Those of us who heard the emanations
know full well you were an open system.
Try being less so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
know full well you were an open system.
Try being less so.
Really? Then please describe to us the means by which [he] created the universe.God is not magic.
And when God said "Let there be light", what process was put in place that produced the EM spectrum?
So God is a "he", you say? Where are the females? How does his kind reproduce?
I have never heard of an atheist who believed something like this; are you sure you aren't misunderstanding them?An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
It is getting tiresome.
Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
It is getting tiresome.
Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”
You know, you are actually very wrong in your interpretation.It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:
A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
So who is the one who believes in miracles?
While I can't speak for all atheists, nor certainly for all scientists, I can tell you this: the one thing both have over theists is that we can accept "I don't know (yet)..." as an answer. We have many hypotheses about how our universe, or perhaps a multiverse, came into being, or perhaps is eternally expanding and collapsing, or any number of other things. And we continue to study those hypotheses, and try to learn more -- but we can agree that, well, frankly, we just don't know. Yet.
Those who dream up a creator/god do so because they can't stand saying "we don't know." So instead of saying that, they make up a story that sounds good, and say "that's what we believe did it."
The problem that they don't face -- and many of us have asked over and over and over again -- is simply this: "if you don't believe that something can exist without being created, how do you believe a Creator can possibly exist." And do you know how they answer that? They make up ANOTHER fable: "Oh, creators are special, they don't need to be created."
So, I'm afraid your analysis fails utterly.
So according to you, the OP as well as the title of this thread is a big joke not meant to be taken seriously?Eli G said:
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
It is getting tiresome.
Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”
Pogo
Well-Known Member
i wouldn't call it a big joke as it has ceased to be funny, rather an example of someone who is not here to converse pleasantly, but rather thinks that by playing the fool and presenting strawman arguments, they will score points. Generally juvenile and reflects badly on their position and their philosophy.
Poe's law is well known and this appears to be a case of pretending stupidity appropriate to underbridge dwellers
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, the Bible isn’t a science book, and yet you continue to make comparisons, and declaring the Bible to be enlightened scientifically, and you have been bragging, when much of the individual books were not even composed till the 6th century BCE (during and after the Exile in Babylon), and in the later centuries.
Your bragging in your posts, only showed your reinterpretation of a passage (Isaiah 40:12) into that of the Earth being “a closed system”, which others have explained to you, you’re wrong, as energy and matter (eg hydrogen) and particles are not only lost, the Earth also get particles (eg photons, neutrinos, etc) and energy (eg heat (infrared), wavelengths of visible light, ultraviolet) from the Sun…thermodynamically and others.
The Sun’s core is where most of the energy are coming from, and it is the hottest layer of the star, where the Stellar Nucleosynthesis occurs.
Nuclear fusion occurred fusing the hydrogen atoms into heavier elements, mostly into helium, but sometimes into carbon & oxygen (other stars more massive their our Sun, can produce much more heavier elements than helium).
But that‘s not the point. The nuclear fusion generate much of energy through radiation of heat, gamma radiation, positrons (anti-electrons) and neutrinos, that heat all the upper layers of the sun. No my real point, is that neutrinos are not only lighter than electrons in mass, the Earth’s atmosphere and geomagnetic fields cannot stop neutrinos, in fact, neutrinos go through everything, including the Earth itself; neutrinos would go through the Earth crust, mantle, and core, then stream back out of these layers (in reverse order), before heading out back in space.
If the earth was truly a closed system, then nothing should get through the atmosphere gases and geomagnetic fields - not neutrinos, not ultraviolet, not heat, not even light.
And let’s not forget gravity. The Sun & Earth assert gravitational forces upon each other, as well as that between Earth and Moon. If the Earth was a completely closed system, then there wouldn’t be any tides of the oceans and seas.
In any case, the book of Isaiah doesn’t even exist until the 6th century BCE. No original book of 8th century BCE existed in this century. Isaiah certainly didn’t write it…that if he existed in the first place. We know that Pekah, Ahaz and Hezekial were real historical people, as the Assyrian wrote about them contemporaneously at those times, but there are no contemporary records of Isaiah’s existence.
Last edited:
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
The summary from the first article:
"We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann universes generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by e^{e^{3 N}}, where N is the number of e-folds of slow-roll post-eternal inflation. For simplest models of chaotic inflation, N is approximately equal to de Sitter entropy at the end of eternal inflation; it can be exponentially large. However, not all of these universes can be observed by a local observer. In the presence of a cosmological constant \Lambda the number of distinguishable universes is bounded by e^{|\Lambda|^{-3/4}}. In the context of the string theory landscape, the overall number of different universes is expected to be exponentially greater than the total number of vacua in the landscape. We discuss the possibility that the strongest constraint on the number of distinguishable universes may be related not to the properties of the multiverse but to the properties of observers."
I don't even know what that means. Do you? If the article (which I admit I have not read because I can't even comprehend the summary) presents evidence of something, I couldn't possibly tell anyone (even after reading it) what it was evidence of. Even if someone translates it for me, I have no means of verifying that the translation is correct, that the original (or the translation) means anything, that it points to anything real, that it is evidence of anything real, etc. If I chose to believe that it is evidence of something, I would be believing the authors on their word alone, not basing my belief on any evidence I could hold, evaluate, probe or even comprehend on my own. And if all of that weren't enough, the author's open with this clear admission: "We argue." People don't argue when they have evidence. They present the evidence, which speaks for itself. People argue over opinions.
The second article starts out a bit more comprehensible to me, but leaves me hopelessly behind as it gets going. Either way, for all its claims of presenting "proof," the authors state early on that what they're presenting is based on their application of a theory (the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory), and list other uncertainties, concluding with additional speculations a la "uncertainty," "there should be," "would be," and "future work."
What evidence do you see in these opinion papers? And what would you say it is evidence of?
We?!?!? You are one than needs more than just glasses to see. Clinging to your ancient tribal worldview limits what you are willing to see.
That does not prevent the mad monkeys from invading your thoughts.
I do not ignore your posts, or your belief in God. I do object to you intentional ignorance of science, and clinging to an ancient tribal view of our existence without science,God is not magic.
He is a real powerful spirit person who decided to create a universe full of life and to which he dedicated a lot of love when he made it. We have an existence with purpose, starting from a Father who gave us life.
That is not magic, nor a miracle, because the power and knowledge of the Creator exceeds our limited human understanding. He could, and so he did.
Good evening to all readers...even those who I ignore.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The Bible and Jesus words within it speaks of the end times. We can see religion coming to the fore in obvious ways now. Yes, I hope I live long enough to see as we approach the end. How about you?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Could be I left you out of the we. No insult intended. But maybe we, in the sense of collectively, will see -- I hope so. I hope I live long enough, but even if I do not, I look forward to, hope for, and believe that I will be resurrected. What's your thoughts or hope about the future?
Not really the subject of the thread, which is do atheist believe in miracles.
Yes, you believe in the above based on your faith. My view is more from a universal perspective where God is not the God of anyone religion or church or division there of. No God is not seen as coming to the for any more now than in all the 300,000 years + of human history. God is the eternal 'Source' of everything beyond human comprehension,
Bottom line atheists do not believe in miracles.
I do not share your beliefs. I consider your beliefs as well as the thousands of diverse conflicting religions and their divisions from the fallible human perspective for all the 300,000 years+ of human history.
You reject science, which to me is irrational intentional ignorance.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I disagree with your assessment. As for the rest of it, eat, drink, and be merry, ok? Because never know when what scientists think about destruction of mankind by mankind will happen, right? You can find that at the Doomsday Clock website.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What about the Bahai religion? Do you consider those beliefs as well as the thousands of diverse conflicting religions and their divisions from the fallible human perspective for all the 300,000 years+ of human history as you say above?
This atheists does not believe, not even remotely, that the things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way. Or any other way.It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:
A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.
So who is the one who believes in miracles?
so, what happens here, is you believing that the only alternative to a creation act, is things coming from nothing, whatever you mean with that. Which is a dichotomy as false as married bachelors.
Therefore, the statement that in absence of a creator things must have come from nothing, does not obtain.
ciao
- vioke