A simple challenge for atheists

[dyresand]

Of course we can. You just do not read or you just ignore it. Here it is again.

RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves

I have a feeling that won't count because it's under laboratory conditions or somesuch, but perhaps I'm being uncharitable.

Let us have this one.

[Mister Agenda]

IF God exists, then it is possible that He created the energy from nothing. By definition, God can do this. It is outside the realm of science, and of our understanding. It is the realm of faith - believing without evidence.

Here's the thing: skeptics believe that faith as you've defined it is a bad ideal.

IF God does not exist, then this energy could not have come from nowhere.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. I don't know where energy came from, but at least some physicists think 'nowhere' has not been eliminated as a possibility and 'somewhere' is a strong contender.

To believe that this energy did come from nothing requires faith - believing without evidence.

There's evidence referred to in the post to which you are responding. Virtual particles begin to exist, apparently from nowhere. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it's evidence. And we needn't believe it, only assign it a probability given the knowledge we have, or just toss it in the 'not known yet' bin.

Logically, it would require greater faith to believe that something came from nothing, than to believe that someone created the something - despite there being no empirical evidence for either.

Logically? What are the odds of something coming from nothing, that you can declare it the less likely option? What property does nothing have that prevents it from ever becoming something? There are infinite ways to be something and only one way to be nothing...sounds like a delicate balance, might not be stable. And the someone you refer to...how did that entity get there? Not to mention the virtual particles popping out of nowhere is indicative of nothing not being as little as it's cracked up to be.

Here's a thought: quantum foam may have the property of not being able to not exist, and would thus be eternal. Or not, I'm just a layman, and I don't think anyone has figured this stuff out for sure.

Therefore, atheists have more faith than theists - in this respect.

That's what a lot of theists seem to think, but it doesn't strike me as a very accurate assesment of my position.

[The Grand Nudger]

When the faithful start to argue against anothers' position by assigning relative levels of faith, you know they've jumped the shark. Are they hoping to convince atheists that faith is a bad thing, that they should have less of it or hold to whatever position requires less? Well..

Physician, heal thyself.

[IATIA]

Show me a reference to a scientist creating a self-replicating molecule. You can't.

Here is another. I could come up with a few more, but two should be enough.

The amino acids combined to form proteinoids, but the proteinoids had combined to form small, cell-like spheres. He called these "microspheres". They were not true cells, although they clumped together in chains as do blue-green algae, they reproduced asexually and could form double membranes through which diffusion of molecules and osmosis could occur, yet they had no DNA.

[IATIA]

If you believe something came from "something else" (that we don't know about yet), then where did the "something else" come from?

The total energy of the universe = 0. We have nothing from nothing.

[Esquilax]

The other thing is that Bob's game is trivially easy to play in reverse, if he wants to prattle on this faith idea. According to his argument if you just define something as outside the universe and not subject to physical laws, you are absolved from ever having to demonstrate it, and you are justified in holding it just 'cause. So just make something up, and assign it the properties that he assigns to god.

What's he gonna do? Argue that those attributes aren't convincing? Well, then the same thing applies to his god, and his argument is done; the difference is that we know the thing we're proposing is just made up. If he can't formulate an argument against those properties applied to anything, then that should be sufficiently instructive as to just how useless those properties are, and his argument is done.

Ideally, he would produce an argument for why those attributes don't work when applied to anything but god, but the very nature of the attributes themselves prevent him from making the declarative statements that would accomplish that; after all, his whole position stems from the idea that his central claim resists testing and doesn't operate under sensible rules.

Effectively, his argumentation allows for any claim to be "verified" by the terms of logic he set down, and there's nothing he can do to rebut that. it's what makes it a useless argument overall.

[Tonus]

The other thing is that Bob's game is trivially easy to play in reverse, if he wants to prattle on this faith idea. According to his argument if you just define something as outside the universe and not subject to physical laws, you are absolved from ever having to demonstrate it, and you are justified in holding it just 'cause. So just make something up, and assign it the properties that he assigns to god.

Indeed. It's easy enough by stating that the big bang gave birth to our universe, and therefore whatever caused it exists outside of our universe. Ergo, it is not subject to the rules of evidence and can be accepted uncritically.

But this may be what the theist wants, so that they can insist that "atheists have just as much faith as theists." Which is why I prefer to point out that I do not have to accept any particular premise in order to deny his premise. I simply have to find his premise sufficiently flawed. And a major part of his premise is that we cannot even detect god, which is a pretty big fucking flaw!

[robvalue]

Theist demands 100% proof of everything that has ever happened according to science while providing 0% evidence of any of their mythology. Common scenario.

[Cyberman]

Further, if you give them 99% of what they ask for but can't show that last 1%, you've proven 0%. Their 0% instantly becomes 100% by default.

[bob96]

Ok, so scientists have created a self-assembling molecule that can self-replicate. I was wrong. But still, the environment proposed for this to happen in nature is still highly unlikely. Will scientists find a way in the future to explain how it could have happened naturally? I guess that is possible - in hind sight.

I was asked for an example of a scientist who came to became in God, and why he came to believe.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
edition[dot]cnn[dot]com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary

As a former atheist, he asked: "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"

He search lead him to God, through the writings of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. C.S. Lewis makes the argument that Jesus was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. You are forced to make a decision. His existence is recorded in the history books. Flavius Josephus' account is enough. Josephus was a Jewish military leader and an historian. He lived at the time of the first church and Jesus' followers.

"Here was a person (Jesus) with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus."

He is still a scientist:
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation?"

"I find no conflict here (in miracles), and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers."