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

[MARIS61]

You made it clear you're either ignoring everyone's points or can't grasp them. I love a good discussion/debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

Or we can just have some fun:

[video=youtube;-SPV9F5w7Ww]

 

[magnifier661]

You are the one claiming evidence of unsound beliefs in the original post of this thread, and several posters here have shown you why it is simply not good evidence.

So you have evidence that life can be made without life?

And instead of links, I would like explanation. And telling me there are different meanings of the law is not gonna cut it.

Also, if the Universe is infinite; then how do you explain that the universe can expand, fine tune and actually become structured out of chaos? Seems like there is purpose. Are you disagreeing that the universe has purpose?

 

[magnifier661]

You made it clear you're either ignoring everyone's points or can't grasp them. I love a good discussion/debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

Or we can just have some fun:

[video=youtube;-SPV9F5w7Ww]

Meltdown....

 

[RR7]

So you have evidence that life can be made without life?

And instead of links, I would like explanation. And telling me there are different meanings of the law is not gonna cut it.

Also, if the Universe is infinite; then how do you explain that the universe can expand, fine tune and actually become structured out of chaos? Seems like there is purpose. Are you disagreeing that the universe has purpose?

You've watched too many of those debates, and now are structuring your discussion the same way. They're refuted your use of the science in your post. but somehow to "win" those points, and thus prove atheism is viable, they need to prove an unnecessary to you. The backup to your claims in all 3 was shown to be false. Go on to the next 7, let's see what you got.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, no. I'm not sure exactly what you believe science is, but this ain't it.

How about we go back to the OT. Okay, tell me if there is any evidence that life can be created without life.

Explain how mass and energy can exist without existing.

Explain that if the universe at one point was compacted and dense (All the suns, stars, moons, matter) expanded and became more complex.

These questions aren't science?

 

[magnifier661]

You've watched too many of those debates, and now are structuring your discussion the same way. They're refuted your use of the science in your post. but somehow to "win" those points, and thus prove atheism is viable, they need to prove an unnecessary to you. The backup to your claims in all 3 was shown to be false. Go on to the next 7, let's see what you got.

Really? I don't think so. But I will go on the next in due time.

 

[RR7]

of course you don't think so. You ignore what others say. Works well for religion.

 

[magnifier661]

of course you don't think so. You ignore what others say. Works well for religion.

LOL I have proven that I've been extremely open to what people have given to me. In fact, I think I have seriously proved this on the other threads. Nice try though.

 

[TripTango]

So you have evidence that life can be made without life?

Nope. None. And our ignorance is not evidence of a higher power -- it is evidence that we are ignorant. (See "God of the Gaps")

And instead of links, I would like explanation. And telling me there are different meanings of the law is not gonna cut it.

Among other issues, there's a problem with applying the rules that appear to govern the world around us to an event as unique as the origin of the universe. A metaphorical example: if you were to measure the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth, you would find it to be remarkably constant wherever you went. Whatever the mass of the object you dropped, it would accelerate at approximately 9.81 m/s/s, give or take a hundredth or so. You might reasonably conclude, based solely on this evidence, that this value is a universal constant, and that EVERYTHING around us must being accelerated towards Earth by approximately this same value. Of course, you'd be wrong -- we now know that the acceleration due to gravity varies with distance, as well as the masses of the two objects in question. The 9.81 value only applies within the domain where it was measured -- here on the surface of the Earth. Attempting to extrapolate that value to everything in the universe is simply bad science.

You are trying to take patterns that we have observed around us and apply them to a single moment that EVERYONE agrees is highly exceptional. We don't know what rules the Big Bang operated under -- it is completely foreign territory, scientifically speaking. Now, we can make some conclusions about it, based on some of the evidence we see around us, but to try and apply thermodynamic assumptions that we aren't even sure existed is simply too big of a stretch to carry any weight. This is ignorance. It is an unknown. No scientist in the world will tell you that he understands exactly how it worked. Some of y'all feel the need to fill up that mystery with a name and a personality. Some of the rest of us prefer to just appreciate the mystery and continue gathering little clues about its nature. The bottom line is that it is overreaching, scientifically speaking, to try and apply the first and second laws to a moment in time where there may not have even BEEN any time, at least not as we understand it.

Also, if the Universe is infinite; then how do you explain that the universe can expand, fine tune and actually become structured out of chaos? Seems like there is purpose. Are you disagreeing that the universe has purpose?

I probably do disagree with you about "purpose", in the sense that you mean. Yes, I see patterns. But I also know that we humans are remarkably good at seeing patterns, sometimes (or especially!) when they don't actually exist. Animals in clouds, the man in the moon, voices in radio static... we find patterns in every barest hint of cohesiveness within the noise. And make no mistake, the universe is full of noise. Junk DNA, stars and galaxies appearing and disappearing unseen and unheard, billions and billions of failed species here on Earth... Even the very subatomic particles that make up your body are ruled more by randomness than any particular plan. The electrons that your food supplements are so focused on are amazingly fickle things individually, drifting and popping around in a cloud of probability, completely alien to our solid, deterministic world-view.

I thought there was a very telling moment in that Craig/Hitchens debate you linked me to. At one point Hitchens asked Craig about the amazing inefficiency of certain aspects of the world, in particular (I believe) the large percentage of the DNA molecule that we now know to be completely ignored, unnecessary and useless. Craig responded with something like "well, for a timeless being like God, the word 'inefficiency' is meaningless!" And it struck me that this is why nothing is likely to alter Dr. Craig's belief -- literally EVERYTHING is evidence of God's handiwork. Order and patterns are evidence of God's meticulous planning, while randomness and inefficiency are signs of His creativity and timeless patience! This isn't just moving the goalposts -- this is making them infinitely wide!

Anyway, all this is completely an aside from your original "entropy-based" argument. Entropy is a measure of the possible "microstates" available to a system. For example, a deck of cards, before you shuffle it, has exactly one possible state -- sorted by suit and by number. When you shuffle it, you put it into different "macrostates", which we can characterize roughly as "shuffled". How many different ways could the cards be ordered such that you would still probably call them "shuffled"? Probably billions upon billions upon billions. Thus, a shuffled deck has higher entropy than a new deck. But entropy is not equal to "disorder". Many of those shufflings may, in fact, have very recognizable patterns, such as a string of consecutive cards all in the same suit. Is it accurate to say that those kinds of patterns will decrease and completely disappear with repeated shufflings? Of course not. Apparent "order" appearing every now and then is actually a statistical certainty, not an impossibility! For more, check out this paper: http://www.fisica.net/epistemologia/STYER_Entropy_and_Evolution.pdf

Hope this helps -- cheers!

 

[TripTango]

How about we go back to the OT. Okay, tell me if there is any evidence that life can be created without life.

Explain how mass and energy can exist without existing.

Explain that if the universe at one point was compacted and dense (All the suns, stars, moons, matter) expanded and became more complex.

These questions aren't science?

The only answer science offers to these questions is "I don't know". Anything beyond that is finding faces in the clouds.

 

[MARIS61]

How about we go back to the OT. Okay, tell me if there is any evidence that life can be created without life.

Explain how mass and energy can exist without existing.

Explain that if the universe at one point was compacted and dense (All the suns, stars, moons, matter) expanded and became more complex.

These questions aren't science?

They don't relate to the original topic.

 

[Fogojam]

Still looking for evidence that supports you can create life without life.

Define life.

I think below was a good response, but you ignored it.

First of all, there is no unequivocal definition of life. My definition would be DNA, since without it there is no life.

Second, amino acids have been shown to form readily in all sorts of environments. They've even created them in a laboratory using $10 worth of parts.

Finally, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins that make up DNA.

So like I said in the other thread, over 200M years, the various combinations and permutations of these building blocks in various environments (the environment changed a lot over those 200M years as the earth cooled) eventually made DNA and the first cell.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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.

oh, well that certainly settles the debate

lol

 

[crowTrobot]

How about we go back to the OT. Okay, tell me if there is any evidence that life can be created without life.

tell me if there's any evidence it can't (there isn't).

evolution itself hints that natural abiogenesis might be possible since the same principals of selection could potentially apply to any object that self-replicates with variation, regardless of whether it is "alive" or not.

Explain how mass and energy can exist without existing.

straw man.

Explain that if the universe at one point was compacted and dense (All the suns, stars, moons, matter) expanded and became more complex.

here you're asking for somone to explain a very technical topic involving quantum mechanics chemistry and astrophysics.

to drastically oversimplify, the big bang resulted in a gas cloud which gravity collapsed into stars, which cooked heavier elements and expelled them in supernovea, which started the process of chemical bonding forming more complex molecules etc.

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't get specific with gods. I use the term generically to mean any mythical super-being people hold above humanity.

this thread isn't asking about the gods of human tradition. i think they're all mythical also. i also think there is virtually zero chance a god of any kind exists that is concerned with the well being of individual humans.

however it doesn't follow that i can necessarily rule out ANY possible type of higher mind being responsible for the laws of nature or the big bang etc., or even abiogenesis. i don't think there's any evidence for that, but the information simply isn't available to rule it out with any certainty.

This thread, by saying atheism is not "sound", is proclaiming that god definitely exists.

this thread is based on the false premise that atheists in general claim no possible god exists. you might, but you're an exception.

But what you understand and what I understand are vastly different as most understanding comes from our experiences and sensory input throughout our lives.

what i "understand" (as much as i do or don't) about reality is the result of objective science - which is the same for everyone.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay I went to sleep only seeing TripTango's response; then saw all the activity. I will try and get to them as soon as I can. For trip's; I gotta read exactly what he said so I don't give an answer without fully understanding what he said; so I will tackle the rest first.

 

[magnifier661]

Define life.

a living organism.

I think below was a good response, but you ignored it.

I can't answer that right now until I get to my next three answers; but I will answer some of the "without life" questions.

 

[magnifier661]

oh, well that certainly settles the debate

lol

On these parts of the debate; I didn't want to associate "A designer" as the Hebrew God. So take that for what it's worth.

 

[magnifier661]

tell me if there's any evidence it can't (there isn't). evolution itself hints that natural abiogenesis might be possible since the same principals of selection could potentially apply to any object that self-replicates with variation, regardless of whether it is "alive" or not.

Actually there are a few nice finds; and one that was given by westnob (thank you west) and a few others that came about.

It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life

Instead, Venter and his colleagues started with many relatively small pieces of DNA. Then the scientists transferred DNA pieces back and forth between a yeast cell and E. coli bacteria, turning the many short pieces into fewer but longer DNA segments.

Once the synthetic DNA segment reached the desired length the scientists injected it into a Mycoplasma bacterium that had had its own DNA removed earlier. Needless to say, the process of assembling such a lengthy piece of synthetic DNA was complicated.

So in order for them to create "Artificial DNA"; they had to use actual living organisms to complete the synthesis. In other words, using life to create life.

The other: Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

But James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. "You get a fair amount of amino acids," he says. "What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids." Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.

So as Denny talked about earlier. You can create organic molecules; but cannot create the building blocks of nucleic acids. Another reason why the theory that dust, electricity from our atmosphere and water cannot create "life".

here you're asking for somone to explain a very technical topic involving quantum mechanics chemistry and astrophysics.

to drastically oversimplify, the big bang resulted in a gas cloud which gravity collapsed into stars, which cooked heavier elements and expelled them in supernovea, which started the process of chemical bonding forming more complex molecules etc.

That is a direct contridiction to Law 2. You just explained that something can collapsed, become a supernova, then form complex molecules. It's a simple law; but that explanation just contridicted that law. And if there is a contridiction, then it cannot be a law.

 

[magnifier661]

this thread isn't asking about the gods of human tradition. i think they're all mythical also. i also think there is virtually zero chance a god of any kind exists that is concerned with the well being of individual humans.

however it doesn't follow that i can necessarily rule out ANY possible type of higher mind being responsible for the laws of nature or the big bang etc., or even abiogenesis. i don't think there's any evidence for that, but the information simply isn't available to rule it out with any certainty.

This. At least you are taking the logical approach. Kudos to you sir.

 

[magnifier661]

Nope. None. And our ignorance is not evidence of a higher power -- it is evidence that we are ignorant. (See "God of the Gaps")

I will get to this later, so I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this part of your post. I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying below.

Among other issues, there's a problem with applying the rules that appear to govern the world around us to an event as unique as the origin of the universe. A metaphorical example: if you were to measure the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth, you would find it to be remarkably constant wherever you went. Whatever the mass of the object you dropped, it would accelerate at approximately 9.81 m/s/s, give or take a hundredth or so. You might reasonably conclude, based solely on this evidence, that this value is a universal constant, and that EVERYTHING around us must being accelerated towards Earth by approximately this same value. Of course, you'd be wrong -- we now know that the acceleration due to gravity varies with distance, as well as the masses of the two objects in question. The 9.81 value only applies within the domain where it was measured -- here on the surface of the Earth. Attempting to extrapolate that value to everything in the universe is simply bad science.

I believe you are explaining a "Closed System". The Earth's gravity being the "Closed System"? You are 100% accurate, because the rules about thermal dynamics apply within that confounds. The confounds of gravity. Or the closed system of gravity.

What I am trying to explain is the Universe is a closed system. If many in the science world; and as Denny pointed out earlier on another thread. The "Big Bang Theory" must be in a closed system. The molecules are infinite. If they are infinite; then they are in a closed system. And because of that; the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics applies. It is a contridiction that even in a supernova; dark matter; whatever they become the closed system. They cannot cook within itself and form a complex universe without contradicting the second rule of Thermal dynamics. At least from what I've read.

You are trying to take patterns that we have observed around us and apply them to a single moment that EVERYONE agrees is highly exceptional. We don't know what rules the Big Bang operated under -- it is completely foreign territory, scientifically speaking. Now, we can make some conclusions about it, based on some of the evidence we see around us, but to try and apply thermodynamic assumptions that we aren't even sure existed is simply too big of a stretch to carry any weight. This is ignorance. It is an unknown.

No scientist in the world will tell you that he understands exactly how it worked. Some of y'all feel the need to fill up that mystery with a name and a personality. Some of the rest of us prefer to just appreciate the mystery and continue gathering little clues about its nature. The bottom line is that it is overreaching, scientifically speaking, to try and apply the first and second laws to a moment in time where there may not have even BEEN any time, at least not as we understand it.

Remember what I said from the beginning. We can only debate on what we know. Just because the blind man doesn't see the color purple; doesn't mean he can argue that purple doesn't exist. This rule is applied in our debate. If that isn't the case; then my "Faith of God existing" is just as real as what you purpose.

I probably do disagree with you about "purpose", in the sense that you mean. Yes, I see patterns. But I also know that we humans are remarkably good at seeing patterns, sometimes (or especially!) when they don't actually exist. Animals in clouds, the man in the moon, voices in radio static... we find patterns in every barest hint of cohesiveness within the noise. And make no mistake, the universe is full of noise. Junk DNA, stars and galaxies appearing and disappearing unseen and unheard, billions and billions of failed species here on Earth... Even the very subatomic particles that make up your body are ruled more by randomness than any particular plan. The electrons that your food supplements are so focused on are amazingly fickle things individually, drifting and popping around in a cloud of probability, completely alien to our solid, deterministic world-view.

I thought there was a very telling moment in that Craig/Hitchens debate you linked me to. At one point Hitchens asked Craig about the amazing inefficiency of certain aspects of the world, in particular (I believe) the large percentage of the DNA molecule that we now know to be completely ignored, unnecessary and useless. Craig responded with something like "well, for a timeless being like God, the word 'inefficiency' is meaningless!" And it struck me that this is why nothing is likely to alter Dr. Craig's belief -- literally EVERYTHING is evidence of God's handiwork. Order and patterns are evidence of God's meticulous planning, while randomness and inefficiency are signs of His creativity and timeless patience! This isn't just moving the goalposts -- this is making them infinitely wide!

Anyway, all this is completely an aside from your original "entropy-based" argument. Entropy is a measure of the possible "microstates" available to a system. For example, a deck of cards, before you shuffle it, has exactly one possible state -- sorted by suit and by number. When you shuffle it, you put it into different "macrostates", which we can characterize roughly as "shuffled". How many different ways could the cards be ordered such that you would still probably call them "shuffled"? Probably billions upon billions upon billions. Thus, a shuffled deck has higher entropy than a new deck. But entropy is not equal to "disorder". Many of those shufflings may, in fact, have very recognizable patterns, such as a string of consecutive cards all in the same suit. Is it accurate to say that those kinds of patterns will decrease and completely disappear with repeated shufflings? Of course not. Apparent "order" appearing every now and then is actually a statistical certainty, not an impossibility! For more, check out this paper: http://www.fisica.net/epistemologia/STYER_Entropy_and_Evolution.pdf

Hope this helps -- cheers!

Again, this is another "Blind man arguing that purple does not exist". Just because we don't know; doesn't exclude that it doesn't exist. And the "cloud figures" can also be assigned to science. If we want to find something; human beings can justify what they want to see by trying to logically explain it. We are dealing with evidence; not "unknown" and patterns are evidence of design and purpose; regardless if you think humanity just makes it out to be.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Really, the only thing we can say about questions like "how did life start" or "where did the universe come from" are "I don't know." Because there is currently no way of knowing for sure. Not knowing for sure and claiming you know (intelligent design) is intellectually dishonest.

 

[crowTrobot]

That is a direct contridiction to Law 2

it's interesting that you keep repeating that over and over even though you've been shown it's clearly wrong (a misapplication of what the law of entropy actually says) about 8 times in this thread. kind of makes this all pointless doesn't it?

 

[magnifier661]

Really, the only thing we can say about questions like "how did life start" or "where did the universe come from" are "I don't know." Because there is currently no way of knowing for sure. Not knowing for sure and claiming you know (intelligent design) is intellectually dishonest.

How is it "dishonest"? Am I as dishonest as those that believe God doesn't exist?

 

[Denny Crane]

it's interesting that you keep repeating that over and over even though you've been shown it's clearly wrong (a misapplication of what the law of entropy actually says) about 8 times in this thread. kind of makes this all pointless doesn't it?

Kinda like beating your head against a wall, eh?

 

[magnifier661]

it's interesting that you keep repeating that over and over even though you've been shown it's clearly wrong (a misapplication of what the law of entropy actually says) about 8 times in this thread. kind of makes this all pointless doesn't it?

The supernova; or cloud; like you call it is a closed system. And I don't think it's pointless. I am questioning the logic behind it. And since you, I or anyone else for that matter "knows"; then we only have logic. Like I said before "You can't credit the blind man for arguing purple doesn't exist". This case is applied here.

 

[TripTango]

I believe you are explaining a "Closed System". The Earth's gravity being the "Closed System"? You are 100% accurate, because the rules about thermal dynamics apply within that confounds. The confounds of gravity. Or the closed system of gravity.

What I am trying to explain is the Universe is a closed system. If many in the science world; and as Denny pointed out earlier on another thread. The "Big Bang Theory" must be in a closed system. The molecules are infinite. If they are infinite; then they are in a closed system. And because of that; the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics applies. It is a contridiction that even in a supernova; dark matter; whatever they become the closed system. They cannot cook within itself and form a complex universe without contradicting the second rule of Thermal dynamics. At least from what I've read.

There are issues related to the closed vs. open system, but that is not what I am addressing here.

Remember what I said from the beginning. We can only debate on what we know. Just because the blind man doesn't see the color purple; doesn't mean he can argue that purple doesn't exist. This rule is applied in our debate. If that isn't the case; then my "Faith of God existing" is just as real as what you purpose.

Again, this is another "Blind man arguing that purple does not exist". Just because we don't know; doesn't exclude that it doesn't exist. And the "cloud figures" can also be assigned to science. If we want to find something; human beings can justify what they want to see by trying to logically explain it. We are dealing with evidence; not "unknown" and patterns are evidence of design and purpose; regardless if you think humanity just makes it out to be.

You are moving off-topic here. You asserted that YOU had evidence that proved atheism untenable. I am telling you that the evidence is bad. I am not trying to prove that God does not exist (which is impossible), I am merely showing you that your usage of scientific principles to argue for the certain existence of God is not viable.

Did you read the paper on entropy? Do you see why the 2nd law does not preclude evolution?

 

[Denny Crane]

That is not a closed system.

Try a test tube with a cork on it placed inside a lead box so no light or sound or other external things can affect what's in the test tube.

 

[magnifier661]

Kinda like beating your head against a wall, eh?

You can discount my logic, or if you want to say I lack of logic at all. You believe the universe is a closed system because you even said the Universe was always here. If that's the case; then the first replicating molecule becomes the closed system. So toss out all the digs you want about how this is beating your head against the wall. I think I'm asking the right questions.

 

[TripTango]

I believe you are explaining a "Closed System". The Earth's gravity being the "Closed System"? You are 100% accurate, because the rules about thermal dynamics apply within that confounds.

And please, if you are going to cite one of the most important concepts in all of science, at least call it by its correct name! Calling it "thermal dynamics" is like me making Biblical references to the "Gospel of LaMarcus".