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]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #61]

Thank you for providing a clarification.

So, is it your position that all inductive and abductive inferences are myths or just abiogenesis?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #61]

Thank you for providing a clarification.

So, is it your position that all inductive and abductive inferences are myths or just abiogenesis?

Much like the fountain of youth. People believed that fountain existed. They followed clue after clue of what seemed was supplying them evidence that the fountain existed. The problem was they didn't treat the search like an unbiased investigation. They treated it as something they NEEDED to be true for whatever their reason. So they searched like it was real. When a person NEEDS something to be true they will find sorts of inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are useful but they are the means to an end in an investigation. Not the end of the means.

Biogenesis is a tangible provable fact in the natural world. A truth
Abiogenesis is unproven, has never been seen in the natural world and only lives in the imagination of people. A myth.

I don't NEED either one to be true. What I NEED is the truth wherever it is.The more I investigated abiogenesis and how complex it is for scientist to create a life from nothing I suddenly realized, that an intelligent life was trying to create life. It was like a bell went off in my head. The answer was right in front of my face. Which then left looking for my next lead in my investigation for what is true. That was the moment the scales tipped toward biogenesis as the explanation for the first life form in the universe and I abandoned abiogenesis as a myth. The efforts of scientist (an intelligence) trying to make life to prove there was no intelligent creator was my 'ah ha' moment. The more effort scientist put is more intelligence poured the project which adds more evidence of biogenesis. To think their efforts are giving evidence to abiogenesis is clearly not following an unbiased investigation for truth but looking for what they NEED to support their belief.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #63]

The content of your post can be interpreted to suggest that you have a misinformed perspective on the scientific method. The concern you've expressed about bias and the need to support a belief does not appear to be applicable to the scientific method. Another theist expressed a similar concern in a different thread, and my response is provided below:

Proper scientific investigations use methods that enable people to distinguish imaginary things from real things and mitigate for confirmation bias by attempting to disprove proposed hypotheses. This is accomplished by using the imagined hypotheses to make novel testable predictions. Then, when the novel testable predictions are observed to be correct, scientists can reasonably infer that these falsifiable hypotheses are describing things that actually occur in reality and aren't just referring to things that only exists in their imaginations. Otherwise, if the novel testable predictions made by these hypotheses are observed to be incorrect, then scientists can infer that the proposed explanations could have only been describing imaginary things.

For example, people can propose a hypothesis that imagines a racoon was responsible for knocking over the garbage can in the alleyway. Did a racoon actually knock over the garbage can or is this racoon only imaginary? To find out, they could make a novel testable prediction that recorded video from the closed-circuit television camera overlooking the alleyway will contain footage of a racoon knocking over the garbage can last night. If these people review the video footage to find their prediction was correct, then they can infer that the racoon hypothesis corresponds to reality and wasn't just describing an imaginary racoon. However, if the video footage reveals a cat knocking over the garbage can, then these people can infer from their failed prediction that the hypothesized racoon was only imaginary.

Things become a bit more complicated if the proposed hypothesis is unfalsifiable. For instance, people could hypothesize that an invisible demon knocked over the garbage can last night. Did an invisible demon actually knock over the garbage can or is this invisible demon only imaginary? To try and find out, they could attempt to make the prediction that recorded video from the closed-circuit television camera will feature the garbage can being knocked over by an invisible demon. However, how could they rule-out the possibility that a strong gust of wind was responsible for knocking over the garbage can? Both the demon and a strong gust of wind are proposed invisible forces with the capability of knocking over the garbage can. The video evidence could potentially support both hypotheses because a strong gust of wind would be indistinguishable from an invisible demon in its effect on the garbage can.

So, which hypothesis is more reasonable to believe? Well, the strong wind hypothesis is at least falsifiable because it makes a novel testable prediction that the garbage can will be knocked over when placed in a wind tunnel simulating the wind gust speeds recorded in the meteorological data from last night. If the experiment confirms the accuracy of their prediction, would this evidence conclusively prove a strong gust of wind was responsible for knocking over the particular garbage can in the alleyway last night and rule-out the invisible demon hypothesis? No, it is still logically possible for an invisible demon to have knocked over the garbage can before a strong gust of wind could do it. However, it is more reasonable to accept the strong gust of wind hypothesis as the primary candidate explanation because it made a novel testable prediction that was subsequently demonstrated to be accurate.

On the other hand, if the garbage can remained upright in the wind tunnel experiment, the prediction made by the hypothesis will have failed and ruled-out a strong gust of wind as a candidate explanation. Would that mean the invisible demon hypothesis becomes the most reasonable explanation? Not exactly. How could they rule-out the possibility that a mischievous extra-terrestrial alien in a spaceship hovering in the sky above the alleyway used an invisible force field to knock over the garbage can? An extra-terrestrial invisible force field would be indistinguishable from an invisible demon in its proposed effects on the garbage can. In fact, how could they rule-out any of a potential infinite number of other invisible supernatural explanations or any yet to be discovered natural explanations? Even if they could rule-out the extra-terrestrial hypothesis and other proposed explanations, how could they determine if the invisible demon claim is describing something that exists in reality or is strictly imaginary?

The invisible demon hypothesis will still have to make a novel testable prediction such that a failed prediction would rule it out as a candidate explanation and a confirmed prediction would not have already been achieved by another hypothesis. If the invisible demon hypothesis makes a prediction that has already been successfully made by another hypothesis, then it wouldn't be making a novel prediction. Otherwise, it will be impossible to infer that the invisible demon explanation imagined by the hypothesis actually occurs in reality because it doesn't rule-out the competing explanation. For instance, if the hypothesis predicts the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning because it imagines invisible demons are pushing the Earth around its axis, then observing the sun rising in the east the next morning would not demonstrate that it is more reasonable to infer the existence of invisible demons than to infer the existence of the physical forces hypothesized by Newtonian Physics. Instead, the invisible demon explanation would be a post-hoc rationalization designed to reinforce the a-priori conclusion that invisible demons actually exist and aren't just imaginary. Conversely, if the hypothesis predicts the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning because invisible demons are expected to reverse the rotation of the planet, then observing the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning would not only falsify the hypotheses of Newtonian Physics but demonstrate that the imagined invisible demon explanation is describing something which can be reasonably inferred to exist in reality.

Do creationist hypotheses satisfy the criteria described above for them to be considered the most reasonable explanations or are they post-hoc rationalizations designed to reinforce their a-priori conclusion that creationism is true?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #63]

The content of your post can be interpreted to suggest that you have a misinformed perspective on the scientific method.

If you like other people to respond to your post how about not starting off sounding condescending.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #63]

The content of your post can be interpreted to suggest that you have a misinformed perspective on the scientific method.

If you like other people to respond to your post how about not starting off sounding condescending.

Condescension was not intended, and I am open to considering a suggestion on how to have worded my comment more appropriately.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #63]

The content of your post can be interpreted to suggest that you have a misinformed perspective on the scientific method.

If you like other people to respond to your post how about not starting off sounding condescending.

Condescension was not intended, and I am open to considering a suggestion on how to have worded my comment more appropriately.

I'd recommend stop telling people how misinformed they are, as that makes you seem that you are trying make yourself their superior and whatever I say should be dismissed, which doesn't give me much incentive to reply or even read your posts.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #67]

Understood. In my defense, the phrase "can be interpreted to suggest" implies it is not necessarily the case that you are misinformed. However, it is a fact that the scientific method is deliberately designed to mitigate for the biases you are concerned about.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #67]

Understood. In my defense, the phrase "can be interpreted to suggest" implies it is not necessarily the case that you are misinformed. However, it is a fact that the scientific method is deliberately designed to mitigate for the biases you are concerned about.

I wish the scientific method mitigated biases but it doesn't. I know of atheists that hang their whole belief that abiogenesis as a fact of nature though it has never been measured in nature. Many seem to think that making a new life from non-living material will prove there is was no intelligent creator. It doesn't and it would be nice for people that say they really understand the scientific method understood that if scientist do make a life form nothing, it doesn't prove there is no intelligent creator. The purpose of the experiments is not to prove there is no intelligent creator. It just proves how it was done. There is only one thing that can prove abiogenesis and that is a living cell coming from nothing without the scientific method. Do you understand that? A person making a cell doesn't prove abiogenesis and that is not what they are trying to prove.

Even if scientist do make a life form from nothing that will not change my current beliefs. It actually shouldn't change anyone's beliefs or be the start someone's beliefs.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #69]

I understand your point. Technically, creating life from non-life in the laboratory would not prove abiogenesis occurred billions of years ago or disprove the intelligent design hypothesis. However, that is not the logic being applied by the scientists who are searching for the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life on Earth. If the scientific experiment is to replicate the natural conditions they predict would have existed billions of years ago for life to have naturally emerged from non-life at that time, then the emergence of life from non-life in the experiment would demonstrate their novel testable prediction was accurate. As such, the scientists would then know their abiogenesis hypothesis wasn't just something that only existed in their imaginations but could be reasonably abductively inferred to have occurred in reality billions of years ago when the natural conditions were the same as those replicated in the laboratory.

Would such a result prove abiogenesis did occur billions of years ago and disprove the claim that an intelligent designer was responsible for creating life from non-life on the primordial Earth? No. It would only demonstrate an intelligent designer was not necessary for life to emerge from non-life if the natural conditions replicated in the laboratory could be reasonably inferred to have also existed somewhere on Earth billions of years ago. Since scientists have already achieved partial success by accurately predicting RNA would emerge on clay under a certain combination of natural conditions, it is reasonable at this point to abductively infer that DNA eventually evolved from the natural emergence of RNA. I'll grant that the natural emergence of DNA from RNA has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory for us to know if that proposed explanation is only describing an imaginary process or something that could actually occur in reality under natural conditions, but scientists are continuing their efforts to determine if that hypothesis is false.

Once again, despite the vernacular descriptions of scientists attempting to "prove" abiogenesis is true, the scientists are really attempting to disprove the claim that it is possible for life to emerge from non-life under predicted sets of natural conditions they've determined were likely available somewhere on this planet billions of years ago. When different combinations of these naturally occurring conditions are replicated in the laboratory but subsequently fail to demonstrate the emergence of life from non-life under those specific sets of natural conditions, scientists rule-out these hypotheses as having described processes that were only imagined but not reproduceable in reality. Meanwhile, there remains numerous other combinations of naturally occurring conditions that scientists have yet to test that could possibly allow for the emergence of life from non-life in the laboratory. So, it would be premature to rule-out abiogenesis or prefer the intelligent design hypothesis as the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life at this point.

Now, if someone were to predict biological life would emerge from a set of conditions that could not possibly occur naturally and conduct such an experiment to demonstrate the emergence of biological life from those intelligently designed conditions, the results would serve as a reasonable justification to abductively infer an intelligent designer could have been responsible for the existence of life on Earth. However, for the same logic described earlier, this wouldn't prove an intelligent designer did create life on this planet billions of years ago or disprove the abiogenesis hypothesis. Nevertheless, if that experiment were to successfully demonstrate the creation of life under conditions that couldn't have also occurred naturally, it would validate the intelligent design hypothesis as a legitimate scientific possibility. Unfortunately for intelligent design advocates, their hypothesis has yet to make any novel testable predictions that can be tested for us to know if their imagined explanation is describing something that could actually occur in reality or not. As such, every intelligent design argument I've encountered thus far has been nothing beyond post-hoc rationalizations designed to support what they already believe.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #70]

The way I see it, atheists and theists are on an investigation. The leads available, no matter what they are, are up for interpretation. Which direction should a person take in their investigation?
My answer: Both! If they want truth.

I have spent over a dozen years on the trail looking for proof on abiogenesis. Because with abiogenesis there would be at least more to the investigation leading toward no intelligent creator. Yet the evidence of that is not compelling enough to keep barking up that tree. I don't know how long you've been following the abiogenesis investigation but in my experience, whatever headway you think they have, there is an extremely high chance that abigenesis is impossible. The term 'partial success' made me laugh, it's like saying a person is partially pregnant. Get ready for more 'partial success' from the abiogenesis scientist.

Cell creation is only one problem for the first life coming from abiogenesis. The conditions for abiogenesis to happen are the first problem. Water needs to be present yes but here's the catch, without living cells like phytoplankton in the earth's water to absorb most of the Sun's light we wouldn't have liquid water on Earth. We have heard the term, "all life needs water". Yet, "all liquid water exposed to the Sun needs life" is true as well. This means that life and liquid water had to appear very close to the same time. Then, that one better get to work multiplying ASAP. That's if the first cell to appear used sunlight to produce food. Because if the first abiogenesis cell didn't use sunlight to make food, well then it better evolve fast into one that does, otherwise bye bye life. Abiogenesis would need to happen really fast before the planet ends up more like Mars. The odds that abiogenesis happened are hard enough to comprehend, but add that it must happen in a relative tiny time window and be the right kind of cell boggles the mind.

So when your RNA in clay turns into phytoplankton by itself let me know. Until then, my investigation into abiogenesis is closed.