Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

I don't get specific with gods. I use the term generically to mean any mythical super-being people hold above humanity.

This thread, by saying atheism is not "sound", is proclaiming that god definitely exists.

And this thread is not about our tiny universe, which is but a speck in an infinite cosmos. It's method of origin is for another thread.

But what you understand and what I understand are vastly different as most understanding comes from our experiences and sensory input throughout our lives. Most of what I understand comes from personal observation and I'm sure it's the same for most people.


This explains atheism pretty well I think, and exposes the lie that atheists are "evil".

What is Atheism?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

 

And I haven't seen you produce any reason to doubt atheism.

SHOW ME THE MAGIC 7!

 

The mere fact that you're even asking (demanding?) is a step in the right direction, grasshopper.

 

I honestly don't mean this to be rude, Mags, but in terms of the physics you are citing, you don't know enough to know how little you know. The reasons your applications of the laws of thermodynamics are flawed have been discussed ad nauseum, but you are either not recognizing those reasons or you are choosing to ignore them. Wikipedia is insufficient. Links to YouTube are insufficient. You'll need to study -- actually study -- those laws (ideally in the classroom with the help of a competent instructor) to understand what they assert, where they can be applied, and where their limitations lie.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT CALLING YOU STUPID, AND I AM NOT CLAIMING TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. I am only pointing out that the way you are trying to use these so-called laws is inappropriate and invalid from a physics standpoint.

 

Easy.... The universe!

Atheist cannot prove god doesnt exists and I have damn good reason how something actually existed without existence. I see a universe that has purpose. Purpose = design. And if you think that the universe can expand and actually become more organized; doesn't happen. It's not scientific! You are going against everything pure in science.

You are tossing out faith. Faith that god doesn't exist.

 

Then explain it please. I want to see evidence. And I don't think you think I'm stupid.

 

Reading this post made me think of this:

[video=youtube;j7GJcKuVGm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8[/video]

 

Of course... Had to toss out "youtube" clips. Good argument. Unless of course, that is you as the witch. Hahahaha

 

You are the one claiming evidence of unsound beliefs in the original post of this thread, and several posters here have shown you why it is simply not good evidence.

 

Again, no. I'm not sure exactly what you believe science is, but this ain't it.

 

You made it clear you're either ignoring everyone's points or can't grasp them. I love a good discussion/debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

Or we can just have some fun:

[video=youtube;-SPV9F5w7Ww]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SPV9F5w7Ww[/video]

 

So you have evidence that life can be made without life?

And instead of links, I would like explanation. And telling me there are different meanings of the law is not gonna cut it.

Also, if the Universe is infinite; then how do you explain that the universe can expand, fine tune and actually become structured out of chaos? Seems like there is purpose. Are you disagreeing that the universe has purpose?

 

Meltdown....

 

You've watched too many of those debates, and now are structuring your discussion the same way. They're refuted your use of the science in your post. but somehow to "win" those points, and thus prove atheism is viable, they need to prove an unnecessary to you. The backup to your claims in all 3 was shown to be false. Go on to the next 7, let's see what you got.

 

How about we go back to the OT. Okay, tell me if there is any evidence that life can be created without life.

Explain how mass and energy can exist without existing.

Explain that if the universe at one point was compacted and dense (All the suns, stars, moons, matter) expanded and became more complex.

These questions aren't science?

 

Really? I don't think so. But I will go on the next in due time.

 

of course you don't think so. You ignore what others say. Works well for religion.

 

LOL I have proven that I've been extremely open to what people have given to me. In fact, I think I have seriously proved this on the other threads. Nice try though.

 

Nope. None. And our ignorance is not evidence of a higher power -- it is evidence that we are ignorant. (See "God of the Gaps")

Among other issues, there's a problem with applying the rules that appear to govern the world around us to an event as unique as the origin of the universe. A metaphorical example: if you were to measure the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth, you would find it to be remarkably constant wherever you went. Whatever the mass of the object you dropped, it would accelerate at approximately 9.81 m/s/s, give or take a hundredth or so. You might reasonably conclude, based solely on this evidence, that this value is a universal constant, and that EVERYTHING around us must being accelerated towards Earth by approximately this same value. Of course, you'd be wrong -- we now know that the acceleration due to gravity varies with distance, as well as the masses of the two objects in question. The 9.81 value only applies within the domain where it was measured -- here on the surface of the Earth. Attempting to extrapolate that value to everything in the universe is simply bad science.

You are trying to take patterns that we have observed around us and apply them to a single moment that EVERYONE agrees is highly exceptional. We don't know what rules the Big Bang operated under -- it is completely foreign territory, scientifically speaking. Now, we can make some conclusions about it, based on some of the evidence we see around us, but to try and apply thermodynamic assumptions that we aren't even sure existed is simply too big of a stretch to carry any weight. This is ignorance. It is an unknown. No scientist in the world will tell you that he understands exactly how it worked. Some of y'all feel the need to fill up that mystery with a name and a personality. Some of the rest of us prefer to just appreciate the mystery and continue gathering little clues about its nature. The bottom line is that it is overreaching, scientifically speaking, to try and apply the first and second laws to a moment in time where there may not have even BEEN any time, at least not as we understand it.

I probably do disagree with you about "purpose", in the sense that you mean. Yes, I see patterns. But I also know that we humans are remarkably good at seeing patterns, sometimes (or especially!) when they don't actually exist. Animals in clouds, the man in the moon, voices in radio static... we find patterns in every barest hint of cohesiveness within the noise. And make no mistake, the universe is full of noise. Junk DNA, stars and galaxies appearing and disappearing unseen and unheard, billions and billions of failed species here on Earth... Even the very subatomic particles that make up your body are ruled more by randomness than any particular plan. The electrons that your food supplements are so focused on are amazingly fickle things individually, drifting and popping around in a cloud of probability, completely alien to our solid, deterministic world-view.

I thought there was a very telling moment in that Craig/Hitchens debate you linked me to. At one point Hitchens asked Craig about the amazing inefficiency of certain aspects of the world, in particular (I believe) the large percentage of the DNA molecule that we now know to be completely ignored, unnecessary and useless. Craig responded with something like "well, for a timeless being like God, the word 'inefficiency' is meaningless!" And it struck me that this is why nothing is likely to alter Dr. Craig's belief -- literally EVERYTHING is evidence of God's handiwork. Order and patterns are evidence of God's meticulous planning, while randomness and inefficiency are signs of His creativity and timeless patience! This isn't just moving the goalposts -- this is making them infinitely wide!

Anyway, all this is completely an aside from your original "entropy-based" argument. Entropy is a measure of the possible "microstates" available to a system. For example, a deck of cards, before you shuffle it, has exactly one possible state -- sorted by suit and by number. When you shuffle it, you put it into different "macrostates", which we can characterize roughly as "shuffled". How many different ways could the cards be ordered such that you would still probably call them "shuffled"? Probably billions upon billions upon billions. Thus, a shuffled deck has higher entropy than a new deck. But entropy is not equal to "disorder". Many of those shufflings may, in fact, have very recognizable patterns, such as a string of consecutive cards all in the same suit. Is it accurate to say that those kinds of patterns will decrease and completely disappear with repeated shufflings? Of course not. Apparent "order" appearing every now and then is actually a statistical certainty, not an impossibility! For more, check out this paper: http://www.fisica.net/epistemologia/STYER_Entropy_and_Evolution.pdf

Hope this helps -- cheers!

 

The only answer science offers to these questions is "I don't know". Anything beyond that is finding faces in the clouds.