examples of faith from atheists

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 115
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    Richard Dawkins stated that “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

    However, even naturalistic worldviews also take some things on faith.
    For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.
    Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:
    1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
    2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
    3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
    4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

    Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
    Big bang theory doesn’t posit something from nothing. No issue.

    1. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
    We have evidence that there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life. No faith required.

    1. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
    We also observe order from chaos as well. Crystals form intricate and regular structures, random rules can create order geometric shapes. There is no violation of scientific principle.

    1. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
    <br>
    Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @drafterman
    where did the big bang come from? any answer an atheist would give relies on faith and isn't based on the preponderance of the evidence. the preponderance of the evidence is that the universe came from something else. cause and effect. 

    if there is evidence that there was once no life, then that's all the more reason to say it takes faith to think life came from non life. at least if there was a continual chain of life back to the big bang that we observed, we could say life was something that is part of existence. as it is now, there was non life then there was life. faith required to say how that happened without god. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    also you say it's just my opinion that consciousness is apart from the material world. it's possible i'm wrong. but you have to admit that that's what it looks like, don't you? it's similar to those 'are humans just advanced robots' threads. obivously, it looks like we're more than just advanced biological robots. to say otherwise is just stupid. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @n8nrgmi
    where did the big bang come from? any answer an atheist would give relies on faith and isn't based on the preponderance of the evidence. the preponderance of the evidence is that the universe came from something else. cause and effect.
    We don't know where the Big Bang "came from" or that it "came from" anything. Current scientific theory is silent on the matter.

    if there is evidence that there was once no life, then that's all the more reason to say it takes faith to think life came from non life. at least if there was a continual chain of life back to the big bang that we observed, we could say life was something that is part of existence. as it is now, there was non life then there was life. faith required to say how that happened without god. 
    You said faith is belief without evidence. If the evidence says that there, at one point, wasn't life, then there was, then that is evidence life came from non-life. Since there is evidence, it isn't belief without evidence and therefore isn't faith.

    also you say it's just my opinion that consciousness is apart from the material world. it's possible i'm wrong. but you have to admit that that's what it looks like, don't you?
    That's not what it looks like to me..

    it's similar to those 'are humans just advanced robots' threads. obivously, it looks like we're more than just advanced biological robots. to say otherwise is just stupid. 
    We are, essentially, advanced biological robots.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @drafterman
    We don't know where the Big Bang "came from" or that it "came from" anything. Current scientific theory is silent on the matter.

    If you are silent on what came before the Big bang or how it happened how can you say for a fact that there was ever "non-life"? I'm not aware that anyone claimed at one point there wasn't life. So where is there evidence that life or the universe came from non-life? you would have to make the assumption that there was no life but why? not only do you make the assumption but you apply it to your own world view which means you indirectly or directly limit what you can potentially experience.

    You said faith is belief without evidence. If the evidence says that there, at one point, wasn't life, then there was, then that is evidence life came from non-life. Since there is evidence, it isn't belief without evidence and therefore isn't faith.

    To make matters more complicated faith isn't belief without evidence that is a contradiction (misconception) to what faith means and its purpose. If it is defined that way somewhere that is weak definition of faith, faith is trust and confidence in something and both trust and confidence are based on evidence and experience. And yes, that is all faith really is but with a spiritual twist.

    The Big bang of course came from a conscious Reality which is why it occurred in the first place. This enabled the Creator more "tools" to create with obviously. Coming from a spiritual viewpoint there was/is first an omnipresent conscious activity/reality, which generates and also co-exists with energy. The amount of energy generated from an omnipresent Reality is unimaginable and it was from this Source that energy was condensed and released to create what we label the Big bang. This was the starting point at which God began the processes we observe in our universe but there was never a point in existence where there was non-life, and certainly not non-life creating life and sentient beings.

    also you say it's just my opinion that consciousness is apart from the material world. it's possible i'm wrong. but you have to admit that that's what it looks like, don't you?
    That's not what it looks like to me..

    What he probably means is to appeal to commonsense and what is obvious to your own experience as a conscious being.

    We are, essentially, advanced biological robots.

    Sure, the physical bodies can be articulated that way but not the conscious soul, it exists independent of physical forms. The material forms are how we interface with creation.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @EtrnlVw
    If you are silent on what came before the Big bang or how it happened how can you say for a fact that there was ever "non-life"?
    The conditions of the early universe were not amenable to the existence of life.

    I'm not aware that anyone claimed at one point there wasn't life.
    The general scientific consensus is that life arose on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago.

    So where is there evidence that life or the universe came from non-life?
    At some point (before 3.5 billion years ago) it didn't exist. After that point (after 3.5 billion years ago) it did.

    you would have to make the assumption that there was no life but why?
    It is not an assumption, it is a rational conclusion from the available facts.

    To make matters more complicated faith isn't belief without evidence that is a contradiction (misconception) to what faith means and its purpose.
    That is the definition of faith provided by the OP that I am going off of. If you have an issue with this definition, take it up with n8nrgmi.
    The Big bang of course came from a conscious Reality which is why it occurred in the first place.
    No evidence to support this conclusion.
    This enabled the Creator more "tools" to create with obviously. Coming from a spiritual viewpoint there was/is first an omnipresent conscious activity/reality, which generates and also co-exists with energy. The amount of energy generated from an omnipresent Reality is unimaginable and it was from this Source that energy was condensed and released to create what we label the Big bang. This was the starting point at which God began the processes we observe in our universe but there was never a point in existence where there was non-life, and certainly not non-life creating life and sentient beings.
    A nice myth, but just that: a myth.

    What he probably means is to appeal to commonsense and what is obvious to your own experience as a conscious being.
    It is not obvious to me and my own experience that consciousness is apart from the material world.

    Sure, the physical bodies can be articulated that way but not the conscious soul, it exists independent of physical forms. The material forms are how we interface with creation.
    I am not aware of the existence of any soul.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @drafterman
    The conditions of the early universe were not amenable to the existence of life.
    Not for the life we observe on this planet no, but consciousness and soul (awareness) exist independent of physical form. That IS the proposition coming from Theism that consciousness is not dependent upon physical bodies or a brain so you can dismiss that but it's still there. If you're content with accepting that no life existed prior to the Big bang with zero evidence then you are accepting basically conjecture. The question becomes why? there was never a claim "there was no life" you said "Current scientific theory is silent on the matter"??
    The general scientific consensus is that life arose on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago.
    Probably accurate dealing with evolution...but again, you can assert only life happens within forms on planet earth but that is a claim based on zero evidence. You're talking about the evolution of bodies, I'm talking about how evolution occurs in the first place. Ask yourself how inanimate matter produces intelligent processes and sentient beings?
    At some point (before 3.5 billion years ago) it didn't exist. After that point (after 3.5 billion years ago) it did.
    The processes of our universe existed before the development of this planet and forms, and processes are associated with minds and intelligence. Correlation is the key here, instead of looking at effects articulate and look for the cause.. it's an assertion to claim conscious life did not exist prior to life on this planet. You should be asking yourself why processes occur, why energy acks as intelligence in what it produces? why should you be asking that? because you don't want to be focusing on only effects and not causes. If you accept an inferior proposition that doesn't really know how could you ever expand with another proposition that may be true? consciousness is fully articulated in spirituality whereas admittedly we are limited by our scientific understanding.
    It is not an assumption, it is a rational conclusion from the available facts.
    It may be a rational conclusion based upon how you interpret the evidence (not facts) if you think it's rational to accept something that is silent on the matter. Sure.
    That is the definition of faith provided by the OP that I am going off of. If you have an issue with this definition, take it up with n8nrgmi.
    That's cool, I was just bringing up a different concept between you and I.
    No evidence to support this conclusion.
    Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or valid. Based on how I interpret the evidence that is untrue, there are certainly indicators. Correlation again here. Now, had you said it is not a fact or it's just my interpretation then we could agree. I admit it's my interpretation, but interpretation of the EVIDENCE.
    A nice myth, but just that: a myth.
    Thanks for the opinion. But is that how you approach all propositions including your own?
    It is not obvious to me and my own experience that consciousness is apart from the material world.
    It's not obvious to you, you are first a conscious being and not a series of impulses or neural firing? I would say fine, but perhaps consider another way of understanding.
    I am not aware of the existence of any soul.
    Well you are that, you are just making the assumption that your brain creates your conscious being and nobody really knows why because consciousness is yet an open question in the scientific community. So the only way you could have arrived at that conclusion is from atheism. Because science is silent on that matter too (consciousness/aka soul), sure it can find activity within the brain but there's activity within the brain because there is a conscious alive being that interfaces with the brain. When the soul leaves the body the brain returns to dead matter.
    Now, if you were to consider spirituality along with NDE's and spiritual encounters (God forbid) you no longer have to be unaware of the soul. The soul and consciousness have been proposed through spirituality for a long long time sir. No reason to be unaware of anything unless you choose to be.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Not for the life we observe on this planet no,
    That is the kind of life we are talking about.

    but consciousness and soul (awareness) exist independent of physical form.
    I'm not aware that anything exists beyond the physical.

    That IS the proposition coming from Theism that consciousness is not dependent upon physical bodies or a brain so you can dismiss that but it's still there.
    The topic of this thread is atheistic propositions, not theistic ones.

    If you're content with accepting that no life existed prior to the Big bang with zero evidence then you are accepting basically conjecture.
    You are confusing things. The big bang has nothing to do with life on earth. Regardless, there is evidence.

    The question becomes why? there was never a claim "there was no life" you said "Current scientific theory is silent on the matter"??
    Silent on the matter of the state of the universe at and before the big bang. Not about life.

    Probably accurate dealing with evolution...but again, you can assert only life happens within forms on planet earth but that is a claim based on zero evidence. You're talking about the evolution of bodies, I'm talking about how evolution occurs in the first place. Ask yourself how inanimate matter produces intelligent processes and sentient beings?
    Through series of genetic mutations and selective sexual pressures over billions of years.

    The processes of our universe existed before the development of this planet and forms, and processes are associated with minds and intelligence. Correlation is the key here, instead of looking at effects articulate and look for the cause.. it's an assertion to claim conscious life did not exist prior to life on this planet. You should be asking yourself why processes occur, why energy acks as intelligence in what it produces? why should you be asking that? because you don't want to be focusing on only effects and not causes. If you accept an inferior proposition that doesn't really know how could you ever expand with another proposition that may be true? consciousness is fully articulated in spirituality whereas admittedly we are limited by our scientific understanding.
    I don't know what you are saying or asking here.

    It may be a rational conclusion based upon how you interpret the evidence (not facts) if you think it's rational to accept something that is silent on the matter. Sure.
    You are confusing things again. There are multiple topics being discussed here and you would do well to take care to keep them separate. The thing that science is silent on (big bang era) is not the thing for which there is evidence (life from non life).

    Thanks for the opinion. But is that how you approach all propositions including your own?
    No, it's how I approach mythical ones

    It's not obvious to you, you are first a conscious being and not a series of impulses or neural firing? I would say fine, but perhaps consider another way of understanding.
    I am a conscious being that is a series of impulses and neural firing.

    Well you are that, you are just making the assumption that your brain creates your conscious being and nobody really knows why because consciousness is yet an open question in the scientific community. So the only way you could have arrived at that conclusion is from atheism. Because science is silent on that matter too (consciousness/aka soul), sure it can find activity within the brain but there's activity within the brain because there is a conscious alive being that interfaces with the brain. When the soul leaves the body the brain returns to dead matter.
    Right, we know we have bodies without souls, but I've never seen a soul without a body.

    Now, if you were to consider spirituality along with NDE's and spiritual encounters (God forbid) you no longer have to be unaware of the soul. The soul and consciousness have been proposed through spirituality for a long long time sir. No reason to be unaware of anything unless you choose to be.
    No evidence of spirituality or NDEs.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @drafterman
    That is the kind of life we are talking about.

    Not from a Theistic point of view, which I believe the OPer is coming from. We are talking about the life that transcends evolution and physical forms and why those processes happen. That is the proposition we would want you to consider of course. If I'm wrong note that I'm bringing a new conversation. Not that I want to derail I'm just responding to your comments and offering further consideration.

    I'm not aware that anything exists beyond the physical.

    Close your eyes, stop thinking and focus on the observer. Then know that it is proposed that you exist beyond your physical form, now you are no longer unaware. Being unaware would mean you have not been presented with either an experience or some other source of information. I would suggest looking into other sources to expand your data base.

    The topic of this thread is atheistic propositions, not theistic ones.

    Are you serious? I know but the author I'm sure is taking a Theistic stance silly, in other words one that opposes yours ("Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary")
     That is why I'm sharing an opposing view for one he never responded back to you. If you don't want a new conversation with a different person that's cool.

    You are confusing things. The big bang has nothing to do with life on earth. Regardless, there is evidence.

    I'm bringing to your attention two separate things here, the start of the Big bang and evolution. Both are processes of a Creator and that is my position. You asserted life began on earth and I'm saying you have no basis for that claim, and have no basis for the claim non-life existed prior to the Big bang.

    Silent on the matter of the state of the universe at and before the big bang. Not about life.

    That would include life Drafterman. If they are silent on what preceded the Big bang that includes consciousness/life. 

    Through series of genetic mutations and selective sexual pressures over billions of years.

    That would be conjecture and assumption not fact. You base your conclusions off the premise or assumption no life precedes forms on planet earth even though you admit what preceded the Big bang they are silent on, see what I mean? you base your conclusion off of conjecture. 

    I don't know what you are saying or asking here.

    I'm trying to get you to look at the processes and why they occurred. Correlating processes with intelligence and a mind is the starting point.

    Right, we know we have bodies without souls

    Nice assumption, we know we do have souls without bodies. See how that works lol?

    but I've never seen a soul without a body.

    Perhaps, but you are aware that a soul could exist independent of physical bodies right? otherwise again, you need to expand your source of knowledge so that you aren't so unaware of things.

    No evidence of spirituality or NDEs.

    They are included as evidence, meaning they are evidence. Why is it atheists have no idea that testimonials ARE evidence lol??

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Not from a Theistic point of view, which I believe the OPer is coming from.
    He isn't. He's explicitly talking about a naturalistic point of view.

    We are talking about the life that transcends evolution and physical forms and why those processes happen.
    No we aren't.

    Close your eyes, stop thinking and focus on the observer. Then know that it is proposed that you exist beyond your physical form, now you are no longer unaware. Being unaware would mean you have not been presented with either an experience or some other source of information. I would suggest looking into other sources to expand your data base.
    I have. I remain unconvinced.

    I'm bringing to your attention two separate things here, the start of the Big bang and evolution. Both are processes of a Creator and that is my position. You asserted life began on earth and I'm saying you have no basis for that claim, and have no basis for the claim non-life existed prior to the Big bang.
    Yes I do.

    That would include life Drafterman. If they are silent on what preceded the Big bang that includes consciousness/life.
    If you want to posit that life existence before the big bang, then disappeared, then reappeared on Earth, go ahead. But in the "life from non-life" conversation, we are talking about ON EARTH.


    Through series of genetic mutations and selective sexual pressures over billions of years.

    That would be conjecture and assumption not fact.
    Incorrect. Evolution is rooted in genetic fact.

    You base your conclusions off the premise or assumption no life precedes forms on planet earth even though you admit what preceded the Big bang they are silent on, see what I mean? you base your conclusion off of conjecture. 
    I do not, you are conflating two issues, again.


    I don't know what you are saying or asking here.
    I'm trying to get you to look at the processes and why they occurred. Correlating processes with intelligence and a mind is the starting point.
    I don't make that correlation.


    Right, we know we have bodies without souls

    Nice assumption, we know we do have souls without bodies. See how that works lol?
    I don't know that.


    but I've never seen a soul without a body.

    Perhaps, but you are aware that a soul could exist independent of physical bodies right?
    No, I am not aware of that.


    No evidence of spirituality or NDEs.

    They are included as evidence, meaning they are evidence. Why is it atheists have no idea that testimonials ARE evidence lol??
    They're evidence yes, evidence of a dying brain going berserk.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @drafterman
    so you think NDEs are just people hallucinating consistently themed afterlife stories when they die? what a stupid belief system you have 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @n8nrgmi
    so you think NDEs are just people hallucinating consistently themed afterlife stories when they die? what a stupid belief system you have 
    They're only hallucinations in the same sense that all dreams are "hallucinations." And plenty of people have common dreams. This is just evidence of common cultural threads that permeate our subconscious, not some malicious devious deity messing with us.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    Big bang theory doesn’t posit something from nothing. No issue.
    The OP did not say that the Big bang theory posited something from nothing. He said it has no explanation for something from nothing. We know the universe was not always here, yet now it is. Didn't you say,..

    We have evidence that there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life. No faith required.
    Obviously no logic required either. So now there is life, why is your assumption of abiogenesis correct? Especially when no instance of abiogenesis has ever been observed in all of history?

    We also observe order from chaos as well. Crystals form intricate and regular structures, random rules can create order geometric shapes. There is no violation of scientific principle.
    Shapes are not order. You simply call one shape "order" over another. In the context of the OP, "order" is analogous to information. Information cannot come about from chaos.

    Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.
    It may also be his opinion, but he is correct. We are made of atoms. Atoms cannot think, or feel, or love. The OP said,

    No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
    Though no one can yet explain how this is so, the fact remains that our consciousness exists outside of mere physical matter.

    These are brute facts that cannot be dismissed by materialists.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    The OP did not say that the Big bang theory posited something from nothing. He said it has no explanation for something from nothing. We know the universe was not always here, yet now it is.
    I don't know that.

    Didn't you say,..

    We have evidence that there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life. No faith required.
    Obviously no logic required either. So now there is life, why is your assumption of abiogenesis correct?
    It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.

    Especially when no instance of abiogenesis has ever been observed in all of history?
    Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.


    We also observe order from chaos as well. Crystals form intricate and regular structures, random rules can create order geometric shapes. There is no violation of scientific principle.
    Shapes are not order.
    Regular shapes are.

    You simply call one shape "order" over another. In the context of the OP, "order" is analogous to information. Information cannot come about from chaos.
    Yes it can.


    Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.
    It may also be his opinion, but he is correct. We are made of atoms. Atoms cannot think, or feel, or love.
    Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.

    The OP said,

    No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.
    Though no one can yet explain how this is so, the fact remains that our consciousness exists outside of mere physical matter.
    Not that I'm aware of.

    These are brute facts that cannot be dismissed by materialists.
    I dismiss them.

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    I don't know that.
    But you did claim to know that "there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life."

    It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.
    That is what an assumption is. And there is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. But I affirm your right to believe in a concept without evidence. To OP does too. Atheists call that faith.

    Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.
    But they do need evidence that they happened. Things not based on your faith anyhoo.

    Regular shapes are.
    "Regular" is a concept in your mind, like color. It isn't in the shape. But there is a reason we tell little kids at first that you can't subtract a larger number from a smaller one. People can only deal with what they are capable of dealing with.

    Yes it can.
    No it cannot. Thanks for validating the OP's claim again.

    Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.
    One of the cornerstones of physics is that elementary particles are exactly alike. If you think a certain arrangement of atoms makes them alive and capable of being self-aware, I have not seen a better rendition of blind faith.

    Not that I'm aware of.
    You lack of awareness of any evidence for abiogenesis didn't stop you then. It was this type of thinking Dawkins meant when he said, “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, lack of evidence.”

    I dismiss them.
    Of course you do. But facts don't care about your feelings. That's why they are called "brute facts". Your " dismissal" means nothing. They continue to exist after you "dismiss" them.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    I don't know that.
    But you did claim to know that "there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life."
    Yes.


    It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.
    That is what an assumption is.
    That is incorrect.

    And there is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. But I affirm your right to believe in a concept without evidence.
    Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.



    Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.
    But they do need evidence that they happened. Things not based on your faith anyhoo.
    Correct. And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.


    Regular shapes are.
    "Regular" is a concept in your mind, like color. It isn't in the shape.
    Incorrect.

    But there is a reason we tell little kids at first that you can't subtract a larger number from a smaller one. People can only deal with what they are capable of dealing with.

    Yes it can.
    No it cannot. Thanks for validating the OP's claim again.
    Correcting your errors is not validation of OP's claim.


    Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.
    One of the cornerstones of physics is that elementary particles are exactly alike.
    That is not correct.

    If you think a certain arrangement of atoms makes them alive and capable of being self-aware, I have not seen a better rendition of blind faith.
    It's not blind, I witness it all the time.


    Not that I'm aware of.
    You lack of awareness of any evidence for abiogenesis didn't stop you then.
    I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.

    It was this type of thinking Dawkins meant when he said, “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, lack of evidence.”
    Yes, I understand what is meant by this statement.


    I dismiss them.
    Of course you do. But facts don't care about your feelings. That's why they are called "brute facts". Your " dismissal" means nothing. They continue to exist after you "dismiss" them.
    I don't acknowledge that they are "facts," I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed. You were incorrect when you called them facts and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman @n8nrgmi
    But you did claim to know that "there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life."

    Yes.
    What is the evidence that there once wasn't life?

    It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.
    That is what an assumption is.

    That is incorrect.
    Coming to a conclusion when there is no evidence is called an assumption. But again, you have a right to be illogical. I will not stop you.

    I affirm your right to believe in a concept without evidence.

    Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.
    You should alert the scientific community post haste.

    And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.
    It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.

    "Regular" is a concept in your mind, like color. It isn't in the shape.

    Incorrect.
    I'm not interested enough to teach you basic physics. Be well in your lack of knowledge.

    Correcting your errors is not validation of OP's claim.
    But displaying faith in things you cannot explain is. Thanks.

    One of the cornerstones of physics is that elementary particles are exactly alike.

    That is not correct.
    That is OK. A sound education in physics is no longer common these days. I'm sure your strengths are in other fields.

    It's not blind, I witness it all the time.
    I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.

    I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.
    By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.

    Yes, I understand what is meant by this statement.
    So will most people reading your replies here.

    I don't acknowledge that they are "facts,"
    Facts tend not to need your acknowledgment.

    I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed.
    But facts cannot. And look, they still stand.

    You were incorrect when you called them facts...
    Luckily for me, your words don't create reality. 

    ...and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed
    Yet there they stand, in spite of your feelings. Perhaps you are confusing "ignore" with "dismiss".

    You can ignore a fact, but dismissing one does nothing.

    Faith is belief ..... because of ..... the lack of evidence
    Perceptive man that Dawkins.

    n8nrgmi, I'm convinced your claims were validated.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    Yes.
    What is the evidence that there once wasn't life?
    The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.


    That is incorrect.
    Coming to a conclusion when there is no evidence is called an assumption.
    Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.


    Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.
    You should alert the scientific community post haste.
    They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.


    And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.
    It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.
    No one has bothered to ask for it.


    Incorrect.
    I'm not interested enough to teach you basic physics. Be well in your lack of knowledge.
    I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.


    That is not correct.
    That is OK. A sound education in physics is no longer common these days. I'm sure your strengths are in other fields.
    If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other. They are not "exactly" the same.


    It's not blind, I witness it all the time.
    I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.
    I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms.


    I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.
    By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.
    I have.


    I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed.
    But facts cannot. And look, they still stand.
    Ah, but I have, in fact dismissed then. So if facts cannot be dismissed, and I've dismissed then, then they aren't facts.


    You were incorrect when you called them facts...
    Luckily for me, your words don't create reality. 
    Do you imagine that yours do?


    ...and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed
    Yet there they stand, in spite of your feelings. Perhaps you are confusing "ignore" with "dismiss".

    You can ignore a fact, but dismissing one does nothing.
    Regardless of what effect dismissing has, you said it cannot be done, yet it has been done.


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @drafterman
    The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.

    Now I see the problem, this unawareness thing you need to work on and like I said it wouldn't be a bad idea that you expand your data base especially if you want to engage in religious topics so you have some awareness and more strength to your position.

    God is proposed as omnipresent, meaning that there is an omnipresent awareness of the nature of consciousness and God. In other words there is nowhere something exists where awareness is not present. What makes the awareness of God omnipresent is that it's not limited to time and space, to forms and bodies. It exists independent of those, so in essence God has no bodily form therefore has no need for environmental factors to sustain physical bodies of matter. So when we use the term "life" we are not talking about life on earth alone. We are talking about the life of God or awareness that transcends what we observe within creation.

    Now, this is why I bring up energy and processes and how they act out in creation. I do this because so you will no longer be unaware that these things don't take place by themselves, there are processes because there is intelligence behind creation. Accepting the omnipresence of the Creator is not a big deal if you can accept energy, that it is omnipresent and is not created or destroyed. What a coincidence that both energy and God are proposed as the same nature and have the same characteristics...correlation again.
    And, just like energy consciousness can exists within form and outside it. 
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Now I see the problem, this unawareness thing you need to work on and like I said it wouldn't be a bad idea that you expand your data base especially if you want to engage in religious topics so you have some awareness and more strength to your position.
    I am not engaging in a religious topic. OP is engaging in the atheist world view and I am rebutting his claims about it.


    God is proposed as omnipresent, meaning that there is an omnipresent awareness of the nature of consciousness and God. In other words there is nowhere something exists where awareness is not present. What makes the awareness of God omnipresent is that it's not limited to time and space, to forms and bodies. It exists independent of those, so in essence God has no bodily form therefore has no need for environmental factors to sustain physical bodies of matter.
    Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.


    So when we use the term "life" we are not talking about life on earth alone. We are talking about the life of God or awareness that transcends what we observe within creation.
    Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.

    Now, this is why I bring up energy and processes and how they act out in creation. I do this because so you will no longer be unaware that these things don't take place by themselves, there are processes because there is intelligence behind creation. Accepting the omnipresence of the Creator is not a big deal if you can accept energy, that it is omnipresent and is not created or destroyed. What a coincidence that both energy and God are proposed as the same nature and have the same characteristics...correlation again.
    And, just like energy consciousness can exists within form and outside it. 
    Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @n8nrgmi
    For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.

    Most of the so called "miracles" in the New Testament can be explained very simply. It is just that the devout Christians cannot accept them for what they are.

    "Water into Wine" for instance is easily explained once it is pointed out that this was simply a raising to a higher degree in a movement or cult. In Jesus' case it was an initiation to a higher degree in  the movement of  Essenes. As was " raising the dead". Simply put, anyone outside of Jesus' circle were referred to as dead or "The Dead". Being initiated - or raised - into his circle or movement one becomes among  "The living".  When one understands these things it then explains those enigmatic and ambiguous verses such as " let the dead bury the dead" Mat 8:22.  And  " Let us also go, that we may die with him" John 11:16.

    But the fawning sycophantic believer cannot accept this reasoning and will invent all kinds of extreme convoluted  shite to explain away what is easily explainable, as shown above. I mean, how the fk can a dead person bury a dead person?  Why would these men or at least one suggest that they all die voluntarily?  These are the truths that the fawning sycophantic believers simply cannot face. Jesus was a man, not a god and  not a worker of miracles
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @drafterman
    I am not engaging in a religious topic.

    Ethan is representing the Theistic position, this is a religious forum. I'm sure he will be taking a religious stance. 

    Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.

    You're aware now, and thanks for the opinion.

    Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.

    But, it's the proposition I want you to consider. While you are here anyway.

    Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.

    Lol read that again. Energy is neither created or destroyed, energy exists at all places in the universe. God is not created or destroyed and exists in all places at all times (omnipresent). Energy exists because conscious activity exists, that is why energy is even there. They co-exist. Now before you make the claim you are not aware of that note that I'm bringing the awareness of it to your attention.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    I am not engaging in a religious topic.

    Ethan is representing the Theistic position, this is a religious forum. I'm sure he will be taking a religious stance. 
    The position being raised as the purpose of this thread, by n8nrgmi, is the atheistic one. That is the position I am addressing. If you wish to have a different conversation on a different topic, then I encourage you to create a thread for that purpose.


    Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.

    You're aware now, and thanks for the opinion.
    I am aware of a story that you have told. I am not aware that it is true.


    Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.

    But, it's the proposition I want you to consider. While you are here anyway.
    I would just as well stick to the topic at hand.


    Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.

    Lol read that again. Energy is neither created or destroyed, energy exists at all places in the universe. God is not created or destroyed and exists in all places at all times (omnipresent). Energy exists because conscious activity exists, that is why energy is even there. They co-exist. Now before you make the claim you are not aware of that note that I'm bringing the awareness of it to your attention.
    <br>
    The only thing true in this statement is "Energy is neither created or destroyed"

    Regardless, even if two things share characteristics, that doesn't meant they are the same thing or share other characteristics. Both a car and a house have windows, but I wouldn't say that makes them the same.
  • Paul
    Paul avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 470
    1
    2
    2
    Paul avatar
    Paul
    --> @n8nrgmi
    where did the big bang come from?
    Nobody knows, anything you have heard from a scientist at this point is speculation. There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, no tests, no observations, no way to reveal what happened before the big bang. You may have heard scientists talking about the multiverse or string theory as well. These things are also speculative, there is currently no way to prove them. If you were talking about something like physics, then you would be talking about proven science.