Atheists and Agnostics: Check out this site
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
Tell me what you think.....
|
3
points
1st: Atheism has no rules, but it does have a very simple definition. 2nd: The belief in the big bang is logically consistent with the idea that it is only by observation that we can really "know" anything. If we can observe something, it is natural. We can not observe what started the big bang, if the notion of time is even valid in such situations, and as such we must say we don't know which is what many people do. We do know by evidence and observation that the big bang occurred, we just can not observe evidence of what started it(which quantum vacuum theory is interesting, and helps invalidates our conception of "nothing") . However, just because we can not observe something, doesn't mean it isn't natural. Really the idea of "super natural" is absurd. 3rd: Arguments from complexity are extraordinarily weak, it only takes a few simple rules to create very complex systems. Take a look at conways game of life. Also ocazm's razor will always eliminate god as a probable answer to much simpler ideas so long as god lacks evidence of a empirical nature to other possibilities. 3rd. 2
points
Not necessarily, ultimately the universe is absurd; either something came from thing or something always was; neither make much sense. Alternatively our notions of time and of nothing might not be accurate, after all mass does slow down time and virtual particles can be made into material ones from a vacuum. This suggests our normal concepts of time and nothing are not accurate, but not using those concepts is difficult for us humans to do. 1
point
We know very little about that. I agree common sense would indicate that there must be a cause. No reason to assume it must be a god. On the other hand, we are talking about the origin of time and space as we know it. Cause and effect works within time. What is cause without time? I don't know. Do you? 3
points
That website unfortunately lacks scientific knowledge. For me, the killer blow is that we do actually have near complete theories of everything. God will have no more gaps to hide in once these theories are verified, and hopefully, religion will stop trying to stop trying to justify itself scientifically. I honestly have more respect for someone who says they believe because of personal experience than people who make embarrassingly bad attempts to justify through science. 2
points
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." This is a twisting of words. Skeptics have beliefs and they will admit to it. What they will claim is they have no belief in god(s). Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. I thin it is simpler to say they have no concrete reason to believe otherwise. So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. OK. The universe had a cause. And? I am not going to jump to the conclusion it was a god which would then be harder to explain than the universe. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design This is like saying the odds of a puddle being the exact right shape for the water in it to fit requires a designer. It is silly. The vast majority of the universe it incredibly inhospitable to life. It took the right conditions for life to come about. It seems to me this in no way shows a designer. I agree the strong atheist position is not fully rational. More rational than the theist position, but still not fully rational. |
