Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

[RickD]

Philip,

When you quote someone, it's customary to use the quote function, instead of the code function. It make the posts look like someone older than 8, is posting.

[Philip]

Ken: God Exist outside the Universe. What does that mean? By definition Universe means “all that exist” So how could something exist outside of all that exist? To accomplish this I have to again use this pure logic to believe in a spiritual world, where none of the physical world rules apply.

God eternally exists outside all CREATED things - which whether you believe in God or not, I think you're beginning to grasp that SOMETHING had to be intelligent that created all things of which intelligence had to be applied to. There the source, and all things that the Source produced. And we know the Source could not be contingent upon anything else, nor could it have created itself. But you have alluded to something pre-existing that had to be intelligent - I think you realize this. But what WAS that - which is a different question.

Ken: But as vast as the Universe is, how do I know which rules apply to the physical world and which do not? To assume what I know about this little galaxy applies to the entirety of the Universe would be like going to a library, picking up a single book, read and study it, and using more of this pure logic to believe all the rest of the books in the library are like the one I just read. I don’t have that kinda faith.

It doesn't matter what we can't know about ALL thinks, as we do know that all things have causes and are derivative of something else - as those the only options we have - no matter what exists beyond our galaxy. And NOTHING can created itself!

Ken: *I have to assume God is not physical but has the ability to affect the physical world.

Well, as it takes a God to create the astounding physical that exists, how silly to not think He can't control it.

Ken: The only thing I can think of that is not physical is imagination and thoughts.

But the physical must exist before imagination and thoughts can. Why? Because they only exist in the mind of an already existing physical being.

Ken: So I have to use more of this pure logic to assume there is more. But then has there ever been a case when something non-physical ever had an effect on the physical world? Science has never documented such a case...

Ken, that's because science things it is incapable of measuring - as that is the realm of metaphysics. But science has shown that SOMETHING must have pre-existed the universe, because - well, that's obvious, due to their existence, and mostly due to how they are made, designed, and function with tremendous precision.

Ken: Perhaps I should use more of this pure logic to assume science doesn’t know about this.

Science has revealed astounding things about how the universe came about, how it is constructed and works. But not about WHY it does or its Source - again, science can't do metaphysics!

Ken: But if I can’t trust Science when it comes to God and the spiritual world, why would I trust science when it comes to matter and the physical world?

Perhaps, if you are looking for science to go beyond the extraordinary evidences it has uncovered for the intelligent designs, mechanizations and functions across the universe, then you are being unrealistic about A) the limits of what science can show us, and B) also in denial about the implications of what complex and astounding marvels it DOES show us - not to mention C) that science has NEVER observed ANYTHING showing absolutely no characteristics of already operating functions or abilities, suddenly beginning to develop such.

So, if science can't take you where you want to go in this important issue, and as millions of Christians claim to know God - then ultimately, your answer lies in an ADDITIONAL method of understanding. Which must start with a truly open mind and heart, and truly desiring to know the answers, no matter where they might lead. Perhaps you've been far too dependent upon science or trust in your own logic (which can certainly be faulty). You need an open heart - even to accept truth before you fully understand it. If all you search for are further reasons for your unbelief, you'll never discover the truth of God! Make sure you are being honest with yourself. ASK Him - but first make sure you are sincere in that - meaning, you ask in sincerity to be shown whatever you might not understand, and for the courage to accept it. I'm not speaking of deluding yourself - quite the opposite. God reveals Himself to the willing and sincere who truly want to know the truth - to those willing to be shown they've been wrong.

And clearly, this is not a question of one side being exceptionally logic-minded or highly intelligent and the other side not - millions of Christ followers are some of the smartest, most logic-driven people on the planet. Many of the greatest scientists whom have made some of the world's most important discoveries have been Christians. So, it's not a matter that believers aren't likely driven by logic or aren't serious about science.

When I was young, around 18, I seriously doubted my prior belief in God. And I was determined to get to the truth of the matter, to settle it once and for all. And I was truly miserable in my doubt.

Ken: For me it is just easier to admit I don’t know.

It's easy to delude oneself into remaining on that spot!

Are you scared of how finding out God exists might affect you?

[Kenny]

Ken: God Exist outside the Universe. What does that mean? By definition Universe means “all that exist” So how could something exist outside of all that exist? To accomplish this I have to again use this pure logic to believe in a spiritual world, where none of the physical world rules apply.

God eternally exists outside all CREATED things - which whether you believe in God or not, I think you're beginning to grasp that SOMETHING had to be intelligent that created all things of which intelligence had to be applied to.

Created? I thought we were still working with the idea that cells always existed!

Ken: But as vast as the Universe is, how do I know which rules apply to the physical world and which do not? To assume what I know about this little galaxy applies to the entirety of the Universe would be like going to a library, picking up a single book, read and study it, and using more of this pure logic to believe all the rest of the books in the library are like the one I just read. I don’t have that kinda faith.

It doesn't matter what we can't know about ALL thinks, as we do know that all things have causes and are derivative of something else - as those the only options we have - no matter what exists beyond our galaxy. And NOTHING can created itself!

Again; how did we get to this idea that things were actually created? What happened; did I miss something here?

Ken: *I have to assume God is not physical but has the ability to affect the physical world.

Well, as it takes a God to create the astounding physical that exists, how silly to not think He can't control it.

More of the created stuff huh? (not surprised) You do however realize as an atheist, I don’t just assume God; right?

Ken: But if I can’t trust Science when it comes to God and the spiritual world, why would I trust science when it comes to matter and the physical world?

Perhaps, if you are looking for science to go beyond the extraordinary evidences it has uncovered for the intelligent designs, mechanizations and functions across the universe, then you are being unrealistic about A) the limits of what science can show us, and B) also in denial about the implications of what complex and astounding marvels it DOES show us - not to mention C) that science has NEVER observed ANYTHING showing absolutely no characteristics of already operating functions or abilities, suddenly beginning to develop such.

So, if science can't take you where you want to go in this important issue, and as millions of Christians claim to know God - then ultimately, your answer lies in an ADDITIONAL method of understanding.

But that’s where my problem lies; if science is so inadequate that it requires “additional methods of understandings in order to go where you want to go concerning specific issues, why use science at all? I find it inconsistent to use science when it is convenient, but quick to dismiss it when it gets in your way. Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists! So if you are willing to dismiss their knowledge in that area (spiritual world) why would you assume they’re experts in the other area (physical world)? If the use of science requires additional methods of understanding in order to get where you want to go, perhaps you should dismiss science all together and stick with these other methods of understanding.

[RickD]

I agree the ingredients for intelligence could have always existed; just a matter of everything eventually coming together.

So, you are saying that you believe that it is possible that the universe had, at the very least, the elements of intelligence in it?
If so, how did those elements come together?

If cells have always existed, I can see it as only a matter of time before they can join and evolve into an intelligent being.

Ken,

I'm curious...what do you think caused these eternally existing cells to change?

Again; all I can give you are guesses. Perhaps the expansion of the Singularity allowed them to change this way.

Which brings us back again to Aquinas' first way: The argument from motion(change).

[Philip]

Ken, even if you believe something like cells could be eternal and intelligent without a cause, this still means you believe there is some form of eternal, great intelligence - you don't have to believe it's God, because a cell reveals massive complexity and design - greater than any machine man has ever created. And it is irrational to believe it formed on its own.

Ken: But that’s where my problem lies; if science is so inadequate that it requires “additional methods of understandings in order to go where you want to go concerning specific issues, why use science at all? I find it inconsistent to use science when it is convenient, but quick to dismiss it when it gets in your way.

I fail to see where I've dismissed science - exactly the opposite! I've merely pointed out that it has limits - though very powerful observations - as to what it is capable of examining or telling us. It gives us tremendous evidence that there is good reason to look further. And while scientific evidence is a huge part of revealing the necessity for a Creator, it's not the only way or evidence God has given us. This is not a matter of the evidence having to only come from science vs. other things God uses to reach people. He's also given us powerful detailed and fulfilled prophecies that can be examined, and the examinable testimonies of many prophets and apostles, etc. He has given billions of people a powerful sense of Himself that has radically changed their lives. But the science shows enough powerful evidence of its own to show there is reason to seek God, to examine the prophecies and the many claims of Scripture. So, there are multiple and complementary streams of evidences that point toward God. And, of course, we can ask and approach God Himself.

Ken, you are clearly, highly motivated to deny God.As you appear closed in heart and mind, and determined to resist the truth, no matter what. And that is your biggest obstacle to faith. God wants to bring you to faith, but He will respect your free will / won't force your belief or love of Him.

Ken: Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

NO!!! How thick are you to not yet understand the spiritual / metaphysical world cannot be studied by a methodology that can only examine the physical realm?

[Kenny]

Ken, even if you believe something like cells could be eternal and intelligent without a cause, this still means you believe there is some form of eternal, great intelligence - you don't have to believe it's God,

My goal here is not to have a discussion while denying God at all costs, I’m just having a discussion to see where it leads. These aren’t my opinions on the issue, I’m just exploring possibilities.
Cells aren’t intelligent, they are the ingredient of that which could be intelligent. But if cells could have existed within the singularity, I would guess intelligent beings could have been in there as well.

Ken: But that’s where my problem lies; if science is so inadequate that it requires “additional methods of understandings in order to go where you want to go concerning specific issues, why use science at all? I find it inconsistent to use science when it is convenient, but quick to dismiss it when it gets in your way.

I fail to see where I've dismissed science - exactly the opposite! I've merely pointed out that it has limits - though very powerful observations - as to what it is capable of examining or telling us. It gives us tremendous evidence that there is good reason to look further.

One thing about science, they admit where they don’t have answers. So if you accept science where they do have answers, and fill in the areas they don’t have with “additional methods of understanding”, which is sure to lead to God, how is this different than the ole “God of the gaps” argument you guys are always being accused of making?

Ken: Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

NO!!! How thick are you to not yet understand the spiritual / metaphysical world cannot be studied by a methodology that can only examine the physical realm?

Isn't that what we're talking about here; the Physical world? I just don’t see how philosophy could be an effective avenue in the study of the physical world.

Ken, you are clearly, highly motivated to deny God.As you appear closed in heart and mind, and determined to resist the truth, no matter what. And that is your biggest obstacle to faith. God wants to bring you to faith, but He will respect your free will / won't force your belief or love of Him.

I’m sure that is how you see it; and of course I see you as the opposite; clearly motived to make sure all answers lead to God; even to the extent of using philosophy in the study of the physical world.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

And...this is where we realize that this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

[Morny]

This discussion with Kenny shows why religious issues are uninteresting to me. Equally intelligent people can say things like "I think God exists" and "I don't think the evidence shows that God exists", with centuries of debate making no progress resolving an answer.

What I do find interesting is exactly where people see supernatural interactions with the natural world.

So, you [Kenny] are saying that you believe that it is possible that the universe had, at the very least, the elements of intelligence in it?
If so, how did those elements come together?

First maybe we can find common ground on something simpler. Assuming just the laws of physics, can I assume that you find no problem with the following very rough event sequence?

Big Bang ~13+ billions years ago.
Hydrogen gas cooling out of the ionized protons <400,000 years later.
Stars and galaxies coalescing out of the hydrogen clouds.
Burning stars, exploding supernovas, and coalescing neutron stars generating the periodic table elements.
Rocky, watery, and gas-giant bodies forming.
Millions of different molecules/minerals forming on rocky bodies.
Amino acids and even polypeptides forming on those rocky bodies.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

And...this is where we realize that this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

Perhaps it depends on what is meant by “going anywhere”. If going anywhere equals conversion; either you converting me to Christianity, or me converting you away from Christianity; I agree these conversations will never go anywhere. However, if going anywhere equals getting to know how other views, learning about different perspectives even if you don’t agree with said views or perspectives….. well speaking for myself these conversations are constantly going somewhere.

[Philip]

Ken: well speaking for myself these conversations are constantly going somewhere.

And that place seems to be the same as it's always been for you: Nowheresville. Which I would think, from your perspective, would be both unsettling per your future - even if you think this is all there is, followed by (hopefully) old age and then creeping decay toward death. Having hope where there otherwise would be none is everything to me!

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

And...this is where we realize that this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

Perhaps it depends on what is meant by “going anywhere”. If going anywhere equals conversion; either you converting me to Christianity, or me converting you away from Christianity; I agree these conversations will never go anywhere. However, if going anywhere equals getting to know how other views, learning about different perspectives even if you don’t agree with said views or perspectives….. well speaking for myself these conversations are constantly going somewhere.

And this is where I explain to you about the law of noncontradiction.

Contradictory propositions cannot both be true.

Proposition #1:
You said: Science is supposed to study everything, including the spiritual world.

Proposition #2:
You said: The conversations are going somewhere, because even if we don't agree, we get to know(understand) other views.

Until you understand the most basic part of what we are discussing, that science IS NOT the tool to study the supernatural/spiritual, you are using a hammer to screw in a screw, and this conversation is a complete waste of time. And you haven't even understood the most basic parts of the topic at hand.

[Morny]

[...] science IS NOT the tool to study the supernatural/spiritual [...]

I interpret Kenny's statements in the sense that science might shed some light on a supernatural claim, for example, on the efficacy of prayer. Viz., does a controlled, double blind, randomized test show that prayed for patients do better?

Of course, science can never fully show a negative (or even positive) claim of prayer efficacy, e.g., God might not heal, knowing that She's being tested.

[Philip]

Here ya go, Morny - a study on the impact of Christian prayer: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Ya see, if we assume the existence of the spiritual world, that would mean science has gotten it wrong because they are supposed to study EVERYTHING the spiritual world as well! The only reason they don’t is because they see no evidence that it exists!

And...this is where we realize that this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

Perhaps it depends on what is meant by “going anywhere”. If going anywhere equals conversion; either you converting me to Christianity, or me converting you away from Christianity; I agree these conversations will never go anywhere. However, if going anywhere equals getting to know how other views, learning about different perspectives even if you don’t agree with said views or perspectives….. well speaking for myself these conversations are constantly going somewhere.

And this is where I explain to you about the law of noncontradiction.

Contradictory propositions cannot both be true.

Proposition #1:
You said: Science is supposed to study everything, including the spiritual world.

Proposition #2:
You said: The conversations are going somewhere, because even if we don't agree, we get to know(understand) other views.

Until you understand the most basic part of what we are discussing, that science IS NOT the tool to study the supernatural/spiritual, you are using a hammer to screw in a screw, and this conversation is a complete waste of time. And you haven't even understood the most basic parts of the topic at hand.

What I was saying was purely hypothetical. As you know I don’t believe there is such a thing as the spiritual world; which is why I prefixed proposition #1 with: “if we assume the existence of the spiritual world”. But that doesn’t mean I can’t understand what and why you guys believe the way you do.

[Byblos]

As you know I don’t believe there is such a thing as the spiritual world;

In which case you're gonna have a real tough time explaining intentionality or, at minimum, your own mind.