Ask an Atheist

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
No one created the universe. This is what the atheist believes.
Given that Almighty God made the world with purpose and design, God might view it as as naive at best or insulting at worst to say that the universe happened without God and without causation.

The anthropic principle asserts a finely-tuned universe. See Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthropic Principle. The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. As agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow, noted, the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity. For if there were even the slightest variation at the moment of the big bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present today an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe—and they were.

For life to be present today, an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe:

1. Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, if 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
2. If the gravitational force were altered by 1 part in 1040 (that’s 10 followed by forty zeroes), the sun would not exist, and the moon would crash into the earth or sheer off into space (Heeren, 196). Even a slight increase in the force of gravity would result in all the stars being much more massive than our sun, with the effect that the sun would burn too rapidly and erratically to sustain life.
3. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
4. If the universe was expanding at a rate one millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees C. (ibid., 185).
5. The average distance between stars in our galaxy of 100 billion stars is 30 trillion miles. If that distance was altered slightly, orbits would become erratic, and there would be extreme temperature variations on earth. (Traveling at space shuttle speed, seventeen thousand miles an hour or five miles a second, it would take 201,450 years to travel 30 trillion miles.)
6. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 miles a second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth (Ross, 126).
7. If Jupiter was not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth (ibid., 196).
8. If the thickness of the earth’s crust was greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life untenable (ibid., 130).
9. If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period was shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
10. Surface temperature differences would be too great if the axial tilt of the earth were altered slightly.
11. If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
12. If there were more seismic activity, much life would be lost. If there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it.

Content above from Geisler, N. L. (1999). In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Attributes of life and earth and the universe are not only improbable, they are impossible (without intelligent, Divine causation).

As an atheist, how can you be sure that your assessment of the facts and application of reason and logic aren't missing something? Your human weakness may cause you to miscalculate. Then, when you live after death and are called to give account as the Bible indicates, it may be found that you knew enough all along and are without excuse. Then, eternity begins.

There is beauty in physical and metaphysical realities. I think that the Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge is worthy of worship rather than doubt and skepticism.

I care so I declare what I think needs to be said. I x-wish-x pray for you to be well eternally.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,392
16,338
113
69
Tennessee
Someone should start a new thread: Ask a Christian

This thread has gotten out of hand and that was days ago.
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
The earth has finely-tuned physical and ecological attributes. On a larger scale, the universe follows a finely-tuned set of physical constants. Light, gravity, electro-magnetism, time all observe these constant properties.

Details can be found at: Physical constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The constancy of physical constants reflects Divine order. Physical order is no accident.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
Its pretty much made a couple of circles around the sun...with that said I leave you with this lyric from the rock band rush.

In a dogs life, a year is really more like seven, and soon the canine will be chasing cars in doggy heaven. Seems to me, as we make our own few circles around the sun, we get it backwards and our seven years go by like one.
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
The Golden Rule would make the world a better place if it were followed by all. On this I agree. If it can be said that there is a philosophy I live by then this would be it, but I must point out Jesus was not the first to proclaim it.
Amen.

Cycel said:
If by follow Jesus first you mean follow the Golden Rule, then this is what I have tried to live by for nearly 50 years.
Glad.

Cycel said:
The point I have tried to stress is that I already went through a period when I very much wanted to believe in God and for those Christians who always respond with the assertion that I only need ask God, or give myself to God, etc., I have to say I tried that route. I tried it sincerely, but God never responded. So once a person has made the sincere effort to that end then what comes next? Now that the feeling of urgency to seek belief has left me I don’t see a way to get it back.
Seeking the face of God (Psalm 105:4) and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33) are ongoing priorities. It is best never to stop.

At age 22 as a non-Christian, I was seeking to know more about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whether Jesus was the only way, could churches be renewed to be something more in the future than they had been in the past. I found some answers and became a committed follower and was baptized again (after an earlier infant baptism). Christianity is a supernatural religion. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation...old things are passed away...all things are made new (2Co 5:17)". The Holy Spirit is an Illuminator of Truth and a Comforter. Yes, it is supernatural power that you would be seeking.

Cycel said:
I suppose I must confess I am no longer searching for the path back, but if you feel you have solid evidence for my lost beliefs I am always happy to examine them. Only know that I have, as far as I can tell, already looked under every stone.
Cycel, thank you for your openness and thoughtful, respectful responses to many on this forum.
 
Last edited:

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Greetings Dose,

Let us see if you can bring to reality your claims:

1) You say: "Scholars disagree about the historicity of Jesus."

What is your proof that a significant number of genuine scholars disagree on the historicity?


2) You say, "However, most evidence does seem to support someone named Jesus or Christ actually existed."

How do you know that they seem to support instead of support?

3) You refer to NPR.
How do you know that NPR is an objective credible source of historical truth?

4) You say: "As far as his divinity or any of the miracles, there are no contemporary accounts or historical evidence."

What is your proof that there are no contemporary accounts?
What is your proof that there is no historical evidence?

5) You claim: "The gospels were written many years after the fact."
How do you know that?

BTW, I love the book of Judges.

Best wishes
 

nl

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2011
933
22
18
The seven day week is a witness to God and creation. The seven day week began in the beginning and continues to be observed widely all over the world.

Happy Saturn-day to you all.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Sirk,
Someone said that this thread had gotten out of hand. You said, "canine will be chasing cars in doggy heaven." Let me help that process by commenting that it brings me pleasure to think of dogs running down the streets of gold. But I don't think howling will be allowed.

Great scripture from Galatians 2. Now if only I could find some way to keep that implemented in my life without fail.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose,

Thou hast quoted the wickedpedia on a Christian site! Now if I go there and see that what you cited is disagreeable to me, I can change it to anything I want. Of course the change may not last long if some guardian of the site reverts me. But the change may last long enough for me to copy and paste what I put there and site it as from the Wickedpedia.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
Sirk,
Someone said that this thread had gotten out of hand. You said, "canine will be chasing cars in doggy heaven." Let me help that process by commenting that it brings me pleasure to think of dogs running down the streets of gold. But I don't think howling will be allowed.

Great scripture from Galatians 2. Now if only I could find some way to keep that implemented in my life without fail.
Galatians is my favorite book of the Bible. I'm not entirely sure I understand your post and I hope I didn't offend with my attempt at brevity.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dear Cycel,

We are all responsible for affirming the self-evident. The axioms must be affirmed by ourselves.
A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

You either affirm that you perceive God or you deny it.
When you read the Bible you detect that it is God's Word or you deny it.
Who would stand under the hot sun on a summer day and argue with someone whether the sky is blue of not?

Are you wearing those those red glasses?
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Scholars disagree about the historicity of Jesus.
However, most evidence does seem to support someone named Jesus or Christ actually existed.

'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case : NPR

8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed - Listverse

As far as his divinity or any of the miracles, there are no contemporary accounts or historical evidence.
The gospels were written many years after the fact.

BTW Dose, since you quite properly jumped in, if you agree with the atheist, would you like to help out the atheist and answer the questions for him? I mean anyone can up and post most anything; but claims related to Biblical criticism are useless if not supported by proof. I realize you didn't make the assertions, but someone else did; but since you see sympathetic with his POV, perhaps you might give the proof for him, or confess you have none for his assertions. (References to the Wickedpedia are not good evidence, as editors are expressly forbidden to use primary sources, and anyone can write there, so long as it is politically correct.)
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose, you made a claim:

"I conclude that an eternal omniscient, omnipotent, personal conscious Creator of the universe is highly improbable."

What is the proof to support your conclusion?
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose, you claimed: "The point is whether it was God or not the two are indistinguishable."

How do you know that God's actions are indistinguishable from beating the odds?
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose, again you make claims: "The accounts are not written by eye-witness, they are second, third hand accounts. The fact that someone says they received an eye-witness account is hearsay."

What is your proof that none of the accounts are written by eye-witness?
How do you know that God is not their author?
Can you supply proof that they are "second, third hand accounts"?
Do you dismiss all history books as hearsay?
Would it be better to say that an author used primary sources?
Are court records hearsay?

How many things do you believe just because someone said it?

 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose, you claim: " if the records are valid and reliable then they should be accepted by everyone."

How do you know that is so?
If truth is unpalatable to persons, are they likely to accept it?
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Does as to eye-witnesses,
do you think that Mark could be referring to himself as the lad who ran away naked?
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
Dose, you have brought up an important subject. That of faith.

"Thats the difference, you take on faith that God preserved the testimony so as to be accurate when written down. I see no reason to believe that."

How do you know that he takes it on faith?

Is it not a sneaky modern method to try to discredit faith by defining the term as belief without (or contrary to) evidence? I grant you that more and more the term is distorted that way, so much that dictionaries include that as one definition, though the basic definition is having a conviction. The NT word pistis does not mean "belief without evidence." And that is not a good Christian definition of faith. In fact one definition of faith is proof.

Let me share a different perspective:
Objective faith is a conviction that something is so; subjective faith is trusting in someone. A conviction is a conviction. It may be based on no evidence (gullibility, wishful thinking), on some evidence, on probability, on sufficient evidence, or on absolute proof. It is all faith.

But I put it to you that proper objective faith is a conviction based upon the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident. Credulity is no virtue -- neither is paranoia, the failure to trust what one ought to trust, excessive suspiciousness.


 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Atheists display a great deal of faith for atheism and negative volition for the one true living God of the Bible. For example, is it insanity or deep denial to compare mythological pagan "gods" who supposedly created the universe by splitting females like clams or using imprisoned underwater sea monsters to the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts which a great many scientists, researchers, scholars, and educators assert is true and which scientific evidence supports?

Obviously, two very different things but atheists pretend like they are equitable. It's ignorant to make such false correlations and dismiss and misuse the evidence so blatantly and unscientifically.

It's entirely unfounded to assert that because a pagan mythological sea monster doesn't exist, therefore the rational and coherent creator God of the bible cannot exist but that's the type of fallacious, almost insane, anti-religious polemics that atheists choose engage in because of the faith they put in atheism in contradiction to sound reasoning and the evidence.



In Babylonian religion Marduk was the creator god and among the Canaanites it was Baal. So let us call God by his proper name, Yahweh – as revealed by Moses – to distinguish him from some of the other creator gods. If, as an atheist it is considered improper to deny the existence of a given creator god without sufficient evidence then I suppose it would also be necessary to admit the possible existence of Marduk and Baal as well as that of Yahweh, and perhaps also a large number of additional deities once thought of as the creators of the world. Richard Dawkins states, “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist” (The God Delusion, p. 51).

So for this philosophical reason many atheists claim, as does Dawkins, not to have total conviction. Yet, is it reasonable to claim that Yahweh, Marduk and Baal, along with hundreds of names of other gods that we might look up, could all – possibly – exist? One approach is to make the assumption that all of them might exist, while the other consideration is that in the absence of sufficient proof there is no reason to assume any of them exist. The latter view is mine. So, if it can be considered reasonable by anyone to deny that Marduk or Baal existed then it should be equally reasonable to conclude that Yahweh did not exist.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Whatever is meant by myths and endless genealogies, it is clear that Paul regarded them as the very opposite of the serious content of the gospel.

In view of the fact that in Tit. 1:14 Paul mentions ‘Jewish myths’, it is probable that he had in mind mythical histories, like the Jewish Book of Jubilees. Note the contrast between controversies and God’s work. There was an unproductiveness about the false teaching which was the opposite of the truth. This corresponds to your own behavior. You engage in false teaching opposite of the truth but choose a different form.

Paul mentions the desire of these false teachers to be teachers of the law and this leads him to discuss the nature and purpose of the law. Timothy is told to discourage interest in ‘myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations’ (1 Tim. 1:4).

There are similar references to ‘godless and silly myths’ (1 Tim. 4:7), ‘myths’ into which false teachers beguile hearers who have ‘itching ears’ (2 Tim. 4:4), and ‘Jewish myths’ to which Christians must lend no credence (Tit. 1:14). A mixture of judaizing and gnosticizing speculation is implied.



“But steer clear of foolish speculations, genealogies, quarrels, and controversies over the Law; they are unprofitable and pointless.” (Titus 3:9). I suppose this must mean that the author of Titus noticed Christians were always doing this among themselves?

Lucky for us this discussion has not included anything on Old Testament Law or genealogies of Christ (I wonder if this impies that arguments over which was the true genealogy of Jesus was very common back then?). As for not quarrelling or speculating (ie., discussing points of view) what then would the point of even having a forum, for what is a forum if not a place for discussion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.