Origin of life to "atheists"

[aimforthehead]

Here's a quote I snatched from the from page.

Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Rich Deem

First off atheists don't necessarily believe anything, it's a vague term that simply covers one belief, whether or not someone has a belief in god. It doesn't decide whether someone believes in evolution or the big bang. I'm assuming most do, as that is where all the evidence lies, but there are religious atheists and non-scientific atheists, just so you know.

So, what many people are suggesting is basically that everything needs a cause for the effect, and since scientists can't say the cause of the universe, we are taking a leap of faith assuming it is not god. First off, that wouldn't solve our problem, we would still need to find the origin of god. That just adds one more unnecessary step to the chain of cause and effect, second off, there are plausible ideas that make more sense than adding supernatural steps (which have NEVER been necessary, and so there is no evidence or logical reason suggesting it is necessary for this). Some ideas suggest the Universe has always been here (at least since the beginning of time, before the universe there could have been no time, and thus to ask what came before it is like asking what is north of the north pole), One idea is that the universe goes through infinite stages of contraction and expansion. BOOM - expansion - contraction - BOOM ...you get the idea. . Some ideas suggest a finite universe, that simply began with the big bang, there was no before and the kick start seems to be unclear, regardless this is where the math and evidence are.

The fact that we don't know does not mean we are blindly believing anything, most scientists will admit they can't point out why the universe began exactly, if it even did. But "You don't know for sure! Therefore GOD!" isn't going to cut it.

Discuss.

[Swimmy]

"there are plausible ideas that make more sense than adding supernatural steps"

None of them really seem plausible or logical. You are asking us to go against science with all these made up theories. If anything atheists need to admit their crazy origin of everything theories are just as out there as theist ones

"Some ideas suggest the Universe has always been here (at least since the beginning of time, before the universe there could have been no time, and thus to ask what came before it is like asking what is north of the north pole),

Its pretty much a fact that the universe has not always been here. How does the universe infinitely sustain itself?

"One idea is that the universe goes through infinite stages of contraction and expansion. BOOM - expansion - contraction - BOOM

Again I don't see how it can infinitely sustain itself to do this over and over.



"Some ideas suggest a finite universe, that simply began with the big bang, there was no before and the kick start seems to be unclear, regardless this is where the math and evidence are. "


This is the most accurate model we have.

Of course the kick start is unclear to them cause they cant think of a natural cause that makes sense. Its just illogical. Hence why a intelligent designer is the most plausible to us.

[smiley]

Swimmy, you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

[zoegirl]

Let's actually discuss things, shall we? Not simply assert.

[Ngakunui]

Well, skeptics aren't necessarily atheists, and atheists aren't necessarily skeptics.

Because simply, a skeptic is someone who questions the plausibility or reality of something, demanding proof. To be simply skeptical is referring to being a skeptic to one or more things in particular, regardless of whether or not that person believes in one thing without proof or not.

Now, it's generally good to be skeptical towards something to start off with. A scientist will be typically skeptical towards something he has not gained empirical evidence about, as it is his job to question, research and conduct experiments to learn. Thus, many of the atheist scientists are generally skeptical to what they hear, yes- the same also applies to ones that believe in God.

The difference is in interpretation and understanding. One man may understand the somewhat similar lifeforms on this planet to be proof that they were designed for the same planet, and their ability to adapt is in case the animals for whatever reason faced an adversity with their environment. Another may look at these and reason that this is proof they are from a common ancestor. They are both rational observations. However, what I notice people tend to have trouble with distinguishing rationality from "truth", or at least what they hold true. Reason alone cannot give the truth; observation and knowledge of what you're observing will, and human beings do not have this capacity in full. Which is why instruments are typically built to compensate.

Still, on the note of observation... let's say you're going to perform a usual experiment with test subjects and a control(just there to be normal during the experiment's duration) subject. That doesn't mean the test is totally conclusive to every single thing, it just means the results are accurate to the test subjects, which is really only totally accurate if all of what the test subjects are are identical. No man who is alive on this Earth that I know of has seen the universe from start to finish within his lifetime. No one has really seen the start of the universe, and all that's really being observed are parts of the "big bang", presumably. So experiments can't even begin on that scale to begin with, and people can only take bits and pieces of what they know and reiterate upon them some way. When it comes to the origin of life, people know even less, because there is no telescope to see Earth's past but archaeology here and there, and even then, people still have to wonder, reason and search for answers.


Now, the reason rational people have faith that God created the cosmos is because they read the Bible(or whatever else, for that matter.), compare it to what they know and have observed about the world, and it makes sense to them- or vice versa. The same applies with rational people who don't believe in God, because they have not observed anything relating to him. That doesn't make atheists necessarily immoral or irrational or anything, as far as I see.



Another thing, Atheist does not necessarily equate to Evolutionist or Darwinian. An Atheist could conceivably be just as or more skeptical towards Evolution-based agenda as Creationist ones. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, nothing more, nothing less. Not every Atheist is Richard Dawkins. Conversely, just because someone believes in Creationism does not mean that person thinks that everything not explainable through observation is God. Crazy people think that, but not every Christian and religious person is crazy. That is not to say I haven't seen some "religious nuts", but that's not to say either that I haven't seen atheists that are just as nuts themselves.


But about whether or not the universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction, I can't say whether or not it's impossible because I'm not an astrophysicist. It may very well be a natural cycle of the universe, but if so, this does not prove nor disprove the existence of a god. It is, however, something that deserves investigation and would show the complexity and grandeur of the cosmos. Such a thing would not directly explain how life came to be on Earth. The idea is very interesting to me, though.

Just what I thought I could add to the conversation.