Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
"The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, , not possessing free will."
I believe you're a little mixed-up there. An impersonal force would not be deterministic. You can't get more personal, mechanic, and deterministic then the programming' of "God's Plan", which by it's very nature doesn't advocate for free will.
it is quite simple actually. NO god has proven themself/selves to exist, including the god of the bible which you cling to while being atheistic without cause to all the rest of the gods claimed throughout history, all with scriptures and texts as valid as yours in the scope of history.
the universe is not best explained by the god of the bible as the revelation of the timeline of mankind is so wrong that it can't be believed in any way shape or form. as for the 14.5 billion years of existance of the universe, that is our best understanding of it so far. we learn more every day about the universe and why it is here, but you chose to ignore all evidence that does not say "god" in it. and you claim your intelligence is hurt by me explaining on an emotional level why strong atheism is a valid worldview? my, such arrogance, such hypocracy, such pompousnous! Until you can actually prove that god did it, you will NEVER convince any atheist that your god did it. while you are at it, can you explain why you are so convinced your god did it? you have yet to offer any real proof of such a claim while disregarding all claims to the contrary that can actually be backed up by science. you claim to have scientific basis for your belief in god, well, please.. we are waiting for it! many would accept your god in a heartbeat if you could show 1 piece of real evidence for his existance, but you either can't or won't... not sure which is more hypocritical on your part! have a great day! try not to be so afraid of being wrong, there is nothing bad in admitting you don't know! but continuing to spout lies and myths as 'truth' is much worse!
Wow James! You are just pounding this guy. I love it!
it is quite simple actually. NO god has proven themself/selves to exist
i am getting rather bored when someone starts with this kind of argumentation, and prefere not to respond. its a waste of time to educate the ignorants.
Humm, then we should stop trying to educate you as it's clearly a waste of time, like you pointed out.
Present the best arguments against hinduism being true, and then against sikhism being true, then against islam, then jainism, then buddhism, then scientology, then mormonism, then ancient religions of the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Egyptians, Incas, Mayas, Native Americans.
If you can't then STFU, GTFO & take your bible with you.
If your "god" can be self-existent, and without a cause, why cannot the universe be so as well?
Also, by saying
your rants do not mean ANYTHING to me
you have just shown what kind of a person you are. You are absolutely dishonest about your original question, because when presented with strong logical, psychological and sociological arguments for strong atheism (not to mention a mountain of evidence and reasoning in the posts before this one), you say it doesn't mean anything to you. This can only mean that what you really meant with your original question is that you cannot be convinced due to your bigotry and intellectual dishonesty, but are actually trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong.
Sadly, what you don't understand is that you are right now doing more for strong atheism than many people who actually argue in it's favour, because you are showing the world just how bad it is to be a theist such as yourself.
But still, how is it PROVEN that information requires a mind in order to exist?
we are not talking about information in a general sense, but about codified information, ans a written language, a computer code, and the codified information contained in DNA
Mutation and natural selection would lead to increased information.
That is simply false. A unsupported claim.
It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10^143).
The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Premise 2 is false.
I believe even the most deluded creationist does not deny mutations: pieces in the DNA where the order of bases are changed or new pieces of DNA are inserted, just by something gone wrong somewhere in the copying mechanism (by free radicals, hydrolysis, toxins, radiation or just by coincidence) and consequently go unnoticed by DNA repair mechanisms.
The only condition they pull out of thin air and insist on inserting is that somewhere there is a limit to how much changes are allowed, regardless of the timescales involved, invoking an imagined barrier between two for this purpose invented nonsensical terms: micro and macro-evolution.
But anyway, this change in sequence, changes the encoded information. It might even encode for the synthesis of a new protein, thus erasing information and replacing it with new information creates new information.
Therefore creating new information needs no conscious mind or any other kind of mind, rather toxins or a little bit of radiation prove to be much more effective to accomplish this feat.
I believe even the most deluded creationist does not deny mutations
we are not talking about evolution, but about abiogenesis, and the arise of the first code in DNA.
To your argument it doesn't matter.
But within the framework of the RNA world hypothesis, later DNA was preceded by RNA and simpler forms of RNA. RNA might have been preceded for example by TNA: (L)-a-threofuranosyl oligonucleotides, or other backbones in GNA and PNA hypotheses. These backbones and attaching nucleobases might have been spontaneously generated in a PAH world scenario with exactly the right molecular spacing.
(And yes we were chirally predisposed from the onset.)
the rna world is wishful thinking.
The weight of such problems is so burdensome that I heard the late Leslie Orgel actually say at a scientific conference that "it would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the early Earth."
scientific evidence clearly favours design.
The Case for Intelligent Design
The chemists from Manchester have done a masterful job of identifying a chemical route that could have generated two of the four ribonucleotides, in principle. They also went a long way toward ferreting out the chemical mechanisms that dictate the reaction sequence. But they failed to demonstrate that this chemical pathway possesses geochemical relevance. The conditions required to make the reaction sequence work would not have been present on early Earth.
In fact, these scientists have inadvertently provided direct, empirical evidence that apart from the work of an intelligent agent, this prebiotic chemistry cannot take place in a productive way. If it wasn't for chemists (1) carefully controlling the amounts and purity of the chemical components added to the reaction mixtures; (2) adjusting the reaction conditions, which includes adding the appropriate level of phosphate; and (3) selectively exposing the final reaction products to UV radiation as a way to get rid of unwanted byproducts, the generation of activated ribonucleotides would be impossible.
You found an article hooray.
Did you also click the links the article linked to: Nature news 2009
That would have told you, there is disagreement between different scientific approaches to early life formation, about the chemical pathways at which eventually life would emerge. This author quotes Shapiro a lot, but in his approach he arrives at RNA too. There is not arguing for intelligent design, other than this author does.
His entire argument is that laboratory experiments did not exactly replicate the circumstances on the early earth but that human intelligences tweaked their experimental conditions, which means (to him) another intelligence must have been doing experiments on the early earth tweaking his experimental conditions.