Former Atheist gives his reasons why he left

Debate Room
1

Ok I came here to get your opinions on some scientific developments but couldn’t resist a thread. And I’ve been rightly challenged so I’ll make my case. But first I want to mention two things that I think are worthy of your consideration before I make my case.

Convincing evidence can vary from person to person. But if there was something that was universal where any honest person would look at and be forced to accept the reality that God exists then I think it would do us a disfavor. It would remove a certain degree of freedom in that regards. It would also make a lot of religions go off the deep end. God did not create glowing letters on the moon with the words “Made by God”. For if he did there would be a team of atheists on earth trying to figure out how it randomly got there. Just kidding. He didn’t do that so that you would have the freedom to acknowledge him, or not. And either way you still have the freedom to pick your own path or blaze a new trail. For me I think I learned the most and grew the most that was possible for me by coming to the conclusion I came to.

But don’t kid yourself about one thing. The idea that Atheism is not a belief but rather an absence of a belief doesn’t work. It is a belief that God doesn’t exist and then by necessity has to include other beliefs by default. And so it is an important part of a person world belief system.

Our world belief system is probably the most important thing we have. Its something we rely on to navigate through life and avoid the worst even death. As can be seen by the bear whisperer. His belief system was that humans could kick it and be homies with bears as long as they conducted themselves the right way. This worked for quite a long time until one night a random bear tore through his tent and ate him and his girlfriend alive. So I’m not talking about heaven or hell but this life … our beliefs are important.

The second thing is that some atheists had a bad experience with a religion like I had or maybe something terrible happened to them or they look at the world and are angry at the very idea of a God.

And so the question of evil and what would be the purpose of a world that has the situations and conditions that we find ourselves in.

The Epicurious argument was always the argument I thought was the best Atheist argument.

  1. If God is omnipotent (having unlimited power and authority), then he has the ability to prevent evil.
  2. If God is omnibenevolent (being infinitely good), then he would want to prevent evil.
  3. If God is omniscient (having complete or unlimited knowledge), then he know how to prevent evil.
  4. Despite these attributes, evil still exists in the world.
  5. Therefore, God either lacks one or more of these attributes or does not exist.
    Very powerful argument and made me think about the argument and purpose a lot more then I wanted to.

Ok lets say that we all agree that capturing, torturing and killing an innocent person is the greatest evil and a child being born with a brain tumor that condemns it and its parents to horrible suffering until the child dies is the worst suffering. I’m not saying they are but for the sake of argument lets pick those two. Then God should do us a solid and eliminate those two at the very least. Actually I could think and would want some more added like rape, disgusting people seem to get the riches and power, cancer, hunger and animal cruelty. But lets just stay with the two. Ok God creates the universe without those two in it. We would never have known they existed. We would then look out at the universe void of those two and demand that God eliminate or never have created the greatest evil and the greatest suffering that exist in our universe. We would and by the logic of the argument keep following down the list of all evils and suffering until they are all gone because even though some by our current standards may not seem all that bad like a stubbed toe by the standards of anyone in that universe it would be unthinkable evil and suffering. So God should make a universe with no evil and no suffering kind’ve like a nice safe safari amusement park where the animals walk up and high five us as we party comfortably in self driving vehicles while banging a beautiful girl and drinking a nice cold beer. Actually sounds kinda nice come to think of it.

What would be the point of creating a universe at all then? If the only point of the universe is for there to be no evil or suffering then epic fail. And so there must be more to the purpose or reason for creating all this then that.

Heres my take on at least some of the reasons why God made the universe, life and consciousness.

I believe that God made the universe so that as many conscious beings like us as possible would have the chance to grow, develop our minds and understanding with an unlimited amount of things to discover, learn, and experience as we choose our path. And he did that by designing the universe, life consciousness with as much freedom as possible. This freedom is even built into the structure of nature and will have tragic results at times. Because of this no living creature can take the path they take lightly for the consequences can be serious. And all living creatures cant take life completely for granted either as it can end for any of us at any point. This means that it can be harsh and brutal for some or all at times but any other way would not provide the same opportunity for depth. Its impossible to be happy without gratitude and impossible to be grateful without some humility. Humility comes from the understanding that there are things beyond our control. That wouldn’t be possible in a universe without freedom and the consequences that come with it.

One last thing I am not a member of any religion so don’t judge any religions based on anything I say.

1 Like
2

Atheism is the position that there’s not enough objectively verifiable evidence to justify a belief in god. Why does that need to include other beliefs by default?

2 Likes
3

This is purely subjective and not really an argument, just a personal preference.

This is simply a societal preference and perhaps a claim for the semantic high ground. But I think you have a point, if we go to older dictionaries we have the strong atheist definition and more modern ones we have the weak definition.

This to some extent depends on a belief in free will. If we don’t have free will then the concept of evil is rather irrelevant at least for us mere mortals. Does your God have free will, and what is your evidence for it?

Okaaaay … And your evidence or logical argument?

1 Like
4

Lie. If you believe in God, than you are a Christian and that makes you part of a religion.

2 Likes
5

I won’t hold my breath.

This is an excuse not to meet your burden of proof. Your statement doesn’t excuse you of presenting evidence in a debate. You came here to convince us to believe as you do and you’re doing a poor job in selling us.

Claim.

Claim

Just so you know, preaching is not debating. Preaching is against our guidelines. Please refrain from doing that.

You’re ignoring this one statement. Your opinion is not a fact. You’ve been presented with the official definition that Atheism is not a religion. You ignore and keep pushing your bs opinion. This makes you a liar and also weakens your arguments further.

atheism
atheism893×600 75.1 KB

irrelevant bullshit.

No. The Romans created Christianity. Gods were created by humans. You have yet to prove the existence of a deity. Without using the bible, what objective evidence do you have for the existence of one?

Irrelevant. Evil has nothing do with becoming an Atheist. Researching religion and concluding that deities do not exist is a major factor.

No it isn’t. The best argument is that there is no evidence for the existence of gods. Again, you are making things up.

1 Like
6

Indeed, but sufficient objective evidence negates this.

Irrelevant, what have you got? You are waving an empty bag around, and you’re not the first to claim it has “magic beans” in it.

Well let me explain, letters exist as an objective fact, the moon exists as an objective fact, chicanery exists as an objective fact, so even as a risible hypothetical, your poisoning of the well fallacy violates Occam’s razor, you’re spiel is among some of the most poorly reasoned apologetics I have seen, seriously weak stuff. No offence intended obviously…

At some point I am going to have to start counting the unevidenced assertions you are making, but they are coming too fast at the minute.

One does not learn by “coming to a conclusion” one learns first, and then only if it is justified by what one has learned, does one (tentatively) reach a conclusion. maybe you can learn that much at least, while you’re here?

It’s not an idea, it is the primary definition of a word, something else you need to learn it appears.

I don’t believe any deity exists, however I do not hold the unfalsifiable belief that no deity exists. So…am I an atheist? Think carefully now, if you’re able…

I don’t believe either of your bare unevidenced claims.

This is irrelevant to our claim a deity exists.

No, I do not agree at all, and evil is a subjective idea.

Not necessarily, this would depend on what deity you’re imaging exists outside of the human imagination.

The straw man arguments are based on claims theists make, thus your question will only have any relevance to those theists. If you want to offer something more than irrational arguments, then start by demonstrating a deity exists r is even possible, otherwise you might as well be arguing how mermaids smell.

Not really interested in your subjective hypotheticals, can you offer any objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible?

Unevidenced subjective opinions are not very compelling, and even prima facie one could point out the objective fact, that the universe makes such life impossible on a vast scale, implying either an incompetent wasteful deity, or your reasoning is woefully poor and biased. My money must be on the second, as I know that is at least possible.

I judge all claims to the same standard, yours are woeful unsupported.

2 Likes
7

I love the way you come onto an Atheist forum and tell us what we do/don’t believe, according to you.
Ignorance and arrogance on full display.

2 Likes
8

I see none cited in your post, only claims?

Epicurus was arguing against concepts of deities that people had claimed were real, paradoxically atheism needs no arguments, since it is simply the lack or absence of theistic belief, anymore than I need an argument against invisible unicorns or magic mermaids.

1 Like
9

So despite having been educated repeatedly by several here about atheism, he still persists in regurgitating the same lies on the subject we see all the time from mythology fanboys?

Anyone here at all surprised at this?

1 Like
10

A cursory site search and reading would reveal a list enough of the same claims and arguments, and the responses.

More initial reading and less posting may be a foreign concept in the Xtian myth forums.

11

What about all the people who claim god revealed himself to them and/or claim to have a personal relationship with god? Have they not lost their freedom of choice? The god of the Bible had no trouble revealing himself to countless people and thus taking their freedom to believe in him or not. Has he done them a disfavor?

12

When I look at evidence for an Outside Intelligent Agent I don’t let religion, emotions or peoples personal experiences come into play. That works for some people but not for me.

13

You seem to be taking this a threat or insult. Looking at for any and all possible errors. I was just laying out some opinions and things from my perspective. But lets get to the debate.

14

So you’re going to ignore the numerous cogent reasons I provided in your other thread for dismissing your opinions?

1 Like
15

Still regurgitating this lie, despite your being educated by several here why this is a lie?

Once again, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT.

Furthermore, I’m on public record here (as you would have learned, if you had exercised even a basic level of diligence) of explaining in detail why your assertion is a bare faced lie. Since you couldn’t be bothered to exercise said diligence, I’ll repeat what I’ve previously stated on the matter, so that you’re left in no doubt about how this issue is treated rigorously.

Item one: no one who treats this issue seriously, asserts that a god type entity in its most general form, does not exist. Instead, we recognise that this is an unanswered question. Not least, because if a proper, rigorous answer had been found in the past, said answer would now be part of our mainstream body of knowledge, and no one would be arguing about this.

Item two: however, we can, and with confidence, dismiss as candidates for the “god role”, the assorted cartoon magic entites asserted to exist in various pre-scientific mythologies. We can do this because said magic entites are asserted to possess contradictory and absurd properties. Such entities can be dismissed on that basis alone.

This does not exclude “god candidates” that are of non-mythological origin, that are either consistent with known physics, or provide consistent extensions to known physics.

But, until evidence for such an entity materialises, we may safely operate on a provisional basis, as if such an entity does not exist, while remaining willing to revise our position if relevant data informs us that doing so is necessary .

Furthermore, that evidence, if it ever arrives, will falsify all of our ridiculous pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.

It remains to point out pertinent facts before moving on - first, “my favourite mythology says so” isn’t “evidence” for a god of any sort, let alone the sort of ridiculous cartoon magic entities blindly asserted within said mythologies to exist; instead, this is evidence solely for the propensity of the authors of the mythologies in question to engage in wild and fanciful fabrication.

Second, ex recto apologetic fabrications of a sort that an astute child would point and laugh at, aren’t “evidence” for a god either - they’re evidence for the desperation and dishonesty of the pedlars of said apologetics.

That’s the essential difference between us and the mythology fanboys - we are prepared to change our minds the moment we’re presented with proper data, while mythology fanboys repeatedly demonstrate here and elsewhere, that no amount of data falsifying the assertions of their favourite mythologies will have the slightest effect upon them.

Item three: apparently you are unaware of what would happen, if genuine evidence for a genuinely existing god type entity were ever presented. The following would be the case:

[1] The evidence in question would be headline news around the world for months, and would practically be the only topic of public debate for the duration;

[2] The world’s most prestigious scientific journals would be fighting among themselves to be the first to publish the data;

[3] Whoever alighted upon said evidence would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

That none of the above has happened, should be telling you something important.

Now I strongly suggest that you learn from the above exposition. Your failure to do so will simply reinforce suspicions about your mendacity.

3 Likes
16

Hanging around this place can be challenging.

On the other hand, ‘Good Evidence’ has standards. I can see where this is going already. I will obviously be referencing the 40-foot, fire-breathing, invisible, non-corporal, dragon, that lives in my backyard throughout your attempt to evaluate proper evidentiary support of any proposition. Different claims require different levels of evidence. If you said you had oatmeal for breakfast, I would accept that statement at face value. But what of my fire-breathing dragon? What evidence do you need to demonstrate that such a magical thing exists factually and is living close by? If you take me at my word, you are a gullible fool. (So, at what point would you stop being a gullible fool? What if I showed you a book, told you a story, drew a picture, made a logical argument, told you of a miracle about which you had no other explanation, got testimony from the neighbors, what if I could convince you that all intelligent people or honest people can see the dragon and I showed you a paw imprint on a blanket or told you that dragons could exist because of the double slit experiment?) At what point do you stop looking like a fool for believing my story?

[quote=“scrappykoala, post:1, topic:5473”]
For if he did there would be a team of atheists on earth trying to figure out how it randomly got there.
[/quote] Since you were just kidding, I won’t comment. It made no sense anyway. Random? WTFf?

So your belief system is important.

Perhaps. Do you care about what is real? If your beliefs are delusional, how is that important? If a person is running about with delusional beliefs aren’t they harmful? Would it not be better to have a system of looking at beliefs to determine if the beliefs are true? (This would be the field of inquiry known as ‘Epistemology.’) It’s all fine and dandy to have beliefs, but how do you know, whether or not, what you believe is true? Are you willing to hold onto beliefs that are not true?

This is a complete non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with anything. No one can be “Angry at a God” and “Not believe in a God,” without looking like a complete idiot. Not that it can’t happen. We have seen a few on the site. They do not last long around here.

How in the hell did we get to the question of evil? This is turning into a Gish Galloping fallacy. Do you know how to stay on topic? You are rambling. You’re also repeating yourself. You have said the same thing in previous posts and in this post, you are not adding any new information that addresses any of the points the atheists on this site have made against your claims.

According to scripture. According to the Holy Bible. According to the First Commandment. What is the absolute worst sin that a human being could do? Worse that rape, murder genocide, killing every first born child in a kingdom, or drowning every living thing on a planet. What is the one unforgivable crime?The one crime that is guaranteed to end a Christian up in hell?

" 30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters . 31 Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

The most heinous crime. That crime is more abhorrent than all others, according to Biblical scripture, has nothing to do with the pain and suffering of humans, it is simply offending this God thing you want to believe in.

Ask your god thing. If you were a creator, would you create a car that constantly broke down or never needed repair? We can ask the same question to modern car manufacturers with their built-in obsolescence. ‘What would be the point of building a car that did not need repairs?’ They make inferior cars so that they can make money from us. So that we will return to them for parts, tune-ups, and other work. So this god you speak of is… 'just a good businessman?" God fucked people up to keep them dependent on him?

You have no grounds for such a belief. You have cited nothing in anything you have stated above that could lead to the conclusion of a universe-creating God. You have repeated yourself and avoided addressing any questions posed by people who responded to your previous posts. At this point, you are becoming repetitious and boring.

Please demonstrate that the universe is designed. And if the universe is designed, how do you know it was a god that designed it and not a monkey?

Freedom? Are you delusional? You are stuck on an atomic particle in the vastness of the universe, without the ability to see beyond your toenails. Your eyes and hearing are shit and outperformed by hundreds of other animals around you. You have a mind that leaps to conclusions and creates fantasy anytime new information is introduced.

Your assertion that

is utterly and completely ‘STUPID.’ The fact that you can not control something does not mean you have freedom. I can lock you in a cell with your hands and feet bound. You have no control over me or what I am doing, but you have freedom? Your assertion is just FOOLISH.

Your careless utterances are vaguely structured nonsensically juvenile, repetitive meanderings, that get you nowhere near the defense of a universe-creating deity of any kind. Frankly, I am left wondering, which religious institution would have you as a member?

2 Likes
17

Ok first off there are three principles I use to judge the weight of evidence or an argument or idea.

  1. Do we have any history to back this up? Is there a precedence? Have seen similar things?
  2. Out of the options what seems more reasonable or likely? If this is a true or false situation then what seems more reasonable or likely that this true or that this false?
  3. Is this the simplest most straight forward unconvoluted option?

All three don’t have to be correct but the more the merry. For example #2 definitely doesn’t work when it comes to a lot of concepts in physics that are counter intuitive. Quantum Physics for example sounded like someone was on acid trying to explain a Sci Fi show.

Ok so then let’s start with what’s around us. And yeah I know everyone on either side of a debate has debate arguments and rebuttals like opening chess moves. But when I see people use this argument they usually don’t know a lot of science or at least thats my opinion. And I’m talking about people on my side of the debate. So starting with what’s around us:

In the laboratory of the universe we have seen trillions of experiments but have only ever seen the following:

  1. Only life can give rise to life.
  2. Only consciousness / intelligence can give rise to consciousness / intelligence.
  3. Nothing comes into being from nothing. Yes particles can pop in and out in a flash but they are not even present long enough to be considered “coming into existence”. They are most likely virtual particles, or they could be coming from another dimension thats a part of this universe.
  4. We have never seen functional information arranged in a language, code or set of instructions come from a non intelligent source.
  5. We have never seen multicomponent systems with several interdependent coordinated subsystems/processes capable of communicating, adapting to information, and its own internal governing structure come from by way of unguided processes. Rather such systems we recognize immediately as coming from intelligence and having been designed and engineered.

Although we hear over and over that evolution is a fact, settled science, or tons of evidence that is not the case at all. Many people actually think that we have already at least partly figured out origin of life methods and that is not true at all. It’s said over and over that we can get something from nothing and sometimes even said that it’s not a big deal. This is such an intellectually dangerous and crazy thing to propose. Clearly such a thing would make a mockery of science. When people propose this they talk about quantum fields or multi-verses but that is no where near nothing. First off our universe is made up of nothing but fields or at least thats the opinions of a lot scientists and myself. The quantum field is one of many but an extremely important part of the universe. Many atheists and evolutionists (die hard evolutionists that seem to treat it like a religion) there is now a back pedaling away from language that we used for a long time. The DNA “code” that DNA is a language or that the cells are like intelligent computers or cities or smart cities or factories or that a component is like a machine and so on. But the original words and examples that were used for these things were used because often times they are the best way of referring or conceptualizing them. Or that their functions and make up is so similar to another object that we know that it’s basically non sensical to not state the obvious and refer to it or explain it that way.

We now have the possability of AI right now or in the near future. I mean AI as in aware, sense of agency, cognitive adaptability / and other characteristics that we have. If/when this happens if it has happened already we will once again see #2 that only consciousness / intelligence gives rise to consciousness / intelligence. We humans and we are talking many hundreds of the smartest humans working very diligently and focused on the problem for decades plus the unwitting participation of all of humanities interactions on the internet gave rise to it. Not some random event, or unguided processes. A computer with just an operating system and no intelligent agent didn’t one day have error or some interesting event that then spawned AI on its hard drive.
Once again those 5 things have never been violated ever to any of our knowledge. None of us have ever witnessed such a thing. Many of us would be shocked / frightened or struck by a feeling that a super natural event had taken place if we saw any of those 5 points violated. The OIA would have to be very intelligent and powerful to create all of this and so not violate 2. The OIA would be O or outside of the things it created and would not be able to be made of those things or bound by those principles or laws and so would not violate 3.

An Outside Intelligent Agent (OIA) is the only thing that could provide an explanation for all 5 with out violating any of them. The OIA would be alive (agent) and not violate 1. the OIA

But for me the real clincher is in 4 and 5. Just a single cell especially a eukaryotic cell that is part of complex organisms like an animal is so far beyond the reach of unguided methods that it screams engineered and designed. All five of those points are far better explained and really only possible with an OIA. Lets say that well even though there is no convincing evidence for a non guided method for first life, evolution, intelligence, intelligent systems, and complex functional information arranged in a language, code or instructions but there are many hypothesis that have a lot of people spending a lot of time on. These hypothesis are extremely convoluted, Sci Fi or miriaculous sounding and have conveniently never been seen or proved before but there is a special reason that we were never able to see these things, find convincing evidence or prove any of it.

Even though we see those same 5 points played out billions of times right in front of our eyes. The only possible thing that makes sense for #3 is something outside of this universe not bound by anything in this universe creating it. For example if we are a simulation then that would make sense. I could get behind that because it doesn’t involve something that violates common sense, physics and damn near everything else (Im referring to something from really nothing). Or if a really advanced civilization engineered life on this planet that would take care of 1, 2, 4 and 5 and that would make more sense then random errors leading to brand new more advanced and far more complicated body plans. That would make way more sense then random chemicals, substances and energy fluctuations or discharges giving rise to life and I would think at a minimum a cell. Think about a cell and what’s involved with a cell. Before just knee jerked reactions or taking it for granted that it can be done think about all the components that would be needed right from the start. You could have trillions of years and you’re never going to see some things happen.

I don’t care what great philosopher or thinker makes the claim that given enough time anything is possible that is absolutely demonstrably false. Give enough time you will never have a tornado roam through a forrest and as a result there is a brand new functional wooden machine with sub parts, navigational abilities, mobility, and independent decision making ability. Or a functional machine with all the above made out of anything you find in nature in the path of a tornado no matter how many years you have.

Most people think thought that they have 4.5 billion years to play with. But that is a common misconception. You only have portions of that 4.5 billion years for any particular result that you’re looking at. It is believed that first life in the form of single celled organisms arrived pretty quickly and so you don’t have a lot of that 4.5 billion and yet you would need the whole bloody thing. First life are you kidding? Thats by far the hardest most statistically unrealistic and most interdependent on multiple parts and systems part of getting around an OIA. I’m sure you know of the 10^70 possible combination space in proteins and have heard that plenty. I hear you but that math is still a bit of an issue but thats not even any where close to the really big problems that are crazy to consider having all happened at the same time without an OIA. When you need multiple interdependent systems and/or functions parts machines at the same time you can safely give up on unguided processes.

So starting with the things around us that we deal with and experience on a daily basis an OIA of some type required for any of the 5 points and an OIA of beyond biological capabilities and restrictions is required for all 5 points. Even if you don’t except “required” it should be considered the most reasonable being that in trillions of events and examples that we have witnessed or knowledge of that is the answer that fits.

18

Still regurgitating this lie, despite your being educated by several here why this is a lie?

Once again, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT.

Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you get some magical status where you get to dictate the rules. Unless you are the owner of the forum then that I would absolutely respect because private property and rights are sacred to me. But atheists don’t get to dictate the rules. Acting as if I’m in trouble or have violated something you don’t like won’t affect me. Calling me a liar is really a bad sign and very bad logic skills. How can I be lying for stating my opinion? Think about that and then think about the very first sentence you made lol.

I just caught something else because I wasn’t paying that much attention but you managed to make two logical fails in the first two sentences hahaha. First referring to an opinion as a lie screams insecure and bad logic but then the second sentence you then become a hypocrite violating the very thing you complaining about when you labeled me and my opinions and in a derogatory way no less even though I didn’t do that about atheism. Once again just my opinion but you are way too emotionally invested in this. You have the same passion and emotions found in people with serious and sincere devotion to a person or religion. But on the positive side. You have passion and fire and strong convictions and opinions and that in a world of timid conformity thats a good thing. So I take it all back … I celebrate you sir.

In fact I shall name my motorcycle or the next time I buy a sailboat Calilasseia in your honor.

19

History is not evidence? Do you know what history is? This is an EXTREMELY VAGUE CONCEPT. You may as well have said, I studied last week. ( History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspects, to present developments and future hopes)

Precedence does not lead us to knowledge. For thousands of years, people believed evil demons caused disease. That was the main idea until the ‘Germ Theory’ of disease came around. The early Christians believed the earth to be flat with four corners and covered by a dome with holes poked in it. That was the belief of their time. And you are looking for presidence? Really? Have you ever had a science class?

So you are a flat earth creationist? If you choose from that which seems more reasonable, you are trusting your senses without regarding the fact that they can be fooled. Indeed the earth looks flat from the top of a mountain. We know this to be the case. We also know we live on a circular planet. We have known this since Hellenistic astronomy in the 3rd Century, the Chinese may have established it well before that. But you are going to trust what seems reasonable. NO! This is not a path to truth.

  1. The most straightforward option? Hmm? So, a magical flying sky daddy who can live outside the universe in nothingness, who is eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent in our universe at the same time, is simpler than the bonding of two atoms? Really? None of your suggested criteria will lead you to truth or knowledge, and none is necessary.

  2. Only life can give rise to life: You can not demonstrate this.
    Here is the problem. We see life beginning in the vents of volcanoes in the deepest parts of the oceans. We see life starting in the hostile sulfur-rich environments or guisers. We see life spontaneously occurring under the Antarctic ice caps where no sunlight has touched for thousands of years. We see organisms flourishing inside nuclear reactor waste, where no sane organism could live, and yet, there it is. We see the building blocks of life, amino acids strewn throughout the universe on planets and asteroids. What we don’t see is God. From all indications, it appears, that life may come from inorganic materials. You do realize that your body is 60% inorganic. We don’t know, but the evidence is leaning toward a natural process and not a God.

  3. Consciousness gives rise to itself? This is quite circular. Consciousness is a product of physical interactions. Our consciousness is an outward manifestation of an internal process, an emergent property of the function of brain.

How do you know this? Have you ever seen ‘nothing?’ Do you have any examples? Can nothing exist? If it exists, wouldn’t that make it something? You seem very confused with your assertions. Have you actually given this matter any thought? Other dimensions? Really?

  1. You are making an equivalency error with the word ‘code.’ I expect you are referencing DNA. DNA is not a code in the same sense Morris Code is a code. DNA is chemical reactions. We made the code to understand the chemical interactions. Do some reading: DNA is a molecule (a macromolecule). It is not a code and it does not contain a code. The only way that “code” is related to DNA is when we write down a DNA sequence using code, such as “TGAACTTA” We use a code to understand it.

I’m off to lunch. Got to go… Do some reading.

1 Like
20

And you know the list succeeding your quote (above) to be true because you’ve seen all of space/time? Or is it that your list is true because that’s all we see, therefore that’s all there is?

Oh, @scrappykoala, you say a lot of words. Tsk, tsk, tsk (walking away shaking my head).