What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

**Arioch** · 03-25-12, 06:18 PM

@Dave --

All for that game.

**lightgigantic** · 03-25-12, 06:50 PM

[QUOTE=Grumpy;2919365]

lightgigantic

Panspermia, at least as far as life on Earth is concerned. Life may have existed in this Universe for as long as the chemicals which make it up have existed and been spread throughout the Universe(including to Earth)by the natural forces of the Universe. Our whole solar system was formed from the debris of at least one, and probably several, generations of stars.

saying life came from out of space simply regresses the question of abiogenesis

It may be that life came to Earth from another planet. That may or may not be true, but still doesn't answer the question of where life started. You only transfer the problem to the other solar system.

and

The details of the origin of life are unknown, but the basic principles have been established. There are two schools of thought regarding the origin of life. One suggests that organic components arrived on Earth from space (“Panspermia”), while the other argues that they originated on Earth. Nevertheless, both schools suggest similar mechanisms by which life initially arose

Yes, we do see that life is a natural part of the Universe and we do have copious evidence that it is no different in kind to any other natural chemical reaction. Understanding life is an excersize in understanding the complexity and structure of it's chemical reactions(a technical thing), not trying to understand it's basic chemistry(we've got a good(but not yet complete)understanding of that).

this really has nothing to do with what I was saying.
But if you want to talk about the scientific model of abiogenesis that is precisely the problem facing it - a lack of evidence

Not to mention the infinite regress of who/what created that god. It is no more irrational than saying "god did it".

again, not really relevant to the point I was making

There is no evidence to base any other conclusion on. If you have any explanation you think neccessarily needs a god to be rational, bring it. By the way, the evidence indicates that there will be no ultimate destruction of the Universe. "Heat Death" is not destruction, it is just the end of usable energy, the matter will continue even if it all falls into Black Holes(which, if the Universe is designed at all, is what it was designed to produce. It is what it is best at.).

ditto above

Neither you, nor wynn has a clue about what science says chaos is. You both should probably either educate yourselves or avoid the subject altogether. And you both ignore the explanations we have given you, rejecting those explanations to reset to your personal misunderstanding and misrepresentations in the next post. This is why you are considered...unresponsive and dishonest in the tactics you use. We don't need any more strawmen, you've already populated the thread with dozens(as we have pointed out to you ad nauseum).

Noted that you don't explain how the universe could come to arise without referring to chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded

Not chance, probability.

(groan)

Probability is the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_probability

Life arose because of the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it. Even many theists agree and science shows it likely to be true. While there is an element of chance, it is actually only a small part. The probability that life would arise on Earth and lead to your existence is close to unity(there's always that small sliver of probability that we are all a computer program running in somebody's den). It happened. The probability that a particular atom 4.5 billion years ago would end up as part of your nose is nearly infinitely small. Neither the high nor the low probability of these two related things makes a bit of difference to the fact that it happened(though it does inform us). And chance plays it's role whether or not a god exists, it is not a replacement for god. I can't replace things I have no evidence of in the first place. The default is what you can show evidence of.

So you too cannot give an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for occurring on the backdrop of chaos (or chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded) .

Having heard and discussed many different claims it is reasonable to pin down the particular claims you are being so coy about. Do you come back to life inside a cow? Or are 72 virgins waiting for you? Do you go to the Big Spaghetti Dinner in the Sky?

again not really relevant to the discussion at the moment.

If you think taking birth again in the material world is the final end game of systems advocating reincarnation or are buying the whole 72 virgin thing as a the ultimate consequence if islam, the extent of your hearing and discussion on the topic is certainly quite limited

The Quran does not promise martyrs 72 virgins in heaven. It does mention virgin companions, houri, to all people—martyr or not—in heaven, but no amount is specified. The source for the 72 virgins is a hadith in Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Imam al-Tirmidhi.[346] Hadiths are sayings and acts of the prophet Mohammed as reported by others and as such not part of the Quran itself. Especially the hadiths that are weakly sourced, such as this one,[347] must not necessarily be believed by a Muslim. Furthermore, the correct translation of this hadith is a matter of debate.[346]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...misconceptions

This is not just apples and oranges, this is a whole fruit salad.

In Cosmology we have the advantage that we can directly observe and measure the past almost all the way back to the Big Bang. About the history of life on Earth the evidence can be weighed in tons(literally), but the further back the less evidence we have. And beyond 900 million years are so there is very little because bacteria really don't normally leave fossils(but where do you think petroleum comes from, or chalk?)though we do have fossil stromatilites over 3.5 billion years old. As to pre BB theories, you are right, they are largely guessing, but they are educated guesses guided by math, they just can't be tested.

If you really believe this then you have to explain why the number and/or incompatibility of models explaining events of universal history become greater the further one goes back in time

It is not a guess, it is a measurement based on the half lives of radioactive isotopes(there are over 40 different radioactive clocks).

that they find in relevant specimens

that they find in specimens And the beginning of the Universe is an observed fact, therefore it cannot ever be infinite.

never heard of physics attempting to explain issues pre-big bang I take it ....

Guesses are for those too ignorant to actually look at the evidence, evidence removes the ignorance.

But that's precisely it.

There is no evidence.

There is only a myriad of models to explain these things.

I can guess how tall you are or how much you weigh, or I can measure both parameters and have no need of guessing. We have measured the time that has passed since molecules were incorporated into the stromatolites that seem to be the oldest known lifeforms and we find the time that has passed is over 3.5 billion years.

and there's your guess, in bold

We can measure the distance to the furthest visible object and we find it is over 13.5 billion light years, and since light takes one year to travel one light year the furthest things we see are 13.5 years in the past. The only thing beyond that is the Cosmic Microwave Background which is all that remains of the flash of the BB. It is evidence and reason that leads to these conclusions, if they are in error it is evidence and reason that will indicate that.

if the conclusions drawn from evidence is pliable due to evidence that is still forthcoming, it is guess work.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? Those guesses lead to testing that indicates which guesses are more likely to be correct.

lol- classic

Guesses are for those too ignorant to actually look at the evidence, evidence removes the ignorance

That is just a lie, whether from ignorance or prejudice against the facts. And your constant repeating of that lie...you do the math.

The fact is that scientific subjects of abiogenesis and broader issues of universal creation, maintenance and destruction are all governed by models ... and not just one several.

You have tried to worm around this by branding guesswork as a consequence of ignorance in one circumstance and then focusing on the facts guesses are based on (in an attempt to pretend that they aren't guesses at all) in another

All you talk about is ...

Their messianic hope is that someday, someone, somehow may be able to validate it..... in the meantime their faith is unshakable.

**James R** · 03-25-12, 08:17 PM

wynn:

Originally Posted by wynn

Do you know any such theists, or, better yet, do you know any established theistic traditions whose doctrine states that life arose from non-life?

Many theistic traditions don't really address the question at all. I'm not an expert, but I expect there wouldn't be many theistic traditions which do address the question that don't have their god(s) involved.

Many modern Christians, for example, do accept the concept of abiogenesis. Such Christians do not insist on a literal reading of Genesis, but take it as a creation myth.

So what does an atheist mean by "I don't believe in God"?

They mean they don't believe that god(s) exist as real beings in the real world.

What do you think they'd mean?

**DaveC426913** · 03-25-12, 08:24 PM

LightGigantic, two hours ago in post 133, I proposed we see how long we can all go without anyone committing an ad hominem. You might have missed it or ignored it.

I made an example of an indirect ad hominem: "this stance is laughable/ignorant".

Your post here:

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

lol- classic

Guesses are for those too ignorant to actually look at the evidence, evidence removes the ignorance

definitely qualifies as an indirect ad hominem.

Nobody requires you play along, but we seem to be coming to a consensus that personal attacks are not helping this debate.

Would you like to try to debate without them?

**Grumpy** · 03-25-12, 10:28 PM

lightgigantic

saying life came from out of space simply regresses the question of abiogenesis

And saying god did it simply regresses to who/what made god. The point of panspermia is not that life necessarily came from space, but that the necessary complex chemicals were delivered to Earth from space(as the meteorites containing amino acids actually do to this day).

But if you want to talk about the scientific model of abiogenesis that is precisely the problem facing it - a lack of evidence

Whether you are unaware of the evidence or simply reject any evidence that is contrary to your predetermined conclusion doesn't change the fact that evidence exists.

Noted that you don't explain how the universe could come to arise without referring to chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded

What's to explain? Why would I not refer to the role that probabilities times massive numbers times long periods of time equals near certainty that at least one of these chemical interactions could create a self replicating molecule. It only has to happen once.

Life arose because of the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it. Even many theists agree and science shows it likely to be true. While there is an element of chance, it is actually only a small part. The probability that life would arise on Earth and lead to your existence is close to unity(there's always that small sliver of probability that we are all a computer program running in somebody's den). It happened. The probability that a particular atom 4.5 billion years ago would end up as part of your nose is nearly infinitely small. Neither the high nor the low probability of these two related things makes a bit of difference to the fact that it happened(though it does inform us). And chance plays it's role whether or not a god exists, it is not a replacement for god. I can't replace things I have no evidence of in the first place. The default is what you can show evidence of. ”

So you too cannot give an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for occurring on the backdrop of chaos (or chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded) .

The point of what I said is it is your assumptions that are flawed. The Universe isn't going to be destroyed, it originated in the visible expansion we named the Big Bang(the concept originated from a Franciscan Preist, LeMatre)and chance is just a part of the Universe. The Universe is evolving, no maintenance is taking place, the Universe is not maintaining a certain state. I don't know why you keep asking, of course I don't reject what we know about the Universe.

Probability is the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen.

Yep. That's all we have. There is no certainty, all you can do is use the evidence to determine the probability that something is true. More evidence, higher probability. Less evidence, lower probability. It's just common sense.

So you too cannot give an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for occurring on the backdrop of chaos (or chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded) .

Same question, same flawed assumptions.

Having heard and discussed many different claims it is reasonable to pin down the particular claims you are being so coy about. Do you come back to life inside a cow? Or are 72 virgins waiting for you? Do you go to the Big Spaghetti Dinner in the Sky? ”

again not really relevant to the discussion at the moment.

It was in response to this

Having claimed previously that you have an adequate education in theistic matters, do you really need me to explain this or are you simply being rhetorical?

My answer was

Having heard and discussed many different claims it is reasonable to pin down the particular claims you are being so coy about. Do you come back to life inside a cow? Or are 72 virgins waiting for you? Do you go to the Big Spaghetti Dinner in the Sky?

Entirely on topic, if you wish to discuss a particular afterlife concept, then yes, you must specify and define what you mean. My education in theistic concepts informs me that there are many, often conflicting, things theists believe and don't believe about an afterlife.

If you really believe this then you have to explain why the number and/or incompatibility of models explaining events of universal history become greater the further one goes back in time

But that is not true for all branches of science, especially astronomy, where we daily observe in great detail events in this Universe that took place before the sun even existed. And everywhere we look in space follows the same laws we see in our own neighborhood, our models work everywhere within range of our telescopes and the more evidence we gather the more accurately we understand what we see. It is a vast Universe that we have only begun to learn about, but it is not a blurry picture. Here's a baby picture of the Universe...

...at the age of 380,000 years old. They're so cute when they're that age.

It is not a guess, it is a measurement based on the half lives of radioactive isotopes(there are over 40 different radioactive clocks). ”

that they find in relevant specimens

And that all agree between them, within the margin of error, giving us clocks good for over 5 billion years. And radioactivity is all about probabilities and chaos.

never heard of physics attempting to explain issues pre-big bang I take it

Yes, it's called theoretical physics to make the distinction that it is mathematics and theory based, not evidence based. We don't have a great deal of confidence in such speculative things, they are not considered more than informed speculations by many physicists(including me).

if the conclusions drawn from evidence is pliable due to evidence that is still forthcoming, it is guess work.

So Newton's work was guesswork? Science doesn't see it that way, Newton was largely correct, his work described the motions of the planets pretty accurately(except for that stubborn wobble Mercury had, that is), but Einstein was even more accurate and he could even explain Mercury's anomoly exactly. Some day even Einstein may be replaced by someone elses's explanations(though his has passed every test and predicted many things which have been observed. I wouldn't hold my breath). That's what science does, tests and examines and calculates and improves based on new evidence. That's why we never claim to know anything with certainty. Far from guessing, it is the only path to objective knowledge.

The fact is that scientific subjects of abiogenesis and broader issues of universal creation, maintenance and destruction are all governed by models ... and not just one several.

These are not facts, they are misrepresentations of what is known about the Universe.

Grumpy

**Arioch** · 03-25-12, 10:39 PM

@Grumpy --

Nice rebuttal.

**lightgigantic** · 03-25-12, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

LightGigantic, two hours ago in post 133, I proposed we see how long we can all go without anyone committing an ad hominem. You might have missed it or ignored it.

I made an example of an indirect ad hominem: "this stance is laughable/ignorant".

Your post here:

definitely qualifies as an indirect ad hominem.

Nobody requires you play along, but we seem to be coming to a consensus that personal attacks are not helping this debate.

Would you like to try to debate without them?

I suggest you take it up with grumpy
The italics was a direct quote of his in post 334?

**Balerion** · 03-25-12, 11:05 PM

The only disagreement I have with Grumpy's post is the contention that we don't know anything for certain.

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Would you like to try to debate without them?

Would you?
For starters, without taking things out of context?

**Arioch** · 03-26-12, 12:32 AM

@wynn --

Wow, you've been spending a lot of time looking in mirrors today haven't you?

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by James R

Many theistic traditions don't really address the question at all. I'm not an expert, but I expect there wouldn't be many theistic traditions which do address the question that don't have their god(s) involved.

Many modern Christians, for example, do accept the concept of abiogenesis. Such Christians do not insist on a literal reading of Genesis, but take it as a creation myth.

And? What does the existence of such people mean for this discussion?

"Everyone who claims to be a theist, regardless of what they profess to believe or do, should be considered a theist by everyone else." -?

They mean they don't believe that god(s) exist as real beings in the real world.

What do you think they'd mean?

I would think they have an elaborate and complete philosophy ready that explains everything.
A philosophy that settles all the questions on what "real" and "existence" and "God" means.
As opposed to using loaded terms and pretending they are clear.

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Arioch

@wynn --

Wow, you've been spending a lot of time looking in mirrors today haven't you?

You just can't let go, eh?

**Arioch** · 03-26-12, 12:42 AM

@wynn --

You know what they say. Assumptions make an ass out of you.

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 12:45 AM

(that must be in capitals)

ASSUME = ASS + U + ME

**Arioch** · 03-26-12, 12:51 AM

@wynn --

Way to miss the point there. Not like you have a great track record for getting the point in the first place, so how about I repeat my original point in a more straightforward manner.

You have repeatedly given "advice" today which you yourself should be taking as you are frequently in violation of it.

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 01:00 AM

Do you know what "codependency" is?

**Arioch** · 03-26-12, 01:01 AM

@wynn --

Still trying to psychoanalyze me even though you're not only not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but you know almost nothing about me? And you accuse atheists of arrogance.

**wynn** · 03-26-12, 01:10 AM

Still trying to psychoanalyze me even though you're not only not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but you know almost nothing about me? And you accuse other people of arrogance.

**Arioch** · 03-26-12, 01:24 AM

@wynn --

Never tried to psychoanalyze you, merely commented on the habits you've displayed here. Note that I've never tried to describe any underlying cause to your behavior, just noted what it is.

**aaqucnaona** · 03-26-12, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by wynn

Still trying to psychoanalyze me even though you're not only not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but you know almost nothing about me? And you accuse other people of arrogance.

Ok, maybe Arioch is playing hardball, but thats just so kindergarten!