My letter to an Atheist

[Cris]

alan,

Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator?

Atheists do not use faith.

How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?

All we know so far is that nothing is ever created or destroyed. What we observe is that energy/matter are interchangeable. We have no reason to believe that the total of everything that exists has not always existed, but in an ever changing form.

This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter

Sounds like a religious type thought. What would any of that have to do with atheists?

and finally life out of inanimate energy.

Odd terminology, but if you want to suggest that complexity is not the result of past simpler things then you should give an example of something that is not the result of an evolutionary process.

but I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?

Why must there be a reason or purpose?

Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?

This website will help with your education http://www.talkorigins.org/

The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.

I continue to be amazed at how this classic logical fallacy continues to be pushed. Your reasoning is like baking a cake and expressing amazement at how perfectly the cake is the identical shape to the cake tin in which it was cooked. Of course the conditions are perfect for life, if they were different then either we wouldn't exist, or we would be appropriately different. It is idiotic to think that we came first and then the universe was designed to fit us, as well as totally arrogant.

I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like

Where did this god thing come from? Was it created out of nothing? How could something incredibly complex as a god that can create universes come about by chance. Clearly something so complex would need a designer. So who designed gods?

Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence.

Atheism = absence of theist belief, theism = belief in pure fantasy without a schred of credible evidence.

Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about.

Take some science classes and then you will begin to understand how pretty much nothing ever occurs by chance. The universe has a wonderful set of laws and everything interracts and reacts according to these laws. No magic is involved or needed to cause what you observe.

To me there is a wonderful creative behind all this glory if only we would look at it.

A good definition of a mystic - one who is too lazy to study science.

Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause.

Total nonsense. Name one thing that was created as a opposed to transformed from something else or evolved from something simpler? You can't, we have no examples of anything being created from nothing. And we have no reason to believe that the universe had an original cause either. Big crunches, cyclic universes, or multi-verses all present more credible speculations than the fantasy that a super being created it from nothing.

I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless creation is bleak and cold

There is no reason to believe that the universe, life, and everything must be warm and fuzzy. More often than not life is harsh and unjust. We can improve on that by working totgether to improve our lives and our environent. Humam progress has moved us out of the caves to the current state of longevity and luxury far beyond what any of our ancestors could have imagined. It would be wise to help continue that progress rather than pray to a fantasy for help - one that has never in the history of man done anything. Apart from send floods, plagues, wholesale killings, etc.

What do you people believe, No god or God

There is no creator god - the concept is absurd.

 

[Emil]

You don't see the contradiction here?

Maybe my English is not good.
An axiom is not a deductive logic.
Not a theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

 

[glaucon]

Maybe my English is not good.
An axiom is not a deductive logic.
Not a theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

"Faith" and "axiom" are incompatible, logically.

An axiom serves as the basis for a deduction, and as such, always operates in a logical context. Faith has no place in such a context.

 

[Emil]

An axiom serves as the basis for a deduction, and as such, always operates in a logical context. Faith has no place in such a context.

Yes,that I wanted to say.Not worth to talk logically about religion.
For religious acts as an axiom, but not for me.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

 

[glaucon]

Yes,that I wanted to say.Not worth to talk logically about religion.
For religious acts as an axiom, but not for me.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

Ah.
I see.
Sorry, I misread you.

 

[iceaura]

Then it should be no problem for you to counter his points, and
explain why you have come to your conclusions.

The problem is exactly the waste of time and effort required. It's been done - decades ago. What needs to happen now is ridicule, not respect. These aren't serious arguments, and they haven't been serious arguments since before WWII - much less since the discovery of genetic information and quantum electrodynamics and so forth.

As this latest round shows, the promulgators of that crap will just wait a couple of weeks, and spam us with the whole decrepit mess again. The proper response is derision and dismissal.

 

[James R]

There have already been four or five really good, detailed rebuttals of the OP. But seeing as this spam is all over the web, apparently, let me add my two cents, too. (Probably no need to read this, because I'll only be repeating what others have said above.)

This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy.

Where did you get the idea that the universe came from "nothing"? The simple fact is that nobody knows what happened before a short time after the big bang. Our science isn't up to the job at present. So, you're making assumptions about other people's supposed assumptions.

I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?

No. For example, the basic fact of natural selection negates the concept of "no reason of purpose", as you'd be aware. There are very good reasons.

Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time.

Well, 500,000,000-1 billion years is a long time. Think how much the world has changed just in the last 100 years. Now multiply that time by 10 million.

The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.

There are many suggested explanations for that. Are you aware of any, or do you just assume that there is no explanation?

A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way

Does natural selection work on airplanes dumping concrete? Yes or no? See, one is a random process; the other isn't. Simple really.

When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch

Have you heard of natural selection?

Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning.

How do we know the universe is expanding? Did your God tell us? No, science found out. And yes, the universe had a beginning - the big bang.

As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else

It's a big jump from a feeling of the numinous to the concept of a creator God.

Look out the sparking water that quenches your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. The great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets.

In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.

Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about.

Ever heard of natural selection? Laws of physics? Laws of chemistry? Why your obsession with chance? Nothing you see was created by pure chance.

Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause.

What do you think caused God?

I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless creation is bleak and cold

Have you ever gone outside and stared at the stars and the trees and the birds. I hear that it's hard to find real ugliness unless you look for it.

One moment I hear you extolling the beauty of nature, but then suddenly you're saying that if you remove an invisible entity from your mental picture then suddenly all those beautiful things become bleak and cold.

So, which is it? Are they beautiful in themselves, or only beautiful because you believe in God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

The problem is exactly the waste of time and effort required. It's been done decades ago

No. The problem is the actual subject matter has been side-stepped by focusing on detail which has nothing to do with it.

What needs to happen now is ridicule, not respect.

That is the cowards way out.
Be a pioneer and explain why you disagree with the WHOLE of his
belief.

These aren't serious arguments, and they haven't been serious arguments since before WWII - much less since the discovery of genetic information and quantum electrodynamics and so forth.

Even if his detail wasn't accurate (which details are?), what effect would
that have on his conclusion?

As this latest round shows, the promulgators of that crap will just wait a couple of weeks, and spam us with the whole decrepit mess again. The proper response is derision and dismissal.

This is all terribly interesting, I'm sure.
But we are here, and now, and I am asking you to present your explanation as to why his conclusion is wrong, and if you can, give your own explanation.

Is that so hard?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What do you think caused God?

LOL!!!

Why do you guys insist on this silly line of questioning, when
you already know what the answer will be?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

you just don't get it. i get it. it's just a perception. no need to get all in a tizzy.

I'm not in a 'tizzy' I'm quite dispassionate.

His perception is flawed, and your appreciation of a flawed perception par for the course, I guess, as your are insane.

 

[James R]

James R,

What do you think caused God?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

The argument was that:

1. everything needs a cause
2. the universe is a thing.
3. therefore the universe needs a cause.

Following the same line of argument:

1. everything needs a cause.
2. God is a thing.
3. therefore, God needs a cause.

Now, the first version of this argument was answered above: God apparently is supposed to be the cause of the universe.

So I asked the poster: what was the cause of God?

What's your answer, Jan? Or do you not agree with your fellow theist's line of argument?

 

[phlogistician]

So I asked the poster: what was the cause of God?

What's your answer, Jan? Or do you not agree with your fellow theist's line of argument?

You know, I've been round the houses with Jan on this one before.

I find it frustrating that theists use a 'first cause' argument to justify belief in a creator, and then stop applying their own argument.

If the requirement can vanish, why apply it in the first instance. Makes no sense.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What do you think caused God?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Actually, that question was a quote from your response, but I
didn't put it in quote marks. My bad.

The argument was that:

1. everything needs a cause
2. the universe is a thing.
3. therefore the universe needs a cause.

The correct argument is:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause".
2 the universe came into existence
3 therefore the universe needs a cause.

Following the same line of argument:

1. everything needs a cause.
2. God is a thing.
3. therefore, God needs a cause.

Following the same argument:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause
2 God didn't come into existence
3 therefore God doesn't need a cause.

Now, the first version of this argument was answered above: God apparently is supposed to be the cause of the universe.

So I asked the poster: what was the cause of God?

So you did, but the question is flawed, not to mention absurd, and unanswerable.

What's your answer, Jan? Or do you not agree with your fellow theist's line of argument?

I agree with his argument, but the difference between you and I, is that
I understand his argument, and what is meant by "God".

But apart from all that, you know that God is understood as never coming into being. This is accepted by all serious practitioners of all major religions
and scriptures. So why default this absurd question?
Why not default to the obvious perception?

Is it because you don't want the discussion to progress?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

2 God didn't come into existence.

So there is no God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So there is no God?

If that's your conclusion, no.
Hence you are atheist.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

If that's your conclusion, no.
Hence you are atheist.

jan.

No Jan, I'm asking you how God could exist if your statement that God never came into existence is true.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No Jan, I'm asking you how God could exist if your statement that God never came into existence is true.

I know you are, and I refuse to play your game.

jan.

 

[Alan McDougall]

James R,

What do you think caused God?

LOL!!!

Why do you guys insist on this silly line of questioning, when
you already know what the answer will be?

jan.

God is the only Uncaused Cause the prime mover, the Alpha and Omega points the unmovable rock, the Infinite Eternal Sublime. Indeed god is not a being; God is Existence and you are part of this existence like it or not

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Lol, and that's not claiming a god exist, how!

Erm, to claim that God exists is to say that it is true that God exists, regardles of proof or evidence.
To believe that God exists is to accept that it is true, in light of the point that there is, or more impotantly there cannot be, any definative proof or evidence that all can agree upon.

Semantics, He still holds a firm belief in a god and as such claims in his opinion that a god exists. Thus it's his burden to prove such a thing exists. As such I find his claim unreasonable, without corroborating evidence. It's that simple.

So as an atheist, you lack belief in God, not in claims or beliefs in God.

No! I have no reason to believe the claims of the theist. I do not say god/gods do/es not exist. I do not lack belief in god. I lack belief in your claims of such beings/creatures.

Here's how Alan McDougall summed up his letter... ..I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless creation is bleak and cold
You have placed yourself in a precaruous position (on this thread anyway)

How so!

I myself, have not made any claim to God's existence in this or any other thread.

Are you sure about that?

So what exactly are you talking about?

This is but one instant that you claim a god exists, there are a myriad of other instances, during your nine + years here. but one is all I need to counter you BS above.

I believe God exists, yes.

jan.

Taken from this thread Deities do or do not exist?

We are all born without any knowledge of god/gods (tabula raza) as that is the default position. theism only comes about via indoctrination.

What constitutes knowledge of God?
And how do you know we are born without such knowledge.
Note, you have made a claim, so please back it up.

Don't you think it's fair, that you back up yours first.

Are you a innatist? Do you think babies come fully equipped for the world or do they have to learn a couple of things first? and we are talking about knowledge not instinct. From the on set of our lives, we are taking in information via our senses. This knowledge/experiences is used by every part of our being to discern our world.

It is now up to you to give a better explanation of how this universe came into being, and how and why it so precisely maintained. And it the onus is on you to prove that your explanation is more valid than his.

Is it. I think you'll find that has been done already several times.

How so I make no claims, the onus is all his.

Surprise! Surprise!

He has to prove his position not I. The burden of proof is on him. There is not an equal burden of proof on both sides.

As I said before, he has given an explanation as to why he believes God exists. Now counter it. Explain why his explanation is not valid, and please give an explanation of your own so WE can counter it.

Has he, it has been refuted here and numerous times in the past and he has yet to posit up some evidence to back up his assertion. So no he hasn't he's has only given his own poor supposition.

If all you're good for
is to stand at the back and throw unsupported cliches around, then what's the point of you taking part in this discussion.

To wait for enlightenment from You or Alan.

I simply do not believe his unsubstantiated claim. The only "claim" I make is not believing him.

The only claim he has made is; "i believe in God"?
Are you serioiusly telling us that you don't believe him, and that his claim is unsubtantiated?

Most definitely, he has yet to do that, just giving us his supposition without further corroborating evidence is asinine.

However most Religions have a belief in a god.
To all bar his, he has no belief.

Are they, a link or two would not go amiss.

There's no need for a link, it's neither here nor there.

Ok so there isn't a movement independent of theism. and there isn't any folks calling for a different description of "atheist". Ok then thanks for eating your words.

But you expressed something earlier which I translate as an
uneasiness with the term "atheist", and have found the sentiment to be common amongst some proponents of your cult.

What cult is that?

...atheist is a negative label applied to non-believers by the theist and from a theist perspective.

If so I agree. However i'm inclined to think you left the object of
your lack of belief out on purpose
More goal-post shifting leverage?

Probably because as I said earlier I don't label myself with that theist's negative atheist label.

Hmmm, so by your logic "asexual" is a label made by those who have sex, or those who have sexual organs. Interesting.

Well it a way of describing it, is it not. From dictionary.com
Label : a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification:
I am seriously doubting you have enough brain cells to walk.
Jan I can't believe you actually wrote that. WOW!

 

[Alan McDougall]

Semantics, He still holds a firm belief in a god and as such claims in his opinion that a god exists. Thus it's his burden to prove such a thing exists. As such I find his claim unreasonable, without corroborating evidence. It's that simple.How so!Are you sure about that?This is but one instant that you claim a god exists, there are a myriad of other instances, during your nine + years here. but one is all I need to counter you BS above.Taken from this thread Deities do or do not exist? Don't you think it's fair, that you back up yours first.

Are you a innatist? Do you think babies come fully equipped for the world or do they have to learn a couple of things first? and we are talking about knowledge not instinct. From the on set of our lives, we are taking in information via our senses. This knowledge/experiences is used by every part of our being to discern our world.
Is it. I think you'll find that has been done already several times.Has he, it has been refuted here and numerous times in the past and he has yet to posit up some evidence to back up his assertion. So no he hasn't he's has only given his own poor supposition.
To wait for enlightenment from You or Alan.Most definitely, he has yet to do that, just giving us his supposition without further corroborating evidence is asinine.Ok so there isn't a movement independent of theism. and there isn't any folks calling for a different description of "atheist". Ok then thanks for eating your words.What cult is that?Well it a way of describing it, is it not. From dictionary.com
Label : a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc.
a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification:
I am seriously doubting you have enough brain cells to walk.
Jan I can't believe you actually wrote that. WOW!

To pin me down I do believe in god but not the god of religion, I believe in an intelligent universe that drives its own evolution, maybe a billion other universe all that is within= all of existence that is the god of my frail understanding


Thus God=Existence=God an intelligent existence or God if you like

Alan