Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Liberalbrehon · 03-03-2015 01:27PM

New research theory is pointing to the fact that atoms under immense pressure or under powerful energy like the sun will change/develop into new molecular arrangements thereby eventually creating self-reproducing life. It is inevitable. And once the chain starts it cannot be undone therefore it progresses from single cell life forms into the morons that call themselves human beings but believe in fairy tales of supernatural beings.
Over simplification for scientifically challenged.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 01:38PM

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

New research theory is pointing to the fact that atoms under immense pressure or under powerful energy like the sun will change/develop into new molecular arrangements thereby eventually creating self-reproducing life. It is inevitable. And once the chain starts it cannot be undone therefore it progresses from single cell life forms into the morons that call themselves human beings but believe in fairy tales of supernatural beings.
Over simplification for scientifically challenged.

Source please?

PopePalpatine · 03-03-2015 01:41PM

I think he's referring to this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Terrlock · 03-03-2015 03:55PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes.
My position (at the moment) is that I'm not convinced the bible to be the word of an all knowing deity. It

doesn't match what I would expect of such a deity.
Now, in the extremely unlikely (if not virtually impossible) scenario that the bible actually is

written or inspired by God, then I would have to call him a liar, since there many things in the bible

that do not comport with reality.
God is described as an intelligent mind, he is described as all powerful, so he would have to have the

ability to lie. If you try to reply back with some bible passage or some theology (that is itself based on

bible study) that indicates that God cannot lie...then why are you taking him at his word? The first thing

a liar will say to you "I don't lie".

Might as well put this in - a verse that directly says God lies.

That is another reason I am an atheist. Even if there were a god, I couldn't trust him. Entities with

minds can lie. Better to rely on yourself. Yes, I am fallible, yes I can be wrong, but at least I'm the

one taking responsibility. I'm not abdicating responsibility, and just mindlessly believing every word

that comes out of this other entity's mouth.
Far better to examine the evidence in reality. Reality itself isn't a mind, it has no mind with which to

think to deceive you. It simply is.

I think you bring up some very good points and a very good question.

Thank you for being honest and sharing your reasons for not Believing in a God.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

My position (at the moment) is that I'm not convinced the bible to be the word

of an all knowing deity. It doesn't match what I would expect of such a deity.

This is a very interesting position to take.

Can I ask you a few questions though.

If God is real and the bible is the inspired word of God, then why would it in any way match with what

anyone in the world would expect of such a deity?

I try put if another way, If God is real, and is the creator of all things, then we are a subset of his

creation. The world that we think is reality may only be a subset of the whole of reality.

But unless we can understand and know all of reality, how can we then expect God to match our expectations

of him, when our expectations would always come from an extremely narrow point of view since we don't

understand or comprehend all things.

Would it not be the other way around? Would it is up to us to come to understanding and to learn about

God. Not God to conform to what we think he should conform too?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Have you ever come across someone who is so good at lying, they even convince themselves it's the truth. This I think is what this is saying.

If you read the previous scripture in 2 Thessalonians you will see that the people that that the scripture is talking about, already have heard the truth but refuse the truth that they can be saved and prefered to believe in lies and are not only unrighteousness but had pleasure in being unrighteous.

It's a very interesting scripture you choose as it's actually refering to people of today and in the future when Satan comes to decieve the world, not of people in the past.

So because they refuse the truth, they prefer to believe Satan's lies and they take pleasure in unrighteousness. God then gives them strong delusion so they can further believe in the lie. Actually I can see this in the world today...what the scripture said thousand of years ago is happening.

What God is doing here is Ingenious.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 04:49PM

Cool, finally I get someone with a decent argument. Nice to meet you Terrlock. You might want to edit your post, you quoted something I said there twice.

If God is real and the bible is the inspired word of God, then why would it in any way match with what

anyone in the world would expect of such a deity?

This is how we recognize things and assign labels to them. Besides, look at the implications of what you're saying there. The bible says it is correct. Therefore, logically speaking, it should speak accurately about the world we know about, the reality we experience. Since it doesn't (e.g. no evidence at all for the Exodus story), then why should anyone still say "This book is infallible/inspired by God"? If you're willing to call a book that has these many errors infallible...

If God is real, and is the creator of all things, then we are a subset of his

creation. The world that we think is reality may only be a subset of the whole of reality.

As I've said to other people, simply stating If...then statements does not demonstrate the existence of a god. You have to demonstrate that the If part of your statement is actually true. Also, how does this excuse the fact that the bible speaks about our reality and gets things plainly wrong? It speaks about a census taken just before Jesus's birth - we know from historical research that that didn't happen. It speaks about the Hebrews as a race living in Egypt and then wandering the desert for 40 years. This didn't happen, again thanks to research.
It'd be one thing if the bible only ever spoke about some mystical higher plane of reality that we can't see, but it doesn't. It also talks about OUR reality, the world we live in. Should we say that the Harry Potter books are telling the truth about the world, that there really is a school in Scotland for wizards and witchs, and say, when we can't find such a school, that the books are talking about a higher reality?

how can we then expect God to match our expectations

of him

Take a look back through the last few pages on this thread. I pointed out in Exodus where God says to Moses that he'll dictate a second set of tablets, and that this second set would have the same commandments as the first. Except that didn't happen.
There are only a few possibilities here
1) Mistranslation or scribal error or details got muddied up due to the Chinese Whispers effect back when history was passed around orally. This doesn't explain why God apparently doesn't fix these errors
2) That in this higher reality you speak of, what we understand of language and promises is completely different. Perhaps in this higher reality, saying you'll do something actually means you'll do something else instead. If so, then we have no way of confirming or denying anything that is handed down from that reality. They're just not speaking our language, so to speak.
3) It's made up, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

If you read the previous scripture in 2 Thessalonians you will see that the people that that the scripture is talking about, already have heard the truth but refuse the truth that they can be saved and prefered to believe in lies and are not only unrighteousness but had pleasure in being unrighteous.

Look at what you're saying here. You're saying that these people will recognize and acknowledge something that is true to be true...but for some reason prefer a lie. Also, that chapter mentions a wicked one who will perform miracles and wonders and sit on God's throne. Think about that for a second. Isn't that what you would yourself expect the real God to do? Didn't Jesus perform miracles? So how is someone to tell the difference between miracles from the real God and miracles from the wicked one? 2 Thessalonians doesn't say anything about that. It just says that God will deliberately let such people be fooled and then condemn them...for something he causes to happen.
If this is true, such a being is not worthy of worship. Not worthy of following.

What I want you to do is explain to me how a god can deceive people, deliberately cause them to believe something that is false...and then still be called just, merciful and righteous when these people are punished for what he is doing.
I also want to ask how you can distinguish between miracles from a false god and miracles from a real god. Is it just because this specific book says that any miracles that happen later are false? Well, what if I pull out a book older than the bible, and this book says "Beware the false miracles of the tribe of Israel, they worship a false god, the wicked one, who deceives with false miracles"?

silverharp · 03-03-2015 05:09PM

Terrlock wrote: »

If God is real and the bible is the inspired word of God, then why would it in any way match with what

anyone in the world would expect of such a deity?

I try put if another way, If God is real, and is the creator of all things, then we are a subset of his

creation. The world that we think is reality may only be a subset of the whole of reality.

But unless we can understand and know all of reality, how can we then expect God to match our expectations

Why is the god of the bible so provincial? Modern man has been around for about 200,000 years give or take and has had language in some form for 60ish thousand years. While not knowing how a deity might want to go about its business , the one scenario I would reject is the one where the comunication route is indistinguisable from a man made creation. The god that sculpted the planet was only interested in one backward tribe who spent its time in an area no bigger than a couple of hundred square miles? Not to mention a tiny part of human history. And with all the "revelation", never cared to pass on some basic facts about how the world works , what a germ or bacteria is? Why its not a good idea to poop near your water supply or to build a city near a volcano? I'm not saying the bible should have had plans for a microwave , but some basic tips wouldn't have gone a miss which would have saved millions of lives over the millennia.
So if there is a god , it hasn't made contact yet

Safehands · 03-03-2015 05:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

Why is the god of the bible so provincial? Modern man has been around for about 200,000 years give or take and has had language in some form for 60ish thousand years. While not knowing how a deity might want to go about its business , the one scenario I would reject is the one where the comunication route is indistinguisable from a man made creation. The god that sculpted the planet was only interested in one backward tribe who spent its time in an area no bigger than a couple of hundred square miles? Not to mention a tiny part of human history. And with all the "revelation", never cared to pass on some basic facts about how the world works , what a germ or bacteria is? Why its not a good idea to poop near your water supply or to build a city near a volcano? I'm not saying the bible should have had plans for a microwave , but some basic tips wouldn't have gone a miss which would have saved millions of lives over the millennia.
So if there is a god , it hasn't made contact yet

Well said! and if he inspired the OT then at least he could get a few things right. Tell them for example, that stoning people to death is bad. Butchering your son is not an acceptable way to prove your loyalty to him. Tell them before they write the first chapter of their book, that day and night come from the sun and that the moon is not a light source, so don't make fools of yourselves by writing, as gospel, that flowers can grow before the sun is even made.
That is just silly, and if it was inspired by God he was only joking, he obviously didn't mean for it to be taken seriously.
I wonder if he has given up on the idea of prophets. ISIS could do with a few words of wisdom from one of God's messengers. Where have all the prophets gone for the past thousand years?

Harika · 03-03-2015 06:02PM

silverharp wrote: »

<snip> And with all the "revelation", never cared to pass on some basic facts about how the world works , what a germ or bacteria is? Why its not a good idea to poop near your water supply or to build a city near a volcano? I'm not saying the bible should have had plans for a microwave , but some basic tips wouldn't have gone a miss which would have saved millions of lives over the millennia.
So if there is a god , it hasn't made contact yet

I was thinking myself what would I need to find in the bible that would convince me of it being true. And it is quite difficult to come up with something, because there are several things to take in consideration: First, it should be easy to remember, as the first parts of the bible were given on only verbally and the chinese whisper effect will take details away. So it has to be something simple, but complex enough to be unknown until thousands of years later. Also the question, when is the time when this prophecy or information would make sense? If it would happen for example today, in 500 years it might again be doubted. Also it had to be unknown at this time or else it could be doubted that just already known information was added here.
e.g. a microwave, such a building instruction would make no sense for thousands of years and it can be doubted it survives because of the Chinese whisper effect. On the other hand, science is also not always accurate or definitions change, for example the amount of planets in our solar system. It was nine for a long time, then Pluto lost the status, because else Ceres, makemake .... would also be planets. So this number would be convincing but if the change of definition could be found in the bible it has to be a self fulfilling prophecy. If 9/11 would be in the bible, some fanatics might take this as their destiny and crash it in just in time, again a self fulfilling prophecy.

Also it has to be something that can be verified globally, I could think of a Supernova of Betelgeuse, 24 hours later another one, and 24 hours later another one. But still with all the flowery language of the bible no idea how this could be transported over thousands of years. Cause even when god is infallible, the humans are not.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 06:39PM

Harika wrote: »

I was thinking myself what would I need to find in the bible that would convince me of it being true. And it is quite difficult to come up with something, because there are several things to take in consideration: First, it should be easy to remember, as the first parts of the bible were given on only verbally and the chinese whisper effect will take details away. So it has to be something simple, but complex enough to be unknown until thousands of years later. Also the question, when is the time when this prophecy or information would make sense? If it would happen for example today, in 500 years it might again be doubted. Also it had to be unknown at this time or else it could be doubted that just already known information was added here.
e.g. a microwave, such a building instruction would make no sense for thousands of years and it can be doubted it survives because of the Chinese whisper effect. On the other hand, science is also not always accurate or definitions change, for example the amount of planets in our solar system. It was nine for a long time, then Pluto lost the status, because else Ceres, makemake .... would also be planets. So this number would be convincing but if the change of definition could be found in the bible it has to be a self fulfilling prophecy. If 9/11 would be in the bible, some fanatics might take this as their destiny and crash it in just in time, again a self fulfilling prophecy.

Also it has to be something that can be verified globally, I could think of a Supernova of Betelgeuse, 24 hours later another one, and 24 hours later another one. But still with all the flowery language of the bible no idea how this could be transported over thousands of years. Cause even when god is infallible, the humans are not.

Exactly! Even if I were to believe that god is infallible, and that he inspired the bible, the fact that it was penned by humans means that I would have to struggle with them. Infallible instruction was being filtered through fallible humans and that is just a recipe for disaster. So this means even somehow convincing me of god, doesn't automatically translate to me believing the bible.

silverharp · 03-03-2015 06:58PM

Harika wrote: »

I was thinking myself what would I need to find in the bible that would convince me of it being true. And it is quite difficult to come up with something, because there are several things to take in consideration: First, it should be easy to remember, ....

good question! I would still have a major issue as leaving one lousy book behind that only a small number of people will read is not inspired in itself. However, there are two strands , what shows the bible is man made (easily done) and on the other hand what would it take to show it is inspired. for it to be inspired I wouldnt expect prophesy as God might be constrained by the flow of time so no way to verify that someone hasnt just got lucky. hard to know, better ethics or a god that actually isnt a maniac could still be human inspired only. Future astronomical data might be a good one as one would expect a god to have cracked faster than light travel or as I suggested timeless practical advice not dependent on technology which would have helped people at the time and impressed technological people far in the future.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 07:33PM

orubiru wrote: »

Fill in the gaps with "God" if you must but it makes you just as ignorant as anybody else. At least there are people searching for the answers.

"Pack it up guys! The Christians have it all figured out! Shut down the science labs and the schools and get yourselves to church!" Said no one ever.

Speaking of searching for answerrs who formulated the Big Bang theory? Was there a Jesuit involved at any point by the name of Georges Lemaitre?
Who founded modern genetics? Is wasn't an Augustinian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel was it?
Penecillin wasn't discovered by a Catholic surely?
Schroeding, he of imaginary cats, black boxes and quantum theory wasn't a Catholic by any chance was he?

A more correct assertion would be " The Catholics are figuring it out, build more science labs and get more kids educated in science to help them", ... not that we need that much help

PopePalpatine · 03-03-2015 07:37PM

And on the other end of the scale, you've got the likes of Rick Santorum, also a Catholic (and a pretty fundamentalist one to boot).

Gunney · 03-03-2015 07:43PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And on the other end of the scale, you've got the likes of Rick Santorum, also a Catholic (and a pretty fundamentalist one to boot).

What did he discover?

Should I also respond with a link to just one or two bad atheists to make a scoring point?

I posted those names so other readers here can see that atheists frequently ignore science and history, and the history of science, to make cheap unfounded anti-Christian points.
All you do is make yourselves look foolish and uneducated when you try to suggest there is a conflict between religion\faith and science.

PopePalpatine · 03-03-2015 07:45PM

Gunney wrote: »

What did he discover?

How to talk out of his arse, for starters.

Surely if a Catholic education provides the basis for scientific enlightenment, this country would have produced far more pioneering scientists.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 07:52PM

Gunney wrote: »

Speaking of searching for answerrs who formulated the Big Bang theory? Was there a Jesuit involved at any point by the name of Georges Lemaitre?
Who founded modern genetics? Is wasn't an Augustinian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel was it?
Penecillin wasn't discovered by a Catholic surely?
Schroeding, he of imaginary cats, black boxes and quantum theory wasn't a Catholic by any chance was he?

A more correct assertion would be " The Catholics are figuring it out, build more science labs and get more kids educated in science to help them", ... not that we need that much help

I laugh whenever I see this lame argument. So what if these people were catholics? What about all the other discoveries that have been discovered by people of different religions or none at all?
Should I mention that the concept of the number zero was given to us by Islamic mathematicians? Should I mention Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, a Greek? Should I mention Lawrence Krauss, an atheist who helped formulate the concept of dark energy?
The religion or lack thereof of all these figures means nothing when it comes to their work. Nowhere in Lemaitre's equations for the Big Bang do you find a mention of God. If you harp on about the religion of some scientists and say that because these scientists are religious, this somehow validates their religion too, then why don't the work of Islamic or Hindu or atheist scientists validate their belief or lack thereof in your book? Or are you special pleading for your religion?

shruikan2553 · 03-03-2015 07:56PM

To cut it short is it possible a highly advances species of dog people creates us and left dogs to watch over us? Is this theoretically possible? Much like me winning the euro millions tomorrow, yes. Is it probable? No. Am I going to go around acting like I will win a lot of money or that dogs are spying on us? No. I live as of none of those things are true even though it is possible.

I find it strange how the religious think a member of their religion discovering something is somehow proving everyone wrong. It does nothing to change church teachings and if it does then it highlights they were wrong.

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

What created everything in the universe and everything before the universe? Think of what was here before the universe. Nothing, sweet nothing. Then BOOM! All these big lumps of <snip> we call planets and stars. All these metals. Water. Air. Oxygen.

Let's look at it this way, a baby cannot create itself. How did all life begin? Once upon a time there was absolutely NOTHING, then a big explosion that seemingly happened on its own accord created a whole load of materials and living organisms and stuff. How is that possible? How does something create itself? Maybe that event that could not have possibly caused itself did cause itself. But then how would you explain life? How was life created? The first living organism. How? HOW?

The whole someone must have created everything just leads to who created god? You said so yourself that nothing can create itself. Did god always exist? Then you are claiming something doesn't need to be created.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 07:57PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How to talk out of his arse, for starters.

Surely if a Catholic education provides the basis for scientific enlightenment, this country would have produced far more pioneering scientists.

How many do you want?

James Robert McConnell
Johannes de Sacrobosco
Nicholas Callan

and there's this

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/life-society/science-technology/Discoveries-and-invention-1/index.xml

and this

http://www.irishcentral.com/business/technology/top-10-surprising-irish-inventions-92890604-237788251.html

and this

http://www.universityobserver.ie/2012/08/02/ireland-a-history-of-scientific-discovery/

Is it the Irish you don't like, the Catholics, the Irish Catholics, or just any scientist who might be Christian?

Gunney · 03-03-2015 08:06PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Should I mention Lawrence Krauss, an atheist who helped formulate the concept of dark energy?

That makes me laugh. Oh, the irony of it...An atheist invents the concept of something you cannot see, cannot touch, have trouble proving exists, yet has power through out the universe. Remind you of anything?

PopePalpatine · 03-03-2015 08:07PM

I dislike fundamentalists in general.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 08:07PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I dislike fundamentalists in general.

and fundamentalist atheists?

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 08:14PM

Gunney wrote: »

That makes me laugh. Oh, the irony of it...An atheist invents the concept of something you cannot see, cannot touch, have trouble proving exists, yet has power through out the universe. Remind you of anything?

Something that is not said to possess all the answers, something that scientists are prepared to abandon if ever it is disproven...

tommy2bad · 03-03-2015 08:26PM

A couple of things that have come up in this thread in the last few pages have me thinking.
First the scale of things, someone mentioned that under enough pressure atoms inevitably form molecules that lead to life as complex as moronic humans. OK let's assume this is true and I expect it is, we are now in the territory of Fermie's paradox. If this is so then the universe is teeming with life, at least some of which is as advanced as us, some of which must be much more advanced. But we are without any evidence of it!
Second, again a question of scale, if the universe is so old and so large ( to give an indication of the scales we are talking about, if the entire existence of the universe was one hour, humans have existed for less than one second) what could a God who created that, possibly care about humans who barely existed a blink of time and occupy a tiny speck of dust in relation to the rest?

On the other hand, the sheer impossibility of life and all the evidence so far supports us being the only life in a barren universe, seems to suggest we are extremely special and unique. Just as the Judaic Christian tradition tells us.

Paradox or problem of perspective?

tommy2bad · 03-03-2015 08:30PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Something that is not said to possess all the answers, something that scientists are prepared to abandon if ever it is disproven...

Good reply! But it won't be abandoned until it has been replaced with a better solution! Same way theism works, the model is refined over time. ; )

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 08:32PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Good reply! But it won't be abandoned until it has been replaced with a better solution! Same way theism works, the model is refined over time. ; )

Really? Have religions ever replaced the gods they posit, or discarded them?

PopePalpatine · 03-03-2015 08:42PM

Gunney wrote: »

and fundamentalist atheists?

And those would be...?

Gunney · 03-03-2015 08:43PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Really? Have religions ever replaced the gods they posit, or discarded them?

There is only One True Faith and it has not.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 08:47PM

Gunney wrote: »

There is only One True Faith

So says every member of every religion ever...

marienbad · 03-03-2015 08:47PM

Gunney wrote: »

Speaking of searching for answerrs who formulated the Big Bang theory? Was there a Jesuit involved at any point by the name of Georges Lemaitre?
Who founded modern genetics? Is wasn't an Augustinian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel was it?
Penecillin wasn't discovered by a Catholic surely?
Schroeding, he of imaginary cats, black boxes and quantum theory wasn't a Catholic by any chance was he?

A more correct assertion would be " The Catholics are figuring it out, build more science labs and get more kids educated in science to help them", ... not that we need that much help

The usual double think , you claim the good individuals and disown the bad ones. Hitler was catholic ,Stalin was orthodox and Pol Pot was educated in one of those catholic schools you are so proud of .

If only life were so black and white

JohnBee · 03-03-2015 08:48PM

Gunney wrote: »

That makes me laugh. Oh, the irony of it...An atheist invents the concept of something you cannot see, cannot touch, have trouble proving exists, yet has power through out the universe. Remind you of anything?

Do you "believe" in gravity? You cannot see it, or touch it, yet it has power throughout the universe. If you need an example of its power, pick a tall building and jump off it. Clearly it fulfills the criteria for something that "does not exist" in your mind.

Just because you cannot understand the science of dark energy, is not evidence that it does not exist.

If it was a Christian who was the scientist in question, would that make it different?

Fundamentally the universe does not care what you believe, whether it is Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Thor or whoever else you want to add to the list.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 09:03PM

JohnBee wrote: »

Do you "believe" in gravity?

Which gravity?

There are so many - there's the gravity which is genereted by the Earth whcih I can feel and experience, the gravity generated by teh moon evidenced by the tides, the gravity generated by the sun which I experience I'm told by the effect it has on the seasons, then there's dark gravity and maybe there's a few others.... oj vey - the quantum gravity...

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments