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.
Okay LearnMe, you don’t believe there is any intelligence behind all of this creation - so did it just all happen coincidently?
Was it unbelievable luck, or a very sophisticated roll of the existential evolutionary dice?
Have you ever spent time researching the dynamics of photosynthesis, or how one bee can come back to a hive and with complex orchestration of wings explain where a certain flower is up to 3 miles away, or how the moon affects the tides in the ocean…etc etc etc etc etc
Like Mordant, do you believe “ Humor and imagination were two things that arose out of the development of large language model machine learning .” ?
To me this is such a sad, sterile, and empty experience of life and the astonishing world of existence.
So a god did it makes it not sad, sterile, and empty experience?
Do you believe the universe is infinite (as in no boundary it’s endless FOREVER - infinity)
Or do you believe the universe is finite (there is a boundary an ending to it)
And if you believe it’s finite — where does it end and where does THAT boundary/ ending end?
Unless I’m badly informed, I doubt many atheists “believe” there is an ending or boundary to the universe although it’s unprovable.
And since INFINITY is such an inexplicable (even disturbing to some ) concept that we all “know” at some level to be true but can’t prove — then why is it so hard to conceive the existence of God - of an inexplicable creator?
I’m NOT pointing to religion.
Agree that “some things” are just a product of sufficient support systems and resources — oh, but there is so much more than that.
You wrote:
“But reasoning IS going on and ALL it is, is an emergent property of a particular organization of "neurons".
And so what was the “spark” that started that particular organization? And what spark started THAT spark?
Where did the SPARK for the quest and inquiry that drove that reasoning come from?
Neurologists and brain surgeons admit they know little of the deeper mysteries of neuron organization, synapses , and sparking in the brain.
And we know of everything that can be started via protein synthesis, but don’t understand where the
original spark for the synthesis actually comes from.
But that still means we have evidence neurons are responsible. That is more evidence than asserting a god started it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
As we don’t know where or how the origin of life started.
We have many theories, all based on actual scientific findings (such as why cell walls would form automatically). We may not know the exact route, but all of the possible routes are based on what we do know.
We do not know how a god did it, so it is the theists who suffer from not knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
But let’s be honest - you come from a materialists-only perspective seeped in your well-founded science background, and my perspective embraces all the science too but with an acknowledgment of a creator behind all this — your proof, your comfort is in the academics, the research, the data — my proof is abundantly in the universe itself.
If you want to insist there is a creator behind naturalism, then you are admitting natural forces alone can be responsible, regardless of where they come from. And as natural forces are just properties and behaviors of our existence, asserting a god did it is an unnecessary explanation.
Hi Harry. I understand the mechanism behind the observer effect. I didn't want to go into an explanation here. You're not touching here on the part that is not explained, which is why quantum particles (in the double slit experiment) behave predictably differently when they are measured and when they are not measured. My question is not how, but why. And nobody knows the reason for this, not even quantum physicists. This is the part that nobody has an answer to (yet).
Perhaps if you asked in the science forum, but I am sure I have seen a Youtube video explaining this.
Yes, we know the kind whose minds are "closed" and refuse even to consider alternate hypotheses legitimately extrapolated from existing science that have not yet been validated!
Alleged alternate hypotheses legitimately extrapolated from existing science that have not yet been validated!
You can't "prove" God. You have to have faith. And there is lots of evidence all around to support faith.
So why rely on faith if you have evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
And for those who say over billions of years it was all inevitable, how did that matter get there in the first place?
How did a god just get there in the first place? And why do theists often never apply their 'gotcha' arguments to their hypothesis?
As for why things exist, is absolute nothing (including gods) possible? If not, then it is logically necessary that there was an infinite something. If absolute nothing IS possible, then that means there was nothing to stop absolute nothing from producing something. So existence appears to be a logical necessity, with no need to invoke an intelligent god to explain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
Why do we have these particular natural laws and not others that would have different effects?
Because ours are those particular natural laws. Other universes probably have different natural laws. That is the problem with infinite existence (for theists), anything possible will eventually happen, regardless of how improbable it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
If you say that's just the way it was, you have taken a HUGE leap of faith. You have to have a closed mind on religious issues not to understand that leap of "faith" you have taken.
No, we are using the evidence we do have, and not relying on the assertions and bad arguments the religious use.
If you already "know it", then it's not "faith".
Mark Twain missed the basic premise.
Depends on how you use the word faith. Too many theists play the game where faith can mean no evidence and faith in evidence, and they switch between to two to try and win arguments. It is the same with the word belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Just like Atheists do not "KNOW" that God does not exist. They also have faith to work with.
Probability based on the many possible gods, and the knowledge that naturalism can create complexity. That is not faith.
My atheism is based on logic, science and mathematics. I do not require faith.
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.
