Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

They don't relate to the original topic.

 

Define life.

I think below was a good response, but you ignored it.

 

oh, well that certainly settles the debate

lol

 

tell me if there's any evidence it can't (there isn't).

evolution itself hints that natural abiogenesis might be possible since the same principals of selection could potentially apply to any object that self-replicates with variation, regardless of whether it is "alive" or not.

straw man.

here you're asking for somone to explain a very technical topic involving quantum mechanics chemistry and astrophysics.

to drastically oversimplify, the big bang resulted in a gas cloud which gravity collapsed into stars, which cooked heavier elements and expelled them in supernovea, which started the process of chemical bonding forming more complex molecules etc.

 

this thread isn't asking about the gods of human tradition. i think they're all mythical also. i also think there is virtually zero chance a god of any kind exists that is concerned with the well being of individual humans.

however it doesn't follow that i can necessarily rule out ANY possible type of higher mind being responsible for the laws of nature or the big bang etc., or even abiogenesis. i don't think there's any evidence for that, but the information simply isn't available to rule it out with any certainty.

this thread is based on the false premise that atheists in general claim no possible god exists. you might, but you're an exception.

what i "understand" (as much as i do or don't) about reality is the result of objective science - which is the same for everyone.

 

Okay I went to sleep only seeing TripTango's response; then saw all the activity. I will try and get to them as soon as I can. For trip's; I gotta read exactly what he said so I don't give an answer without fully understanding what he said; so I will tackle the rest first.

 

a living organism.

I can't answer that right now until I get to my next three answers; but I will answer some of the "without life" questions.

 

On these parts of the debate; I didn't want to associate "A designer" as the Hebrew God. So take that for what it's worth.

 

Actually there are a few nice finds; and one that was given by westnob (thank you west) and a few others that came about.

It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life

So in order for them to create "Artificial DNA"; they had to use actual living organisms to complete the synthesis. In other words, using life to create life.

The other: Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

So as Denny talked about earlier. You can create organic molecules; but cannot create the building blocks of nucleic acids. Another reason why the theory that dust, electricity from our atmosphere and water cannot create "life".

That is a direct contridiction to Law 2. You just explained that something can collapsed, become a supernova, then form complex molecules. It's a simple law; but that explanation just contridicted that law. And if there is a contridiction, then it cannot be a law.

 

This. At least you are taking the logical approach. Kudos to you sir.

 

I will get to this later, so I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this part of your post. I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying below.

I believe you are explaining a "Closed System". The Earth's gravity being the "Closed System"? You are 100% accurate, because the rules about thermal dynamics apply within that confounds. The confounds of gravity. Or the closed system of gravity.

What I am trying to explain is the Universe is a closed system. If many in the science world; and as Denny pointed out earlier on another thread. The "Big Bang Theory" must be in a closed system. The molecules are infinite. If they are infinite; then they are in a closed system. And because of that; the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics applies. It is a contridiction that even in a supernova; dark matter; whatever they become the closed system. They cannot cook within itself and form a complex universe without contradicting the second rule of Thermal dynamics. At least from what I've read.

Remember what I said from the beginning. We can only debate on what we know. Just because the blind man doesn't see the color purple; doesn't mean he can argue that purple doesn't exist. This rule is applied in our debate. If that isn't the case; then my "Faith of God existing" is just as real as what you purpose.

Again, this is another "Blind man arguing that purple does not exist". Just because we don't know; doesn't exclude that it doesn't exist. And the "cloud figures" can also be assigned to science. If we want to find something; human beings can justify what they want to see by trying to logically explain it. We are dealing with evidence; not "unknown" and patterns are evidence of design and purpose; regardless if you think humanity just makes it out to be.

 

Really, the only thing we can say about questions like "how did life start" or "where did the universe come from" are "I don't know." Because there is currently no way of knowing for sure. Not knowing for sure and claiming you know (intelligent design) is intellectually dishonest.

 

it's interesting that you keep repeating that over and over even though you've been shown it's clearly wrong (a misapplication of what the law of entropy actually says) about 8 times in this thread. kind of makes this all pointless doesn't it?

 

How is it "dishonest"? Am I as dishonest as those that believe God doesn't exist?

 

The supernova; or cloud; like you call it is a closed system. And I don't think it's pointless. I am questioning the logic behind it. And since you, I or anyone else for that matter "knows"; then we only have logic. Like I said before "You can't credit the blind man for arguing purple doesn't exist". This case is applied here.

 

There are issues related to the closed vs. open system, but that is not what I am addressing here.

You are moving off-topic here. You asserted that YOU had evidence that proved atheism untenable. I am telling you that the evidence is bad. I am not trying to prove that God does not exist (which is impossible), I am merely showing you that your usage of scientific principles to argue for the certain existence of God is not viable.

Did you read the paper on entropy? Do you see why the 2nd law does not preclude evolution?

 

You can discount my logic, or if you want to say I lack of logic at all. You believe the universe is a closed system because you even said the Universe was always here. If that's the case; then the first replicating molecule becomes the closed system. So toss out all the digs you want about how this is beating your head against the wall. I think I'm asking the right questions.

 

And please, if you are going to cite one of the most important concepts in all of science, at least call it by its correct name! Calling it "thermal dynamics" is like me making Biblical references to the "Gospel of LaMarcus".