The Need To Question Atheism (page 8)

Gill

Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, should be questioned, otherwise you get NO answers!

AlmostAtheist

>>But I would like to invite ANYBODY to answer these two questions.

Well, you DID say "anybody"! ;-)

>>1: If a supreme Creator is NOT responsible for all of the amazing, complex intricate and purposeful systems and features surrounding us today, then HOW DID THESE SYSTEMS AND FEATURES GET HERE?

Lore made the point that life is different than non-life in that in reproduces, and does so imperfectly. That is the point that makes your car illustration off the mark. If cars could reproduce, they too would evolve. In a sense, they do. When the environment called for big, bulky, gas-guzzling monsters, that's what was for sale. When the environment changed, these died off and were replaced by more fuel-efficient ones. But that's weak. For more information on answers to your questions (including the giraffe's neck), see: http://talkorigins.org/

>>2: And, if not from a living Creator, HOW DOES LIFE ARISE FROM LIFELESS MATTER? Please tell.

No one knows. There are ideas being kicked around, but nothing definitive. There was a time when we didn't know how seeds sprouted, so we attributed it to God. Lightning, rain, earthquakes -- all assumed to be acts of God. Now we know better, but we still don't know how life originated. Does it make sense to simply assume it was an act of God, when all these others turned out not to be?

Dave

Anti-Christ

EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE. Now deal with it.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me if god has a cause and like lore said someting as complexe as god more complexe then the univers how could it just appear out of thin air?

.Why do humans have a conscience when animals clearly do not?

Sorry but you might whant to make sure of that one because some animals have a certain level of consciousness.

If you disagree with my logic trying to prove life is complex, is complicated and is a product of intelligent design, then for once, please counter that argument SPECIFICALLY.

Life is complex but that does not mean it's from a designer. Life did not start out so complex it took many years to form.

If a supreme Creator is NOT responsible for all of the amazing, complex intricate and purposeful systems and features surrounding us today, then HOW DID THESE SYSTEMS AND FEATURES GET HERE?

Again the same could be said about god so not one or the other is more logical. It might be more logical to you. I agree with Gill

Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, should be questioned, otherwise you get NO answers!

If we would just say " we can't explain it so it must be god" then we would not get any answers. Something else, there is no proof that the univers has a beegining. It could just be and if that's it so," then there is no need for a god." Steven Hawkins.

Terry

Einstein was NOT an atheist. And neither are many other scientists, world leaders, intellectuals etc. Very few people today are atheists for reasons presented above and more.

Einstein used "God" as a metaphor for order and predictability and made quite clear he was not talking about a person or intelligence one should pray to or serve.

Once Einstein clarified his position he started receiving hate male from leading religious denominations excoriating him and telling him to "go back home to Germany" (meaning Hitler).

The problem with scientists using metaphorical language and including the word "god" is obvious by your post.

Believer's are more than happy to embrace scientists when they feel they are on the same side. However, when a scientist disagrees with them---the turn of the other cheek doesn't seem to happen so readily!

LtCmd.Lore

LtCmd.Lore says: "vinny, that's a pretty interesting arguement that you copied and pasted for us."

That was not an attempt to avoid the arguement. (As is obvious due to the fact that I spend the rest of my post responding to it.)

I googled it again, and I found out that you did in fact write it yourself... (over and over again all over the place on the internet), sorry I accused you of pagerism. But it's flawed nontheless, just as I showed in the other 90% of my post. (But really, it's a pretty convincing arguement, congrats, I wish I could be so original.)

Sorry Lore, but you cannot get around the Red Corvette little problem you have on your hands here.

Acctually I already did, evolution requires reproduction and selection, both of which are lacking from your illustration, and even if they weren't, it would never survive because it is an object designed for the sole purpose of helping humans. It would go extinct on its own.

But unfortunately I thought it was supposed to be an arguement against evolution when in fact you say it was intended to be against abiogenesis... I'll get to that later, but first I'll touch on your claims that the universe is designed to make life possible... that's sort of like a puddle waking up one day and thinking the hole that it's in is designed just for the puddle to live in. When in fact it's the puddle that adapted to it's environment.

The moon is only required only because it was here while life was evolving, so they adapted to the tides. If there were no tides, then they would have evolved into a species that doesn't use tides for survival, or they would have died off. Either way, if there were no tides, life forms would exist that don't need them.

The seasons are only required because the plants and animal evolved on a planet with changing seasons. If there were no changing seasons then birds would not have evolved to migrate for the winter. Plants would not even need to drop their leaves at all.

Gravity... uh... good luck finding a planet anywhere in the universe that doesn't have gravity... all planets have gravity not just the earth. (Not only that but some life forms could probably survive or evolve without gravity anyway.)

The fact is, that there are billions apon billions of planets out there, odds are there are whole bunch of them that are capable of supporting some form of life. We are just one of the forms of life that are capable of existing on this planet.

And you want to tell us here, that ALL life-forms in their many varieties that we see today, all just happened to arise from lifeless matter?

What is this? An arguement against evolution or abiogenesis? There are millions of known animal species on the planet, they didn't ALL arise from lifeless matter like your corvette did. Only ONE self replicating polymer was required to get the whole process started.

But yes I'm trying to say that at least ONE very simple polymer arised from nonliving matter on one of the billions of planets in the universe, in one of the millions of different possible environmental conditions at some point during the billions of years that the universe has existed...

And for the record a single celled lifeform IS more complex then a corvette, but the formation of such a thing is most definately NOT random: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And what's with this "science can't recreate it so therefore it didn't happen" stuff?

Guess what: They already did create simple polymers. But I'm assuming you want a modern bacteria or something. Sorry but this stuff takes a lot of time. (Another flaw in your corvette analogy by the way.) Plus the conditions on earth NOW are very different then they were when life started. (For instance there would be a lot less oxygen in the air since it is a side effect from living plants.)

Scientists can't currently recreate black holes but that doesn't mean they aren't formed by large stars collapsing in on themselves, and it doesn't mean that they won't be able too some day either. Before the atomic bomb was invented E=MC 2 was still correct. Before the plane was invented people thought that flight was impossible. Knowing how something works and being able to do it are two completely different things.

And now because scientists can't currently create simple life forms whenever they want, people like you assume that it's impossible.

Anti-Christ

Wow!! Lt I wish I had a friend like you when I was 17.

LtCmd.Lore

Wow!! Lt I wish I had a friend like you when I was 17.

Wow thanks, and I wish my parents had a friend like you before they got brainwashed...

By the way, while we're exchanging compliments:

When I was an active JW they gave me a certain meaning but when I really thought about it the only goal in life, if we were supposed to live forever in paradise, is to enjoy life and worship god. Now take god out of the picture all you have left is, enjoy life. So wether we live for ever or not we still can enjoy life so I don't see anything wrong with that.

That was great, I intend to use that logic when I get the chance. I meant to tell you that earlier when I first read it, but by the time I was done reading Vinny's post three hours later I forgot.

DanTheMan

Vinny must WORSHIP a very ANGRY god...PERHAPS it's that JERK YHWH...LOL

tetrapod.sapien

LOL, what a wicked thread.

...and vinny man, seriously! take the red pill dude. people are trying to help you and you are not letting them! damn, the lurkers are getting more from this exchange than you are!

tetra

What-A-Coincidence

this is a sweet thread ... one of my favorites all thanks to vinny

alt

The Need To Question Atheism

Share this