Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And don't start with the 'we don't believe it's an accident'. If you believe in any kind of guiding/intelligent force, you're a theist in some sense, Deist, Pantheist, whatever. You don't just have to believe in a personal interventionist God. If you don't, then you believe it just happened by itself, for no reason, pretty much the definition of an 'accident.'
Although the argument has been used ad nauseum, and has been countered with arguments such as well, humans can't comprehend what is beyond their experience, I still question the rationality of believing that Life or indeed Existence or the Universe 'just happened', and then we arose out of an accident.
We don't observe things spontaneously coming into existence in nature, usually things that looked like they were designed were well, were. Why should nature somehow be the exception? Is even the watchmaker's analogy too much of a stretch?
I have a trouble with aspects of the image of God religion has portrayed myself, but I will say that, maybe it's subjective, but personally I think it's more rational to believe in some sort of intelligent design, whatever the cause. Atheists might have legit reasons for believing as they do, but I don't like how atheists portray intelligent design as irrational, as if believing if all happened by chance is somehow the more rational position to take, that it all came from nothing.
The more we learn science, the more we realize that the universe and everything in it does not have any underlying meaning or purpose. Contrary to your assertion, the universe does have things coming into exist spontaneously. In fact, theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that the universe itself came into existence spontaneously. If that is what you mean by "accident" then yes, everything is an accident.
This explanation may not be psychologically satisfying to some, but it is what all the evidence is pointing to so far. It's our own responsibility to create meaning and purpose in our lives and not rely on some universal spirit or being which most likely does not exist.
My main point was that, many atheists think that intelligent design or a being with an ultimate plan is irrational.
We think "Intelligent Design" is a crock because it starts with the assumption that the Bible is a true history and thus the Earth is 6000ish years old, man coexisted with dinosaurs, Noah's flood really happened. Formulating a question to reach a preconceived answer is neither science, nor intellectually honest.
You refuse to answer because you won't accept any possible evidence for a Creator, even when it is offered. The complexity of a cell, for instance. The fact it's like a machine. Do you not accept this as possible evidence for intelligent design? Or do you demand to see God doing it in front of your eyes? The burden isn't completely with the theist, IMO, I think it's sort of an arrogant position to assume so.
Of course, the burden is with theists. Theists are claiming that they have evidence of God when there is none.
OTOH, there is much evidence that cells did come about through natural processes
When we look at cells we are amazed at their complexity, but we are slowly getting an understanding how cells work and how its components came about. We have found that a cell does not obey some magical realm but instead the laws of physics and chemistry. We understand how they make energy, how they replicate, how DNA/RNA codes for proteins that curl up to form enzymes that control what happens inside the cell. Many of these complicated processes can be recreated in the laboratory using simpler steps than found in nature. For example, DNA replication has many steps and many proteins and enzymes that are necessary to transcribe and transcript—we can replicate the same process without the need of proteins and enzymes but using only chemistry. We do not know everything about the cell but we have no reason to believe that something magical, mystical, supernatural, or spiritual is responsible for the operation of a cell. If cells work according to the laws of physics and chemistry, why should we assume that physics and chemistry are not also involved in how the first cells formed? If we study the components of a cell we can understand how they could have formed—we can already produce many of the molecules involved in cells easily. The idea that a cell is irreducibly complex is a statement based on ignorance on the understanding of a cell. There are many evidences and experiments conducted that refutes this argument—in my opinion, the best piece of evidence is the mitochondria and the chloroplast found in the animals and plants eukaryotic cells respectively. Science offers the best chance of explaining how life got started even if we don't actually understand that process at present. Saying instead “God did it” is not an explanation since it is just an assertion of one’s personal opinion rather than evidence collected from actually studying a cell. When one takes the time to study the cell, its components in depth, and the research conducted in abiogenesis—it becomes obvious that through time the proto-cell (primitive form of archaic or prokaryote cell) came into existence through natural means (physics and chemistry). We can be extremely confident of this fact, but exactly how the proto-cell came to be is still unknown--in no way does that mean it did not occur because the evidence is overwhelming.
And don't start with the 'we don't believe it's an accident'. If you believe in any kind of guiding/intelligent force, you're a theist in some sense, Deist, Pantheist, whatever. You don't just have to believe in a personal interventionist God. If you don't, then you believe it just happened by itself, for no reason, pretty much the definition of an 'accident.'
Although the argument has been used ad nauseum, and has been countered with arguments such as well, humans can't comprehend what is beyond their experience, I still question the rationality of believing that Life or indeed Existence or the Universe 'just happened', and then we arose out of an accident.
We don't observe things spontaneously coming into existence in nature, usually things that looked like they were designed were well, were. Why should nature somehow be the exception? Is even the watchmaker's analogy too much of a stretch?
I have a trouble with aspects of the image of God religion has portrayed myself, but I will say that, maybe it's subjective, but personally I think it's more rational to believe in some sort of intelligent design, whatever the cause. Atheists might have legit reasons for believing as they do, but I don't like how atheists portray intelligent design as irrational, as if believing if all happened by chance is somehow the more rational position to take, that it all came from nothing.
If intelligent design is a legit concept, who designed the designer? Who designed the designer's designer, ad nauseum?
Intelligent design and literal creationism only add one layer of mystical gibberish and then they both reach the same inevitable point. If a god or being designed and created the universe now the question shifts to how did god or the creator being come to be? Eventually you always end up at the same place - searching for some explanation as to how something just appeared from nothing. If you are partial to intelligent design, you have only shifted the "accident" from being responsible for the creation of the universe to the "accident" being responsible for the creation of the entity that designed the universe.
On the definition of atheists, I am reminded of Tim Minchin's Storm:
"Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bull****.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a ****ing dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!"
Show me the god evidence, I will likewise turn on a dime.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,054,732 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
No. It is not. These fora are rife with atheists pointing out to theists again and again and again that their position is not a belief in no god but a lack of belief in a god. They do this over and over again but it never stops you people coming out with the other definition anyway.
The fact of the matter is that if there is no reason offered to believe X then we will not believe X. X can be anything. Failure to think X is true or credible is NOT the same as active belief in !X. No matter how much you try, and fail, to represent it to be.
Says you. But "must" is a strong word and you have done nothing to back up that claim. Saying it must be so does not automatically must be so. Why "must" it be? Because you say so?
When an analogy represents the EXACT opposite of the thing it is being presented as an analogy to then "not quite right" does not cut it. A total and egregious misrepresentation is what it is. A lot more than "not quite" right. The bricks analogy does not represent what Evolution claims _at all_. Not just slightly wrong... it is ENTIRELY unrepresentative of the claims of evolution.
I have no interest in "dictums" at all. I am interested in hearing ideas and claims WITH their substantiation. If someone wants to dictate by fiat to me then they are talking past me or at me... not with me... and this is after all a discussion forum not a soap box, stage or blog.
Lol they are one and the same. If you think there might be a god you're an agnostic. You might 'sound' different phrased like that, but it's the same thing. You want to make theists sound mistaken by a lot of clever semantics and worldplay.
I think you missed my point again. At least another poster admits that at least he believes things happened without any prior intention. If you don't like the word accident we'll go with meaningless. We're not quibbling over the mechanics of evolution, but of the original purpose, the why and how life arose in the first place. And for that purpose, my analogy, along with any other you care to think of, Chimps writing Shakespeare, B52 in a hurricane, whatever, still holds.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,054,732 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco
If intelligent design is a legit concept, who designed the designer? Who designed the designer's designer, ad nauseum?
Intelligent design and literal creationism only add one layer of mystical gibberish and then they both reach the same inevitable point. If a god or being designed and created the universe now the question shifts to how did god or the creator being come to be? Eventually you always end up at the same place - searching for some explanation as to how something just appeared from nothing. If you are partial to intelligent design, you have only shifted the "accident" from being responsible for the creation of the universe to the "accident" being responsible for the creation of the entity that designed the universe.
Most theists posit that God is uncreated. I could flip the question on it's side. If you say, it's silly to think there is something uncreated, than in a Universe without God there is SOMETHING that was 'uncreated', that was ultimate, the 'first cause.' And, as far as I can figure, most Atheists believe things magically 'just happened' for no reason in particular.
Most theists posit that God is uncreated. I could flip the question on it's side. If you say, it's silly to think there is something uncreated, than in a Universe without God there is SOMETHING that was 'uncreated', that was ultimate, the 'first cause.' And, as far as I can figure, most Atheists believe things magically 'just happened' for no reason in particular.
No, not magically. Magic did not drive it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
