Atheists and God

[Magic Man]

If you can answer that question then you have all the answers. Or it could be that God always was and is. Truth is, no one can answer that question.

Wow, way to avoid the implications. The point is you say that the universe had to have a creator because everything has to have a creator. Then the question becomes "Who created God?". If your answer to that question is that God might have always been, then the same can be applied to the universe. If one thing can be an exception to your rule, then so can another thing. Therefore, you admit that the universe did not have to be created by something else. It could just always have been.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can it not have a creator? Everything is created by something or someone.
Thats like saying something like stonehendge just appreared out of nowhere.
We don't know how it was built or who built it but we know that it was engineered and built by someone.
Dumb comparison I know, but lets get real.

If you can answer that question then you have all the answers. Or it could be that God always was and is. Truth is, no one can answer that question.

Except you just did, in a way:

How can it not have a creator? Everything is created by something or someone.
Thats like saying something like stonehendge just appreared out of nowhere.
We don't know how it was built or who built it but we know that it was engineered and built by someone.
Dumb comparison I know, but lets get real.

Is God not part of "everything"? If he isn't, then he's part of "nothing"... i.e. the things that do not exist.

Either your claim that "everything is created by something or someone" is false or God needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on, and so on.

 

[McBell]

If you can answer that question then you have all the answers. Or it could be that God always was and is. Truth is, no one can answer that question.

What happened to "complexity has to be created"?

 

[gerobbins]

I don't know for sure, but what I do know is that an intelligent creator has been shown to be unnecessary for the universe as it is. And there is no evidence that an intelligent creator was involved, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that an intelligent creator is just something made up by humans.

This is where I have to disagree, I can't see how it could not have been created.

Yes, in your thoughts, because you're not looking at it objectively. It is not too complex to have just happened and it is indeed quite possible that it happened without an intelligent creator. We know that to be a fact. Also, if the universe is too complex to not have a creator, how is that creator not too complex to itself have a creator?

Again, we don't know. For all we know our universe could be a tiny atom on someones fingernail. ( Got that one from the movie "Animal House")
We as humans, just don't have the intelligence to understand. I rely on my faith.


The point is I could look at my shirt since it fits me so perfectly, and say "Man, they must have made this shirt specifically for me", when in fact, they didn't. Just like you look at the world and say it must have been made specifically for us, even though it wasn't.

I have a tailored suit and that was made specifically for me.


We already know that there are a lot of stars without planets in that zone. We finally found one that is, but that's out of a lot of others that don't have such a planet. And yes, primitive, single-celled life can exist in extreme conditions, but I'd hardly say that's part of an argument for how perfect God made conditions for life. If the conditions aren't perfect for intelligent life, it's not much different than having a bunch of rocks.

The main point here is that we have this immense universe where an extremely vast majority of it is not conducive to life, probably in the range of 95-98% of it, in fact.

We actually don't know how how many planets have planets in the Goldilocks zone.

Lets say for sake of argument that there are one trillion stars and if just .5 percent of them have planets in the Goldilocks zone that is 5,000,000,000
possible planets with life. And that just happened as well?



Well, that's a start, at least.

This is where I have to disagree, I can't see how it could not have been created.

Again, we don't know. For all we know our universe could be a tiny atom on someones fingernail. ( Got that one from the movie "Animal House")
We as humans, just don't have the intelligence to understand. I rely on my faith.

We actually don't know how how many planets have planets in the Goldilocks zone.

Lets say for sake of argument that there are one trillion stars and if just .5 percent of them have planets in the Goldilocks zone that is 5,000,000,000
possible planets with life. And that just happened as well?



A start? A start for what?

 

[Eliot Wild]

. . . it could be that God always was and is. Truth is, no one can answer that question.

Truth is, no one can answer a lot of these questions that are posed in such debates/discussions. However, we can certainly approach them with a bit of critical reasoning and objective disassociation. You seem to be favoring the concept of an ever-existent, infinite God over the concept of an ever-existent, infinite universe.

Why?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a God has always existed than it is to concede that the physical universe has always existed? And before you answer, consider this: We have current Proof, undeniable proof, that the universe in fact exists; we have no comparable proof that God exists. So why would you reject an infinite universe which we can see in favor of an infite God which we cannot?

 

[gerobbins]

Wow, way to avoid the implications. The point is you say that the universe had to have a creator because everything has to have a creator. Then the question becomes "Who created God?". If your answer to that question is that God might have always been, then the same can be applied to the universe. If one thing can be an exception to your rule, then so can another thing. Therefore, you admit that the universe did not have to be created by something else. It could just always have been.

Except for the fact that universe is more of a thing then an actual being. Beings create. Just as your parents created you, just as beings create cities etc....

 

[Eliot Wild]

Except for the fact that universe is more of a thing then an actual being. Beings create. Just as your parents created you, just as beings create cities etc....

Might that be because humans are creative beings and we try to duplicate the symmetry and functionality we find in the natural world by fabricating items of beauty and practicality?

Marsupials create too. That doesn't necessarily mean the divine creator of the universe is a Koala Bear. And please don't take offense, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I just let my lame jokes carry me away sometimes.

But my point is this. Humans are predisposed to see patterns. We see items of beauty in the natural world or processes of functionality, and we say, hmmmmm, something must have created those because that is what creative minds do, they create items of beauty and practicality. When in fact, the human mind is merely duplicating beauty and practicality found naturally in an infinite universe? Isn't that also possible?

 

[gerobbins]

Truth is, no one can answer a lot of these questions that are posed in such debates/discussions. However, we can certainly approach them with a bit of critical reasoning and objective disassociation. You seem to be favoring the concept of an ever-existent, infinite God over the concept of an ever-existent, infinite universe.

Why?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a God has always existed than it is to concede that the physical universe has always existed? And before you answer, consider this: We have current Proof, undeniable proof, that the universe in fact exists; we have no comparable proof that God exists. So why would you reject an infinite universe which we can see in favor of an infite God which we cannot?

You know its the way we look at things. Two people and look at the exact same thing and see it completely different. I look at the universe with wonder and beauty and I feel God's presence, to me thats my proof. Others look at it and feel nothing.

Without trying to get religious, I have had too many good things happen in my life through prayer that I can't deny the exisitence of God. Some may say that is just a coincidence but in my mind it just can't be.

Believe it or not, but I was once an atheist or maybe a bit closer to being agnostic.

I guess I am an bit of an Anomaly though. As I don't think like your average Christian when it comes to my beliefs and I have been criticized for such from both ends of the spectrum.

I believe the earth is over 6 billion years old, I believe the Dinosaurs were around before humans. I could care less if a gay couple wants to get married. I like to drink beer, I smoke, I swear from time to time, I love to play cards, I listen to Rock music. (You think I have trouble living in a Christian community?)


Maybe, the article was a bit biased. But it came from my point of view on how I see things.

Some athiests are just as bad as thiests when it comes to being objective as well. Its one way or another and thats it.

 

[Magic Man]

This is where I have to disagree, I can't see how it could not have been created.

I understand that you like to appeal to ignorance, but the fact is it's entirely possible that the universe could exist without an intelligent creator. You could do some research to find out how and why, but it's basically very simple. There is no need for an intelligent being in the explanation for the formation of the universe and everything in it.

Again, we don't know. For all we know our universe could be a tiny atom on someones fingernail. ( Got that one from the movie "Animal House")
We as humans, just don't have the intelligence to understand. I rely on my faith.

Sure, it could be, but what's the point? We have the intelligence to understand a hell of a lot about the universe. Instead of relying on your faith, why not rely on science, which has given us things like buildings, computers, airplanes, space travel and told us an immense amount more about the universe than your holy book has?

I have a tailored suit and that was made specifically for me.

I'm not sure you're understanding the analogy here. If I said that shirt I mentioned must have been made specifically for me because it fits me so perfectly, I'd be engaging in the same fallacious reasoning you are when you say the earth must have been created by an intelligent being because it's so perfect for us.

We actually don't know how how many planets have planets in the Goldilocks zone.

Lets say for sake of argument that there are one trillion stars and if just .5 percent of them have planets in the Goldilocks zone that is 5,000,000,000
possible planets with life. And that just happened as well?

Actually, there are many more than 1 trillion stars, but we'll go with your numbers. You have to decide which way you want to argue this. Either you argue an intelligent creator is necessary because our situation is so unique, or it's necessary because our situation isn't unique. Which is it?

But yes, that just happened as well. However many planets there are that contain life just happened without an intelligent creator. I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that that's the case.

A start? A start for what?

A start for rationally understanding the world.

 

[McBell]

If you can answer that question then you have all the answers. Or it could be that God always was and is. Truth is, no one can answer that question.

What happened to "complexity has to be created"?

 

[Magic Man]

Except for the fact that universe is more of a thing then an actual being. Beings create. Just as your parents created you, just as beings create cities etc....

You really should read a science book. The sun is not a being, but it creates a lot of stuff. Grass is not a being, but it creates a lot of stuff. At this point, you're just projecting your pre-conceived views onto things. The universe is capable of creating life as well as anything else you can find in it.

 

[gerobbins]

Might that be because humans are creative beings and we try to duplicate the symmetry and functionality we find in the natural world by fabricating items of beauty and practicality?

Marsupials create too. That doesn't necessarily mean the divine creator of the universe is a Koala Bear. And please don't take offense, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I just let my lame jokes carry me away sometimes.

But my point is this. Humans are predisposed to see patterns. We see items of beauty in the natural world or processes of functionality, and we say, hmmmmm, something must have created those because that is what creative minds do, they create items of beauty and practicality. When in fact, the human mind is merely duplicating beauty and practicality found naturally in an infinite universe? Isn't that also possible?

Then again, if we are all created in God's image would that have come from a creative mind?

 

[Magic Man]

Without trying to get religious, I have had too many good things happen in my life through prayer that I can't deny the exisitence of God. Some may say that is just a coincidence but in my mind it just can't be.

And that's it in a nutshell. You haven't taken the time to learn about science or the universe in any depth, and you choose to accept these ideas that sound good to you instead of a rational, logical approach. It can be a coincidence, whether or not you want to admit it.

Believe it or not, but I was once an atheist or maybe a bit closer to being agnostic.

I believe it, if you mean you weren't raised religious and you never really thought about it for a long time. What I wouldn't believe is that you put any thought into it and came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, and then later changed to believe the nonsense you write in that article.

I guess I am an bit of an Anomaly though. As I don't think like your average Christian when it comes to my beliefs and I have been criticized for such from both ends of the spectrum.

How not? Everything you've said so far in this thread and in your article are very typical of the average Christian, as far as I can tell.

I believe the earth is over 6 billion years old, I believe the Dinosaurs were around before humans. I could care less if a gay couple wants to get married. I like to drink beer, I smoke, I swear from time to time, I love to play cards, I listen to Rock music. (You think I have trouble living in a Christian community?)

No, I don't think you have trouble living in a Christian community. That sounds like the majority of Christians to me.

Maybe, the article was a bit biased. But it came from my point of view on how I see things.

Some athiests are just as bad as thiests when it comes to being objective as well. Its one way or another and thats it.

Yes, it's your point of view, but you can have a point of view that's not biased.

Yes, some atheists are just as bad as some theists in some ways, including being objective. But being objective has nothing to do with "one way or the other and that's it". It's about not letting bias get in the way of your thinking. You want God to be real, and you want to believe in Christianity. I did too at one point. That skews your perspective on these issues. I don't really care whether Christianity is right or wrong, and I don't care one way or the other whether God exists. I just look at the facts through logic and reason.

 

[gerobbins]

I understand that you like to appeal to ignorance, but the fact is it's entirely possible that the universe could exist without an intelligent creator. You could do some research to find out how and why, but it's basically very simple. There is no need for an intelligent being in the explanation for the formation of the universe and everything in it.



Sure, it could be, but what's the point? We have the intelligence to understand a hell of a lot about the universe. Instead of relying on your faith, why not rely on science, which has given us things like buildings, computers, airplanes, space travel and told us an immense amount more about the universe than your holy book has?



I'm not sure you're understanding the analogy here. If I said that shirt I mentioned must have been made specifically for me because it fits me so perfectly, I'd be engaging in the same fallacious reasoning you are when you say the earth must have been created by an intelligent being because it's so perfect for us.





But yes, that just happened as well. However many planets there are that contain life just happened without an intelligent creator. I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that that's the case.



A start for rationally understanding the world.

I was just using one trillion stars as a point, I know there are more then on trillion stars. I was just using a random number as point of reference.

So, you are saying (again I am just using a random number as a point of reference)
that life if there is life on 5 billion planets that it just happened? Think about the odds of that.

As a start for mu understanding of the world, I really don't need a start. I understand things from a logical point of view and logically I believe it was created. I don't believe things just happen for no reason.

 

[gerobbins]

And that's it in a nutshell. You haven't taken the time to learn about science or the universe in any depth, and you choose to accept these ideas that sound good to you instead of a rational, logical approach. It can be a coincidence, whether or not you want to admit it.

I don't believe in coincidence, never have an never will.

I believe it, if you mean you weren't raised religious and you never really thought about it for a long time. What I wouldn't believe is that you put any thought into it and came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, and then later changed to believe the nonsense you write in that article.

I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, was taught by nuns. When I became a teenager and in my early 20's I had serious doubt. It was not really until my first daughter was born that I became to believe again.

How not? Everything you've said so far in this thread and in your article are very typical of the average Christian, as far as I can tell.

Not in the Christian communitiy I have been in.

No, I don't think you have trouble living in a Christian community. That sounds like the majority of Christians to me.

Have you ever been around fundementalist Christians? I am not a fundementalist but I have some in my distant family and believe me they don't hold to my point of view.

Yes, it's your point of view, but you can have a point of view that's not biased.

Yes, some atheists are just as bad as some theists in some ways, including being objective. But being objective has nothing to do with "one way or the other and that's it". It's about not letting bias get in the way of your thinking. You want God to be real, and you want to believe in Christianity. I did too at one point. That skews your perspective on these issues. I don't really care whether Christianity is right or wrong, and I don't care one way or the other whether God exists. I just look at the facts through logic and reason.

I don't believe in coincidence, never have an never will.

I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, was taught by nuns. When I became a teenager and in my early 20's I had serious doubt. It was not really until my first daughter was born that I became to believe again.

Have you ever been around fundementalist Christians? I am not a fundementalist but I have some in my distant family and believe me they don't hold to my point of view.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Then again, if we are all created in God's image would that have come from a creative mind?

Yes, certainly that is a possibility. However, it is no more of a reasonable possibility than the alternative.

See, here is the thing. And I certainly don't mean to sound condescending or pedantic, presumptious even in trying to tell you how to think or debate. So, please don't take this the wrong way.

But since we have proof that the natural world exists. And since we have proof that the natural world itself can produce items not only of beauty and function, but also the natural world can produce creatures with a creative urge to duplicate the beauty and functionality found in the natural world, then why is there this tendency among some people to leap-frog via blind faith to the notion that a god was behind all of this? The alternative actually seems more reasonable, does it not? Since we can prove the existence of the natural world and since we cannot prove the existence of God, isn't it more reasonable to 'believe' in an infinite universe?

And this is where I hesitate out of a fear of sounding condecending, if you are going to agitate atheists in the debate section of a religious forum, you really should be prepared to explain why an infinite being is more reasonable than an infinite universe. And after agitating them with articles that insult and offend them, you should be prepared to do more than just fall back on, 'Well, it is all just opinion and we should agree to disagree.' It is opinion, yes. But some opinions are more solid than others; some make more sense because they are more reasonable.

Truth is, I actually agree with you. I actually hold out hope that an infinite Being, divine and holy, created and engineered all this, and I further hope that one day I get to a chance to have Him or someone who has spent some time with Him and understands it all, explain everything to me. But if I engage atheists, who have mostly rejected the notion of blind faith as a medium for acquiring knowledge or asserting proof, then I had better be prepared to bring more to the dicussion than empty conjecture and weak suppositions. I am honestly, sincerely trying to be helpful, not condescending.

 

[Magic Man]

I was just using one trillion stars as a point, I know there are more then on trillion stars. I was just using a random number as point of reference.

So, you are saying (again I am just using a random number as a point of reference)
that life if there is life on 5 billion planets that it just happened? Think about the odds of that.

What do you mean "the odds of that"? Apparently, in that case, the conditions for life aren't as rare as we thought in the universe. I'm not sure why that makes a difference as to whether or not there's an intelligent creator.

As a start for mu understanding of the world, I really don't need a start. I understand things from a logical point of view and logically I believe it was created. I don't believe things just happen for no reason.

That's fine, but it's the reasoning you use to back up your view that it was intelligently created that's the problem. Things just happen. We attribute reasons to them because the way we understand things is through cause and effect.

 

[gerobbins]

What do you mean "the odds of that"? Apparently, in that case, the conditions for life aren't as rare as we thought in the universe. I'm not sure why that makes a difference as to whether or not there's an intelligent creator.



That's fine, but it's the reasoning you use to back up your view that it was intelligently created that's the problem. Things just happen. We attribute reasons to them because the way we understand things is through cause and effect.

I am talking about the odds of life just happening on billions of planets. The odds of a planet having life by just happening without being created are way way out there.

 

[waitasec]

I am talking about the odds of life just happening on billions of planets. The odds of a planet having life by just happening without being created are way way out there.

in addition to that,
why would an all powerful supreme being creator of the universe play favorites and be concerned with a small piece of real estate?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am talking about the odds of life just happening on billions of planets. The odds of a planet having life by just happening without being created are way way out there.

If I take a box of 1000 toothpicks. Open it, and dump the toothpicks onto the ground.
What are the odds that they would have landed exactly the way they landed?
How many times do you think I would have to repeat my actions to get them to land in the exact same positions, and in the exact order, as my first throw?

What are the odds? Well, as you said, they are 'way out there'.
But guess what? It did happen. Once. On that first attempt.
That is all it needs. Just once.
Therefore, the odds that it DID occur are 1:1.
Pretty good odds.