(Patterns)........and Mystic?

Just more of the same, are we attempting to establish that patterns exist, are we attempting to establish that the requirements of life have been met? I don't understand.

(September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: If atheism is true

Any hope of this being a logical post stopped right here.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (Patterns)........and Mystic?

Just more of the same, are we attempting to establish that patterns exist, are we attempting to establish that the requirements of life have been met? I don't understand.

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

(September 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm)System of Solace Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that. It would seem that whatever conditions arise from "nothingness" or "infinite density" leads to conditions for life. But it's so fine tuned...and yes we would never have known if we weren't here.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm)System of Solace Wrote: Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that.

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

(September 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm)System of Solace Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that.

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

I was talking about the constants of electrons, speed of light, speed of expansion....if all this arises from "nothing" or "infinite density"...then why would it differ universe to universe when they would have came about from the same thing?

(September 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Faith No More Wrote: True, it could be an emotional state, but no, I was referring to being able to perceive personal experiences as valid or not. For example, a poster came by here once claiming that he had become unsure of god's existence and was having doubts about his faith, however, he still went to church. One day he was surrounded by church members who started praying for him, and he felt an overwhelming warm presence that he concluded must be god. I believe he even said he was knocked to his feet by it. Any attempt to explain to him that his brain was a highly flawed organ and it was most likely a flawed experience was dismissed.

Nearly every theist eventually will stop arguing their religion from a point of logic and claim that god is present in their lives, and that his how he/she knows god exists. It is they that rely too highly on their cognitive faculties.

That's my point. Is that "personal experience" a part of the cognitive faculties? Or is it the point where you analyze the experience that cognition comes in.

cog·ni·tion
Noun:
The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Experience - pure experience - is not prima facie knowledge unless it has been processed and analyzed by our mind. The personal experience your theist felt was the result a complicated social situation and represented just a warm feeling and a presence. Using his cognitive faculties would have required him to analyze that experience. But he skipped that part and took it as the prima facie evidence of god.

I'm saying that when theists say that they feel the presence of god, they are not using their cognitive abilities. The feeling itself may very well be a result of their cognitive abilities - such as the subconscious processing the information - but since they didn't use their cognitive faculties and jumped straight to the conclusion, that is not where the fault lies.