It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by XeroOne
 



May as well call it 'creationism', though. I strongly suspect a God of some sort is behind the Universe.

God, divinity, deity, all denote a being worthy of, or demanding worship. Therein lies my problem, and why I won't call it/them god(s).



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.

And I don't think they ever will, because their approach to the concept of a creator(s) is bass ackwards.




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
So once we create the first lifeforms from non living matter, we as a species will be considered gods? The next question is, who is the one that wants to take the credit for it? If the scientist who made the creation was killed and replaced by someone who wants to steal his work, how would we know the difference?
edit on 15-7-2012 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
To me, the existence of demigods or godlike beings with vast intelligence is not far-fetched. What is far-fetched is the notion of religion and following ages old writings because we were raised up to believe in it. When you use your brain for a second and think for yourself, you quickly realize that religions are stupid. But I speculate that somewhere out there, exists gods, or what we would consider in our primitive minds to be gods. One, or some, such creatures could have possibly engineered us here on Earth eons ago.

Jehovah/Yahweh, however, is out of the question. If he does exist, I would still refuse to worship and follow a self-centered murderer like him.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
God, divinity, deity, all denote a being worthy of, or demanding worship. Therein lies my problem, and why I won't call it/them god(s).


Not necessarily. It's only religion that demands they be worshiped. But it's different if the gods are simply names that were given to the forces in our universe, which I reckon was the case in the early days.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte


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.


 


So there is no water on the Moon or on Mars or any other planet without oxygen.

Check.

edit on 15-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:08 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.

Cyanobacteria are most commonly found lakes, rivers, and oceans. In water, in other words - and as addressed above, water is 1/3 oxygen. You know, H2O. Some of them even form harmful algal blooms on coral and reefs and then these toxins affect the surrounding environment. If you are suggesting we evolved from Cyanobacteria, or it "helped" evolution, I wonder how it survived the toxic environment.

Also, weren't the first organisms, or bacteria, supposed to be simple? Photosynthesis is not simple, it's very complex. Anything on the molecular level is complex. There's no cells made simply of jelly.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
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?


Those are very good questions. I always wonder if the ancients ever got to that stage. Maybe they got to the point where they couldn't gain anymore and destroyed themselves
... Leaving the next bunch of apes or something to work there way back up.. I still cannot believe that the huan race has been here so long yet we a have only achieved mega feats over the last 200-300 years with the last 30 years accelerating the way it has when it comes to technology.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'm an atheist. I can't say for certain that God does not exist, but I can say for certain that God cannot exist the way He is described in the Bible, or any other religious book of which I'm aware.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, He would have no reason to be jealous of anything. He would have no need to test Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his child. He wouldn't have to make petty little wagers with the Devil about Job's loyalty.

Now consider this. Religions tell us that our actions on Earth determine whether we spend eternity in Heaven or Hell. Let that sink in for a minute. Consider how long eternity is, compared to your lifespan. It's like determining whether to reward or punish your child for the rest of their lives, based on their actions in the first minute they are born. That doesn't make sense to me.

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, God that created this universe, I can see three possibile implications for me.

1. God has a benevolent attitude towards me. That would be cool. He would understand that I can't worship something I can't understand, and He'll look out for me just the same.

2. God is ambilent towards me. Perfectly understandable. I'm a very, very small bit in a very, very large universe. Again, he understands why I don't worship him and probably doesn't care.

3. God is malevolent towards me. That would suck, but there's nothing I can do about it. Wouldn't matter if I worshipped Him or not.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't worship a God that needed me to worship Him.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte


Cyanobacteria are most commonly found lakes, rivers, and oceans. In water, in other words - and as addressed above, water is 1/3 oxygen. You know, H2O.

 


What does the liquid state of a molecule have to do with the gaseous state of an element? You can have one with or without the other. (Although one needs the other to form in the first place) I'm confused.




If you are suggesting we evolved from Cyanobacteria, or it "helped" evolution, I wonder how it survived the toxic environment.


What?




There's no cells made simply of jelly.



Single celled organism - Looks like Jello


Valonia ventricosa, also known as "bubble algae" and "sailors’ eyeballs",[2] is a species of algae found in oceans throughout the world in tropical and subtropical regions. It is one of the largest single-cell organisms.[2][3]

edit on 15-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I guess you've never heard of anaerobic bacteria?

Indeed I have. Have you heard of fermentation?
Assuming organisms that evolved from anaerobic bacteria (that is your suggestion, correct?) somehow managed to turn from an Anaerobic respiration to an Aerobic respiration because it somehow "knows" that there is an oxygen-lacking environment, and then something happened to make it an oxygen-environment (so that the cells would evolve, creating the next generation of bacteria that survived in an oxygen environment) would not only require more faith than you have than I do in my God, but it would also be a miracle. Somehow, that shouts out contradiction.


Originally posted by jiggerj
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.

We became "like god" when Adam ate of the fruit, we gained the ability to learn the difference between good and evil. That's my opinion, though. Don't get me wrong though, I believe we have the ability to learn all the secrets of our universe.


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.

Well, it just so happens I don't believe that. I believe he spoke it into existence, but I also believe the universe is bound by a set of logical and consistent rules, which requires a logical and consistent Creator.


Originally posted by boncho
So there is no water on the Moon or on Mars or any other planet without oxygen.

Check.

The clouds on mars do not contain carbon dioxide or ammonia, like Jupiter or Venus does, but contains water vapor, suggesting a thin (note, very thin), oxygen atmosphere.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
So once we create the first lifeforms from non living matter, we as a species will be considered gods?


Depends on what your definition of god is. My definition would not be so grand as to imply perfection, but rather having the knowledge to create life and universes. Your definition may be different.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
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.


Thanks, but I can't take the credit for it. The member that calls himself Imafungi made mention of it in another thread, and I just tried to make the premise clearer. It blew my mind too!



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte


Assuming organisms that evolved from anaerobic bacteria (that is your suggestion, correct?) somehow managed to turn from an Anaerobic respiration to an Aerobic respiration because it somehow "knows" that there is an oxygen-lacking environment, and then something happened to make it an oxygen-environment (so that the cells would evolve, creating the next generation of bacteria that survived in an oxygen environment) would not only require more faith than you have than I do in my God, but it would also be a miracle. Somehow, that shouts out contradiction.

 


Himalayans have a higher blood oxygen level because of where they are and how thin the atmosphere is. What you are saying is unthinkable, is pretty well documented today in variations of our own species:


Once non-genetic factors such as age, illness, or smoking were removed, a subset of the group seemed to have a blood-oxygen concentration that was 10% higher than normal. This trait was inherited in a way that suggested the difference was due to a single gene.

The researchers also found that the children of women with this putative gene are much more likely to survive to the age of 15, when they are old enough to have children of their own. In the low-oxygen group, each woman had on average 2.5 children that died during childhood. In the high-oxygen group, that average was just 0.4.
*




The clouds on mars do not contain carbon dioxide or ammonia, like Jupiter or Venus does, but contains water vapor, suggesting a thin (note, very thin), oxygen atmosphere.


I don't know why you bother going into science as you have a warped and completely thin understanding of things unless you can try and manipulate it somehow to support your religious position.

Your argument is


except water also requires an oxygen atmosphere and itself is 1/3 oxygen.


But that just doesn't make sense.

Water doesn't necessarily have to be made on the planet.


Seven hundred and fifty light-years from Earth, a young, sunlike star has been found with jets that blast epic quantities of water into interstellar space, shooting out droplets that move faster than a speeding bullet.

The discovery suggests that protostars may be seeding the universe with water.






news.nationalgeographic.com...

I only post this because you make blanket statements like "water needs an oxygen atmosphere"

While trying to say that there would be no water without oxygen to support your position in creation. But then you state mars has a "oxygen atmosphere" because of water vapour in trace amounts. But we both know you cannot live in mars.

Your argument just seems to run in circles without making much sense at all..



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I was actually pointing to the fact life doesn't always need oxygen to exist. Nothing to do with us evolving from anaerobic bacteria.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post 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?


It depends on whether or not you consider scripture to be a valid reason.

Ecclesiastes 8:16-17

16 When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes


17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

I think God will allow us to reach a tipping point (which I think we already reached with the recent genetically modified babies) and then he's going to cut us off before we corrupt it altogether.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 




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


Doesn't the book of Enoch tell us that God is going to destroy the fallen angels for having taught mankind "secrets and magic" because we weren't supposed to have it? Knowing that we would use it more for the work of evil than good?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

So, if we can logically assume that mankind's knowledge knows no boundaries, ...


Logically, as in Godel's Theorrem, we will never know for sure (= have a proof) whether or not number theory is complete, whether every true fact about the natural numbers can be proven to be true within number theory.

The alternative is that we can prove an untrue fact-claim about the natural numbers. In which case, we don't know anything about the natural numbers, because we cannot know which proofs are unsound.

Either way, then, there is something about 1, 2, 3, ... and so on that we won't ever know, and we won't know what it is that we will never know. Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg for boundaries on human knowledge. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose I will ever know the starting order of any deck of cards I have imperfectly shuffled as few as 100 times. Or whether Julius Caesar really did cross the Rubicon, or stage manage his own assassination to position Otavian to succeed him.

To say nothing of the really important questions, like whether Keira Knightley is more beautiful than Angelina Jolie, where there isn't even a ground fact to know or not know.


All I'm suggesting is that atheists need to concede that it's not impossible.


Of course it's not impossible. Otherwise there would be no agnostics. But a person may disbelieve a possibility (that I had green eggs and ham for breakfast) because they think it is unlikely. Just the "tone" of the example invites suspicion that I am making it up, based on a literary source. That's more than enough reason to think it is untrue. That it is possible just means that you didn't come to your disbelief by that route, and cannot complain if somebody else comes to a different belief than you do.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:39 AM
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?


It depends on your definition of "life". If you mean intelligent, conscious beings, from scratch (as opposed to just monkeying around with existing cells,) no, I don't think that's likely to happen.


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?


Because you're making some rather illogical assumptions there. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean that it can be learned. The answer to the question of "how to create a universe" lies before the universe was created, so determining the means of its creation is almost certainly impossible. All of the speculation that I've seen requires some action that defies the laws of thermodynamics, which is illogical and most people just kind of leave it at "here's the Big Bang, and we don't know how all that energy for it came to be." (I find Lawrence Krauss' speculations to be bizarre at best, semantic chicanery at worst, but at least he admits it's speculation.)

The other faulty assumption that you're making is that just because something is understood, it doesn't mean that it can be implemented. Where are you going to find the energy to construct a universe? Where are you going to put it? What, for that matter (har har,) is your definition of a universe? If you create a universe in a shoe box, aren't you making this universe a supernatural one for the other, and thus, unprovable by its science?

I think that you're unreasonable in your assumption that science can, and will, provide answers to everything, because there are practical limitations to what can be sorted out. On that basis, I don't think that it's rational argument to claim that God could exist, simply because some day, we will have conditions where we can duplicate what might have been done by him to create our reality.

But I do appreciate your "under the radar" point that an atheist can accept a god, provided that the god in question is himself



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Klassified
 




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


Doesn't the book of Enoch tell us that God is going to destroy the fallen angels for having taught mankind "secrets and magic" because we weren't supposed to have it? Knowing that we would use it more for the work of evil than good?


I believe so. In the book of Jasher, it talks about some of those secrets.

Jasher 4:18

...and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified

I believe so. In the book of Jasher, it talks about some of those secrets.

Jasher 4:18

...and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.


Oops! After reading more from Jasher 4, it appears as though this was the breaking point in which God decided to wipe everything clean with the great flood.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join