Clearly, his “Universe is designed” argument has been debunked about 5 times
If that makes feel better then roll with it but facts and evidence are stubborn things.
I have seen all your peoples tired, sad, nonsensical arguments many times and have duly shredded them one by one until there is no point in doing it again. So thanks for not even trying to use reasoning but instead just displaying your brainwashing for all to see. It is a good lesson for others who may wonder what actual factual brainwashing looks like “in the wild” so to speak.
For anyone properly using logic and reasoning based on evidence. I thought that part was obvious since I harp on it constantly.
Please provide attributes for this designer.
Intelligence much higher than any human as shown by the EVIDENCE of the structure of the Universe
None of the rest of your questions are relevant toward this discussion.
While I do have an opinion, it is simply that: an opinion.
This post deals with objective fact as in:
The universe we live in must necessarily have been designed in order to exist. Fact.
The Ptolemaic model of the solar system was a remarkable model, supported by evidence and capable of making predictions, yet it was completely wrong. We discovered this when new observations became possible.
This is why I tell you that intellect can be deceptive. It can create a seemingly perfect model that fits everything you observe from your perspective, yet still be a complete fabrication with no relation to reality.
And it is even more misleading than any mythology, because all available evidence and logic may support it, and yet it can still be a complete illusion.
What I fear is when a better model doesn’t require better observations, as in the case of the Ptolemaic model, but rather a completely different approach, which I believe is the situation today.
Except you omitted the “can be” in your previous claim, you claimed “Intellect is a great deceiver” which is clearly a different claim. Intellect is what we have, it is not of course infallible.
Mythology by definition is unevidenced, so no it is not “even more misleading” at all. Intellect has created science and logic, these are manifestly by far and away the best methods we have for understanding reality. Mythology doesn’t reveal objective facts about reality.
What did you want us to do with a subjective unevidenced belief you hold? This is a tired old canard that because methods like science are fallible, they are unreliable, especially when they contradict claims that religions have for millenia assumed were immutable divine diktat.
Maybe science is the best tool we have to improve our existence in the short term, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best long-term strategy.
I believe that relying solely on intellect could be dangerous, and a more flexible, open-minded, and intuitive approach might be necessary to find a way out of certain dead ends.
In fact, following linear logic doesn’t always lead to the best results. Sometimes these logical sequences of improvement lead to dead ends that can only be overcome by introducing random ‘errors’.
Question - Are you ignorant, or apathetic?
Your answer - I don’t know, and I don’t care.
Your opinions of the members here on this forum mean less than shit, you’re just another asshole who thinks they know better than an entire group of people. It makes you feel important, or even special.
You’re “special” alright, and in a class all by yourself.
I’ve read every response on this thread of yours, and it was a complete waste of time, time that I’ll never get back.
I’ve been an atheist my entire life, despite being “brainwashed” for the first 16-17 years of my life in a catholic family. 9 years of catholic school didn’t work either, even as a kid I never believed in any of their bullshit.
It’s not “brainwashing”, it’s common sense.
It’s the best tool we have for understanding reality, what we do with that understanding is another matter, but it can help us make more informed decisions, unlike mythologies obviously.
We discussed this already, and we cannot eschew our emotions entirely, nor would I want it otherwise, it is part of what makes us human.
Science is the most open minded method we have, that is axiomatic, since it is designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible.
Let’s use a little reason here. The Ptolemaic model is not longer considered true is because it has been falsified. We used objective data to prove it false. Concepts like god are inherently unfalsifiable. Any hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is not considered scientific because there is no way to test it. They are easy to make up and impossible to prove. Thus, unfalsifiable things take faith (belief without proof).
On a philosophical level, I find it interesting how theists dance between “there’s proof” and “your intellect can fail you, so just believe”. Which of the 4000 religions do you believe in and why? If for some bizarre reason I felt like I had to just believe something, I would faith myself into a little pot church in Indiana. But why believe something just because?
Faith is not to believe, is to love. But ok, let’s assume your definition for now.
Religion and mythology, in my view, are mechanisms developed through evolution. They serve as interfaces humans use to relate to the unknown—everything beyond our current understanding, our ability to observe, or what we have yet to discover.
There are as many interfaces as there are cultures and peoples, with each religion providing a unique way to understand reality.
These different practices all help us relate to the same reality, and they often converge on fundamental points, such as treating reality as if it were an intelligent agent rather than an inert thing.
Each specific practice reflects the way a particular group of humans best relates to this reality. In summary, the best religion is the one that makes you a better person for others, improves your relationship with your environment, and helps you connect with yourself in the best possible way.
The assumption that everything fundamental is falsifiable is just that—an assumption. Qualia, for example, is unfalsifiable, yet it is undeniably real and significant. After hundreds of thousands of years, mythologies have converged on the idea that our environment is not devoid of qualia and that we should be in harmony with it, just as we are in harmony with the physical dimension of reality.
If one day we are able to explain qualia in physical terms, nothing I’m saying will be invalidated. It’s obvious that if qualia exists, we should relate to it appropriately. The existence of qualia is a fact, so we must address it properly. Now, we can debate whether it’s possible for qualia to exist outside of brains, in other physical objects, what produces it, or whether it could have any effect on reality or is purely passive.
Because the questions you are asking are anything but simple to answer.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Note religious faith differs from the primary definition.
Four paragraphs, and not one word that followed answered this question?
Not what he asked though is it?
He made no such assumption, and you seem to have dodged another question?
Is it? I was under the impression it was a philosophical term that described something that is entirely subjective, like pain, I can’t know that what others experience is the same as my own subjective experience. This is why understanding reality is best achieved with methods that help remove subjective bias, and that is undeniable, and it is manifest in the results of such methods.
And I should care what unevidenced mythologies claim because?
false equivalence fallacy, you;ve gone from the unfalsifiable and subjective, to the falsifiable and objective.
Are you really suggesting we should start believing claims in case they turn out one day to be true? That’s hilarious sorry, explain what your criteria would be for disbelief then?
We have, we have pointed out that panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, and unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers. You seem to think those facts are not a barrier for belief, but you must know by now that no one here agrees, and why.
Which deity do you believe exists and why? That seems pretty simple to me. How about what objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate for any deity, again that is pretty simple. Yet as @CyberLN says, you avoid giving specific direct answers, and produce word salad, Occam’s razor mean anything to you?
I think that was another poster, to be fair. @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU is the magic rocks guy, or panpsychism proponent, same thing really.
