Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for atheists.

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence, as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......

Question......

If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,

Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......

Obviously I don't hold this to be true, for many other reasons that classical theism states about the nature of God, but from the atheistic point of view, I don't see why atheists can believe they do not need a creator to exist, but a God does....It doesn't follow.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......


Question......


If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,


Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......

No one says that.

In fact, the only time I'v ever heard an atheist seriously ask the question "how do god come to exist", is when theists argue that cause and effect are absolute.



Obviously I don't hold this to be true, for many other reasons that classical theism states about the nature of God, but from the atheistic point of view, I don't see why atheists can believe they do not need a creator to exist, but a God does....It doesn't follow.

They don't.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:56:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then if you do not believe in God that means life was not created but just happened to arise all by itself without any need for a creator....which is the same thing...

You are wasting not only my time but also your own, your point is baseless.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:49:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:56:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Then if you do not believe in God that means life was not created but just happened to arise all by itself without any need for a creator....which is the same thing...

You are wasting not only my time but also your own, your point is baseless.

No, I do not believe in a god, but I don't know whether a god exists or not. For all I know, life was created by god. And for all I know, he erased himself after creating life. Or maybe the raelians are right. I don't know.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:53:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life

There is no "atheistic view" about the origin of life. There is:

1. The scientific view about the origin of life
2. The mythological view about the origin of life

Atheists are free to adhere to either, so long as they don't believe in a god.

and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence, as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......


Question......


If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,


Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......

Because that's not what you mean when you say God.



Obviously I don't hold this to be true, for many other reasons that classical theism states about the nature of God, but from the atheistic point of view, I don't see why atheists can believe they do not need a creator to exist, but a God does....It doesn't follow.

Case and point. You refuted your own argument.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:16:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:56:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Then if you do not believe in God that means life was not created but just happened to arise all by itself without any need for a creator....which is the same thing...

You are wasting not only my time but also your own, your point is baseless.

If I do not belief in a creator, I do not concern myself with how one may have come about. As with all arguments from first cause, I can happily consider either a) the universe is necessary and not contingent on anything or b) necessity isn't a problem so no first cause need be posited.

But how about we turn your argument around and see where that leads us?

"Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge"

Why must god be necessary to explain the universe, but the universe cannot be necessary itself? Why, if we are accepting the concept of necessary cause, can we not take the thing we know to exist (the universe) without first postulating another unknown element (god)? Why can't god have a necessary cause?

On this basis, I urge you to worship not God, but Super God. Ignore the heretics who might try to convince you to believe in Super Ultra God though, because obviously this is nonsense as Super God is the most necessary being of all.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:19:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence, as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......


Question......


If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,


Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......


Obviously I don't hold this to be true, for many other reasons that classical theism states about the nature of God, but from the atheistic point of view, I don't see why atheists can believe they do not need a creator to exist, but a God does....It doesn't follow.

As an agnostic (or atheist w/e), I do not think I have ever asserted that God needed a creator.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:54:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.

As Neitzsche said "God is dead".
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:28:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 10:19:13 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
Something cannot come from nothing.

How do you know this?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:42:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence, as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......


Question......


If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,


Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......

In order to believe in God, we need evidence. Theists often use some variation of the fine-tuning argument for show that God exists, whether it is the fine tuning of life, the fine tuning of the earth for life, or the fine tuning of the constants of the universe for life.

Evolution and abiogenesis shows that just because something appears fine-tuned does not mean it was made by a designer. We know that there are billions of planets so the fact that this planet is just right for life actually doesn't mean a designer. From all this we can conclude that just because the constants of the universe appear fine-tuned doesn't mean they were set by a creator. Since the fine-tuning argument is the biggest argument for God we don't really have a reason to believe in God.

Another point is that atheism predicts that the origin and complexity of life will be explained naturalistically and since this has come true, atheism has more evidence. Believers on the other hand have to keep restricting what their God can do as science explains more and more of what he used to be able to do.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:51:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
YHWH is not a thing.

Something- refers to a thing.

Nothing- absence of a thing.

That's how I know.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:53:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
YHWH is Holy, set apart, not us not a thing, He has always existed and always will long after your tiring and tedious questions expire and blow away like dust.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 11:04:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 10:51:45 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
YHWH is not a thing.

Something- refers to a thing.

Nothing- absence of a thing.

That's how I know.

So god isn't a thing and nothing is the absence of thing. As I said.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.]

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence

A creator of original life would probably be a deity. You're suggesting life has always existed?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence, as if to say that life arose by chance happenings or because of some chemical reaction.............Lets assume this as true for a second..............That in our gigantic universe on a little pale blue dot life just happens to come into existence, lets say for arguments sake this life was a singled celled creature and as it evolved it became more complex with a greater scope of intelligence.......


Question......


If we can assume that life needs no creator to come into being and that it gradually get's more and more complex and also acquires higher and higher levels of intelligence ,


Then why can't this be A possible way to explain Gods existence, obviously if you can accept that we never needed a creator to exist, then why does God need to be created, why couldn't God have just come into being and gradually acquired more and more knowledge......


Obviously I don't hold this to be true, for many other reasons that classical theism states about the nature of God, but from the atheistic point of view, I don't see why atheists can believe they do not need a creator to exist, but a God does....It doesn't follow.

Don't think I've ever said God needs a creator.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:02:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He is set apart and Holy, you can't compare Him to a thing. When all things become absent, it Will be Him and that is it. Every one that believes in Him will be with Him. You still do't get it and won't, repent.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:08:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:13:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.]

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence

A creator of original life would probably be a deity.

But an atheist is not required to believe that.

You're suggesting life has always existed?

No, I'm suggesting that "life always existing" is a belief that is consistent with atheism.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:08:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:13:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.]

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence

A creator of original life would probably be a deity.

But an atheist is not required to believe that.

He should have probably said "common atheistic view" then.


You're suggesting life has always existed?

No, I'm suggesting that "life always existing" is a belief that is consistent with atheism.

Is it? What does "life always existing" mean?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:33:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:13:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.]

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence

A creator of original life would probably be a deity.

But an atheist is not required to believe that.

He should have probably said "common atheistic view" then.


You're suggesting life has always existed?

No, I'm suggesting that "life always existing" is a belief that is consistent with atheism.

Is it? What does "life always existing" mean?

It means ... it always ... existed ...

Sorry, I can't parse that sentence into any simpler terms.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:46:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:41:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:33:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:13:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 10:11:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/26/2013 9:44:23 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:29:19 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If we are to take the atheistic view about the origin of life and we assume that life needs no creator to come into existence,

Not many people manage to fail this early in their post. I think that might be a record. Let's set the record straight; atheists do not necessarily hold any position other than a lack of belief in a god.

I think he's right. If you don't believe in deities, you must also believe that life can arise without one.]

A creator doesn't necessarily mean a deity and it presumes that the atheist must believe that life "came" into existence

A creator of original life would probably be a deity.

But an atheist is not required to believe that.

He should have probably said "common atheistic view" then.


You're suggesting life has always existed?

No, I'm suggesting that "life always existing" is a belief that is consistent with atheism.

Is it? What does "life always existing" mean?

It means ... it always ... existed ...

Sorry, I can't parse that sentence into any simpler terms.

Ok. You're correct, an atheist could also believe that.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:20:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have a question for the atheists..
What does this truthful verse mean to you?

Psa_53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no Elohim." They have done corruptly, And they have done abominable unrighteousness; No one does good.

Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that means God.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Causality is not universal.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:20:28 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
I have a question for the atheists..
What does this truthful verse mean to you?

Psa_53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no Elohim." They have done corruptly, And they have done abominable unrighteousness; No one does good.


Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that means God.

It's nonsense. Why are you asking?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The same Elohim that wrote that constructed your entire body, I would heed the words, all of them, before it is too late, that's why I ask, AWAKE ZION!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:13:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:07:19 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
The same Elohim that wrote that constructed your entire body, I would heed the words, all of them, before it is too late, that's why I ask, AWAKE ZION!

You realize you're not going to convince anyone this way?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:20:28 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
I have a question for the atheists..
What does this truthful verse mean to you?

Psa_53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no Elohim." They have done corruptly, And they have done abominable unrighteousness; No one does good.


Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that means God.

So many weak minded human beings that question nothing. There are too many sheep in this world.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault