Former Atheists - What convinced you?

[rikuoamero]

What I'm writing here is for those people who consider themselves to be former atheist i.e. at one point in life, they either lacked a belief in a god of any kind, or actively disbelieved there is a God (there's a difference between the two).
I'm hoping that at least some people who are of this group (and hopefully joined the usergroup called 'Former Atheist' on this site) are/were also skeptical, in that they demanded evidence for religious claims.

My question is - What is it that convinced you? If you were to somehow go back in time and meet your previous, atheist (hopefully skeptic) self, would you or could you use whatever it is that convinced you to convince that version of you? Or would your past self be skeptical and dismissive of what it is you present?

Just to be clear - This isn't restricted to Christians only. You can be a Muslim who considers him/herself former atheist or whatever religion or belief you subscribe to. I want to hear from you.
I also promise NOT to debate in this thread. All I want are responses and your thoughts on this question. I will probably debate elsewhere, but not on this thread. This thread is solely for me to gather information.

[2timothy316]

When do you think this happened, before or after the GOE? And how much do you think it removed in parts per million in the atmosphere?

It had to begin as soon as the calcium-rich rocks solidified on the continental crust, and the process continued through the GOE and continues today. As for how much CO2 it removes from the atmosphere in parts per million, I'll see if anyone has attempted to estimate that number and get back with you.

I don't think it would have taken out much as the early Earth would need a high consideration of co2 to stay really warm to keep all water liquid. The polar ice caps didn't form for another 2.5 billions years after earth's atmosphere started to form.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #112]

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/co ... phere.html

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #112]

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/co ... phere.html

This study suggests that plant life picked up where photodissociation left off. If this is true, then this further emphasizes my point that blue green algae life sure did pick a really crucial time to show up as photodissociation was clearly not enough, otherwise the oxidation of iron would have happened sooner. Thanks to these first photosynthetic lifeforms, they were able to keep Earth from becoming like either Venus or Mars. I can't accept that abiogenesis happened accidentally at this critical point in Earth's history. To think that it did, is just as an absurd notion like if someone told me they got stranded on an island and found a satellite phone there, only to be told that the phone was made by no one. I'd call shenanigans.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #112]

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/co ... phere.html

This study suggests that plant life picked up where photodissociation left off. If this is true, then this further emphasizes my point that blue green algae life sure did pick a really crucial time to show up as photodissociation was clearly not enough, otherwise the oxidation of iron would have happened sooner. Thanks to these first photosynthetic lifeforms, they were able to keep Earth from becoming like either Venus or Mars. I can't accept that abiogenesis happened accidentally at this critical point in Earth's history. To think that it did, is just as an absurd notion like if someone told me they got stranded on an island and found a satellite phone there, only to be told that the phone was made by no one. I'd call shenanigans.

Argument From Incredulity

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #112]

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/co ... phere.html

This study suggests that plant life picked up where photodissociation left off. If this is true, then this further emphasizes my point that blue green algae life sure did pick a really crucial time to show up as photodissociation was clearly not enough, otherwise the oxidation of iron would have happened sooner. Thanks to these first photosynthetic lifeforms, they were able to keep Earth from becoming like either Venus or Mars. I can't accept that abiogenesis happened accidentally at this critical point in Earth's history. To think that it did, is just as an absurd notion like if someone told me they got stranded on an island and found a satellite phone there, only to be told that the phone was made by no one. I'd call shenanigans.

Argument From Incredulity

The pot calling the kettle black. As you find it difficult to imagine there is a God based on personal belief.

No proof of abiogenesis is at least something in the way of evidence of creation through biogensis only. Atheist believe in abiogenesis and don't have the proof. Yet they claim they must have proof of something in order for something to be true. That's an oxymoron. And if you say different than who is making an Argument From Incredulity.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #112]

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/co ... phere.html

This study suggests that plant life picked up where photodissociation left off. If this is true, then this further emphasizes my point that blue green algae life sure did pick a really crucial time to show up as photodissociation was clearly not enough, otherwise the oxidation of iron would have happened sooner. Thanks to these first photosynthetic lifeforms, they were able to keep Earth from becoming like either Venus or Mars. I can't accept that abiogenesis happened accidentally at this critical point in Earth's history. To think that it did, is just as an absurd notion like if someone told me they got stranded on an island and found a satellite phone there, only to be told that the phone was made by no one. I'd call shenanigans.

Argument From Incredulity

The pot calling the kettle black. As you find it difficult to imagine there is a God based on personal belief.

I never claimed it was difficult to imagine a God exists. In fact, it is quite easy to imagine a God exists.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that your last post contained an argument from incredulity.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #117]

Do you think life came about from abiogensis? If so then is an Argument From Incredulity.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #117]

Do you think life came about from abiogensis?

It is one possibility that hasn't been ruled-out yet and seems to be a reasonable abductive inference. However, I will defer to the consensus of experts since I'm not one of them.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #117]

Do you think life came about from abiogensis? If so then is an Argument From Incredulity.

No. It is an abductive inference. An argument from incredulity would be like if I claimed abiogenesis was true because I couldn't imagine or understand how life could have emerged through any other means. However, I'm not claiming that at all and acknowledge the possibility of life being intelligently designed. I just don't currently accept the intelligent design hypothesis because it doesn't make any novel testable predictions for us to know if it is false or not. At least with the abiogenesis hypothesis, scientists are continuing to develop and conduct experiments to try and determine if it is false.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #117]

Do you think life came about from abiogensis? If so then is an Argument From Incredulity.

No. It is an abductive inference. An argument from incredulity would be like if I claimed abiogenesis was true because I couldn't imagine or understand how life could have emerged through any other means.

Yet I don't come to the my conclusion because I can't imagine anything else, I come to my conclusion because there IS nothing else. All life we see comes from something else living. This is not my imagination. Show me abiogensis happening in front of my face then then you will have something. Until then, the only option is biogenesis.

However, I'm not claiming that at all and acknowledge the possibility of life being intelligently designed. I just don't currently accept the intelligent design hypothesis because it doesn't make any novel testable predictions for us to know if it is false or not. At least with the abiogenesis hypothesis, scientists are continuing to develop and conduct experiments to try and determine if it is false.

Yet intelligent creation happens every day. Every time an egg is fertilized in a living creature's womb this is evidence of something intelligent making a new life or at the least biogensis. Something living coming from something living. Biogenesis has testable predictions to tell us if it's false or not. What we don't have is a single successful example of abiogenesis. Yet so many think it's true. It's not an abductive inference to believe in abiogenesis. It is quite the opposite when there are no examples of life coming from non-living and all the examples are of life coming from something living. The abductive inference would be that the first life of this universe came from something living.