Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 08:47 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Speaking solely for myself, I don't think that a god, as described in most variations of theism, is merely improbable. I think it is impossible in principle.

Why is it that you theists go directly to evolution, as if all atheists are experts on the subject? I recognize that the theory of evolution is one of the most well confirmed theories in science with boatloads of evidence supporting it while the Hypothesis that a god did it all by an act of conscious will not only lacks any objective evidentiary support but is falsified by knowledge at the most fundamental level, the level of the axioms. So we can say with certainty that it is not a possibility.

Only a person who accepts the primacy of consciousness, and all the attendant stolen concepts that go with it, could consider "God did it"a viable explanation.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 08:59 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Well, others have already done a fine job of this, but since I enjoy replying to bad questions about evolution and theism, I'll just jump right in.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Happily! Welcome to TTA. Smile

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

As others have cautioned you, there's really no such thing as "most atheists", since really the only thing we agree on is that the concept of a God, as explained thus far by our fellow human beings, is unlikely to be more than fantasy.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

So we're talking about science, now? I'm not sure what you think that has to do with atheism. You do realize that a huge number of evolutionary biologists are Christians, right? That the guys who came up with the Big Bang Theory and the classification system for the evolutionary "tree of life" still in (slightly modified) use today were both highly religious Christians?

But you're right. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. That's because evolution only works on replicating beings, or as Darwin called it, "descent with modification". So the origin of life is literally outside the question of the Theory of Evolution, which is itself one of the most well-demonstrated ideas in all of science.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Who told you this? Seriously, take about six minutes of your life and Google "the evolution of the eye". A couple of really good websites have already been recommended to you.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What's with the quotation marks? An indication of ironic use?

Mammals are descended from one of the sub-groups of reptiles that have existed since before the time of the dinosaurs, known as the Synapsids.

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, which I recommend you read,

The evolution of mammals has passed through many stages since the first appearance of their synapsid ancestors in the late Carboniferous period. The most ancestral forms in the class Mammalia are the egg-laying mammals in the subclass Prototheria.

And if you think the idea of egg-laying mammals are crazy, I would point out that their still-egg-laying descendants (called Monotremes) exist today, in Australia and New Zealand, where they were not out-competed by their placental cousins. Examples include the platypus and the echidna.

[Image: echidna2.jpg]

Evolution is about branching off from ancestral groups, not necessarily replacing what already works.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened.

Biological entities don't "change into something different", in the sense that you seem to mean it, here. A population will have variations within it, and when there are sub-groups that do not exchange genes with the general population, they can develop new traits that in time cause them to diverge enough from their original planform (usually based on conditions in new environment, but also from the randomness of mutations that crop up in the isolated group and are not shared among the larger group) that the two can no longer interbreed. This process continues with the next species group, and the next, and the next... each level being a "branch" of diversity.

Imagine a tree trunk that branches, and then branches, and then branches again. All lead back to the same trunk, if you trace them back in time. All of them grew millimeter by millimeter along their various paths. It's easy to show you the connections on the branch near us, but harder to show you without climbing back down the tree that the two branches connect, way back. What you're essentially doing is demanding to be shown how to leap from one branch to the other, and denying that the branch we're standing on also leads back to the same trunk that another branch diverges from.

There is no need for a "mechanism" other than the one I described, above. Populations diverge and change with time, often due to the pressures of the environment that make some of them more- or less-likely to survive to pass on offspring. This process is ongoing and everywhere, and there's no magic line at the Genus level that stops the process. The Genus level is a classification we have arbitrarily assigned to groups based on shared characteristics, after the fact.

The "breach" to which you refer is not a thing. We are descended from one type of reptile, and you can look at why we know it's our ancestor on the Berkeley website or any number of actual science websites that cover the subject. Birds are descended from another (the same type as the dinosaurs). The types of reptiles alive today are either from the same group as the dinos or are from an entirely different, third group-- like turtles. It's pretty fascinating stuff, if you look it up.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

Everything is transitional. Every population is having sub-groups that develop new traits which don't get shared with the main group. Every fossil was transitional between what came before and what came after. Every animal alive today (including us) is transitional between what came before and what will come after.

Again, what you're doing is pointing to a far leaf at the end of a distant branch and demanding to show you how to leap from here to that branch. It doesn't work that way.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

"Like begets like" is what evolution says. Your DNA is copied into the next generation. Except they're not exactly like you. Every person has a few unique mutations. Most do nothing to change our phenotype, but occasionally there are negative or positive outcomes from new mutations. Those will change the odds of surviving to pass that gene on into the next generation, so it will either become more common in the gene pool... or less.

If you're curious, there was something that many people believed in the scientific community (and long before), prior to the discovery of genetics, called Lamarckian inheritance, in which they believed that a creature's environment directly influenced that creature to change and thus produce descendants that were also adapted to the environment. This idea has since been totally debunked by genetics. However, the authors of the Bible though that it was true: you can read in Genesis 30 how Jacob (before he was called "Israel") was very clever in putting sticks with color-stripes cut into them in front of his boss Laban's sheep, since he was paid by being allowed to keep any multicolored sheep that was born in the flock, and thereby Jacob became rich enough to become a patriarch of the Israelites. That's a nice story, but it's actually not at all how things work.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It seems that you are willing to remain ignorant (I do not mean offense by this term... it simply means you do not know something) about the actual claims of science, in order to justify your preconceptions to yourself.

This is especially odd in the case of your remarks about evolution, because so many Christians are evolutionary biologists who have no issues with the things we also accept from our scientific understanding of how life on earth operates, in that you clearly consider it "an atheism thing". It's not, and the fact that you think it is tells us how hard you are trying to maintain your magical thinking over testable reality.

I grew up as a Creationist and I became an evolutionary biologist. I was amazed at how much the Creationist organizations outright lie about the claims of science and the statements of scientists. My wife is a Christian but not a Creationist, and is also an evolutionary biologist. If you would like to learn the materials to which we have already pointed you, I would very much enjoy helping you to understand the subject better.

You do your God no favors by deliberately and willfully misunderstanding what we know about the universe. Clinging to the Genesis account as a literal one, as a science book, certainly does the God of Creation no favors, since it ignores the best way to know the handiwork: look at it, and don't lie about it.

Evangelical Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project (and currently in charge of the National Insitutes of Health, one of the largest publishers of scientific literature on the subject of evolution, as well as abiogenesis research) Dr. Francis Collins wrote an excellent book on why we know evolution is true, from DNA alone, and why it does not serve God to deny the truth of the creation. It's called The Language of God. You may find it helpful.

If you don't like to read, I highly recommend the YouTube series "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" by Tony Reed, to which I will link you the first of the videos in the series, below:





(Skip the awful intro graphic... he admits it's terrible and drops it from subsequent videos, after the first few.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-12-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life,...

Others have addressed it but it bears repeating. If you could demonstrate that the theory of evolution by natural selection was completely wrong you would not have made the god claim any more likely. You would need actual evidence FOR the god and not just "what else could it be". All it would mean is that we'd be back to not knowing.

Proving that babies are not brought by storks does not show that they are actually found under cabbage leaves.

I accept evolutionary theory because the evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, and other sciences all supports it. I do not accept that a god exists because there is no evidence that is not fallacious in one way or another.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
28-12-2016, 09:07 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
And now let me comment on the other posts in the thread.

(28-12-2016 06:46 PM)pablo Wrote:  Welcome to TTA.
Good luck.

Indeed! Good luck, and may the Farce be with you.

(28-12-2016 07:05 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Howdy. It's fairly simple really. No scientific evidence of god or any other supernatural force has ever been established.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Stop it. When you say "most atheists" you almost always are incorrect.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  But, this is not what the facts show at all.

Oh?

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

Yes, that falls under abiogenesis. Different topic entirely.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  How does natural selection explain the eye, for example?

Charles Darwin provided the explanation for the eye, and included example of all of the transitory stages, in his original work on evolution. So you are literally more than a century out of date.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

Fossils, taxonomical classification and DNA.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

Bolding mine. This sentence indicates that you are fundamentally misunderstanding evolution and how it works.

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

I suggest: Berkley - Understanding Evolution

(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

This the same bible that claims that bats are birds?
...that claims that plants came on the third day and the sun the fourth?
...that claims that woman was made from man's rib?


(28-12-2016 04:19 PM)Yadayadayada Wrote:  It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It seems that you need to read your bible and a number of scientific textbooks before telling us what the evidence supports.

....... yeah, okay, I'm redundant. Good show, FBH.

(28-12-2016 07:55 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Yadayadayada, welcome to TTA.

Now, if it's not too much trouble, could you kindly return to Atheist Forums where you had earlier posted a thread identical to this one, and actually hold a conversation with the people there?

Oooooh. Spamming's a bannable offense.

... but it's his first offense, so he'll probably only get a warning.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
28-12-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
Reltzik, I think you misunderstood what you read. Mammals do come from reptiles... just not the modern type of reptile.

Modern reptiles and mammals do not come from the same line, but our ancestors certainly were reptiles. Just a completely different type of reptile. Our reptilian ancestors were cousins of the ancestors of modern reptiles, so to speak.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-12-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 09:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Modern reptiles and mammals do not come from the same line, but our ancestors certainly were reptiles. Just a completely different type of reptile. Our reptilian ancestors were cousins of the ancestors of modern reptiles, so to speak.

Quibble: Go back just a little further and we and modern reptiles do come from a common ancestor that may have been quite reptilian.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-12-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 09:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Reltzik, I think you misunderstood what you read. Mammals do come from reptiles... just not the modern type of reptile.

Modern reptiles and mammals do not come from the same line, but our ancestors certainly were reptiles. Just a completely different type of reptile. Our reptilian ancestors were cousins of the ancestors of modern reptiles, so to speak.

Huh. Okay, that's what I thought, but then I read something phrased the other way, and I figured maybe the point of divergence was a bit further back.

Anyhoo, thanks for setting me straight on that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 09:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Modern reptiles and mammals do not come from the same line, but our ancestors certainly were reptiles. Just a completely different type of reptile. Our reptilian ancestors were cousins of the ancestors of modern reptiles, so to speak.

Quibble: Go back just a little further and we and modern reptiles do come from a common ancestor that may have been quite reptilian.

Indeed. I've been sitting here, vacillating on whether or not to go back and Edit to Add a disclaimer to that effect. I was simply talking about the split between anapsids, diapsids, and synapsids.

That's the whole problem with discussing it in terms of the modern descriptions... I mean, we're all (every vertebrate) descended from a pentadactyl fish, if you want to keep going back.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 09:26 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 09:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Reltzik, I think you misunderstood what you read. Mammals do come from reptiles... just not the modern type of reptile.

Modern reptiles and mammals do not come from the same line, but our ancestors certainly were reptiles. Just a completely different type of reptile. Our reptilian ancestors were cousins of the ancestors of modern reptiles, so to speak.

Huh. Okay, that's what I thought, but then I read something phrased the other way, and I figured maybe the point of divergence was a bit further back.

Anyhoo, thanks for setting me straight on that.

It is further back. That's why I phrased my reply the way I did. You're quite right to say that we're not descendants of the type of reptile that modern reptiles come from... but as Chas pointed out, the ancestor of THOSE sub-types of reptiles was kinda proto-reptilian, and we would indeed share that ancestor. Depends on where you want to draw that dividing line. As I pointed out to Chas, in reply, we all descend from a lobe-finned subtype of fish that had bones laid out in the pattern that would make us have five fingers (and all the other bones of our arms/legs), which is why that pattern is shared among all vertebrates.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 10:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely
(28-12-2016 09:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 09:26 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Huh. Okay, that's what I thought, but then I read something phrased the other way, and I figured maybe the point of divergence was a bit further back.

Anyhoo, thanks for setting me straight on that.

It is further back. That's why I phrased my reply the way I did. You're quite right to say that we're not descendants of the type of reptile that modern reptiles come from... but as Chas pointed out, the ancestor of THOSE sub-types of reptiles was kinda proto-reptilian, and we would indeed share that ancestor. Depends on where you want to draw that dividing line. As I pointed out to Chas, in reply, we all descend from a lobe-finned subtype of fish that had bones laid out in the pattern that would make us have five fingers (and all the other bones of our arms/legs), which is why that pattern is shared among all vertebrates.

Okay, I feel like less than a doofus now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: