Questioning My Atheism Some recent thoughts...

[truefusion 3]

[1] Since you were kind enough to notify me about abiogenesis "stuff" and asking me if I realize what I'm saying, could you also be kind enough to point out where I said that it wasn't dust? Well, now I'm gonna say it, NO IT WASN'T DUST. If you consider montmorillonite, perfect temperature, free nucleotides and many more materials mixed up dust, then you have no scientific credibility. And no, abiogenesis isn't from dust to man. If you read some books, you may realize that the process to get from a chemical mix into a cell is abiogenesis. Getting from living cells into other multi-celled living organisms and evolving into new species, is evolution.

 

[2] And your point is? Because we can't test this with an underwater volcano and we create multiple possible conditions for life to occur, it can't happen?

montmorillonite can't possibly be anywhere near a volcano? Could you give me some proof? If I burn a wooden stick in lab condition, I can't prove it can happen without help? You've watched way too much mythbusters, since they change their testing conditions if nothing happens. Real science isn't like that, you test, test and test and gather results for 3 years. Then you publish your report, it's peer-reviewed and then if other scientists can duplicate your results, it's accepted as a theory. A theory also has to fit in with the other theories. Everything doesn't have to happen in nature and be observable there to be accepted as a theory, for example quantum theory. So get over it and stop arguing on something that has already been proved. RNA chains can form by themselves, and that's it.

 

[3] Where I said that it isn't? Matter is compressed energy. Matter is formed energy, energy isn't matter. So I was right.

[4] I should agree?! I've been saying that all the time, because we don't have any evidence from the time before(obviously because it didn't exist..), we CAN'T KNOW.

And now you're telling me I should agree?

 

[5] You fail to see what differs a fact, a theory and what is the scientific method used for.

[6] No, science tells us the exact opposite. It tells us that energy exists forever.

[7] Show me the evidence that metaphysical realm exists, only conscious things can cause things and that desire is needed. Or at least justify it by logic of some kind. You should agree that we have no evidence of anything "metaphysical", do we? How do you know metaphysical things last forever? You said it like it was an obvious thing. Like you've been on a lunch date with metaphysical beings and asked them if they last forever or not.

 

[8]So you've DECIDED that god must exist(without any empirical evidence, as usual). Now when you don't find god in the physical world, you make up something you call "metaphysical" and place your god in there. And your god is 100% protected against all evidence, logic and everything. Why? Because we can't observe the metaphysical world(because it doesn't exist, perhaps?), therefore we can't disprove god.

 

[9] Well I don't know how people are being taught physics at school there but I assume you never studied about the big bang? If space exists, time does too, and if time exists(forever)... *Houston, we have a problem...*

 

[10] I'm not saying science is a rules over religion, I'm saying religion isn't ruler over anything, because at least all religions I know can't match up with science. And by matching up with science I mean the info is incorrect, and the content is full of fantasy worlds and beings. That's what I'm saying

 

[11]You rationalized again. Because there is no evidence of god and GOD MUST EXIST, it must in somewhere else, but we obviously have no evidence of that somewhere else.

[1] For introductory purposes, i pointed out "from dust to man" to inform readers of a Biblical abiogenesis event. Abiogenesis is when something declared as "non-living" turns into something considered "living." Dust, the dirt of the earth, is "non-living;" "to man," man is "living." This occurred due to divine intervention.

 

[2] Do you remember back when you talked about the differences between possible and plausible? Here you have only talked about the possibility of abiogenesis occurring without intervention from a conscious being. However, we know it's plausible with intervention from a conscious being. But you bring up another point: theories proving other theories. Logic doesn't work like that; a theory proving another theory is absurd. Only definite truths can prove anything, not theories. But that's one of the things i don't like about science, the truth of a matter isn't necessarily true—it is often times just "good enough to pass on as 'truth.'" And they don't really tell you in textbooks either, unless perhaps it has already been refuted; if you so happen to figure it out yourself, then you have figured it out yourself. The only hard part is figuring out the margin of error for things labeled as a "fact."

 

You might at this point start thinking that what you have stated was all concerning things that are plausible. Believe it or not, things like "occurs in nature," or "happen on their own," is ambiguous. Ironically, when one takes the time to see just when and how they occur in nature, what do you get? Nothing but talk about what scientists have done in a lab and more theories upon theories. Is this evidence to you? Even the "early conditions of the earth" is a theory. When i see the words "may have," "could have," "possibly" or what-have-you, i'm supposed to translate these into "it's a fact"? "Go study abiogenesis," you might say, but all i see are theories upon theories upon theories. You say RNA can form on its own, but the "RNA world hypothesis" is still under construction (i.e. research and scrutiny)—you'll have to do better than this if you are to convince me.

 

[3] You said, "It was energy [...], not [...] matter." Was that "not" not intended for matter? Wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.

 

[4] "As you should agree" was not a command. In other words it could be said, "As you should already believe."

 

[5] Wasn't it you who just finished saying a process by which things are accepted? What is different than what i said? Who would deny or question that we can't make anything from nothing? You think they'll actually succeed if they tried? Due to absolute failure it is perfectly safe to mark as a fact (not a theory) that we cannot create things from nothing. Therefore if things are wholly dependent on evidence, then they would have to conclude that there was something before the Big Bang event.

 

[6] If you are alluding to "neither created or destroyed," that is a play with words. 0 mass means 0 energy, therefore no energy whatsoever. When one thinks of destruction one might picture an explosion. Creation is where something that didn't already exist now starts existing. In either case for destruction, the object ceases to exist. Destruction, therefore, is when something ceases to exist. If we consider "the speed of light," anything that gets closer to the "speed of light" would require constant energy to reach the "speed of light." This implies that energy is a limited resource and therefore can cease to exist. Concerning the Big Bang theory, if what was before the Big Bang event that caused this universe was another universe that imploded on itself, constant imploding and exploding would cause energy to decrease, eventually leaving nothing. Space and time itself may also have to do a lot with the life of matter (energy). Obviously this is all concerning physical things—since energy is itself a physical thing.

 

[7] Let me tell you why space and time may have to do with the life of energy. Anything that bears mass is limited to space and time. Anything that doesn't bear mass is not limited to space and time. Metaphysical things do not bear mass, therefore are not limited to space and time, and therefore space and time are metaphysical. Since metaphysical things aren't restricted like physical things are, they therefore do not share the same consequences. One of those consequences is the ending of itself. This implies that space and time may play a big role with the life of physical things. And i don't mean to imply that when energy (something physical) ceases to exist it becomes metaphysical. To avoid confusion, anything metaphysical has to have always been metaphysical—it could not have "started off" as something physical. When something metaphysical "takes on" physical properties this does not mean that the metaphysical thing stopped being metaphysical. Its physical "self" is not the metaphysical entity, it is still separate and its physical "self" is merely a puppet or a suit to the metaphysical entity. In other words, the physical "self" is merely being manipulated by the metaphysical entity. Therefore when the physical parts cease to exist, the metaphysical entity still exists.

 

And i have been on a lunch date with metaphysical beings. They were just merely manipulating their physical "self" at the time. My only proof for a metaphysical realm is free will. My current definition for "free will" is "the ability to manipulate the physical self"—though i'm not entirely satisfied by it. I already know that you may believe that "free will" is an illusion. However, if you're going to debate me on this matter, at least provide an explicit definition of free will that does not allow for any position other than the one you support if you're going to argue for your case. My case is that the thought process occurs before the physical self reacts. This runs along the lines of idealism vs physicalism. One argument i have is if one claims that there is a physical force behind every physical force, that leads to an infinite regression. Therefore to do away with the infinite regression you have to accept that there is a metaphysical force behind it somewhere. This metaphysical force i would call the "conscious."

 

[8] I suppose "concluded" and "decided" are synonymous, but i, of course, do not agree with what is in the parentheses. But i'm not sure how you got that i've "decided" from the part of the quote of me you were addressing with this. I don't recall ever mentioning that God was physical to begin with; in fact, that may actually be blasphemous to do so, by Biblical standards—as such physical things tend to be idols. I wouldn't say He's protected against all that you list. Logic is itself metaphysical, yet we use it and fail to use it constantly. To say that God is protected by all the things you list is to say that logic is protected against all those things.

 

[9] Space and time is a hard concept to grasp, therefore it's not an easy subject to talk about, as paradoxes can form easily, so you have to watch what you say. Concerning the Big Bang theory, depending on how things are argued, space and time could have existed before or could have come into existence at that point. If "space" came into existence at the "time" of the Big Bang, that implies that "space" is anything that is or gets filled, though not necessarily entirely. That means if there is no physical thing in existence, then there is no such thing as space. But that implies that space is dependent on physical things. But if "space" existed before any physical thing came into existence, then "space" is not dependent on physical things. Similar things can be said about "time." If you feel you have a completely sensible way of explaining space and time, then that would be interesting to see.

 

[10] Okay, let me get this straight: You are using science as an absolute ruler (measuring stick) and anything that doesn't agree with science is in turn false? And you try to justify this by saying that because of standards and the way science does things, science is the better choice? And this is all said even though what science says isn't necessarily true (though they may be "working on it")?

 

[11] Even evidence is rationalized. The only way to prove something is to reason for it.

 

This is exactly why I came up with absolute neutrality as a concept, though. I know that Epicurus didn't do much in touching base on what God really is with just two philosophical statements, but it makes you wonder what Good really is. God is capable of saving, yes... because he's all-powerful and yada yada, and I see your point with it not being necessarily to make up for the fallacies of Man, but at the same time, if I was a good person, and if I witnessed a murder happen but did nothing to prevent a serial killer from slaying an innocent woman and child, would I still be good as I did not myself commit the slaying? It's the same concept with God. Is he still good by just letting things take its course? It's one thing for nature and the food chain, but it's another when baby Brianna is violently abused AND RAPED by her guardians until she finally died and God simply sits on his high cloud and is still regarded as "good." The monsters attributed to her treatment are going to jail for a little over a decade. Can we so easily do such monstrous acts and then ask for repentance later? Can God actually simply just watch as these sorts of things happen down below? If there is a Heaven, why be born of this world only to be potentially tortured as a mortal just to have the hopes to enter the gates of Heaven if you were good? How do we even know if baby Brianna even got the chance to be good?

 

God commenced a flooding to cleanse the world (killing wicked people as well as everyone else except for Noah and his family... are we playing favorites now? Was Noah and his family the ONLY sane family on Earth?) and start anew. Where's the flood now? He did it once... might as well do it again.

 

To end evil, you have to take lives or change them, apparently. If you kill, you're probably evil yourself for killing... or righteous because God gives you that exception to kill. If God kills, it's all right, of course, even though it's a bit hypocritical. (I'm sure some of you are like, "Yeah... go ahead and tell God that he's hypocritical.") If you try to rehabilitate people, maybe you can, maybe you can't. Just look at all the "rehabilitated" criminals we have that are habitual offenders. How about repentance? Like I said, anyone can say they're sorry. There are a special few that could really be sorry. But if God really was our concept of "good," he wouldn't let this kind of stuff slide... or have started anew a while ago. Again. And again. And again, until he would be tired of getting one lucky winning family to gather two of every animal in the world and hitting that reset button.

 

That's why I think that God is absolutely neutral. He's just up there, watching, waiting, maybe making some weird stuff from time to time like the platypus just to screw with our obsession for science and logic. He doesn't have a reason for the Big Bang, or a reason for life, or a reason for anything. He just is.

 

Or he doesn't exist at all... and we're left back to square one.

As you say, without God there is no such thing as "good," therefore in order to discuss the matter one has to at least, even if temporary, assume the existence of God. Since "good" is dependent on God, "good," therefore, can only be defined by that God. This discussion has, apparently, chosen to assume the Biblical God, therefore in order to argue anything concerning "good" you would also have to assume the Biblical definition of "good." As implied, choosing to take up a definition for "good" that isn't Biblical will merely put us back to square one, therefore making it pointless to discuss this. So what is good?

 

Good is said to be God. (Mark 10:18) So what is God? God is said to be love. (1 John 4:8) (Do note that though these things may make God look like something that bears no conscious, that is not intended.) So what is love? Apparently a lot of things. In short, love places the other person first before the self. God is also known to be the God of Justice. (Isaiah 30:18) So what is justice? Justice is to treat people fairly, which means to treat everyone as equals. (Leviticus 19:15) So what does this mean? Doesn't it mean if you give someone a chance, that you should be giving others a chance as well? So what's the method that God, apparently, chooses? He predestines a time when the people will be judged for their deeds. You are in turn given a chance before the appointed time to repent. Though you say that anyone can say "I'm sorry," how would you expect a lie to pass by God? Many people may label this as "delayed justice" or whatever they may label it, and therefore not like this method. But even if you committed a grievous sin, you would most likely want the chance to be forgiven. And if you didn't want the chance, why should others not receive a chance? You don't have to accept this method on how God does things, but if the only thing that makes it wrong is because you cannot accept it, then if you're going to prove something as wrong, you'll have to have something better than that excuse.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

...

Your message was too long, didn't want to quote it all.

Anyways, I understand exactly what you mean. Even reading the stories ourselves there are many, many contradictions. But since man did in fact write the Bible, nobody knows if maybe they are just two views of the same situation.

In fact, you could see a car wreck and 5 different people who all watched it from the beginning to the end could all come up with different conclusions as to what happened and how it happened. None of them are technically "wrong," they just all have different interpretations.

The same thing could happen with the Bible.

Along with this, *my* biggest issue is that the Bible was translated from Hebrew (I think?) to another language and then again and again.

Even reading *Spanish* (of which millions of people speak Spanish) you can come up with different translations. And that's just from ONE language to another. Hebrew is one of the least spoken, and it being translated from one language to another just jumbles up the meanings a lot.

One view as to what the Bible says is that it's not "literal," it's "liberal." (meaning don't take everything in it word-for-word, take it in as parables - spelling?)

When it really comes down to it, it's all about faith and nothing else. Being that none of us can personally talk to whoever wrote the various books, none of us can confirm whether things are true, false, or the people were just delusional. I'm Christian, and I believe. But I still disagree with people who try to "prove" that God exists when in fact there is no real proof. I believe because I do. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, nor does it mean I'm wrong.

As for some of the "special events" that happened in the Bible, we went through some of them in our religion class. I don't have my notes on them near me right now but one I remember well was the "raining of fish." This could be attributed to a hurricane picking up the fish and tossing them miles away. Another is the disappearance of the moon. This could have just been an eclipse. There are many other things that were seen as being "proof," yet almost everything could be explained by what we see all the time now through science.

Honestly, I see both sides pretty equally (whether there is or is not a God). I believe there is one just because life itself is something even science can not create. Yes, it can "clone," but that is not the creation of life. It is the manipulation of the cells that grow.

[inverse_bloom 0]

This is a really great discussion everyone!

 

Personally, the only thing i firmly place my beliefs in, if nothing else is the idea that "for all human thought and belief on these topics, we have not drawn any closer to any ultimate conclusions" i think this was brought up by a few in previous posts, in their own manner.

 

What i mean by this is that we could talk about it and continue to for as long as we decide, but the point before the beginning of the universe (where ever your beliefs stand on this) there is a huge puzzle piece (or a concept) that is out of our realms to understand (or access through believing) . We do not have the capacity within our minds to fully believe, evaluate or perceive it because its not made of the same stuff as our observable universe (or we) are made of.

 

What this indicates is "anything" anyone says will be ultimately untrue in some sense, period. (Even if it got close, you are not the ultimate "it" that encapsulates everything). It's simply unattainable to get to that point. You would have to be out of this universe and decoupled from all galaxies bounds to get some grasp about these realities. But indeed, reality itself in the whole picture at every step of everything - may not be even able to fully realize itself in its own entirety and that starts delving into the irrational concepts as we know it, in this universe.

 

But please, thats what on my mind.... By all means, if you wish to keep the discussion going dont let me stop you.

Edited September 18, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)