Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Autodidact]

Life happens through abiogenesis?

Uh, yeah, that's the definition of abiogenesis.

But you can't get it to work.

That's O.K., I don't need to.

And natural selection doesn't cause life it only controls populations.

O.K.

All these particles forming perfectly within incredibly precise tolerences and then somehow forming physical laws and then time and then life? Not only that, they had to form it all in a perfect order and it had to all work the first time. If the first time you try to form a universe it does not work, game over! There is no second chance. It doesn't go back to the beginning to give you another chance.

Sez who?

Ymir said there were two camps, one believes the universe is open and the amount of matter and gravity available isn't enough to slow down the expansion so it expands forever and eventually turns cold. The other camp believes in the closed universe, one where the amount of matter and gravity available is sufficient to slow down the expansion and cause it to contract back into itself eventually destroying everything.

But he left out the third camp, the flat universe. It seems that the universe is actually flat, perfectly balanced in the middle of being open and closed. It will expand and simply slow down.

I believe there is still another possibility, which is that after the slow-down and the contraction there's another Big Bang and the whole thing starts over. Wild, eh?

Also the whole multiverse thing, but it's kind of beyond me, frankly.

Wow! What another incredible accident! Thank you particles!

Who said anything about an accident? :huh:

 

[Autodidact]

Countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower? So to you, photos are always proof? Photo's have been faked many times. And eyewitnesses? Don't eyewitnesses sometimes see UFO's? And blueprints? But aren't blueprints just drawings, the thing might never have been built?

It's the combined weight of all of it, together with the absence of motive to fake. Everyone who travels to Paris and point their camera at the same spot gets a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can go there and check. And no one produces a photo of that spot without it. Etc. Etc.

Care to show you anything like that for God? Umm, the atom.

An atom is a picture of God? Weird looking God you got there.

 

[Super Universe]

As we only have a sample of one when it comes to studying universes capable of supporting life, how can we say what the possibility of things turning out differently are? Since we have ample evidence that natural processes can produce order from chaos, why do we need to introduce the concept of God to explain anything?

I'm here because I enjoy the exchange of ideas. If I was interested in being proven right or wrong, I wouldn't be here.

Natural processes produce order from chaos? To what degree? Does gravity give life? Do the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces give life? Relative forces?

Why do we need to introduce the concept of God? You don't. You could just say "I don't know".

 

[Autodidact]

Not all, some I do. The reason I say "Your" scientists is because you worship them as they prance around as if they have actually created the thing they discover.

But they've never created a thing.

Oh, random insults; that's persuasive.
I don't worship anyone or anything. I do think science is the best method we've devised for learning about the natural world, do you disagree?
As for creating anything, I beg to differ. Are you perhaps typing these words on a computer? Think science had anything to do with it?
How do you decide which parts of science to accept and which to reject? Does the scientific method work, or doesn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

What agenda did the man who put on a Big Foot suit have? Maybe to fool people?

The atom is not enough proof of intelligence to you? Okay, try this, design something that an entire universe will be based on? Something better than the atom.

The universe is really cool. It does not follow that God exists. Sorry.

 

[Super Universe]

You are assuming that the universe and us as it is now. is a planned result of these "accidents"
If the same thing was rerun a totally different result is possible,in fact more than likely.

But how could it be rerun? The thing is, the universe not only had to create itself with in almost infinite degree of precision, it also had to do it right the first time.

Once you try to create a universe and it fails. Game over! There is no second attempt.

 

[Super Universe]

The universe is really cool. It does not follow that God exists. Sorry.

Yes it does.

 

[Super Universe]

And you know this how?

[/size] And you know this how?
And you know this how?

AYKTH?

It's readily apparent. Why don't you know this?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not being stupid. It's a perfect question.

Now, how did the atom create itself so perfect? Must have been a series of highly fortunate accidents and all in a perfect order.

This is the type of question that science attempts to solve. Made a lot of progress, too, in learning the underlying forces behind atoms. And boy, is it cool. It still doesn't follow that God exists...or doesn't.

 

[Autodidact]

The burden of proof does not lie on the believer. What a convenient view for you to take? The burden of proof lie's on anyone who makes a claim, believer or not.

Oh, really. Do you claim that I DON'T have an invisible dragon in my garage? Prove it.

 

[camanintx]

Natural processes produce order from chaos? To what degree? Does gravity give life? Do the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces give life? Relative forces?

The universe we see around us today evolved from the initial chaos evidenced by the cosmic background radiation through the simple combination of gravity and nuclear forces. If non-intelligent, natural forces are capable of that, why shouldn't we believe they are capable of creating life? If you are going to reject natural causes for creating life, you would first have to define exactly what life is and how it differs from non-life.

 

[Super Universe]

Uh, yeah, that's the definition of abiogenesis.[/size] That's O.K., I don't need to. O.K. Sez who?


I believe there is still another possibility, which is that after the slow-down and the contraction there's another Big Bang and the whole thing starts over. Wild, eh?

Also the whole multiverse thing, but it's kind of beyond me, frankly.

Who said anything about an accident? :huh:

You don't need abiogenesis to work in order to believe in it? I don't doubt it. Seems you're not the only athiest around here who chooses to believe something without any evidence whatsoever.

So, how exactly, do particles start over and create a universe when they've formed an infinite gravity well?

You believe in another universal camp? Yeah, there's bunch's of'em.

Multiverse is beyond you? Think of a pool of water eleven feet deep. Each foot separates a dimension but really there is no real wall or fence separating them. We just use a foot to number the dimensions because that is the most generally accepted measurement (and other reasons that would really make this confusing).

And heaven is... the surface.

 

[Super Universe]

This is the type of question that science attempts to solve. Made a lot of progress, too, in learning the underlying forces behind atoms. And boy, is it cool. It still doesn't follow that God exists...or doesn't.

Okay, maybe the atom alone is not enough evidence for you.

How about the universe?

How about the Earth?

How about life?

Think of how intelligent humans are and yet, we barely understand it all. How could there NOT be intelligence be at work, at least, in some way?

 

[Super Universe]

It's the combined weight of all of it, together with the absence of motive to fake. Everyone who travels to Paris and point their camera at the same spot gets a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can go there and check. And no one produces a photo of that spot without it. Etc. Etc.

An atom is a picture of God? Weird looking God you got there.

What would someone's motive be for trying to make you understand that there is an intelligence at work in the universe?

Weird looking God? You have no idea...

 

[Panda]

So SU are you ever going to provide proof of your claims? I will take the universe as proof of the non-existence of God what is your proof otherwise?

 

[camanintx]

Think of how intelligent humans are and yet, we barely understand it all. How could there NOT be intelligence be at work, at least, in some way?

If it is so unlikely that we "just happened", then how likely is it that something capable of creating us and everything we see around us "just happened"?

 

[Super Universe]

The universe we see around us today evolved from the initial chaos evidenced by the cosmic background radiation through the simple combination of gravity and nuclear forces. If non-intelligent, natural forces are capable of that, why shouldn't we believe they are capable of creating life? If you are going to reject natural causes for creating life, you would first have to define exactly what life is and how it differs from non-life.

Big bang caused by the simple combination of gravity and nuclear forces. Uhh... there's nothing simple about it.

Non-intelligent natural forces capable of the big bang? So, then you think these non-intelligent natural forces created the Pieta? The Fifth Symphony? Did they create a computer? Did they ever cause lava to form a Samurai Sword?

 

[Super Universe]

So SU are you ever going to provide proof of your claims? I will take the universe as proof of the non-existence of God what is your proof otherwise?

So we both take the universe as proof of God? Now do you see, it's perception that is preventing each of us from being the other person?

What do you think is different about us that causes this?

 

[Super Universe]

If it is so unlikely that we "just happened", then how likely is it that something capable of creating us and everything we see around us "just happened"?

If I were a truly open minded person then I would say the evidence is inconclusive to believe in God or not believe.

 

[Panda]

So we both take the universe as proof of God? Now do you see, it's perception that is preventing each of us from being the other person?

What do you think is different about us that causes this?

I believe in things that are logical, that can be proven and that can be tested. I don't believe in fairy tales, you appear to enjoy writing fairy tales though.