Why I am am athiest

gmark77 said:
Why do you sound so much like a Creationist? Seriously. Non-life and life share the same chemistry. Why can't one come from the other? But more importantly where did life come from if from non-life?



So you can't explain anything but you think it is a "gotcha" when others can't tell you exactly how something happened.


In your imagination does God make life using non-life chemistry, so why does he have to do that? Why doesn't your God make life using magic?
Click to expand...
Just asserting that irreducibly complex cellular biology spontaneously arises from inanimate chemicals is not a scientific explanation.

It's a leap of faith.

I'm agnostic, so I don't owe you explanations.

It's the Bible thumpers and the atheists who need to explain their irrational and illogical leaps of faith.
 
Cypress said:
Science explains a lot less than most laypersons realize.
Click to expand...
Science has also continuously proved religion wrong. There has been nothing that science claimed that religion disproved.
Cypress said:
God of the Gaps is an atheist creation that no reputable Christian apologist ever spawned.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the source, it's existed for millenia.
Cypress said:
God of the Gaps rests on the massive assumption that the laws of nature preclude God
Click to expand...
No, it's the act of explaining, by default, anything unexplainable with "God must have done it".
Cypress said:
No one knows why the mathematical laws of physics exist or where they came from. That is a philosophical question. To people like Isaac Newton, it was crystal clear that the laws of nature were a reflection of God.
Click to expand...
Yep and it's shocking that people TODAY are approaching the unexplained in the same way someone did in the 16th century.
 
ZenMode said:
Science has also continuously proved religion wrong. There has been nothing that science claimed that religion disproved.

Regardless of the source, it's existed for millenia.

No, it's the act of explaining, by default, anything unexplainable with "God must have done it".

Yep and it's shocking that people TODAY are approaching the unexplained in the same way someone did in the 16th century.
Click to expand...
Newton himself said that all his equations of physics did was make accurate predictions of how things move.

He never claimed his physics were the definitive explanation for why a lawfully organized and mathematically rational universe exists.
 
Cypress said:
Newton himself said that all his equations of physics did was make accurate predictions of how things move.

He never claimed his physics were the definitive explanation for why a lawfully organized and mathematically rational universe exists.
Click to expand...
Right, there are lots of unknowns in the universe. There are two ways to approach that. One is to say we don't know and then wait for science to explain it or the other is to assume anything that's not explained now is explained by God.
 
ZenMode said:
Right, there are lots of unknowns in the universe. There are two ways to approach that. One is to say we don't know and then wait for science to explain it or the other is to assume anything that's not explained now is explained by God.
Click to expand...
Many things are not testable and are not scientific questions.

I agree with pushing the boundaries of science and knowledge, but I also think we are deluding ourselves if we think the scientific method answers all questions.
 
Cypress said:
Many things are not testable and are not scientific questions.
Click to expand...
Such as?
Cypress said:
I agree with pushing the boundaries of science and knowledge, but I also think we are deluding ourselves if we think the scientific method answers all questions.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, science has disproved many religious claims. The opposite has never happened.
 
Last edited:

Cypress said:
Not testable and repeatable:

String theory.
Click to expand...

Oops! The Chandra Telescope is testing for this: https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/chandra-data-tests-theory-of-everything/

Cypress said:
The multiverse

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

M theory
Click to expand...

Can I just point out that there are, indeed, statements which can be made which have no explanatory value and are nothing but placeholders? Yeah, cosmological statements about what happened BEFORE TIME are exactly that. Meaningless placeholders.

They will become meaningful statements when tests can be created for them. And, indeed, if you do even a modest bit of surficial reading in the sciences you'll know that people do TRY to figure out scientific means of testing those things. They do.

Cypress said:
The history of Alexander the Great.
Click to expand...

Archaeology is a real science.

Cypress said:
Plato's theory of the forms.
Click to expand...

This is in the same arena as "multiverse". It's just a claim someone made about the nature of reality not based on how the real world looks at the quantum level etc.

Cypress said:
The lives of Jesus of Nazareth, Siddhartha Bhudda, the emperor Xerxes.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, again, archaeology. Again, archaeology is a real science.


But more to the point: science isn't just test tubes. It's the structured, logical approach of testing a given hypothesis. That's pretty much it. Sure it has "nominal steps" like create an hypothesis and then test it etc. but you should understand the larger point.

You clearly have never had a science class beyond high school so it's likely you never really developed a sense of what "science" is and how it isn't anything particularly special. It's just a TECHNIQUE of assessing truth claims.
 
Hume said:
He did, actually. God created the physical laws.
Click to expand...
Newton openly stated that his mechanical laws only predicted how the planets moved, but he couldn't explain action at a distance, aka why objects that are not physically in contact with each other could influence each other's movements.

That explanation had to wait for centuries and the emergence of field theory.

You're right only in the sense that overall Newton believed a lawful universe was the result of a law-giver.
 
gmark77 said:
Name one.
Click to expand...
Obsessssssssssion. LOL

8tywy0.jpg
 
Cypress said:
Newton openly stated that his mechanical laws only predicted how the planets moved, but he couldn't explain action at a distance, aka why objects that are not physically in contact with each other could influence each other's movements.

That explanation had to wait for centuries and the emergence of field theory.

You're right only in the sense that overall Newton believed a lawful universe was the result of a law-giver.
Click to expand...
actually gravity exists because I said so.

I invented quantum twinning and made it happen also.

it was pretty easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top