Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
This was brought up in another thread, but I think it might be interesting enough to discuss on its own merit.

Something was mentioned that would, or should, compel atheists to at least admit that an intelligent designer is not impossible. Atheists (myself included) have insisted that the religious need to come up with even the slightest sliver of evidence that could prove the possibility of a creator.

That proof is in mankind's ever expanding knowledge. We've figured out the speed of light. We now know that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. We can split the atom. We can take genes from one species and insert it into another species. We can smash atoms and create tiny black holes in a particle accelerator.

The question is: Will there ever come a time when we've learned everything we can possibly learn and can go no further? What evidence is there to suggest this? Isn't it reasonable to assume that if something is knowable, we humans will figure it out sooner or later?

I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?

If we don't doubt that we will create life from scratch, then why would anyone have a reason to doubt that one day (maybe far FAR into the future) we will learn how to create universes? Again, if this knowledge is out there, why wouldn't we come to know and understand it - and use it?

So, if we can logically assume that mankind's knowledge knows no boundaries, if mastering the science of creating universes is not beyond our comprehension, then why would it be impossible to believe that some intelligent entity already has this knowledge and used it to create OUR universe?

Now, I'm not saying that this did occur. I'm not saying that there is an intelligent designer. All I'm suggesting is that atheists need to concede that it's not impossible. They (and I) can say it's highly improbable. They can say the odds are totally against there being an intelligent designer. But they can't say it's impossible.

Opinions welcome.




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I don't see why people try to say Atheism or scientific knowledge somehow negates the possibility of there being a creator or architect to the universe and us. However, it does break down religion and the belief in these things as ludicrous. Which is a just description.

Without knowing exactly what a god is, there is no reason to say you know. Especially when basing it off the words of people long dead in the past that had their own motives and agendas least of which was to enlighten Man to any degree...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


As a Christian, my own view is that if my faith is correct I have nothing to fear from advancement and science. If I am correct my beliefs will one day be proved one way or another.

The Christian bible says it self that with the Apple we would have the knowledge to become like god, if we create life either through Biology or A.I. that is inline with that.

We could even create an entire advanced simulated universe one day, complete with A.I.'s that act out their life from day to day...
edit on 15-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't dispute that there very well could have been some intelligent culture that seeded this planet on purpose, or even if that same, or a different group came along later after life development was underway to tinker with things in making adjustments.
I won't even dispute the strange potential that there could be stock in the Chicxulub extinction event being an engineered, targeted and planned event to wipe out the failed dinosaur experiment to make way for the rise of mammals plus revisions and adjustments along the way through selective plagues, disasters and other potentially engineered natural events.

The human species could very well be a tailor made engineered species.
So what?

Where's mommy and/or daddy?

They don't deserve my or anyone else's subservient worship and praise, especially if given time, we as a species will eventually reach a level of maturity where we can and will do the same and more.

If we can/will eventually reach the potential, then, regardless of whether we were engineered or not, we are essentially equal.
Being superstitious and worshiping something just because it maybe possibly perhaps could have contributed to your creation is like giving Sainthood status to every nob at the bar with an erection for a one-night-stand.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
As an atheist, my problem is not with the possibility of intelligent design. I already concede this is a definite possibility. My problem is assigning divinity or godhood to a being just because it is more advanced than us. Just because that being or entity can do things that blow the laws of physics out of the water as we know them, does not make said entity a god.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Atheists (myself included) have insisted that the religious need to come up with even the slightest sliver of evidence that could prove the possibility of a creator.

There are several angles a debate could be approached. First off, a person doesn't have to be religious to believe there is a God, and I'd argue that God and religion are two separate matters. The debate could even be reframed as spirituality vs. atheism.
It also depends on who's making the argument - the burden of proof should always rest with the person arguing whatever case, whether it's an atheistic or religious one. To date, neither side has proved beyond doubt the existence/non-existence of God.


I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?

Yes. Nobody's managed it yet, to my knowledge. I speculate it's near impossible, if 'life' is an emergent property of a highly complex system. Evidence from the Blue Brain Project back in 2007 suggests this is the case.


Now, I'm not saying that this did occur. I'm not saying that there is an intelligent designer. All I'm suggesting is that atheists need to concede that it's not impossible. They (and I) can say it's highly improbable. They can say the odds are totally against there being an intelligent designer. But they can't say it's impossible.

If the atheists are now referring to 'God' as an 'intelligent designer', they're losing the argument. Creationists are the ones who renamed 'creationism theory' to 'intelligent design theory' in order to keep the concept in America's school curriculum. They've reframed the debate, in a way.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?

Yes, I do have reason to doubt this.

The complex chemical compounds found in living things could not be made in the presence of oxygen. There is NO place in the world where they could be made, except within living cells. Each cell organizes which parts will not have oxygen, so the compounds can be made there. Aside from this, there are plenty of other points that should be made to counter the whole "religion of evolution" belief system -

1. There is no evidence Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere.
2. There is no explanation of how oxygen could have even been kept out of our atmosphere for long periods, then suddenly placed inside of it.
3. Geologists have found oxidized rocks (containing rusted iron) that were supposed to have existed when life was still forming and the atmosphere was supposed to have no oxygen.
4. It is known that there were oceans and seas back then. This is the possible explanation, or the "medium" in which life must have been made - the "primordial soup" - except water also requires an oxygen atmosphere and itself is 1/3 oxygen.
5. As soon as living creatures would have arrived, it would have had to have oxygen in order to survive - yes, you cannot have oxygen to create life, but life requires oxygen to lie.
6. An atmosphere without oxygen would not have the protective ozone layer required to sustain life, by protecting it from UV rays.
7. An atmosphere with oxygen would have deadly peroxides, which would kill life forms.
8. An instant atmospheric change (mentioned in point 2, of which we have no explanation for), example non-oxygen to oxygen, would be required the MOMENT even one living creature was formed. For each life form. Lol!

And we have also never been able to create life - some people will mention the Miller Experiment. He succeeded only in creating a few random amino acids in a red gel that was mostly toxic, and didn't even have the fully required amount of amino acids that we have today.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
I don't see why people try to say Atheism or scientific knowledge somehow negates the possibility of there being a creator or architect to the universe and us.


I don't think atheism and the field of science is about this at all. What they've been saying all along is, show us some logical reason that suggests the possibility of a god.

To say that man will never understand how the universe and life was created, is to say that we will one day have to admit that we've learned everything there possibly is to know and we can go no further. Though this may sound logical to some, imagine going back just a hundred years and suggest to the people that we will one day take a gene from a spider and insert it into the DNA of a goat so that we can extract silk from goat milk. We'd be thrown in the loony bin! So, for me to suggest that we will one day be the creators of universes and life shouldn't be all that hard to swallow.

And, if we simple humans will be able to do this, then there is no logical reason to totally trash the possibility of an intelligent designer somewhere else.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I suggest you revisit your geological history.
Earth formation and atmosphere

Cyanobacteria is the word you might need to pay careful attention to.

During the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago, these early bacteria – known as cyanobacteria – used energy from the Sun for photosynthesis, and release oxygen as a byproduct. They also sequestered carbon dioxide in organic molecules.


Before Cyanobacteria, any oxygen was locked up. No free oxygen in the sense you understand it.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I guess you've never heard of anaerobic bacteria?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by XeroOne
 

I see what you are saying, but I like the term "intelligent design". Just because they coined it, doesn't mean they have a copyright on it. And it still doesn't make an intelligent designer(s) worthy of worship. It just makes it/them a lot smarter than we are at present.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I suggest you revisit your geological history.
Earth formation and atmosphere

Cyanobacteria is the word you might need to pay careful attention to.

During the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago, these early bacteria – known as cyanobacteria – used energy from the Sun for photosynthesis, and release oxygen as a byproduct. They also sequestered carbon dioxide in organic molecules.


Before Cyanobacteria, any oxygen was locked up. No free oxygen in the sense you understand it.


Wow, I just watched this. I couldn't believe how this world would have been so different if molds didn't figure out a way to eat trees and release the oxygen!



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


everything that is, is from God.

there can never be a conflict other than the ones we create with God.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


God can never be disproven. If he predates all of his creation/the universe, Then he is not bound by the laws of nature and therefore cannot be tested for using the scientific method. I believe in God but understand why many do not. Never the less, anybody who says that they can prove God does not exist is not relying on any kind of science, that would just be a statement of faith.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by jiggerj
I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?

Yes, I do have reason to doubt this.



Then you are saying that one day mankind will reach a point where we can learn no more. Just my opinion, but I don't see this happening. If something is knowable, and if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, we will know it and become like gods.

Thinking further on this, if you believe in magic, if you believe a god created this universe by waving a magic wand while uttering Abracadabra, then this discussion can go no further. But, if you believe that a god used perfectly sound logic and science to create this universe, then that process is knowable. And, if it is knowable, then we will figure it out.
edit on 7/15/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


May as well call it 'creationism', though. I strongly suspect a God of some sort is behind the Universe. It's just that no religion has a handle on it yet, and it's something way beyond the comprehension of someone with a strictly theological background.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by garythegrey
reply to post by jiggerj
 


God can never be disproven. If he predates all of his creation/the universe, Then he is not bound by the laws of nature and therefore cannot be tested for using the scientific method. I believe in God but understand why many do not. Never the less, anybody who says that they can prove God does not exist is not relying on any kind of science, that would just be a statement of faith.


For this thread you kind of have it backwards, Gary. The idea here is to prove (beyond blind faith) that an intelligent designer is at least in the realm of possible. Not to disprove.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I can not say if there is a god or not but it doesn't matter to me either way. The world is amazing and I feel lucky to have been a part of it. It would be nice to have someone to thank. Either life on this planet is the greatest collection of happy circumstance or..... but either way it's something to celebrate and be thankful for. Either death will be another adventure or my body will give what it was back to the earth. Even that is noble and good nothing wrong with that. I am willing to entertain the idea and keep and open mind and heart.

If there is no creator the coincidences that allowed life to form on this planet are staggering but sometimes beautiful amazing things happen for no good reason at all.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by benrl
 


everything that is, is from God.



What do you base this on? Did you work this out, or do you just believe it because somebody told you this? If you came to this conclusion by critical thinking, what examples can you give to support your claim?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You just blew my mind. I have my own reasons for believing in creation but using our inevitable creation of another life wasn't one I thought of.

It makes total sense. If we will someday create life then that opens the probability of there being a creator to humanity. I can't believe this never crossed my mind.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join