Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[Cycel]

I am a bit surprised that I don't have more sympathizers to my point of view about the whole thing. The more science delves into existence, the more intricate all things becomes to us. I brought up the theory of quantum supergravity and got not one response. Apparently no one bothered to read it.

Honestly, I didn't see your post. I am having some trouble keeping up. I have heard of supergravity, but I don't know enough about it to have much of an opinion. Now that you've grabbed my attention it is actually time for bed.

"There is absolutely nothing haphazard, [and] arbitrary..." about the way things work? When it comes to stars and planets forming I suspect it is all haphazard. Venus rotates backward. It seems it got clobbered. Even the way planets form speaks to their chance formation.

Your comments, in general, sound reasonable. The only thing that prevents me from completely buying in is my atheist position. As to the origin of the big laws (gravity and so on), I have no idea how their parameters were set. I can imagine though a cyclical situation in which universe after universe, in an infinite sequence come into being. Perhaps out of billions of chance formations only one had conditions conducive to life, and that's us. If that's the case then the assumption that the universe was made for us is simply an illusion. I can't say that it's not so. I think we simply don't know.

 

[Cycel]

Cycel, sorry, but the subject of Genesis 1:16 is God and not the two great lights of sun and moon. This verse tells us more about the goodness of God than about the dark side of the moon and that's good and not a problem.

Earth would be very different without the sun for sure. If inhabited planets were accidental, then I'm sure there would have been many that never progressed because the nearby star was too hot, too large, too cold, too small, etc.

The moon supports moonlight and tides and probably more than we know.

Thankfulness is the will of God. We pay no tax for the sun. It is good to give thanks and praise to the Creator and Sustainer of life.

"...He [God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:45).

From what you've said I gather you think Genesis 1 really says nothing important about the physical universe. I would agree. We have only our science to guide us.

 

[nl]

I am a bit surprised that I don't have more sympathizers to my point of view about the whole thing. The more science delves into existence, the more intricate all things becomes to us. I brought up the theory of quantum supergravity and got not one response. Apparently no one bothered to read it.

Thank you, Sir phil112, for the OP and teaching us more science. As you know, not everything has been getting a response. Fortunately, there have been responses along the way. .

Honestly, I didn't see your post. I am having some trouble keeping up.

Cycel, thank you for responding so well to so many.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obviously I would disagree with your myopia. As Ryken, L., Wilhoit said:

"One of the first patterns that draws our attention in the creation narrative is the contrast (perhaps tension) between rule and energy, order and exuberance, creation and biological generation.

On the one hand, God’s act of creation is a great ordering process. The earth begins "without form and void" (Gen 1:2 RSV); God proceeds to organize this primal chaos.

As God orders the elements, he utters commands that instantaneously produce objects. Some of his specific acts are acts of ordering, with verbs such as "made," "separated" and "placed" dominant in the process. The story itself follows a fixed pattern for each day of creation, consisting of five formulaic parts: announcement ("and God said"), command ("let there be"), report ("and it was so" or "and God made"), evaluation ("it was very good") and placement in a temporal framework. Even the division into time periods lends an orderly quality to the creation.

But balancing these images of order are images of fertility and energy. Here the language of God’s miraculous creative word gives way to the language of biological generation as we read about "plants yielding seed," "fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed," waters that "bring forth swarms of living creatures" and a command to the creation to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Here is the imagery of overflowing energy and abundance. Against the set formula for each day of creation is the sheer variety of things created and verbs used to name what God did ("created," "said," "saw," "called"). Balancing the sameness of each day of creation is the progression underlying the days of creation.

This same balance between creation as rule and energy persists throughout the Bible. On the one side we have pictures of God drawing "a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness" (Job 26:10 RSV), of building the earth like a building (Job 38:4–6) and prescribing bounds, bars and doors for the ocean, saying, "Thus far shall you come, and no farther" (Job 38:10–11 RSV; cf. Prov 8:26–29). But in the other vein we find references to the sea teeming "with things innumerable" (Ps 104:25), and to a world "full of thy creatures" (Ps 104:24).

But the same view of creation that empties nature of divinity also makes it a revelation of God and leaves it filled with pointers to God.

The point is that God created the world in a way that reflects the divine wisdom, the pattern of which is discernible for those who vigorously seek after it (Prov 8:1–21). This divine wisdom is so thoroughly imprinted on the creation that Paul declares that all those who refuse to acknowledge this testimony of God’s existence and power are without excuse in the face of prospective judgment (Rom 1:18–21)." <--That would be you, of course.

"A final motif is the biblical writers’ treatment of redemption as a crowning work of God’s creation. This is not surprising, since much of what is important in creation has been damaged or destroyed by the Fall. As we might expect, therefore, redemption and creation are intertwined in the Bible.

But for us, Christ’s work of redemption is described as restoring those aspects of the creation that were lost or damaged as a consequence of the Fall. The person who is regenerated in Christ is "a new creation" (2 Cor 5:17).

Creation is a spectator of human redemption, inasmuch as its own liberation is vested in the liberation of the sons of God. It is also a chorus that celebrates human redemption; for when God begins his final reign, the trees of the forest sing for joy, the sea resounds and the fields are jubilant (Ps 96:12; 98:7–8). While the original creation was marred by sin, Christ’s work of redemption and restoration will bring about a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (Rev 21:1)."

It's obvious that Genesis 1 is of enormous importance about the physical universe. The truth is that we have both natural revelation (e.g. the material universe) and God's special revelation (e.g. the canon) to guide us.

From what you've said I gather you think Genesis 1 really says nothing important about the physical universe. I would agree. We have only our science to guide us.

 

[nl]

From what you've said I gather you think Genesis 1 really says nothing important about the physical universe. I would agree.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:20)

Genesis 1:20 tells us that God made sea creatures and birds in abundance. I agree.

Sea food continues to be harvested in abundance as it has been for centuries. Many fish remain in the oceans. Birds exist in abundance even in large cities.

 

[robbomango]

'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.'

or

“God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.”

Which is more advanced, the first sentence or the second? Are either of these concepts more advanced than the wonders of our knowledge you described above? I submit that nothing in Genesis 1 demonstrates advanced understanding. Any of it could have been, and was, written by a Bronze Age author. “Let there be...” are the words of an author who has no understanding of the origin of anything. These words are place holders only.


Absolutely, Homewardbound posted numerous names yesterday, or the day before, of early scientists who believed in God and who pursued science as the means to understand creation. Many of them were the first to arrive at the discovery that Genesis did not fit the observations so they turned to hypotheses that did explain the physical evidence. Their intelligence was sound. Adapting our science to match a 3000 year old cosmology is not the answer.

Was God really supposed to explain how he created things(light, matter etc.)? I wouldn't expect God to be giving us science lessons in the Bible, he gave us intelligence to be used. Genesis doesn't demonstrate an understanding of how a Universe could naturalistically come to be, that's all.

If I said "print tree" and my audio responsive 3d printer created a 3D model of a tree, the statement "Print tree" Would not convey much to the reader. That is how I perceive our limited knowledge of Gods power in a sense.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not all creationist explanations for the origin and history of the universe, Earth, and life are nonscientific. An explanation cast in the form of a comprehensive and detailed model (with citable scientific research findings in support of its primary premises and suggesting specific scientific tests or observations to either confirm or falsify its premises) qualifies as science.

When such a model suggests research projects that will improve scientific understanding of the record of nature and when that model makes specific predictions of what scientists will discover in the near future, it is not only science but also good science. If a model offers more comprehensive and detailed explanations of nature's record than competing models and if its predictions prove more accurate than those of competing models, then that model sheds valuable scientific light on the origins and history of the universe and life.

I am aware of two such creation models. One is hosted by Reasons to Believe and the other by Biologos. The first would address your comment as follows:

In some cases, biblical authors used nonspecific language to describe God's creative activity. For example, the Hebrew verb haya expresses how light first appeared on Earth's surface (see Gen. 1:3). It asserts establishment of the water cycle (Gen. 1:6), emergence of continental landmasses (Gen. 1:9), and the first appearance of the Sun, Moon, and stars on Earth's surface (Gen. 1:14). The Hebrew verb dasha' depicts the production of plants on the continents (Gen. 1:11).

Both haya and dasha' allow some flexibility in the interpretation of how these phenomena came about. Their range of use encompasses the possibility of either a transformational miracle or a set of well-timed sustaining miracles or some combination of the two which can be posited like this:

1. God's direct momentary miraculous intervention,
2. God's guidance and timing of natural processes, or
3. both, in any combination.

For other events, the text gives a clear indication of causality. The use of a more specific verb, bara', indicates that the universe came about through a transcendent miracle. The use of two Hebrew verbs, bara' and asa, for soulish animal and human life, implies that these creatures came about through a combination of transcendent and transformational miracles.

Was God really supposed to explain how he created things(light, matter etc.)? I wouldn't expect God to be giving us science lessons in the Bible, he gave us intelligence to be used. Genesis doesn't demonstrate an understanding of how a Universe could naturalistically come to be, that's all.

If I said "print tree" and my audio responsive 3d printer created a 3D model of a tree, the statement "Print tree" Would not convey much to the reader. That is how I perceive our limited knowledge of Gods power in a sense.

 

[mustaphadrink]

If a student asked me where the Earth came from I would not have said anything about the Big Bang. I would have talked about the Sun and planets forming from gas and dust clouds in space. Now this hypothesis rests on very solid evidence.

Non sequitir as you were not asked. And what might I ask is the evidence bearing in mind that you were not there when it happened?

 

[deepthought]

The problem that we as atheists have regardless of depth of scientific knowledge is that, for the majority, these hypothesis require subjective interpretation either prior or post analysis of the information relative to a model. Although no good scientist would say that their data or interpretation is absolute, there is still an objective interpretation of the data or other observation in order to devise a conclusion. The religious texts, whether hebrew or arabic, were, in our opinions, written by men, edited by men, compiled by men and distributed/translated by men. These as a reliable source are too easily called into disrepute to form the basis of a scientific model. If you hold these as being true, then there is also equal evidence within various ancient civilisations to support alien astronauts and time travel. Yet no-one speculates on them as it would contradict the writings of an adapted hebrew text.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Your assertion is false and your understanding is flawed but it's almost 1AM here so I'll have to explain it later.

The problem that we as atheists have regardless of depth of scientific knowledge is that, for the majority, these hypothesis require subjective interpretation either prior or post analysis of the information relative to a model. Although no good scientist would say that their data or interpretation is absolute, there is still an objective interpretation of the data or other observation in order to devise a conclusion. The religious texts, whether hebrew or arabic, were, in our opinions, written by men, edited by men, compiled by men and distributed/translated by men. These as a reliable source are too easily called into disrepute to form the basis of a scientific model. If you hold these as being true, then there is also equal evidence within various ancient civilisations to support alien astronauts and time travel. Yet no-one speculates on them as it would contradict the writings of an adapted hebrew text.

 

[deepthought]

Non sequitir as you were not asked. And what might I ask is the evidence bearing in mind that you were not there when it happened?

Evidence of stellar formations are made by observing the patterns occurring in the visible universe around us. From telescopic observations we can see the formation of other systems as they were happening thousands of years ago, these observations are turned into a model which is then applied and consequences compared against the current state of our own solar system. When the shoe repeatedly fits, we wear it.

 

[deepthought]

I look forward to it. Sweet dreams.

 

[Spokenpassage]

As atheists do not believe in the existence of God we are not going to ever come to this conclusion.

Well God is real whether we believe He exists or not. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NASB)

Such large numbers of atheists visit Christian forums to debate I often find myself explaining that contrary to appearances most atheists never visit Christian forums. So your question seems somewhat different from the more typical Christian query. While it is true that most atheists are not much interested in engaging Christians in discussion there are always a few of us, for our own reasons, who enjoy the talk. Still, if you start counting you will discover a fair number of unbelievers engaged in chat here. A poll would be interesting, don't you think?

If there be a poll, who would run it?

Unbelievers most likely either come to try destroying the faith or display their "knowledge", or because God is drawing them even if they aren't aware of it. No one can resist God's will, if He is calling you to be a partaker to His glorious riches in Christ and to live for His glory, you will irresistibly come to become a Christian. I cannot doubt that, if you are called by His glorious election.

God will, if He does, will give you a new heart with a new nature so that you will be able to see the sin in your life and the need for a Savior. The world is blinded thinking it's foolish to believe and follow God, but once their eyes are being opened, they will want to change and follow after Him. That's God irresistibly drawing that person to Himself. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes it's immediate, God has it in His perfect timing.

I must ask you cycel, do you believe that you are a good person?

 

[Jda016]

Oh well in that case, I recant my prev post to you.

And I submit that the textbooks are wrong!

Haha then we both agree the textbooks are wrong! But for different reasons

 

[deepthought]

I must ask you cycel, do you believe that you are a good person?

Sure goodness is a subjective quality assigned to an individual or group based upon the society in which they exist. That is only based on observations on what people can see. As individuals, we only have the comparisons of others to say if we are good. I would say I am a good person due to my historical actions and empathetic feelings towards others. Other people may have different criteria for goodness. According to one member on here, I am not good as I do not share their philosophical beliefs. I can happily say this person was in the minority on here So are you a good person Spoken? And How do you know?

 

[deepthought]

Sorry that should have read surely goodness..... I really need a PA!

 

[Spokenpassage]

Sure goodness is a subjective quality assigned to an individual or group based upon the society in which they exist. That is only based on observations on what people can see. As individuals, we only have the comparisons of others to say if we are good. I would say I am a good person due to my historical actions and empathetic feelings towards others. Other people may have different criteria for goodness. According to one member on here, I am not good as I do not share their philosophical beliefs. I can happily say this person was in the minority on here So are you a good person Spoken? And How do you know?

What if I told you that you aren't a good person at all, no one is. If I stand as a minority, then it's because I stand on the Word of God.

A man without God, makes all of his 'good works' actually not truly good. They may seem good in human perspective, but the motives behind them aren't for God and thus it is sin. Of course you don't believe in God, but God is very real my friend.

Am I good person? What standard would I use? Man's outward standard, or God's standard? By man's standard, I may seem good, but by God's I am surely a wretched man in desperate need of Jesus who I have.

 

[deepthought]

What if I told you that you aren't a good person at all, no one is. If I stand as a minority, then it's because I stand on the Word of God.

A man without God, makes all of his 'good works' actually not truly good. They may seem good in human perspective, but the motives behind them aren't for God and thus it is sin. Of course you don't believe in God, but God is very real my friend.

Am I good person? What standard would I use? Man's outward standard, or God's standard? By man's standard, I may seem good, but by God's I am surely a wretched man in desperate need of Jesus who I have.

I predicted that answer was coming hence my response. However, has God told you that you are a good person? Has god laid down writings telling you what being good is outside of the writen word of man in the religious texts? For example, could god not write it inside quartz? Something not technologically possible by ancient man? or ignite the air and have the message appear in a universally understandable language in the sky? Or instead do you follow mans interpretation as written in the religious texts?

 

[Spokenpassage]

I predicted that answer was coming hence my response. However, has God told you that you are a good person? Has god laid down writings telling you what being good is outside of the writen word of man in the religious texts? For example, could god not write it inside quartz? Something not technologically possible by ancient man? or ignite the air and have the message appear in a universally understandable language in the sky? Or instead do you follow mans interpretation as written in the religious texts?

I am not a good person before God's law, no one is. Examples of us being sinful is the breaking of the ten commandments.

Why it a problem that God had men to write His word by inspiration? The bible is written so that everyone can read it for themselves. God gave this to us as a gift to understand who He is and what He is. The gospel of Jesus Christ is so simple, even a child can understand it. God is perfectly good at communicating to man through His Word. God didn't make His Word complicated for humans to obtain, He had prophets, apostles and holy men to write them down for common man to read.

It's not man's interpretation, it's man conviction of truth.

 

[deepthought]

Then how can you not know that JK rowling was not being influenced by God when she wrote the harry potter series? Or the Mesopotanian writing which pre date the bible by thousands of years which tell stories of many gods, a different creation story. How are these not the writings of God as they were man's earliest recorded texts therefore should be the most accurate? So which is it? The incredible popularity and widespread adoption of the text (Harry Potter) or the ancient documents (mesopotanian textx)?