Good evidence for Atheism and Theism.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

It is the fact that the chemical reactions produce information that carries meaning. This argument is hard for you to grasp because it means you might have to admit you could be wrong. I have no problem admitting that I could be wrong. THat is why you see me using the word probable instead of speaking in absolutes as do many of us.

Just one more before I am out of this redundant and pointless thread.

You may be using the words "probable" and improbable" every now and then, but it comes across pretty clear which side of the fence you are on and are therefore biased in your own way as far as "probable/improbable" goes.

I am agnostic, meaning basically "I don't know". To me there is no evidence that amounts to proof either way on the subject of "god"... and that doesn't bother me at all. I don't spend my time looking for something to make me believe specifically in a "god" (pick your favorite) or not.

I study and research a wide variety of subjects and look for evidence and proof in them, but coming out on the top in a "god" or no "god" debate will never happen for anyone, so not to sound as an over-all complacent person (just on this never ending debate) I say "why even bother".

That's my take and opinion on this "god"/no"god" (pick your favorite) issue.

But in this thread you asked specific things and said very specific things and I asked you questions. Is the argument "hard for me to grasp"?
No.
Do I see it as a thread that is just like thousands before it?
Yes.
Do I see it as pointless?
Yes.

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb
So are you saying that just because the planets are the same size they should support life?

Yes...that is obviously exactly what I am saying.
lol

(that's sarcasm btw). The suggestion is, the more favorable conditions are for life, the more likely it is we will find it. We are barely opening our eyes in space at this point though, so will need to advance our detection abilities for detecting the evidence of life, but with our latest tools, we have found not a few, or dozens, but in a very short time, hundreds upon hundreds of potentials.

Well I'd say until we verify one planet actually has life on it, I'd say the probability as of current information agrees with the theistic side of the argument.

ServantOfTheLamb

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb
So are you saying that just because the planets are the same size they should support life?

Yes...that is obviously exactly what I am saying.
lol

(that's sarcasm btw). The suggestion is, the more favorable conditions are for life, the more likely it is we will find it. We are barely opening our eyes in space at this point though, so will need to advance our detection abilities for detecting the evidence of life, but with our latest tools, we have found not a few, or dozens, but in a very short time, hundreds upon hundreds of potentials.

Well I'd say until we verify one planet actually has life on it, I'd say the probability as of current information agrees with the theistic side of the argument.

Which would make a bigger difference if your opinion amounted to anything at all. In the big scheme of things, none of our opinions really matter. In a thousand years, no one will remember us. But at this point in time, the jury is still out. And no, your opinion is not the end of it, so don't act like it is. Neither is mine, and I'm happy with that. I just wish people didn't need a god in order to feel safe about not being an asshole - or safe at ally, for that matter. We are what we are because of what we've done, and we we'll be what we will be because of what we will do. No higher power need be involved because none can stop us, or they would have long ago.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

It is the fact that the chemical reactions produce information that carries meaning. This argument is hard for you to grasp because it means you might have to admit you could be wrong. I have no problem admitting that I could be wrong. THat is why you see me using the word probable instead of speaking in absolutes as do many of us.

Just one more before I am out of this redundant and pointless thread.

You may be using the words "probable" and improbable" every now and then, but it comes across pretty clear which side of the fence you are on and are therefore biased in your own way as far as "probable/improbable" goes.

I am agnostic, meaning basically "I don't know". To me there is no evidence that amounts to proof either way on the subject of "god"... and that doesn't bother me at all. I don't spend my time looking for something to make me believe specifically in a "god" (pick your favorite) or not.

I study and research a wide variety of subjects and look for evidence and proof in them, but coming out on the top in a "god" or no "god" debate will never happen for anyone, so not to sound as an over-all complacent person (just on this never ending debate) I say "why even bother".

That's my take and opinion on this "god"/no"god" (pick your favorite) issue.

But in this thread you asked specific things and said very specific things and I asked you questions. Is the argument "hard for me to grasp"?
No.
Do I see it as a thread that is just like thousands before it?
Yes.
Do I see it as pointless?
Yes.

edit on 4/12/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Well then can you explain to me how a semiotic dimension arise through physical and chemical means without first inferring a top-down causation? My point is Science always looks for an explanation from the simple to complex, EXCEPT when there is a semiotic dimension involved. Semiotics imply a top-down causation. For example, The book the "God Delusion" by Richard Dawkings contains tons of information within it, however it would be impossible to account for that information scientifically without the input of intelligence from Richard Dawkins. So my point still stands. You can choose to believe that the semiotic dimension is just simply present, or you can go with what we know of the world and infer a top-down causation. It is more probable based on observation that the semiotics within DNA are the product of a mind.

Here is the thing. If an atheist tells me they dont have faith, that means they know something to be absolutely true. If they tell me they take on faith that God is not real then the argument ends.

Look at that quote of mine that you just used.

I said this thread is pointless and just like thousands before it.

I also said I am out.

I also said I am agnostic -- not atheist.

Go try to evangelize in your passive -aggressive way to someone else.

AfterInfinity

ServantOfTheLamb

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb
So are you saying that just because the planets are the same size they should support life?

Yes...that is obviously exactly what I am saying.
lol

(that's sarcasm btw). The suggestion is, the more favorable conditions are for life, the more likely it is we will find it. We are barely opening our eyes in space at this point though, so will need to advance our detection abilities for detecting the evidence of life, but with our latest tools, we have found not a few, or dozens, but in a very short time, hundreds upon hundreds of potentials.

Well I'd say until we verify one planet actually has life on it, I'd say the probability as of current information agrees with the theistic side of the argument.

Which would make a bigger difference if your opinion amounted to anything at all. In the big scheme of things, none of our opinions really matter. In a thousand years, no one will remember us. But at this point in time, the jury is still out. And no, your opinion is not the end of it, so don't act like it is. Neither is mine, and I'm happy with that. I just wish people didn't need a god in order to feel safe about not being an asshole - or safe at ally, for that matter. We are what we are because of what we've done, and we we'll be what we will be because of what we will do. No higher power need be involved because none can stop us, or they would have long ago.

edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You just answered the Problem of Evil on your own friend. "We are what we are because of what we've done, and we will be what we will be because of what we will do." God created free will which gave way to the potential for Evil. He created that and lets you choose what you choose because He wants to know you. According to what you just said, if he had created the universe in any other way He couldn't have known you nor I.

reply to post by SaturnFX


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I definitely posted a source mentioning the statistical improbability of Abiogenesis. At no point in time did I say I don't understand the theory. I said it has lots of problems with it. However, I believe it completely possible that our bodies arose from nonliving material according to the Bible we are made from dust. Our souls, or the observer, or the perciever whatever you want to call the essence that is you, was not made from the Earth it was breathed into us by God. I agrue against Abiogenesis not because I believe it disproves God, but rather because I simply think it is incorrect.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Actually as an atheist. That's a false comparison.

If Jesus shows up on the White House lawn, walking on water and making wine, every atheist will convert. That's the difference between faith and reason. Christians don't convert as the Big Bang is confirmed.

It's not at all the same thing.

ArtemisE
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Actually as an atheist. That's a false comparison.

If Jesus shows up on the White House lawn, walking on water and making wine, every atheist will convert. That's the difference between faith and reason. Christians don't convert as the Big Bang is confirmed.

It's not at all the same thing.

The Big Bang does nothing but validate the Bibles claim that the universe had a beginning, so why would we convert when something backs up a Biblical claim in a huge way? Have you never heard the saying

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


That was a from Robert Jastrow, an astronomer, physicist and cosmologist.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Only if you consider experiencing mundane occurrences and a mental process as proof of god. Religious have been searching for proof of god for thousands of years. Meticulously documenting every anchient account they could find. What have they come up with???? Bupkis!

While science has changed the world! You don't need faith in your microwave to make it work... You need electricity!

ServantOfTheLamb

ArtemisE
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Actually as an atheist. That's a false comparison.

If Jesus shows up on the White House lawn, walking on water and making wine, every atheist will convert. That's the difference between faith and reason. Christians don't convert as the Big Bang is confirmed.

It's not at all the same thing.

The Big Bang does nothing but validate the Bibles claim that the universe had a beginning, so why would we convert when something backs up a Biblical claim in a huge way? Have you never heard the saying

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


That was a from Robert Jastrow, an astronomer, physicist and cosmologist.

Actually, the big bang does nothing of the sort.
Big bang is a explosion of matter which formed into the stars and planets. Earth formed well after our star

Genesis states this:
1) God makes light and dark, light is day, dark is night. (Not the sun, just..you know..light without source)

2)God separated water and made it the sky (where the sun lives)

3) God creates earth, dry ground is the land, wet ground is the sea. then makes plants and trees n stuff

4) God creates the sun, moon, and the stars (rest of the universe in a day..aka, on day 4 is the big bang..after the earth has trees n stuff)

5) God creates the animals

6) Man comes

7) Union calls for a break

As you can see, the big bang couldn't be further from the biblical creation story.


3)

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Dude the biblical account says 7 days. A day should be the same to us as to god. One turn on the earths axis. If it said god made the world in x amount of hours, that's subjective. An hour to god could be a billion years to us. But a day should be a day. One turn on the earths axis.


Also in the bibles account stars came day 4. After plants and oceans. Impossible!

Now I'll give you let there be light... Could be the Big Bang but nothing else fits. Hell dogs are a newer creation then man!

AfterInfinity

ServantOfTheLamb

Sremmos80
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Why would an agnostic want to play the "prove there is no god" game...?

Why would any one want to play that game? No one ever wins

Why didn't anyone pay attention to me when I stated in the OP that I am not asking for proof. Just evidence. For example, If Santa Clause was real we would see Him at the North Pole. Santa is not there. Nothing at the North Pole implies Santa is there. Therefore it is not probable(not impossible) that a Fat Man in a Red Suit with magical elves and reindeer doesn't live at the north pole. Also since I moved out of my parents house he quit visiting.

Now you should be able to give a similar deduction as to why God is not probable.

edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

I find it difficult to believe that you can so easily execute that kind of deduction and still find yourself at a loss regarding our skepticism. It's not a big leap from one to the other.

I attempted to disprove God in the same way I did Santa. The universe had a beginning according to the Bible, therefore if the universe had a beginning then it is accurate to the Bible. The universe had a beginning God is possible(not yet probable). That beginning came from literally nothing, and out of that nothing came into being a precisely fine tuned universe (Intelligence behind beginning becomes more probable). Life that arose from the chaos has a semiotic dimension(Intelligence behind the beginning becomes more probable). The Creator if one existed is outside the system because He started the big bang this proves that My God would be a higher dimensional being, and as such His Word should demonstrate such an ability. Not only does it do that here at the site I have already posted www.biblebelievers.org.au... . Yet He also does this through prophecy. The probability of one Man fulfilling just 8 of the Messianic prophecies is an absurdity yet Jesus fulfilled them all. The more specific a prophecy the harder it is to get accurate the ones about the Messiah were pretty detailed seeing as their were 300 or more . That demonstrates the ability to work outside of time, as do many of the prophecies in the Bible. For example, the destruction of Tyre by Alexander the Great(and Yes I know a city called Tyre exist today but the ruins of ancient tyre stand there untouched, and people literally fish off of them occasionally). The Bible also has prophecies that are future to us, that I can see playing out in world events. Such as a one world government. A one world currency. The goal to achieve something that is implanted or tattooed on to humans and used as a form of currency(the mark of the beast). I could go on and ong but my deduction of God and Santa were no different. I just came to a different conclusion when I compared Science and the world around me to the Biblical Idea of God. I cannot do this with other religions. Hinduism says the world rest on the back of a giant turtle the Greeks say Atlas. This is not True. Therefore the religions are not infallible, and therefore not of a being outside the system and therefore must not be true. Egyptian lore says that Ra rose out of water, if I am not mistaken and if I am someone please correct me, that would be matter and matter had a beginning so that cannot be the creator. I continue to hold my own religion to the same scrutiny, but every time we learn more about this world it seems to verify the existence of this creator.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

That statement is completely subjective. Christians would say they experience God Daily as would people of ancient times. Religion has always been a part of people. So based on your own argument I'd say [you're] just misinformed.

Every statement is subjective.

If by "experience God" you simply mean Christians pray, or go to church, or adhere to certain doctrines I would agree—and yes, religion has always been a part of people and always will be—but "experiencing God" amounts to no more than having a certain feeling or idea and naming it "God".

ServantOfTheLamb

You just answered the Problem of Evil on your own friend. "We are what we are because of what we've done, and we will be what we will be because of what we will do." God created free will which gave way to the potential for Evil. He created that and lets you choose what you choose because He wants to know you. According to what you just said, if he had created the universe in any other way He couldn't have known you nor I.

Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? Why would he need to "know" us if he already knows us?

I've always thought it didn't make sense for an omnipotent god to create us as fallible humans, make a bunch of rules, then throw a bunch of temptations in the mix to make it especially hard for us to follow said rules (nasty trick, that) -- then this god gets all mad when we fallible humans fail, and he punishes us? WTF! It would be sooooo much easier and less stressful on everyone involved (including God), if he would have just created us perfect and without free will. Nobody fails, nobody gets punished - we're happy to be perfect, God's happy that we're perfect - and it's all good. The way it is now, either there is no god, or god is a mean jerk.

Technically, I think we are all agnostics - because no one knows for sure...

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb

ArtemisE
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Actually as an atheist. That's a false comparison.

If Jesus shows up on the White House lawn, walking on water and making wine, every atheist will convert. That's the difference between faith and reason. Christians don't convert as the Big Bang is confirmed.

It's not at all the same thing.

The Big Bang does nothing but validate the Bibles claim that the universe had a beginning, so why would we convert when something backs up a Biblical claim in a huge way? Have you never heard the saying

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


That was a from Robert Jastrow, an astronomer, physicist and cosmologist.

Actually, the big bang does nothing of the sort.
Big bang is a explosion of matter which formed into the stars and planets. Earth formed well after our star

Genesis states this:
1) God makes light and dark, light is day, dark is night. (Not the sun, just..you know..light without source)

2)God separated water and made it the sky (where the sun lives)

3) God creates earth, dry ground is the land, wet ground is the sea. then makes plants and trees n stuff

4) God creates the sun, moon, and the stars (rest of the universe in a day..aka, on day 4 is the big bang..after the earth has trees n stuff)

5) God creates the animals

6) Man comes

7) Union calls for a break

As you can see, the big bang couldn't be further from the biblical creation story.


3)

The best evidence that implies the Christian God is not real given yet. I'll devote a thread to it.

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

That statement is completely subjective. Christians would say they experience God Daily as would people of ancient times. Religion has always been a part of people. So based on your own argument I'd say [you're] just misinformed.

Every statement is subjective.

If by "experience God" you simply mean Christians pray, or go to church, or adhere to certain doctrines I would agree—and yes, religion has always been a part of people and always will be—but "experiencing God" amounts to no more than having a certain feeling or idea and naming it "God".

Thats not it at all friend, by experiencing God I mean having your eyes opened to who and what He is and who and what you are.