The Atheist Challenge

a reply to: Fools

Then from where did the highly advanced groups of scientist come from? Yet another more advanced scientist?

From the same place "god" comes from. Who said the hypothetical scientists are living biological creatures? Anyway, isn't the God of biblical creation a scientist? Or is it a magician?

Perhaps, "god" is a predictable phenomena of consciousness and self awareness that naturally arises from the infinate universe.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Incandescent


I believe God created us. The fact that ANYTHING at all exists proves God can. The reason its 2018, is because Christ died 2018 years ago. B.C. Before Christ A.D. Anno Domini.

Non-sensical. The current dating system dates from when Jesus was BORN, not died. And it's just a dating system, one of many. There's nothing magical about 2018. Sadly, this kind of "reasoning" is typical.

I will say if your god is real he SUCKS .
Every god I know of likes killing and having people kill for them why is that ?
No god saved that baby that died at birth or the other 1001 who died yesterday .

Were was your god when my wife went nuts ?
were was your god when Hitler killed 6 million people ?

A god matters no more then a alien neither has changed a thing in this world for better or worse .
When a God starts doing something ANYTHING then Ill start thinking about them .

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fools

Then from where did the highly advanced groups of scientist come from? Yet another more advanced scientist?

From the same place "god" comes from. Who said the hypothetical scientists are living biological creatures? Anyway, isn't the God of biblical creation a scientist? Or is it a magician?

Perhaps, "god" is a predictable phenomena of consciousness and self awareness that naturally arises from the infinate universe.

I had a brief NDE. During it, all things came apart in like a puzzle being destroyed (recreated?) by white warmth and weird black crackling lightning that would turn white and endless as well and then it revealed another place that was the same place but not at the same time. And it was also completely different. I could feel all the souls in the area and they were all full of love and forgiving but they didn't know it yet. I was told that I was like them but the goodness I was feeling was because of what I had hidden from myself. I began to feel total warmth and happiness and complete love. Very hard to describe but it wasn't unpleasant at all. In fact it was the best feeling or overall feeling I ever had. Then I woke up and was in terrible pain. Oddly, even in that pain I remember thinking that maybe I just went to where God was - everything was so beautiful it was simply amazing. Lasted a few minutes in our time it seemed, but even in that small time I felt like I was there for an incredible amount of time.
Just very odd experience. Could be chemical experience, could be real, could be switching to another dimension, I have no idea. I certainly still fear death, but I do now have hope that when I do die I go to that place again - whatever it was.

So back to subject; because of that I sort of think that there is a veiled reality. I certainly hope that is the case based on that one experience.

Maybe creation comes from that place as well? Maybe that is where your scientist exist or hide?

Like I was commenting in another thread. The lack of evidence does not prove that God doesn't exist. It just prove that so far at this moment His existence cannot be verified nor confirmed. The statement is true for both sides.
Maybe in a near or far future humans will develop the technology to see more than we see today.
Right now is just a matter of choice, you either believe or not.

PD:
It should read scientific evidence.
We have to take into account the many ancients writings and the many accounts of paranormal experiences. But at the end is all about personal interpretation.
So far is a never ending wheel.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Incandescent


I believe God created us.

Even at that, there are multiple schools of thought. Is your version of this of the YEC variety where the God of Abraham apparently created everything over the course of a few days and made everything exactly how we see it today? Or are you more of a “god did it and science shows us the tools “he” used on his construction project” kind of world view?

The fact that ANYTHING at all exists proves God can.

No, that’s not at all what that means. It could mean a variety of things but insisting that your own version is the way to go just shows humanities capacity for using their imagination.

The reason its 2018, is because Christ died 2018 years ago.

No, the reason it is 2018 is entirely because of where you were born. The entire world does not operate under the Gregoria’s Calender and believing that it does is illustrative of ignorance to the facts. It also ignores simple little factoids like the difference between a civil and a religious calender. There is a difference if a couple of weeks between the Eastern Orthodox calender and the Western, Gregorian Calender used by European nations as well as the lands they’ve enslaved over the last 500 years. If you were in Israel for example, the civil year for conducting business would be 2018 but their religious calender would tell you that it is the year 5668. In Saudi Arabia it would be 1439 AH (not AD, and not BC). In India, as recently as 1957 there were over 30 different calendars in use. Currently, it is 5119 on the Hindu Calender. So the year stated on the Calender that your religious festivals follows us entirely determined by geography. In other words, it’s got nothing to do with gods worshioped across the planet or the veracity of the claims of those gods adherents and everything to do with where one was born.

Also, as someone else mentioned, the Gregorian Calender is based on a random year calculated to be a probable year of Christ’s birth. Not his death. The only problem with that line of reasoning is that you can’t have that be the year he was born and have the Bible as the unassailable word of god him/her/itself because if Herod were to have rounded up all male children of a certain age as is stated in Canon Scripture, then Christ had to have been born, at the absolute latest, prior to 4 BCE because that’s the most recent possible year of Herod’s reign. If Herod died between 4&6 BCE and christ was 2 or under at the time of this round up (that somehow escaped all historical recollection) then Christ could have been born as late as 8-10 BCE. It throws out the whole timeline. And no... I’m not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here. But it seems as if a well informed basis for some of your positions is decidedly lacking.

B.C. Before Christ A.D. Anno Domini

Maybe 30 years ago. These days, in place of A.D. it is CE- Current Era
In place of B.C. We use BCE- Before Current Era
And when referencing how many years before the present day it is simply BP- Before Present

a reply to: Incandescent

It happened, so why does the probability matter?

originally posted by: Incandescent
For the record, my views on the existence of a God can be described as unknown. I do not claim to know if God does or does not exist. If God does exist, then we probably aren't at a level of progression/comprehension necessary to acknowledge/understand God. Having said that, I have come up with a question that seriously challenges the plausibility of atheism:

If life came about by the process of abiogenesis, what was the probability that the earliest forms of life (organic matter) could not only survive, but evolve to the extent of there existing various types of multi-cellular organisms?

Unfortunately, you haven't actually come through to deliver the goods you seem to believe are your ace in the hole. Not only does your query not "seriously challenge the plausibility of atheism", it demonstrates the overly eager willingness of people to redefine or slightly alter definitions of things to increase the ease of their goal post moving shenanigans. It only takes a couple of minor shifts in lexicon to ease the ball back into your court while you're the only one who notices that it wasn't really in your court as you've merely blurred the lines enough to try to claim it is so.

What is the urgency behind requesting mathematical odds for something that has definitely occurred in the past? We know that there is life on Earth? I don't think even that most srdent believer in YEC would argue otherwise. The entire premise of your query is essentially a non sequitor. You want mathematical odds provided for quantifiable chemical processes to compare/contrast against an alleged omniscient and omnipotent entity with no quantifiable, mathematical or otherwise demonstrable attributes. Is the point to implement a game of "Gotcha!!!" by attempting to show how astronomical the odds are and therefore "god" is the simplest explanation per Occam's Razor?

I understand. It's a heck of a lot easier than actually reading up on the 100's of thousands of papers and articles published in the last 60 years or so. It's intellectually dishonest and bankrupt, but it's easier to poof it all into existence and just move on with life.


Terminology explained:

God: a supreme being that created life/existence

Wouldn't it be more precise to clarify the above definition by pointing out that you are referring specifically to a Monotheistic version of God (as if you're not actually attempting tyo impose the Abrahamic version of god under the guise of some random deity from a mental exercise).

Atheist: an individual who does not believe that God exists

I would add 'or gods' between God and Exists

Abiogenesis: the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter

You make it sound like people are implying that 2 magic rocks were banged together and the resulting spark created a tiny little person to be sculpted like wet clay. It also begs the question of what we actually consider to be life or living. Viruses can replicate and spread from one organism to another with relative ease yet they aren't considered living organisms.

Anybody that believes the answer is >0% should explain how such a conclusion is plausible.

Or perhaps you could do what any good scientist does, go over the evidence supporting Abiogenesis and attempt to falsify it by demonstrating the errors. And no... asking for odds higher than 0 isn't falsifying data. Not only that, but as the entire premise of your thread is that you have falsified the legitimacy of Abiogenesis and consequesntly Atheism, its actually up to you to support your own position. It's poor form to toss something out there like that, claim that you have a solid case and then make no case aside from insisting that it is so.

The real crux of your error though is in insisting that Atheism isn't a plausible position because a particular hypothesis is not a sustainable biochemical process( in this case Abiogenesis), is that you drastically limit your options. I'm not sure if this is just ignorance to the existence of other hypothesis regarding the origin of life on Earth or if it's a willful ignorance because you're not able to untether your personal view on how life began on Earth from what other peoples theological inclinations are. Regardless, Abiogenesis is not the only explanation. Panspermia, RNA World and Endiosymbotic Theory to name a few.

Saying that Atheism is an untenable position because Abiogenesis... it's an entirely illogical thought construct because you drastically limit the parameters of the discussion when leaving all other options off of the table.

At the end of the day, Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. As implausible as you may believe it to be, it only needed to happen once and the mechanisms behind it are more than possible from the creation of the necessary amino acids to the self assembly of organic molecules.

Just one example, and an older one at that ( there is much newer research out there that goes even farther to support the science here)-

science.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: peter vlar

I enjoyed reading that, not just because I agreed, but because how well you wrote it.
ATS is way better than facebook sometimes.

a reply to: Incandescent

man stands as far as the east is from the west to God. He is holy man is sinful these two opposites should attract but the longer man grown in worldly wisdom he will reject the wisdom of God, Which is, to fear God is the beginning of wisdom. the beginning of true wisdom is in the fearful knowledge of God without it no man has true wisdom, only worldly wisdom or the wisdom of man also known as the things of man or the spirit of man.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Your language is not necessary actually I kind of had to giggle. But my bad I should have given you the verse in it's context. No need to get so super sensitive over what I said, when people react with hypersensitive emotional response I have to think what is going on in that persons mind. God does not go about to hurt anyone individual for the purpose of drawing you to him, besides he already has remedied the situation of being so far apart. Also my reply was not to you, so I don't understand why you take it so personally.

It is good to understand the full meaning of he word fear which would include a healthy fear, we aren't talking about terroristic fear that man tries to put into other men (and that was not my intent to you or anyone), but a healthy fear that leads a person in the right direction. It is like the fear you would have naturally when crossing a rope bridge over a deep gorge, or one you get when you get up on a high ladder, that fear is healthy and normal.

No matter what type of fear you were interpreting my statement to be that was not my intention.

Ps 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.
Pr 1:7 ¶ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Ec 12:13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

we aren't talking about terroristic fear

But your god (according to your book written by men who, according to the same book, lie) is all about fear. Do as your book says or you’ll burn and anger your vengeful, angry, vindictive, evil god.

BTW, I’m still alive. So much for your oh so powerful god.

a reply to: ChesterJohn


Dude, my post was calm, picture a calm shady villain telling a genocidal criminal that he can go # himself.
Obviously of course if it manifested itself in front of me and interacted...that's exactly what I'd say to it.

###Attention Please###

Please read the links below. Trolling and/or hostile posts are not allowed in this forum. Disagree like gentlemen and women or don't post at all.

ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic

PLEASE PLAY NICE (STAFF ALERT)

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I was told something by an old man once he said, "When you want it the most it will always evades you". In hindsight he was correct. I later learned that it is when you least expect something to happen is when it happens.

I enjoyed your post

Chao

a reply to: Incandescent

As stated how is this a challenge for atheists?

(a) Your definition of Deity (God) is Abrahamic. there are other options out there.
(b) It assumes that only atheists are thinking a form of biogenesis is how life began.
(c) You have not really stated what you are asking.

Only when you claim abiogenesis to disprove God's existence.

a reply to: Incandescent

If life came about by the process of abiogenesis, what was the probability that the earliest forms of life (organic matter) could not only survive, but evolve to the extent of there existing various types of multi-cellular organisms? Terminology explained: God: a supreme being that created life/existence Atheist: an individual who does not believe that God exists Abiogenesis: the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter Anybody that believes the answer is >0% should explain how such a conclusion is plausible.

After all of the opinions of the brilliant guessers who know no more than the non guessers, It's still theoretical physics is it not? If life came from non life, regardless of the circumstances, where did the stuff that was non life come from to be a foundation of life? You are right back to square one regardless of the fancy scientific names that are put in the science books. Actually there is no natural process to be called natural. Natural doesn't exist in this case. You cannot look at a plausible explanation because there is neither reason without a understanding of origin and it has nothing persuasive without reason.

My guess is that my God [God of Abram] made all of our existence and all of which we cannot see or understand. Now if someone does not agree then show me where all this stuff came from. God didn't make my car but He made all the stuff which the car was mads from and He made all the stuff that was the stuff which made my car.