Atheism

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

We are humble enough to admit that we don't know. That's the truthful thing to do.

The OP highlights the point that the "don't know" gaps in the atheist story appear larger than the one in the Christian world view.

We see every day that a "designer can design things" - thus the creationists "mechanism" is observed to work over and over and over again - in real life.

[cardw]

This is a great example of the sharp line between atheist storytelling and science.

[CoAspen]

I enjoyed Cardw's defense of Atheism, just wish Christianity would explain their beliefs in such a matter fact way, less defense mechanisms starting up!!!

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: cardw

We are humble enough to admit that we don't know. That's the truthful thing to do.

The OP highlights the point that the "don't know" gaps in the atheist story appear larger than the one in the Christian world view.

We see every day that a "designer can design things" - thus the creationists "mechanism" is observed to work over and over and over again - in real life.

[BobRyan]

By contrast we never see atheist argument in favor of "nothing" accomplishing all the massive feats of magic that the atheists are claiming for it. That mechanism has never been proven to work in any form known to mankind.

[BobRyan]

This is a great example of the sharp line between atheist storytelling and science.

In the video we see "science demonstrated" in the form of proving the crystalline state of water, demonstrating its physical properties and then demonstrating with experimental results the claims that this 4th state of water can be used to purify water and can be used to generate electricity.

In the midst of all of that "science" is the "non-science" discussion about life forming in an abiotic -- sunlight+water environment where nothing at all of the kind is demonstrated in the experiment. No compounds formed, no amino acids self-organizing in water -- nothing at all but the "hope and wish" that someday this could help the atheist out of his dilemma when it comes to the origins of life.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

By contrast we never see atheist argument in favor of "nothing" accomplishing all the massive feats of magic that the atheists are claiming for it. That mechanism has never been proven to work in any form known to mankind.

Originally Posted By: cardw

It is entirely possible that the universe has always been here. The point is we just don't have any data or way to test any theories to have a meaningful conversation.

We don't claim to know things we can't possibly know.

I beg to differ -- the "Big bang" storyline is a train that has already left the station for atheists on the subject of origins.

At one time they were arguing for the steady state model you suggest - but that died a long time ago. Right about the time they discovered an expanding universe.

in Christ,

Bob

The Big Bang says nothing about where it came from. Multi universe, cyclic expansion and contraction, and other theories are still alternate explanations. We do have a way of creating a mathematics that can predict things within our reality. This is one line of exploration currently in progress. All you have is your claim that god did it and your misinterpretation of atheism.

You are basically making a case for god by criticizing competing theories. You actually don't have any way to provide evidence for your claims that god did it. You assume that god is the default in the absence of any other evidence. That's a cop out.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

First of all you have no idea if Prof Pollack is an atheist or not. He could very well be a theistic evolutionist.

Atheists are the ones (who like Pollack) have the need to posit abiogenesis. Theistic evolutionists avoid the problem entirely because they know there is no science-solution for it and they suspect that this is the one point in time where they may have to let their god out of the box they put him in.

[cardw]

The OP highlights the point that the "don't know" gaps in the atheist story appear larger than the one in the Christian world view.

We see every day that a "designer can design things" - thus the creationists "mechanism" is observed to work over and over and over again - in real life.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is a false dilemma. These "designers" are creating things out of stuff that already exists. This doesn't demonstrate that anyone can create something out of nothing. In fact it argues against it.

That is simply not the case.

The Bible argument is not that humans are able to speak life and worlds into existence because "it is what we do". If in fact this were something we could do on our own - then the Bible claim that God did it - would be refuted -- thus you are relying on a circular argument.

I'm not arguing first cause. You are. All first cause claims are circular. Thanks for pointing that out.

That's why I don't claim first cause because it is circular. All I have left is I don't know. That's all you have as well.

[BobRyan]

First of all you have no idea if Prof Pollack is an atheist or not. He could very well be a theistic evolutionist.

[BobRyan]

By contrast we never see atheist argument in favor of "nothing" accomplishing all the massive feats of magic that the atheists are claiming for it. That mechanism has never been proven to work in any form known to mankind.

[BobRyan]

If you had a demonstrable test for divinity that could stand up to the rigors of scientific confirmation you would win the science argument.

I am happy to report that it is a proven fact that designers design things, that creators create things and we see that every day.

I am also happy to report the fact that well known atheist scientists like Martin Reese and Leonard Susskind freely admit to a design element in our universe designed down to a tolerance of 10^ -120 and that this is a huge problem for atheists who insist on no designer. A problem that leaves them no retreat at all except to "imagine" 10^500 other universes!! talk about the purple easter bunny principle!

The problem of origins - for the atheist is that the truly determined atheist cannot argue for "God doing it" - which means that even given their own assumptions and preferences they end up with a story that makes no sense. So as you point out "they try not to talk about it".

in Christ,

Bob

[Raphael]

Right, BobRyan.

It would be difficult to digest the 6 days of creation, so its stretched into trillions & trillions of years.

It would be equivalently indigestible to believe on Judgment Day as well because the entire population of sinners throughout earth's history that numbers as grains of the sands will be spontaneously resurrected.. perhaps this should be translated to trillions of years as well, of minute cell evolution & water reorganizing compounds, from worms, to apes then man. So that Judgement Day will be so long & boring that everyone in all those generations would drowse & fall asleep.

What happened to that Bible story of multiple dead people instantaneously resurrected during Christ's death on Calvary? It clearly must have been hype..

Yes BobRyan, it becomes best to try not to talk about it.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is a blatant assumption you are making. His statement on evolution was an afterthought. It certainly wasn't the theme of his presentation. You are using exaggeration because your point is weak.

I prefer the facts you seem to be avoiding them.

Listen to the intro to your own video link introducing "the evolutionary theory of water" and then come back and tell us how this is a lecture on water and evolution.

Then at 49:33 on your own video we have "the origins of life" as it relates to this talk on water.

So again - "just the facts" please.

in Christ,

Bob

Just because they use the word evolution doesn't mean the talk is about evolution. Since evolution is the basis for modern biology it would be difficult to not mention it on a talk about water.

Plus the intro isn't talking about evolutionary theory. They are stating that his theory on the nature of water is evolutionary. That is quite a different meaning.

It is clear that the bulk of the talk is about his theory on water. Again you are using exaggeration and a lack of understanding of the English usage. Do you think that maybe you may be misunderstanding other things as well?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The Big Bang says nothing about where it came from.

not quite correct. The Big bang states that there was no matter before the big bang -- in fact it claims there was not even the space-time fabric before the big bang - which means no laws of physics that we know of - no gravity, no strong or weak nuclear forces no electromagnetism -- nothing.

You don't get more "nothing" than that.

You keep forgetting that its the Big Bang THEORY. It is not theology. There are many models of the Big Bang. You are simply being selective in trying to make your point. You are providing an exaggerated interpretation. That is not honest.

You redefine terms, misunderstand usage, and you are so intellectually insulting that you make it difficult to even dialog civilly.

You force points into your world view without really understanding the original intents. And you have not provided one point of evidence for god. Instead you have participated in a campaign of disinformation and distortion.

That's why Christianity does not hold up in the free exchange of ideas.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

If you had a demonstrable test for divinity that could stand up to the rigors of scientific confirmation you would win the science argument.

I am happy to report that it is a proven fact that designers design things, that creators create things and we see that every day.

[cardw]

It would be equivalently indigestible to believe on Judgment Day as well because the entire population of sinners throughout earth's history that numbers as grains of the sands will be spontaneously resurrected.. So that Judgement Day will be so long & boring that everyone in all those generations would drowse & fall asleep.

Yeah, it would take a long time to review trillions of people's cases even without your ridiculous attempt at evolution parody.

If we had a trillion humans to judge and we gave each case one hour and we worked 10 hour days and we worked 6 days a week allowing for the Sabbath we would need 320,512,820 years to complete the judgement. I would think that to make things fair we would have to allow more than an hour to hear the cases. That could easily place us into billions of years for the judgement.

You guys make it too easy. LOL

[miz3]

Once again, it all boils down to:

1. God is Creator of all.

2. Nothing made something.

Whether you want to confront it or not it is still there and affects absolutely everything humans are.

[cardw]

Once again, it all boils down to:

1. God is Creator of all.

2. Nothing made something.

Whether you want to confront it or not it is still there and affects absolutely everything humans are.

This is your false dilemma.

I can make lists too, but it doesn't prove anything.

1. God is Creator of all - No proof

2. Nothing made something. - No proof

3. Something was always here - No proof

4. Something came from another universe - No proof

5. The universe was created by laws that have no consciousness - No proof

6. The universe is a collective consciousness - No proof

7. There are multiple gods and creators - No proof

The problem with your God is Creator of All position is that you have God being created out of nothing. You basically have set yourself up by condemning the something from nothing argument because you are claiming that God came from nothing. That's still something from nothing.

The most honest answer is that we don't know. To claim otherwise is to claim to have super human powers of mind. That is the quintessential state of arrogance.

[BobRyan]

This is your false dilemma.

I can make lists too, but it doesn't prove anything.

1. God is Creator of all - No proof

[BobRyan]

If you had a demonstrable test for divinity that could stand up to the rigors of scientific confirmation you would win the science argument.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Cardw

The problem with your God is Creator of All position is that you have God being created out of nothing.

There is no "God created out of nothing" in the Christian model. There is no "nothing can easily create God that then can create the Universe" story in Christianity.

In the Bible, God is by definition - eternal - with no beginning at all.

Quoting the Bible doesn't make sense out of nonsense.

You have simply moved the created out of nothing one step back. You continue to condemn your own view.

You mock atheists for not coming up with a source for the universe and yet you have no source for God.

You don't see humans popping out of thin air do you Bob?

Why would God simply come from nothing?

You're basically claiming that there is no dilemma because the Bible says so. LOL

If God has always been and is the source of all creation then he was alone for a very long time.

He was alone for all eternity backwards. What kind of sense does that make? Here you are a creator God just being alone for all eternity and it takes you that long to figure out that you might not want to be alone. Either God is evolving for all that time or he's a little slow on the uptake. LOL

You are claiming to know things you simply can't know. At least atheists have the honesty to admit that we don't know.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

You are claiming to know things you simply can't know. At least atheists have the honesty to admit that we don't know.

Even Paul was honest in his final days when he spoke of 'things not seen but hoped for.'

This constant battle with atheism is a redundant battle that is without any victors. Christianity has do be honest and face the slings and arrows of unbelief. After all, does not Christianity promote faith as in 'faith is not seeing but believing'? Christians, get a thick hide and practice what you claim. It ain't about 'proof', it is about believing.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is your false dilemma.

I can make lists too, but it doesn't prove anything.

1. God is Creator of all - No proof

Correction --- there is no "false dilemma" at all there because atheists themselves have nothing that creates anything - so they claim that nothing creates everything - but not now, and "not so's you could see it".

In the Christian model - "Something made Something" -- "God made everything" -- so no dilemma at all there so far.

in the atheist model "nothing made something" in fact "nothing made everything" but then "not so's you could see it today". That is self-conflictedly referred to as "naturalism" as if in nature we see nothing-make-everything.

Quote:

3. Something was always here - No proof

Neither Christianity nor atheists claim that this universe has always existed.

Christians claim that God has always existed - Atheists claim that the eternal nothing -- made everything.

Quote:

4. Something came from another universe - No proof

Christians do not claim that this universe "came from another universe" and neither do atheists like Martin Reese or Leonard Susskind -- or anyone else that I am aware of.

Quote:

5. The universe was created by laws that have no consciousness - No proof

Atheist cosmologists argue that our present laws of physics would not work at the moment of the big-bang so they simply "imagine laws of physics" for that event.

Christians simply say that God did what the Atheists claim nothing "can easily do on its own".

Quote:

6. The universe is a collective consciousness - No proof

Neither the Christians nor the atheist scientists are claiming this one.

Originally Posted By: Cardw

The problem with your God is Creator of All position is that you have God being created out of nothing.

There is no "God created out of nothing" in the Christian model. There is no "nothing can easily create God that then can create the Universe" story in Christianity.

In the Bible, God is by definition - eternal - with no beginning at all.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Quote:

You are claiming to know things you simply can't know. At least atheists have the honesty to admit that we don't know.

Even Paul was honest in his final days when he spoke of 'things not seen but hoped for.'

This constant battle with atheism is a redundant battle that is without any victors. Christianity has do be honest and face the slings and arrows of unbelief. After all, does not Christianity promote faith as in 'faith is not seeing but believing'? Christians, get a thick hide and practice what you claim. It ain't about 'proof', it is about believing.

As I pointed out earlier both sides of the issue have to have "faith" because there is just no tangible proof one way or the other.

Faith good for me. Bad for the atheist in all variations because such non-believers try and put their trust in the tangible only. Ultimately both sides have to deal with the intangible "first cause" and that intangible requires a person to have "faith.

Plain and simple. Yep it is about "believing".