Are you an atheist?

[rsmonkey]

I am an atheist, but if god appeared before me tomorrow I would change my mind"[QUOTE/]

surely that is what all atheist would have to select? IF a 'God' lets say like Raiden from Mortal Kombat came down to earth I would find it hard to beleive that people would still refuse to beleive in God, so the voting system is floored. As people have already sed, Dawking 'The God Dillusion' is a good book in tackling the atheist question. And as Rabbie sed the lack of understanding of what happened before the big bang suggests in no way that it was a supernatural event thus the existence of God, however due to our current knowledge this doesnt disprove his/her/it's possible existence either, therefore this argument is never going to go anywhere. Ultimately I guess it comes down to opinion and I do not beleive in the existence of god purely because from and educated standpoint this seems to be the most illogical solution.

I know that their is some particle accelerator in Geneva, well a couple miles underneath it, where they hope to prove prove the big bang theory etc and I know this was built and turned of April/May time 2007 but I have not herd anything since, anyone know of any findings from it?

 

[rsmonkey]

for anyone interested:

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

this is the site for that particle accelerator, it doesnt get turned on till later this year apparently! Oh and it has an electromagnet 7 stories high.... awsome!

 

[Rabbie]

The fact that the natural laws cannot explain before the big bang makes it by definition supernatural. So some supernatural force must be responsible.

Clearly many differing views of what the supernatural force or God is, and to dismiss any of these ideas when holding none yourself seems dumb, and arrogant at the same time.

What is the definition of the God you do not believe in?

Two hundred years ago the idea of Radio or Television would have seemed to be only possible by Magic or Supernatural forces. We now know better. Just because we currently don't know what happened before the big bang does not make it supernatural.

As a sane person I know what I believe in. As for gods I don't believe in - there are so many it would take longer than my likely life time to define them all.

I think up to now we all on boths sides of this debate have managed to conduct it with a certain amount of respect for each others views so I don't think it is helpful to call people dumb or arrogant.

 

[Mike375]

Two hundred years ago the idea of Radio or Television would have seemed to be only possible by Magic or Supernatural forces. We now know better. Just because we currently don't know what happened before the big bang does not make it supernatural.

A big difference today is that our knowledge is right at the core, nuclear fission. But we are as far from an explanation of the universe as we were 1000s of years ago. Even Hawking has said all science ceases once you go back to a point in time that is one millionth of a second after the Big Bang.

As for gods I don't believe in - there are so many it would take longer than my likely life time to define them all.

Which god is as irrelevant as which brand of evolution. In fact it remains a mystery to me why so many people associate a belief in or lack of belief in evolution with atheism.

 

[Rich]

Can you present any other option that is not supernatural.


Well what option do you select over supernatural?

Yes, it's always been there

 

[Rabbie]

Which god is as irrelevant as which brand of evolution. In fact it remains a mystery to me why so many people associate a belief in or lack of belief in evolution with atheism.

And to me. I know many non atheists who beleive in Evolution. I suspect the connection you refer to originates with fundamentalist Christian creationists.

I'd prefer to have a definition and maybe think about it a little before dismissing it (or do you have a finite list of definitions of God, and are more than half way to death?)

That is your choice which I respect. Please don't insist I have to make it as well.

If you check my profile you will see I am well past the halfway mark.

 

[Dennisk]

In answer to the question What came before the big bang, well time as we know it is a property of our universe.

Therefore the correct answer is 'there is no such thing as before the big bang'

 

[Mike375]

Yes, it's always been there

That is also one of my options and for a simple reason. "Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

Big Bang does not support Always There because Big bang is not about "stuff" expanding into space but the space itself expanding and taking everything with it. Of course that brings up the problem of what did space expand into

"Always being There" indirecly supports the Bible and for two reasons. Firstly, the Bible does not really portray a god that is all powerful and all knowing. Just consider how much of the Bible concerns God/Jesus setting tests for man. In fact the requirement for Jesus to be on earth is about an imperfect creation. Events such as The Flood do not go hand in hand with an allow powerful all knowing God, more a superman deal. As to Genesis it is quite possible that is referring to the solar system.

Secondly, if the universe has always been there then that means there was an infinite amount of time for the god portrayed in the Bible to have evolved.

 

[Mike375]

In answer to the question What came before the big bang, well time as we know it is a property of our universe.

Therefore the correct answer is 'there is no such thing as before the big bang'

Hawking http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

 

[Alisa]

Wow, a lot has been said since the last time I read this thread. I am amazed at how civil everyone has been (knock on wood). On the other hand, it is not amazing at all that after over 100 posts in this thread, not a single credible argument has been presented for god's existence. These are the arguments I have seen presented so far:

1. Argument: We don't know how the universe started. Therefore, I choose to believe god created the universe.
Response: Our ignorance of the origins of the universe is not evidence that god created the universe. It is evidence of our ignorance.

2. Argument: I can't comprehend how you can live with not knowing how the universe started. Therefore, believing that god didn't create the universe requires as much faith as believing that he did create the universe. Therefore, you can't refute my arguments which are based on faith because you have faith too.
Response: Accepting our ignorance about the origins of the universe does not require faith. It simply requires a reality check. Your choice to believe that god created the universe is not evidence that god created the universe.

3. Argument: I can't comprehend (x) aspect of evolutionary theory. Therefore, god did it.
Response: Your inability to comprehend evolutionary theory has no bearing on its validity. Furthermore, the absence of evolutionary theory would not provide evidence for god's existence.

4. Argument: I feel happy when I think about my belief in god.
Response: I feel happy too, no belief in god required. Your feelings when you think about god are not evidence that god exists.

5. Argument: I don't need to prove that god exists. I have faith that he exists.
Response: Your choice belief that god exists is not evidence that he exists. If he really did exists, there would be evidence in that direction.

6. Argument: God really does exists, but he is in a different dimension than us, so therefore we can't see any evidence that he exists, because he is keeping his existence hidden from us.
Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

7. Argument: Atheist, you prove to me that he doesn't exist.
Response: The scientific method is based on gathering evidence. Because there is not a speck of evidence for god's existence, there is nothing to disprove.

Did I miss anyone?

 

[Rabbie]

Secondly, if the universe has always been there then that means there was an infinite amount of time for the god portrayed in the Bible to have evolved

But no evidence that he has evolved.

 

[Mike375]

But no evidence that he has evolved.

Let's jump forward from the Big Bang because Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, NASA all drop at that point. Perhaps they need to consult Alisa.

I am still waiting for someone to describe to me how a lizard gets to a snake and survives the millions of years while it is from 30% to 70% of the way there. Someone on the thread quoted Richard Dawkins as saying if we went back through time in extremely small steps we would never notice anything as the change is so gradual. That makes the problem worse.

Consider that living today are almost no transitional type lizards/snakes. In fact offhand I can't think of one species of lizard that has a jaw structure even remotely like a snake and I can't think of one snake species that has a jaw structure remotely like a lizard. Thus they don't survive. So how did the evolution occur when the transitional type can't survive. If we believe Richard Dawkins there would have been literally thousands of forms to get from lizard to snake. Given they have to be able to survive for millions of years to get from lizard to snake then we should see heaps of them today, but we don't. In fact Richard Dawkins is indirectly telling us that for each species of snake and lizard there will have been 1000s of "in betweeners". Given their sheer weight of numbers and the fact that they could have survived for millions of years (according to evolutionists) we should see more of the inbetweeners today than actual snakes and lizards. But just the opposite is the case. Also note that legless lizards are only like snakes in superficial appearance.

Now I am certainly being selective with lizard/snake but even so it is not just some one off. There are more species of reptile than mammal and they are about 50/50 split for lizard and snake.

Now we come to a fork in the road. If as the evolutionists say, the lizard evolved to the snake, then it looks like a lot loose talk when you try and fill in the details. Or, have the evolutionists got it wrong and the snake did not evolve from the lizard. Well if that is the case then it is a pretty heavy duty mistake Let's keep in mind here that the lizard style archosaur was the first bloke after the amphibian so we are not talking about an animal type that is off to one side of the evolution deal.

I think any reasonable person without prejudice would agree that lizard gradually evolving to a snake is a very shaky looking deal. If you were making something in Access and the way you were doing it looked as shaky as Lizard to Snake, then you would back track real quick and look for an alternative.

So what is the alternative to evolution. What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

Given the size of the universe then surely there are froms of life that are way way above humans. Evidence is all around you for the involvement of a supernatual being or beings. In addition it is also logical unless you believe in all the universe there is nothing above a human.

 

[Alisa]

Mike375, you said:

So what is the alternative to evolution.

You are still rehashing the argument I summarized as argument 3 on my list. Even if evolutionary theory did not exist, that would still provide no evidence of your statement that:

What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

How do we know for sure? That is a rhetorical question. Obviously we don't know for sure, some people are just brought up to have faith that this is so.
On another subject, I have been meaning to ask you, how come your name has a red square next to it, while everyone else seems to have a green square?

 

[Mike375]

1. Argument: We don't know how the universe started. Therefore, I choose to believe god created the universe.

Response: Our ignorance of the origins of the universe is not evidence that god created the universe. It is evidence of our ignorance.

No, those who see a supernatural answer in the absence of any other type of answer do not restrict themselves to a zealot type belief.

2. Argument: I can't comprehend how you can live with not knowing how the universe started. Therefore, believing that god didn't create the universe requires as much faith as believing that he did create the universe. Therefore, you can't refute my arguments which are based on faith because you have faith too.

Response: Accepting our ignorance about the origins of the universe does not require faith. It simply requires a reality check. Your choice to believe that god created the universe is not evidence that god created the universe.

And your belief that God did not create the universe is not evidence that he did not create the universe. However, at the present time a supernatural is the only thing that we know of that could create the universe.

3. Argument: I can't comprehend (x) aspect of evolutionary theory. Therefore, god did it.

Response: Your inability to comprehend evolutionary theory has no bearing on its validity. Furthermore, the absence of evolutionary theory would not provide evidence for god's existence.

I don't remember that argument being put forward. Could you give the post numbe ror numbers as I don't remember that being said.

4. Argument: I feel happy when I think about my belief in god.

Response: I feel happy too, no belief in god required. Your feelings when you think about god are not evidence that god exists.

I missed that argument as well.

5. Argument: I don't need to prove that god exists. I have faith that he exists.

Response: Your choice belief that god exists is not evidence that he exists. If he really did exists, there would be evidence in that direction.

The evidence surrounds you but you prefer to reject it. What single piece of evidence to you have that a supernatural did not create the universe. I guess if you were living at Newtons time you would take his gravity laws as 100%

6. Argument: God really does exists, but he is in a different dimension than us, so therefore we can't see any evidence that he exists, because he is keeping his existence hidden from us.

Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

Again, I don't remember that argument being presented. As to your response to you really believe that you can accurately work out the motivations, actions of a supernaturat that could created the universe. Can an ant work out what or why you do something. In addition you are assuming if there is a supernaturat he/it is concerned about us.

7. Argument: Atheist, you prove to me that he doesn't exist.

Response: The scientific method is based on gathering evidence. Because there is not a speck of evidence for god's existence, there is nothing to disprove.

Not a speck of evidence for a supernatural's existence? I think the universe is good evidence that the probability of a supernatural is high. I am sure there is another alternative but you and some others seem to want to keep it a secret

 

[Alisa]

Mike375, now you are just trying the exhaustion strategy. i.e., if I just repeat the same meaningless responses enough times, the atheist will give up and go away.
But, to answer the part of your post that actually was a question:
You have put forth argument number 3 in almost all of your posts. I understand that you cannot comprehend that the process of natural selection could lead to the evolution of different species over time. However, your lack of comprehension is not evidence that god exists.
As far as argument number 4, sandy said:

Agree, the sky is beautiful with or without the belief that God exists. However, my faith in God makes me feel good when I see intricacies and beauty in nature. I feel the existence of God.

As far as argument number 6, craig said:

Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

 

[Mike375]

You are still rehashing the argument I summarized as argument 3 on my list.

Well you were pretty big on the Bible/evolution early in your thread. Also, as I explained in my previous post we needed to come forward from big bang becasue even Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and NASA are stopped at that point.

Even if evolutionary theory did not exist, that would still provide no evidence of your statement that:
Quote:
What we do know for sure is a supernatural being can handle lizard and snake with a click of his/its fingers.

A supernatural could handle lizard to snake with a click of the fingers. I think what you are trying to say is that evolution failing to get lizard to snake does not mean a supernatural was at the steering wheel. I don't disagree with that, but what is the alternative. Why do you regard a supernatural as impossible.

You appear to be the counterpart (and I know you have lots of company, in the millions) of the religious zealot. They utterly refuse to investigate or consider anything that is not devine intervention.

You should be able to work out the red square yourself.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Let's jump forward from the Big Bang because Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, NASA all drop at that point. Perhaps they need to consult Alisa.

Why do we have to believe that what todays Scientists say is correct, after all the experts once thought the Earth was flat.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Alisa

It is part of the reputation system on the forum, somebody obviously thought Mike talked a load of rubbish.

Brian

But at least he talks and the system is c£$p anyway

 

[Mike375]

Mike375, now you are just trying the exhaustion strategy. i.e., if I just repeat the same meaningless responses enough times, the atheist will give up and go away.

No, I answered your questions and also asked for the post numbers.

But, to answer the part of your post that actually was a question:
You have put forth argument number 3 in almost all of your posts. I understand that you cannot comprehend that the process of natural selection could lead to the evolution of different species over time.

Natural selection is not the basis for evolution, it is mutations. Natural selection changes the prevalence of colours, height etc and etc but without mutations you won't have a change in the species. Peppermoths. Natural selection provides the best chance for the mutation to continue.

As far as argument number 4, sandy said:
Quote:
Agree, the sky is beautiful with or without the belief that God exists. However, my faith in God makes me feel good when I see intricacies and beauty in nature. I feel the existence of God.

I don't think that was an argument, just a light hearted post.

As far as argument number 6, craig said:
Quote:
Please remember that God exists outside of the laws of physics and time. He's omniscient, omnipresent, and unimpressed by attempts to force him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

Well God is a supernatural so all of the above is true if God exists.

Your response seems to be unrelated.....Response: If there really was a god, wouldn't he want us to know that he existed? Why would he be hiding? In any case, lack of evidence for god's existence is not evidence that he exists.

 

[Alisa]

I think what you are trying to say is that evolution failing to get lizard to snake does not mean a supernatural was at the steering wheel. I don't disagree with that, but what is the alternative.

The alternative is to simply admit that we don't know the answer. Scary I know.

You appear to be the counterpart (and I know you have lots of company, in the millions) of the religious zealot. They utterly refuse to investigate or consider anything that is not devine intervention.

I disagree. If I were the counterpart of a religous zealot, I would have checked option 1 on my poll. People who chose option 1 are in my opinion just as irrational as those who chose option 4 or 5 - they base their opinion on belief and faith rather than evidence and reason. I actually checked option 2, because if evidence that god actually does exist surfaces, I will be the first to change my opnion. However, until that day, I will continue to challenge the assumption that god or supernatural powers are the default answer whenever we don't understand or can't explain something.

I see now - I thought maybe you had your own special category of reputation, I didn't realize that red= bad.