Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

[MadeFromDust]

What are the rest MAGS?

 

[MARIS61]

I put a hit on them that knocked them out of the game.

Beter bring out those other seven, and hopefully they are more relevant or at least related to the thread title.

 

[magnifier661]

I put a hit on them that knocked them out of the game.

Beter bring out those other seven, and hopefully they are more relevant or at least related to the thread title.

Yeah? I'd like to see them.

 

[magnifier661]

What are the rest MAGS?

Don't want to bring them out buddy. It seems these are enough for now. If you want me to PM them to you I can.

 

[crowTrobot]

Wow, so no one wants to tackle these questions? That's weird.

your questions are based on false premises. atheists are agnostic when it comes to the origin of life and the universe.

if you're interested in the answer to #2 read the link i provided.

 

[magnifier661]

your questions are based on false premises. atheists are agnostic when it comes to the origin of life and the universe.

if you're interested in the answer to #2 read the link i provided.

Okay so you then believe there could be a possible designer then?

On answer #2 tell me what you think. Type it out and explain it, use the link if you need a reference. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one defending "Atheism".

 

[crowTrobot]

Okay so you then believe there could be a possible designer then?

i think given what we know about the mechanical nature of the laws of the universe and evolution the odds are against one existing, but it's possible.

On answer #2 tell me what you think. Type it out and explain it, use the link if you need a reference. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one defending "Atheism".

i don't have time or understanding of the topic to say much more than i said. entropy refers to systems, and complexity can arise in individual components of a system without an increase in overall entropy of the system. entropy is a bit of a complex topic, not as simple as creationists like to make it out to be. as i said i you want further technical details you are free to read the link.

 

[MARIS61]

your questions are based on false premises. atheists are agnostic when it comes to the origin of life and the universe.

if you're interested in the answer to #2 read the link i provided.

Agnostics are agnostic (uncertain or don't care).

Atheists KNOW god does not exist.

 

[magnifier661]

i think given what we know about the mechanical nature of the laws of the universe and evolution the odds are against one existing, but it's possible.

Yet scientifically; even a "law of science" makes it perfectly clear that mass and energy cannot come into existence from nothing. And if that's true; then how can the universe be created unless a deity put it there?

i don't have time or understanding of the topic to say much more than i said. entropy refers to systems, and complexity can arise in individual components of a system without an increase in overall entropy of the system. entropy is a bit of a complex topic, not as simple as creationists like to make it out to be. as i said i you want further technical details you are free to read the link.

But I actually think it is. In fact; entropy can be explained from something so small as a ice in a glass; to as large as the universe itself. Just because you would try and assume the universe is sooo big, one cannot explain it; yet once something becomes "scientific law"; that is law that cannot have contradiction. And since logically it cannot be contradicted; then how would you assume that the universe can actually; through chaos; become more organized?

Because if there was no God; then if there was a "Big Bang"; there cannot be order. There cannot be life. Things cannot symbiotically mutate and the very existence of the universe would be lifeless and chaotic. You cannot take take something degrading and normalize it. That goes against the second law of thermal dynamics.

 

[magnifier661]

Agnostics are agnostic (uncertain or don't care).

Atheists KNOW god does not exist.

Hence how I stayed on topic. Thanks for the clarification MARIS

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Okay so you then believe there could be a possible designer then?

On answer #2 tell me what you think. Type it out and explain it, use the link if you need a reference. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one defending "Atheism".

I just, wow. ATHEISM IS NOT A SOUND "BELIEF," AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO DEFEND IT.

Please. All humans are born NOT believing in a higher power, and then are introduced to the concept later. I'd say the burden of proof is on the people constantly shoving this idea down out throats.

 

[MARIS61]

Okay so you then believe there could be a possible designer then?

On answer #2 tell me what you think. Type it out and explain it, use the link if you need a reference. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one defending "Atheism".

Atheism needs no defense.

You are the one claiming reality isn't real. The burden is on you and your 3 (not 10) points are evidence god does not exist since they infer the creation of life from nothing is impossible. They support atheists and debunk their critics.

Unless you're willing to offer more points I think we might as well close this thread.

 

[magnifier661]

Atheism needs no defense.

You are the one claiming reality isn't real. The burden is on you and your 3 (not 10) points are evidence god does not exist since they infer the creation of life from nothing is impossible. They support atheists and debunk their critics.

Unless you're willing to offer more points I think we might as well close this thread.

Unfortunately for you I have given proof. You are just ignoring the fact. Regardless of whom or what created the universe; it was created. It cannot be created on its own; life cannot be created without life and the universe cannot create order through entropy.

So if you think your arrogance can just tell me "Well I say so, then it's true" would be just as real as me saying "My religion is true because a talking crocaduck told me.

 

[Denny Crane]

if you think that's a silly question there's no point to this thread. but -

1) who said what exists came from nothing?

2) second law speaks to entropy of contained systems, not complexity of individual components.
if you want something more technical, your favorite website -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

3) god-of-the-gaps. we don't currently know the specifics of how life started. so what?

He got the 1st law of thermodynamics wrong, too.

 

[magnifier661]

I just, wow. ATHEISM IS NOT A SOUND "BELIEF," AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO DEFEND IT.

Please. All humans are born NOT believing in a higher power, and then are introduced to the concept later. I'd say the burden of proof is on the people constantly shoving this idea down out throats.

Sorry, before you read just the last comments; I have given my proof. Now it is up to the Atheists to show their proof that the Universe can exist without existing; life can be made without life and the universe can organize through chaos.

Until Atheism can show evidence that this can happen; then it is not very sound at all.

 

[magnifier661]

He got the 1st law of thermodynamics wrong, too.

"The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

and I'm using your wikipedia for reference too.

 

[crowTrobot]

Agnostics are agnostic (uncertain or don't care).

Atheists KNOW god does not exist.

the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists would disagree with your semantics.

in practice an atheist is just someone who lacks belief in god, not claims to know god does not exist or claims to be able to prove it. it refers to someone who rejects the evidence for god.

semantically an agnostic refers to someone who thinks it's in principal not possible to know if god exists or not. so technically it does not apply to someone who doesn't care, or to someone just because they are uncertain.

and a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic, and most atheists are agnostic. you're an exception.

 

[magnifier661]

And

For instance, in Joule's experiment, the initial system is a tank of water with a paddle wheel inside. If we isolate thermally the tank and move the paddle wheel with a pulley and a weight we can relate the increase in temperature with the height descended by the mass. Now the system is returned to its initial state, isolated again, and the same amount of work is done on the tank using different devices (an electric motor, a chemical battery, a spring,...). In every case, the amount of work can be measured independently. The evidence shows that the final state of the water (in particular, its temperature) is the same in every case. It's irrelevant if the work is electrical, mechanical, chemical,... or if done suddenly or slowly, as long as it is performed in an adiabatic way.

How is my statement of The Law First Law of Thermal Dynamic mass and energy different than what I described?

 

[Denny Crane]

"The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

and I'm using your wikipedia for reference too.

You cannot convert energy to matter and vice versa.

crowTrobot pointed out the fallacy of your 2nd point.

Your third point is also B.S.

 

[crowTrobot]

Atheism needs no defense.

well, by your definition of the term it actually does. "strong" atheism, which is your claim that you have knowledge that no god exists, does bring a burden of proof.

 

[magnifier661]

You cannot convert energy to matter and vice versa.

crowTrobot pointed out the fallacy of your 2nd point.

Your third point is also B.S.

Last point is B.S.? Show me evidence that life must create life is B.S.? I think there is no fallacy on point two? And regardless if you cannot create energy to matter; which I disagree; explain that mass and energy even exists from nothing?

 

[Denny Crane]

Last point is B.S.? Show me evidence that life must create life is B.S.? I think there is no fallacy on point two? And regardless if you cannot create energy to matter; which I disagree; explain that mass and energy even exists from nothing?

Exists from nothing? Only you say that's what happened. No scientist ever says everything sprang from nothing. They say all the matter and energy (and anti-matter, too) was compacted into something the size of a singularity. It was always there. Get it?

 

[crowTrobot]

How is my statement of The Law First Law of Thermal Dynamic mass and energy different than what I described?

i don't think it's even relevant, since your premise requires that atheists claim matter/energy emerged from nothing, which they don't.

 

[MARIS61]

Unfortunately for you I have given proof. You are just ignoring the fact. Regardless of whom or what created the universe; it was created.

Yeah right. here's a smiley. It created the universe. I have given you proof, you are just ignoring the fact....ghoti created the universe.


Atheism is the knowledge that god is fiction. Only proof of god's existence can alter that fact. You've offered no proof or even token evidence that god is real.

So far all you've done is claim he couldn't have created life out of nothing, which is what atheists say.

You have not even laid out anything to support your premise, so there's really nothing here to debate.

 

[ABM]

i don't think it's even relevant, since your premise requires that atheists claim matter/energy emerged from nothing, which they don't.

Matter/energy has infinitely been present in some form? If so, to me, that would be a quantum leap in logic.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Matter/energy has infinitely been present in some form? If so, to me, that would be a quantum leap in logic.

Something has to be eternal, I think logical reasoning points to a Creator. All the evidence we have supports a Creator, plus we have the Bible as God's infallible Word.

 

[magnifier661]

Exists from nothing? Only you say that's what happened. No scientist ever says everything sprang from nothing. They say all the matter and energy (and anti-matter, too) was compacted into something the size of a singularity. It was always there. Get it?

Thought u would say that because that goes against number two.

 

[Denny Crane]

Matter/energy has infinitely been present in some form? If so, to me, that would be a quantum leap in logic.

The leap in logic is "infinitely present." Maybe it's a tough concept to grasp, but space and TIME started with the big bang. There can not logically be a "before" the big bang because time didn't exist.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Also, the physical universe most definitely had a finite beginning. If it didn't, the energy it operates on would have burned out an infinitely long time ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thought u would say that because that goes against number two.

crowTrobot already pointed out the fallacy of your understanding and claims about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I'll quote from your own link:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.