Do you think Atheists are blind?

Question

Atheists cannot debate to the end of a conversation, because they simply do not see the visible point of life.

Some people believe only the evidence of their senses, what they can see or hear. They look at a table and see a solid object. However, when we look closely we see it is not solid but mostly empty space. Physicists say a truly solid substance, a magnetar or black hole, is so dense that a teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons on earth. If a teaspoonful of table substance weighs one ounce, the table is one part solid for every ten trillion parts empty space. At close range, every “solid” substance on earth more closely resembles outer space than a solid object.

Quantum physics, now generally accepted by science, says that everything in the universe is made of protons, neutrons, electrons, and many other sub-atomic particles that do not behave as classical physics said they would. For instance, all matter is said to have mass and occupy space. Electrons, however, have mass but occupy no space. Physicists say that quantum behavior can be described only in mathematical equations, not in pictures or words. The entire universe looks to physicists like a great thought.

A great thought! Atheists once said that evidence of intelligent design is religion, not science, since a pre-existing intelligence cannot be observed. But even they acknowledge that scientists infer the existence of such unobservable entities as quarks, forces, fields, even the big bang, from their observable effects. We can properly infer the existence of a Creator from intelligent design.

The universe as a great thought, rather than as inanimate matter and energy, leads the neutral observer straight to living spirit, as if our Creator had designed the universe itself to show us that we too are in some sense living spirit.

John.

Answer 1

in pitch blackness ....

Answer 2

" Atheists once said that evidence of intelligent design is religion, not science, since a pre-existing intelligence cannot be observed. But even they acknowledge that scientists infer the existence of such unobservable entities as quarks, forces, fields, even the big bang, from their observable effects. We can properly infer the existence of a Creator from intelligent design."


You have made a serious logical leap here. You say we can infer a creator from intelligent design, but that is not correct. First you must prove that intelligent design is correct, by either experiment or observation. In the other examples you mention, there were effects that had to be explained, such as electricity, which was known long before electrons were, or there was a theory that made testable hypotheses. ID fails in both these regards. There is no proposed test I have heard of, much less one actually being conducted. If you can't test it, then there must be observable effects that can best explained by the hypothesis. ID fails this test as well, since every objection raised by proponants can be explained more simply by natural selection or basic principles of chemistry.

Besides, ID has a problem in that it seeks to stop seeking answers. If you see an organ or molecule and say "Oh, this was intelligently designed", that's it. You don't think it evolved, so you aren't going to try and figure out what mechnism of natural selection brought it about, which means you can't make any testable predictions. It's giving up.

Answer 3

Science teaches us that there are many things that we cannot see or directly observe but that we have good reason to believe exist. Not, though, because we were told they exist. Not because we feel they exist. Not because it makes sense that they exist. But because first of all we can precisely define them. We can with quarks, say, we can't with a nebulous concept like a god.
Next we form falsifiable hypotheses about them and we test those hypotheses. Falsifiable is important. If the idea is false is there any test that could be done to show us that it is false? This is impossible with a god. There's no test the results of which could possibly show that a supernatural being like a god doesn't exist. If there's no test that could show us that it doesn't exist if it does exist then there's no test that will indicate that it does exist. Read up on Popper for more detail.
Next we have to be able to make predictions that would be true if the idea is real and could prove it false if it isn't real. This is closely tied to falsifiability. If the prediction, made before we know the result, turns out true then we have more reason to believe the idea is true. But if the prediction was likely to come true with other, competing views then it does little to lend support to the idea. This sort of prediction of X happening if there is a god doesn't have a good track record. Can you make one? ("you'll find out when you are dead" isn't observable and thus doesn't cut it. "there will be wars and pestilence if there's sin" doesn't cut it- just about any model of life indicates there will be wars and pestilence.")

Saying that science is complex and comes up with some surprising results won't do it. Got any real evidence that a god exists? or even a good definition for what a god is?

Answer 4

I'm sorry, but you can't simply say that everything you don't know or understand was made by god with no evidence. What does it matter about solids not being solid? Things don't fall through other things because they are levitating on an electrostatic field.

When you sit on a chair, you are not really touching it. You see, every atom is surrounded by a shell of electrons. This electron cloud presents a rather negative face to the world. Remember that like charges repel each other. When two atoms approach each other, their electron shells push back at each other, despite the fact that each atom's net charge is 0. This is a very useful feature of nature. It makes our lives a lot easier.

None of this infers that a god is behind it. It's all explained by science...Physics.

atheist

Answer 5

The observation that quantum behavior is described by mathematical equations does not exactly coincide with the concept that the universe is a "great thought." Furthermore, you have yet to show how the empiracle data we have would lead us to infer that the universe must have come about by intelligent design. However, you did succeed in putting much thought into your argument, and you communicated it quite well. Please continue this process.

Answer 6

I like your theories, John, but, using WordSpin, you gloss over the step you take from belief in stuff we can see and theorise about TO the InvisibleSkyGuy concept.
No matter how you dress it up it still comes out that according to you, and those who agree with you, goddidit - it's the god of the gaps ... which are getting smaller.

You assume an OMNIMAX critter made us and a universe of which we occupy something smaller than a speck.
Why? To worship him? Why? Why does he need adoration? Isn't he perfect already?
But the standard question I like best is: Who made God?
Now you may gloss over SpaceTimeLogicReason but if you want to apply it to 'AtheistTheories' why can't you apply it to yours?

As I said, good attempt, John, but God of the Gaps just doesn't work for people who employ intellect.
Have another crack at it, son.

Answer 7

At least physicists can present evidence for their ideas on atoms and subatomic particles. I can't physically see them, but I accept the evidence presented to believe they exist. Now I need to have evidence the universe was intelligently designed by a supernatural being.

Answer 8

Quantum theoreticals don't matter in the course of day-to-day living. A table is a solid object because that's what we need it to be. If the day comes that I need to pass through tables, I'll shift my concern to the world of quantum particles.

If the day comes that your god belief becomes relevant to my existence, I'll likewise shift my focus to him/her/it.

Answer 9

Please have some respect for others' belief systems. I am not an atheist but I do not presume that I have the last answer in a debate simply because of my beliefs.

Atheists CAN debate to the end of a conversation; they just don't say what you want them to say.

Answer 10

Yes because there own science betrays them.
example if the earth magnet field decreases 50% i believe every year so 4.5 billion years ago it would be as great as a star and nuclear so the earth is only 10,000 or less years old because that as far as it could go with out being nuclear and possible for Life to exist which disprove evolution which the atheist need to believe.
God Bless

Answer 11

Who says the creator is a god and not advance beings. In fact the universe is only what are mind can explain. So in reality there could be absolute nothing and just a fuzzes bumping into each other.