It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

txparent -> It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 1:21:13 AM)

Rather than contribute to another thread, I thought I'd start yet another one on this subject of atheism and the logic of believing in a creator. Here, in brief, are my initial thoughts:

1. The universe was once thought to be eternal until it was proven to have a beginning. This is known as the Big Bang. The signficance of this is that scientists knew (and know) that if the universe had a beginning, then the rules of cause/effect dictate that the universe had a cause. Christians have always said that the universe had a finite beginning and a creator. We were jeered at for hundreds of years. Turns out we were right all along. Now the scientists are scrambling to try to find some other plausible explanation for what might have caused the universe since they simply can't admit that it might be a creator (regardless of the strength of the evidence).

2. The Anthropic Principle indicates that the universe is tuned for life. I won't list any of the specific numbers at this point, but basically if any of the building blocks of the universe (weight, mass, speed of light, etc) were altered even at the microscopic level, human life wouldn't be possible. The universe does indeed seem to have been constructed to accomodate humankind...scientists don't like to deal with this uncomfortable subject, but it's true nonetheless.

3. Biology can attempt to explain that life in its present state came about by evolution, but it can't explain how life came into being in the first place. And it certainly can't explain how something like self-awareness or morality would be part of an evolutionary process.

4. Evolution taught that gradual change occurred over millions of years to reach the current diversity of animal and plant life we see. So how does science explain the fact that the fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of complex life all at once rather than slow evolution over millions of years? If you need a reference, review the facts about the Burgess Shale discovery (of which approximately 60,000 samples were taken...shows just how astounding the discovery was)

I'll go into more areas, hopefully, when I'm better rested. But it's quite late where I am right now and I need some sleep! I look forward to everyone's responses...

S



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 9:20:57 AM)

Excellent start, txparent. For me, the fact that Darwinists believe in something from nothing and that chaos yields order is quite striking. Their faith is amazingly hypocritical. They mock faith in God while practicing faith in what amounts to magic. They claim to be something they are not, rational.



stellaluna -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 9:27:47 AM)

Yep, the idea that nothing made anything and when we're gone we go no where doesn't exactly lead to a fulfilling life. And by that, I mean there's no reason to do anything if your life means nothing anyway. Did that make sense?

I've known a lot of "atheists" over the years and I can honestly say only a couple were true atheists. The rest were just angry and blaming God.



Sammy_S -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 10:08:28 AM)

Its not faith,it's man's wickedness.



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 10:53:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

Yep, the idea that nothing made anything and when we're gone we go no where doesn't exactly lead to a fulfilling life. And by that, I mean there's no reason to do anything if your life means nothing anyway. Did that make sense?


Being unfulfilling doesn't make something true or false, though. Atheists have reasons for doing things, it's just that they have no way to objectively defend what they do since they don't believe in absolute truth.


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I've known a lot of "atheists" over the years and I can honestly say only a couple were true atheists. The rest were just angry and blaming God.



Yeah, most "atheists" are really agnostics with an attitude.



txparent -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 11:10:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

I've known a lot of "atheists" over the years and I can honestly say only a couple were true atheists. The rest were just angry and blaming God.


In fact, I think you're right about this. I have seen the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. What kept occurring to me is how Mr. Hitchens doesn't so much disbelieve in God as he WANTS there to be no God. He doesn't want to have an eternal creator dictating right and wrong to him. He'd much rather live his life according to his own rules, so he does all he can to convince himself there is no God. But it's really hatred of God (as proven by his denunciation of Mother Teresa). In fact, www.dineshdsouza.com has this debate for free if you want to watch it...it's really excellent viewing and Dinesh does a great job of presenting a logical argument for God's existence.



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 2:15:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: txparent

3. Biology can attempt to explain that life in its present state came about by evolution, but it can't explain how life came into being in the first place. And it certainly can't explain how something like self-awareness or morality would be part of an evolutionary process.



Darwinists have done a pretty good job explaining morality (generically speaking), such as the notorious Richard Dawkins' The Moral Animal, and I would say that self-awareness -- in the sense of a living system having the capacity self-monitoring -- is likely to be beneficial to reproductive success and is likely encodable, hence could selected for ---

BUT! what physical and biological science seems rather incapable of doing is explaining self-consciousness (I'm sure this is what you meant) in the sense of sentience. Philosophers (who have a lot less methodological encumberance) don't even do a good job in my opinion.

It's a good question to ask the secular person -- Why are we conscious? Why aren't we just like computers (presumably -- though silly philosophers may have fun arguing under other assumptions), or ROBOTS?



frankman -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/20/2008 4:05:07 PM)

It would take bigger faith then I have to believe in the (1) Big Bang (2) Anthropic Principle (3) Morality- Conscious Progressive Evolution (4) Gradual Change Theory.

May I add a (5) one? The rejection that there is not a Supreme Being involved in the fulfillment of the Bible prophecy today concerning the survival of the Jewish race. The Bible has this to say about the Jewish people Israel way back in 538B.C. in Zechariah 2:8+9 "For this is what the LORD Almighty says `After he has honered me and has sent me against the nations that have plundered you- for whoever touches you touches the apple of His eye- I will surely raise My hand against them so that their slaves will plunder them."
That`s why Hitler lost W.W.2. That`s why Israel celebrated it`s 60th anniversary as a nation a few weeks ago. It is only as a result of a miracle of God that they have survived as a nation yet alone a race over the last 60 years. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] How can any Atheist have enough faith to reject this evidence of there not being a God who rules the heavens even today?



txparent -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/21/2008 10:23:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: frankman

It would take bigger faith then I have to believe in the (1) Big Bang (2) Anthropic Principle (3) Morality- Conscious Progressive Evolution (4) Gradual Change Theory.


Frankman, one of the points that I've encountered again and again in my studies is the fact that Christianity has done itself a tremendous amount of harm by denying the truths of science. As a Christian, science proves to me again and again that there is a God, and that his creation is the result of planning and design. Having said that, when you say you don't have enough faith to believe in the Big Bang or the Anthropic Principle, that concerns me.

Are you aware that the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle are two scientific truths that SUPPORT the existence of God? Until the 20th century, athiests believed the universe to be eternal, where Christians believed that it was created. Turns out, Christians were right. The Big Bang is the term given to the creation moment.

As far as the Anthropic Principle, all this is stating is that the universe appears to be intentionally tuned for life. The best way I can explain this is to quote a passage from Gerald Schroeder's excellent book "The Science of God". On page 5 he writes the following:

"Life as we know it," Weinberg writes, "would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values....One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning." This constant has to do with the energy of the big bang. Weinberg quantifies the tuning as one part in 10 to the 120th power. Scientific notation is an understatement and so I will expand that exponential into decimal notation. If the energy of the big bang were different by one part out of 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
there would be no life anywhere in our universe. The universe is tuned for life from its inception.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Christians shouldn't fear science. God invented science. And a willingness to accept the scientific truths we're uncovering can only serve to prove our case again and again.

In the 1600s the Church refused to accept that the earth moved around the Sun. They considered the entire idea to be Heresy. They turned out to be wrong, and they ended up hurting the cause of Christ by their unwillingness to believe in scientific truths.



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/21/2008 12:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: txparent

quote:

ORIGINAL: frankman

It would take bigger faith then I have to believe in the (1) Big Bang (2) Anthropic Principle (3) Morality- Conscious Progressive Evolution (4) Gradual Change Theory.


Frankman, one of the points that I've encountered again and again in my studies is the fact that Christianity has done itself a tremendous amount of harm by denying the truths of science. As a Christian, science proves to me again and again that there is a God, and that his creation is the result of planning and design. Having said that, when you say you don't have enough faith to believe in the Big Bang or the Anthropic Principle, that concerns me.

Are you aware that the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle are two scientific truths that SUPPORT the existence of God? Until the 20th century, athiests believed the universe to be eternal, where Christians believed that it was created. Turns out, Christians were right. The Big Bang is the term given to the creation moment.

As far as the Anthropic Principle, all this is stating is that the universe appears to be intentionally tuned for life. The best way I can explain this is to quote a passage from Gerald Schroeder's excellent book "The Science of God". On page 5 he writes the following:

"Life as we know it," Weinberg writes, "would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values....One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning." This constant has to do with the energy of the big bang. Weinberg quantifies the tuning as one part in 10 to the 120th power. Scientific notation is an understatement and so I will expand that exponential into decimal notation. If the energy of the big bang were different by one part out of 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
there would be no life anywhere in our universe. The universe is tuned for life from its inception.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Christians shouldn't fear science. God invented science. And a willingness to accept the scientific truths we're uncovering can only serve to prove our case again and again.

In the 1600s the Church refused to accept that the earth moved around the Sun. They considered the entire idea to be Heresy. They turned out to be wrong, and they ended up hurting the cause of Christ by their unwillingness to believe in scientific truths.


What he said!



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/21/2008 1:22:46 PM)

yes definitely... except maybe one should be careful with the language being employed here.

Science is in the business of developing testable hypotheses, and while science has and WILL most likely continue to SUGGEST that God, an intelligent Creator is likely behind this... even if science comes up with better and more refined hypotheses and experiments designed to test this broad hypothesis -- you shouldn't put the Lord thy God to the test! Christians shouldn't, eh?

Also, science uses the word "prove" in a unique sense. It is a truism: things aren't proven; it is just that we fail to disprove certain hypotheses. Science makes predictions. In statistics (which is the engine of empirical study of course) one cannot ever support a hypothesis. Rather, one shows that the null hypothesis (opposite to the one we might suppose a priori) is very UNLIKELY. That is "proof." It is similar to a court of law, which decides truth to a degree -- "beyond a shadow of a doubt." It doesn't mean its infallible, just statistically useful. Still, I don't bicker that the courts use the phrase, "until proven guilty." It's a specific, context-dependent use of the word, though.


More importantly:
That a man is/was God (Jesus!) can never be proven... didn't Satan already try that?? [;)] Obviously, if Jesus had thrown himself down from the rock and angels had borne Him up... obviously, if He had taken the ENTIRE world as his mortal subjects... and so on, then we would have some compelling EVIDENCE that He was God.

Till then, I love science! Yes, your message is great and very reasonable that Christians, well, ought to embrace science. Perhaps science is simply the spirit of curiosity... which is not the same as the spirit of truth, but the Spirit of Truth can surely find a welcome home in a humble and curious heart!


Plus, what do you think? I think that biology as an ideology may present some of the greatest temptations to people today to refuse Christ. Christians should, therefore, be VERY curious and interested at what it is secular men and women are getting themselves into -- i.e.: what we are speaking to as evangelists.



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 9:32:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

yes definitely... except maybe one should be careful with the language being employed here.


Huh?



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 10:59:36 AM)

MusicianDad, I was just thinking that one's heart can be in the right place, but the words we choose may fall short of what we mean and can eventually lead us or other people into trouble (if we let them).

What do you think?

I think science is great and fills me with the wonder of God, but I'm not comfortable with the word proof and God being in the same sentence ever (figuartively speaking).

Proof takes away the exigency of the will... and if our will doesn't face a crisis, we cannot ever come to the point of helplessness -- when our heart's are melted by God, by His gift of Jesus.

Perhaps I sound obscure, but I think it is crucial for us to have that free will so that it can -- well, it's not proper to say "we reject it", "we hand it over to God", because both of those are contradictions, in that it sounds like OUR will is still the prime factor in salvation -- that is, so that our will can come to meet that CONTRADICTION! in which we are bewildered (de-willdered?? [;)])... Hey! cool, in a "contra"-"diction" we come up against the Word! Never thought of that. Perhaps we come to a point where we bump up against the futility of our OWN words (i.e.: we can't even "prove" to OURSELVES that WE believe by, for instance, telling ourselves over and over, yes, you believe, yes i believe-- how can we trust that kind of talk?) and call upon the Word, Jesus.

See what I mean, even if I sound obscure and/or pretentious (sorry)?



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 11:03:53 AM)

oh yeah!
aside from that incoherentness, i also meant to say...

"Proof" of God would be superfluous to someone who believes without proof.

You see, Thomas was no less saved for believing AFTER touching Jesus' wounds (there are some, one can imagine, that still wouldn't believe-- or would still refuse the Love of God!!) but that wasn't necessary for others still.

Just an observation!



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 2:39:36 PM)

A step of faith is required whether you're standing in front of a burning bush, witnessing the parting of the red sea, have Jesus blind you on your way down a road, or hear the Gospel preached from a street corner. In all cases there is some evidence that has to be weighed and a decision made.

I don't think free will is something we need to worry that much about. It's a gift from God and we don't have the power to lay it down (IMO).

As far as choosing words, yeah, it's very easy to be misunderstood on the internet. I try to attack false beliefs, not false believers. It's fine to say my ideas are stupid. It's rude to say I'm stupid.



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 2:46:09 PM)

yeah , you said it well, it's not in our power to lay it down.

i wouldn't say "... a decision made." though [;)]

later



MusicianDad -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 2:58:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi



i wouldn't say "... a decision made." though [;)]




Because of predestination? I happen to agree with Calvin. I think we do decide one way or the other, as the Holy Spirit leads us. I believe we are predestined and we choose. Aren't paradoxes fun?



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 3:34:14 PM)

maybe tho!! (a decision)

... anyway, if it is a *decision* I sure hope I make it (or continue to make it everyday) rather than just talking about it [;)]

The more I think about it, I think it is a decision. It's just we don't have to or perhaps EVER make it alone, eh? but with the Help of the Holy Spirit, the Advocate!

thanks for the reminder! The "decision" idea sometimes hangs me up for a second!



hellohellohi -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 3:44:22 PM)

just saw you're other post ... my reply is "yeah!"

paradox -- that's what i meant by contradiction! :)


(definitely don't think you are or your ideas are stupid either!!!)


yeah, that's cool, we are predestined AND decide. Glad to see we both remembered the Holy Spirit (though I don't think you ever forgot it!)
... and God knows who is ultimately going to refuse Him AND He died for them anyways (I'm not saying they're saved tho -- I don't know!) That's amazing!



frankman -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 4:05:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: txparent

Are you aware that the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle are two scientific truths that SUPPORT the existence of God? Until the 20th century, athiests believed the universe to be eternal, where Christians believed that it was created. Turns out, Christians were right. The Big Bang is the term given to the creation moment.



As far as the "Big Bang" having some credibility in the Christian movement, this may be true to a certain extend because Christians believe the universe had a created beginning. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] However does the "Big Bang" theory line up with Scripture?

Evolutionists have no explanation of how the mass that caused the "Big Bang" came into existence out of nothing. This puts the evolutionist in a position were they must believe in the eternity of matter, both past and future. The fact that matter has always existed eternally past has no scientific base, so thus to believe evolutionists version of the "Big Bang" rather then in a Creator would indeed take a huge step of faith. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] So even though the "Big Bang" theory favours the Creationist, the question still remains, is it Biblical?

The "Big Bang" theory teaches that the entire universe was once a large mass of gases in space. Then one day this large mass went "[sm=christianity.jpg]BOOOOM", and from that explosion the stars, planets, the earth, [sm=elephant.gif][sm=icon_smile_cat.gif][sm=mouse.gif][sm=dance.gif], and plants evolved. They call this formation of biological living matter on earth from the "Big Bang" the Cambrain explosion, from which animal phyla developed over millions of years. [sm=icon_smile_question.gif] Again is this in line with Scriptural teaching?

The Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Gen.1:1+2 states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." No mention of a "Big Bang" explosion. The earth was formless and empty. Then God spoke the Word. Gen.1:1,3,6,9,11,20,24,26,29 "And God said...."

Now I know we don`t have a video to prove what really happened, so we have to choose between the "Big Bang" theory, which scientifically may be irrefutable, or the plain clear teaching of the old Hebrew text of Genesis. I find it easier to believe the Bible then all the other "maybe" theories that scientists admit still have a lot of unproven gaps in them.



xc279 -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 5:16:07 PM)

Well, first off, you are not an Evolutionist for believing that the Big bang happened. You are an Evolutionist if you believe that something changed in someone genetically and it was passed down to their descendants. Over time they become a new race and over even more time, a new species. The big bang has zero ties to this.
Now the energy that caused the Big bang was not "a large mass of gas in space". It was just energy not existing in space or time. Similar to God. Who knows, it might even be God. Regardless the Big bang did not start life. The leading theory among scientists is that the process of abiogenesis occured. This, in its simplest terms is life, form nonlife. A scientist named Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin discovered that oxygen was preventing them from recreating this in a lab. He published a book on his findings titled The Origin of Life on Earth.
But as you say, we have to decide between irrefutable scientific theories or, a book with numerous scientific errors that is thousands of years old that gives the explanation.



Jhud -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 5:53:49 PM)

quote:

But as you say, we have to decide between irrefutable scientific theories or, a book with numerous scientific errors that is thousands of years old that gives the explanation.


You know, you had a few decent points until right here; there are no such things as "irrefutable scientific theories", and nothing in the Bible is posited as a scientific theory, and so it can't be said to have 'numerous scientific errors'.



xc279 -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 6:02:20 PM)

I was quoting the prievious poster when I said "irrefutebale scientific theories". He used that phrase in his post and that goes against what science is, refuting previous knowledge to expand knowledge. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

EDIT: The biblical scientific errors I was referencing were that insects have four legs, the earth does not move and snakes eat dust.



Jhud -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 6:29:55 PM)

quote:

The biblical scientific errors I was referencing were that insects have four legs, the earth does not move and snakes eat dust.


Well, if you think the intent of the author was to provide a scientifically rigorous explanation of the anatomical differences in animal taxa, or explain planetary movements, of chronicle the diet of various animals that make up the Suborder: Serpentes then yes, it would be a bad book from which to draw scientific knowledge.

If however you believe, as I do, that it was written in ordinary colloquialisms so as to be accessible to the greatest range of people over the greatest length of time, then the expectations would be different.

I mean the meteorologist on the nightly news regularly talks about 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset', although we all know that scientifcally the sun doesn't rise or set - but no one for some reason complains about how the weather forecast is riddled with scientific error.



Real_Solitude -> RE: It Takes Far More Faith to be an Atheist! (5/22/2008 8:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: txparent

1. There were various differing opinions on the origin of the universe before the formulation of Big Bang theory. For that matter, the belief in a created universe is by no means unique to the Christian religion. Plato was making the Cosmological Argument four hundred years before Christ.
Heck, according to one source, even an eternal universe is tied to faith. "As Greek philosophy developed further, the notion of an eternal universe became more closely tied to philosophical ideas about divinity. The God of the philosophers had to be perfect: beyond time, beyond human passions, beyond anything subject to change. This meant that any direct involvement with the changeable realm of material objects would be an imperfection."

2. This is ignoring the other side of the Anthropic Principle (Weak vs. Strong versions). That life exists simply because the universe allows it, opposed to the idea that the universe was tuned to life. In this view, life is merely incidental, like planets or water molecules. We exist simply because the universe allows it.

3. I would say it is a leap of faith in an of itself to claim that it is not possible to explain how life came into being. Same goes for self-awareness and morality. It's fair to say that we don't yet have full explanations for these things, but we aren't completely ignorant on either count, and we're far from being able to say that it's not possible to understand them. There are some theories of abiogenesis that look to be a plausible start to life, lacking only successful experimentation to offer proof of concept. Morality
has evolutionary origins offered for it, and the same applies to consciousness (to a lesser degree.)

4. I assume you mean the Cambrian Explosion? Click here.


quote:

ORIGINAL: frankman


5. Hitler lost WWII because God wanted Israel to survive? Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the 'surge' offered to the Allied forces by the influx of American troops, in turn triggered by the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Lusitania?
The state of Israel has celebrated it's 60th because it has some very big friends, and because it has a very fierce military. I seriously doubt that Israel would still exist as a nation had it not been for the protection offered by the U.S.
The existence of the Jews as a race isn't really surprising. The Romani have had their fair share of persecution over the years, yet they survive. The Native American was forced into massive immigration and death by the persecution from the Europeans, yet they still survive. While quite interesting, the legacy of the Jewish people is in no way a completely unique or impossible event.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI