Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@eddiem3 and @Man in search of truth
You make god eternal rather than nature, without any proof. You make god a creator, also without any proof.
As you cannot get something from nothing, nature must be eternal. A true act of creation is impossible.
"In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed." - Antoine Lavoisier
I do think nature is eternal until the creator wishes for it to end. Nature being eternal does not mean a plant or anything in nature will live on forever, but the cycle will until an outside force stops it.
People often confuse their opinion with the mind of god.
that's your opinion. My belief is not based off opinion. It's based off rational and logic.
It's not though. If it was based off logic you wouldn't make the most intellectually disabled assumption that something exists without reason to believe so. You understand how logic works, right? You can't wish something into existence. Logical progression requires evidence, and you don't have any.
@Jared Re: "You can't wish something into existence. Logical progression requires evidence, and you don't have any."
"But what about my bunny rabbits, George?" *sad face*
What do you consider evidence?
Man in search o...
What is evidence? Evidence is the observed fulfillment (by any competent observer with the appropriate instruments) of predictions made by an hypothesis--that being evidence for the hypothesis. A wrought iron bar of a certain size and shape, for example, will rust under the right conditions, has a certain density, a certain strength, a certain melting point, and a certain hardness. Those observed predictions would constitute evidence that we have a wrought iron bar. With enough evidence, so that alternatives beyond a reasonable doubt could be ruled out, we could be reasonably confident that we do have a wrought iron bar. When our confidence level gets really high, after many various predictions are repeatedly tested, we usually skip the fine points and just call our hypothesis a fact. Yes! We do have an iron bar. Fact!
@jared
Can you tell me how you logically and rationally reached the stance you have reached? I am assuming you are an Atheist, sorry if i am wrong.
Yes, I can. Using science, man learns things. He realizes that facts come from objective observation of the universe. He also realized that experimentation yields this in vast quantity. Experimentation requires repeatability, consistency, objectivity, and precision. To ensure this, he must abandon preconceived notions about the universe, using only what can be proven. If he were to let his belief influence his interpretation of data, he would not get facts. Facts are good. He wanted facts, so belief must go.
See, the notion of God is unproven. Until evidence is found, a verdict cannot be given. However, one doesn't infer existence without good reason. When Sir William Herschel observed the strange variations in Neptune's orbit, he inferred that a planet's gravitational force was likely the culprit. Then, he discovered Uranus. For God, no such reason exists to infer that he exists. There is no strange phenomena that is likely the work of God, for which a better explanation doesn't already exist.
@jared
OK, well i have a series of questions but will post a few at a time.
1)What does science say about the universe?
2) Where does science think the universe came from?
3) "facts come from objective observation of the universe." Whose object observation? and how do we know that, that objective observation is accurate?
4) "Experimentation requires repeatability, consistency, objectivity, and precision" since the chance of a single protein forming is 10 to the power of 164 and apparently its happened countless times by chance in all living things then, how do we know that the experiment has been repeated enough times to yield accurate results? Maybe if they repeated the experiment a few more times they will get new results. so why trust the limited amount of times somethings has been tested?
1. Vague question. Next.
2. Big Bang. Next.
3. Scientists. We know it's objective because of the definition of objective, and the logical implications made by the scientific method, as adapted from Sir Francis Bacon's method of science. This is undisputed.
4. You still don't understand probability. Low chances doesn't mean impossible. And creation of self replicating molecules is well tested. It's the basis for a lot of leading work in the search for a cure to type 1 diabetes. The experiment has been repeated enough times to ensure accuracy in the scientific community. What more do you need?
Bullshit detector at maximum!
----------------------------------------------------------
Actually he listed a ludicrously high probability. For a good laugh, re-read what he wrote. But you nailed it when you said he didn't understand probability, that is for sure.
Oh shit, totally missed that. Good catch.
It is presumably a mistake of 328 orders of magnitude. Someone once made a mistake of about 200 orders of magnitude on this site, and I didn't think it would ever be topped!
@Man in search of truth:
"I do think nature is eternal until the creator wishes for it to end."
tRump has a guy that carries around what is called a nuclear football. A guy that on tRumps command launch enough nuclear bombs to turn the entire earth surface into a nuclear wasteland of which no life will survive. Does that make tRump your creator? tRump could end all living nature on the surface of this planet with a push of few buttons. (Hopefully someone there valuing their own and everyone they care about, lives will stop him!)
@eddiem3 and @Man in search of truth
You make god eternal rather than nature, without any proof. You make god a creator, also without any proof.
As you cannot get something from nothing, nature must be eternal. A true act of creation is impossible.
"In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed." - Antoine Lavoisier
Man in search o...
I'd call it the universe, or maybe some mix of time, space, and energy. At least we already know that such things can exist. We don't have to make up something new.
In regards the OP, can anyone provide anything they regard as evidence of something being created from nothing, and thus requiring a creator?
I consider that a nonsensical exercise - any 'evidence' would only represent an open system of unknown properties.
Sapporo,
It's doubly nonsensical! "Created" clearly refers to a stretch of time, before the thing was created to after the thing was created. But time, itself, is attached to a universe! Hence, you could never create something from nothing. A universe had to be there! That applies to gods as well.
Eddiem3,
"Atheists - answer this: Why Not God / Creator?"
No (compelling) evidence to support it! Why not Superman or Wonder Woman? Lots of compelling reasons to reject all three of these ideas.
God is the delusion writ huge of tiny specks of protoplasm living on a speck of dust that circles a sun, one of a trillion suns in one of a trillion galaxies in the observable universe, which is probably a tiny part of reality. This delusion, which only makes scientific sense on the scale of these tiny units of carbon and water, is pumped up as big as the universe itself in their minds! There is nothing about it that is scientifically defensible! Such is the human ego.
"It's a simple question; Why not God or a Creator?"
See the simple answer above!
"Why are you an Athiest when the overwhelming evidence (for our existence) points to a Creator / Designer / God?"
You have a great imagination! This "overwhelming evidence" exists only in your imagination, based on ignorance multiplied by wishful thinking. Many learned Christian leaders and philosophers actually admit that there is no proof for God! Now, why would they take such a stand, being Christians, if the evidence were so obvious? Obviously, in their wisdom they know some things that you don't know, or don't wish to know.
"Strictly speaking in scientific way/terms and not in any doctrinal/philosophical terms, why do you not accept the existence of an Eternal Creator / God?"
"God" is not a scientific explanation of anything. "God" is a case of wild, religious speculation versus the best-tested knowledge we have about our universe (natural principles). The choice seems like a no-brainer to me!
"For instance, since it's an established, proven and an accepted scientific fact that life can only come from life, why then accept the opposite - spontaneous generation?
I don't get it."
There are a lot of things you don't get! Let me enlighten you. Unless you are talking about spontaneous generation, the statement that life can only come from life is a very unscientific statement! Spontaneous generation is the old idea that maggots could arise from non-living muck, that mice could arise from dirty piles of rags and debris. Louis Pasteur discredited the idea with an experiment that showed that broth did not spoil by itself, that it required airborne organisms. The origin of life on earth, itself, is an entirely different subject. Are you beginning to feel enlightened?
"As a Christian, I accept and believe the Bible as the ONLY WRITTEN Word of / from God."
The biblical god is hung by his own book! The Bible, mostly the Old Testament but also the New, is a gold mine of Bronze Age thinking. That is to say, it is filled with historical errors, scientific absurdities, moral bankruptcy, failed prophecies, all of which float in an ocean of contradictions.
@eddiem3 is just being a troll.
Give him the evidence and he says, "I don't believe that" or "It's just a theory." He is on the site talking about the origin of life, and overwhelming evidence for god (though he has given none). Instead he waits for us to give him the facts of science and then feebly attempts to call them theory (confounding the scientific definition with the common usage) or poo poo them away.
SO HERE IS THE PLAN:
WE ALL SURRENDER - SCIENCE IS COMPLETELY WRONG - LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE - IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMETHING TO COME FROM NOTHING - THINGS THAT ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE CAN STILL BE FACTS - I FREELY GIVE YOU EVERY ONE OF THESE ASSERTIONS AND WILL COUNT THEM AS TRUE - NOW - PROVE YOUR GOD!
So far you have done the "Poo Poo argument, equivocation fallacy, God of the gaps, and probably a few other fallacies that I am sure someone else will mention. Let's just say for the sake of argument that all the atheists are wrong. The only sane person here has been you.. I'm still waiting for all that evidence you claim you have for your version of a God. How is your God any different than TIN-MAN'S ( gi-normous cosmic bunnies). I happen to know that any argument you can make for your God, I can make for Tin Man's gi-normous cosmic bunnies. You got something we have not heard before? Let's hear it.
eddiem3: Atheists - answer this: Why Not God / Creator?
For me, this can be so easily summed up with just 4 words and 1 symbol.
No evidence = no existence.
If it cannot be verified or falsified, it ain't evidence.
rmfr
"Why are you an Athiest when the overwhelming evidence (for our existence) points to a Creator / Designer / God?"
No one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. However by all means, dazzle me with your wares....
"For instance, since it's an established, proven and an accepted scientific fact that life can only come from life"
Strike 1, this is not remotely an established scientific fact, abiogenesis is in its infancy. However it has already discovered the chemical building blocks of life on asteroids hurtling through space.
Since biological life and a material universe are facts, what evidence beyond a fallacious appeal to ignorance can you demonstrate that a deity from a bronze age superstition is required?
As for the bible it is demonstrably erroneous in many of it's major claims. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that bit isn't entirely man made in origin?
Spot on, Sheldon, well 'said'.
From eddiem3
1.
@ Life from life is an established fact. The opposite is not, unless if you redefine what life means. But life to me simply means - a living thing/creature/being with the ability to reproduce its kind. The ability to pass on / impart life.@
2.
@ Just because something is "not falsifiable" does it also mean it's not a fact?@
3.
@ Life can only come from pre-existing life.@
In reply :-
1.
@ Life from life is an established fact. The opposite is not, unless if you redefine what life means. But life to me simply means - a living thing/creature/being with the ability to reproduce its kind. The ability to pass on / impart life.@
This point is true, from this point in time forward, and likewise, for millennia in the past. However . . .
_________________________________________________________
* Timeline of the evolutionary history of life *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life
The earliest evidences for life on Earth are 3.8 billion-year-old biogenic hematite in a banded iron formation of the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt in Canada
_________________________________________________________
From the same article, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That gave life 0.7 billion years to get going after the earth was formed, (ie. 700 million years) - a long time. That's a lot of years. But 3.8 billion years ago is 3,800,000,000 years. So we are discussing what happened that long ago. It's no wonder that we have no direct evidence of what occurred.
It is NOT reasonable to look at what happens TODAY, and to say that it must ALWAYS have been so. Scientists are studying how life may have arisen from non-life, so to say that scientists agree that life only comes from life is FALSE.
Jack Szostak is one such researcher :-
_________________________________________________________
Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 1: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 2: Protocell Membranes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
_________________________________________________________
There are quite a few resources of his to check out, see : https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+jack+szostac&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
_________________________________________________________
2.
@ Just because something is "not falsifiable" does it also mean it's not a fact?@
No. What it means is that we cannot establish if it is factual or not. If someone says that "X" is TRUE, then how do we know? "X" may be TRUE, but on the other hand "X" may be FALSE. How can we tell which it is? One way is to test whatever "X" tells us. If we cannot check, we cannot know which of TRUE or FALSE applies to "X".
So if "X" is not falsifiable, we are left not knowing for sure if "X" is T or F. One should not accept as TRUE something which we cannot establish as TRUE, (or as NOT FALSE). To say that person "P" says it's true, or book "B" says its true is not enough. Person "P" and/or book "B" may be wrong, or they may even be lying. To settle the case, we need a test, a way of falsifying the purported fact of "X".
In the case of the origin of life, we cannot examine what happened 3.8 billion years ago. What scientists such as Jack Szostak are doing, is conducting experiments, to see whether purely natural processes are capable of leading to life from non-life. If they succeed, they will have demonstrated that it is possible, and by Occam's Razor, it is more than likely that it did indeed happen, (ie. NON-LIFE => LIFE), taking 700 million years to do so.
Also take note that the first forms of life would have been extremely simple, compared to some of the forms of life now living on earth.
_________________________________________________________
3.
@ Life can only come from pre-existing life.@
We don't see life coming from non-life today, because life already exists. It seems likely that the conditions on earth today are not suitable for life to arise from non-life. Even if it could, the current life forms would most likely kill it off, because life as it is now, has had 3.8 billion years of evolution, to give it the advantage to out-compete any newcomer, (ie. any new-comer in the same class of existence as it would have been, if arising in a way similar to the supposed sequence of events 3.8 billion years ago).
Cheers, Mutorc.
Usually, when you present such things to an atheist it is because you yourself have doubts.
That is why.
@man in search of truth:
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is a principle which tells us that when there is a choice between opposing hypotheses, the one that is least complex is preferable to those that are more complex. At the very heart of this argument are two opposing hypotheses.
One is that a perfect all powerful, all knowing, magnanimous creator being caused itself to instantly materializing and creating time space and matter at the same time.
The other is that a "Big Bang" created the current universe and mankind has not yet discovered what exactly caused that event or what existed prior to it.
Occam's Razor suggests that the hypothesis that says A perfect being created everything" is a heck of a lot less complicated than the other. Occam's razor was considered to be the pinnacle of philosophical thought for quite a long time. In fact, Occam's Razor was written around 1300 and many scientific principles were judged by it. It wasn't until 1950 that science disproved Occam's Razor.
Through actual, verifiable science we know that Occam's Razor is not a viable way to examine problems and apply them to complicated issues. There is an "Anti-Razor", called Hickam's Dictum, that is used in the medical profession. You see, according to Occam's Razor, if you have 10 distinctly different symptoms, then the least complicated diagnosis is usually wrong because the least complicated diagnosis would be a single disease that is a manifestation of those 10 symptoms. Hickam's Dictum simply states that ""A man can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases." because if you have 10 distinctly different symptoms, it's more often the case that you're going to have more than one disease. Because Hickam's Dictum is applied in the medical field, we now have a practical reason for believing that multiple, common explanations for something is more likely to be correct than a single, incredible explanation.
I bring this up, because in order for life to exist, the logical application of Hickam's Dictum suggests that the very notion of a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, magnanimous creator being causing itself to instantly materialize and create time space and matter at the same time is a lot less likely than time, space, and matter having always been there in some form or another. It also suggests that a single perfect creator is far less likely than many imperfect creators. Beyond that, if you continue to apply Hickam's Dictum to the creation of life, the anti-Razor favors the notion that the simplest lifeforms formed as the result of their environment and evolved into other lifeforms over billions of years, rather than the idea that complex life was created by a creator god.
If you want to pick nits; since there have been thousands of creation stories and tens of thousands of "gods" in the history of mankind, HIckam's Dictum would suggest that "A man can have as many gods as he damn well pleases!" also, would it not? Either way you cut it though, there is more evidence that man created "God" than the reverse...
When you say "life must come from life", well... that's just plain wrong. It's wrong, because you also believe that one perfect impossible being caused itself to exist from nothing. You're following a discredited logical argument. While science may not know exactly how life was first formed on this planet, we know enough about how life works to understand that if you apply the logic of Hickam's Dictum we can have as many ways for life to begin as are necessary for life to exist until we have eliminated those ways that would not have been possible. That is how science works.
Pages