Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

And please stay on topic (hopefully mods can help us out here; and slap me if I'm going off topic too please). I don't want this thread to go from Jesus doesn't exist to God is a mass murderer. I also don't want silly questions about "Who made God?" And in this thread; this has nothing to do with "The Hebrew God" or any other for that matter.

This is about Atheism is not a sound belief. Okay? And I know a few of you in here have professions in Physics and some others believe they have quite a bit of knowledge of science in general. So I will not give "Faith" answers; nor will I take "Faith" questions as well. And to my fellow Christian brothers, or from any other Religion, please no youtube links or Dogma. I wanna see how we can keep this on topic civily.

With that; I will limit this to arguments of "lack of comprehension". That is like a blind person arguing that purple doesn't exist; when there is enough evidence from people able to see that proves it does exists. Also, since science has only determined the universe being a closed system (without any outside influence); we shall keep it that way. Okay here we go:

10 reasons why I have evidence that Atheism does not exist
But I am going to use my first 3. I think there is a lot to chew on and debate only on these three things. Keep in mind I have 7 more.

1.) The First Law of Thermal Dynamics - Conservation of "energy" law.
• In the universe, you have matter and energy.
• Matter and energy can be converted to each other, but it cannot be created out of nothing.
• Also matter and energy cannot be destroyed to were it ceases to exist.

So you can’t make matter/energy disappear from existence, nor can you make matter/energy from nothing. If there were no God, then it would be impossible to have all that’s in the universe exist from nothing.

So my question is “How do you violate the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy?” It’s impossible scientifically.

2.) The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics – “heat” law.
• Everything will return to a state of “equilibrium”

In laymen’s terms: If I have a cup of coffee and I toss some ice in it; eventually they are going to be the same temperature.

• Things go from order to chaos
In laymen’s terms: Things degrade, things get sloppier.

So my question is: How can the universe violate the second law of thermo dynamics by gaining complexity from a “less complex” beginning?

Because if the universe was this condensed mass of quadrillion stars, planets, etc. condensed within itself; that wouldn't have more order than this vast universe we see today.

3.) Life cannot come from none-life
• There hasn’t been a single observation that life came from non-life.
• There is no test whatsoever that can prove life can be created by non-life.
• There are no predictions that can be made that produces life from non-life.

------------------------------------------------------------


4.) What is the alternative?

Lets imagine for a moment that you are walking along the street. You are walking next to a building and you noticed a couple hundred toothpicks lying on that sidewalk spelling your name. The toothpicks are arranged in such a way that it’s very neatly, in perfect sequence spelling out your name.

So now you are looking at these toothpicks, scratching your head and you see no one around. You look up and you see an open window on the third floor; and see an empty box that says “toothpicks” on the ledge. But you still don’t know how it got there. You don’t know how they were arranged in that way.

Now let’s say two people come along. They meet you in front of the toothpicks and you tell them. “Look at these toothpicks, they spell out my name”. And these two people are trying to explain how these toothpicks got there in that way.

Person (A) has his theory: Someone with intelligence has put those toothpicks there in that way.

Person (B) has his theory: His theory is that those toothpicks somehow fell from that window and coincidently landed in that way. That no one designed the toothpicks in that way.

So out of these two theories; which person has the true burden of proof?

The Person (B) screams out loud. You better PROVE TO ME, that intelligence designed this. You got to prove to me that someone placed those toothpicks in such a way. You have to show me the person that put the toothpicks there.

That is illogical and you know it. Simple cause and effect is evidence that God exists. Come on now, what’s more complex? The toothpicks or the human brain, the cosmos, all life on earth, the earth itself? If you can’t believe the toothpicks can’t come together on their own; then why would you believe that the human brain could?

So why would the person that believes intelligence designed the universe and everything in it must have the burden of proof; yet the person that all of the universe and it’s very existence doesn’t need proof? What’s more logical?

5.) Basic logic, common sense and reasoning

This is a hypothetical conversation between an Atheist and me. I want to tell a story; because I’m sure there will be hundreds of different responses, so bare with me.

How many of you seen an painting “The Mona Lisa”. Are you open to the possibility that no one painted the Mona Lisa? Be it having all the pigments in the earth and canvas material; that wind, billions of years have somehow put the Mona Lisa on that canvas? After all, you weren’t there when it was painted, so you couldn’t see how it was created. Neither of us can prove that we know for sure who painted that painting. So are you OPEN to the possibility that the Mona Lisa naturally became a painting we see today? YES or NO.

The Atheist will say “NO”. Then I ask “Why are you not open to that possibility”. And then the atheist will say “There is too much complexity and design for this to happen by chance”

Then I ask “What’s more complex, the Mona Lisa, or your human body?” and he answers “Well the human body of course!”. So then I ask “So you are willing to admit that your body; clearly more complex than the Mona Lisa was created by happen stance; but are unwilling to accept the Mona Lisa being created by happen stance.”

That is a total contradiction in logic.

Now sometimes an Atheist says, “Well give me enough time + chance and anything is possible” I think this logic is not true.

Let me give you another example:

Let’s say I have this clock and I completely dismantle every part of that clock. I take this clock and put it in a tin can and shake it up for 1 billion years. Is it logical that every piece of that clock will come together in perfect synergy? I think not. And guess what?!?! You actually have all the pieces necessary to make this clock; and still it isn’t logically possible.

This is another evidence to me that there was a designer.

6.) What evidence does the Atheist have that "God does not exist?".

Okay picture this thread as the court room. People reading this thread are the jury. Some believe in God, others don't, some really don't know or care for that matter. And since this is a debate on the existence of God; then wouldn't the Atheist need to provide evidence that God does not exist?

All I've seen so far, are the attempts to refute my evidence. I haven't seen the defense give one piece of evidence that God does not exists. So I ask the defense to give this evidence.

Okay so here is point #7


7.) Is there enough time and matter in the Universe?

Now keep in mind that I bring up creation of life “living organism”; not to debunk evolution. I am just using the probability of creating just “one living organism”. From that point; you can just assume that evolution may have had its natural process.

What we’ve learned is that you can make a “amino acid” type soup; with electricity, dust, water, etc. So all the components of life could realistically be present. But you can have all the parts to make life; but in order for life to exist; these parts must come together perfectly. So given the number of possible amino acids for even the simplest living cell, I’ve read from various math scholars the chances of life forming is around 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

The entire universe, has 10 to the 80th power of atoms available (including the estimate of dark matter, because before it was estimated at 10 to the 79th power)

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/905633072.As.r.html

And given this basic run down of time and matter; it is put out like this.

Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.

So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.

In scientific notion:
Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power

Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power

Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61

So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:
2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.

Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142.

2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of "atom level" events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.
An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.

Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.

And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.

To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.

In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn't help increase the possibility of life forming without a creator.

We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.

And if you think that you may come up with the argument that life could be given by some meteor or anything else in the universe; keep in mind that I factored the entire universe being the primordial amino acid soup. That cannot be a factor.

 

I BELIEVE in it, though. And have a book about it. So it must be true.

 

Then you don't exist. Duh

 

Edit: yeah, that was kinda douchebaggish

 

You haven't seen nothing yet. These are the easy ones.

 

exactly... All the three questions I just posted so far; prove that without "outside influence"; that we cannot exist. Good reading comprehension.

 

Seriously, everyone here should read this book:



It puts some serious clamps down on the atheistic worldview.

 

I kinda want these folks to figure it out themselves. I actually think many are pretty damn smart.

 

if you think that's a silly question there's no point to this thread. but -

1) who said what exists came from nothing?

2) second law speaks to entropy of contained systems, not complexity of individual components.
if you want something more technical, your favorite website -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

3) god-of-the-gaps. we don't currently know the specifics of how life started. so what?

 

Currently a pretty large, gaping gap in your theory.

 

You do realize that science is evolving (sorry if that word scared you) and changing everyday right? As in, the first law of thermal dynamics, will very unlikely be as it reads today in 1000 years. Newtons law of gravitational forces is a law we can all observe every day, but it has holes. The atomic theory has been proven over and over and over.... but it has holes. There are things people dont understand about every theory or law out there. You want proof? There might not be proof of it today, but maybe tomorrow. Where on the other hand, there is still no proof of a bearded hippie walking around 2000 years ago performing miracles. No account, no mention of him anywhere by anyone. You'd think if this hippie was doing the things he did, SOMEONE would want to talk about it.

 

crockoduck on the horizon.

 

Well it seems you swayed off topic. Do you remember the first part, regarding "evidence".

Let's move on. Are you conceding these things then? Are you admitting you cannot logically explain them?

 

i don't have a theory. i don't claim to know how life started, unlike you.

 

Nope... I promise there will not be anything about evolution on this thread.

 

See stop arguing and stay on topic. This is a question. If you choose not to answer it, then don't. Don't get into some pissing match about things that aren't pertaining to topic. Unless of course, you are trying to bury it.

 

Again, let's keep within the parameters. Saying that laws of science will evolve has no precedence to what is logic right now.

Remember that a blind person cannot argue about the color purple exists; because they have never seen the color purple. You discuss what is known. We can have this conversation in a hundred years and it could be different.