Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Chas]

No, you can not predict when a particular atom will decay.

Well not a specific one. What is your point?

The point is to debunk "all actions have causes".

There is no proximate cause for the radioactive decay of a particular atom.

[pocaracas]

The neutrons and protons that constitute nuclei, as well as other particles that approach close enough to them, are governed by several interactions. The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

The interplay of these forces produces a number of different phenomena in which energy may be released by rearrangement of particles in the nucleus, or else the change of one type of particle into others. These rearrangements and transformations may be hindered energetically, so that they do not occur immediately. In certain cases, random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. Radioactive decay half-life of nuclides has been measured over timescales of 55 orders of magnitude, from 2.3 x 10−23 seconds (for hydrogen-7) to 6.9 x 1031 seconds (for tellurium-128).[2] The limits of these timescales are set by the sensitivity of instrumentation only, and there are no known natural limits to how brief or long a decay half life for radioactive decay of a radionuclide may be.

[Rahul]

Instability is why the atom decays, it isn't the cause of the atom's decay. If your house is unstable, the storm or whatever that brings it down is still the cause of its collapse.

It decayed because it's unstable.

In unstable nuclei the strong nuclear forces do not generate enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together permanently.

The nucleus is electrically neutral in a stable nucleus. It contains an equal number of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons and their charges balance.

Strong nuclear force does not have enough energy to bind together an electrically positive or negative atom. That's just electricity. That's not some mystical black box.

It's about as baffling as how a Seesaw works.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[1] However, the chance that a given atom will decay is constant over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

[BettyG]

Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either. 

Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you? If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with? And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed? This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?

I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.

I dispute your contention that the universe is eternal. Your answer only pushes the question of the cause of the Big Bang further back. For example, this site, What happened before the Big Bang? at http://io9.com/5881330/what-happened-bef...e-big-bang hypothecizes that other universes existed before ours. So? What caused those universes to exist?

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe that universes "just happen" than the leap of faith I take in believing God cause the universe(s) to exist.

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident. For example, check this site out:
What if strong force were stronger and weak force weaker? This site
http://www.space.com/11968-forces-form-m...eaker.html explains another mystery that I do not think is a coincidence.

Why were scientists at CERN able to find the Higgs particle exactly as predicted? Because the universe has a design. Yes, there is the law of entropy, but that could also be part of the design.

And what about gravity? How come it is strong enough, but not too strong?
Also, why does the whole universe seem to be designed so that humans can exist? All the science in the world cannot explain the purpose of creation. The earth is not too far away from the sun nor too close. Etc, etc., etc. It is not just one fact that appears designed, but so many taken together makes a pattern of evidence for a designer. It is not a cosmic accident.

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day. I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me. Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

[Minimalist]

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken

At least you admit you are a lunatic.

[Bad Writer]

I dispute your contention that the universe is eternal. Your answer only pushes the question of the cause of the Big Bang further back. For example, this site, What happened before the Big Bang? at http://io9.com/5881330/what-happened-bef...e-big-bang hypothecizes that other universes existed before ours. So? What caused those universes to exist?

That's why we're not arguing for the existence of other universes. We try to avoid labeling a conclusion as factual before we can prove it is so.

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe that universes "just happen" than the leap of faith I take in believing God cause the universe(s) to exist.

We're not taking either leap of faith. Why do you?

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident.

Saying that something had a cause just because it exists is called an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. We recognize design in buildings because we know how they are built and who builds them. Saying that God created anything then begs the question of who or what made God.

If God really did design us, then how is this design intelligent since the pleasure parts of our bodies are located right on the septic areas? That screams of bad design, or no design at all. For instance, no engineer in his right mind would have made us with just one pipe for both breathing and eating. We run the extreme risk of choking to death every day. Dolphins are a better design, if anything, since they can breathe out of one hole and eat through another.

Why were scientists at CERN able to find the Higgs particle exactly as predicted? Because the universe has a design. Yes, there is the law of entropy, but that could also be part of the design.

Science has to start with a prediction based on facts already known to man. We go from there, test the hypotheses, and then we duplicate the efforts through peer review. No mystery there, and no reason to invoke Intelligent Design either.

And what about gravity? How come it is strong enough, but not too strong?
Also, why does the whole universe seem to be designed so that humans can exist? All the science in the world cannot explain the purpose of creation.

Science does not explain the purpose of creation because it does not postulate creation. Gravity on earth is as strong as it is because of the Earth's mass. You might as well ask why the gravity of the Moon isn't stronger. This question is only a red herring and deters people from looking for real answers.

The earth is not too far away from the sun nor too close. Etc, etc., etc. It is not just one fact that appears designed, but so many taken together makes a pattern of evidence for a designer. It is not a cosmic accident.

How do you know? What makes you think life couldn't have evolved elsewhere? We are hardly even a speck in the universe, but we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that this might be the only place where life has evolved. If this planet is so perfectly designed, then why is it not more paradisiacal? Why are the earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, diseases, and why is only 1/3 of this planet habitable? The Earth is a pretty hostile environment when put into this perspective.

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day. I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me. Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

The problem comes with the fact that you have to take a leap of faith, as I illustrated earlier. If your faith is so certain, but you see why others don't want to make the same choice to believe in god that you do, then why do you insist on telling us about your beliefs and fancies? A person can have their own set of speculations, sure, but there is no reason to go about thinking of them in terms of certainty if they cannot be proven.

[Esquilax]

I dispute your contention that the universe is eternal.

You can dispute anything you want, but until you've provided evidence sufficient to logically exclude such a possibility, none of us are rationally justified in excluding it at all.

Your answer only pushes the question of the cause of the Big Bang further back.

Actually no, since in that hypothesis the big bang would only be the expansion of the universe into its current state. Please note, though, that as I've been saying for some time now, this isn't my position.

For example, this site, What happened before the Big Bang? at http://io9.com/5881330/what-happened-bef...e-big-bang hypothecizes that other universes existed before ours. So? What caused those universes to exist?

I don't know. You think it's god though, huh? Got any proof for that?

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe that universes "just happen" than the leap of faith I take in believing God cause the universe(s) to exist.

Whew, good thing I don't believe either and am happy just admitting that I don't know for now. Wow, it'd be really stupid to profess belief based on insufficient knowledge, when an adult can just say they don't know, huh? I hate faith claims!

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident.

So, you think the universe was designed for us, huh? So why's the earth seventy percent water, when we drown? Why's space so hostile to us? Why is a lot of the universe on fire, or exploding, or radioactive, or otherwise lethal to life? Such a fine design!

Please note that I asked you this before, and you just ignored me.

For example, check this site out:
What if strong force were stronger and weak force weaker? This site
http://www.space.com/11968-forces-form-m...eaker.html explains another mystery that I do not think is a coincidence.

If the strong force were stronger and the weak force were weaker, we'd have a different kind of universe! So what? Things are the way they are, you don't get to jam your assumptions in there without proof.

Why were scientists at CERN able to find the Higgs particle exactly as predicted? Because the universe has a design.

No, because they were smart cookies who paid attention, knew what to look for, and designed an experiment using the science you routinely shit on to get to your god presupposition.

Yes, there is the law of entropy, but that could also be part of the design.

And there's the fundamental dishonesty in your claim: "What? They used something else? Well, everything is designed!" You're willing to assume whatever you need to, without evidence, to get to what you want to. Well, claims about reality are demonstrated, not asserted. You want to claim these things are designed? Prove it first.

And what about gravity? How come it is strong enough, but not too strong?

Because of the mass and density of the planet. On other, larger planets, gravity is higher. And what do you mean, "too strong?" Too strong for what? Life? Life can survive under higher gravity, it would just need to be differently structured, with higher density bones and such. Your objection here only works if we assume your conclusion to be true before we apply it, and there's no reason to do that. If gravity were stronger, life would have evolved differently. That's the whole point.

Also, why does the whole universe seem to be designed so that humans can exist?

Right, that's why all the other planets in our solar system are deadly to us if we don't wear protective suits. And why the gaps between planets are radiation filled death traps, stretching for months' long journeys at least. Among many other things. Does it hurt, to remain this willfully ignorant?

All the science in the world cannot explain the purpose of creation.

This is another objection that only works if one assumes your conclusion, and is thus circular. If the universe wasn't created and thus has no purpose, then there's no purpose to explain, and your objection is nonsensical. Try harder.

The earth is not too far away from the sun nor too close.

Actually, since the Earth is on an elliptical orbit, the distance between it and the sun varies quite a bit. Hundreds of miles, in fact. There's no delicate balance here, you know; we wouldn't burn or freeze a few inches either way. There's a ton of wiggle room... which you'll no doubt also attribute to design, because your whole argument is top to bottom dishonest anyway.

Etc, etc., etc. It is not just one fact that appears designed, but so many taken together makes a pattern of evidence for a designer. It is not a cosmic accident.

Only if you continue to ignore the facts that I keep bringing up in response to this (repeated, unevidenced) claim you keep making. But then, that hardly makes you look like an intelligent argument-winner. More like a kid with her fingers in her hears, singing "la,la,la! Can't hear you!"

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day.

Okay, again, I have no position here. I'm just bringing up alternatives to show that assuming god is an intellectually lazy, vapid, and unwarranted path to take. Thank you, then, for confirming this so wonderfully for everyone else.

I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me.

You don't have any certainty, because you have no evidence. What you have is faith. Filthy, useless, faith.

Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

And we end with a shifting of the burden of proof, the last word in lazy theistic nonsense. Nice form, Betty! Keep it up! You're making my position look all the stronger!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

No leaps of faith are required in atheism. If you don't know something, just say "I don't know." And stop right there. That's all there is to it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think, Betty, that your forfitted the right to criticise others on this thread when you refused to own up to the circularity of your own arguments on page 10 (when you also said you were leaving and not coming back). If you remember, you also said that your position 'against' atheism was down to the fact that you don't like 'it'. If that isn't admitting that your arguments are based on a personal bias and not reason then I don't know what is.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-19315-page-10.html

[Tonus]

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident. For example, check this site out:
What if strong force were stronger and weak force weaker?

This is the "fine tuning" argument, which is currently being discussed in this topic. I think the fine-tuning argument depends on a lot of suppositions of things that we do not and/or cannot know. I think it is adequately analogized in the example of the bacteria that decide that the bathroom tile they are living on is part of a universe that seemed to have been designed just for them. At least until someone grabs a can of Lysol and subjects them to the equivalent of a gamma-ray burst.

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day. I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me. Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

This statment can be presented from the atheist's standpoint by just changing a word or two, except that for the atheist it isn't a leap of faith as much as it is that we don't share your "reasonable certainty" that god does or doesn't exist.

I do agree that I cannot prove that it is impossible for god to exist. However, I spent many years trying to prove that he does exist and it turns out that I cannot do that either. And based on what I've read in this topic, I'm pretty confident that neither can you.