Can One Decide To Be An Athiest?

[JustJ]

I'm staring with the second half because I hope to explain away things mentioned in the first half here so that I won't have to say it twice.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580469' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:26 PM']But this is exactly how life in the universe is said to come into existence by atheist.[/quote]
Wrong. Learn what the theory actually says. It says that all matter and energy has always existed, and originally, it was in a very, very small point, known as a singularity, where all mass was so closely packed that gravity was holding it quite tightly, making such a deep hole in the higher dimensions through which gravity is explained. Note that it wasn't merely these three, but indeed at least the fourth dimension (which we experience as time) as well that were all packed together.

Something that we do not yet know very much about caused this setup to burst apart, perhaps the buildup of potential energy, I don't know for sure. Whatever it was that caused it, something which is still being questioned and tested and looked into, it left behind traces of proof that show that it happened.

Btw, didn't you point out that it was a Catholic who first discovered this? Not that it has any bearing on the argument itself, but you put forth that "this is what atheists believe" even though you seem to miss that atheists, unlike religious folk, do not have a codified set of beliefs that they must accept.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580469' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:26 PM']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]
What natural force is there that drives a 67 stingray to come into existence without intelligent agency? There isn't one.

What causes water to flow downhill without intelligence guiding it? Gravity.

What causes time to flow at a mostly constant rate? The fourth dimension, and its close relation to gravity and relativity.

What causes time to flow at different rates at certain speeds? Relativity.

What causes life to exist? Incredibly complex biochemical interactions that started relatively simple in the rather difficult task that just happened to have been on this planet that is making a self-replicating structure, RNA, and later DNA... But this planet was completely predisposed for it, and so it wasn't really chance. Why was it not chance? Because natural forces such as those mentioned above, as well as the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force, which all operate most noticeably on the incredibly small levels of quantum physics, as well as the larger forces, all acted in the way that they naturally tended to go in order to put this planet here. It is not an accident that happened by random chance, however it was also not chosen by an intelligent agent.

Are you at all familiar with computer programming? In a program, there is no intelligence. Even our greatest attempts at artificial intelligence so far fall far short. That is because the programs [i]aren't[/i] intelligent, they simply follow the set of rules they were given about what to do. It is very similar with the universe. It doesn't happen randomly, it follows a lot of very specific rules for each scenario often outlined in general terms in science classes as hypotheses, scientific theories (not to be confused with hypotheses; seriously, they really are very, very different things despite the common use of the term!), and scientific laws.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580469' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:26 PM']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]
Yes, it has. It is ignorance that continues to put it forth. You simply fail to understand the explanations.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580469' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:26 PM']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".[/quote]
You broke down into incoherency again.

There is no god.

The morals I hold are personal and subjective. They are general guidelines acquired from some mixture of genetic predisposition and the society around us.

That doesn't mean they're all worthless. A lot of societal ones are silly, like the idea that faith is a good thing. However, many of these things are truly in our best interest personally and as a society, because the good of society is in our own personal interest, as we cannot be entirely self-sufficient, and therefore we would do well to help out those who can help us.

[JustJ]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1580498' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:44 PM']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.[/quote]
She has the free will to believe what she wants to believe. As such, if she has decided she will never falter in her faith, then I cannot do anything to make her change her mind.

So, I'm not going to waste my time on her, just as she asks me not to.

Don't get into some bull about me implying I have omniscience. I admit several times that I do not know everything, so stop putting words into my mouth.

[JustJ]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1580505' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:47 PM']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.[/quote]
I make many arguments exactly like this, and for that reason, I do not usually simplify myself to just say that there is no god.

Let me correct myself for every time I said it.

There is almost certainly not god.

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580512' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:50 PM']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 [size=7][b][u][i]through blind chance,[/i][/u][/b][/size] 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.[/quote]
Incorrect.

He says many, many times that it is a nonrandom process. Yes, blind, but not chance.

[JustJ]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
Okay, let's just assume you're right for a second.

Why does the first cause have to be god?
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
Wow, so I take it you haven't actually read the bible in full, huh? God is love. Love is not jealous. I am a jealous god. There's one internal inconsistency. It doesn't speak much against the bible, except for the fact that it shows that it cannot truly be the perfect, inerrant work it is often held to be.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for [b]God is love[/b].
1Cor 13:4 Love is patient, [b]love[/b] is kind and [b]is not jealous[/b]; love does not brag and is not arrogant
Ex 20:5 You shall not worship them or serve them; [b]for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God[/b], visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
The "by chance" part is something that Occam's Razor would have you shave off unless you can prove it is by chance and not through natural processes.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
Who said this universe is ruled by chance?

When you can stop saying the universe must be ruled either by god or blind chance without a third option of nonrandom natural processes, I will read further arguments related to such things.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
No, I don't need faith to not believe in a god. I do need faith to believe there is a god, because there isn't enough evidence to support the god hypothesis. There is, however, evidence suggesting that the universe is governed by natural forces without the need for an intelligent designer. I believe what the evidence shows without a need for faith.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1580441' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:00 PM']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]
That is simply not true, and I would dare you to cite some credible source saying just that.

[rckllnknny]

Nope. i didnt choose. ive already said that. i had no one to tell me. no one to show me. i recalled so many time expressing how i so wish God was real, and heaven, and angels. i believe some babies were surrounded with such infinite wisdom. my kids will never have the chance to say they could ever imagine a time when they couldnt believe God was real (without not admitting the truth to themselves) they have been far beyond exposed if not submerged in the divine truth. i could go to church with an open mind, debate ideas and reflect certain points and elaborate, if not, all philosophies. it was more than an epiphany, it was an spiritual awakening. it was when everything finally made sense. i finally understood the difference between right and wrong. my eyes were open and my soul was lifted and i didnt see a physical world anymore with my physical eyes. i seen a spiritual kingdom with my spiritual VISION that i never had before. i couldnt explain it. it also allowed me to see the indifference between those who lives were lead and those who awaited to. not until it was my place in time was the truth eventually revealed.

Edited June 23, 2008 by rckllnknny

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580577' date='Jun 23 2008, 05:16 PM']Incorrect.

He says many, many times that it is a nonrandom process. Yes, blind, but not chance.[/quote]

Chance by definition is blind, i.e. indiscriminate, but anyway...

I think you're confusing evolution vs. evolution of the universe.

Things arise by chance, unless you're a determinist. Are you? If so, that goes against quantum mechanics.

Against all odds, the simplest cell formed on our planet almost immediately upon our planet being cool enough to allow for the simplest biological life. If getting the right chemical combo to allow for the simplest cell by chance is anything like getting a perfect deal in bridge, we are (if we take Dawkins view of things) really, really, really lucky. And that's just one tiny piece of the puzzle of how extremely, off-the-charts "lucky" we are to be here.

Also, from the book: "We are not aware of very many competent biologists, physicists, or chemists who share Dawkins' jaunty optimism about the possibilities for the chance production of DNA, let alone the cell in which it could function. ... Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by [u]chance[/u] are 1,000,000,000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one."

Edited June 23, 2008 by lilac_angel

[rckllnknny]

and all my philosophical theories no longer chased a chaotic order.

[rckllnknny]

and the moment time began, i believe was grand junction of linear point by time crossing paths and space meeting. at the moment (which will also always be now defined by the possibilities of time) causing a big bang, and evolution is pretty obvious. but i also believe it was in the hands of God because all theories coincide. or else God left something outside the box. in a 'complete' solution.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580567' date='Jun 23 2008, 06:09 PM']I make many arguments exactly like this, and for that reason, I do not usually simplify myself to just say that there is no god.

Let me correct myself for every time I said it.

There is almost certainly not god.[/quote]

So you agree with my previous post, correct?

For clarity would you mind defining which nonrandom natural processes, which do not operate on chance, are responsible for all that seen and unseen.

[rckllnknny]

what would be so horrible about living forever in heaven with friends and family??

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580711' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:36 PM']Chance by definition is blind, i.e. indiscriminate, but anyway...[/quote]
However, "blind, indiscriminate natural processes" is not the same thing as "random chance" by any means.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580711' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:36 PM']I think you're confusing evolution vs. evolution of the universe.[/quote]
No, not really. The two are quite similar in the sense that both are governed by nonrandom natural processes, but they are [i]not[/i] exactly the same. So, yes, I realize this.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580711' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:36 PM']Things arise by chance, unless you're a determinist. Are you? If so, that goes against quantum mechanics.[/quote]
I am unfamiliar with the specific definition of the term determinist, allow me to look it up.

I would not say that it is perfect, and everything was exactly determined at the beginning, no, and quantum physics does, indeed, introduce some random variation. That isn't what I've been talking about, however. I have been defeating the notion that the processes which guide the universe are completely random. That is not the case. Random variables exist. However, given the results, things continued upon a predictable course.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580711' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:36 PM']Against all odds, the simplest cell formed on our planet almost immediately upon our planet being cool enough to allow for the simplest biological life. If getting the right chemical combo to allow for the simplest cell by chance is anything like getting a perfect deal in bridge, we are (if we take Dawkins view of things) really, really, really lucky.[/quote]
We are lucky that we're the ones who are here. There are a lot of things that could've gone wrong. In fact, they did, over and over, almost constantly, for the vast majority of places in the universe that aren't Earth.

And yes, quantum mechanics really do introduce true randomness to the picture. However, not everything is completely random. Because of the laws of motion and gravity, our planet has continued to move to where it is now (actually still in motion; spinning around its own axis, which spins around the sun, which spins around the galaxy, which is shooting very quickly away from the site of the big bang). Those things, among others, are also responsible for putting us in the sweet spot for our form of carbon-based life using DNA as it happened on this planet, with water and the right atmosphere. Those got there in largely predictable ways. A small element of chance that quantum mechanics introduces does not largely affect many things on an astronomical level, where the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism do not have much pull, while gravity does.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1580711' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:36 PM']From the book: "We are not aware of very many competent biologists, physicisists, or chemists who are Dawkins' jaunty optimism about the possibilities for the chance production of DNA, let alone the cell in which it could function. ... Dawkins believes that the odds against a proptious string of DNA arising by [u]chance[/u] are 1,000,000,000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one."[/quote]
Sure, if it were happening [i]purely by chance[/i], that would be one thing.

But it isn't purely by chance.

[JustJ]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1580724' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:47 PM']So you agree with my previous post, correct?[/quote]
Which part of it?
[quote name='peach_cube' post='1580724' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:47 PM']For clarity would you mind defining which nonrandom natural processes, which do not operate on chance, are responsible for all that seen and unseen.[/quote]
All of the nonrandom natural forces, as well as the random ones such as are found in quantum mechanics, though they are far from emphasized on anything beyond the quantum level, which is the world of the very, very small.

If you want me to be more specific, you have to be more specific first. There is no one theory of everything yet discovered (though that is a primary goal of many theoretical physicists who wish to remove the first word from their title), so I cannot briefly tell you how everything is how it is.

[rckllnknny]

i dont think youre wrong J. i agree completely with you. i cant have an open mind and tell someone they are wrong. not if you believe you arent . because to you, you are right. and to me i believe in Santa Clause. with all my heart. and i think he is not real to those who do not believe in him. but he is real to me. i met a black guy name Moses that told me his real name was Jesus. i never said he was and never said he wasnt. but i did ask him, is that your real name. and he said. yes. to him, he was Jesus. so who am i to say he wasnt??
but i am curious, doesnt infinite existance (upon the belief of perfect love and harmony) appeal to you or at least sound the least bit intriguing??

[JustJ]

Talking about that last post on AIM...

(7:02:41 PM) me: i should've just responded with 42
(7:03:00 PM) me: because p_c is asking for the answer to life, the universe, and everything, without giving me a specific question