Atheism debate

[Glacier]

There are many theories about try to explain what we are and how we got here. We generally call these groups of thought religions and they go under names like Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc. Only one of these groups is right, but does it really matter?

[mechanic_virus]

The creation of an infinite universe, purposeful mutation and evolution, quantum physics, the creation of self-aware life. These are just a few of the things that provide evidence for God.

The problem with this, Steven, is that to my understanding the universe is not infinite, and mutation and evolution are not purposeful. Quantum physics may not be fully understood at this time, but how many times in the past have humans attributed events that lacked understanding to be the work of a god - prior, of course, to the discovery of the scientific reasoning behind it? The same goes for our awareness of self: it may not be something we fully understand today, perhaps not something we will understand in our lifetimes, but there were many before us who believed to their dying days drought, famine, and disease to be the wrath of a god upon us.

[Glacier]

A friend of mine told me he had proof God existed, so I challenged him, "Oh, really??" I just checked my inbox and this is how he replied to me.

Here is the first in a series of 13 articles that deal with God's existence, which God is real, what God is like, why are we here, and related issues. I hope you'll read all 13. I'll send the second when you tell me you are ready or I can send them all at once--but it would have to be by email because it is much easier for me that way. Feel free to ask me any questions you have. Thanks, Tom.

THE COSMOS: A PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth” -- Genesis 1:1.

“The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” -– Carl Sagan.

The two statements above are both statements of faith. Neither can be experimentally verified and both make assumptions. The two statements also offer a remarkable contrast. The first statement indicates:
1. There was a beginning.
2. The beginning was caused.
3. The cause was God.

The second statement indicates:
1. There was no beginning.
2. The cosmos is self-existing and thus uncaused.
3. The universe was not created and thus is the product of non-intelligence.

Statements like the second statement are frequently offered by those antagonistic to the existence of God. The interesting thing is that we can offer a considerable amount of scientific evidence that we had a beginning, that the beginning was caused, and that the cause was God. Let us examine some of that evidence.

BEGINNING OR NO BEGINNING

Like all stars, the Sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the Sun compresses 661 million tons of hydrogen into 657 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the Sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the Sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. All over the cosmos are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left? Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I’m going to run out of gas!! It the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum - a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!!

A second piece of evidence that we had a beginning is seen in the movement of galaxies. All galaxies are moving farther away relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B and C in a triangle, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day. Now let’s suppose that we make time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that we were still closer. Ultimately where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At a beginning!! At what scientists call a singularity!

There are many other evidences and demonstrations that can be used to show that there was a beginning - such as the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, things move towards a state of disorder. This means that the cosmos must have had a beginning because if it had always been here it would now be totaly disordered and freezing cold because heat death would have set in. Therefore thermodynamically, the universe had to have a beginning.

The fact that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in that expansion rules out the possibility that we live in an oscillating universe that is eventually pulled back to a central point from which it expands all over again.

CAUSE/NO CAUSE

Not only can strong evidence be given to prove that we had a beginning as the Bible says, but we can also see a logical problem in maintaining that the cosmos was uncaused. If the universe had a beginning and that beginning was uncaused, then something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter-energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist’s assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist’s assertion that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is also wrong. The Bible’s assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence. The next question is “What was the cause?” Was the cause a personal God who created the cosmos and life with purpose and intelligence? Or was the cause total chance - with no purpose and no intelligence?

Any questions? Feel free to ask them. Are you ready for the next one? Tom.

[Born_again]

Simple. Fire this little sucker back to him:
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/kalam.php
ETA:

Conclusion

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
* If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
* If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
* If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
* If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
* If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

In the absence of good answers to these questions, we must dismiss the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god.

[mechanic_virus]

Great link, Born_again.

So recedingglacier, you may wish to bring up the point that science does not point to an infinite (in age) universe, and that if his misunderstanding of the quote by Carl Sagan (just because there was nothing before the universe and will never be anything after the universe, that does not preclude the universe from having a beginning) is the only basis he has to go on, then the score is currently Science: 1, God: 0.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out (though it doesn't really matter seeing as he has already shot himself in the foot) that the idea of a singularity is one that is still open to debate, as there is evidence that through the use of quantum gravity, a singularity may be avoided.

Essentially your friend is using good science in attempt to attack good science by putting words in the mouths of scientists. It would not be terribly unlike me attacking religion by saying: Christians believe that God himself wrote the Bible and gave it to humans to read, therefore the Bible is 100% the word of God. But, if you take a closer look you will find that different books within the Bible are written by different people, and tell slightly different accounts of the same events. Therefore, Christians are wrong and there is no god. If Christians really did believe the original statement made, then yes, I would have a valid point - but because the original statement is untrue, the rest of it is pointless and irrelevant.

[mechanic_virus]

Oh, and let him know to send on the next article. Hopefully the next 12 don't base their points on the same false statement - that would mean a huge waste of time for the poor author, and a lack of fun for me.

[steven lloyd]

The creation of an infinite universe, purposeful mutation and evolution, quantum physics, the creation of self-aware life. These are just a few of the things that provide evidence for God.

The problem with this, Steven, is that to my understanding the universe is not infinite, and mutation and evolution are not purposeful. Quantum physics may not be fully understood at this time, but how many times in the past have humans attributed events that lacked understanding to be the work of a god - prior, of course, to the discovery of the scientific reasoning behind it? The same goes for our awareness of self: it may not be something we fully understand today, perhaps not something we will understand in our lifetimes, but there were many before us who believed to their dying days drought, famine, and disease to be the wrath of a god upon us.

You are correct in suggesting that the idea of whether this universe is infinite or not has not been definitively resolved (but the alternative does then beg the question – what exists beyond it’s boundaries?). Your suggestion that evolution has not been purposeful, however, contradicts the very definition of the term (ie. “a process of change in a particular direction”).

I also accept your comments regarding quantum physics and awareness of self as sound, and hope you read my preceding post carefully enough to recognize I simply pointed out these ideas could serve as evidence (not proof) for the existence of God, while at the same time serve as evidence (not proof) for their scientific theory. As I said in that post, “The more credible scientist recognizes alternate explanations can be deduced from the same evidence – and in case of Creationism vs. Evolutionism, an explanation does not even need to be mutually exclusive.”

[Glacier]

As I said in that post, “The more credible scientist recognizes alternate explanations can be deduced from the same evidence – and in case of Creationism vs. Evolutionism, an explanation does not even need to be mutually exclusive.”

Unless you take an "Us Vs Them" mentality. ie. your either with us or against us. :sillygrin:

[mechanic_virus]

You are correct in suggesting that the idea of whether this universe is infinite or not has not been definitively resolved (but the alternative does then beg the question – what exists beyond it’s boundaries?). Your suggestion that evolution has not been purposeful, however, contradicts the very definition of the term (ie. “a process of change in a particular direction”).

I also accept your comments regarding quantum physics and awareness of self as sound, and hope you read my preceding post carefully enough to recognize I simply pointed out these ideas could serve as evidence (not proof) for the existence of God, while at the same time serve as evidence (not proof) for their scientific theory. As I said in that post, “The more credible scientist recognizes alternate explanations can be deduced from the same evidence – and in case of Creationism vs. Evolutionism, an explanation does not even need to be mutually exclusive.”

I feel it is possible for the universe to be finite in time, yet infinite in space. In this scenario it would have no boundaries for anything to exist beyond. This might bring up the question of what it could be expanding into, however space cannot exist outside of space, space can only be described in terms of the distance between physical objects.

You stated "purposeful mutation and evolution" together as an example of your evidence for a god, and I responded as such, although I don't feel that either can be described as having purpose. To break them up, mutation is anything but purposeful. Mutation is complete randomness with no point or purpose. It can be good, bad, ugly, or completely neutral. Evolution is a process through which all modern organisms have a common ancestor, and can be caused by factors other than just mutations. One difference is that the organisms that evolved were strong enough to strive, or just able to stay alive long enough to reproduce. Evolution is the reason that we are here. Since you do believe in a god it makes sense that you would argue that we are here for a purpose, making evolution purposeful, however without a god in the picture, we too are just a random chance.

[steven lloyd]

I feel it is possible for the universe to be finite in time, yet infinite in space. In this scenario it would have no boundaries for anything to exist beyond. This might bring up the question of what it could be expanding into, however space cannot exist outside of space, space can only be described in terms of the distance between physical objects.

Some interesting reading there mechanic, but it raises some questions in my old mind. For example, if the universe is finite in time (suggesting a beginning and an end), what was here before the universe existed and what will be here after? Space? – which you’ve suggested is infinite? What is the difference between space and the universe? Would you suggest space is or can be empty while the universe contains objects? Why can space not exist outside of space and who says it can only be described in terms of the distance between physical objects (I know this was a long time ago for me but this idea kinda conflicts with some of the stuff we learned in grade twelve physics classes, doesn’t it?)?

You stated "purposeful mutation and evolution" together as an example of your evidence for a god, and I responded as such, although I don't feel that either can be described as having purpose. To break them up, mutation is anything but purposeful. Mutation is complete randomness with no point or purpose. It can be good, bad, ugly, or completely neutral. Evolution is a process through which all modern organisms have a common ancestor, and can be caused by factors other than just mutations.

I suggested "purposeful mutation and evolution" could be an example of evidence for the existence of God, and although you don't feel that either can be described as having purpose, that is simply your opinion, or interpretation of the evidence which differs from mine. You’ve suggested that mutation is anything but purposeful, and is complete randomness with no point or purpose, but although that has been observed it cannot be proven to be true 100% of the time. I will agree evolution is caused by other factors than mutation, however I would also suggest your definition of evolution as simply a process through which all modern organisms have a common ancestor is incomplete.

Since you do believe in a god it makes sense that you would argue that we are here for a purpose, making evolution purposeful, however without a god in the picture, we too are just a random chance.

And here is the crux of the senselessness of this argument (does God exist or not) – other than the fact it does stir some other interesting ideas to pursue such as you have presented. When studying logical argument in university philosophy classes, the argument of whether God exists or not is exhaustively examined. The one conclusion that becomes exceedingly clear is that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven through logical argument or scientific method. The irony here is that while atheists will criticize belief in God as an act of faith, the fact is, not believing in God is also an act of faith (both beliefs based on opinion, or an individual interpretation of evidence).

[Mr Danksworth]

The irony here is that while atheists will criticize belief in God as an act of faith, the fact is, not believing in God is also an act of faith (both beliefs based on opinion, or an individual interpretation of evidence).

There is no irony here. Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it — or even care much about the claim in the first place.

[JLives]

I feel it is possible for the universe to be finite in time, yet infinite in space. In this scenario it would have no boundaries for anything to exist beyond. This might bring up the question of what it could be expanding into, however space cannot exist outside of space, space can only be described in terms of the distance between physical objects.

Some interesting reading there mechanic, but it raises some questions in my old mind. For example, if the universe is finite in time (suggesting a beginning and an end), what was here before the universe existed and what will be here after? Space? – which you’ve suggested is infinite? What is the difference between space and the universe? Would you suggest space is or can be empty while the universe contains objects? Why can space not exist outside of space and who says it can only be described in terms of the distance between physical objects (I know this was a long time ago for me but this idea kinda conflicts with some of the stuff we learned in grade twelve physics classes, doesn’t it?)?

To me that means we run out of time before we run out of universe. I think the difficulty for people is they picture the universe as an object, such as a box, with a bunch of stuff inside, an edge and whatever space the object occupies as "the other side". That 3D thinking just doesn't work with something as complex as the universe.

I think people have a hard grasping atheism because of it's total lack of ceremony and "rules". There's just nothing to grasp. Humans tend want to believe that we are important and special to the universe but the truth (to me) is we are just a bunch of selfish animals bent on destroying each other eventually. As soon as we have as much respect for our planet and it's other inhabitants as we do religion and our sense of self importance I believe we will be much better off.

[steven lloyd]

The irony here is that while atheists will criticize belief in God as an act of faith, the fact is, not believing in God is also an act of faith (both beliefs based on opinion, or an individual interpretation of evidence).

There is no irony here. Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it — or even care much about the claim in the first place.

You either claim God exists, or you claim God does not exist, or you are agnostic and not atheist or theist. In reality, there is no burden of proof on theists to change the opinion of atheists, and if you want to argue your position is true then the burden of proof is, obviously, upon you (although no proof exists either way). If the non-believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the non-existence of God, it is unreasonable to expect the theist to construct proof of it — or even care much about your lack of belief in the first place. How ironic it is so important to you for us to believe otherwise.

[JonyDarko]

Actually if you bring an idea to the table, you should be willing to at least provide some valid evidence. If you do not, you should not expect to be taken seriously.

On the other hand you are free to believe in anything you want too. Just do not try and make your beliefs seem more valid then they are. A common thing that gits my goat is when someone wants science to prove or show more evidence of something while not being willing to do the same. A great example of this is creationists.


Oh and Steven, not believing in god is not an act of faith. By that logic not believing in dragons, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and leprechauns is also an act of faith.

In reality not believing in those things is just common sense.

[hellomynameis]

I believe atheism's toughest opponent is faith. Faith, facts illogical and stubborn cousin is a bulletproof bastion of bewilderment for the atheist-mind. However, if you want the aficionado del religioso to enter your 'age of reason' you must first empathize with they're age old belief. So without further ado, my deepest* empathy for faith:

DYI Strong/Weak Faith Principle vs. Atheism.
AKA,
My Case for Agnosticism.

Regarding science:
1.Weak: Science is an explanation of God's work which will eventually lead to the proof of God's existence.
I.E. we will eventually find a physical phenomenon, singularity, or fact that clearly proves the existence of a higher power.

2.Strong: Science is always an explanation of God's work but it cannot offer proof.
I.E. An atom and its subatomic particles, the universe and biology can be totally defined without ever coming across the 'essence' of God. Sociology, psychology and neurology will not be able to find a difference between believers and non-believers that proves the existence of God.

3.There is no God.
I.E. spirituality/religion is matter of human nature.

- Science is clearly(read: currently) agnostic to the question of “is there a God?” but it does a great job of proving or disproving the history and creeds of religions.

Regarding theology:
1.Weak: The awareness of God has been disseminated through prophets in a partial and inaccurate nature, explaining the variety of religions and contradictory creeds.
I.E. there are elements of truth throughout the faiths but individually or combined there is not a 'complete story'.

2.Strong: The awareness and creed of God have a complete testament only in a single religion, the others being creations of either human or 'evil' nature.
I.E. Christianity is the Truth while Buddhism is the work of Satan and Greek mythology was the invention of men.

3.There is no God'
I.E. spirituality/religion is matter of human nature.


What possible criteria can be used to prove one religion over another and if we can't then why subscribe to one over the other?

*okay my empathy towards people of faith is a little deeper than this but when it comes to faith vs. reason we are talking about a cold hearted mofo over here... and this coming from a man who's laundry-doing wife stole his pants before he wrote all this, geez.