Can One Decide To Be An Athiest?

[JustJ]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1580336' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:01 PM']Then There goes the Big Bang Theory.[/quote]
Nope. The Big Bang is the result of these natural forces, not the cause of them.

[Galloglasses]

Then these natural forces is your name for God?

Edited June 23, 2008 by Galloglasses

[JustJ]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1580341' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:03 PM']Then these natural forces is your name for God?[/quote]
Only if you strip god of all of the sense of sin, hell, heaven, christ, redemption for sin to save you from hell and get you into heaven through means of christ, revelation, the bible, and just about every other aspect of it.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580290' date='Jun 23 2008, 01:14 PM']So if you admit that something can happen without needing a cause, why could not the universe and all matter that exists come into existence without the need for a god?

Yes, this was a trap.[/quote]

If it was a trap your in the hole with me. For you again there is a eternal uncaused cause, which has always existed, and all which that exist was caused by it, and exist because of that.

Ether way it, the uncaused cause, is a intellgent being and everthing created was created and exists for a reason, or every thing which exist, exist by simple chance, which came by chance from an inanimate object with no intellgentece whatsoever. We both believe in a eternal. Both require [i]faith[/i]. Since you believe something is eternal that which has always existed, and all that exist was caused by it, you are but one step away from belief in a Eternal Intellgent Designer, instead of a unintelligent causality of a eternal object.

Yet, one can not have more from the effect than the cause, therefor it would seem illogical to say intellgentence and animate life could come into being from an inanimate object. Why could not a 67 Stingray and all its components come into existence without the need of a human? A 67 Stingray will never exist by chance, or caused by without a intellgentence to build it. Unintelligent causality is not a logically, or sane explanation for the existence of the Stingray so why are we to think it is a good explanation for the universe? Which is billions of billions of times more complex.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580340' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:02 PM']Nope. The Big Bang is the result of these natural forces, not the cause of them.[/quote]

It should be noted that the theory of the Big Bang was first theorized by Georges Lemaître, a God believing Catholic Priest.

[CatherineM]

Seems like a real atheist, who truly believed that all there was to life was their temporal life, wouldn't waste what precious few minutes of existence they have trying to debate about something they don't believe in. Atheists should be out partying like it's 1999. Those of us who will have an eternity to wonder in the awe of our Lord God, have more leisure in the scheme of things.

[JustJ]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']If it was a trap your in the hole with me.[/quote]
I would like to be in "that hole," considering my trap is designed to make you think, and that's something I rather enjoy doing.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']For you again there is a eternal uncaused cause,[/quote]
Okay, natural forces. Cool. Let's move on.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']which has always existed[/quote]
Who said it always existed? I'm not saying one thing either way on this issue here, I'm just interested in why you say that.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']and all which that exist was caused by it, and exist because of that.[/quote]
But why must it be your god when that hardly explains things as they really are when natural forces that lead the universe blindly explain it so well to the very best of our knowledge? (Note: As far as future knowledge, who knows which way it will go. However, there have already been hundreds if not thousands of inconsistencies with the bible both internally and externally with the real world. It is astronomically unlikely that explanations for all of these exist, making it true. Of course, if such knowledge ever comes to the forefront, I will happily look over it with a skeptical eye, and if few or no questions of great weight remain, I would accept it.)
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']Ether way it, the uncaused cause, is a intellgent being[/quote]
I have made no such claim and would ask for proof that the uncaused cause you speak of is, in fact, an intelligent being.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']and everthing created was created and exists for a reason,[/quote]
Poof?
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']or every thing which exist, exist by simple chance, which came by chance from an inanimate object with no intellgentece whatsoever.[/quote]
Though it's not blind chance. It was guided according to the rules of nature and physics and chemistry and all that good stuff.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']We both believe in a eternal.[/quote]
Are you sure?
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']Both require [i]faith[/i].[/quote]
If I were to believe it without question, yes, it would require faith. I do not, however, believe it without question. Every question I ask of it has been answered satisfactorily, and anything that has not yet been answered is something science is working on to find an answer to through tests that actually determine true knowledge rather than private thought and prayer and then accepting the answer without questioning it further.

The whole basis of science is questioning things in every way imaginable, because if a hypothesis can't stand up to questioning, it's hardly worth holding as a belief.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']Since you believe something is eternal that which has always existed, and all that exist was caused by it, you are but one step away from belief in a Eternal Intellgent Designer, instead of a unintelligent causality of a eternal object.

Yet, one can not have more from the effect than the cause, therefor it would seem illogical to say intellgentence and animate life could come into being from an inanimate object.[/quote]
Who says that can't happen, and why? Just because you can't think of any reason it can't?

To be continued~

[JustJ]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']Why could not a 67 Stingray and all its components come into existence without the need of a human?[/quote]
Because it's an inanimate object and doesn't reproduce. [img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4663/e10256ql4.gif[/img]

Was that even a serious question? I'm being very serious when I ask that.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']A 67 Stingray will never exist by chance, or caused by without a intellgentence to build it.[/quote]
Of course not. However, we're not talking about blind chance. We're talking about natural forces that are explained in just about every science class you'll ever attend, from physics to chemistry to biology. You are using an outdated and disproved creationist argument that can be easily put down by saying that comparing a nonliving thing, which really is engineered by artificial forces, to a living thing, engineered by natural forces (if you need to know more about this, ask your mother where babies come from), and these two processes are in no way similar. Therefore, saying that an artificial object cannot come into existence without intelligence (duh) in no way says that a natural process (such as life) cannot come into existence without intelligence.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580349' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:11 PM']Unintelligent causality is not a logically, or sane explanation for the existence of the Stingray so why are we to think it is a good explanation for the universe? Which is billions of billions of times more complex.[/quote]
Stop using inanimate, artificial examples, then.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580350' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:14 PM']It should be noted that the theory of the Big Bang was first theorized by Georges Lemaître, a God believing Catholic Priest.[/quote]
That means absolutely nothing. [img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4663/e10256ql4.gif[/img]
[quote name='CatherineM' post='1580351' date='Jun 23 2008, 03:18 PM']Seems like a real atheist, who truly believed that all there was to life was their temporal life, wouldn't waste what precious few minutes of existence they have trying to debate about something they don't believe in. Atheists should be out partying like it's 1999. Those of us who will have an eternity to wonder in the awe of our Lord God, have more leisure in the scheme of things.[/quote]
This sounds like you can't answer my questions, and I'm causing you to question your faith, and so you want me to go away.

Well, there is no life for me other than this one. I don't feel this is wasting my time, though. I'm trying my damnedest to make sure other people do question their faith, so that future generations might not have to worry about these false religions ruling over them.

As such, I feel a moral obligation to attempt to enlighten you all.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']Who said it always existed? I'm not saying one thing either way on this issue here, I'm just interested in why you say that.[/quote]

It could not then be said to be uncaused since it was in fact caused by something else, that or it came from nothing which is the pop theory.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']But why must it be your god when that hardly explains things as they really are when natural forces that lead the universe blindly explain it so well to the very best of our knowledge? (Note: As far as future knowledge, who knows which way it will go. However, there have already been hundreds if not thousands of inconsistencies with the bible both internally and externally with the real world. It is astronomically unlikely that explanations for all of these exist, making it true. Of course, if such knowledge ever comes to the forefront, I will happily look over it with a skeptical eye, and if few or no questions of great weight remain, I would accept it.)[/quote]

Show the inconsistencies in another thread otherwise those inconsistencies do not in fact exist. But back on topic. It does not proof my God, but it does prove a slice of my God. That is a eternal being, who is uncaused, of which all things that exist where caused to come into existence.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']I have made no such claim and would ask for proof that the uncaused cause you speak of is, in fact, an intelligent being.[/quote]

Again either the eternal is intelligent, an inanimate object which is not intelligent, or there is nothing eternal and something came from nothing by chance.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']Poof?[/quote]

An intelligent Creator would have a purpose for creating life and existence, by his mere will to create. A But a universe ruled by chance has no intelligence, and can not give more in its effect than it had in its cause.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']Though it's not blind chance. It was guided according to the rules of nature and physics and chemistry and all that good stuff.[/quote]

It would be blind chance, pure chance. The rules or laws of nature, and physics act against your therogy. There existence suggest a law maker, and enforcer. An example of this is computer programmers, creators. While writing code for the game they must first setup the physical laws of the game. Without the creation of these laws the characters and other parts of the game can not existence or behave correctly. Also they programmers must give the characters purpose or commands or they will do nothing.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']Are you sure?[/quote]

Again we both believe in a eternal or I do and you believe in a pop theory which is highly illogical.

If I were to believe it without question, yes, it would require faith. I do not, however, believe it without question. Every question I ask of it has been answered satisfactorily, and anything that has not yet been answered is something science is working on to find an answer to through tests that actually determine true knowledge rather than private thought and prayer and then accepting the answer without questioning it further.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']The whole basis of science is questioning things in every way imaginable, because if a hypothesis can't stand up to questioning, it's hardly worth holding as a belief.[/quote]

If you are truly an atheist you still have [i]faith[/i] that there is no God, that is you believe in or not in something you can not proof scientifically, because science has not and does not prove His nonexistence.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']Who says that can't happen, and why? Just because you can't think of any reason it can't?[/quote]

The principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect, man, there must be intelligence in the cause.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580361' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:39 PM']To be continued~[/quote]

To be continued

[CatherineM]

JustJ-I've stared death in the face, and didn't have a moment's hesitation or doubt about my faith, then or now, so debating a youngster isn't about to shake it an iota. Since you're about the age of my sons, I just thought I'd give you some advice about wasting your precious temporal time. The funny thing is, I think we are both right in a way. I believe that Hell is simply the absence of God, and only those people who know there is a God but reject him, or those that reject idea that there is a God, will end up in Hell. So, a Christian dies expecting to see God, and will. An atheist dies expecting there to be nothing, and that is exactly what you will get. We will both be able to say, "I told you so."

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']Because it's an inanimate object and doesn't reproduce. [img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4663/e10256ql4.gif[/img]

Was that even a serious question? I'm being very serious when I ask that.[/quote]

But this is exactly how life in the universe is said to come into existence by atheist. An inanimate object exploded and and broke into trillions and trillions of pieces, and eventually it is believed those inanimate objects formed life. Anyway the question was not asked if it could reproduce or exist without man's design. If something as complex as the universe can exist without intelligent design, there is no reason a 67 stingray can not also come into existence without any help or design from man.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']Of course not. However, we're not talking about blind chance. We're talking about natural forces that are explained in just about every science class you'll ever attend, from physics to chemistry to biology. You are using an outdated and disproved creationist argument that can be easily put down by saying that comparing a nonliving thing, which really is engineered by artificial forces, to a living thing, engineered by natural forces (if you need to know more about this, ask your mother where babies come from), and these two processes are in no way similar. Therefore, saying that an artificial object cannot come into existence without intelligence (duh) in no way says that a natural process (such as life) cannot come into existence without intelligence.

Stop using inanimate, artificial examples, then.[/quote]

"Chance" can not see without a intelligence, you say there is no intelligent creator, then the chance is blind. Yes I believe in natural forces but they the exist because of God. Again these laws suggest a intelligence because law suggest order, and design. No matter how much Atheist love to claim, the Argument from Design has not been disproved.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']That means absolutely nothing. [img]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4663/e10256ql4.gif[/img][/quote]

Your image doesn't work quite like it should. Anyway it means a good deal, Georges Lemaître's theory is in union and harmony with Catholic thought on the beginning.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']As such, I feel a moral obligation to attempt to enlighten you all. [/quote]

If God truly does not exist any moral obligation you feel is quite relative and subjective, as a matter of fact so would be any morals you hold. This is not to say atheist do not have morals, many do, those morals are however subjective and relative, who every is the strongest wins what is right and what is wrong if there is no God. There would be no "good people" there wouldn't really be people or men or women but mere animals. And animals can kill animals without good and evil being involved. Yes you may be against such a thing but without God pit would only be your opinion that it is "wrong".

[JustJ]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1580449' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:11 PM']JustJ-I've stared death in the face, and didn't have a moment's hesitation or doubt about my faith, then or now, so debating a youngster isn't about to shake it an iota. Since you're about the age of my sons, I just thought I'd give you some advice about wasting your precious temporal time. The funny thing is, I think we are both right in a way. I believe that Hell is simply the absence of God, and only those people who know there is a God but reject him, or those that reject idea that there is a God, will end up in Hell. So, a Christian dies expecting to see God, and will. An atheist dies expecting there to be nothing, and that is exactly what you will get. We will both be able to say, "I told you so."[/quote]
Then you really are a lost cause unworthy of my time.

As long as there are people willing to listen and question, however, I will try to answer them.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580485' date='Jun 23 2008, 11:37 PM']Then you really are a lost cause unworthy of my time.

As long as there are people willing to listen and question, however, I will try to answer them.[/quote]

One question. How do you decide who is a lost cause and who is worthy of your time?

That implies that you have a kind of omniscience that enables you to make such judgements. You do believe in a god. Your god just happens to be yourself.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580290' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:14 PM']If only there wasn't all that science to explain why reality is how it is through natural forces.

Don't fall for the creationist fallacy. A universe without a god is not purely random chance. It's a universe governed by natural forces.[/quote]

Within a universe governed by any manifestation of universal laws there is and always will be a probability of certain circumstances. You cannot just dismiss the probability of things because there are natural forces at work.

If there is just a slight change in the angle of collision between the Earth and Mars sized object we would have no moon. The probability of our planet having such a large moon is very low. Because it happened doesn't mean that it was likely to happen. The natural laws are like the state lotto. They set up the circumstances. If I play and win it doesn't mean that my chances of winning were any better than some other schmo.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580363' date='Jun 23 2008, 02:43 PM']Of course not. However, we're not talking about blind chance. We're talking about natural forces that are explained in just about every science class you'll ever attend, from physics to chemistry to biology.[/quote]

Dawkins seems to think that within the physical circumstances of the universe, the probability is reasonable for life to have arisen out of nothing and had enough [u]time[/u] to evolve into what it is today through blind chance, and it's a fallacious argument that lacks evidence. Since he likes to speak so much of probability, the argument he makes for life developing in this way -- without an intelligence present we refer to as God -- isn't simply improbable, it is impossible. He chooses to oversimplify, beg the question, and make extremely unlikely but specific statistical assumptions, which is what he bases his no-god theory on, which to my knowledge isn't any more of an intellectual achievement than someone who believes something because they have faith in God.

Edited June 23, 2008 by lilac_angel