Atheist Realism?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by ronan, May 12, 2008.

  1. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    Myles, your arguments are to strong for him he has withdrawn, retreated.
    It's has always, if it get to hot for them, they get out of the kitchen. Frigging cowards.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Myles Registered Senior Member

    These people always argue with what I call the conviction of the ignorant. They would not hold the views they do if they had the ability to think about what their beliefs entail. But that's what makes them god-botherers in the first place.

    I find it sad that someone can regard life as only having value if it is granted by a putative creator.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Old man Registered Member

    One will suffice. The chances of accidentally producing the first verse of the Bible by random processes is 1 in 26^44 (26 letters in the alphabet, 44 letters in the sequence) or 1.8147^62. In the realm of mathematics any odds above 10^50 is generally considered impossible. Consider the odds of forming, by random processes, a simple system of 200 components. The odds against it are 1 in 200! or about 1 in 10^375. There are only about 10^80 electrons in the known universe. Assuming 10^80 parts to work with, and 1,000,000,000 trials per second for 30,000,000,000 years you still only come up with 10^104 trials. That is far short of the 10^375 trial needed to ensure success. And we are talking about a simple 200 part system here. Not a 25,000 base pair protein chain.

    See above.

    Nope. Not a mind reader. Your statements make it obvious to the casual observer that you know little or nothing about God. Or if you do know a little bit you reject it out of hand and accuse me of ad hominem when I have merely drawn a conclusion based upon your own words.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    lol, And how does the above answer, prove a god did it, it just shows we don't have all the answers yet. lol.

    Incidentally Myles did ask for sources.

    Lets say for arguments sake, a god did it, then we have the problem which one, of the 2580 gods did it, if in fact we have it listed at all. Oh and remember this does not include the millions of Hindu gods.

    So now you have to establish that your particular god is the one that did it.
    If in fact it was ever done in the first place. Back to the drawing board, Old man. lol.

    Oh I wouldn't go their if I was you, most atheists, came to their decisions, from many years of studying the bible and in a lot of cases other holy books and finding them wanting, most atheist know more about the bible and god than the most vicars, preachers, priest. In most cases it is not a five minute decision for atheists to revert back to the norm.
  8. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Almost all ancient civilizations have references to some type of extra terrestrial beings. Even the bible mentions Methuselah (Noahs grandfather) who lived to be 969 years. Even before that the Sumerians have many references to their own sky gods they referred to as the annukai, and have many carvings depicting advanced technology.

    It is the opinion of some (not mine) that aliens indeed helped man become civilized. They tried to teach us compassion and sacrifice of self for the good of the whole and but over the decades religion misconstrued these concepts and instead turned into a control system which bears little resemblance to the original ideas presented by Jesus himself.

    Religion mistook the idea of 'ascension' presented by these aliens millions of years ahead of us(ie finding the true self allowing higher moral standards) and twisted it into a reward system, which basically said do what we tell you or suffer eternally.

    So why cant we practice these values without some idealistic God to relate too?
  9. Old man Registered Member

    What? The math, which is correct, doesn't show you anything? It does not, per se, prove the existence of God, but it does disprove the possibility of chance which is what the secular world view is founded on.

    No, I don't. You have to establish where life came from in the absence of the soft cushion of chance. There aren't that many alternatives to chose from.

    Something caused the universe to be here. You can not have an effect without a cause. The folks on your side continually push back the limits of time, but they are completely unable to come up with any reasonable alternative.

    Lest you think I'm trying to convert anyone, I assure you I am not since that is not my job. It is possible to be able to quote the Bible, and every other such text verbatim and still know nothing worthwhile about God. Sure, all of His claims can be known, every doctrine can be memorized, and still no effectual use can be made of the knowledge because the natural man does not receive the things of the spirit, neither can he know them. They are foolishness to him because they are spiritually apprehended. You probably already know this, but for the benefit of those who don't, the eyes of most men, despite their credentials, remain blind to spiritual matters on any but the most pragmatic, secular level.

    Take a forum like this for example. There are some people who are open to learning new things and some who are not. That is the nature of the beast. And there are some who delight in trying to drive discussion around in circles, while conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. My purpose here is to engage in reasonable discussion, not fall into the trap of endless argument for the amusement of cynics.
  10. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Sorry, but you still make no sense. It's a variation of monkeys and typewriters.Given enough time ... Do you think what you describe would happen overnight or would the chances not be inproved over millions of years and countless possibilities allowing something to arise ?

    And how dpo you get from your position to an understanding of god and knowledge of what he wants of us, not to mention the Holy Spirit. What are the mathematical chances of a god coming about ex nihilo ?
  11. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Sure you can, its called infinite, an impossible concept to grasp. Your argument applies to your own god as well, for he too must have been an effect of some previous cause, using your reasoning. So where does this cycle stop?
    Gods creating gods creating universes?
    Why not just assume the universe is infinite, but cyclical; seems simpler to me at least.
  12. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Possibly the wisest course of action is to admit that we don't know yet and that we may never know. Inventing facile answers as opposed to accepting uncertainty is not the way to go. It has proved fruitless in the past and will do so in the future. We have reason; let's use it to the best of our ability.
  13. Old man Registered Member

    The calculation allowed twice the supposed age of the universe (10^18 seconds) a billion trials per second, and the total number of electrons in the universe as tools and still falls 10^200 short of enough trials. So no, more time doesn't help.

    A problem we have is that we only know a little bit about God. Mainly His relationship with His creations--us. You asked how I got to my position. Fair enough. For forty years or so I was exposed to 'church', but never heard anything about why the doctrines were what they were, or what a personal relationship with God was. In college the secular view was all that was available. I bought it. I pretty much did as I pleased and rationalized my behavior because my view of God only considered the "God is love" idea. Twenty odd years ago that changed, and it was not because I wanted it to, because I didn't. After a particularly bad few days I prayed, "God if you are real I want to know You". From that moment what I read was no longer mere churchy words. They came alive and got inside me and went to work. Why did I ask? Because the Spirit made it possible and prompted me.

    I understand what a saving relationship is, and why it is. And I kid thee not in my younger years I would have had none of it, even actively scorning those who tried to tell me. In short, my heart was not ready. God made it ready. And I haven't looked back since.
  14. Myles Registered Senior Member

    You are making the assumption that something came fully formed into existence as opposed to evolving gradually; hence your figures mean nothing. I don't know how life got started but I do know it did not start in the way you think. So neither of us knows and that should be admitted. All I can say is that in the primeval soup there were probably millions of opportunities for molecules suitable as a basis for life to develop, and this over millions of years could have lead to primitive organisms developing.Evolution could then account for the rest.

    Yo say we have a problem bercause we know little about god; I would say we know nothing about a god of any kind other than what we invent. Why not apply your statistics to calculating the probability of an all powerful creator who always existed or who appeared spontaneously. You will find the odds against are far greater than those against the possibility of primitive life forms evolving. So the existence of god is far less believable if looked at in this way.

    Saying we know little about god is a get -out. If we know so little how can you explain the confidence with which we arte told that we are sinners, what god's intentions for us are and so on. Anything can be explained away by saying that we know little about god, When I was a a kid the formula for dealing with any tragedy or evil in the world was for someone to say:" it's not for us to question god's ways". When I asked why not, I never got a sensible answer. We have all heard about god moving in mysteriuous ways.

    So it all comes down to a need or a desire to believe in god. Given that belief, there is nothing which cannot be "explained" to the satisfaction of believers.

    I don't doubt your sincerity but you are sescribing your personal experience and assuming it is universally valid. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
  15. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    How would the calculation cope with a one letter word what would be the chance of that. And then once thats established a two letter word, and a four letter, eight letter, etc....
    the point I'm making is you assume that life started in a single instant with 25,000 base pair protein chain, but it could not have.
    It is more likely that two parts mixed in one place and two parts in another etc.. all over the universe, and over the course of time some of those parts mixed to make further parts etc.. and again and again until after eons of time the 25,000 base pair protein chain was formed. so the best answer any sensible person can give at present is we don't have all the answers yet. Not it must because of one of our mythical gods did it, how infantile.
    So sorry your math is in err, and does not disprove the possibility of chance.
    I did say you needed to go Back to the drawing board.

    As I said before you have to now establish that your particular god is the one that did it. If it was ever done in the first place.

    But by your reasoning it is not only a prime mover that caused the universe, it's your prime mover. Arrogant in the extreme.
    A first cause argument does not consider time, time in itself is uncaused.

    The point is these people, were studying from a Christian perspective, they were all born into Christian families and loved god just like you, and the reason they know more now is they tried hard not to lose their faith. but reason won out. could you imagine the wrench the would be on a person, to give up all you believed in.
    That is a hell of an arrogant statement, so all his life, up until the point of reverting back to the default position, he could not have felt gods love or that he had gods love. WOW!
    Thats because once reason steps in, fantasies are known for what they are fantasies. It is unreasonable to have a belief in god/gods.

    Yes, there called religious people.
    Those also are called religious.
    Religious again.
    Then you should try having an open mind. lol
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This probability calculation is based on false presumptions. The odds are nothing like that, and cannot be calculated in that manner.

    One particularly elegant counter-example to them is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, which describes a mechanism by which all those improbabilities are bypassed.
  17. Old man Registered Member

    A common objection. Sadly, organizing a 200 part system in a one-step-at-a-time evolutionary fashion only makes it worse. The calculation changes from 1 in 200! to 1 in 2!+3!+4!+5!+....+200!.

    That is self contradictory. If you don't know how life started how can you "know" I am wrong?

    Then there are the pesky calculations that show that to be impossible. That is a little talked about problem in academic evolutionary circles. It is the skeleton in the closet (one of many). And, as if the odds on a 200 part system aren't bad enough, they get vastly worse as complexity increases. The exponents go up into the hundreds of thousands.

    So, if you don't like the idea of God having a hand in it, then what? It could not, and did not, happen by itself.

    That's an interesting argument. Unfortunately, it isn't valid. You might start by looking up Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, the Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence . The fact of Jesus Christ, who He is and what He did (and does), is one of the best documented events of history. His opponents know that perfectly well, but choose to vehemently deny it as though their objections had power to change history. And because of who He is, His words can be trusted.

    The mind of God is infinite, ours is extremely finite. Since the finite can not contain the infinite I say we actually know only a little about God. But what we do know is quite sufficient.

    You didn't get a sensible answer because the idea of "not questioning God" is silly. The truth is that God is not threatened or insulted if you question Him. There are examples all through scripture of people questioning God about all sorts of things.

    Very good. "Our souls are restless 'till they find their rest in Thee". There is a God-shaped hole in the human heart that nothing else can fill.

    Of course it is not universally valid. Each person has his own experience. My point was that unless and until God changes a man's heart and makes him willing he will never come. For me it took 40+ years of basically beating my head against a wall. Others get it at a young age.
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Old man: The square root of 2132873454534/98458934089075345 = 1

    I don't know what the answer is but it's not 1.

    Old man:
    That is self contradictory. If you don't know the answer how can you "know" I am wrong?
  19. Myles Registered Senior Member

    In a nutshell then, you know about god because of personal experience. I gave up such beliefs when I was in my teens, having completed a course in Christian apologetics.
    Have you tried reading Don Cupitt, a theologian who talks of religion without a personal god. His earliest book, " The Sea of Faith" might be of interest to you.

    As you have been told by myself and others your games with numbers are meaningless but you will not have it. Your argument is based entirely on conjecture and not very well thought out at that.

    It is still not clear how you get from probabilities to a knowledge of god, the holy spirit and what is required of us to achieve salvation from whatever it is we neeed to be saved from.

    This discussion is not wirth continuing from any point of view.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
  20. audible un de plusieurs autres Registered Senior Member

    rotflmao, hasn't it already been said, a prime mover/first cause arguments is self-refuting and as such is poor reasoning because if the premise is true the conclusion must be false. IE Aquinas said
    Premise: Everything is caused by something other then itself.
    Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
    A string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
    If a string of causes cannot be infinitely long there must be a first cause.
    Conclusion: Therefore there must be a first cause a divine entity.

    It is self refuting because if everything has a cause other than itself, then a divine entity must have a cause other than itself. And thus if a divine entity has a cause other then itself, it cannot be the first cause.
    There is no historical evidence for a Jesus person, so what evidence are you referring too.
    how do you know this, isn't that just poor exegesis(eisegesis).

    laughable isn't it.
  21. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Again, no loving father leaves his child to burn for all time. I have not found out that the flip side is justice. You also have no idea what justice is. To let a living thing burn for all time, forever, cannot be justice.

    Then why did you play a game above and deny it at first with that whole 'I am not is a position to judge God' routine so many Christians play. I knew you approved and said so and you denied it.
    Here's the thing. YOu are making claims to understand it. You have explained in your posts why it is OK. How bad most humans are. How it is their free will to choose wrong. How it is justice. You say that it is beyond 'their'limited understanding while at the same time you explain why it makes sense. You have justified the torture of human souls for eternity and seem to think you understand it.

    No. I never said this. I said we could both be accused of doing this. I have not done this. You have such a strong need for me to be a certain way. You have reality in little boxes. But these boxes are not reality.

    I have no need to oppose the God you hallucinate, because that is not God. I would disapprove of a God who burned most people who have ever lived for ever and forever. After one thousand million years of their screams, yes, I would say to God: this is evil what you are doing. Fortunately I do not need to oppose God on this issue, because only cruel humans or terrified ones could come up with such a system.

    [/QUOTE]You are still making assumptions. Of course it is not the god of YOUR Bible. That does not mean I designed God.Perhaps you have very little experience of people and the world, but I am still shocked by how much you assume and what it implies about what you know and don't know.

    No, I truly doubt you 'know my God'.

    However you word it you approve of humans being tortured for all time. Just like the sychophants who approve of fascist despots and their behavior on earth - "those collage students must have been doing soemthing if the police took them and tortured them to death" - you are all too ready to believe that it would be OK for God to do such things in the afterlife.

    No, you believe what men have said that God said. Men with limited knowledge. Men coming from cultures that had specific psychologies and cultural baggage. Words stitched together by committees and other men with their own motives and misunderstandings. I not only claim not to be an atheist, it is clear I am not one: I believe in God. And not in one that burns people for all time.

    What a horrible horrible chamber you have in your heart. Jesus is rolling over in Heaven when he sees men like you using his name in the way you do.

    I deny that his heart is like yours. It isn't.

    'Out of hand'. You know nothing about how or why or through what process I rejected it. Again you are claiming to know something about me that you clearly do not know. You know that the men who wrote the bible got every word right. You know who I am and what I have done. You make claims to knowing a tremendous amount even in the face of being shown you know very little.
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    I think it's rather sad.. lol
    Anyway, is he someones sock ?
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The premises of your calculations are wrong. That particular one can be refuted in a laboratory, or by computer simulation, but more important is the recognition that you are making untenable assumptions about independence of event, likelihood of event, etc.

    Again, modern theories handle this issue quite well - the mathematics of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a fascinating field, and worth your attention, since you seem interested in the topic.
    Untrue. There is no demonstration of impossibility, and the subject is much talked about in "evolutionary circles" ( also known as scientific or research circles).

    It's a matter of serious research, as well as talk - recently some evidence turned up (see blobrana's commendable threads) about the planetary temperature regime and atmospheric composition during the time of origin, for example.

Share This Page