There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sheldon]

Our universe may have an edge. Just because we cant see any edge of the universe doesn't mean there isn't one.

<CITATION>

"said Robert McNees, an associate professor of physics at Loyola University Chicago. The cosmological principle states that the distribution of matter in any part of the universe looks roughly the same as in any other part, regardless what direction you look in; in scientists' terms, the universe is isotropic.
The cosmological principle is, in part, a consequence of the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. "There's lots of local variation — stars, galaxies, clusters, etc. — but averaged over big chunks of space, no place is really that different than anywhere else," McNees told Live Science in an email
The implication though, is that there is no "edge"; there is no place to go where the universe just ends and one could look in some direction and see what's beyond it."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what I find extremely amusing about all this: you are trying to convince me to believe in miracles.
1. Something that I can't observe happening. 2. Something that we have never observed happening naturally in the world. 3. You believe it because it fits into your belief system. 4. You accept it only by faith because you cannot possibly observe it.

If you will not accept my miracles why would I accept yours?

No, we believe it because it is well supported by evidence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, we believe it because it is well supported by evidence.

Only it's not. What we can observe is life from life... never life from non life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's what I find extremely amusing about all this: you are trying to convince me to believe in miracles.
1. Something that I can't observe happening. 2. Something that we have never observed happening naturally in the world. 3. You believe it because it fits into your belief system. 4. You accept it only by faith because you cannot possibly observe it.

If you will not accept my miracles why would I accept yours?

I will try something. I will accept your beliefs as yours beliefs. But I doubt you will accept mine as even mine, because your religion seems to teach that you are right and I am wrong. Or are you enough of cognitive, moral and cultural relativist to accept that neither of us know who is right or wrong?

 

[Polymath257]

Our solar system has an edge/end. Our galaxy has an edge/and. Our universe may have an edge. Just because we cant see any edge of the universe doesn't mean there isn't one.
If it started expanding at a point, then went in all directions, its naive to think there isnt an edge. (Can't say end because its still expanding out and in itself

The surface of the Earth does not have an edge.

The expansion of the universe was NOT from a single point going outward. That is a misunderstanding. The expansion happens *everywhere*.

 

[Polymath257]

You must not have dropped many stones in the pond as a kid.
Everything in the ripples get further and further apart from each other.

I understand your analogy. I am simply saying it is the wrong analogy for the expansion of the universe.

 

[Sheldon]

Here's what I find extremely amusing about all this: you are trying to convince me to believe in miracles.
1. Something that I can't observe happening. 2. Something that we have never observed happening naturally in the world. 3. You believe it because it fits into your belief system. 4. You accept it only by faith because you cannot possibly observe it.

If you will not accept my miracles why would I accept yours?

None of those define a miracle, though the hilarity of you decrying miracles is pretty funny, well done.

1. Evolution has and is being observed. It can be observed in the fossil record, and has been observed in laboratory conditions.
2. If that is a sound reason reason to disbelieve something then both 1 and 2 would be sound reasons to disbelieve in a deity, miracles, indeed anything supernatural. However we observe species evolution throughout the natural world.
3. Again thanks for the belly laugh, but species evolution is supported by a global scientific consensus, based on the overwhelming objective evidence, the theory has been and is being subjected to global scrutiny, and not just by science, for over 162 years, and all the evidence supports it, and even the RCC the largest Christian church and one of riches organisation on the planet, with all its resources has recognised the utter futility and stupidity of denying the fact of species evolution.
4. No faith is needed, and it has and is being observed.

 

[Polymath257]

Only it's not. What we can observe is life from life... never life from non life.

What does it mean for something to be alive?

Life is a *chemical* process. And chemical processes can exist without life.

So the question for the origin of life is how the right chemicals get together in the right combinations. And that *would* be life from non-life no matter what else intervenes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only it's not. What we can observe is life from life... never life from non life.

You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You run away from offers to help you to kearn. Why are you so afraid?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does it mean for something to be alive?

Life is a *chemical* process. And chemical processes can exist without life.

So the question for the origin of life is how the right chemicals get together in the right combinations. And that *would* be life from non-life no matter what else intervenes.

Yeah, if there is a God, She could have made life from non-life. She is all powerful after all.

 

[Sheldon]

YoursTrue said: ↑
You made a comment that made me think of my own experience. I used to make fun of people who believed in Jesus and the Bible. Until I believed. God changed me, I know that. I love the song "Amazing Grace." Because I know it's talking about me.

This is the same language that people use when shilling astrology, homeopathy and a flat earth.

It's odd isn't it, I mean I have always loved the song Amazing Grace as well, it was created to provoke emotion after all, and I am an atheist. A song however is clearly not evidence for the claims in it, it'd be asinine to believe it was.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You run away from offers to help you to kearn. Why are you so afraid?

Because @Wildswanderer existential value system is tied to his beliefs. But that is not unique to religious believers.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You run away from offers to help you to kearn. Why are you so afraid?

Lol, that's a weird place to go. I'm using your definition of proof for God... What's that thing atheists always say? Oh yeah, " I'll believe in God when he reveals himself to me."

When I observe life coming from non life in nature with no interference from man then I'll believe it. As of now it sounds like fantasy land. Like something that happens in comic book.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually it would be evidence that it takes an intelligent being to create life and people have to borrow from already existing material to do that.

No it wouldn't, though it would be evidence that an intelligent evolved life form had managed to replicate a natural process, without the appeals to mystery and inexplicable magic, that faith based religions parrot from archaic superstitious creation myths.

There are many differences of course, but foremost would be objective evidence for the scientific explanation, and none for the archaic creation myth, and the scientific explanation would have explanatory powers, whereas Genesis has none, and is just an appeal to mystery - goddidit is not an explanation of anything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So the question for the origin of life is how the right chemicals get together in the right combinations. And that *would* be life from non-life no matter what else intervenes.

If you can't see it happening now, it didn't happen.
But you have your faith...I have mine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really don't understand the quote. When science finally figures it out they will find the theists knew it long ago.

If "theists knew it long ago" then we would have all known it long ago. The fact of the matter is, theists wait for the discoveries of science and then cram their beliefs into it, as if they fit all along and say, "see we knew it all along!"

 

[Wildswanderer]

No it wouldn't, though it would be evidence that an intelligent evolved life form had managed to replicate a natural process,

Not if you steal from nature to do it .. That's like saying if I can assemble a bicycle that I made all the parts too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol, that's a weird place to go. I'm using your definition of proof for God... What's that thing atheists always say? Oh yeah, " I'll believe in God when he reveals himself to me."

When I observe life coming from non life in nature with no interference from man then I'll believe it. As of now it sounds like fantasy land. Like something that happens in comic book.

Well, I wouldn't, because it could be Satan.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If "theists knew it long ago" then we would have all known it long ago.

We have known the essentials for day one...when we literally walked with God. Men have a tendency to forget however.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, I wouldn't, because it could be Satan.

Which means you are so dead set against God You wouldn't believe in him if he comes down and eats breakfast with you. Funny how you will accept what science says with less to no evidence...