This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.

Report article RSS Feed Why I'm not an atheist

An article about why atheism isn't a logical viewpoint and why I'm Christian.

Posted by KnightofEquulei on Aug 17th, 2013

It's been a while since I last wrote an article for the Christian group but in light of recent comments I've decided to create one again this time addressing why I'm Christian and not a atheist. In this article I will write about why atheism is illogical as well as evidenceless.

Atheists say that atheism is not a belief or a religion but simply a denial of gods and the supernatural. Why I could write a whole article on why I dispute that I'll just play along here and go with this statement. Okay, atheism isn't any of those things but by the very denial of gods and the supernatural atheism proposes theories which are illogical and contrary to evidence. So let's have a look at the summary of what atheism proposes by denying gods:

Theories of atheism:

  • The universe is eternal.
  • Prior energy existed and created the universe.
  • Something from nothing (where they try to use quantum mechanics to support this).

Let's address these debunked notions:

The universe is eternal:

I could argue why this is impossible due to energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics but the simple fact is that all observational evidence and scientific data states that the universe never always existed and had a beginning. The Big Bang itself argues that the universe had an origin from one single point and never always existed (although the theory itself is in regards to what occurred moments after the "birth" of the universe). That's all that needs to be said. The universe is not eternal and had a beginning. In fact space-time came into existence with The Big Bang.

Sources:

Science.nasa.gov
Science.howstuffworks.com
Science.nationalgeographic.co.uk

And for reference: The Big Bang wasn't some explosion. The Big Bang simply refers to the expansion of the universe after it sprung into existence. The name is really an injustice to what the theory really teaches. There's more to it than "the universe is expanding from the single point of that primordial dense force of mass after it bloomed" one must take in account of the values and properties as all this happened. With The Big Bang, space-time and gravity all sprung into existence. If gravity was a little stronger, then it would have suppressed the expansion. At the same time, the weak nuclear force was set in value to give an appropriate balance of hydrogen and helium atoms. However I'm speaking ahead here. We'll come back to this section later.

Either way we have now established that the universe is finite.

Prior energy existed and created the universe:

There are several problems with this theory.

We know something chaotic can't produce order. There is no observational evidence for this. Natural disasters do not produce order. Throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a building (geometry and mathematics play a part of this as it's simple logic that one needs to plan a layout for a building, even with the impossible infinite monkey theorem playing part, throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a house because there's no thought or plan behind it) and an explosion will only destroy.

At this point we see that common sense and mathematics is against the idea of a chaotic mindless energy being behind our universe. The universe has design and mathematical values. This is something that cannot come from mindlessness. Period.

Using a string-theory explanation for the origin of the universe (universe from another) doesn't answer the origin question. At one point there would have to be a beginning and the string-theory doesn't answer this. We know universes are not eternal too so at one point there was a origin and it couldn't have come from nothing. Causality demands there to be start.

Sources:

Einstein-online.info
Plato.stanford.edu

Something from nothing:

This is just impossible. Atheists say there is observational evidence and data of something coming from nothing but what they cite is not nothing. They use the vacuum of space as evidence even though the vacuum is not truly empty. The vacuum contains energy. The particles that arise from here are coming from something and something that already exists so to date there is still no observational evidence for something from nothing.

Saying this is possible is as illogical as wishing for something and hoping for it to become true. It just won't.

You cannot get something from nothing and that is not what quantum mechanics teaches. In regards to quantum mechanics I'd wager that neither I or the atheist or even qualified to speak here.

Sources:

Chem.ox.ac.uk
Physlink.com
Physicsplanet.com

Conclusion:

So there we have it. Those three theories are not only wrong but they're evidenceless too. I have debunked them with scientific sources.

Here's what this all means:

  • The universe had a beginning alongside space-time. Cause and effect demands there to be something responsible since the universe is the effect.
  • The universe did not come from nothing because that's impossible.
  • The universe did not come from chaos because chaos does not produce the order we see as I have explained above.
  • The logical educated conclusion from this is that something intelligent was behind the universe's creation and this is further supported by the level of complexity we can observe. The chance for all of this to occur by itself is impossible. The Goldilocks principles of our universe (affirmed by theist and atheist scientists alike) simply argue against a huge-scale coincidence occurring. There had to be a purpose. The being responsible for the universe's creation would be eternal and it existing before space-time would mean it wouldn't be subject to time. This being had no beginning and has no end.

The Goldilocks principle of our universe:

The universe is finely tuned. Most scientists agree on this. The values are perfectly aligned with one another. The examples are below:

  • When the universe was expanding after The Big Bang, too much gravity would have pulled atoms closer together resulting in the end of the universe there and then. Meanwhile too little gravity would mean that the atoms would spread too far not creating galaxies or stars. There had to be an exact value. In fact simply increasing or decreasing gravity's constant by one billionth of a gram would have would have changed the constant for the worst.
  • How delicate is the balance for the strong nuclear force? If it were just 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time and any place within the universe.
  • The neutron is 0.138% more massive than a proton. Because of this extra mass, neutrons require slightly more energy to make than protons. So as the universe cooled from the hot big bang creation event, it produced more protons than neutrons‹in fact, about seven times as many.If the neutron were just another 0.1% more massive, so few neutrons would remain from the cooling off of the big bang that there would not be enough of them to make the nuclei of all the heavy elements essential for life. The extra mass of the neutron relative to the proton also determines the rate at which neutrons decay into protons and protons build into neutrons (one neutron = one proton + one electron + one neutrino). If the neutron were 0.1% less massive, so many protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in the universe would have rapidly collapsed into either neutron stars or black holes.7 Thus for life to be possible in the universe, the neutron mass must be fine tuned to better than 0.1%.

etc. Read more in the sources below. Of course the scientists and researchers below each have their own views on the matter. For example the scientist in the third source says "Today, atheist reductionists try to reduce the cosmic story to a series of random accidents and religious fundamentalists try to show it as evidence of some sort of intelligent creator external to the universe. I, like many scientists and thinkers, have never been happy with either of these extremes and this is my personal journey through the maze of cosmotheology, guided by some of the best minds in the field." While another source is from Dr.William.Craig who is Christian. Either way the evidence for a fine-tuned universe is there and most scientists accept it. For me it's logical to conclude it's this way because of "intelligent creator external to the universe".

Sources:

Colorado.edu
Leaderu.com
Abc.net.au
Leaderu.com

The Law of Biogenesis:

The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. The contrary hypothesis of abiogenesis declares otherwise. However there is no evidence for life forming on its own. The Miller-Urey experiment is now outdated and the experiment conducted by scientists relied upon constants and values set by humans (and therefore intelligence) for building blocks for life to form. The experiment only argued that intelligence is needed for anything remotely relating to life to form.

Sources:

Allaboutscience.org
Biotech.law.lsu.edu

So you ask how is this the Christian God?

Well The Bible is evidence of this. Within is knowledge demonstrating divine inspiration or the authors who had advanced knowledge for their time. There is a lot of archaeological evidence for events that occurred in The Bible and many historians agree that Jesus Christ not only existed but ministered to people as The Bible proclaims. There are also the Biblical fulfilled prophecies once again affirming God as the creator.

Sources:

Moddb.com
Reasons.org
Equip.org
Ucg.org

I can go on and on giving evidences implying divine creation but I've given enough to debunk the theories of atheism. At the end of the day, atheism has nothing to stand upon. Everything I've wrote about is backed by evidence and sources which I have given above.

Post comment Comments  (0 - 50 of 132)
DarkMajor21
DarkMajor21 Aug 17 2013, 8:13pm says:

Hmm, good read, another read I would suggest is this article by Ken Ham Blogs.answersingenesis.org

+1 vote     reply to comment
InsanityPays
InsanityPays Dec 3 2013, 6:31pm replied:

This article is bull. Religion and morality are two very different things.

+2 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 17 2013, 8:46pm says:

...

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Aug 18 2013, 7:15am says:

To be fair, I don't think there's any need to take an offensive stance against what you regard to be illogical. While I understand the truth behind your post, I think you could have worded it differently so as not to infuriate any random atheist who stumbles on to this. It's perfectly possible to defend the authenticity of Christianity without making every atheist on the planet want to gut you alive.

+4 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 18 2013, 9:53am replied:

Even when we take a passive stance the response is the same. Even when we're silent the response is the same. I mainly wrote this article because of all the atheists who come here asking why we believe and why we're Christian. Well this is why.

It's not meant to offend.

+2 votes     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Aug 20 2013, 9:56am replied:

The difference being that you can choose to reply with or without stooping to their level. Just by looking at the title you chose, you'll see my point.

Quote: An article about why atheism isn't a logical viewpoint and why I'm Christian.

Sure, the lack of belief in a deity does not make sense to us. But describing their beliefs as "illogical" or "irrational" will not change their minds. Our goal should not be to convince people that atheism is "silly" or "irrational"; rather, we must show them that Christianity does not line up with the stereotypes they've been fed for years.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 20 2013, 10:49pm replied:

The stereotypes of Christianity are:

"YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL!"

"I HAVE BLIND FAITH!"

Saying atheism isn't a logical viewpoint is simply a positive statement and one that I believe that I have affirmed within the article. Let's not beat around the bush. I won't be accused of dishonesty here and I'm writing an article based on logic and science so being direct is the point.

Appealing to emotion doesn't work. While some atheists base their position on emotion, others don't so you need to use their type of language (also mine own) to communicate with them.

+1 vote     reply to comment
DarkMajor21
DarkMajor21 Aug 19 2013, 8:08am replied:

Personally, I feel that as long as I follow Jesus, every Atheist on the planet wants to gut me alive.

+5 votes     reply to comment
DarkMajor21
DarkMajor21 Aug 19 2013, 8:15am replied:

But that is fine with me, I will try my best to turn the other cheek and love them.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 20 2013, 10:43pm replied:

You should read "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" by Newton. It's a beautiful work on how the world and universe functions. Also whilst being scientific, Newton manages to include God citing the necessity of one.

I believe next to explaining the mechanisms of gravity (and the forces of it, i.e mass, acceleration, deceleration, inertial movement etc) it's also (at heart) a logical argument for the necessity of a creator even if Newton mentions the creator in the work only a few times.

Read all of the book and you will have enough grasp on the universe to understand how it works. Impressive for a book centuries old eh? Einstein's theory only revises Newton's theory as well which only goes to show how close he was to correction, imagine what discoveries Newton would be making now with the aid of modern technology.

Just get Einstein and Newton together, give them all the equipment they need and several life-times and they would build a paradise for us. It's no wonder God keeps brilliant minds like these apart. He can't allow humans to create the heaven of earth he's promised in The Revelation!

+1 vote     reply to comment
InsanityPays
InsanityPays Dec 3 2013, 6:33pm replied:

Then Galileo came along and blew much of Newton's hypothesis out of the water with the sacrilege we know today as science.

0 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Mar 2 2014, 7:49pm replied:

What did Galileo blow out of the water? Newton's theories were improved upon by Einstein not Galileo. Newton was a scientist and contributed greatly to physics. It sounds like you have a bias against Christian scientists. You are aware Galileo was still one even after the Catholic Church persecuted him right?

+1 vote     reply to comment
bontanel
bontanel Aug 18 2013, 7:15am says:

I won't argue your scientific statements since neither i or you(i may be wrong)are experts on the subject but your argument on why the christian god is the real one lacks a much needed objective view. Not to mention your sources aren't very bias clean. Sorry but that's just the way it is...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 18 2013, 9:49am replied:

My sources aren't bias. My sources on the science come from universities and certified science sites with articles written by the experts. My sources on The Bible come from Christian sites because you're not going to find anyone else writing about fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Somehow I reckon you're the bias one here.

In terms of expertise in the field of science: I studied astronomy for years at college. I'd say I'm intermediate enough to know what I'm talking about.

+3 votes     reply to comment
bontanel
bontanel Aug 18 2013, 11:02am says:

"My sources on The Bible come from Christian sites because you're not going to find anyone else writing about fulfilled Biblical prophecies."
I'm sorry but you're wrong and if you can't see why then trying to convince is futile.
"In terms of expertise in the field of science: I studied astronomy for years at college. I'd say I'm intermediate enough to know what I'm talking about."
I said that i might be wrong... But i didn't know they studied theology and the origin of life at astrology
"My sources aren't bias. My sources on the science come from universities and certified science sites with articles written by the experts."
Yes they are bias, but that is a rather subjective view coming from me

I don't mean to be disrespectful. Also you may be right saying that i am the bias after all so i might have been wrong all this time

+3 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 18 2013, 11:58am replied:

Astrology??

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 18 2013, 12:16pm replied:
Quote:I'm sorry but you're wrong and if you can't see why then trying to convince is futile.

Mind explaining why I'm wrong? How are the fulfilled Biblical prophecies wrong?

Quote:I said that i might be wrong... But i didn't know they studied theology and the origin of life at astrology

I didn't mention theology or astrology. Astrology is the reading of stars.

Quote:Yes they are bias, but that is a rather subjective view coming from me

Prove that they're bias then. NASA, National Geographic, How Stuff Works, Colorado University, Department of Chemistry Oxford, Stanford University, Einstein Online and the others are all verified scientific sources. You're calling them bias because they disagree with your views.

Unless you have a real argument to make other than calling reputable sources "biased" I suggest you stop commenting as this is clearly going no where.

Your argument pretty much boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" which is quite an anti-intellectual argument. You insult me and yourself sir.

We can continue this pointless debate or you can start explaining how my points are wrong or how NASA, National Geographic, How Stuff Works, Colorado University, Department of Chemistry Oxford, Stanford University and Einstein Online are biased.

-1 votes     reply to comment
bontanel
bontanel Aug 18 2013, 1:04pm replied:

you're right. Not all of them are bias some are just wrong interpretations. i don't mean to be disrespectful but i have to remind you you are supporting a religion founded by primitive desert nomads with oral tradition. and those fulfilled prophecies are everything but real...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 18 2013, 2:48pm replied:

So you admit you're no an expert in science and yet disagree with the experts?

The religion I'm "supporting" traces itself back to Moses and his nomad tribe but Christianity arose from Jesus. Oh and those "desert nomads" were not primitive. Not only could Moses read and write but the medical knowledge he and the priests possessed were advanced compared to other civilizations at the time.

Bibleevidences.com

They had sanitary practices, they knew about bacteria, they had laws of quarantine and they used antiseptic. Primitive people lived in caves and huts and had little language. The Jews were hardly what you would call "primitive" unless you wish to include the ancient Greeks and Romans in that category as well despite many of the educated ones being far more literate than many modern people today.

As for the Biblical prophecies:

Ezekiel 26:1-21 (Ezekiel foretells the destruction of Tyre saying the city will be thrown into the sea and never rebuilt)

In 332BC, Alexander The Great sacked the city and reached the nearby fortified island by using the city to form a bridge to reach the island fulfilling the prophecy.

Nature.com

Ancient.eu.com

Tyre as a name-sake was rebuilt but not on the same spot and not from the same foundation as the old city had been thrown into the sea.

Quote:Then the prophecy was written after!

Nope. The prophecy can be found in the Dead Sea scrolls tracing themselves back before this event took place. They have been carbon dated.

This is just one fulfilled Biblical prophecies. I don't really have the time to teach you about every-one providing the sources and references. You can do that yourself with the link in the article above.

So the Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled to the letter as history itself tells us.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 18 2013, 2:51pm replied:

I still find your argument to be really anti-intellectual. It now boils down to ignoring the article and its sources and saying that I should disregard Christianity because it has a long history of existing (which only stands to give it more credibility, that people have been following it from the ancient times till the modern times).

Should we disregard western philosophy and science because they trace themselves back to the philosophers and scientists of Ancient Greece and Rome?

+5 votes     reply to comment
TheUnbeholden
TheUnbeholden Jan 6 2014, 5:36pm replied:

Its intellectually dishonest to say that just because lots of people believe in religion, and just because something has been around for a long time that it somehow holds greater truth than new explanations. Religion holds loads of baggage, confirmation bias leads many religious people to ignore new evidence.

We shouldn't disregard religion.. we should however not take everything it says as fact either!.. because its superstition, old answers to questions that have new answers. Sure theres some historical facts and some moral truths but those parts are not true because they are in the bible.. they are true because they are true.

+1 vote     reply to comment
JFreakXD
JFreakXD Jan 23 2014, 7:21pm replied:

have you read the Bible? I'm just wondering because you seems like something in the Bible confuses or frustrates you. If you need any help, just tell me and I can help.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Mar 2 2014, 7:51pm replied:
Quote:Its intellectually dishonest to say that just because lots of people believe in religion, and just because something has been around for a long time that it somehow holds greater truth than new explanations.

I never said that. Bontanel said I should disregard Christianity because it's been around for 2,000 years. That is a logically fallacy. If you think The Bible is complete bull then why don't you address the fulfilled prophecies above?

"They were written after..."

Not according to the carbon dating of the dead sea scrolls.

+1 vote     reply to comment
templarnordbyzantine
templarnordbyzantine Aug 18 2013, 2:53pm replied:

I'm not sure, but I think they found where God parted the Red sea.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 18 2013, 7:45pm replied:

There was a plinth placed there I think by David.
Also they found the resovoir used by Elijah to pour water on the carcass when he did his fire mirical

+1 vote     reply to comment
CrazyOldTeenager
CrazyOldTeenager Aug 21 2013, 1:14am replied:
Quote: But i didn't know they studied theology and the origin of life at ASTROLOGY

ROFLMAO

+1 vote     reply to comment
templarnordbyzantine
templarnordbyzantine Aug 18 2013, 2:49pm says:

Is quisnam reperio suus fides est validus tunc is quisnam est prognatus prurigo. (He who finds his faith is stronger then he who is born to it.)
My faith was weak but, well, I experienced nothing short of a miracle, (You would think I'm insane if I told you what it was.) now I am safe in the knowledge that the God of the Jews exist.

+2 votes     reply to comment
_w_
_w_ Aug 19 2013, 9:50am says: Online

The theories you are trying to refute, don't come from atheism really.
They stem from one of it's branches, the positivism or the positive sciences. Even then i estimate that those guys, like one of my friends, do rather believe in different theories which is absolutely normal since atheism never was about putting certain scientific theories forward while denying the others. You picked out the ones that some atheists may believe in but they do not represent it, so refuting them doesn't make atheism untrue or less credible.

For example the big chill, big crunch and big rip theories are backed up by scientific evidence too and deal with the end of our universe, so some if not most positivists believe the universe will end, so it is not eternal either according to them. (i think the big rip is most plausible myself, a friend of mine did his yearwork on dark energy).

Chaos does not produce order, your examples are a bit basic but work to prove your statement i guess, the greek nature philosophers chose the word 'kosmos' for a reason, it showed their belief that the universe had a certain mathematical, logical structure and that that was beautifull & above all marveling to them. The latin pendant mundus was akin to the greek word. So that means the universe is logical, and it probably has always been but does that mean an intelligent being was there? and if so would it be a 'christian' entity per say? a god? why would it be?


+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 19 2013, 1:14pm replied:
Quote:So that means the universe is logical, and it probably has always been but does that mean an intelligent being was there? and if so would it be a 'christian' entity per say? a god? why would it be?

Well how would you explain laws or order and logic coming from mindlessness? You already agreed with me on the fact that chaos does not produce order. Neither does mindlessness. The conclusion we must draw from this is that an intelligent mind was behind the universe.

I say it's the Christian God because of the fulfilled Biblical prophecies I mentioned, the archaeological evidence affirming events in The Bible and the knowledge in The Bible that could only come from someone supernatural.

I already gave one fulfilled prophecy which you are free to try and debunk.

+2 votes     reply to comment
_w_
_w_ Aug 19 2013, 9:54am says: Online

i could ask you the same, if something can't come from nothing, then were did god come from?

the goldilocks principle again is only refuting the positivist's belief that things are caused by accidents... this article isn't complete >.>

i don't get your conclusion, you refuted scientific arguments that is used/believed by some atheists (positivists mainly and even then..) & then you completely dropped that and just declared the bible true = god exists?
to me the bible is a book, written by authors in function of the mores, needs, time etc. they lived in. Most of it is symbolic anyway & one does not need to read it to be a good christian.

So when are you going to tackle the humanists & nihilists? you seem to have forgotten about them...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 19 2013, 1:12pm replied:
Quote:i don't get your conclusion, you refuted scientific arguments that is used/believed by some atheists (positivists mainly and even then..) & then you completely dropped that and just declared the bible true = god exists?

From the article:

Quote:
Conclusion:

So there we have it. Those three theories are not only wrong but they're evidenceless too. I have debunked them with scientific sources.

Here's what this all means:

The universe had a beginning alongside space-time. Cause and effect demands there to be something responsible since the universe is the effect.
The universe did not come from nothing because that's impossible.
The universe did not come from chaos because chaos does not produce the order we see as I have explained above.
The logical educated conclusion from this is that something intelligent was behind the universe's creation and this is further supported by the level of complexity we can observe. The chance for all of this to occur by itself is impossible. The Goldilocks principles of our universe (affirmed by theist and atheist scientists alike) simply argue against a huge-scale coincidence occurring. There had to be a purpose. The being responsible for the universe's creation would be eternal and it existing before space-time would mean it wouldn't be subject to time. This being had no beginning and has no end.


I mention that the being (God) would have to be eternal because it existed before space-time was created. I also explained how cause and effect demands a origin so there can't be an ad infinitum chain as some atheists propose. There had to be a starting point and I propose God was this. There can't be "there was something that created god and so on" because then we have an ad infinitum chain with no beginning making this impossible. There needs to be start.

So I believe I have addressed this.

+4 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 19 2013, 1:23pm replied:

As for the "bible true = god exists", those final passages are for proving that the god is the Christian one.

-You agree the universe is mathematical and logical in structure.
-You agree chaos (and therefore mindlessness) cannot produce order.
-You agree something cannot come from nothing.

Therefore the logical conclusion we arrive at from this is that the energy responsible for the creation of the universe is an intelligent being which is eternal. It can't be any other way least we walk into an impossible ad infinitum chain which leads to no beginning and if true would mean there would be no existence. We agree the energy can't be chaotic or mindless either.

So quite frankly I don't understand your aversion to admitting a god is behind the universe (or maybe you're agnostic?).

We've established that the universe is governed by logical laws and has a logical and mathematical structure. What else could explain that other than intelligence? If these things can arise on their own then give me an example otherwise I must maintain that atheism is the illogical choice.

+4 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Aug 26 2013, 9:32pm says:

Unless you can demonstrate that all those extraordinary claims are true - which also include how he did it, what god is, where he came from, how he operates - the godless or "atheistic" explanation is the more plausible one.

Quote:We know something chaotic can't produce order. There is no observational evidence for this. Natural disasters do not produce order.

Where is the so called "order" to begin with? Even our solar system is full of chaos, even in our world there is chaos even if we try to bring order into it. But that chaos follows the natural 4 forces and 4 dimensions which is the base for causality as we know it. So your straw-mens dont really make sense at all.

Quote:Something from nothing:

This is just impossible. Atheists say there is observational evidence and data of something coming from nothing but what they cite is not nothing. They use the vacuum of space as evidence even though the vacuum is not truly empty. The vacuum contains energy. The particles that arise from here are coming from something and something that already exists so to date there is still no observational evidence for something from nothing.


First of all, define "nothing". The literal nothingness is something we both cannot comprehend, because it is a state out of any human experience or imagination and cannot be descripted properly. But you are right about the vacuum, is is by far not "nothing". Not only is it full of energy, but also does it contain time, space, a higgs field and is full of higgs bosons (afaik how gravity operates), it contains virtuel particles that popp up out of nowhere and disappear (which might be an indicator for the multiverse theory, further research will show) and so on. And if we talking about the birth of our universe, we are talking about an event where causality as we know it breaks down.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 27 2013, 3:22pm replied:
Quote:Unless you can demonstrate that all those extraordinary claims are true - which also include how he did it, what god is, where he came from, how he operates - the godless or "atheistic" explanation is the more plausible one.

How is the godless explanation more plausible when it's been debunked. Even _excision_ agreed on that (that I have refuted the atheistic arguments) so why can't you? If I am wrong in my conclusion then point out where, how and why I am and provide evidence to support your claim.

I have addressed all of the fallacies of the atheist theory. I have provided sources for each and every one. There is no eternal universe. There is no infinite chain of causes. There is no chaos producing order. How then, is atheism the plausible explanation when its theories fall flat on their faces?

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 27 2013, 3:22pm replied:
Quote:Where is the so called "order" to begin with? Even our solar system is full of chaos, even in our world there is chaos even if we try to bring order into it. But that chaos follows the natural 4 forces and 4 dimensions which is the base for causality as we know it. So your straw-mens dont really make sense at all.

Only you're the one creating straw men arguments here. You haven't addressed my statement or even debunked it, so therefore I assume you that must agree that natural disasters (cosmic or on earth) don't produce anything remotely resembling design or order, correct?

Quote:First of all, define "nothing". The literal nothingness is something we both cannot comprehend, because it is a state out of any human experience or imagination and cannot be descripted properly. But you are right about the vacuum, is is by far not "nothing". Not only is it full of energy, but also does it contain time, space, a higgs field and is full of higgs bosons (afaik how gravity operates), it contains virtuel particles that popp up out of nowhere and disappear (which might be an indicator for the multiverse theory, further research will show) and so on. And if we talking about the birth of our universe, we are talking about an event where causality as we know it breaks down.

And that's what the atheist falls down to in the end isn't it? Faith in a nonsensical event occurring that no scientific evidence or data supports or suggests. As for the definition of nothing, you're asking me to explain what nothing is in which case I will tell you, it's nothing, emptiness, non-existence.

Since the vacuum is not empty, you cannot say that "particles pop out of nowhere" because they are coming from the vacuum which is filled with energy. Since something does not come from nothing in this universe, and the universe is subject to the laws along with the vacuum (existing within the universe) your statement is incorrect.

Youtube.com

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Aug 27 2013, 3:28pm replied:
Quote:"Faith in a nonsensical event occurring that no scientific evidence or data supports or suggests." I could say the same for your god.

I'm predicting you might say something like this so I might as well address this ahead.

My argument for God comes from what has been observable, because the atheistic theories are refuted and because of the laws of logic as well as science affirming the beginning of the universe and a need for a point of origin.

It seems to me that the atheist (for the existence of the universe) has faith in something that doesn't adhere to scientific method and is non-falsifiable which I find hilarious considering you would say the same for a god.

At this point I must ask why you expect the believer to convert to atheism when it relies on faith for the beginning.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Aug 27 2013, 9:58pm replied:
Quote:My argument for God comes from what has been observable, because the atheistic theories are refuted and because of the laws of logic as well as science affirming the beginning of the universe and a need for a point of origin.

It seems to me that the atheist (for the existence of the universe) has faith in something that doesn't adhere to scientific method and is non-falsifiable which I find hilarious considering you would say the same for a god.

At this point I must ask why you expect the believer to convert to atheism when it relies on faith for the beginning.


The cosmological argument is the one that got refuted over and over again, by atheists and scientists alike.

False assumption. The atheist rather say "I dont know" then assuming or having faith in a non-falsifiable concept of how existence began. However, pointing out possibilities for scientific explanations is not faith based nor is it non-falsifiable. Thats the point you are missing, whether on purpose or because of cognitive bias.

I neither dont expect you to convert to atheism nor does atheism base itself on faith. A non-faith / lack of faith is by definition the opposite of faith. Faith in the context of the god-question means to believe that god exists even if there is no evidence for him/her/it and the non-faith is simply dismissing this believe because there is no compelling evidence to support the claim of believers. It is like black and white, two opposite positions. Besides, you said it yourself in one debate a couple of months ago, I think it was in the debating group (or the atheist group?), that there is christian atheism - just a hint that atheism doesnt mean you are convertig to something.

And a flat joke for the end: Do you know how awkward it is for me to say "stupid christians!" while my first name is Christian like many others in Germany? Seriously, I always have the feeling that I just shot my own leg.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 10:34am replied:
Quote:The cosmological argument is the one that got refuted over and over again, by atheists and scientists alike.


Now, now. Don't lie. The cosmological argument has not been refuted by any atheist or scientist. Fine-tuning is widely accepted among scientists and only the extremist atheist scientist denies it for obvious reasons.

Quote:False assumption. The atheist rather say "I dont know" then assuming or having faith in a non-falsifiable concept of how existence began. However, pointing out possibilities for scientific explanations is not faith based nor is it non-falsifiable. Thats the point you are missing, whether on purpose or because of cognitive bias.

And atheism is non-falsifiable? It's not. The idea that there are millions of universes outside our own being created from nothing is a non-falsifiable belief. That general concept (something from nothing) is non-falsifiable. Extreme atheism - by asserting no god exists - is non-falsifiable and a belief not backed by deductive reasoning.

Quote: nor does atheism base itself on faith

So you may argue that the rejection of gods requires no faith. Alright, I won't debate that but the propositions of atheism are often as faith-based as some of the religious stances of some believers. For example to say "the universe" came from nothing is faith based as there's no empirical evidence for this.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Aug 27 2013, 9:27pm replied:
Quote:Only you're the one creating straw men arguments here. You haven't addressed my statement or even debunked it, so therefore I assume you that must agree that natural disasters (cosmic or on earth) don't produce anything remotely resembling design or order, correct?

I dont have to debunk you over and over again, it gets tiring.

Besides, natural disasters can produce design and order. A dying star in our cosmic neighborhood gave our solar system the elements for creating life, a meteor about 60 million years ago cleared the path of evolution for mammals and finally us, volcanos bring up minerals with their lava and ash that results in healthier vegetation, when the milkyway and the andromeda galaxies collide and fuse a new galaxy will be born, or just put some colors into clear water, oder is always the inevitable outcome of chaos. You might as well go with the philosophy "chaos produces order, order produces chaos".

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 10:41am replied:
Quote:I dont have to debunk you over and over again, it gets tiring.

Maybe in your dreams but I have yet to see any argument from you or yours debunking mine. You disagree and throw out opinions but nothing factual or founded in evidence.

Quote:Besides, natural disasters can produce design and order. A dying star in our cosmic neighborhood gave our solar system the elements for creating life.

That's not order. A dying star instilled with the elements simply recycled them after dying. The order was made by gravity, law of nature. Recycling is an order not chaos.

Quote: a meteor about 60 million years ago cleared the path of evolution for mammals and finally us

Which isn't an example of order *or* chaos. Try again.

Quote: volcanos bring up minerals with their lava and ash that results in healthier vegetation.

Which is no example of order or chaos. This is an example of nature recycling, not an example of a volcano producing a symmetrical object even in all proportions and fitting mathematical values.

Quote:when the milkyway and the andromeda galaxies collide and fuse a new galaxy will be born.

Destroying countless civilizations and destroying billions. Again, no order there, just death and destruction.

Quote:order is always the inevitable outcome of chaos. You might as well go with the philosophy "chaos produces order, order produces chaos".


No it's not as I have shown. I think you should look up the philosophical definition of order. Your examples support my statement that nothing orderly ever comes from chaos, only death and destruction (i.e the two galaxies colliding). The fact is, BY GRAVITY, those two galaxies will eventually join and heal. Gravity produces and keeps the order but the process of the two galaxies colliding will destroy.

+2 votes     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Aug 27 2013, 9:40pm replied:
Quote:And that's what the atheist falls down to in the end isn't it? Faith in a nonsensical event occurring that no scientific evidence or data supports or suggests. As for the definition of nothing, you're asking me to explain what nothing is in which case I will tell you, it's nothing, emptiness, non-existence.

No, not quite a down fall for the atheist. And you shouldnt go one sided in this matter, because there is no scientific evidence that a god did it either. There are hypothesis in science how existence could have began, but nothing solid so far, only that the Big Bang came from an singularity.

Quote:Since the vacuum is not empty, you cannot say that "particles pop out of nowhere" because they are coming from the vacuum which is filled with energy. Since something does not come from nothing in this universe, and the universe is subject to the laws along with the vacuum (existing within the universe) your statement is incorrect.

"If you think you understand quantum theory, you dont understand quantum theory". A famous mottoo among physicists who work on that subject. What I meant is exactly that, there seems to be no cause for particles to pop out of nowhere, not even the so called vacuum energy. It is called dark energy btw. An energy filled vacuum means basically filled with photons (from stars ect.), neutrinos (also from stars ect.) and gravity, maybe 1 atom in 1 cubic meter or so, but thats it. Both dont create particles.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 10:51am replied:
Quote:No, not quite a down fall for the atheist. And you shouldnt go one sided in this matter, because there is no scientific evidence that a god did it either. There are hypothesis in science how existence could have began, but nothing solid so far, only that the Big Bang came from an singularity.

The fact that observational evidence for something from nothing is zero while the opposite has tons of observational and testable evidence, I think says, that belief in God is more logical. Believing the universe had to come from something eternal is only an application of Cause and Effect.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Aug 27 2013, 9:12pm replied:
Quote:How is the godless explanation more plausible when it's been debunked. Even _excision_ agreed on that (that I have refuted the atheistic arguments) so why can't you? If I am wrong in my conclusion then point out where, how and why I am and provide evidence to support your claim.

How often shall I repeat it? And why a godless explanation is more plausible is simple: the god hypothesis contains several logical problems such as: if existence needs a cause, then whats the cause for the cause or in other words, who created God? The "godless" explanation on the other hand suggest that something complex comes from something more simple. For example stars are made of gas, the earth and all life from simple molekules from another star that exploded several billions of years ago and so on.

I never claimed that I or we atheists have the final answer, but since there is no sign of a creator and intelligent design in general that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, the godless seems more plausible. And as I said, God is up to the challenge to convince me. If he is the creator of the universe, he can so f****** easily convince me. Just 1 varifiable evidence, even if he makes the arguments of apologetics true.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 11:08am replied:
Quote:How often shall I repeat it? And why a godless explanation is more plausible is simple: the god hypothesis contains several logical problems such as: if existence needs a cause, then whats the cause for the cause or in other words, who created God? The "godless" explanation on the other hand suggest that something complex comes from something more simple. For example stars are made of gas, the earth and all life from simple molekules from another star that exploded several billions of years ago and so on.

You didn't answer me. You simply created a fault about God which is answered. Either you apply that the cause is uncaused or apply that it was caused by another but that leads to a problem. We then get an ad infinitum problem. So if God was created by another god, then who created that god? It would continue forever and there would be no beginning where there needs to be one. Ad infinitum would mean we'd never be here.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 11:08am replied:
Quote:For example stars are made of gas, the earth and all life from simple molekules from another star that exploded several billions of years ago and so on.

Stars are made up of several different types of gas (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron) all infused with one another to produce and fuel the star. The building blocks for life are many and need to be fulfilled via certain met conditions and requirements. It's more complex than you imagine. Regardless, an explanation for the creation behind a star does not make atheism plausible. Knowing how stars are formed does nothing in atheism's favor. Stars come from prior stars and so on until we get back to The Big Bang creation event. So this is a "biogenic" process in a non-life form. Something only comes from something in other words.

Atheism on the other hand suffers from logical problems:

-There cannot be an ad infinitum for the reason above. Because there's no beginning, there's no start event meaning the result would never be reached. There must e an unmoved mover unless you adhere to the debunked eternal universe myth in which case you deny a beginning and The Big Bang.

-Nothing does nothing. This simple observable fact means that nothing cannot produce something.

-Therefore atheism denies important and accepted logical and philosophical laws such Cause and Effect while theism adheres to them.

See, via deductive reasoning we have arrived at the conclusion that theism is the more plausible theory. Its fits all the classical mechanics and laws of nature while atheism does not.

Atheists try to base atheism on science but it always fails because it's non-falsifiable and doesn't adhere to the rules or logic or science.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 11 2013, 11:11am replied:
Quote:I never claimed that I or we atheists have the final answer, but since there is no sign of a creator and intelligent design in general that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, the godless seems more plausible. And as I said, God is up to the challenge to convince me. If he is the creator of the universe, he can so f****** easily convince me. Just 1 varifiable evidence, even if he makes the arguments of apologetics true.

You're arguing that the laws themselves are not evidence of fine-tuning or intelligent design. Yet you still couldn't provide any real examples of chaos producing order. Your examples included chaotic events which destroy and kill (such as the cataclysm event nearly killing all life on earth and making the dinosaurs extinct) which over time would be healed by the forces of nature (universal everywhere) such as gravity.

The fact that you're now saying you'll only convert if God himself came down and started beating everyone up or something shows that nothing will ever convince you, even while atheism remains OPPOSED to the accepted classical mechanics and laws of nature and logic.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Sep 12 2013, 11:45am says:
Quote:Now, now. Don't lie. The cosmological argument has not been refuted by any atheist or scientist. Fine-tuning is widely accepted among scientists and only the extremist atheist scientist denies it for obvious reasons.

Refuted because highly unlikely with no evidence to support the claim.

Fine-tuned for what then?

Quote:And atheism is non-falsifiable? It's not. The idea that there are millions of universes outside our own being created from nothing is a non-falsifiable belief. That general concept (something from nothing) is non-falsifiable. Extreme atheism - by asserting no god exists - is non-falsifiable and a belief not backed by deductive reasoning.

The multiverse hypothesis is related to the string theory and pretty damn good falsifiable.

You really forgot what atheism is or are you just outright ignorant?

Quote:So you may argue that the rejection of gods requires no faith. Alright, I won't debate that but the propositions of atheism are often as faith-based as some of the religious stances of some believers. For example to say "the universe" came from nothing is faith based as there's no empirical evidence for this.

Atheism is a non-faith and as such it is the exact opposite of faith. There is nothing you can argue about it, just accept it.

And really, this something from nothing claim over and over again while I thought we already dismissed it?

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Sep 12 2013, 12:03pm replied:
Quote:Maybe in your dreams but I have yet to see any argument from you or yours debunking mine. You disagree and throw out opinions but nothing factual or founded in evidence.

You can check my claims. I sure did and I express myself due to my findings. Besides, most of your claims are just repetitions of claims from previous debates. If your memory is that short, than Im afraid Im not much of a help to you.

Quote:That's not order. A dying star instilled with the elements simply recycled them after dying. The order was made by gravity, law of nature. Recycling is an order not chaos.

Choas is within the natural laws of course. What is the point you are trying to make here?

Quote:Which isn't an example of order *or* chaos. Try again.

Which is no example of order or chaos. This is an example of nature recycling, not an example of a volcano producing a symmetrical object even in all proportions and fitting mathematical values.

Destroying countless civilizations and destroying billions. Again, no order there, just death and destruction.


Which is all a chaotic event to some extent by our definition. But the last one is just hilarious! What do you define as chaos instead? There doesnt seem to be any hope to get with you anywhere...

Quote:...Your examples support my statement that nothing orderly ever comes from chaos, only death and destruction (i.e the two galaxies colliding). The fact is, BY GRAVITY, those two galaxies will eventually join and heal. Gravity produces and keeps the order but the process of the two galaxies colliding will destroy.

Now you are defining the exact same example I used for chaos as chaos? You are right about gravity, but wtf man, thats my point! After choas (death and destruction) follows order (i.e. regeneration of life, a stabilized system) as shown countless times in earths history. You technically say the same, but it seems to me you are too afraid to admit it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Medusa_Zenovka
Medusa_Zenovka Sep 12 2013, 12:20pm replied:
Quote:You didn't answer me. You simply created a fault about God which is answered. Either you apply that the cause is uncaused or apply that it was caused by another but that leads to a problem. We then get an ad infinitum problem. So if God was created by another god, then who created that god? It would continue forever and there would be no beginning where there needs to be one. Ad infinitum would mean we'd never be here.

And your point is?

Quote:You're arguing that the laws themselves are not evidence of fine-tuning or intelligent design...

The fact that you're now saying you'll only convert if God himself came down and started beating everyone up or something shows that nothing will ever convince you, even while atheism remains OPPOSED to the accepted classical mechanics and laws of nature and logic.


Which is correct, the laws are no evidence for fine-tuning. They are constants we discovered, they are not actual laws like we have in society.

No, I never honestly said that I will ever convert to a specific religion. But if any God would show himself to me or better to everyone on earth, I have no reason to belief that he does not exist and I have to accept the claim that God exists. Pure and simple. If I then would follow his/her/its rules our prefer to burn in hell - yet again, those realms still have to be shown to be real - is another thing which depends on what exactly he does. If the christian god exists in the way as fundamentalists belief, I would say "I be rather a free man in hell, than a mindless slave in heaven. Someone who opposes Gods acts of terror and destruction, cant be such a bad person after all."

My position changes due to new evidence and information. Thats what a skeptic person (atheists are mostly of that kind) does.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Nov 14 2013, 11:21pm replied:
Quote: They are constants we discovered, they are not actual laws like we have in society.

Don't tell me that you don't know what a law of nature and science is? There are more laws than the ones in society you know? We have mathematical laws, philosophical laws and scientific laws. Must I really school you on this?

Quote:But if any God would show himself to me or better to everyone on earth, I have no reason to belief that he does not exist and I have to accept the claim that God exists.

Then there's no point continuing this debate. This is what every atheist does in the end when they can't answer the questions. They demand me to make God come down and show himself to them as the last desperate attempt to defend their atheism.

Never mind the fact that I'm on bad terms with God (therefore I don't think he'll come down to you if I ask him!) but what makes you think that he's going to *physically* come down for one stubborn person (and I'm sorry but that's what you're being here).

Quote:If the christian god exists in the way as fundamentalists belief, I would say "I be rather a free man in hell, than a mindless slave in heaven. Someone who opposes Gods acts of terror and destruction, cant be such a bad person after all."

And what do fundamentalists believe God is? All-forgiving? All-loving and all-caring? So you'd oppose a being like that? You are mad then.

I can't believe it either but that's what Jesus taught. I can't understand how God could love such a species but it's what Christianity teaches. It's even what Judaism taught.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Established
Feb 6, 2011
Privacy
Public
Subscription
Open to all members
Contact
Send Message
Email
Members Only
Membership
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
News
Browse
News
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Christians of Moddb
Christians of Moddb Hobbies & Interests group with 207 members