Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#321 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:52 AM

Why the shouting? I have no idea what you are talking about.

View Post


You cannot shout on the internet, but you can highlight the point the other person is obviously missing. I used all caps, because obviously you either DID NOT read the OP, or you don't know what an OP is. And, we have to get beyond that before we can continue. YOU will have a hard time conversing on this subject if you cannot speak within the context of the subject.

Civility is a two way street. It is a common courtesy to find out what the conversation is about prior to busting into the middle of it with out-of-context observations.

#322 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:01 PM

Ah, thank you AFJ. I have read the first post. So now what? Can we resume the discussion?

View Post


If and when you do (or did) read the OP, you'll easily be able to pick out the prevarications built into your attempts at answering the questions posted there.

So, I suggest again, go back, read the OP, then follow the guide lines (standards/rules established there) before attempting to answer the questions posed.

If you are having a hard time, I'll be more than happy to re-post it here for your convenience.

#323 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 February 2011 - 10:21 AM

Silence is just silence Adam,  not confirmation.

View Post

If you have a relationship with another being such as a friendship with a non hostile point of view and you are asked a question, silence will often be viewed as an act of passive aggression. In practical reality non response, when responses have been given in the past, will be perceived as confirmation of hostility. Try it and see. Let someone ask you a question and ask them how they feel when you ignore their question. Under these circumstances a non response is an act of aggression.

#324 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 February 2011 - 11:06 AM

It's just additional confirmation that atheists see the intellectual vacuum created by atheism, if not in profession, at least in practice.

View Post

Silence is just silence Adam, not confirmation.

View Post


Hmmm, not only is that not necessarily true, but depending upon the conversation it is rarely true. You are of course referring to the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ex silentio", which is that of one supposing another's silence is necessarily proof of ignorance, or lack of good refutation.

But, in the case of this thread, the silence is deafening because I didn’t leave any wiggle room for prevarication, equivocation, or quibbling. I asked for facts, not opinion. And, since atheism relies on just as much faith (if not more) than any other of the world’s religions, the atheist cannot “factually” answer the OP questions. They can only answer with faith statements.

#325 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 01 March 2011 - 06:10 PM

But, in the case of this thread, the silence is deafening because I didn’t leave any wiggle room for prevarication, equivocation, or quibbling.

View Post


I looked through this thread and you do get straight answers to your questions in posts 2, 39 and 291 but you dismiss them as "equivocations" without showing how a term's meaning has been changed. You might not like the answers you've received but you can't claim there has been silence.

#326 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 March 2011 - 06:39 PM

But, in the case of this thread, the silence is deafening because I didn’t leave any wiggle room for prevarication, equivocation, or quibbling.

View Post

I looked through this thread and you do get straight answers to your questions in posts 2, 39 and 291 but you dismiss them as "equivocations" without showing how a term's meaning has been changed. You might not like the answers you've received but you can't claim there has been silence.

View Post


Mitch, you'd be better off re-reading the OP for this thread before you jump to the conclusions you already have.

Post 2 was answered, and refuted per the OP in post 8

Post 39 was answered, and refuted per the OP in post 41

And in post 291, Walter was attempting to pull the same thing you are doing here. So, again read the OP, it is the key to answering the questions.

And lastly, yes, there has been massive amounts of silence, because no one has honestly attempted to answer the OP according to the OP! Further, YOU are taking the "silence" statement out of context, because it was covering a specific period of time, not the entire thread. Therefore that portion of your comment is a non sequitur.

#327 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 April 2011 - 06:52 AM

I think it’s important to point out here, that we are currently getting a new spate of atheists who don’t recognize the massive amounts of faith built into their worldview, thusly providing the religiosity they are blindly following.

In the below example, you’ll see one atheist arguing from his faith opinions, when asked for facts:

http://www.evolution...opic=3891&st=20
(See post 27, and my rebuttal in post 32)

This further provides support to my thesis of atheism as a religious worldview. And, as you’ll notice in this OP, the atheist cannot answer the OP questions factually (with empiricism), but must use faith laden and ‘a priori’ opinion.


http://www.evolution...topic=3001&st=0

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

View Post



#328 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 15 April 2011 - 08:53 PM

I think it’s important to point out here, that we are currently getting a new spate of atheists who don’t recognize the massive amounts of faith built into their worldview, thusly providing the religiosity they are blindly following.

In the below example, you’ll see one atheist arguing from his faith opinions, when asked for facts:

http://www.evolution...opic=3891&st=20
(See post 27, and my rebuttal in post 32)

This further provides support to my thesis of atheism as a religious worldview. And, as you’ll notice in this OP, the atheist cannot answer the OP questions factually (with empiricism), but must use faith laden and ‘a priori’ opinion. 
http://www.evolution...topic=3001&st=0

View Post


I agree with you Ron. There is faith involved in Atheism. It is impossible to empirically prove the non-existence of God, neither is it possible to empirically prove the existence of the Biblical God, or any other.

Also, if you'll notice in my very first post I both began and concluded with the following

I believe there is no God.

(emphasis added).

I admitted the belief-based nature of my position from the very outset. It's not new, or ground-breaking to claim atheism is a 'religious worldview'. It's something every atheist who's intellectually honest will readily admit.

#329 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 April 2011 - 07:28 AM

I think it’s important to point out here, that we are currently getting a new spate of atheists who don’t recognize the massive amounts of faith built into their worldview, thusly providing the religiosity they are blindly following.

In the below example, you’ll see one atheist arguing from his faith opinions, when asked for facts:

http://www.evolution...opic=3891&st=20
(See post 27, and my rebuttal in post 32)

This further provides support to my thesis of atheism as a religious worldview. And, as you’ll notice in this OP, the atheist cannot answer the OP questions factually (with empiricism), but must use faith laden and ‘a priori’ opinion. 
http://www.evolution...topic=3001&st=0

View Post


I agree with you Ron. There is faith involved in Atheism.

View Post


Here’s the thing Ventus…

One, you are not agreeing with me. Why? Because I am not asserting that “There is faith involved in Atheism”, I am asserting that Atheism has absolutely NO foundation, and is therefore a religion. And all of the posts at this thread do nothing but prove that point again-and-again.

Two, if this is what you agree with, that’s fine. If not, you either haven’t read my posts, you are intentionally attempting to twist my posts, Or you simply cannot deal with the implications.


It is impossible to empirically prove the non-existence of God, neither is it possible to empirically prove the existence of the Biblical God, or any other.

View Post


Here you go with the “it’s impossible to prove a negative” atheistic canard again. It is not impossible to prove a negative, further it is not “impossible to empirically prove the existence of the Biblical God”. But, is this what the OP is about? Are you attempting to waste time in this OP because you connot come to grips the religion of atheisim?

Also, if you'll notice in my very first post I both began and concluded with the following

I believe there is no God.

(emphasis added).

View Post

Actually, you have made no such statement in this thread, nor have you drawn any such conclusion in this thread. Therefore your assertion is currently a side-tracking of this OP.

I admitted the belief-based nature of my position from the very outset. It's not new, or ground-breaking to claim atheism is a 'religious worldview'. It's something  every atheist who's intellectually honest will readily admit.

View Post


I totally agree with the last sentence of the above, and also concur that it is in compliance with this OP. Unfortunately, no other atheist at this forum has (to date) readily admitted this fact.

#330 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:36 PM

Here’s the thing Ventus…

One, you are not agreeing with me. Why? Because I am not asserting that “There is faith involved in Atheism”, I am asserting that Atheism has absolutely NO foundation, and is therefore a religion. And all of the posts at this thread do nothing but prove that point again-and-again.


Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.

In your OP you point to a few aspects of experience, specifically math, logic, love and thoughts as being metaphysical and therefore somehow demonstrative that the sum of human existence then requires a metaphysical aspect, the origin of which cannot be materialistic.

You are demonstrably wrong in this. All four of those examples are materialistic in nature and can be shown to have no metaphysical qualities.

Logic and Mathematics are NOT laws as you claim. They are methods of describing materialistic reality. One plus one is two, not because of some fundamental metaphysical Truth, but because when one materialistic object is placed with another materialistic object, you have two materialistic objects. Also, mathematics are ONLY capable of describing the materialistic world, if there was a metaphysical component to math the language should suffice to explain metaphysical things. It doesn't. Mathematics is materialist, not metaphysical.

Logic is exactly the same thing. Logic is only capable of describing a materialistic reality. It is the structure that arguments may take in order to be true. This can only be judged in relation to the functioning of materialistic reality, and even then it only really functions at the level of functioning which humans are biologically prepared to handle. Logic works very well at describing human experience, but when you get down to the very, very small and discover something like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it becomes clear that logic is only a language, and not a metaphysical law.

Love and Thought are both demonstrably the result of biochemistry, or at the very least, so profoundly materialistic in nature that it's impossible to declare them as 'metaphysical'. What we describe as 'love' is the subjective description of a biochemical process, based entirely on the biological need to procreate with the most genetically suitable partner. It's pheromones and brain chemistry and evolutionarily programmed preferences for symmetry and health.

Thought is the same. If thoughts weren't materialistic it wouldn't be so easy to alter them with nothing more than chemicals. Anti-depressants, hallucinogens and alcohol wouldn't have nearly the profound effect on altering the very way we think that they do.

Therefore, given that there are no aspects of human experience which are undeniably 'metaphysical' in nature, it's entirely proper to conclude that there is nothing more to existence than the material and that the question of human origins is perfectly well described by the existing Theories of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Uniformitarianism and Evolution.

Subsequently, when the question of God is raised, it's perfectly sound to quote Pierre-Simon Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

#331 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 22 April 2011 - 03:26 AM

I am not asserting that “There is faith involved in Atheism”, I am asserting that Atheism has absolutely NO foundation, and is therefore a religion

View Post

I agree completely. A religion has absolutely NO foundation!

#332 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 April 2011 - 05:46 AM

I am not asserting that “There is faith involved in Atheism”, I am asserting that Atheism has absolutely NO foundation, and is therefore a religion

View Post


I agree completely. A religion has absolutely NO foundation!

View Post


And I agree with you completely... Atheism is a religion!

Now, is this really the little game you want to continue to play falcone? It seems to me, I've had to warn you about these antics previously (but I'll have to check).

If you cannot deal with the OP questions (as you have proven in the past), you may want to go back to those forums that allow such antics.

#333 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 April 2011 - 07:29 AM

Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.

View Post

As we notice, Ventus has (once again) made several statements that he cannot (or has yet to) back up with any facts (as the OP called for). He continually does this within the forum, but especially on this thread, which particularly prohibits such, with succinct and cogent questions devised to expose such prevarications.

First, he makes the statement “Atheism has perfectly sound foundations”, and then makes absolutely no attempt to provide evidence for his statement. He further admitted (on several occasions) that atheism is faith based, and yet attempts to submit that it has solid foundations.

Second, he makes another baseless, fact-less and rather non-pithy assertion about “materialistic” origins, and yet, once again, makes absolutely no attempt to provide evidence for his statement.

Third, since both statements are merely presupposed opinion and the second statement is an attempt to posit an “abiogenesis” like origin; both statements fail the OP, and the second statement totally fails the forum rules in particular.

Conclusion: [Mod hat] Ventus receives a warning to review and adhere to the forum rules AND the context of the thread rules (all of which he agreed to prior to being accepted to this forum) prior to making any more posts at this forum, or this thread! [Mod Hat Off].

In your OP you point to a few aspects of experience, specifically math, logic, love and thoughts as being metaphysical and therefore somehow demonstrative that the sum of human existence then requires a metaphysical aspect, the origin of which cannot be materialistic.

View Post


All of which are logical, rational and scientific facts…

You are demonstrably wrong in this. All four of those examples are materialistic in nature and can be shown to have no metaphysical qualities.

View Post

Really? Show me a “mathematics”, a “logic”, a “love” and a “thought”… In fact, provide one of each, and paint it green, take a picture of it, and post it at this thread.

Here’s a hint… You cannot… because, as a fact, you can ONLY provide the resultant of each of these CLEARLY metaphysical phenomena!

Logic and Mathematics are NOT laws as you claim. They are methods of describing materialistic reality. One plus one is two, not because of some fundamental metaphysical Truth, but because when one materialistic object is placed with another materialistic object, you have two materialistic objects. Also, mathematics are ONLY capable of describing the materialistic world, if there was a metaphysical component to math the language should suffice to explain metaphysical things. It doesn't. Mathematics is materialist, not metaphysical.

View Post


Incorrect. And your relativistic side is finally showing itself.
First, show me a Logic!
Second, show me a Mathematic!
You cannot, because BOTH are immaterial!

At best, you can only show me the resultant of each; therefore your hypothesis is invalid and moot. As a “materialistic atheist” You cannot account for the metaphysical, yet you attempt to explain it from a purely physical viewpoint. What kills your argument is that you are forced to use the “incorporeal” to do so! And yet you cannot use these abstract phenomena to verify the same! For example, you cannot even use the verification principle to VERIFY the verification principle! Therefore you are on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma!

Anyway: You can deny the Laws of “Logic and Mathematics” all you wish, but they will be:
FIRST – Exposed…
SECOND – Thereafter disallowed.

Here are some examples of the laws of logic:
http://www.stanford....ded.middle.html

http://www.britannic...laws-of-thought

http://plato.stanfor...ncontradiction/

http://psychology.wi.../wiki/Causality


Some of the mathematical laws:
http://www.britannic...associative-law

http://www.chacha.co...m-in-math-terms

http://www.ecalc.com...etry-identities

http://www.mathsteac...09_dist/law.htm

http://imajna.oxford...006.short?rss=1

Combinations of the two:
http://plato.stanfor...ogic-tradition/


Conclusion: [MOD HAT] If you continue to argue irrationally via your own non-empirical opinion and fact-less presuppositions, you will be removed from this forum. [MOD HAT OFF]
The balance of your post is moot, as you have totally failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of your asertions. As usual, you have only provided mere opinion.

#334 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 April 2011 - 10:37 AM

Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people. ...

View Post

I guess it takes a rather enormous amount of faith to believe something like that.

#335 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 April 2011 - 10:53 AM

Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people. ...

View Post


I guess it takes a rather enormous amount of faith to believe something like that.

View Post


Indeed! And yet he'll make the statment with a straight face, without even realizing the implications of his assertions!

#336 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2011 - 09:33 AM

Really? Show me a “mathematics”, a “logic”, a “love” and a “thought”… In fact, provide one of each, and paint it green, take a picture of it, and post it at this thread.

View Post


:D Golden!! :lol:

#337 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:11 PM


Really? Show me a “mathematics”, a “logic”, a “love” and a “thought”… In fact, provide one of each, and paint it green, take a picture of it, and post it at this thread.

View Post


:D Golden!! :lol:

View Post


Unfortunately, even given this straight forward “in your face” irrefutable line of logic and evidence, they will still quibble, equivocate and try to wriggle out of it.

#338 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 November 2011 - 05:35 AM

Here’s the thing Ventus…
One, you are not agreeing with me. Why? Because I am not asserting that “There is faith involved in Atheism”, I am asserting that Atheism has absolutely NO foundation, and is therefore a religion. And all of the posts at this thread do nothing but prove that point again-and-again.


Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.


Another point that exposes the fallaciousness and faith based proposition of atheism can be found in the totally religious statement by Ventus above. He is basing his total world-view, philosophy, and some may say “eternal soul” on the hope of an unfounded, unscientific, and unempirical proposition that life came from hydrogen + time; and he rests his faith in it as if this proposition is fait accompli! AND he’ll defend that stance zealously, with the all fanatical dogmatism of those they call religious dogmatists (as will most materialist atheists), AND they’ll deny doing so the whole time… Now that is FAITH!

#339 Maths_PhD

Maths_PhD

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 09 November 2011 - 12:45 PM

I have a few questions for the atheists. But before I ask, I will make the following stipulations for the discussion within this thread, to keep the fluff out of this thread:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!
2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).
3- If you don’t know, simply say “I don’t know”! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) “there is no God”; because you said “I don’t know”. This includes making statements like (for example) “there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God” because; you said “I don’t know”. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
4- If you are going to make a “Negative” assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.
7- If you post links to other people’s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

SO…. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

We have existence right now… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Interacting with the world both physically and intellectually.

We’ve had existence in the past… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity.
3- Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


<edited by Ron 01/01/2010> any repetitive equivocations, and/or repetitive equivocating statements will be removed to keep the fluff down, and hopefully, meaningful conversation flowing.

I note that the questions you ask are not concerned with atheism per se but with science.
1) Where did we come from? What kind of answer do you want, this is a very loosely worded question, where did the universe come from? How did life begin? Where did I come from personally? To answer the first question, there are several ideas from cosmology from the higher dimensional brane idea to us being one of many universe which spontaneously came into existence due to quantum fluctuations, there is a model floating around in cosmology which talks about a zero energy universe which can explain (at least theoretically) why something can come from nothing. The second question concerns abiogenesis, this I know little about other than it is the area of science which tries to explain how life formed. I understand that there was a new breakthrough from a group in Manchester university on the topic. This is a young science and the biggest breakthroughs are yet to come. As for where I came from, ask my parents ;)

As for your assertions that we use our "metaphysical" and "ethereal" aspects to derive things like "the laws of logic"(This is a strawman, as logic is essentially a branch of mathematics and there are many different systems of logic, so the phrase "laws of logic" makes no sense). mathematics is essentially derived from axioms, and observations from nature, the Egyptians came up with much of the basic notions of things like area and volume from practical necessity. So I think that you need to hae a think about the reasons why you said the above things. The question of the origins is not a philosophical one but a scientific one and I have covered these questions before.

So the4 final question comes down to my worldview, why do I not believe in any form of deity? The answer is because of the lack of evidence of a deity basically. I also see science as pointing towards a rule driven universe, one that is solely based upon physical/chemical and biological mechanisms not one where miracles are possible. I also think that evolution gives me the best proof I need as to why there is no deity. Also information from astronomy, we observe formations of new planets/new suns all the time in the universe, our planet in our solar system in our galaxy is nothing special from a physics perspective.

#340 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 November 2011 - 06:58 PM

I note that the questions you ask are not concerned with atheism per se but with science.

No, the questions speak directly to the atheists faith statements concerning our origins. Yes, they indeed deal with science, but they deal with logic and philosophy. That is, given all of the empirical evidence adduced, how can one remain an atheist? Especially a materialistic atheist; how can they reconcile the total lack of scientific evidence with the materialistic atheists philosophy, and do it logically?

1) Where did we come from? What kind of answer do you want, this is a very loosely worded question, where did the universe come from? How did life begin? Where did I come from personally? To answer the first question, there are several ideas from cosmology from the higher dimensional brane idea to us being one of many universe which spontaneously came into existence due to quantum fluctuations, there is a model floating around in cosmology which talks about a zero energy universe which can explain (at least theoretically) why something can come from nothing.

The question was laid out quite succinctly… Don’t simply provide ‘a priori’ opinion, but rather actual empirical scientific evidence! No equivocations, time wasting or side tracking, no “Negative” assertions without factual evidence (etc…).

“Ideas” from cosmology do not fit the OP, as they are only hypotheses, and presupposed opinions… Zero energy universe models explain nothing “factually” either. And none of it give ANY factual information showing how “something can come from nothing”! Facts only!



The second question concerns abiogenesis, this I know little about other than it is the area of science which tries to explain how life formed. I understand that there was a new breakthrough from a group in Manchester university on the topic. This is a young science and the biggest breakthroughs are yet to come. As for where I came from, ask my parents ;)

The above is basically the logical fallacy of “argumentum ad futurus”, and has no basis in factual reality. So, it fails as well.





As for your assertions that we use our "metaphysical" and "ethereal" aspects to derive things like "the laws of logic"(This is a strawman, as logic is essentially a branch of mathematics and there are many different systems of logic, so the phrase "laws of logic" makes no sense). mathematics is essentially derived from axioms, and observations from nature, the Egyptians came up with much of the basic notions of things like area and volume from practical necessity. So I think that you need to hae a think about the reasons why you said the above things. The question of the origins is not a philosophical one but a scientific one and I have covered these questions before.

So the4 final question comes down to my worldview, why do I not believe in any form of deity? The answer is because of the lack of evidence of a deity basically. I also see science as pointing towards a rule driven universe, one that is solely based upon physical/chemical and biological mechanisms not one where miracles are possible. I also think that evolution gives me the best proof I need as to why there is no deity. Also information from astronomy, we observe formations of new planets/new suns all the time in the universe, our planet in our solar system in our galaxy is nothing special from a physics perspective.


Unfortunately for the materialistic atheist, the “Laws of Logic” are facts, as they are self-evident. Much like the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… But they are "metaphysical" and "ethereal" because you cannot use any of your physical senses to detect these laws. You can use physical phenomena to prove they are real, but they are "metaphysical" and "ethereal" none-the-less… And mathematics cannot proceed without the Laws of Logic, as the Laws of Mathematics MUST be set up in a logical fashion and manner.

And finally, the questions in no way draw the Christian God, into the equation, therefore you attempt to do so is itself a straw-man (or even a red herring). The questions were given to allow the materialistic atheist to either provide empirical evidence for their foundations from a materialistic standpoint, or admit the massive amounts of faith that their world-view subsists by. But, as we have found out over and over, the atheist has no answer, and therefore must fall back on presupposition and ‘a priori’ opining…




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users