Why do atheists believe in magic?

Question

To believe the atheistic notion that events which defy natural law can take place naturally, without any supernatural intervention, is surely to believe in magic? Beliefs such as the ‘Big Bang’ theory, the spontaneous generation of life and progressive evolution, all defy natural law. But because these are purely naturalistic events, they are totally bound by the natural laws which govern matter/energy, and cannot possibly contravene them, under any circumstances. However, atheists choose to ignore this, and proclaim that such events, not only happened naturally, but are ‘scientific’ fact. What is more, they have the brazen audacity to accuse those who refuse to believe in THEIR MAGIC, of being uneducated, unscientific fools or superstitious cranks.

There are only two options, either:- matter has magical properties which enable it to bypass natural law in order to create the Universe, life and information, . . . . or a supernatural agent (not subject to natural law) created and designed the Universe.

It is astonishing that atheists can regard IMPOSSIBLE, naturalistic hypotheses as scientific fact, and yet dismiss as illogical the opinion that events which have obviously occurred contrary to natural law, such as the origin of information, the universe and life, could not have taken place without supernatural intervention.

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . . .
You think abiogenesis does not defy natural law, . . . O.K. I offer you (and anyone else who thinks likewise) a million pounds, if you can demonstrate to me a repeatable experiment which will turn, any mixture you like, of non- living chemicals into even one single, self- replicating, living cell. If it happened in nature, it should be simple enough in the contrived situation of a laboratory.
I thought the old, alchemy pseudo-science was dead, but the impossible dream of turning base metal into gold, now has a modern version, creating life from non-life.
You have obviously been watching too many Dr. Frankinstein movies.

~*Blackbi... . . . The first cause is the FIRST cause, i.e. it does not have a cause. The law of cause and effect is a law that applies to matter/energy.
A supernatural First Cause is the only possible first cause, because it is not subject to the law of cause and effect.
Any proposed naturalistic first cause would have to be subject to the law of cause and effect and is therefore impossible, because it would have had to have had a cause and so could not be the first.
In fact, all natural law is subject to the Supernatural First Cause which obviously originated it at the same time as the creation of matter/energy.
We know that the Supernatural First Cause must have an intellect because information cannot arise by naturalistic means, it can only come from an intelligent source.

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . .Scientific experiment and observation over many years, have demonstrated that there is a barrier to abiogenesis.The medical and food industries rely on this barrier for hygiene and food preservation. The barrier is recognised in the scientific 'Law of Biogenesis' which was formulated after meticulous scientific work by such scientific giants as Louis Pasteur.
You may choose to ignore such scientific law for your own, philosophical reasons, but please don't call it science.

wild_eep . . . . So you don't trust scientific law? In other words, you cannot be certain of anything, and there are no firm, scientific rules. In that case maybe the myth of the sky pixie that atheists accuse Christians of believing in, is not all that unscientific after all. Why not? in your 'anything goes' new science, nothing can be ruled out. How can we know that we won't discover a 'sky pixie' in outer space in the next million or so years?

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . . .
From Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 edition:-
Although Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, disproved in 1668 that higher forms of life could originate spontaneously, proponents of the concept claimed that microbes were different and did indeed arise in this way. Such illustrious names as John Needham and Lazzaro Spallanzani were adversaries in this debate during the mid-1700s. In the early half of the 1800s, Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann were major figures in the attempt to disprove theories of abiogenesis until Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his conclusive experiments in 1864. In a series of masterful experiments, Pasteur proved that only pre-existing microbes could give rise to other microbes (biogenesis).

Rachel G . . . You ask what natural laws are defied by atheistic beliefs? I thought this was obvious. Try these for starters:- the law of biogenesis, the law of cause and effect, Information theory, the laws of mathematical probability (chance), the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Nobody . . . .your magic isn't 'science' that is why I call it magic. Because your naturalistic solutions go against the laws of science, they are 'unscientific' so the only way they they could occur is through magic. Therefore my only conclusion is that you believe in the magical properties of matter, not science, If you believed in science you would support well established, scientific law, and would thus discount speculations that oppose it as the unscientific nonsense they are.

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . . . .
Klaus Dose reviewing the conclusions of the 7th international conference on the origins of life (Mainz 10th - 15th July 1983) in association with the 4th congress of the ISSOL, writes: “A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e. the information residing in our genes today.” “The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides of even of poly-nucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth, should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard.

Information theory:
THEOREM 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to arise by itself in matter.

THEOREM 27: Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false.

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . . . .
The famous cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle.
“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognise that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could not have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so. The others are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles.” New Scientist 19th Nov 1981. P526.
Nuclear physicist Hermann Schneider on the ‘Big Bang’: “In the evolution model the natural laws have to describe the origin of all things in the macro and micro cosmos, as well as their operation. But this overtaxes the laws of nature.” Zeitschrift factum 1981, Nr.3, pp.26-33.

The Born Again Mullah ** ........

EMINENT EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, THE RENOWNED BIO-INFORMATICIST HUBERT P. YOCKEY, WRITES:
“SINCE SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA HOW LIFE ON EARTH ORIGINATED … IT WOULD ONLY BE HONEST TO CONFESS THIS TO OTHER SCIENTISTS, TO GRANTORS, AND TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE” AND HE ADDS; “PROMINENT SCIENTISTS SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA, SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLARISING THE MINDS OF STUDENTS AND YOUNG PRODUCTIVE SCIENTISTS WITH STATEMENTS THAT ARE BASED SOLELY ON BELIEFS”. JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY [VOL 91, 1981, p13].

The Born Again Mullah ** . . . . . .QUOTES FROM EVOLUTIONISTS: -
"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

lookn2cjc . . . . .Thanks for the website: -
http://www.anointedone.net/atheism.html...
It is a truly devastating critique of atheism and evolutionist beliefs. May I suggest that all those who have challenged my claim that atheist beliefs defy natural law (especially the 'Mullah') log on to it.

http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html...

sorry! the web addresses above are faulty, click on this one instead:
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html

Answer 1

Well, unless they acknowledge an intelligent Creator, what else ARE they saying, except ABBRA CADABBRA POOF! Everything started Magically creating/evolving all by ITSELF!!

Hmmm....

They still won't admit that there ARE no NATURAL laws without some kind of a BEGINNING for those laws. We're back to square one, boys!

Is it God's intervention, OR magic???

Answer 2

So what you appear to be saying is that either life appeared by magic (science) or by the intervention of a magical being (God). And any other explanation is 'IMPOSSIBLE'. Is that fair?

What I say is that we don't have an adequate explanation yet for how life came about. Just as Aristotle observed gravity, but didn't have the science necessary to explain it.

I presume you don't dispute the creation of Adenine in lab conditions? Or that within a one week period Miller and Urey managed to make 13 of the 22 amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells? So I guess it's the next stage that you feel needs a supernatural kick in the pants?

Well I suppose in time we will see if science can come up with the goods.

But in the meantime I suggest you investigate better arguments. A tautology based on a presumption just isn't going to sway me.

No brazen audacity intended.

Oh, and thanks Alliv, for reminding me about the work of Satan. At least now I know where THEIR MAGIC comes from. I'm just having a hard time with why YOUR MAGIC can't just do things simply for once.



Sorry AMDG - I'm confused. Exactly what "naturalistic solutions" are we talking about that "go against the laws of science" and which "well established, scientific law" did you have in mind?

Ah, I see now. "The law of biogenesis, the 'law' of cause and effect, Information theory, the 'laws' of mathematical probability (chance) and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics". My goodness, you have been busy with your reading!

Unfortunately we return to the fact that your magic depends upon there being a god in the equation. Mine does not.

Is this the point at which I cite Occam's razor? Or shall we just agree we see the world in different (and apparently incompatible) ways?
.

Answer 3

What is your definition of "natural laws"? Surely evolution is a natural law in itself.

If the history of science teaches us anything it is that our understanding of what is "fact" or "law" changes as we learn more about the world. Just because a theory may be proved wrong doesn't mean it is "magic". It is just the best explanation at the time. Magic is an explanation in itself.

Your argument shows a complete lack of logic. You cannot discount events which contradict the "natural laws that govern matter and energy" because we do not fully understand matter or energy yet. How can it then be said that these things are contradictory? You are verging on inductive reasoning here.

You are simply using sophistry to attack the concept of atheism because you do not agree with it. Atheists reject religious explanations for events in favour of science. Science does not claim to have all the answers but it has the means to provide us with many truths that religion cannot. The purpose of religion is to reveal spiritual truths not physical ones. It is foolish to reject all science that contradicts what is written in the Bible. The Bible was never intended to be taken as the "word of God", it is a guide to being Christian put together by the Council of Nicaea. It reflects the understanding of the time.

Answer 4

you really don't understand science at all.

Science means figuring out what's what by looking at it, not by looking at books which contain no evidence for their assertions.

All these centuries of looking have put together a fascinating set of "laws" which seem to describe what's going on quite well, though there are huge issues still to solve, such as quantum physics and the origins of the universe.

But a "natural law" is nothing more than a postulate that so far hasn't been broken or qualified by anything so far observed. We treat Thermodynamics 2 as true only because nothing has broken it yet. Something might, and we'll end up with a modified set of "laws". That's always been the plan.

Answer 5

First explain to me how abiogenesis and evoluton defy natural law?

I will give you some leeway on the Big Bang because I think the jury is still out on exactly what happened in the first moments of the universe.

Regarding abiogenesis, we know that conditions permitting abiogenesis existed so that doesn't provide any conflict with natural laws. And evolution is very well established and supported by about 110 years of solid research both within biology in general and within the stricter confines of ecology and evolution.

==================================

Your offer is disingenous and you know it. There is most certainly an element of chance involved in abiogenesis. So the inability to produce life in vitro means nothing. The only way to have a valid test would be to provide a test bed the size of the earth and let the experiment run for 100-200 million years.

If you play the lottery long enough, eventually you win. But failure to win on a single ticket does not prove it impossible.

By contrast, your statement that abiogenesis is 'against the laws of nature' implies that there is some natural barrier to its occurence. Please demonstrate the existence of such a barrier.

========================================
You clearly have no clue what the Law of Biogenesis says. Why not have look to find out?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis

========================================
Please explain how Pasteur *proved* anything. He may have demonstrated that under certain conditions, abiogenesis was not likely or even not possible. But what proof is there of a natural barrier to abiogenesis. I'm sorry but sloppy text by Encyclopedia Brittanica is nothing more than crap job at quote mining.

Answer 6

Sorry, your argument is simply another in an endless chain of flawed reason. What idiot told you than Evolution, and Big Bang theory defy natural law ??? Would that person be a member of Goddiditallinaweek ? Apologies for the dismissive answer - your posting is not worth serious consideration.

Answer 7

How about this. What if its not supernatural, what if we are all living in a test tube. We are sea monkees or ants in a ant farm on someones desk. What I am saying is that maybe there is a creator, but not god. I believe that we are a creation from an advanced race. We are their 3rd grade science experiment. Its not that far fetched with us discovering how to clone animals now is it. In fact, I see us doing just the same some day.

Answer 8

A better understanding of the scientific process is needed in your argument. Much of what you are ascribing to magic is actually found in chemical processes that are experimentally reproducible. I would suggest a good university course in organic chemistry followed by a course in biology, anatomy and physiology, and physics. I don't believe in magic, but I do practice magic, here, pick a card, any card. Have fun with your life.

Answer 9

Hi !!!


Because everybody needs to believe in some higher power, and since thay don't believe in GOD as the higher power they need to turn to anything that gives them that illusion, which is the
work of Satan on the world.

Satan gives the one that are weak at heart the illusion that GOD as a higher power, doesn't exist !!! But them again, trick
all weak of heart people, into looking for a higher power, a source of enlightment, on evil and stanic rituals.

For the same reason that everybody needs to believe in some higher power and they can NOT BE IT!!!

GOOD BLESS YOU & HAPPY LIFE

A.Z.

Answer 10

Please explain how the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life and progressive evolution defy natural law? Which natural laws do they defy? Without evidence to back up your assertions, it's just an opinion of yours and please explain why we should believe your opinions when we don't know you and can't know whether you are a pathological liar, or have a particular agenda or are just ignorant. You need to present evidence as to how these things defy natural law. You haven't, so your reasoning is specious. If you really want to know about these things, why don't you post this question in the Science section?

Answer 11

No self respecting Atheist would ever create an argument as shaky as yours. If you had any education you would know that creation de novo goes on all the time. The mechanism for the big bang is unknown but is not thought by Atheists or scientists to be supernatural, just super natural. It is subject to explanation, unlike the magic in the bible.