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.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

You're asking for proof again when I've already explained that science doesn't operate that way. Otherwise, I could just as easily turn your own argument against you and ask if you've been shown an intelligent designer creating the first self-replicating single-celled biological organism from non-living components to know the first life on Earth was intelligently designed. Since it is probably safe to presume that you haven't observed an intelligent designer creating single-celled biological life from non-living components and I haven't observed a single-celled organism naturally evolve from non-living components, the best we can do is try and develop falsifiable hypotheses for those possible explanations and test them. We already know that scientists are currently in the process of testing a variety of falsifiable hypotheses for abiogenesis to know if they are false. What experiments are intelligent design advocates conducting to try and falsify the claim that the first life on Earth was intelligently designed?

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.

Again, what would be a falsifiable and testable hypothesis for your claim that the first life on Earth was intelligently designed? The testable predictions for biogenesis you are referring to only apply to the claim that existing life produces more life and not to the origin of the first living biological organism. No reputable scientists disagree that, after the first living biological cell came to exist on this planet, the laws of physics and chemistry were sufficient on their own to explain how this biological organism would have been able to self-replicate to produce more living cells. What we need is an explanation for how that first single-celled self-replicating biological organism came to exist and a way to know if that explanation is false. If we don't have a way to know which of the competing explanations is false, then we don't have an explanation.

[2timothy316]

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.

You're asking for proof again when I've already explained that science doesn't operate that way.

I do. The title of the thread is not what convinces science.

[bluegreenearth]

You're asking for proof again when I've already explained that science doesn't operate that way.

I do. The title of the thread is not what convinces science.

If someone could demonstrate that asking for "proof" is an unreliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

[2timothy316]

You're asking for proof again when I've already explained that science doesn't operate that way.

I do. The title of the thread is not what convinces science.

If someone could demonstrate that asking for "proof" is an unreliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

To demonstrate that proof can't be trust would require proof. If I can't trust proof then I can't trust the proof that proof is unreliable. You're describing a paradox that can't exist.

[2timothy316]

Otherwise, I could just as easily turn your own argument against you and ask if you've been shown an intelligent designer creating the first self-replicating single-celled biological organism from non-living components to know the first life on Earth was intelligently designed. Since it is probably safe to presume that you haven't observed an intelligent designer creating single-celled biological life from non-living components and I haven't observed a single-celled organism naturally evolve from non-living components, the best we can do is try and develop falsifiable hypotheses for those possible explanations and test them. We already know that scientists are currently in the process of testing a variety of falsifiable hypotheses for abiogenesis to know if they are false. What experiments are intelligent design advocates conducting to try and falsify the claim that the first life on Earth was intelligently designed?

We are using abductive reasoning right? Every living thing I know of comes from a living thing. We know of nothing living that comes from a non-living thing. Then what else would I chose as the 'most likely answer' but the first living cell was made from another living thing? It makes no sense to think the opposite, unless you have an example of something living coming from something non-living. If I saw this, then I would 'know' about it and then I could use in my abductive reasoning to think that abiogenesis as a likely answer.

[bluegreenearth]

If someone could demonstrate that asking for "proof" is an unreliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

To demonstrate that proof can't be trust would require proof. If I can't trust proof then I can't trust the proof that proof is unreliable. You're describing a paradox that can't exist.

Pardon my use of colloquial language. What I should have asked is that if someone could falsify the claim that asking for proof was a reliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

[2timothy316]

If someone could demonstrate that asking for "proof" is an unreliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

To demonstrate that proof can't be trust would require proof. If I can't trust proof then I can't trust the proof that proof is unreliable. You're describing a paradox that can't exist.

Pardon my use of colloquial language. What I should have asked is that if someone could falsify the claim that asking for proof was a reliable method for acquiring knowledge, would that cause you to change or update your epistemology?

I can't know what I would do as I see no way I could ever trust the proof given in order to not to trust proof. Kind of like what is happening in Georgia right now. The POTUS says elections are rigged but at the same time telling people to go out and vote.....

Should I trust the proof I asked for to show me that asking for proof was unreliable if asking for proof isn't reliable. Should I be asking for the opposite of proof? Should I be asking only for conjecture or lies? Should I be gullible and just accept whatever I'm told? Do you and I have a difference in the definition of proof?

[bluegreenearth]

We are using abductive reasoning right? Every living thing I know of comes from a living thing. We know of nothing living that comes from a non-living thing. Then what else would I chose as the 'most likely answer' but the first living cell was made from another living thing? It makes no sense to think the opposite, unless you have an example of something living coming from something non-living. If I saw this, then I would 'know' about it and then I could use in my abductive reasoning to think that abiogenesis as a likely answer.

I understand why such reasoning might seem compelling, but it doesn't account for the fact that the question of how the first life came to exist is a completely different question from how life continues to exist. The answer to the ladder question does not necessary apply to the former question. Therefore, how is your abductive inference reasonably justified at this point?

Once again, you need to develop and test a falsifiable intelligent design hypothesis in order for it have any explanatory value. Otherwise, all you have is an unfalsifiable claim with no reasonable method by which to know if it is false or not. Since you cannot know if your intelligent design claim is false or not, how useful is it as an explanation when any other unfalsifiable explanation could serve in an equivalent capacity?

[2timothy316]

We are using abductive reasoning right? Every living thing I know of comes from a living thing. We know of nothing living that comes from a non-living thing. Then what else would I chose as the 'most likely answer' but the first living cell was made from another living thing? It makes no sense to think the opposite, unless you have an example of something living coming from something non-living. If I saw this, then I would 'know' about it and then I could use in my abductive reasoning to think that abiogenesis as a likely answer.

I understand why such reasoning might seem compelling, but it doesn't account for the fact that the question of how the first life came to exist is a completely different question from how life continues to exist. The answer to the ladder question does not necessary apply to the former question. Therefore, how is your abductive inference reasonably justified at this point?

Yet how life continues is the mostly likely answer to how it started. Remember, we are looking for the most likely answer correct since neither one of us where there at the start of life. If there was an instance of abiogenesis to examine then that would be a good reason to make abiogenesis as a candidate for a likely answer. Why trash the compelling reasoning for anything else?

Once again, you need to develop and test a falsifiable intelligent design hypothesis in order for it have any explanatory value. Otherwise, all you have is an unfalsifiable claim with no reasonable method by which to know if it is false or not. Since you cannot know if your intelligent design claim is false or not, how useful is it as an explanation when any other unfalsifiable explanation could serve in an equivalent capacity?

I have abductive reasoning right? Or should that be abandoned now as a reasonable methoed? It's not about what using what I know to fill in the blanks for you what you and I were not there to witness at the beginning of life. I do use what I know to fill in the blanks for me. What I know is that there are examples of biogenesis and there are no examples of abiogenesis. Based on what I know, I have no reason to conclude that the first life-form was through abiogenesis then the best answer is biogenesis. This points to an intelligence for the first lifeform. To have me change that conclusion I'd need an example of abiogenesis.

[bluegreenearth]

Do you and I have a difference in the definition of proof?

The following thought experiment will falsify the notion of "seeking proof" as a reliable method for acquiring knowledge:

Imagine a volunteer in an experiment is asked to sit behind a writing desk with a lamp that appears to be plugged into one of the walls inside a windowless room. The lamp is not on at the moment, but the overhead light is bright enough for the person to see perfectly. The person is then asked to complete some kind of written survey as part of the experiment. After the first few minutes, the overhead light flickers a bit before the room goes completely dark. The person decides to turn the lamp on in order to see well enough to complete the written assignment. After a few minutes, the lamp flickers a bit before the room goes completely dark again. The person pulls the lamp switch once but nothing happens. However, after the switch is pulled a second time, the lamp turns back on. So, the person continues to fill out the survey. A few more minutes go by before the lamp flickers again and turns off a second time. Of course, the person pulls the switch two more times to observe the lamp turn on again just as it did previously. Just to be sure, the person attempts to screw down the light bulb into its socket more securely in case that might be what is causing the light to keep going out. Sure enough, the light bulb was just a little bit loose. So, the volunteer screws the light bulb into the socket more securely and immediately observes it functioning again.

What the volunteer doesn't realize is that the experimenter has been watching the room through a hidden camera and has control of the overhead light and the lamp. The experimenter eventually enters the room and asks the volunteer to provide an explanation for why the lamp kept going out and to provide proof for that claim. The volunteer indicated that the loose light bulb explains why the lamp kept going out. As for the proof, observing that the lamp immediately functioned again after the bulb was tightened was the proof the volunteer provided. In reality, the lamp was deliberately setup with a slightly loose light bulb but not loose enough to cause the malfunction, and the lamp switch the volunteer was pulling didn't actually function at all. The lamp was being turned on and off with a remote switch operated by the experimenter who was watching the volunteer through a hidden camera. When the experimenter turned on the lamp immediately after observing the volunteer pull the non-functioning lamp switch two times and immediately after observing the volunteer tighten the light bulb, the volunteer perceived the experience of observing the light turn on as proof for the claim that the switch was functioning but the light bulb was not fully tightened in its socket resulting in a malfunction.

If the experimenter doesn't reveal to the volunteer how the lamp was actually being controlled from another room, the volunteer would continue to falsely believe that two pulls of the lamp switch would cause the light to come on and believe the loose light bulb was responsible for the lamp turning off unexpectedly. The only way the volunteer could figure out the lamp switch doesn't work or discover the loose light bulb was not the cause of the lamp turning off unexpectedly would be to try and disprove those hypotheses. For instance, the volunteer could attempt to operate the lamp while the experimenter was in the room to discover the lamp switch wouldn't turn it off or on. Also, when the experimenter is not in the room with the volunteer, the volunteer could observe the lamp turn off again despite the light bulb being screwed all the way into its socket. Sure, it is possible the volunteer might not figure out the lamp was being controlled by the experimenter until the scenario is eventually revealed at the end of the experiment, but at least the volunteer would have an opportunity to discover where the loose light bulb explanation isn't correct by attempting to falsify that claim. Instead, the volunteer's attempt to prove the presumed explanation was correct is what allowed the volunteer to fall victim to confirmation bias in that experiment and arrive at false belief.