Posted on 02/28/2015 8:40:57 AM PST by Heartlander
But atheists have to explain to me how matter came into existence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told the first law of thermodynamics is matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Then if matter is not created, how did it come into existence? The answer would point to something supernatural. And that is one answer egoist atheists can't stand to consider.
As we try to explain nature through math and science, it is clear that what we call nature is bizarre and totally unexpected in a classical sense. It certainly raises the question about existence and reality.
In the end, it requires a leap of faith to be an atheist. Just like it requires a leap of faith to be a believer.
Ok. prove to me there are no living trex’s on earth
Even satan knows & believes in God - he just rejects His morals & values as do leftists.
The atheist denial of purpose isn't a denial of secular or human purposes. It's a denial that God has a purpose for us. So he's set up a straw man that's easily knocked down.
The typical atheist claim that there are no miracles isn't that science somehow makes miracles impossible, as the author [trivially] points out, since miracles are by definition things which defy scientific understanding, such a thing is by definition -- and quite trivially -- impossible. Atheists are not stupid [any more than any other cross section of the population] and they don't make arguments on the basis of logical contradictions. The atheist claim is that there are no miracles happening now. And that is an argument that Christian [or any other religion's] Apologists must answer. This article bypasses an important question by attributing something to atheists that they don't claim.
Finally, 11 is simply wrong. The quantum vacuum is NOT a sea of energy. It is NOTHING. And he should not be trying to make the argument in the way he does, because his breathtaking lack of knowledge about physics makes him look silly. [Although to be fair to the author, a lot of "popular" books about physics describe the vacuum this way. These descriptions, like the author's are just plain wrong.]
The argument is about contingent versus Necessary Reality. God is the only Necessary Reality. All other things, material or otherwise, including the laws of physics and metaphysics are contingent. The metaphysics of God's Mind precede all contingent realities. The quantum mechanical law that a vacuum in the material world necessarily causes creation ex nihilo is a fact. That such a law exists is a contingent reality which depends on a Necessary One. The author's discussion confuses laws with their effects and really does not make any sense.
Hawking's attempt to argue away God fails because even if the extant laws require outcomes [as Hawking correctly observes] that doesn't explain where the laws came from to begin with. It is an article of Hawking's atheistic faith that the laws themselves are the Necessary Reality; and that takes us back to atheism being fundamentally about faith, not science.
To deny the possibility means that one has to admit that nothing exists beyond our perceptions of the world. What we see, hear, smell, taste and feel is completely different than the actual reality that exists.
ACW — I concur with your statement: “Where I typically have a problem with atheists is where they try to snuff out any expression of our traditions.”
BCBD — and I accept without reservation and applaud you and your position of being an atheist who can appreciate Christian beliefs and culture without being afraid that mere exposure to them will cause you harm. which is my interpretation of your statement: “I can admire the image of baby Jesus outside a courthouse as an expression of art and the season. our Constitution does not protect us from religion. It protects religion from us.”
11 silly things that some atheists say.....here’s one:
Don’t pray for me.
All four laws of Thermodynamics are of this kind. But the deeper explanations of why they are true [except for the 0th Law] come from other theoretical parts of physics and not Thermodynamics itself.
How do aethiests explain the Shroud of Christ considering...
1. It’s been carbon dated to the time of Christ
2. Pollen unique to that area was found on the shroud
3. Even today, science & technology cannot reproduce the 3D image that was “burned-in” during the “micro big bang” explosion when Christ rose
4. Finally, the utter complexity of human DNA continues to grow in complexity as science advances. To believe our complex DNA evolved from nothing is believing one can put miscellaneous watch parts in a box, shake it up and open the lid to find a Rolex.
I am no physicist, but thanks for the explanation. Whatever it is, matter is real. Something created it. It did not create itself...... unlike David Warner’s character in “Time Bandits.”
You might know about the probably calculation: how many years would it take for 12 monkeys randomly typing on a keyboard to type Hamlet from beginning to end. I think that it was 10^14 years. Longer than the existence of the universe.
The point is that for nature to be completely random, we wouldn't exist. Actually, nothing would exist. The chemistry of the RNA and DNA process wouldn't exist, the formation of an organism through random evolution, etc. etc.
A true atheist believes in no God
Atheism is not an argument about if you like or hate God Or Deny the existence of a historical somebody that claim they are God
I may not like Islam..I deny the truth of Islam and or the divinity of Islam and its false Prophet Muhammad of Islam that makes me an atheist of Islam
But I do not deny Islam exists... that’s stupid and its irrelevant to the truth or non truth...
The irony is believers of any one faith is an atheist in the beliefs of all other faith except there’s..just like the atheist that believe in on god what so ever....
The Bible is full of God renouncing other false gods so God is a mono theist and is one God short of being a full atheist
Saying something is false it’s different than denying something doesn’t exist
Actually, Physics is just an extension of process of observation.
Theory - observation - more theory about the observation - observation and proof — more theory — more observation... until we are way out on a limb in the classical sense. The scientific process.
“Atheists don’t believe in God. But the Devil does’’.— Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.
There you go!
“Atheists who fight against religion are not true atheists because they fear that God does really exist.”
Actually God and religion are two different subjects. Atheists who fight against GOD are obviously not really atheists, no one fights against what he does not believe exists. On the other hand he might fight against a particular RELIGION because he sees it as producing evil results just as one RELIGION may fight against another. My ancestors worshipped Odin, I hardly give Odin a thought and certainly do not believe Odin exists but if followers of Odin come to my area and try to sacrifice me to Odin I will have some objection, not to Odin but to what those who claim to follow Odin are doing. Likewise I have no quarrel against the prophet Mohammed since I really do doubt that he ever existed but I have a lot of quarrel with those who believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah and want to behead anyone who believes otherwise. It does not make sense to say that because someone opposes a particular religion he is afraid that God really exists, he may simply oppose what the followers of that religion are doing.
The article by James Bishop is so full of logical holes that it would take a long time to document them. This is not the kind of reasoning that is going to convince anyone of anything they don’t already believe.
No, it really isn't.
Saying The First Law of Thermodynamics "proves" that matter can't be created nor destroyed is wrong. The First Law doesn't "prove" anything, and it doesn't explain anything. It's an observation. That's ALL.
Actually, Physics is just an extension of process of observation.
This statement is objectively false. Physics is a branch of science which uses some observations in a specific way as part of its discipline. There is much more to it than that, and the act of systematically organizing, understanding, and predicting are far more important elements of the discipline than simple observation. These are what differentiates physics from sitting on your couch watching TV.
If I accepted physics as just an "extension of observation" [and I most certainly won't] I would have to say that Mayan astronomers were "physicists." No. They were not. They were just people taking some basic measurements and using them to decide when to plant or worship gods. That's not physics.
I am agnostic and as long as another persons religion does not involve cutting my head off, I fully support and encourage their free exercise of that religion.
You misunderstand. I do think something had to start everything. But just think the Bible and it’s stories are just silly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.