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]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #101]

Is this what you think happened to produce the GOE? Think real carefully before you answer because Venus is considered to be in the habital zone where liquid water was likely there at one time. Yet what you are describing didn't happen on Venus.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #101]

Is this what you think happened to produce the GOE? Think real carefully before you answer because Venus is considered to be in the habital zone where liquid water was likely there at one time. Yet what you are describing didn't happen on Venus.

No, the process I described is how CO2 in the early atmosphere was naturally reduced to prevent the greenhouse effect. The GOE was the result of O2 producing organisms.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #103]

Then what stopped Earth from becoming like Venus? While what you suggest might have happened, and let's say that it did balance the Earth for short time, that process can't just keep going and going. Something would have had to have changed otherwise the acid rain would be out of control and we are back to a Venus-like planet.

Would you agree that the GOE is the reason Earth is not like Venus?

[bluegreenearth]

Then what stopped Earth from becoming like Venus? While what you suggest might have happened, and let's say that it did balance the Earth for short time, that process can't just keep going and going. Something would have had to have changed otherwise the acid rain would be out of control and we are back to a Venus-like planet.

Would you agree that the GOE is the reason Earth is not like Venus?

The formation of carbonate rocks extracted a sufficient amount of CO2 from the early atmosphere to lower the temperature. Lower temperatures in the atmosphere reduced the evaporation rate of water. Less water vapor condensing in the atmosphere reduced the number of rain events. Furthermore, because there was less CO2 in the atmosphere, the rain events that did occur were less acidic. This naturally occurring process and the GOE prevented Earth from becoming like Venus.

[2timothy316]

This naturally occurring process and the GOE prevented Earth from becoming like Venus.

I agree that the GOE was the key to Earth's success as a living planet. Perhaps the process you describe did remove some co2, yet it would be insufficient for liquid water to stick around over a long period of time with no GOE. Thus why I say, no life without liquid water and no liquid water without life. Our atmosphere and photosynthetic life on Earth started off in a symbiotic relationship and they are still in that relationship. As we find out everyday as our weather gets crazy from year to year due the co2 build up in it. The odds of life coming at such a crucial time and being the right kind of life is mind blowing. Which leads us back to abiogenesis being so unlikely because of the odds of it happening on the right planet, with its right size moon, the right tilt, the right distance from the Sun, at the right atmospheric time and being the right kind of life is a number than can't be written down. Those odds do not include chances of the abiogenic cell happening in the first place. You add all of these 'chance odds' together, at what point do the odds become so great of some certain thing happening that we say its impossible?

[bluegreenearth]

I agree that the GOE was the key to Earth's success as a living planet. Perhaps the process you describe did remove some co2, yet it would be insufficient for liquid water to stick around over a long period of time with no GOE. Thus why I say, no life without liquid water and no liquid water without life. Our atmosphere and photosynthetic life on Earth started off in a symbiotic relationship and they are still in that relationship. As we find out everyday as our weather gets crazy from year to year due the co2 build up in it. The odds of life coming at such a crucial time and being the right kind of life is mind blowing. Which leads us back to abiogenesis being so unlikely because of the odds of it happening on the right planet, with its right size moon, the right tilt, the right distance from the Sun, at the right atmospheric time and being the right kind of life is a number than can't be written down. Those odds do not include chances of the abiogenic cell happening in the first place. You add all of these 'chance odds' together, at what point do the odds become so great of some certain thing happening that we say its impossible?

I'm not aware of any evidence that would disprove the hypothesis that the process of scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere through the formation and subduction of carbonate rocks would have been insufficient to allow for the long-term existence of a stable ocean on Earth; at least long enough for cyanobacteria to emerge and reproduce in large numbers. I'm open to considering any evidence you might have. It is my understanding that the subduction process did not occur on Venus for CO2 to be effectively scrubbed from its atmosphere.

[2timothy316]

I agree that the GOE was the key to Earth's success as a living planet. Perhaps the process you describe did remove some co2, yet it would be insufficient for liquid water to stick around over a long period of time with no GOE. Thus why I say, no life without liquid water and no liquid water without life. Our atmosphere and photosynthetic life on Earth started off in a symbiotic relationship and they are still in that relationship. As we find out everyday as our weather gets crazy from year to year due the co2 build up in it. The odds of life coming at such a crucial time and being the right kind of life is mind blowing. Which leads us back to abiogenesis being so unlikely because of the odds of it happening on the right planet, with its right size moon, the right tilt, the right distance from the Sun, at the right atmospheric time and being the right kind of life is a number than can't be written down. Those odds do not include chances of the abiogenic cell happening in the first place. You add all of these 'chance odds' together, at what point do the odds become so great of some certain thing happening that we say its impossible?

I'm not aware of any evidence that would disprove the hypothesis that the process of scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere through the formation and subduction of carbonate rocks would have been insufficient to allow for the long-term existence of a stable ocean on Earth; at least long enough for cyanobacteria to emerge and reproduce in large numbers.

While there is no evidence to disprove I don't know of any evidence to approve the theory either. At least to the levels I think you're suggesting. What was it scrubbing that co2 into? It wasn't oxygen, otherwise there would be iron oxidation in the geological record before the GOE.

I'm open to considering any evidence you might have. It is my understanding that the subduction process did not occur on Venus for CO2 to be effectively scrubbed from its atmosphere.

It may not have, but it seems Venus did have liquid water at one time. Did it have the right rocks? The surface says no but we can't exactly dig too deep into Venus to be sure. That place might be the most hostile rocky planet in the Solar System.

[bluegreenearth]

While there is no evidence to disprove I don't know of any evidence to approve the theory either. At least to the levels I think you're suggesting. What was it scrubbing that co2 into? It wasn't oxygen, otherwise there would be iron oxidation in the geological record before the GOE.

As I previously explained, the formation of carbonate rocks on the ocean floor required large quantities of atmospheric CO2 to dissolve into rainwater that subsequently eroded calcium-rich rocks on the continental crust to produce calcium-carbonate. The calcium-carbonate collected into layers on the ocean floor where it was eventually subducted into the Earth's mantle.

It may not have, but it seems Venus did have liquid water at one time. Did it have the right rocks? The surface says no but we can't exactly dig too deep into Venus to be sure. That place might be the most hostile rocky planet in the Solar System.

The following article offers a reasonable explanation: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa ... habitable/

[2timothy316]

While there is no evidence to disprove I don't know of any evidence to approve the theory either. At least to the levels I think you're suggesting. What was it scrubbing that co2 into? It wasn't oxygen, otherwise there would be iron oxidation in the geological record before the GOE.

As I previously explained, the formation of carbonate rocks on the ocean floor required large quantities of atmospheric CO2 to dissolve into rainwater that subsequently eroded calcium-rich rocks on the continental crust to produce calcium-carbonate. The calcium-carbonate collected into layers on the ocean floor where it was eventually subducted into the Earth's mantle.

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 may not have, but it seems Venus did have liquid water at one time. Did it have the right rocks? The surface says no but we can't exactly dig too deep into Venus to be sure. That place might be the most hostile rocky planet in the Solar System.

The following article offers a reasonable explanation: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa ... habitable/

I actually read the same article. Interesting read for sure. Though there are some that say Venus spin was faster when it first appeared, but because of it's dense atmosphere its spin slowed a lot. A shallow ocean and more landmass to capture heat probably would not have helped keep Venus from becoming what it is today even if it had a GOE. Indeed, Earth is one unique place.

[bluegreenearth]

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.