So what are those things in the universe that point to design?
Read the OP for goodness sake.
There may be a few things,
LOL literally
but there’s a lot of stuff that seems more like a random combination of things rather than an organized effort.
Sure like all that ATP you produce every single day.
Go watch a CGI video of how ATP is produced and keep in mind that is pre-cellular so you don’t get to use evolution but just regular old magic magnets just auto-assembling right into ATP.
All by themselves. Atheism is truly comical in all its nonsense.
You’re massively outgunned on this site, there are a LOT of very smart people who like to gather here
And yet they are entirely devoid of all but the most sophomoric, easily refutable arguments.
Dude I have been doing this for a very long time and I have not seen a single argument that I have not seen and shredded before. Not a one.
I am not intimidated because Atheism is proven nonsense and I just keep shredding the same old nonsense over and over looking for anything even remotely original much less of any actual logical value.
You say god(s) exist. I say that I don’t believe you. How and when did you prove that my lack of belief is nonsense? Are you asserting that I actually do believe you?
This is the question I asked and you answered with:
which means I can understand you have a comprehension problem.
Either that, it is the answer you meant to convey, and is not an answer but avoidance, or, you just could not answer the question…
I will ask again simply, what makes you so special as a human you can see these “truths” that no other humans can grasp?
How did you alone avoid the “brainwashing” that all the rest of us here were subject to?
Hopefully you do understand that science does not ‘PROVE’ anything. Science builds models.
So then, suppose a distant start started flashing a repeating signal that, when interpreted as binary, turned out to be an entire 5 min mpeg movie showing that star system and zooming into a planet that then shows a community of alien creatures being all alien.
After verifying that this signal originated outside of our solar system 99.9% of rational adults would logically conclude that such a signal is overwhelming PROOF of intelligent causation. Including you and all your buddies here.
Play semantics all you like but facts are stubborn things.
I have seen no proof for a designed universe and I have been looking at evidence for over 40 years. What amazing new proof did you discover?
Nothing new I am just here to make sure you know that the Big Bang IS EVIDENCE of a design.
Gravity IS EVIDENCE of a design.
ATP IS EVIDENCE of a design.
A Book IS EVIDENCE of an author.
An Aircraft IS EVIDENCE of design.
If you cannot see that it is because your brain is not working correctly.
Brainwashing is a real thing.
And that is the real point of why I’m here.
Your mind is compromised in a way that makes it oblivious to reasoning and logic.
What you do with this information is up to you but one thing you cannot honestly say and that is that no one ever told you.
Because his mom told him he was “special”, and he still is. The rest of us poor deluded atheists don’t even know what we believe, we’ve all managed to brainwash ourselves.
@sourcecodewizard, if you carry on shouting the same things over and over at folks, I will conclude that you are not here to have a conversation or to debate. Simply taking up space by engaging in repetition is unacceptable. If you continue there will be consequences.
That makes sense, for someone whose posts make it clear they have no understanding of epistemology , burden of proof, logic, or any kind of grasp of the rationale of debate, and are utterly closed minded, and seems to be here purely to troll, and still doesn’t understand that atheism is not a proper noun.
So firstly whatsoever is one word champ, but that’s a lie, I and others have very specifically pointed out your arguments are relentlessly irrational, using known informal fallacies, even repeating them after they’ve been pointed out, and explained to you, it is clear you have no understanding of logic.
That seems like it should be in your profile.
I tire of asking, what is a magic magnet?
Atheism is not a claim, and makes no claims, it has no dogma, no doctrine, and is solely and exclusively the lack of belief in any deity or deities. If you can’t even get something as basic as that right…
Disbelief doesn’t require an argument, as it makes no claims, again that you don’t have even this most basic grasp of epistemology isn’t a surprise at this point.
I have no problem believing you think this is true, none.
Like Don Quixote, those windmills don’t stand a chance.
Like a goldfish staring into the abyss, you have everything you need in your narrow little world, all that opaque nonsense outside the glass, who needs the hassle right?
For one we concur, but I don’t need you to promote my posts.
I made no such claim, that was your straw man.
Ad hominem fallacy, tell us again how we are irrational.
I don’t think that’s the case. Different people interpret phenomena according to their mental framework. For example, in the Old Testament, there is the idea of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” which can seem vindictive and driven by personal resentment. However, in Eastern religions, there is the concept of karma—whatever you do returns to you, like a natural force, regardless of your intentions. There is no personal vengeance here, but the outcome is the same. These are the same observations from different perspectives.
We don’t choose our psychological structure, just as we don’t choose our body. Not everything works for everyone. Pretending to create a religion is like pretending to create a new organ.
Everyone knows when they’re experiencing psychosis or when they are healthy. Religion is concerned with creating proper motivations for humans to develop a specific mental framework. Often, this requires symbolic representation, but that’s not the same as a lie.
For example, Bohr’s model of the atom is not a lie; it’s a symbolic representation that helps you understand something (the atom) that is otherwise difficult to grasp in its original form. Religion functions similarly, but it works with mental frameworks rather than intellectual ideas.
Natural selection and mythology don’t have much to do with falsifiable ideas; they are about the effects of those ideas. Believing in God makes humans behave as if their environment has some sort of intelligence or qualia, deserving respect. Natural selection acts on this behavior, rather than on the specific belief itself.
In other words, before producing falsifiable evidence, you need a human being with the proper motivations, a specific viewpoint, and a psychological structure capable of pursuing that evidence. This is what mythology aims to provide. However, this process doesn’t happen in a single generation; it’s a long-term mechanism that shapes the fundamental motivations of societies over time.
Now, what is the reality behind these myths? A common mistake is to think that because religions are symbolic, their imagery isn’t real. That’s not true. Religions are symbolic only because we can’t fully understand the reality they refer to in its original form (just like Bohr’s model of the atom), not because there’s no reality behind them.
My point is not to claim that God is the creator of our mind; in fact, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. However, the existence of qualia makes the existence of God a valid possibility.
The problem I see is that a literal interpretation of phenomena does not necessarily describe the full reality of things. When we study a specific species of insect, we define its body, behavior, and evolution, but we know nothing about how the insect experiences its own existence or what it feels while we are studying it. In other words, we are missing the most fundamental aspect of this creature. Similarly, I believe that a material and mechanical description of reality may not reveal everything there is.
Qualia is only one example in all of this.
Certainly, false knowledge is harmful. However, not knowing is different from refusing to acknowledge something. We already have evidence that reality is more than just inert matter.
Why is it so difficult to believe that the Universe existed infinitely into the past, yet we accept the idea of a God (or gods) that exists infinitely into the past?
There is a double-standard here. Can’t you see that?
You haven’t refuted anything. You just keep saying that over and over again. We can say the same thing about you that you are using the same, tired, fallacious arguments without understanding why their bad. Not really engaging us logically. You are just a troll…
I find the idea morally repugnant, so people we see suffering have somehow brought this on themselves, luckily there is no more objective evidence for this superstitious belief, than there is for any deity.
False equivalence fallacy, we know creating religions is possible, in the absence of any objective evidence to support them, I have no reason to believe they are doing anything but pretending those religions are true.
That’s not true, people suffering from schizophrenia are far less able to differentiate reality from hallucination, and hallucinations are not uncommon in people without schizophrenia, and they can seem very real. Our sense are simply not as reliable as some people want to imagine, and that’s when they are functioning well.
Well many seem concerned with amassing wealth, and recruiting and indoctrinating as many adherents as possible.
False equivalence fallacy, we know atoms exist and are possible, we have no objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural is possible. Also, all scientific idea must be falsifiable, and testable, and make real world predictions, and only then if sufficient objective evidence supports them, do they move beyond mere hypothesis, otherwise they are discarded. So it is as I say a pretty clear false equivalence fallacy, to compare religion to any scientific idea.
Natural selection is not unfalsifiable, most concepts of deities and the supernatural are, so this looks like another false equivalence fallacy, especially since natural selection is supported by overwhelming objective evidence, and deities and the supernatural are not.
I don’t believe you, you are making another sweeping unevidenced assertion. The rest of the paragraph just doubled down on such unevidenced assertions, these are meaningless in a debate.
This has all the hallmarks of another straw man. I don’t believe in deities for the same reason I don’t believe in unicorns and mermaids, et al, because their existence is unsupported by any objective evidence.
Another sweeping unevidenced claim.
Nope, that’s a false equivalence as I explained above.
I’m not trying to be a contrarian here, but this is the case. Protagoras and the sophists in 5th century BC Greece started relativism with more or less this in mind. Back then there were a bunch of polytheistic religions and they must have noticed that Greece and Egypt had very similar gods in some cases. So the Egyptians following the gods was “true” for them and the Greeks following their gods was also “true” for them. Truth was thought to be relative to their culture.
The problem becomes apparent fast. Most religions, especially monotheistic, make numerous mutual exclusivity claims to prevent such things. In the Bible, John 14:6 states:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
There are numerous other examples in the Bible alone. Something is false here, they can’t all be true. If you go to heaven for one religion would you go to hell for all the rest?
Many times crazy people don’t know they are crazy. Not sure what this has to do with this thread.
The definition of religion is: Belief in or worship of some super human power. Some religions take it upon themselves to attempt to do things like you are describing, but that is not what makes them a religion. Buddhism does this, but it is not a religion…
These are apples and oranges. The first, natural selection, is part of the scientific theory of evolution and is, therefore, falsifiable. The second, mythology, is a product of human imagination and story telling which is completely subjective. It is important to the human experience, but can’t be used as an indicator of objective truth unless scientifically verified.
Do you see the circular reasoning here? Believing in god would naturally lead folks to think that the universe was made with intelligence. I was a Christian for 28 years. I never saw any direct evidence for god’s existence. Just saying stuff is complicated so my idea for it’s source must be true is a fallacy, as already mentioned above.
The philosophical study of epistemology is what we use to find truth. It is impossible to know if something unfalsifiable is true. You just have to assume it (faith). People make up religion, mythologies, and symbols and those same people assign meaning to it. That doesn’t automatically doesn’t mean that there is a common source. We share 99%+ the same amount of DNA so we’re going to have many of the same ideas. Most cats act the same, but that isn’t evidence that there is something more here. Any of these claims must be directly measured. Otherwise there is no way to tell the claims apart. Is Ra the sun god real? How do you test if the sun has super powers and intelligence?
The possibility of god existing has nothing to do with qualia since there is a possibility that god does not exist and qualia does. We just don’t know. We can’t use one to determine the other. Once again, it goes to a assuming the source fallacy and circular logic.
Not being able to explain something, is not objective evidence a deity did it, using inexplicable magic. You are using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The only one relentlessly using poor reasoning is you, it’s manifest in you using known logical fallacies in every post, as you have here again. The random capital letters are simply hilarious. Like you tacking the word fact in capitals, when what you’ve offered is not a fact, or the word logic, when you have in fact offered something that is demonstrably irrational.
I’m engaging I just have not got to you yet.
Plus you guys are talking about religion and I am specifically avoiding anything except provable fact here.
The possibility of god existing has nothing to do with qualia since there is a possibility that god does not exist and qualia does. We just don’t know. We can’t use one to determine the other. Once again, it goes to a assuming the source fallacy and circular logic.
Nothing circular here. Just regular old logic and based on mountain range after mountain range of evidence.
Starting with the big bang where nothing at all suddenly turned into a universe filled with hydrogen then stars and moving steadily along until you have ATP. ATP is real and is real evidence. Go watch the video of how all those pre-cellular atoms formed. And how many of them you need to form all together. Then you need a membrane. And none of that matters if that brand new cell can’t divide because if it tries and fails then you have to start all over again. Go take a look at what “no designer needed” mentality has to explain:
To look at this in another way, Douglas Adams used a brilliant argument called “the puddle anology” (which I first heard about on this forum, so I thank everyone here).
If we measure the dimensions of every puddle in the world, every single puddle will be different . . . yet if a puddle was a sentient, reasoning being, it would think that it was perfectly designed to fit into the hole that it occurs in. This puddle might believe that it owes its existence to a god because of how perfectly it fits in the hole, and how no other hole in existence would fit it as well.
It is like this with the chemistry of life.
None of this shows us that there is a God (or gods).
Are you capable of defining what this “nothing” that the big bang originated from actually was? What exactly is “nothing”, and what are it’s origins?
No one here is claiming that the universe started from “nothing”, you are, continually.
You definitely fit the description of arrogance and ignorance, all in one package.
