|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/23/2008 11:48:51 PM
|
|
|
frankman
Posts: 219
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xc279
But as you say, we have to decide between irrefutable scientific theories or, a book with numerous scientific errors that is thousands of years old that gives the explanation.
So are you admitting that maybe the scientific theory of the "Big Bang" may not be in total agreement with what the Bible teaches? This was the point I was trying to make. The mechanics of the "Big Bang" as to whether it started life or not, or was it God, would be an interesting debate also. However what I`m saying is that God speaking creation into being as the Bible claims He did in Ps.33:9 to that of the "Big Bang" seem to be to different things. One is based on creation resulting from energy dynamics, the other is based on creation coming into being from an omnipotent Creator God who just spoke the WORD, and  BANG, there it was. Ps.33:9 states "For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."
real_solitude
 Maybe God used the arm-forces of the USA to help defeat Israel`s enemies. This may be the reason the USA today is such a bless nation. There is no nation in the world that God has blessed as much as the United States of America since the second World War. One wonders what would happen to the USA if they turned their backs on Israel. Let`s hope we never find out. What`s more this all lines up with God`s spoken Word. Read the following two verses. Gen.12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." and there`s Num.24:9 "May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!" That`s why Israel`s friend the USA is being blessed.
_____________________________
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8 Greetings- Frankman
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 12:15:14 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: frankman
Maybe God used the arm-forces of the USA to help defeat Israel`s enemies. This may be the reason the USA today is such a bless nation. There is no nation in the world that God has blessed as much as the United States of America since the second World War.
Come now, give credit where credit is due:
This is like John Paul has crediting "Our lady of Fatima" with directing the bullet used in the attempt to assassinate him away from his heart. Dawkins has pointed out how ridiculous it is to not credit his survival to the team of surgeons that worked on him for hours.
Not to mention that the U.S. was already advancing by leaps and bounds way before we entered WWII. We had some of the most gifted engineers during the industrial revolution. We were already recovering from the Great Depression by the time we entered the fight. The reason we've stayed on the top of the heap since then was because the only country which had better scientists than us (Germany) was decimated as a result of the war. We've took superiority based on the hard work of our scientists and engineers, not because we helped the allies.
You can't claim 'blessedness' retrospectively unless you deign to explain our declining education standards, our declining economy, our declining prominence, etc... as well.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 1:15:54 AM
|
|
|
txparent
Posts: 36
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Three Things:
1. Big Bang: Even the most atheistic scientist would tell you that prior to the Big Bang there wasn't anything present other than a singularity (certainly not a ball of gas and matter...). There is also general agreement that even time didn't exist until the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang CREATED matter, and there is zero disagreement over whether it happened except among Christians that have a natural suspicion of anything that scientists discover. To try and say "you used to tell us we were crazy when we said that the universe had a beginning. Now you've discovered the Big Bang and you're ready to concede that the universe isn't eternal, but YOU'RE STILL WRONG!" This is like how the Catholic Church labeled believrs in Heliocentrism as heretics. And it does nothing but harm the cause of Christ because it makes us look like idiots who never use our brains.
2. Anthropic Principle: Yes, there are some people who say "the fact that we're here is proof that, even though the odds against random life developing are almost infinite, it still happened". Or, put more simply, this argument is "hey, we're here so somehow the random chance happened". This is why I say it takes more faith to be an atheist. In fact, atheists are busily trying to prove the existence of infinite numbers of alternate universes, which would allow them to say "hey, there are an infinite # of universes, we just happen to be the one that has life in it". The problem is that no proof exists for these alternate universes outside of movies and comic books. Thus, atheists have to possess more faith than I can muster. Remember, the point is "which is more reasonable...to believe in God or to believe there is no God?". The evidence clearly points toward the existence of a God.
3. Cambrian Explosion: Yes, that's what I was referring to. In fact, I was describing the Burgess Shale discovery in the Canadian Rockies in the 1930s (I think). That find demonstrated that animals appeared with very complex anatomies all at once, rather than evolving slowly over billions of years. Some will say that fossil records can't exist prior to the Cambrian period because this was the first time that vertebrates existed and a bone structure is necessary for a fossil. But this is proven untrue when you consider the invertebrate cellular life that has been preserved in the fossil record far before the Cambrian Explosion. In fact, the whole "gradual evolution" belief is something that's causing evolutionists significant problems at present.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 1:41:35 AM
|
|
|
Mr.Sunshine
Posts: 508
Joined: 4/18/2007
From: Manga
Status: offline
|
Doesn't the law of mass conservation state that mass can not be created or destroyed only changed in form?
So doesn't that lead to the thought that either
A). There was something in the beginning that changed formed into all of our universe
B). Our God is not bound by the physical laws He created and He also created our universe
_____________________________
I am the Warchief
Take a look, it floored me
http://www.godtube.com/view_video?viewkey=ee73e63418003b47d7d5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 1:50:41 AM
|
|
|
txparent
Posts: 36
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Energy and Matter can be converted from one to the other, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 2:16:03 AM
|
|
|
txparent
Posts: 36
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Is the word "rhetorical" retorical? 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 5:17:48 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: txparent
2. Anthropic Principle: Yes, there are some people who say "the fact that we're here is proof that, even though the odds against random life developing are almost infinite, it still happened". Or, put more simply, this argument is "hey, we're here so somehow the random chance happened". This is why I say it takes more faith to be an atheist. In fact, atheists are busily trying to prove the existence of infinite numbers of alternate universes, which would allow them to say "hey, there are an infinite # of universes, we just happen to be the one that has life in it". The problem is that no proof exists for these alternate universes outside of movies and comic books. Thus, atheists have to possess more faith than I can muster. Remember, the point is "which is more reasonable...to believe in God or to believe there is no God?". The evidence clearly points toward the existence of a God.
We don't actually know how likely it is for life to form, that's one of the problems with the drake equation.
We have sufficiently explored exactly one planet in order to find traces of life. We have found exactly one planet on where there is any indication of life. The only place we've ever really explored has life, and we are it.
We also don't know much about the formation of the universe prior to Plank's epoch. We don't know how likely it is that a life-sustainable universe would form is. We don't know how likely it is for each of the constants to be set to the values they are.
We also don't know enough about the formation of life to say what other values could produce life-bearing systems. Presumably any system in which starts could form could also form life.
To say that we are the product of random chance is a shot in the dark. We don't know how probable it was for our universe to have formed, and therefore how probable it is that we would follow. It could be that our type of universe is the only possible one. This, too, would be a shot in the dark. Until we learn more about the subject, it is a question that can not be answered.
Also, multiverse theory isn't the only one that would allow for the anthropic principle to work. Any universe that dies via a big crunch would presumably be followed by another big bang. If this resets the constants, it would only be a matter of time before a life-bearing system appeared.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/24/2008 11:43:13 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
good assessment of the drake equation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/25/2008 10:57:12 AM
|
|
|
txparent
Posts: 36
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline
|
I agree with what you say about the Anthropic Principle, but I think that's the point. We can never prove 100% whether God exists. But we gather evidence and weigh it as to the most reasonable conclusion. The Anthropic Principle, while it doesn't prove God's existence, does figure heavily in favor of the believe that there was a Creator behind the universe.
Like I said, it takes far more faith to be an atheist that tries to conjure up explanations for infinite universes (or even one universe that expands and contracts infinitely) than it does to believe in a Creator. I simply don't have the faith necessary to be an Atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/27/2008 9:01:57 PM
|
|
|
vcjesusfreak
Posts: 92
Joined: 12/4/2007
Status: offline
|
Yes!!!! Thank you... finally someone who agrees w/ me... Notice my name...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/27/2008 9:05:09 PM
|
|
|
vcjesusfreak
Posts: 92
Joined: 12/4/2007
Status: offline
|
now i would assume you took this from the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest
one of my favorite parts of that book is when it points out that you technically cannot prove that every human is mortal because you have not seen every human... but every human you have seen is mortal so you know beyond a reasonable doubt that every human is mortal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/28/2008 11:04:04 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Being an uncharacteristically obstreporous Christian, I would disagree that it takes more faith to be an atheist. I believe atheism always contends that it seeks rationality (whether or not it is correct in this belief), and that rationality, the process of establishing a coherent, propositional system of criteria for living, is a very precise description of resistance to faith.
Now, I DO agree that it takes faith to be an atheist, but ONLY in an ironic sense. And, of course, I think the intent of this thread IS to express a little piece of irony or to be clever in a way. It takes faith in that the rational person's life is always motivated out of FEAR to the extent that he or she is driven to establish FIRM propositions with which to guide themselves -- in that, indeed, they are trying to find a way OUT of acting out of fear. Fear is their least valued mental set. They are perhaps afraid but certainly unwilling or dismissive of acting on faith to the extent that they are rational.
If everything was laid out before-hand or if we found that we had developed a quasi-thorough system of rational criteria as our guide, then faith will be a term less relevant to the world. (Now, of course, no rational system IS complete.) To the extent that the mysteries of the world and life have been "resolved" the less risk there is in life (hence, I say, fear has been lessened.) Thus, I say, risk (and fear) are inversely proportional to faith. Hence the sense of the notion "fearing God."
I believe faith is a great value, THE value or point of Christianity, THE currency of God's wealth and GLORY. WE are his currency, his tokens, which are redeemable ONLY by faith.
Didn't Abraham have greater faith than ANY atheist who has ever lived?
Now, it takes FAITH for an atheist to believe that their self-reliance won't lead them into a heap of trouble (now or in eternity) but it is a calculated risk -- designed to lessen to the greatest extent, fear and uncertainty.
The irony is that death will be FOREVER uncertain.
Just trying to be difficult and provoke thought!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/28/2008 11:48:12 PM
|
|
|
fallenstar
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy_S
Its not faith,it's man's wickedness.
I agree, but then again I don't. It's not faith. It's not really wickedness either, but ignorence.
It's not being aware of God, or being in denial.
< Message edited by fallenstar -- 5/28/2008 11:54:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/29/2008 3:03:16 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: txparent
I agree with what you say about the Anthropic Principle, but I think that's the point. We can never prove 100% whether God exists. But we gather evidence and weigh it as to the most reasonable conclusion. The Anthropic Principle, while it doesn't prove God's existence, does figure heavily in favor of the believe that there was a Creator behind the universe.
Like I said, it takes far more faith to be an atheist that tries to conjure up explanations for infinite universes (or even one universe that expands and contracts infinitely) than it does to believe in a Creator. I simply don't have the faith necessary to be an Atheist.
I would (obviously) disagree with that statement.
I don't have to believe in a repeating universe or multiverse theory in order to reject the strong anthropic principle. I simply have to notice that while the universe allows for life, it does not seem to be tailored for it. There have been five mass-extinction events in the history of life. (Major being over 50% of live being killed.) Our planet has been bombarded by various chuncks of rock and blasts of radiation. Our planet will be consumed by an expanding sun in 5 billion years, and be too hot for know life in only 900 million years.
In terms of how long the universe has and will last the window of life, and specifically humanity, is tiny. We also are the only known intelligence in the universe. This, to me, shows that the existence of humanity is sheerly an event of chance, and not one of design.
This is if we focus only on the anthropic principle. Taking all evidence I've seen into account, I've seen no indication that there has been any sort of metaphysical tinkering with humanity. That is, if the universe were created, the creator has not since shown itself. This, in my mind, is evidence itself against the strong anthropic argument. Not because we should expect a creator to show itself, but because we should expect to see signs of interaction with the universe that can't logically be explained by anything else, even if the interactions were only in the setting of the 'dials'.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/29/2008 12:57:58 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would (obviously) disagree with that statement.
I don't have to believe in a repeating universe or multiverse theory in order to reject the strong anthropic principle. I simply have to notice that while the universe allows for life, it does not seem to be tailored for it. There have been five mass-extinction events in the history of life. (Major being over 50% of live being killed.) Our planet has been bombarded by various chuncks of rock and blasts of radiation. Our planet will be consumed by an expanding sun in 5 billion years, and be too hot for know life in only 900 million years.
In terms of how long the universe has and will last the window of life, and specifically humanity, is tiny. We also are the only known intelligence in the universe. This, to me, shows that the existence of humanity is sheerly an event of chance, and not one of design.
This is if we focus only on the anthropic principle. Taking all evidence I've seen into account, I've seen no indication that there has been any sort of metaphysical tinkering with humanity. That is, if the universe were created, the creator has not since shown itself. This, in my mind, is evidence itself against the strong anthropic argument. Not because we should expect a creator to show itself, but because we should expect to see signs of interaction with the universe that can't logically be explained by anything else, even if the interactions were only in the setting of the 'dials'.
The problem with this is (other than ignoring the number of things that must be as they are for us to be as we are) is those presumed 'catastrophes' are thought in many cases to also be events that led to our existence; so it appears if one think humans are anything special at all, that one must deal with the sum total of the effect of these events, not merely consider them in isolation.
Also, your supposed 'evidence' against for the incidental nature of life plays both ways. If life were common in the universe, atheists would simply argue that, "The development of life is just an ordinary process; there is nothing extraordinary about it"
Of course since life appears to be wholly unique, and the entire universe seems to exist so that we may exist, atheists argue that our existence is "sheer chance", proving once again, it's not the evidence, but the metaphysical bent of the person considering the evidence.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/29/2008 7:21:40 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The problem with this is (other than ignoring the number of things that must be as they are for us to be as we are) is those presumed 'catastrophes' are thought in many cases to also be events that led to our existence; so it appears if one think humans are anything special at all, that one must deal with the sum total of the effect of these events, not merely consider them in isolation.
Also, your supposed 'evidence' against for the incidental nature of life plays both ways. If life were common in the universe, atheists would simply argue that, "The development of life is just an ordinary process; there is nothing extraordinary about it"
Of course since life appears to be wholly unique, and the entire universe seems to exist so that we may exist, atheists argue that our existence is "sheer chance", proving once again, it's not the evidence, but the metaphysical bent of the person considering the evidence.
And theists, if life were everywhere, would claim that the universe was obviously tailored for life, since it is so abundant?
If I have a bowl of strawberry custard, and mold grows in it because I leave it in the fridge too long, should I assume that the custard was tailored specifically to that mold, or that it merely allowed the proper conditions for the mold to exist? Even if my bowl of custard is the only bowl of custard to ever grow mold, or this specific type of mold, should I ever assume that the custard was tailored with the mold in mind?
It may be amazing that my bowl of custard is the only to ever form mold, but unless there is something more than circumstantial evidence should I assume the custard was tailored to the mold?
The entire universe doesn't appear to exist merely so that we may. There are far more stars than there are lifeforms. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that the universe was tailored with stars in mind, and life is only incidental? For that matter, why not assume that the purpose of the universe is to contain space and time, and matter is just there as a side-effect?
The problem I have with throwing metaphysics into the mix in either a life-abundant or life-deficient universe is that there is no explicit, or even good implicit, evidence that life is anything other than incidental. There is no giant sign in the sky proclaiming it thus. There are no special circumstances awarded to the planet that life is on. (Eg. Not getting hit by asteroids, not being consumed by a sun.) Everything on the life-bearing planet happens the same as elsewhere, except that it has a life infestation.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 5/30/2008 12:22:09 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
And theists, if life were everywhere, would claim that the universe was obviously tailored for life, since it is so abundant?
Almost certainly, which just goes back to my point, “it's not the evidence, but the metaphysical bent of the person considering the evidence.”
quote:
If I have a bowl of strawberry custard, and mold grows in it because I leave it in the fridge too long, should I assume that the custard was tailored specifically to that mold, or that it merely allowed the proper conditions for the mold to exist? Even if my bowl of custard is the only bowl of custard to ever grow mold, or this specific type of mold, should I ever assume that the custard was tailored with the mold in mind?
It may be amazing that my bowl of custard is the only to ever form mold, but unless there is something more than circumstantial evidence should I assume the custard was tailored to the mold?
The problem with your argument is that mold will generally grow wherever the proper medium exists, and that is true of any number of circumstances.
Life on the other hand cannot apparently exist in any number of circumstances, and were the universe infinitesimally different on any number of particulars, those circumstances could not exist.
quote:
The entire universe doesn't appear to exist merely so that we may. There are far more stars than there are lifeforms. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that the universe was tailored with stars in mind, and life is only incidental? For that matter, why not assume that the purpose of the universe is to contain space and time, and matter is just there as a side-effect?
I disagree; the universe is fine tuned in many ways that if it were otherwise, our galaxy, our star, our solar system, our planet, our atmosphere, our geology, and our chemistry could not exist as it does. You sitting there as you are right now is literally dependent on the entirety of the universe existing precisely as it does.
quote:
The problem I have with throwing metaphysics into the mix in either a life-abundant or life-deficient universe is that there is no explicit, or even good implicit, evidence that life is anything other than incidental. There is no giant sign in the sky proclaiming it thus. There are no special circumstances awarded to the planet that life is on. (Eg. Not getting hit by asteroids, not being consumed by a sun.) Everything on the life-bearing planet happens the same as elsewhere, except that it has a life infestation.
There is literally an entire universe of evidence that life is anything but incidental – in fact, as the entire universe appears to be tuned to the most precise level for our existence, there couldn’t be any more evidence.
The chemistry of your cells shouts louder than any handwritten sign (which is easily reproduced) could.
You are simply choosing to ignore the evidence because it serves your metaphysical predilection which is informed by your personal desires; it has nothing to do at all with lack of proof, only the unwillingness to accept what is apparent.
Indeed the length to which you are argue the meaninglessness and incidental nature of life demonstrates that you don’t actually believe such a thing to be true to begin with – it simply is the justification you glom onto to defend yourself from beliefs that would contradict your desires.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 6/1/2008 9:58:56 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Life on the other hand cannot apparently exist in any number of circumstances, and were the universe infinitesimally different on any number of particulars, those circumstances could not exist.
How do we know this? Our type of life, certainly, but any variety of structure of life?
I'm not going to attempt to make a positive multiverse argument here, due to lack of evidence, but if the 'dials' were adjusted, why is our combination the only possible one in which life can exist. If there were a universe like ours, but with an abundant element that could form, for instance, six-way bonds instead of the four-way bonds of carbon, wouldn't that allow even more complexity than our set does?
quote:
I disagree; the universe is fine tuned in many ways that if it were otherwise, our galaxy, our star, our solar system, our planet, our atmosphere, our geology, and our chemistry could not exist as it does. You sitting there as you are right now is literally dependent on the entirety of the universe existing precisely as it does.
And all of those are pre-requisites for stars, rocks, ice, etc... Everything in our universe requires our universe to be exactly like our universe is. Since there's more star-mass rather than bio-mass, shouldn't we assume that the universe was tailored for stars, and not biology?
quote:
There is literally an entire universe of evidence that life is anything but incidental – in fact, as the entire universe appears to be tuned to the most precise level for our existence, there couldn’t be any more evidence.
The chemistry of your cells shouts louder than any handwritten sign (which is easily reproduced) could.
You are simply choosing to ignore the evidence because it serves your metaphysical predilection which is informed by your personal desires; it has nothing to do at all with lack of proof, only the unwillingness to accept what is apparent.
I wasn't talking about a hand-written sign. I was talking about gigantic flaming letters that could not exist in our universe without metaphysical help. E.g. something for which there can be no possible explanation. A bit brazen and unreasonable of a request, I'll grant, but convincing nevertheless.
I'm not really ignoring the evidence. As mentioned elsewhere, the reason I lost my belief is because I kept learning more and more about the world, and kept finding a lack of a deity in it. For quite a number of years I was arguing in favor of Christianity. In retrospect, I can tear my own arguments to shreds. Granted, they were bottom-shelf arguments to begin with, so that's not saying much.
I accepted the gospel without proof. I then lost faith because of a failure to find any.
quote:
Indeed the length to which you are argue the meaninglessness and incidental nature of life demonstrates that you don’t actually believe such a thing to be true to begin with – it simply is the justification you glom onto to defend yourself from beliefs that would contradict your desires.
Jhud, I've seen others stoop to this type of argument, but I thought you were above it. This is the same type of argument as the "there's really no such thing as an atheist, just people who hate god," argument.
If I turned your statement on its head and said that the only reasons you're willing to argue to the lengths you do that a creator exists is because you don't really believe he exists, you'd just laugh. I believe that what you say is what you really believe. Please have the decency to do the same for me.
As for the "That would contradict your desires," part... What lifestyle changes, exactly, would I have to make if I were to revert to Christianity?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! - 6/2/2008 1:33:07 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
How do we know this? Our type of life, certainly, but any variety of structure of life?
I'm not going to attempt to make a positive multiverse argument here, due to lack of evidence, but if the 'dials' were adjusted, why is our combination the only possible one in which life can exist. If there were a universe like ours, but with an abundant element that could form, for instance, six-way bonds instead of the four-way bonds of carbon, wouldn't that allow even more complexity than our set does?
Well, a lot of the precision of the universe informs its ability to even form stars, planets, or cohesive matter at all; I don’t know what sort of ‘life’ you think might forms absent those essential elements, but if, as you admit, life is a very rare thing even in this optimal universe, there would be little reason to posit it’s existence in a radically different set of circumstances.
quote:
And all of those are pre-requisites for stars, rocks, ice, etc... Everything in our universe requires our universe to be exactly like our universe is. Since there's more star-mass rather than bio-mass, shouldn't we assume that the universe was tailored for stars, and not biology?
But that doesn’t deny the central thesis, because rocks, stars, ice, etc, are necessary pre-conditions for the existence of life. And the mass of the universe (a part of which is ‘star mass’, among other things) actually helps maintain a universe wherein life can exist. In other words, galaxies you don’t even know exist allow you to do so.
quote:
I wasn't talking about a hand-written sign. I was talking about gigantic flaming letters that could not exist in our universe without metaphysical help. E.g. something for which there can be no possible explanation. A bit brazen and unreasonable of a request, I'll grant, but convincing nevertheless.
Well, you need look no further than your own cells to see coded information for which there is no natural explanation.
quote:
I'm not really ignoring the evidence. As mentioned elsewhere, the reason I lost my belief is because I kept learning more and more about the world, and kept finding a lack of a deity in it. For quite a number of years I was arguing in favor of Christianity. In retrospect, I can tear my own arguments to shreds. Granted, they were bottom-shelf arguments to begin with, so that's not saying much.
I accepted the gospel without proof. I then lost faith because of a failure to find any. | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
. 