A turn on the arguement...

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
A turn on the arguement...

Now I have read quiet a few comments regarding evolution from theists on here and some of the posts which have offered no genuine evidence are quite startling in many respects...

But let us sacrifice a pawn so to speak, let's consider that evolution is not fact but just a 'theory'(in the lay terminolog) and ignore the heavy weight of evidence, such as:

Anatomy - pecies may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).

Molecular biology - DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Biogeography - The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.

Fossils - Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.

Direct observation - We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

Let us pass over the arguement to the other side to the theist, can you offer any actual evidence to support your claim that a 'god' created everything that does not rely on logical arguments and arguing from authority in referring to scripture?

For example, is there anything that has spontaneously happened into existence that has no known naturalistic plausible expliantion?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Pitar's picture
All loops back to the bible

All loops back to the bible at the Theist Club Med. All is deferred to it.

Spontaneity, in the historical time line of man versus that interpreted in a multitudinous chorus of responses from the biblical side (both correctly and incorrectly interpreted, it seems) don't gel. Apples, meet oranges.

Events reflected in both also sail different ships at night on opposite courses.

So, we have an archeological timeline of events versus a biblical timeline. The former is dismissed by the latter, and vice versa, with the champions of the latter asked to provide substantiation for man's existence by methods other than their bible.

A safer bet has never been offered.

Flamenca's picture
@Randomhero, your post

@Randomhero, your post reminds me two Dawkins' episodes: The first, the famous one hour interview to creationist Wendy Right ("where's the evidence?") and the other, when he tries to explain the evolution of the eye on "Revelation TV" to an uneducated, though very polite, man.

No matter how many pieces of evidence you may present, some people are simply not ready to understand the information and others just don't want to listen: They hold to their indoctrinated beliefs as they were a part of their own bodies, probably because, as those who were indoctrinated may remember, they really think doubt of faith is evil and the punishment for non-believers is eternal torture in a horrible place... Thus they apply "Pascal wager".

Randomhero1982's picture
I have seen a bit of the

I have seen a bit of the Wendy Right one, It was depressing just how intellectual dishonest she was!

A fanatical retard who should not be allowed within any education system.

xenoview's picture
Here is some evolution in

Here is some evolution in real time. New species can develop in as little as two generations, Galapagos study finds.


Randomhero1982's picture
Thank you xenoview, I was

Thank you xenoview, I was reading some of the papers recently on Darwin's finches... I think I may have shared a similar article... absolutely fascinating!

If evolution wasn't already greatly proven, this simply adds yet more weight.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
i look forward to this, i

i look forward to this, i have yet to see any compelling evidence

jonthecatholic's picture
I actually don't understand

I actually don't understand how disproving/proving evolution is in anyway related to whether a God exists. It doesn't make sense in my head.

To me, the analogy goes, God created the universe and designed everything in it. If he used evolution or the big bang as a means to that end, then that's still consistent with a God existing. It's like looking at a piece of art and knowing exactly that the artist used a paintbrush and watercolor while still acknowledging that the artist was still behind the art.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
evolution demonstrates that a

evolution demonstrates that a creator is not required and that spontaneous events such as these can
occur without deistic intervention.

almost everything so far can be determined to have a naturalistic origin and not require magic of sorts.

and as someone whos field is within cosmology, there is absolutely nothing to indicate it was created by a god or gods.

jonthecatholic's picture
Nothing except fine tuning,

Nothing except fine tuning, probably. For me, evolution and big bang and whatever other discoveries in the future we find, are all like paint, paintbrushes. You still need the artist to make the final picture.

I find it very odd if we only have naturalistic origins and all. Coz the idea goes into, what caused this thing, and what caused that. You can go on for a long time but you’d still have to admit that a first cause has to exist. And for anything in nature to exist, it would actually require something outside of nature to cause it to exist.

I may be rambling but this actually makes sense to me. Lol

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
so you have to resort to the

so you have to resort to the god of the gaps argument.

the many worlds theory, in which all possible outcomes must occur, holds more scientific weight then a deity.
there is nothing that has been discovered that does not have a natural reason, it would therefore make sense that
if there was a first cause (which isn't a proven fact) that it is more like natural then magic.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'm not actually advocating a

I'm not actually advocating a god of the gaps. I think you miss my point over and over again. Evolution explains how life came to exist as we know it. But it doesn't explain why we have life at all in the first place. The Big Bang is our best explanation of how the universe came into existence but it doesn't make sense to say the Big Bang caused itself. Your many worlds theory also doesn't explain why there needs to exist many worlds.

Basically, science cannot ever explain why there is something rather than nothing. Nothing is pretty easy to imagine. It's very simple. But why does there exist something rather than nothing?

I'm not saying you need to agree with me on this point. Just see that this isn't an irrational line of thinking.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
why must there be a reason

why must there be a reason for existence? the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

many worlds theory does explain why many worlds must exist, because its predicated on the theory that the universe is infinite (which scientifically speaking is the most likely scenario) and in an infinite universe, with infinite worlds, every possible outcome must by definition come to be.

but still, going back to the op, no evidence has been produced as usual.

CyberLN's picture
JoC, you wrote, “You can go

JoC, you wrote, “You can go on for a long time but you’d still have to admit that a first cause has to exist.”

No. No I don’t.

You seem to be saying there MUST be a ‘beginning’ to everything. How did you come by this assertion?

jonthecatholic's picture
Let me stick to my artist and

Let me stick to my artist and paint brush analogy. Say we see a piece of artwork. It's beautifully crafted and pleasing to the eyes. We ask what in the world was able to create such a masterpiece.

Someone says, "Paint!" Of course! Paint! But ultimately, is paint really the thing that created such a masterpiece? You ask your question again.

Another person in the back says, "The paint brush!" Again, your answer was technically answered but really, you know just about the same as when you started asking the question so you ask again.

The person beside you whispers, "The top coat is varnish"

Really, you can go on and on and on with this and still not come up with a satisfactory answer until you get the answer that it was the artist you made the artwork. Because every question of where does something come from, will ultimately lead to a "beginning" which can explain itself. Like the artist can explain himself, the ultimate beginning and source of the universe must be able to explain itself.

These arguments are not scientific in nature. They're philosophical. And since we live in a logical world, we must accept any and all truths which are derived logically. No matter how uncomfortable they may seem.

Armando Perez's picture
The analogy you present is

The analogy you present is not correct, it is the same case of the clock and the designer. In both cases we recognize the thing as an artificial work so it is expected to had a maker. The universe does not clearly look artificial at all so we do not have to assume there is a creator. Nowadays, with the new quantum physics and the concept of quantum vacuum, the universe can emerge as a fluctuation in the "vacuum". No need for anybody to intentionally start it. On the other hand, adding a creator just begs for the question "Who created the creator?"so we are left in the same place, or we have to say "the creator is eternal and created itself" a theory that cannot be tested or proved, so it is a blind alley. The positive thing is not to assume a creator until it can be proved.

jonthecatholic's picture
That sounds like a Dawkins

That sounds like a Dawkins argument which doesn't actually hold any water. And a Krauss vacuum which doesn't really mean nothing.

Anyway, going back to my analogy. That's why it's called an analogy. It's not perfect. But it makes a point. The point being, there had to be an ultimate cause. Or first cause.

Armando Perez's picture
!- Justify why the argument

!- Justify why the argument does not hold water.
2- If quantum vacuum is not nothing then, define nothing.
3- What are your reasons to think there HAS to be a first cause? The universe could be random and recursive. It is a stretch to try to apply linear logic to a non linear universe. Quantum physics allows for many things that do nto seem logical in the macro world.

jonthecatholic's picture
1. The question of who

1. The question of who created the creator is like who painted the painter. The answer is no one. That’s why it’s called the “first cause”

2. A quantum vacuum is a quantum state of the lowest possible energy. Nothing means no space, no time, no matter, no energy. Not low energy. No energy. Krauss does a bait and switch when he says “nothing”

3. I think this has been asked a million times in this thread alone. For everyone asking, you can surely find Aquinas 5 ways on google - maybe focus on the arguments from cause, motion and contingency and maybe moral objectivity. Add to that the argument from fine tuning. Atheists simply disagree with the premises without saying why or simply saying, “we just don’t know if that’s true.”

Take the argument from cause or motion. Both assert that there was a first cause or first mover. Say we go with your idea of an infinite regress and there was no first mover (which to me is illogical) but say that’s the case. The argument from contingency is independent of the universe starting to exist at all.

It seems to me, all these many worlds theories and all are ways to “avoid or sidestep the question of God” but the question really still remains. “What if God does exist?”

Randomhero1982's picture
Ok please forgive me, but I'm

Ok please forgive me, but I'm calling bullshit...

"2. A quantum vacuum is a quantum state of the lowest possible energy. Nothing means no space, no time, no matter, no energy. Not low energy. No energy. Krauss does a bait and switch when he says “nothing”..."

That is rubbish, a quantum vaccum contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and virtual particles that can be considered as a)coming into existence then anhilating or b)in a super position.

What Krauss says is that what we assume to be nothing actually has something. And we cannot say what is truly nothing because there is nothing compare it too, we probably cannot even comprehend what is true nothingness.

It's more likely the universe was always in an electromagnetic/quantum state and evolved from there.

It makes far more sense then someone clicking things into existence and leaving absolutely no evidence like the zodiac killer.

jonthecatholic's picture
Well he does. Can you imagine

Well he does. Can you imagine no space, no time, no matter, no energy? It's pretty easy. Don't complicate it by adding fleeting electromagnetic waves and virtual particles.

It then begs the question. Why is there something rather than nothing? Krauss tries to define nothing as you have but that isn't nothing. Nothing is nothing.

Randomhero1982's picture
It is not complicating

It is not complicating anything, its a fact! Charged particles, such as electrons and protonscreate electromagnetic fields when they move, and these fields transport the type of energy we call electromagnetic radiation, or light.

This is a real phenomena that's measurable and testable(unlike some things, it is completely demonstrable.

Likewise with virtual particles, you cannot see them per say, but you can observe their interaction with other particles.

This isn't difficult!

The fact is you're simply displaying your own incredulity that because you cannot understand it, it must be false... how about applying that to your faith?!

And id happily concede that we can process what true nothingness is, if you can demonstrate it to me... show me it!

Good luck.

Krauss explains it simply for lay people to understand, if a virtual particle was not there previously then the next time you look it is there... you can infer it came from nothing.

But let's not dwell to much on this, this testable and your free to try to disprove physicists... what I want is to see theists demonstrate a similar level of proof.

jonthecatholic's picture
I don't get what we're trying

I don't get what we're trying to resolve here. All I'm saying is that when I say nothing (ex nihilo) is means absolutely nothing. No space, no time, no energy, no matter.

What you're saying nothing means involves energy, and space and time. And something means matter (particle). I'm not even saying that this phenomenon is false. All I'm saying is, it's not from nothing... which your example is. It's not from nothing.

Btw, did I somehow say that this was a false phenomenon?

Randomhero1982's picture
Firstly, you need to prove

Firstly, you need to prove there was exact nothingness to begin with... that is not a fact.

Secondly, you couldn't even claim to know exactly what it is your looking for... for example I've seen apologists say "if I close my hand there is nothing there"
Which is completely inaccurate, it is what you perceive to be nothing.

The likelihood is there is probably no such thing, and the universe prior to the big bang was in a constant state.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Randomhero1982 - Firstly, you

Randomhero1982 - Firstly, you need to prove there was exact nothingness to begin with... that is not a fact....The likelihood is there is probably no such thing

That is a very important point. Additionally the state JoC seems to be describing is non-sense as the laws of physics are currently understood.

jonthecatholic's picture
Actually the arguments for

Actually the arguments for God's existence has one form where space, time, matter and energy began to exist.

There's another one which goes, why is there something rather than nothing?

Both deal with nothingness. First first says there was nothing and then something. The second argument simply says, "why is there anything at all?" So why is there space, time, matter and energy?

Armando Perez's picture
1- The question is not

1- The question is not useless. The painter was created by his mommy. I think that is evident. Now, does Goddy has a mommy? No? if so, in what is that thing called God but a personalization without any evidence of a natural process like a quantum vacuum or something similar?

2- Fine tuning does not imply a God at all. It is like a liter of water running into a cow paw print on the ground and thinking that space was created just to contain it.

3- If God exists so what? If he is sooo smart he would be proud that we decided not believe on him without proof, if he gets angry, then he is an asshole.

4- Nobody is sidestepping God, simply there is no need for a God hypothesis, which will stop research as God is beyond nature. God as a hypothesis is the end of progress, as there will be no need to do any more research.

Flamenca's picture
@JoC, is "creation" really

@JoC, is "creation" really that perfect? What we know is that, in this planet, life managed to evolve into amazing creatures, such as mammals, and among them, even more or less intelligent apes who can write thoughtful posts on a computer, as well as killing and torturing pairs or other creatures, in some cases, just for fun or because of a disagreement of beliefs.

I think that claiming this Universe, a vastness of wasteland planets (as far as we're concerned), a place where entire galaxies eventually collapse; or our planet, full of pointless death, cruelty and unjustice, to be a "masterpiece" is avoiding reality.

jonthecatholic's picture
Did I say this somehow? I don

Did I say this somehow? I don’t recall. I simply recall calling a painting a masterpiece in an analogy. Eitherway, wouldn’t you agree that ever masterpieces aren’t perfect? Well, coz nothing is perfect. I’ve met very few people who were actually impressed by the Mona Lisa (especially coz of it’s size) yet people still call that a masterpiece.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
firstly, although dawkins is

firstly, although dawkins is an atheist and has rustled some feathers, it does not mean his arguments hold no merit.
he is a brilliant scientist whos points should be highly considered.

secondly it is not a krauss concept (again, another great scientist in his own right no matter what you think of his personal views)

thirdly, the quantum vaccum theory comes from quantum field theory which predicts a zero point field, this was one of the first theories developed in the field but made famous by feynmann and tomonaga (plus another who slips my mind), and who got the nobel prize.

the virtual particles point which has more recently been mooted by people like krauss has a lot of weight behind it, if you are observing said particles rather then considering it in super position.

jonthecatholic's picture
Sorry if you thought I was

Sorry if you thought I was undermining Dawkins and Krauss. I think they’re both brilliant scientists. But if you read back, I was actually commenting on their arguments.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.