Riddle me this, Atheists?

Question

I have a few questions for those out there who seem to find themselves too intelligent to believe in God.

1. Stephen Hawking will tell you that out of all the infinite possible ways the atom could be made up, it was made up just perfectly to sustain life and matter as we know it. Amazing coincidence?

2. The earth is constructed and positioned in our solar system just perfectly to sustain life. Any closer to the sun and you wouldn't be here, same goes for any slight difference in oxygen levels and other gases that exist in our atmosphere. In all the earth's infinite possible constructs, everything is just perfect enough that you are able to exist. Another mindblowing coincidence?

I could go on and on with these but my point is simple. Atheists see the idea of spirituality and God to be silly and illogical. So if you do not believe in God, you believe you are one in infinite, a virtually impossible circumstance. This is what I see as silly and illogical.

I'd like to note that many of the atheists posting seem to have the same hypocrisy. You don't believe in God because theres no point in believing in what you can't see. But many of you believe there must be life on other planets, something that YOU cannot see. ??? Also, life is going to evolve according to its current characterisics argument kills me. OK, this explains why you won't find even a speck of bacteria on mars or any other planet we've researched?? There is intelligent life on other planets huh? So why don't they contact us? They must have some sort of giant cellestial agreement not to come in any contact with us. Give me a break.

Answer 1

Not all athiests see spirituality and God as silly, some of them even envy (albiet secretly) those that have faith. Some people call themselves athiests when they're actually agnostics. I would agree there's more common-sense evidence of the existence of a creator or creators, but as for "hard" evidence, I'm not aware of any. If most agnostics and athiests were pinned down, I think they'd question the benevolence of God and the obviousness of his "plan" more than they'd actually question the likelihood that the universe was created.

Answer 2

Yes they are, or we wouldn't be here. Maybe if things were the slightest bit different there would be life on one of the other billions of planets out ther instead. Not that there isn't.

Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean I am going to blame it on god. You could have made the same argument 500 years ago with the rain and the sun. "these are miracles, it must be god"

KingMattIV, on behalf of everyone, I'm sorry we didn't answer sooner for you, but some of the following answers are more complicated than "Go, Bro!!"

and as you are skimming the answers you should pay attention to ooh_wah_hahaha's answer, because as much as I don't like him, he makes a good point. I was going to point out that is the planet were a bit closer or further from the sun, perhaps we would have evolved quite differently. (I know, just a theory)

Answer 3

One word for you: probability.

Roll a die one time and you have 1/6th of a chance to get the number 1. Roll 100 dice 100 times (10000 rolls) and the number 1 will come up an average of 1666 times. In other words, rolling 10000 times and getting the number 1 at least one time is, for all intents and purposes, inevitable.

Christians are limited to a 6000 year view of the Universe's history (one roll of the die), so obviously creation makes so much sense...

Thinking people understand that if you consider the Universe in terms of trillions (more like infinite) of Earth years (10,000 rolls) life was inevitable. Maybe the majority of the time, the atoms form incorrectly, the planets have no atmosphere, or are scorched by their respective sun... but with a great enough number of trials you are going to experience every possible outcome... including life as we know it.

Answer 4

1: No, not coincidence. We would not be here to discuss it if it were incapable of sustaining life or matter. This demonstrates nothing more than the ability of atoms.

2: see 1 (above).

Your conclusion: I disagree. It has already been posited by mathematics that there are several dimensions to reality, with or without God. Quantum Mechanics have produced some interesting predictions regarding the inter-connectivity of all material in the universe.

There was a time when the Sun was called "God". What you call "God" may be an experience with natural forces which can be predicted and explained through science and mathematics, just as we can with the Sun.

The body of rules you ascribe to "God" is another matter. Interpretation of the experience may be very contextual, much as the three men trying to describe the elephant that passes behind a wall with a hole in it). Thus, some rules that applied 3000 years ago no longer apply today.

Your insistence on not only the universality and immutability of these rules but that they convenietly match -your- understanding of these rules would, in any other matter, act as a red flag warning the rest of us of self-deception.

Why should it not with something you claim to exist but cannot conjure before our eyes? There are many tests to demonstrate the existence of atoms, but no test demonstrates the existence of the God you worship, with all the rules as you believe them to exist.

You've no more to support your claims than anyone has to support their claims that -their- deity is the true "God". You have a book. They have a book. You have rules. They have rules. You believe you are right. They believe they are right. What proof can you offer that could convince us to believe -your- god exists and their gods don't?

Your addendum: seems you are unaware of probability statistics. Your argument falls flat on a basic principle. If we and the universe are -so- complex as to require a God to create us, then God Himself must be even -more- complex and thus even -more- in need of a creator. Shouldn't we be worshipping the creator of God, rather than God: the creator's creation?

Answer 5

Well, I certainly don't think I am too intelligent for anything. I will say, however, that we live in a universe that scientists tend to think is infinite, I believe. In an infinite universe, all things are not only possible, but probable, if not certain. In light of these paramaters, it has been mathematically proven that not only do the conditions exisist to support life elsewhere, but, incredibly enough, it's been proven that it is statistically probable that you have an exact twin out ther that has lived a parallel life to yours in every way. This is based upon the number of particles in a defined portion of the universe, and the fact that this finite number of particles can only be arranged in a finite number of patterns. So, this refutes your argument that the life sustaining characteristics of our world are unique. We are not special at all.

Answer 6

I can't believe you think you have a point. When you have life built from certain structures (atoms), and works under certain conditions (position) life will be suited to that, because that is where it came from. You have made a good argument for evolution, and how we have become so suited to the environment. If the earth had been farther out, life would only exist under those conditions. I could go on, but you will not understand, as you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

Answer 7

So, let me see if I've got this right... you are somehow amazed that we find ourselves existing on a planet where it is actually possible for us to exist? Well, dang... I think that's a lot less surprising than if we found ourselves existing on a planet where we could NOT possibly exist. Now THAT would be evidence for the existence of god.

I do not find it at all surprising that (as carbon/water-based life forms) we find ourselves existing on one of the estimated 200 million-billion earth-like planets in the universe... or that we live in a universe (out of a possible infinite number of other ones) in which matter holds together such that galaxies, stars, planets, life, etc., can exist.

It would probably be a good idea for you to read about the 'anthropic principal'.

Answer 8

See, this isn't going to prove anything to us. You're coming at this question with a definite opinion that's not open to debate. You also come aggressively, meaning that others won't be likely to open up to you either.

I'll counter with this argument. I'm a chemist in a synthesis (building molecules) lab. I help design the methods for my syntheses. Just because mixing certain compounds doesn't give you product one time does not count out the possibility of it happening in different conditions.

How about we just take a look at your atom argument. I know of plenty of reactive, unstable substances. What happens to them? They decompose into more stable substances. For an atom to sustain life and matter, it would need this stability. Who's to say that other 'atoms' didn't exist before but decomposed into the current atoms, which were stable enough to allow for compounds to form?

Answer 9

Hi,

You are just threatened by people who are different from you. If you are happy with your beliefs than just chill out and be happy. Everybody does not believe what you believe.

This is a "teleological" argument for the existence of god and not difficult to overthrow if need be. Stephen Hawking did not invent the teleological argument. Furthermore, just because we see pattern does not mean there is pattern. And what is so great about the fact that life can be sustained here?

How do you make the logical leap from:

1.) Planet sustains life = there must be a god.

Explain the connection. Why is the fact that I exist the logical equivalent of the existence of god. And especially the god YOU believe in.

Good Luck,

Ouros

Answer 10

An excellent point. The answer is known as the anthropic principle. It basically means that of course we find ourselves in a universe/solar system/climate/etc conducive to humanity, for if we didn't we wouldn't be here to pose such question. You yourself were only born through a fantastic series of coincidences. Had but a single one of your ancestors been conceived mere fractions of a second later, your particular DNA sequence would never have occurred. Yet it did and here you are. Proving what?

Answer 11

You're welcome to your opinion just as I am.

I made my decisions that deities do not exist by what you use to say that deities do exist. I have read the bible, the quran, and various other religious texts. After doing so and discussing this with many people including some college professors in both secular universities and religious ones I made the decision that based on the evidence before me that they do not exist.

Science is another issue all together and no I do not believe everything was created by a deity. If you would like do so that is your right.