explanation to a complex question. Especially when it requires a top-down explanation rather than a bottom-up explanation.

To test this analogy, supposed you come across a word written in a sand saying DENY.

What would be the simplest explanation as to how the word got there?

You wouldn't say it just appeared for that would be irrational. So someone with intelligence wrote it there is the simplest and correct explanation.

But now comes the next question - where did the intelligence that wrote the word DENY come from?

Using Occam's rule, how would you explain it?

a reply to: edmc^2

in your case, you would say god wrote it...i would say a human being did. Who would be correct?

originally posted by: toktaylor
"So if "EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science", then how would science explain ethics and morality?"



Ethics and morality were created by humans. Humans societies have developed of moral rules and expect their members to conform as part of the price paid for the benefits of society. Everyone cannot do what they want. There is enough evidence to suggest that religions may have adopted them from society. In any case, even if some moral notions were introduced by religious leaders, that does not mean their origin is supernatural.

I find it quite fascinating how you explain ethics and morality this way. It seems you're saying that man's ethics and morality is just a product of the human brain dependent on man's will. Therefore whatever society comes up with will be the ethics and morals for all who will accept it. If this is the case then mankind as a whole is doomed as everything will be permissible and relative. Hence, no such thing as absolute morality as the basis will be ones moral. No absolute authority since ethics and morals are just a creation of humans for themselves. In a twisted way, Hitler, ISIS, rapist and murderers are just acting upon the morality dictated to them by their own morals and the society they inhabit.

So this is the atheist world-view.

I wonder if the victims of horrendous crimes like the ones inflicted by Hitler or members of ISIS will get justice. If what you're saying is true then justice is just as an illusion.

Hence, what we think of as conscience is nothing but a human construct.

I shiver to think.

But I'm glad that this is not the case.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: edmc^2

in your case, you would say god wrote it...i would say a human being did. Who would be correct?

I think you didn't get what the question meant.


Where did the intelligence that wrote the word DENY come from?

A human with a brain wrote the word DENY but where did the intelligence come from?

How would Occam's Razor explain this?

originally posted by: toktaylor
"So if "EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science", then how would science explain ethics and morality?"



Ethics and morality were created by humans. Humans societies have developed of moral rules and expect their members to conform as part of the price paid for the benefits of society. Everyone cannot do what they want. There is enough evidence to suggest that religions may have adopted them from society. In any case, even if some moral notions were introduced by religious leaders, that does not mean their origin is supernatural.

In addition, what are human suffering and hope then if these are just the product of the human thinking and creation? Why endure if there's absolutely nothing real about them? What would you say to a person suffering injustice? What hope can you give if as you say...

" Humans societies have developed of moral rules and expect their members to conform as part of the price paid for the benefits of society."

So many questions your view raises and requires serious answers.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Right, priest who knows less then you... makes sense...

Yes, sticker points at some most important things that are wrong with Bible,

Sure if you haven't studied the Bible extensively and haven't read it from cover to cover or read it every day. Sure if you're just repeating what others said without even researching them thoroughly.

But did you, are you?

Based on what you said, I don't think so.

while Father Coyne acknowledges that there is nothing connecting science and scriptures for simple reason - science came much after scriptures were written and there can't be any science in them. They are not to be taken literately, like we see here.

Really?

"Father Coyne acknowledges there is nothing connecting science and scriptures".

Sad to see a priest say something like this. But it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.

In any case, even though the Bible is NOT a science textbook it contains scientific facts. Facts that science is now just discovering.

Consider just one (from a thread I made a while back) showing evidence connecting the Scriptures to Science.

The Bible says:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1. - #

Amazingly simple yet accurately scientific!

Think about the implications of this Genesis statement. If it can be proven that the Universe “the heavens” and the earth had a beginning then it sets the stage and establishes the foundation of WHY the Bible is factually accurate when it comes to scientific facts. It also confirms of its divine origin and that Life is a product of Creation.

So what does the evidence show?

Did the universe (heavens) had a beginning according to Genesis 1:1?

Consider:

"Evidence of a beginning"

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Consider a few more:

Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

www.youtube.com...=619s

Division of Energy Between Photons and Massive Particles

One of the ideas associated with modeling the Big Bang is that the further back in time you project, the more the universe is dominated by photons. We think of today's universe as mostly matter, but the energy of the early universe was mostly photon energy with massive particles playing a very small role.
The amount of energy in radiation in today's universe can be estimated with the use of the Stefan- Boltzmann law, considering that the universe is filled with blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 K.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.youtube.com...

--------------------A conceptual illustration of the Big Bang Event:---------------
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc26b654706.jpg[/atsimg]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can provide more but I think the above evidence should be more than enough.

What can we conclude from these evidence?

Just as the Bible has stated: The Universe had a BEGINNING! And science confirmed it.

Question is - who was the first to acknowledge this scientific fact?

The Scripture, The Bible knew it before even science discovered it.


Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To All Atheist:



If a person says that he doesn't know what created the Universe but believe it anyway, what do you call that belief?

a reply to: edmc^2

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Do you mean if I admit my ignorance as to the origins of the Cosmos? What is that BELIEF called. It isn't a belief, it means I lack an answer, I have no answer.

That's not a belief.

Even most scientists would admit they don't KNOW, they are just working with models of the Universe to try to figure out which one best fits the Universe we observe. I don't know what you would call the belief that science will eventually figure it out.

Personally I don't know if Krauss and Hawking are correct, I'm not a physicist and don't feel qualified to say they are absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Where did the Universe come from? What is the fundamental nature of reality itself? I have no idea. But just because I don't know for sure doesn't mean I have to accept the claims of ancient religions soaked in blood and ignorance and steeped in mythology.

The rejection of theism is not itself an acceptance of an alternative.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Do you mean if I admit my ignorance as to the origins of the Cosmos? What is that BELIEF called. It isn't a belief, it means I lack an answer, I have no answer.

That's not a belief.

Even most scientists would admit they don't KNOW, they are just working with models of the Universe to try to figure out which one best fits the Universe we observe. I don't know what you would call the belief that science will eventually figure it out.

That's exactly what I mean. There's no definition for it hence atheism is truly an unknowable "thing". It's a state of mind based on the unknown.

There's no logic to it either because once you admit that you don't "believe" in God or the existence of God - it becomes a belief system.

There's no truth to it either since you can't say God does or doesn't exist.

Once you say God doesn't exist, then you're putting yourself in a situation where you have to accept it's the truth. Hence a belief system.

So in reality, atheism is a conundrum.

To believe or not to believe is the truth of the unknowable.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

But just because I don't know for sure doesn't mean I have to accept the claims of ancient religions soaked in blood and ignorance and steeped in mythology.

The rejection of theism is not itself an acceptance of an alternative.

What you said there, to me is the root of the problem and one of the main reasons why people turn to atheism. It's the failure of those who profess to be believers of God. In the name of God wars and mass murders were perpetrated. But even with this wickedness and evil, it's not a justification to reject God. In fact Jesus Christ rejects anyone who does evil:

“Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:22, 23)

His commands are clear:

“Continue being merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36)

“If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.” (John 13:17)

“But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32)

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”” (John 13:34, 35)


An American missionary E. Stanley Jones asked Gandhi:

“I am very anxious to see Christianity nationalized in India, so that it shall no longer be a foreign thing identified with a foreign people and a foreign government, but a part of the national life of India and contributing its power to India’s uplift and redemption. What would you suggest that we do to make that possible?”

Gandhi replied:

“I would suggest, first, that all of you Christians must begin to live more like Jesus Christ. Second, I would suggest that you must practice your religion without adulterating or toning it down. Third, I would suggest that you put your emphasis upon love, for love is the center and soul of Christianity.”

To Lord Irwin (former Viceroy to India) asked Gandhi:

‘Mahatma, as man to man, tell me what you consider to be the solution to the problems of your country and mine.’

Gandhi replied:

‘When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world.’

So you can't lump all religious organization into one as "soaked in blood and ignorance and steeped in mythology."

It's a mistake to do that since there are people living today, like in Jesus Christ's day, who doing exactly what Jesus has commanded his followers to do.