Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread

[Gyro Balls]

So I've called myself athiest for a while now, and I've done my fair share of dogma-bashing. I don't really care anymore.
However, I feel... Spiritual. All the time. Some would say I'm imagining it, but I feel like I have a heightened awareness of life in general, and, though I call myself athiest, I firmly believe in (Not really 'karma', because with it comes a whole slough of Hindu beliefs) karma. Does that make me Deist? Or can one be a spiritual athiest?

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

capefeather I actually do think that mathematics and numbers are real :3

Not every atheist is vindictive towards their religious family members.

Perhaps I came off too aggressive before but I hope this isn't the impression I gave. I honestly don't care what my family's religion, and when they bother me I simply tell them I am not religious and end the conversation there, they don't need to know anything else.

It requires very little of us and would mean the world to them after all.

This I kind of have a problem with. Forcing someone to go to church for an hour and forcing them to recant their statements is not in any sense "very little." I can understand not wanting to be hostile, and even playing along with your family for a bit, but his situation IMO seems far worse than that. They are denying him to be who he is and it seems like a hostile environment.

Again, I don't know much about his situation, but it seems much deeper than "put on a happy face and sing Christmas songs."

So I've called myself athiest for a while now, and I've done my fair share of dogma-bashing. I don't really care anymore.
However, I feel... Spiritual. All the time. Some would say I'm imagining it, but I feel like I have a heightened awareness of life in general, and, though I call myself athiest, I firmly believe in (Not really 'karma', because with it comes a whole slough of Hindu beliefs) karma. Does that make me Deist? Or can one be a spiritual athiest?

There are lots of spiritual Atheists. Atheism only pertains to God claims. The Atheist mega churches in the UK have spirituality at their core, not to mention that Buddhists are Atheists.

I think karma and spirituality is bullshit, but lets not go into that here.

 

[Skyderp]

religious or not, we should all accept each other's thoughts in society, even though we might disagree.

 

[Cshadow]

There are lots of spiritual Atheists. Atheism only pertains to God claims. The Atheist mega churches in the UK have spirituality at their core, not to mention that Buddhists are Atheists.

As far as my understanding of Buddhism goes, this is not entirely accurate. While Buddhism's teachings are non-theistic in nature, the religion's practicality makes it flexible, and because of that it can incorporate (or be incorporated into) pretty much any deity-worshiping belief system that will allow it; Buddhism doesn't concern itself with confirming or denying the existence of a God, god, or gods (and what you hear about that specific aspect of Buddhism is vague enough for you to draw your own conclusion), nor the afterlife (nirvana isn't unique to just Buddhism, and Heaven is a rather vague construct from what I understand, so it is not as though the two cannot align themselves); it's about the journey towards enlightenment.

There's also the fact that there are a number of Buddhist deities that are worshiped as gods / goddesses by the different Buddhist denominations.

 

[shade]

religious or not, we should all accept each other's thoughts in society, even though we might disagree.

i completely disagree. we should not be accepting faith-based claims, or any claims for that matter, that hinder the spread and enhancement of scientific truths.

 

[Gyro Balls]

Einstein and de Spinoza believed God was the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe. And since we know the laws exist, God exists.

Thoughts?

 

[billymills]

"Laws exist" basically means some guys found some decent approximations for how the world seems to work.

There are many definitions of god and God. God tends to refer to a personal deity rather than a more abstract impersonal force. You could certainly argue that the set (sum does not apply in this context) of physical laws and constants could be construed as a god. Its no less valid than any other definition.

Though by the same logic, I could name a cat God and then claim therefore that since the cat exists, God exists.

 

[Strange_matter]

Einstein and de Spinoza believed God was the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe. And since we know the laws exist, God exists.

Thoughts?

For what its worth, the Judeo-Christian God is said to be a God of order, and that He holds the universe together, so this doesn't seem to be too far off from what I believe; it doesn't include His personality though...

Though by the same logic, I could name a cat God and then claim therefore that since the cat exists, God exists.

The cat exists... Is anyone else thinking of Shrödinger's cat?

 

[Strange_matter]

Look kid, if your God is real like the way you think, I am going to hell no matter what happens. The bible states that any man who puts on a woman's clothes is an abomination to God. So yeah, I am already screwed in that regard. Furthermore I absolutely refuse to be subservient to a God whom would put people to hell for all entity for any reason. Eternity is an unreasonable punishment time for anything IMO, I wouldn't even put Hitler through that. And why would I am lot of other people go their? Not observing a God we see absolutely no evidence for. This is ignoring any other awful beliefs God has in the Bible.

And even lets say I submitted to God in order to go to "paradise" and spent my entire life repenting in fear. This person that goes to heaven in the end is not me, I would of died long ago in self brainwashing.

I am reminded of something I heard on the Atheist Experience, I am paraphrasing here.



Oh and about people who refuse to follow God even if they have evidence, you know who else believes in your God, yet completely yet rejects him? Satan. And you know, considering the world this figure lives in, I can't disagree with the fallen angel.

So man, don't worry about me, if you are right, I will be perfectly happy roasting in hell doing sinful things, talking about logical absolutes with the demons. And you won't even have to worry about me in hell at all: no sadness.

Well, if God exists, then He defined the moral laws, so He's basically right by definition. So according to the Bible you have sin in your life, this doesn't mean you're doomed, if you truly tried to stop and follow God He would forgive you... and to be honest I think Hell is much worse than you can imagine...

Also man oh man strangeguy, your line of thinking drives me up a wall. Almost all of it is just blatant appeal to authority. Just a heads-up, people take you more seriously if your arguments are supported by more than just shallow namedropping.

Admittedly, I feel like I could be doing a better job... although maybe I shouldn't think like that. There isn't that much namedropping is there? I mentioned a few people, but I don't think it's a huge number. I suppose mentioning a few important people doesn't necessarily prove anything, but whatever helps...

 

[Shiruba]

Einstein and de Spinoza believed God was the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe. And since we know the laws exist, God exists.

Thoughts?

This one almost reminds me of a "Zen" belief system. The idea of not a deity in the sense of a personage, but rather the behaviour of energies that binds the universe together and can possibly be harnessed in the form of human technology. The idea that every lifeforce, and perhaps everything is alive in some way, which causes some believers to behave more "cautiously," as it were - some followers of ahimsa, or a lifestyle of nonviolence, actually wear masks to not kill any microrganisms in the air, and some are fruitarians, people who only eat fruits, seeds, nuts, and possibly eggs and milk, depending on the follower; only food that will not kill another organism, and that includes rooting plants. I honestly wouldn't call vegetarianism hard, particularly in this day and age, especially that it doesn't even seem to consider fish and chicken these days [which is apparently not meat anymore despite their being animals? lol, logic] but that's dedication.

I can't say that's at all similar to Christianity, though. Christianity has a god that is a human personage, not simply "an energy" or something to that effect. He is a personal god and hears and answers prayers and is supposed to be able to consciously affect what happens in everything in creation. He is not random, he is not driven by "laws," as he makes his own laws. He exists "outside of nature" [despite literally everything in the universe being a part of nature, but whatever]. Christianity's also no stranger to violence, it being specifically condoned in the Bible, but it doesn't claim to follow any form of specific nonviolence credo [I believe?], so there's nothing to refute with that point.

"Moral laws". Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Morals are personal convictions, correct? Even Roman-Catholics, let alone Christians can have very, very different views on morality, and very different interpretations of Christian doctrine. How the hell can you even claim to follow something that has such a wide variety of interpretation, some of which completely contradicts the other? How can you possibly claim to know God's will if nobody in the faith knows what that actually is?

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

and to be honest I think Hell is much worse than you can imagine...

This is kind of my point, hell is unimaginably terrible and a reprehensible punishment.

Although, I have read the bible a few times about hell, and it mainly has to deal with choking and burning... which is something I can imagine plenty well. Unless Jesus was talking in some metaphor or some nonsense.

Well, if God exists, then He defined the moral laws, so He's basically right by definition.

This is actually a logical fallacy, the argument from authority.

I don't know if you ever read 1984, but this is actually reminds me of something that Winston says, roughly that 'we make the laws, we make reality, we are right because we say so.' If you can't see the problem with this, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.

So according to the Bible you have sin in your life, this doesn't mean you're doomed, if you truly tried to stop and follow God He would forgive you

This is more personal here, but its a serious problem I have with what you are saying.

As mentioned before, the bible literally says that I am an abomination. Here is the thing though, to me, this is not an action, it is not a sin, it is the simple expression of who I am. I cannot have no sin in my life because your interpretation of God says my very self being is a sin.

And don't try to tell me that I am wrong in my interpretation of myself, because if there is anything in this universe I know with absolute certainty, it is my own self existence, and who I am within this framework of the world I think I live in. No God can ever unconvince me of that.

I cannot stop being who I am, and his forgiveness of my sinful actions can never stop my sinful being. And if God was to somehow "forgive my being," or magically cure me, I would no longer me, and I would cease to exist as the person you are speaking to now.

Simply put, by your interpretation of God, it is logically impossible for me to be saved. You would have better luck trying to save a demon.

 

[HBK]

Whenever I try to rationalize or make sense of anything, my mother tells me to stop and says that it's evil. However, contrary to what you might think, her faith isn't blind at all; she is as knowledgeable as most nuns/priests/pastors if not more. To me, this is consistent with all the things that the Bible preaches that defy logic. Like, for example, how could people ( like Abraham ) have a life expectancy of over 100 years in those times considering their inferior knowledge of medicine and that they lived in the wilderness ?

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Whenever I try to rationalize or make sense of anything, my mother tells me to stop and says that it's evil. However, contrary to what you might think, her faith isn't blind at all; she is as knowledgeable as most nuns/priests/pastors if not more. To me, this is consistent with all the things that the Bible preaches that defy logic. Like, for example, how could people ( like Abraham ) have a life expectancy of over 100 years in those times considering their inferior knowledge of medicine and that they lived in the wilderness ?

While I was an agnostic, I think my attitude towards your mother would like Paul's attitude's towards Ash, saying "pathetic", for believing in something not supported by empirical evidence.

What do you mean by "rationalize"? Do you mean appeals to empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to dispute various portions of your mother's beliefs? It seems she is not receptive to any body of knowledge or style of thinking outside of the Church, and that her knowledge largely is regurgitating Bible passages, the Catechism, and encylicals.

I do not even think the Catholic Church officially believes that Abraham or the other patriarchs lived over 100 years. I know someone who went to a Catholic high school, and he argued (and I agree) that much of the Old Testament comes from oral tradition and there would inevitably be some form of hyperbole, but still it retained some invaluable revelation of salvation history. My RCIA program never told us to take those ages literally.

BTW, there is nothing "illogical" about Abraham's alleged long life span; your argument is largely an inductive one, based on your experience that centenarians are rare and in significant number only in societies with a fairly high modernization, such as access to advanced medical care and sanitiation.
--

But I am not like most Catholics, as I retain much of my philosophical skepticism while I was an agnostic. I am more than willing to argue against apologists who claim that they have compelling argument for the existence of God. I do believe many of my fellow Catholics underestimate the scientific and philosophical implications of Darwinian evolution, and how it could potential threaten a philosophical worldview that emphasizes God's providence and teleology by replacing it with blind selection pressures, genetic drift, historical contingency, and population variation. Many would indeed "concede" that Darwinian evolution "took place", humans were the products of evolution, and God played some role in this process so it wasn't completely unguided; but Darwinian evolution is not mere a historical fact, something to be appended to the Biblical understanding of creation, but it is a theological challenge that attempts to usurp God's creative power in the biological realm and strip humanity of its "purpose". In the grand scheme of the natural history of the biosphere, how are Homo sapiens "special" and distinguished from the other organisms? Are we the unique, treasured handiwork of God, or just another branch integrated into the tree of life?

 

[HBK]

For example, whenever good things would happen for some reason that would be unknown to us at that moment, while I would try to explain it by attributing to some natural cause, she would praise god and assume that it was some sort of divine intervention. And then, she would rebuke me for trying to use my, and I quote, "faulty human logic and reasoning". She used negative adjectives like evil and demonic to describe it.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Uh I hate that line of thought.

Looking our senses and the scientific method aren't absolutely perfect but look what we have accomplished since we started using what tools we have to our greatest ability: we have landed a man on the moon, cured a multitude of diseases, created devices which can think as the speed of lightning, and ushered in an era of peace like our world has never seen in the existence of homo sapiens.

For our "faulty human logic and reasoning" I say that pretty damn good.

On the bible being 'illogical' I do agree with Latias that most Churches, most notably the Catholic Church, do not consider the Bible to be absolute truth. Instead they teach you have to view it through different historical perspectives, themes, and attitudes. While I do think this is a little strange, at least it admits that you can't take a literal interpretation, as if you do that the bible becomes self contradictory in many places. The only way you can swallow something like that if you you can accept contradictions.

In a sense, your mother is right, in order to believe the bible is literally true, you have to throw out human logic and embrace the contradiction.

I believe 1984 calls this doublethink.

 

[Shiruba]

Honestly, we're not special. Not really. The narcissism in that the human race must be incredibly unique and that this is most assuredly the best of the best species is more a manner of self-aggrandizement, the same which convinced the Catholic church to preach that everything revolved around the Earth [ie them] and that humans are designed to be better than and have dominion over all other creatures. This is, of course, a perspective, and the human race being "special" is more to deal with sentiments and what you personally find "special" than any inherent "specialness."

Humans are still very much animalistic and still do indeed have a foundation that is based in reptiles. The instincts to "eat, sleep, have sex" is very much engrained in a our brains, clearly manifesting in how well the food and sex industries are doing. Indeed, a lot of people only have marrying and reproducing as their goal in life, which to me is a very sad existence, but I digress. Seeing the human capacity for cold-hearted killing, total disregard for the wellbeing of others, complete and utter selfishness, tendencies of betrayal, all-consuming hatred, and a chilling apathy may be enough to show people that we're not all that far off from the animal kingdom. Like other animals that have more developed brains, however, particularly higher mammals, humans are also capable of acts of selflessness, kindness, and loyalty. They are capable of incredible levels of discipline, self-sacrifice, and, in my opinion most importantly, love.

Not to say that there is nothing interesting or unique about the species, however. Humanity's potential [though they do not necessarily exercise that potential] for logic and rational thought is something that is seemingly unmatched on Earth's animal kingdom. The sheer level of possible growth and knowledge that the species can possibly create is seemingly limitless, at least to our own human understanding, no matter how finite that might be. In my personal opinion, while humans are very much a mixed bag in the sense of what they do and have done, the slow growth of the species is intriguing to follow.
tl;dr there's little that inherently makes humans special unless you put emphasis or value on certain things


As far as I know about churches, though, do most people even read the Bible? I've only read some of it, and it was because my mother wouldn't leave me alone about it. Most Christians don't even regularly go to church, and those that do don't necessarily read it either. I mean, I don't blame them necessarily, that stuff's boring as hell, but don't churches typically more or less tell you what's in the Bible through their own lens? I mean, I was forced to go went to one for about thirteen years, and I'd say that's pretty accurate, but it was a Mormon church so idk. This was even worse when most people were illiterate, as a lot of priests would just flat-out make stuff up because nobody could really refute them, [and even now I can't say many would call them out on it due to not really/ever having read it], but I digress.

E: @Abraham/etc's lifespan: I was taught to believe that, I dunno about you. I think the justification was that he was "blessed by God" or something, or that the Flood ended up destroying/God removed some special magic on the Earth that made humans live longer.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I found this video beyond interesting

I was aware that the ancient Israelites were really Pantheists, and that the Eypgtian story is a myth (any one with a class on anthropology realizes this quickly), but the extent of the historical revisionism with happened in the bible is awe inspiring.

The second part of the video is far less historical if you are wondering, and deal with how modern conceptions of God don't make much sense, its a decent video, and I love his conclusion at the end, but its not on the level as the first part.

 

[Strange_matter]

This is more personal here, but its a serious problem I have with what you are saying.
As mentioned before, the bible literally says that I am an abomination. Here is the thing though, to me, this is not an action, it is not a sin, it is the simple expression of who I am. I cannot have no sin in my life because your interpretation of God says my very self being is a sin.
And don't try to tell me that I am wrong in my interpretation of myself, because if there is anything in this universe I know with absolute certainty, it is my own self existence, and who I am within this framework of the world I think I live in. No God can ever unconvince me of that.
I cannot stop being who I am, and his forgiveness of my sinful actions can never stop my sinful being. And if God was to somehow "forgive my being," or magically cure me, I would no longer me, and I would cease to exist as the person you are speaking to now.
Simply put, by your interpretation of God, it is logically impossible for me to be saved. You would have better luck trying to save a demon.

Fair enough, but is your "self" necessarily static? I imagine you change to a certain extent and that this wasn't always a part of you... Also, is it really such an integral part of your identity? I imagine it to be a big part, but if you changed that one part would you really be a different person, when many other things might make up your identity? Ultimately, I don't believe you're beyond saving, people can change; I personally used to be antisexual. I hated romance, because of the way I viewed it, and I wonder if that was really an acceptable thing for me to do... and this lasted until I was almost 16, but I have since changed and... "cooled down" a bit. I hope that haven't offended you in saying this...

This is actually a logical fallacy, the argument from authority.
I don't know if you ever read 1984, but this is actually reminds me of something that Winston says, roughly that 'we make the laws, we make reality, we are right because we say so.' If you can't see the problem with this, you have some serious cognitive dissonance.

My point was that God decides how everything works from quantum physics to how people should live; He literally creates reality and laws that are immovable, unlike human laws, not to mention, being omniscient, He knows what's best for us even if it's painful in the short-term, and is the end-all expert in everything. It's like, God is a programmer and the universe is His program, in a sense.

Whenever I try to rationalize or make sense of anything, my mother tells me to stop and says that it's evil. However, contrary to what you might think, her faith isn't blind at all; she is as knowledgeable as most nuns/priests/pastors if not more. To me, this is consistent with all the things that the Bible preaches that defy logic. Like, for example, how could people ( like Abraham ) have a life expectancy of over 100 years in those times considering their inferior knowledge of medicine and that they lived in the wilderness ?

To be fair, there are some things that seem to defy logic, like the universe's expansion speed increasing- years ago people probably wouldn't take this idea seriously, but we have discovered dark energy. My point is things can seem to defy logic, because we are missing details, and that can be a very general thing... One idea some people have was that the UV rays shortened lives after the huge mass of water in the sky disappeared, but that's debatable I suppose...
If you don't mind my asking Calm_Mind_Latias, why do you are Catholic? What made switch from agnosticism to Catholicism?

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Also, is it really such an integral part of your identity?

I want think of everything you like, what brings you joy, what you love, what is important you you, your preferences, your emotions, your quirks, and your own self identification.

Now take that away. What is left? Whatever it is, its not you.

This is what you are asking me to do.

My point was that God decides how everything works from quantum physics to how people should live; He literally creates reality and laws that are immovable, unlike human laws, not to mention, being omniscient, He knows what's best for us even if it's painful in the short-term, and is the end-all expert in everything. It's like, God is a programmer and the universe is His program, in a sense.

Again this makes no sense.

Going by your own computer example. Imagine you were a computer simulation in some programmers virtual reality and you were aware of the programmer and what he was doing. What would you think of him if he suddenly let murders off free, even encouraging them by setting murder as a good thing or if for spite decided to kill your family.

Would you be perfectly justified in thinking this programmer is terrible? Keep in mind that in this world, he has absolute power just like a God.

Just because you are in charge, that does not make you right.

 

[Trax]

Einstein and de Spinoza believed God was the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe. And since we know the laws exist, God exists.

Thoughts?

Einstein was a great Physicist and a mediocre philosopher,

As for Spinoza, Schopenhauer commented as follows (and I agree) "Thus he calls 'God' that which is everywhere called 'the world'".

 

[Myzozoa]

Einstein was a great Physicist and a mediocre philosopher,

As for Spinoza, Schopenhauer commented as follows (and I agree) "Thus he calls 'God' that which is everywhere called 'the world'".

Spinoza wasn't just being like 'hey guys the world is God.' the ancient greeks already pulled something similar and if that had been all Spinoza was up to no one would have remembered his name. Spinoza formally proved that God was the world (a single substance of infinite attributes) using the definitions (mode, attribute, substance, essence, etc) and axioms of his time. Ethics is a series of proofs, not just some dude pontificating about what ought to be called God.

Anyway I think some itt are misinterpreting Spinoza:

Ethics showed that the concepts of 'essence,''substance,' and 'mode' and the commonly held axioms of European religion and philosophy, lead to a notion of God that most preachers would not accept, thus in a direct way he is attacking the religious authority of his time. This does not mean that Spinoza, the man, actually believed that God was the universe or the laws of the universe. So I see no reason to criticize him on the basis that he thought God was the universe, when all he really thought was that the religious, interventionist, notions of god were utterly contradictory to the metaphysics espoused by the philosophers (religious or otherwise) of his day.

 

[shade]

mattj i keep checking this thread to see if you ever answered this:

'however, i would like to ask you something, because i am interested in the answer. if you do not believe in evolution, why is the obvious answer the christian faith? why have you put your money on this god? surely you must accept it is because of the environment you grew up in? if you were born in pakistan, would you not be a follower of the quran?'

i was, and still am, very interested to hear your (or any other religious person's) response to this.

 

[Strange_matter]

Again this makes no sense.

Going by your own computer example. Imagine you were a computer simulation in some programmers virtual reality and you were aware of the programmer and what he was doing. What would you think of him if he suddenly let murders off free, even encouraging them by setting murder as a good thing or if for spite decided to kill your family.

Would you be perfectly justified in thinking this programmer is terrible? Keep in mind that in this world, he has absolute power just like a God.

Just because you are in charge, that does not make you right.

Well, by our world's standards he would be evil, but if the world's moral laws are different... Although you are comparing the moral laws of two different worlds, so there could be a problem there. I'll admit this is hard for me to argue against, because of our world's laws, but I have wondered about this sort of thing when imagining if God has made an infinite number of universes, some of which MAY have different moral laws... Perhaps I am wrong about how His defining "good and evil" works though, although God still says that His laws are for our benefit, so they aren't arbitrary, so maybe He does that in all universes, if other universes do exist. Another comparison, which is even frequently used in the Bible, is that God is like a father- He doesn't want us to hurt ourselves and disciplines us when we disobey, and He is omniscient, so what He does is probably right. I have a question for you though, if God doesn't decide on good and evil, then who does, when even the world can't come to a consensus?

mattj i keep checking this thread to see if you ever answered this:

'however, i would like to ask you something, because i am interested in the answer. if you do not believe in evolution, why is the obvious answer the christian faith? why have you put your money on this god? surely you must accept it is because of the environment you grew up in? if you were born in pakistan, would you not be a follower of the quran?'

i was, and still am, very interested to hear your (or any other religious person's) response to this.

Well, I think part of the reason I believe in Christianity is because it makes the most sense- there is evidence to back it up, such as prophecies that Jesus fulfilled and that His disciples were willing to die in His name after witnessing them. It doesn't come from some human philosopher with no authority. A problem I have with Islam is that it claims that the Bible is holy but has been mistranslated, when we have extremely early transcripts that have been used to translate it. The ancient religions can probably be discredited because they're basically dead. Not to mention I do occasionally hear of some supernatural occurrences, believe it or not.
A while back, someone said that, since Earth isn't a closed system the second law of thermodynamics shouldn't apply, but shouldn't it still more or less apply since not much energy escapes from the earth? Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics mean that entropy always increases in chemical reactions and that entropy can only decrease in a system when it's moved to another?

 

[Codraroll]

A while back, someone said that, since Earth isn't a closed system the second law of thermodynamics shouldn't apply, but shouldn't it still more or less apply since not much energy escapes from the earth? Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics mean that entropy always increases in chemical reactions and that entropy can only decrease in a system when it's moved to another?

That would be me. I was wrong about the "closed system" thing, though, the proper term is "Isolated system". Earth can be regarded as a closed system (no or minuscule exchange of matter with the surroundings), but it's certainly not an isolated system (no exchange of energy with the surroundings). The argument still stands, but using the wrong terms can be confusing when looking up more information.

Believe me, energy does escape from Earth, a quite hefty amount of it too, all things considered.

Each square metre of Earth surface (or was that atmosphere?) will receive rougly 1600 watts of power from the Sun on a sunny day. While a lot of it is reflected, a fair bit is absorbed too (depending on the surface) Mind you, the sun always shines on half the Earth. If energy hadn't escaped, it would have been very, very hot here by now.

Energy largely escapes via radiated heat into space. The amount is proportionate to the temperature to the fourth degree, so if you do the calculations, you'll find there will be loads and loads of energy escaping. This is somewhat intuitive too - note how much colder it will be at night, even after an unusally hot day. This extra heat has to go somewhere.
Look up the temperature differences of celestial bodies like the Moon or Mercury, where there is no atmosphere. The surface will radiate out so much heat that there is a difference of several hundred degrees between day- and night time. This would have been true on Earth too, if the atmosphere hadn't acted as a "thermal buffer" slowing down heat transfer. Still, the Earth does gain a lot of external energy from the Sun at day time, and loses the same amount more or less continuously (actually, more energy is lost during the day, because the temperature is higher then). Not at all an isolated system.

EDIT:

Well, I think part of the reason I believe in Christianity is because...

This might be a bit of a tricky question, but why, then, do you think other people believe in their religion? What makes them think they are right, if not the same or similar reasons? As I've said before, people have been dying for their god(s) all the way through history. Many religions report miracles. The ancient religions might be dead, but that doesn't make their arguments any less relevant. People believed in their miracles and died in their name all the same. It's just that their descendants, for some reason or another, stopped practising the religions (often by force, mind you). And why, then, are their arguments wrong and yours right?

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Well, by our world's standards he would be evil, but if the world's moral laws are different... Although you are comparing the moral laws of two different worlds, so there could be a problem there. I'll admit this is hard for me to argue against, because of our world's laws, but I have wondered about this sort of thing when imagining if God has made an infinite number of universes, some of which MAY have different moral laws... Perhaps I am wrong about how His defining "good and evil" works though, although God still says that His laws are for our benefit, so they aren't arbitrary, so maybe He does that in all universes, if other universes do exist. Another comparison, which is even frequently used in the Bible, is that God is like a father

That is rather befuddled. Essentially you are acknowledging the possibility of moral relativism (something that conservative Christian apologists explicitly reject), although on the more grand scale of the multiverse instead of the scope of different human societies. Still, a philosopher will not grant you the existence of objective "moral laws" within this domain of the universe; moral laws, that is, compose a code of conduct for rational agents independent of the desires of those rational agents, with a set of obligations and proscriptions that through adherence to them facilitate a state of what ought to be and do not merely reiterate what is. But if you do state that God's laws are for our own benefit, then God's laws are fundamentally consequentialist in its justification: that is compliance to these laws would lead to a more desirable state than if they were disregarded. In other words, it is not the laws that that possess actual significance, but rather the beneficial consequences of following them; thus the laws are merely a means to an end. However, this shifts the burden of proof to you, and you have to demonstrate that these laws lead to optimal well-being (however one defines it) relative to rival consequentialist ethical codes.

-----

He doesn't want us to hurt ourselves and disciplines us when we disobey, and He is omniscient, so what He does is probably right. I have a question for you though, if God doesn't decide on good and evil, then who does, when even the world can't come to a consensus?

One could argue that cooperation is evolutionarily favored using a rather simple mathematical argument. Consider the prisoner's dilemma with two players, X and Y, who could receive rewards 0, A, b, or c [where 0 < A < B < c] based on his/her decisions and the corresponding decision of the opponent. If player X defects while player Y cooperates, then player X would receive c while Y receives 0. If they both defect, they both get A; and if both cooperate they both get B. No matter what, it is best that a player defects, since it would at least guarantee payoff a with the potential for payoff c.

Now consider an iterative version where the game terminates when one player defects. For one round, defecting would at best give one a payment of c, while both players cooperating would get B for each round. The question is what is the future value of B, and that during any iteration of the game.

(1) value = B(r^n)

r is the discount factor, that is how much one values the future over the present; this number is greater than zero but less than 1
n is the number of turns in the future that one receive the reward

Next, we will ask what is the total value of cooperating for a given number of iterations

(2) sumB = B(r^0) + B(r^1) + B(r^2) + B(r^3) + ... B(r^infinity)

with some simple calculus involving an infinite series, we will arrive at

(3) sumB = B(1/1-r)

As we can see, if r is large than the denominator becomes small, thus B would be multiplied by a large number.

Cooperation is favored if

(4) sumB > c

which will happen if both participants can envision a future where they would receive the rewards.

---

Also, one could concede moral relativism and admit that morality is based on the specific needs and preferences of a given culture/society. That is what is needed to maintain social order or secure resources for the survival and perpetuation of that society and its members.