Atheism

[David777]

Hmmm electricity?

A flow of electrons across a conductor.

Referred to as electron flow, from negative to positive.

A potential difference (voltage) must exist before electrons
can travel from the negative to positive terminals.

I think from memory that a certain molecular structure
(metallic structure?) is necessary to enable this flow of
electrons.

But, if the potential difference is very high (lightning)
the flow of electrons will occur without a conductor.

Why electricity occurs in the first place I think is the
unknown phenomenon? This is what he may have
intended to say. Actually I cannot remember exactly
myself, it was too long ago.

 

[B-A-C]

David777,
How about life itself? Where did it begin? How did it begin?

Ok, even if we did come from monkeys and amoebas (I don't believe this) where did they come from? The big bang? Ok, what caused the big bang? External forces of heat and pressure? Ok, what caused these external forces? If it was the big bang why is the universe expanding in all directions? Why not just from the center of the "bang".
We evolved? Have you ever tried to cross pollinate two kinds of flowers, or two kinds of horses? For example two palomino's can't have a palomino colt. Nature tends to revert back to it's previous state rather than "moving forward" to a "new" state.
Darwins theory of evolution says that in order for something to evolve, it must beneficial to the organism. How many parts does an eyeball have? Hundreds, so there would have had to have been 100's of simultaneous mutations in order for this be beneficial. A cornea without a retina, or a lens without a carat is not beneficial.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of species of animals, reptiles, birds, insects and fish on this planet. Why are humans the only ones with true intellect. The only ones that can create? The only ones that have a concept of right and wrong and eternity and a soul?
There are hundreds of religions amongst humans, it seems every culture has a "religion" of a sort. Why don't animals worship a God? Especially if we came from them to begin with?
Back to your example of electricity... even molecules with without both positive and negative charges "stick together" why is this?

Proof that God exists? It's all around us. I can't look anywhere and not see it.

 

[misesfan]

Ummmm, what? Electricity is relatively well understood. Electrons are charged particles that move from high voltage to low voltage. This voltage is often generated from chemical effects (electrons like certain states in relation to the atoms they're involved with). Relativity also plays a part, in the form of magnetism.



Life generates huge amounts of entropy, and takes in huge amounts of energy to do so. It in no way violates entropy.


Ummm, no it doesn't.

Check the wikipedia page on placebo, it has a section on the mechanism.

The human body has healing powers, controlled largely by your brain. Naturally, different brain states can influence how effective your healing powers are.

Relativity is deduced from Maxwell's work on electromagnetic induction, not a cause.

Thermodynamic entropy tends to be a red herring when discussing creation - however information entropy is a persuasive point. Given how the cell is now known as having an incredible amount of information organization, down to how DNA is produced within the cell, the Darwinist claim that this information organization ability simply occurred is specious and tends to reduce to an argument of faith that it simply must be so...

As far as your last point on the placebo effect, I am not sure how that would prove or disprove anything regarding the evidence that God exists. If your statement is that the mind is able to assist in regenerating healing, then wouldnt that be a sign that God created life instead of not? Assuming that this property exists only in man, and not other species on earth. Specialization for survival would make this a highly desirable trait and thus lead to multiple organisms having it.

 

[misesfan]

A flow of electrons across a conductor.

Referred to as electron flow, from negative to positive.

A potential difference (voltage) must exist before electrons
can travel from the negative to positive terminals.

I think from memory that a certain molecular structure
(metallic structure?) is necessary to enable this flow of
electrons.

But, if the potential difference is very high (lightning)
the flow of electrons will occur without a conductor.

Why electricity occurs in the first place I think is the
unknown phenomenon? This is what he may have
intended to say. Actually I cannot remember exactly
myself, it was too long ago.

Electric flow requires a conductor in order to flow. Your point on lightning is an example of electrostatic discharge, not conductivity.

Electromagnetic forces are very well understood, their causes and effects.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Electricity is relatively well understood.

Science thinks it might have an explanation.
It's called electrical theory.Science had to come up with an explanation because of unscientific people like Volta,Ampere and Watt had proved it's existance.Even after these men proved it's existence the scientists of the day claimed it would never amount to anything but a parlor trick.

David777 said:

Why electricity occurs in the first place I think is the
unknown phenomenon? This is what he may have
intended to say. Actually I cannot remember exactly
myself, it was too long ago.

That is correct,along with other inconsistencies in the theory.
The term generator is technically incorrect,you cannot generate electricity you can only pump existing electrons to a difference.


My point was just because we use something daily does not mean we understand it fully.
So it is with scripture,I only know it works from personal experience not any kind of head knowledge or mental assent.However some head knowledge is necessary to begin to work with this power.

Life generates huge amounts of entropy

Entropy is a state not a substance.Entropy or decay cannot exist apart from time.In fact that's how the atomic clock works by measuring atomic decay.Thats where we get the idea that time is linear.
In order to generate entropy I would have to somehow speed up time and that would technically not be generating.

The human body has healing powers, controlled largely by your brain. Naturally, different brain states can influence how effective your healing powers are.

That is technically true but an oversimplification.It can work from one person to another without contact.It also works in many other areas.

Placebo is a scientific name for faith.It changes things.
It works both ways just like faith.For good or bad.
Try goggling "enhanced placebo effect".There are some very recent studies that are interesting.

 

[namith]

Ok, even if we did come from monkeys and amoebas (I don't believe this) where did they come from? The big bang? Ok, what caused the big bang? External forces of heat and pressure? Ok, what caused these external forces?

You refer to an infinite regress. First of all, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, nor does the big bang depend on what happened "before" it. We have sufficient evidence for both of these things. As for what caused the big bang, what is your answer? God, presumably. Well, what caused God? I will guess that your reply is that God is uncaused. Well, I propose a natural, uncaused mechanism that created the universe. Neither of us can prove our answer to that question, but science is the field trying to figure it out.

Also, things come from nothing all the time. Look up virtual particles.

If it was the big bang why is the universe expanding in all directions? Why not just from the center of the "bang".

You don't understand the big bang. It is the expansion of space itself. Every point in the universe is the center.

We evolved? Have you ever tried to cross pollinate two kinds of flowers, or two kinds of horses? For example two palomino's can't have a palomino colt. Nature tends to revert back to it's previous state rather than "moving forward" to a "new" state.

That's not how evolution works.

Darwins theory of evolution says that in order for something to evolve, it must beneficial to the organism.

No it doesn't.

How many parts does an eyeball have? Hundreds, so there would have had to have been 100's of simultaneous mutations in order for this be beneficial. A cornea without a retina, or a lens without a carat is not beneficial.

There have been very plausible proposed mechanisms of evolution of the eye. Do a little research before making comments like this that betray your ignorance.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of species of animals, reptiles, birds, insects and fish on this planet. Why are humans the only ones with true intellect. The only ones that can create? The only ones that have a concept of right and wrong and eternity and a soul?

There were multiple evolutionary lines that began to create sentient creatures. We are the ones who managed to out-compete the others and survive. I suspect that primates are the only evolutionary line with the prerequisites necessary to develop large enough brains to reach our current level of intelligence.

But think about this: if two evolutionary lines had brought forth sentience, we would be here right now saying, "why only two?" Most likely, it's a coincidence.

There are hundreds of religions amongst humans, it seems every culture has a "religion" of a sort. Why don't animals worship a God? Especially if we came from them to begin with?

It also seems that each culture worships a different god, and many get mad at the others for this. That doesn't make sense if God actually exists and wants to be known.

But to answer your question: humans tend to ascribe agency to things. This leads naturally to ascribing invisible agency to things the cause of which we can't see. Thus, primitive religion. Children believe anything their parents tell them, so it is passed on. Fairly simple.

Back to your example of electricity... even molecules with without both positive and negative charges "stick together" why is this?

I am not sure what you mean by this. All molecules have both protons (positive) and electrons (negative).

Proof that God exists? It's all around us. I can't look anywhere and not see it.

I have heard things like this many times, but nobody can actually identify any such. What evidence?

Relativity is deduced from Maxwell's work on electromagnetic induction, not a cause.

The discussion on electricity is a bit of a tangent here. In physics class, magnetism was explained to me as a result of the relativistic effects of moving charges. Again, this is a bit of a sidetrack.

Given how the cell is now known as having an incredible amount of information organization, down to how DNA is produced within the cell, the Darwinist claim that this information organization ability simply occurred is specious and tends to reduce to an argument of faith that it simply must be so...

Abiogenesis models typically call for much simpler mechanisms at the origin of life, slowly leading up to the more complicated and robust DNA. Scientists are making progress on laboratory experiments to produce self-replicating molecules. No, it is by no means taken on faith that DNA simply came to be.

As far as your last point on the placebo effect, I am not sure how that would prove or disprove anything regarding the evidence that God exists.

This also seems to be a bit of a sidetrack. I don't claim it as any sort of evidence against God; it seemed that Thiscross was using it as evidence for God.

Assuming that this property exists only in man, and not other species on earth. Specialization for survival would make this a highly desirable trait and thus lead to multiple organisms having it.

Animals are not aware of what they are imbibing and how it is supposed to affect them, so how would they experience the placebo effect?

 

[misesfan]

You refer to an infinite regress. First of all, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, nor does the big bang depend on what happened "before" it. We have sufficient evidence for both of these things. As for what caused the big bang, what is your answer? God, presumably. Well, what caused God? I will guess that your reply is that God is uncaused. Well, I propose a natural, uncaused mechanism that created the universe. Neither of us can prove our answer to that question, but science is the field trying to figure it out.

Also, things come from nothing all the time. Look up virtual particles.

You don't understand the big bang. It is the expansion of space itself. Every point in the universe is the center.


That's not how evolution works.

No it doesn't.

There have been very plausible proposed mechanisms of evolution of the eye. Do a little research before making comments like this that betray your ignorance.

There were multiple evolutionary lines that began to create sentient creatures. We are the ones who managed to out-compete the others and survive. I suspect that primates are the only evolutionary line with the prerequisites necessary to develop large enough brains to reach our current level of intelligence.

But think about this: if two evolutionary lines had brought forth sentience, we would be here right now saying, "why only two?" Most likely, it's a coincidence.

It also seems that each culture worships a different god, and many get mad at the others for this. That doesn't make sense if God actually exists and wants to be known.

But to answer your question: humans tend to ascribe agency to things. This leads naturally to ascribing invisible agency to things the cause of which we can't see. Thus, primitive religion. Children believe anything their parents tell them, so it is passed on. Fairly simple.

I am not sure what you mean by this. All molecules have both protons (positive) and electrons (negative).

I have heard things like this many times, but nobody can actually identify any such. What evidence?



The discussion on electricity is a bit of a tangent here. In physics class, magnetism was explained to me as a result of the relativistic effects of moving charges. Again, this is a bit of a sidetrack.

Abiogenesis models typically call for much simpler mechanisms at the origin of life, slowly leading up to the more complicated and robust DNA. Scientists are making progress on laboratory experiments to produce self-replicating molecules. No, it is by no means taken on faith that DNA simply came to be.

This also seems to be a bit of a sidetrack. I don't claim it as any sort of evidence against God; it seemed that Thiscross was using it as evidence for God.

Animals are not aware of what they are imbibing and how it is supposed to affect them, so how would they experience the placebo effect?

I will reply to your kind replies to me.
- Regarding DNA sequencing and self-replicating molecules. Consider that we are talking about cellular structure, and that the 'least' complex forms of life have this cellular structure in place. Then the consideration that information actually increased when developing the cell is the question that scientists cannot answer using evolutionary models. Information never increases without an intelligent agent causing it. Thus you have a period of time without information in the cell, and then a cell that evolves that has a DNA molecule that requires current technology's massive computing power to simply replicate its sequence. Pretty awesome evidence that intelligence was required to create this fundamental property of all life.

- I agree that electricity is a bit of a tangent and was kind of curious how this leads a Darwinist to disprove Gods existence. If anything, given its similarity to gravity (i.e. and inverse-square law) I would think that Newtons conception of a Great Watchmaker would be applicable. And James Clerk Maxwell's formulation of electromagnetism was one of his 'proofs' of God existence given the intelligence required to model the behavior.

- And agree about the tangential issue of healing properties of the mind. But stating that animals would not be aware of a placebo effect is irrelevant to the argument. The specialization advantage if an animal possessed the property to heal, would give a species a distinct advantage in nature.

 

[David777]

Tangents.

My comment on electricity was an attempt to assist thiscrosshurts in his previous post.

It was not an attempt by me to change the course of the discussion.

I thought that I would clear up this area that I thought was misunderstood.

Dear misesfan, I am well aware that lightning is the result of
electrostatic discharge. You may not be aware that this is
a potential difference, also that the air itself is in effect the
conductor. Lightning is a flow of electrons from the ground up
into the clouds and beyond.

Dear B-A-C, I am a Christian, it was not my idea to introduce
electricity into the debate, read above.

I must provide more information in my posts as I am too brief
at times. This causes problems.

 

[David777]

Dear namith.

I have noticed a number of your replies in previous posts which I feel
I should address.

The following reply,

Proof that God exists? It's all around us. I can't look anywhere and not see it.
I have heard things like this many times, but nobody can actually identify any such.
What evidence?

I will identify some of the evidence of God.

You are the first proof namith. Your intellect is way beyond what
is required for so called evolutionary survival. Science has no
explanation for the intellectual powers that man is endowed with.

If you think this through, there is only one valid explanation possible
you are created in the image of God.

Secondly, you are not governed by instinct namith. You are
constantly making decisions regarding your behavior. Animals
do not function at this level, they are driven by instinct and they
do not depart from this pattern. More evidence or proof if you so wish that you are in the image of God.

Thirdly namith you have an incredible ability to communicate.
This communication you conduct with others of your species is a miracle in itself.
A light year beyond what is needed for the regeneration of our species and its survival.

Do I need to go on and on. This evidence is overwhelming and is clearly proof at all
levels that we are God's handiwork. So are you still unaware of this evidence,
I deeply wonder whether you are in fact unaware namith!

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

The existence of the placebo effect leads me to believe faith has substance.All you need for the placebo effect is a reasonable expectation.So in a sense the power of the belief in God is a force in and of itself.

Placebo came into discussion because I posted the above.Not as a proof of anything.Just an observation that faith has substance and belief is a force.

The electrical discussion came from this:

Originally Posted by Thiscrosshurts
Electricity is a good example to me because I am a generator technician.In my training I always struggled to understand how electricity worked and never felt I understood.However I aced all tests and was even able to correct my teachers when they were in error.
I finally figured out that no one understands electricity(except maybe Tesla).

I work with generators,inverters,solar panels and switchgear every day.I know enough about electricity to know what I don't understand.If I only knew electricity by theory I would not even be qualified to have questions.

This was not proof of anything either.
It was in reference to the many things in scripture, which people have mistakenly interpreted literally which leads to some strange doctrines.

For some reason atheists believe all Christians think they understand all scripture.However now that I realize everyone knows everything there is to know about electricity except me ,it seems that it was a poor example.

I am supposed to be an electrical expert,Ive been doing it since 1984.
I am also supposed to be a scriptural expert,I've been studying since 1989.
So far in both fields I have gained enough knowledge to realize that there is always more to understand.

namith: I get the impression that your concern with religion is that they don't impose what they think they understand on everyone.If so I whole heatedly agree,politicians should represent all people.
You previously asked:

To ThisCross: So what do you actually believe? And in what ways does that inform your actions? For example, would you ever attempt to pass legislation preventing people from doing something you believed was wrong or vote against a political candidate based on their faith?

I like manual transmissions but I would never promote a law banning automatics.
(I am not in any way talking about transmissions,I am presenting a pattern like scripture does.)

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Then the consideration that information actually increased when developing the cell is the question that scientists cannot answer using evolutionary models. Information never increases without an intelligent agent causing it.

Except, of course, that it does. Google "genetic algorithm".

Reality seems to disagree with your assertions. Reality > your assertions.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

You are the first proof namith. Your intellect is way beyond what
is required for so called evolutionary survival. Science has no
explanation for the intellectual powers that man is endowed with.

Um. . .yes it does - a big complex brain. Obviously increased intelligence has a huge evolutionary payoff given our populations expansion across and even beyond our planet.

Secondly, you are not governed by instinct namith. You are
constantly making decisions regarding your behavior. Animals
do not function at this level, they are driven by instinct and they
do not depart from this pattern.

That's absolutely false, even invertebrates regularly learn new behaviors. There is even convincing evidence that critters as lowly as ants have decision-making capacities.

Thirdly namith you have an incredible ability to communicate.
This communication you conduct with others of your species is a miracle in itself.
A light year beyond what is needed for the regeneration of our species and its survival.

Lots of other creatures have complex forms of communication. Evolution does not at all require that adaptations merely allow for "the regeneration of the species".

This evidence is. . .

. . .utterly worthless in a discussion with someone who knows much of anything about animal behavior.




Lurker

 

[rizen1]

I'm trying to understand where this conversation is going, because it seem fruitless and endless.
Each person state their closing argument so this thread can be finish with.

Thank you.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

 

[David777]

Oh rizen1.

I feel that our right to free expression is being smothered.

If you are going to close this thread I will finish with a small
quote on human and chimp genes. The internet site is titled
"Your can't make a monkey out...".

Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.


But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.


Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought.


"The study shows the richness and texture of these differences we have with our close neighbors in the evolutionary tree," said Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who was not involved in the Perlegen study.


It is these differences that are important namith.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Closing

Going back to the original gist of this thread: it's my position that saying there is "evidence" for the existence of God is simply naive. Tiny particles don't appear to require a God to simply pop into existence; energy needs no supernatural intervention to expand and settle down into matter; matter requires no deity to form stars, moons, asteroids, and planets; planets don't need a God to form atmospheres, organic molecules, or even (apparently) organic molecules that can make copies of themselves. Self-replicating molecules don't need the supernatural to make variations of themselves; and these variations require only natural processes to evolve more and more complex systems.

This is, doubtless, a history that many Christians would reject, nor is it one that I find particularly comforting, but this is the history recorded within the very fabric of our universe. The hard truth is that reality pays no heed to our preferences or the comforting fables we would rather believe about it.




Lurker

 

[namith]

If we are, indeed, making closing statements, then I shall present the following:

I do not see evidence of God around me. I see evidence of natural processes, the results of natural laws. I see questions to which we do not yet know the answers, which cry out for scientific investigation to determine them. The idea that God is "necessary" as the answer to these questions has been pushed smaller and smaller throughout history, as more and more things have become understood. I see no reason for this trend to stop.

As rizen's replies seem to indicate, this isn't really the community for a discussion like this. If you wish to continue discussing ideas of this nature or talking with differently-minded people, seek out places online where you can do so. I will not post links to anything, as I don't have the post count required and I feel that this would not be encouraged. Good luck to everyone for your personal journeys, and may the Force be with you. :wink:

 

[rizen1]

I feel that our right to free expression is being smothered.

It's not about freedom expression, rights and all of that. It's getting to the point, having a goal to this conversation and coming to a conclusion. It's not about pride or being heard, or needing to give ones opinion. It should always boil down to truth and humility.

Are you reading their responses to you ?

The problem with christians in debates they speak from their own knowledge. You have to be an authority on a subject, study, study, study..not post a link here and there.

We might think atheist are stupid, but trust me they know us better than we think. You must learn your opponent, their beliefs , origin, leaders character of the belief/movement, study it and debunk it. The world spends all their time studying us. We don't do the homework and expect people to take us serious. They don't call christians ignorant just to be mean. I've met my share of ignorant folks in the church.

Just because we call something the truth does not make it truth for others automatically. Through love, patience, knowing your word.

One current theory is that we originated in Africa, I doubt this is true. I prefer the Middle East not just because the Bible says so.

What does this mean? Please give me the bible verse that says we do not originate in africa. Then give me the verse that states we originated in the middle east. You preferring the middle east over africa does not make it truth.

Everybody have rights and want to express something, but it must be done in order while abiding to the rules of the community they are in. If you check the forum rules you'd see no debates are allowed. It's not to silence anyone, but it filters out the fruitless conversations. There's private messaging and emails if members wish to talk freely.

Kindly pray before posting, I do hope as a brother in christ you understand what I'm saying and put that before your feelings of not having your way, your rights to speak and being smothered.

 

[David777]

Hello rizen1.

The Bible verse is in the Old Testament which provides the location for the origin of humanity. It is Genesis 2:10-15.

Do you wish to debate this?

I am rather surprised that you are unaware of the location of Eden.

I have an interest in Creation Science, but this is only an interest.

In fact, an easy way to pinpoint the origin of man is to look at satellite photos.
It is here that the wonder of modern technology allows us to notice where the terrain has been utterly devastated.

Which is what man does to the environment over a period of time. Alas, the Middle East wins hands down in this contest.

Where is the oldest known city that is uninhabited, Jericho in the Jordan rift valley close to the route from the valley to Jerusalem is a contender. When first mentioned in the Bible it was inhabited by Canaanites and today it is an Arab town. At least three separate settlements have existed at or near the current location for more than 11,000 years.

Where is the oldest inhabited city, one leading contender is Damascus. This is also in the Middle East.

Evidence is overwhelming for the Middle East rizen1.

I can go on and on, but I am not sure if you are interested?

Please reply.

 

[David777]

Again my friend rizen1.

I do notice that they are rather unkind in there responses.

That is not abnormal for those who have not received the
revelation of Jesus Christ.

I just ignore the dribble.

Many folk think that Science is clear cut and precise.

In reality this is not the case, many theories and ideas
abound and compete. In the end very little is known
about the past, matter or even the universe.

Most often the evidence for an idea is slim at best, but fashion
dictates what the current theory will be. Or as some propose
what the evidence may indicate.

Science is not what most would think it is.

 

[David777]

Lastly rizen1.

You did say,

Kindly pray before posting, I do hope as a brother in christ you understand what I'm saying and put that before your feelings of not having your way, your rights to speak and being smothered.

I do not understand, I prefer to debate, I do feel oppressed.
I ask that Jesus Christ open your eyes to the tremendous
onslaught that is overwhelming Christians all over the World.

Most Christians do not understand that a lot of what Science
claims is not necessarily scientific. It is conjecture. I hoped that
by offering different opinions that others may read and notice
what Science claims is not often what is.