Hello soulcalm17

[Ferrocyanide]

You should use the HIDE tag to hide at least a portion of the text or your text, otherwise you will get Administrator Notice.

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT
Well, sounds like that problem is solved.
The argument was that if Mohammed made it up, why would he embarrass himself, therefore, the conclusion is that the text is of supernatural origin.

There isn’t any hint of embarrassment in the text, so case closed.

Your argument itself is faulty.
If there was some self embarrassment, this is insufficient to conclude that the jewish god exists, since I use Occam’s Razor.

I don’t know what was going through Mohammed’s head, I don’t know him personally, but I don’t see a problem with him saying those things.
To me, it just looks like good salesmen advice.

Even if there was a line in the Koran where it said
“The jewish god said that I am a fucking moron. I am Mohammed and he just told me that I am a fucking moron and also he pulled my pants down in front of everyone.”

that would not convince me that there is any magical beings, any gods, any aliens or alien gods.


My first thought would be, “Who writes books? Human’s write books.”
“Is an alien or god needed to write a story? Nope. Anyone can buy some ink and paper and write whatever they want.”
 “What is going on in the mind of this author? What is the author trying to communicate to the reader?”



END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

---

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

The fundamental stuff means that it is fundamental stuff that is exist and is the basic of all  of universe. So it would be no other particle/matter that causing it. That's why I did not ask again to you, what causing that fundamental matter.

OK.

I assumed that we can't still discover and observe both of them. My God is unseen. And your matter might be still hasn't been found (thus unseen as well) i.e might be some other basic particle that we haven't found yet.

I can’t tell the difference between Universe A and Universe B. Both seem identical to me.
1. Universe A: the jewish god exists. He created the stuff and lifeform on this planet. Everything is artificial. He doesn’t show himself.
2. Universe B: No gods exists. Everything is natural.

If you want to believe that the jewish god exists outside this universe, I can use another name. Let’s call it Puniverse.
1. In Puniverse A, there is the jewish god and he created Universe A in Puniverse A.
2. In Puniverse B, natural processes transformed some stuff into Universe B. There are no gods. Everything is natural.

So, like I said, both seem identical to me.
I see no reason for there being 1 god and for him to remain in hiding, I see no reason for out of the hundreds or thousands of religions that various cultures have created, only 1 happens to be the correct one.
In fact, quite a lot of cultures view their religions as the correct religion.
Apparently, this god would have existed forever and suddenly, at some point decides to create humans.
You or this prophet would have to give a pretty solid explanation on that one. There is no excuse for not having an answer.

In the atheist world, at least there is an excuse. It takes time for science to advance. We aren’t even sure if we can find the answer to all questions since humans are limited.

There are too many problems with these jewish flavor of religions.
In the jewish world, supposedly, their god made things 6000 y ago and the first humans were Adam and Eve.
If that were true, there would be some solid evidence. We would all be nearly identical genetically.
On top of that, supposedly there was a global flood and only one family was saved. Noah, his nameless wife, his 3 sons, their 3 nameless wives. Again, you have a case of a genetic bottleneck

So, my postulation (which is God) has meet the same qualities with living creatures in observed nature, and your postulation (matter) never proved can't produce any living creatures. While we all know that living creatures exist in universe.

Living things aren’t anything special. The basic unit of a living thing is a cell, which is a sac of chemicals. The only thing that happens in a cell are a set of chemical reactions.
So far, you haven’t claimed that a god or alien is made of cells or that its cells can consume other chemicals or multiply.
The only thing that you have said is:
“I propose that the qualities would be:
Living, has idea, has purpose, intelligent. Which is called God actually.”

2. Human (which is living, has idea, has purpose, and intelligent) can give manipulation of the matter, i.e by experiment

A human being doesn’t have a purpose. It can be demonstrated that it has cells, that it is living, that his brain functions, he has ideas and some form of intelligence.
Purpose is something that you assign to yourself. It isn’t something that can be scientifically demonstrated.

1. No evidence of matter that are not living, has no idea, no purpose, and not intelligent, can produce living creatures

I think you are talking about going from just chemicals to the first self replicating cell. This concept is called abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not a solved problem but it is a concept that is being worked on.
It can be worked on because it is a reasonable proposition. It is something that is discoverable and researching is the best way to discover what the truth is.

Also, the theist will mention abiogenesis when having a debate with an atheist since this is not a solved problem.
The theist will say that so far, science has not discovered how the cell was made and therefore, it can’t possibly have formed on its own. His question will take the form of “How did the first cell form?”, “Lifeforms are too complicated?”, “It takes intelligence to make a machine such as a car and therefore, it takes a bigger intelligence to make a cell.”

1. The first one is the argument from incredulity.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]

2. The second one, I think is the argument of complexity. I think this one is called the watchmaker analogy.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God, originating in natural theology, which is often used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. The analogy states that a design implies a designer, by an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity. The watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.[1] The original analogy played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. Prior to Paley, however, Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others from the time of the Scientific Revolution had each believed "that the physical laws he [each] had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watch, wherein the watchmaker is God."[2]

The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's book on natural selection put forward an alternative explanation to the watchmaker analogy, for complexity and adaptation. In the 19th century, deists, who championed the watchmaker analogy, held that Darwin's theory fit with "the principle of uniformitarianism—the idea that all processes in the world occur now as they have in the past" and that deistic evolution "provided an explanatory framework for understanding species variation in a mechanical universe."[3]

When evolutionary biology began being taught in American high schools in the 1960s, Christian fundamentalists used versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker when explaining the mechanism of evolution. Others, however, consider the watchmaker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, opining that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.[citation needed]

3. I don’t know what the 3 rd one is called but it has its own fault.
You are comparing 2 objects that are radically different. One is made of components that nature doesn’t know how to produce: the car, sheetmetal, glass sheet, aluminium engine, spark plugs, screws, bolts, steel tubing, rubber tubing.
The other, the cell, is just made of molecules, which nature can make under the right conditions.
The other problem is that the god itself is a complex machine so the theist has to explain its formation without using special pleading.

4. You are using a god of the gaps argument. You found a hole in human knowledge and you are trying to fill that hole with your alien friend.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.[1][2] This perspective has its origins in the observation that some individuals, often with religious inclinations, point to areas where science falls short in explaining natural phenomena as opportunities to insert the presence of a divine creator. The term itself was coined in response to this tendency. This theological view suggests that God fills in the gaps left by scientific knowledge, and that these gaps represent moments of divine intervention or influence.

This concept has been met with criticism and debate from various quarters. Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview.

The "God of the gaps" perspective has been criticized for its association with logical fallacies, specifically the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy asserts that just because something is not currently explained by science, it must be attributed to a supernatural cause. This type of reasoning is seen as inherently flawed and does not provide a robust foundation for religious faith. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of God's actions within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.

There was a moment in time when it was thought that thunder, lightning was cause by the gods.
There was a moment when it was thought that disease was done by the gods.
There was a moment when it was thought that the gods control pregnancy. “They bless you with a child”.
It was thought that when the gods bless you get get better crops.
If you do sacrifices, if you offer some animal, your first born kid or some virgin (the gods have sex with virgins?), the gods accept your gift and as a thank you note, they do you a favor.

Such things have been replaced by science. Once science gives an explanation, we never return to the god of the gaps argument.
This is a tendency that I have observed.

Also, nature is all around us. We continually observe a whole lot of events. The science books are full of them. So are court cases. So is the news. None of them contain any evidence of aliens or gods.
So, when it comes to a balance, the scale tips towards evidences that are godless.

Keep in mind that I have never said that abiogenesis happened.
In terms of science, that is the route to investigate. Nobody investigates any god proposals.

So, my postulation (which is God) has meet the same qualities with living creatures in observed nature, and your postulation (matter) never proved can't produce any living creatures. While we all know that living creatures exist in universe.

You have fabricated those qualities for your jewish god.
My magic black box that I postulated can pump out living creatures as well. It doesn’t mean that it truly possess such qualities. For now, the god claim and the magic black box are both just claims.
Evidence is required to support such a claim.
Note that it is possible that the jewish god exists and that the magic black box exists and they never made any lifeforms.


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT


START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

The reason is quite simple: for the first human got his consciousness, he didn't know anything if he did not got directions/information from the agency outside him. It was like babies that didn't know and do anything if their parents didn't teach them to behave, to speak, or to do something.

I don’t think that there was a point in time that humans had no consciousness.
At some point in time, apparently, there was a split. One group developed into homo sapiens and the other developed into the neantherthals. The common ancestor of these 2 groups had consciousness.
We can keep pushing back in time to figure out when consciousness arose but it would be hard to answer this question.
However it arose, it would be a process. Their would be feature gains over time. There is also the concept of instrict.
In terms of biology, there was no divine intervention. The only thing that existed is that the creatures with the best features, that best fit their environment, outlast the rest of the group, and reproduce more.
This is the concept of natural selection in Evolution theory.
BTW, natural selection is something that is observable.

If you believe modern human came from less advanced modern human species, this is also the case. That first modern human must got their God and religion from the previous staged of his species, so it was not from their contemplation skill (Some scholars suggest that hominin in lower paleolithic era also had a religious awareness). What I propose is, there was no need to crafting some "transcendental thing" by first modern human, while they can easily grabbed "the God's stuff stories" from their less advanced ancestors.

I’m not sure if I understood that. You seem to be saying that humans inherited the gods concept from their ancestors.
Yes, that is normal. Someone has invented languages over time. For example, I did not invent the entire english language but at some point in time, someone called someone else “Hey daddio! What’s happening?”
That line became popular and now we have a new word: daddio.

“Hey hip cats, whachoo doing?”
So hip becomes a new usage of words. Calling people cats is new.
Pronouncing it as whatchoo is new.

I guarantee you, no english speaker spoke like that in the 19 th century.
It is human inventiveness.

So, you think that humans possessed a language as soon as the first human was created? (The Genesis story).

END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

About Genesis

I ever read it but it was long time ago, and not complete reading.

So why do you think childbirth is painful for women?


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

---