I will ask again simply, what makes you so special as a human you can see these “truths” that no other humans can grasp?
Many other humans can and do grasp the truth.
I’m not so special, I’m just the logic guy and I’m telling you that if you logically evaluate all the evidence you must necessarily conclude that the universe we live in must have been designed.
Pure logic. That’s what I do. Lot’s of other people do logic too, I am in no way unique.
How did you alone avoid the “brainwashing” that all the rest of us here were subject to?
I didn’t. I grew up on a lot of that nonsense. I finally pieced it all together and now, looking back, it’s just so obvious how screwed up my brain was to believe a lot of the same nonsense that I see here.
Now I’m looking to make up for any irrationality that I may have spread back when I was young and dumb.
Somebody built this universe we live in. That is proven fact based on mountains of evidence.
But you have yet to offer any objective evidence, only subjective claims.
A rather comical straw man fallacy.
Even were this true, and I am dubious, it is ian argumentum ad ignorantiam argument to claim your magic sky fairy is true, because we can’t explain or evidence an alternative.
Woohoo, well done champ, you got something right. Sadly your posts suggest you don’t understand why, but it’s progress of a sort.
No it’s not, that’s a false equivalence fallacy.
It is nether a fact, nor is it provable, but by all means share this knowledge or any proof, as repeating the claim without those, can only be viewed as a ridiculous lie.
The same false equivalence fallacy I highlighted earlier, we have sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate aircraft are designed, and like all designed things, they never occur randomly in nature.
It’s designed and created by humans, yes. Science is a method, what we learn describes things that exist, but the descriptions only exist because humans created them. Science is descriptive not proscriptive. Do you really imagine you’re the first apologist to peddle this irrational nonsense here?
Richard Dawkins isn’t a philosopher, he is a world renown scientist.
False equivalence fallacy, those designers can be observed, they can be measured, your god claims are unfalsifiable thus far.
Proofs are used in mathematics and formal logic, what people here are asking for is sufficient objective evidence.
This missing comma is really kind of appropriate considering your arguments.
But I digress.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Ok just a little, but I’m always right on the big stuff.
And you are solid up until here so I’ll roll with you.
making an assertion that a deity must exist, because you believe there is no alternative is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
This from an Atheist? Are you even kidding me?
When has a single one of you produced a shred of actual evidence as to why anyone should believe that sustained ATP could possibly occur without design.
And “because we believe there is no alternative”, yea sure just like a designer must exist to explain a helicopter, yep.
You are the ones who cannot admit that evidence is evidence when it is sitting right in front of you.
you are adding a deity that you can demonstrate no objective evidence exists,
nobody is “adding a deity”, we are saying that ATP exists [fact], go look at it and how it is produced.
And then Dude, wake up because that is called evidence.
Aircraft are designed by intelligent designers[fact].
this violates Occam’s razor,
This from the guy who thinks the periodic table is not evidence of design.
and has all the appearance when you’ve used it, of an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
laugh. sigh. The big bang to ATP is mountains of evidence of design. I know this may be difficult for you to understand or imagine but this evidence stuff really is important to a lot of people.
Address these facts (that’s the right context for the word btw) or don’t, others will simply point and laugh if you persist with your irrational disjointed rants. As of course, they should, it is pitiful nonsense,
Says the atheist who cannot see that evidence is in fact evidence then just bullies his way ping ponging around from nonsense argument to nonsense argument. All because, “how dare call any of this atheist bullshit the bullshit that it is”.
It’s bullshit just like all your arguments always are proven to be but it matters not because no amount of evidence and reasoning enters into the minds of the Atheist religious fanatics who operate outside of any rules of evidence, logic and reasoning.
Your claim doesn’t gain any credence through the lack of an alternative, that’s why your claim is fallacious. Take some time and learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is.
In the mean time, we know life exists, we know the physical material uniiverse exists, and we know natural phenomena are possible. You are adding a deity, and the supernatural, without any objective evidence those things are even possible. As has been explained multiple times.
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it does not need to posit alternative explanations to your unevidenced claims, the fact you don’t understand this is obvious, but it makes your claim comical, and your reasoning irrational.
I believe no such thing, i simply am not going to believe the claim it is designed in the complete absence of any objective evidence, which you have failed to offer. I am far from convinced you understood what would constitute objective evidence.
Because what you’ve offered is a subjective claim, it is unfalsifiable, untreatable, unsupported by any objective evidence, and has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Again it’s rather comical that you are seemingly unaware of this.
Sigh, why would I, and your response merely demonstrates that you don’t understand Occam’s razor as well. Do you really imagine that blind repetition will help?
Another idiotic straw man, that borders on trolling again. It is also comedy gold of course.
You’re making it difficult for me, but it actually has an explanation. In fact, this relatively sectarian idea (the belief that the truth exists only within my group) is typical of monotheistic religions, if you think about it. It relates to the more individualistic structure of Western psychology, where the individual is seen as the center of creation (Adam at the center of the earth, the earth at the center of the universe, etc.) and a single God is placed at the forefront (an individual God who relates personally, and so on). All of this is not coincidental; it reflects the emergence of the concept of the individual, which certainly did not exist before.
It’s no surprise that in this individualistic conception, the truth is identified with only one group, as the prevailing idea is that of the self, both collectively and individually. I’m saying this because, again, the idea that the truth resides only in your specific religion reflects the perception of reality shaped by this psychological structure.
However, I don’t believe that John 14:6 refers exclusively to Jesus himself; rather, I suspect it points to something more universal—something akin to “only those who follow the truth reach God.” I’m not claiming that this is its actual meaning, but it’s an illustrative example. In this case, the idea of ‘the truth’ seems less sectarian and more universal. Similarly, when Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth,” we need to understand exactly what he means by ‘I,’ since the debate about the nature of Jesus is anything but straightforward. For example, Jesus could be using himself as a metaphor for our true nature, which is a concept familiar in Buddhism. However, I believe this requires a deeper analysis.
I intended to say that the “truth” in religion lies in the effect it has on your mind, not in the intellectual correctness of the message. You must measure the truth of religion by observing how it transforms you. Religion must provide meaning, and this meaning is the truth. I know it may sound irrational, but I believe that disregarding meaning for the sake of intellectual truth is even more irrational (Yes, I know I’m opening a can of worms by saying this). Of course, the ideal is to have both.
Well, I think this is one of the functions of mythology in general—to provide meaning for human beings. I mean that, in the end, if there is a lack of motivation, humans do absolutely nothing. It’s no coincidence that the majority of monumental constructions since ancient times have been dedicated to religion. This is exactly what we should expect if religion is a generator of meaning for humanity.
Of course, this meaning can only be obtained if you believe in the message…
I totally disagree. Mythology probably predates language; in fact, some great apes seem to engage in archaic forms of symbolic behavior, like throwing stones at the base of trees. Moreover, there have been some surprising recent discoveries regarding Homo naledi that seem to indicate they practiced rituals.
But that’s not all. There is a natural mechanism, quite similar to mythology, that is present in many animal species: dreaming. Dreams are a symbolic and abstract representation of reality that often doesn’t make sense to us, but we dream every night, and it probably plays an important role in mental health.
I think mythology is a natural mechanism, not something voluntarily created by humans. If you try to remove mythology and be overly rational, you end up becoming a fanatic, obsessed with Star Trek or The Lord of the Rings… If you turn to communism, you end up creating a personality cult around whatever leader you have. It’s inevitable, and if you try to remove it consciously, it will return unconsciously.
As I told you, religion is not about intellectual truth (which is different from truth); it’s about providing meaning. It’s an emotional or motivational truth.
Yes, you are not going to discover the laws of gravity through religion. What you are going to do is something far more important: create the individuals capable of making such discoveries.
Without the motivation to find truth, epistemology would never come into being. Now the question is: what creates our motivations? Can we create them from nothing, as you suggest, or is this a far more complex process, as I believe it is? As I mentioned, mythology seems to have accompanied humanity since the beginning, so I’m not entirely sure we can simply create our own myths and assign meaning to them—much like how we cannot stop ourselves from dreaming or decide what we are going to dream about.
Sorry I missed informing you about an entire discussion we had on a different thread where I defended the idea that panpsychism could lead to the concept of God. In this discussion, I argued that considering qualia as an emerging property of matter necessarily implies panpsychism. Then, at Sheldon’s request, I used this syllogism to explain why qualia implies panpsychism:
Premise 1: All emergent properties are based on underlying fundamental properties in matter.
Premise 2: If qualia is an emergent property, there must be fundamental properties in matter from which it emerges.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be fundamental properties in matter that produce qualia.
From qualia to panpsychism, and from panpsychism to the idea that God is a valid possibility.
This is a fair question, and while I am not enough of a chemist to tackle this question in detail, I can substitute another question that makes the same points . . . the question of the bacterial flagella.
The bacterial flagella is–essentially–a wheel and motor, with an axle, a stator, is has switches to turn it on and off, and it is much more efficient than any human-made engine.
Also, if any one component is removed, then this thing won’t function, and because it doesn’t function without any one component, then how can it evolve? In fact, it is very reasonable to point out that a partial bacterial flagella is more detrimental to survival than no flagella at all, because a partial flagella would be taking up space and resources that might be more profitable used by something else. It should also be pointed out that there are–probably–tens of thousands (or even millions!) of bacterial generations between no flagella and a complete flagella, so the idea that the bacterial flagella could evolve piecemeal over this time frame becomes even more farfetched . . . by orders of magnitude.
This is because we would have to suppose that the detrimental “partial flagella components” persisted from generation to generation . . . despite having no survival value.
After all, fish, salamanders, and crayfish that live in caves are often blind and don’t even have eyes . . . and the best swimming fins in the world won’t do a camel any good. These blind cave fish lost their eyes over time because eyes are not an advantage in a cave, so how did the flagella evolve piecemeal?
So, we must conclude that the flagella was designed . . . right?
Not so fast.
The faulty assumption is that the components of the flagella were doing nothing prior to the evolution of the flagella, and this isn’t true.
We have all used tools for something that the weren’t intended for. I once used a large rock as a doorstop in my garage, and when I needed a hammer, I used the rock to hammer a nail because I was too lazy to look for a real hammer.
In a like manner, the discreet components of the flagella were performing other vital tasks. A “partial flagella” exists in the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, for example, and this process of repurposing exising components is called exaptation.
In a like manner, your ATP mechanisms came into being gradually by a combination of exaptation, evolution, death, and time.
That’s a big disappointment. Such as lost opportunity! I was hoping to get some insight into why people think the universe is designed. All we got was repetition that it was.
First, @sourcecodewizzard, aside from this discussion, are you having issues with the quotes? I see you use them, but it doesn’t show the source like it does on ours so it is sometimes a pain to track down who said what. I just highlight what I want to quote and click the “quote” button and it adds it. I am using brave browser on windows.
So not there’s more than one? How could you possibly know that? These are claims that need their own evidence. People make up religions all the time. It is easy to make a claim that some god did something. Just saying stuff exists does not work. You keep ignoring my question, how is this not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? You don’t know what the source is, but you assume it anyway.
All of these things are falsifiable. Anybody could go and take measurements and potentially falsify these claims. Invisible things can’t be measured, and many religions have many different claims on how we got here. Some it was an accident, others it was created, others, it has always existed. You can’t assume a source because of complexity. Back to the UFO example, we don’t know. Here is another question you won’t answer, Why assume? How does this help you?
I don’t know what you stance on evolution is, but we have measured bacteria going from less complex to more complex without a designer. This is why so many microbiologists back the theory of evolution. First, they took 12 vials with both a citrus and sucrose based food source. They put in a type of E.coli that could eat the sucrose based food but not the citrus based food. Every day they would date a sample from each of the 12 old vials, and put it into 12 new vials with new food. Each day would yield about 3 generations of bacteria. The then did this for 30 years. At one point, they then had one vial double in density. Over those generations the E.coli in one vial developed a way to use the citrus food source. The experiment also froze samples along the way to track its development. They say some of the other vails had already developed parts needed for the process, but only one developed everything needed. There was no designer here, just energy input and time. There are many experiments like this. How come this doesn’t need a designer but the periotic chart does?
Scientists have taken the basic building blocks of the universe, like strong and weak forces, inputted random number to these, and about 50% of the time got a universe that would be close to ours and functional. This makes sense when you realize that many of these forces have set relationships with each other. For example, if you change the speed of light, you will automatically change frequency of light and the flow of time (relativity).
We have watched an airplane being designed, built and tested. We have not done that with this universe. This is an invalid comparison.
Sorry, you don’t get a pass here. You can’t make a philosophical assumption and not deal with its ramifications. Not doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Why wouldn’t a complex designer not need to be designed? Did the designer come from nothing?
I don’t know why this is so hard for you. Very few of my theist friends (only the most ignorant) would make this argument because they understand that having something does not determine it’s source. None of my STEM theist friends make this argument and agree with me that it is fallacious. Once again, why isn’t this an assuming the source fallacy?
To be fair, I said this initially. It looks like @sourcecodewizzard is having problems with quotes. Richard Dawkins discussed this in one of his books, I think “The god Delusion”, along with the infinite regress any deity would require. It was more of a philosophical point he made.
Qualia is undeniably real, but panpsychism and the possibility of God are interpretations of the potential consequences of the factual existence of qualia.
In any case, whatever the explanation for qualia may be, we will probably have the possibility of it emerging naturally, apart from brains.
Now you are just making shit up; you have not proved that, no one has; it is presumably an impossible task. Claiming an impossible task has been completed is not something I’d recommend if you want people to take you seriously.
