(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This is all one big argument from ignorance. Just because you can't explain how the universe came about, does not mean that other people can't.
You will either need 100% of all knowledge of everything exists, we don't know what 96% of the universe is even made from. Or you need supernatural revelation of some kind. We definitely don't have the first and I seriously we doubt we have the second, seeing as it seems to be about food, sex, foreskins and giving money to someone. I just don't think so, clearly that's the sort of thing we would come up with.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You also seem to be equating the lack of belief in the existence of gods with science.
Science isn't an explanation for why anything ultimately exists the way it exists. We know the physical processes of how we were formed but that doesn't mean that what you see here is a byproduct of a non-directional process without an intended goal or destination point. It seems reasonable to assume that the universe was building up toward all this from the start. If you look at the sequence of the formation you're looking at a well ordered sequence of events over time, it isn't random chaos. It doesn't it particularly supports any religion either as they seemed to be more concerned with forsekins, who marrys who, sex in what position and so on. But the general idea of a universe purposefully created and formed with humanity or intelligent life at the heart could well still be true I don't see what would counter such a claim.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You are letting your personal incredulity and lack of scientific knowledge shape your beliefs.
Why do you think I "lack scientific knowledge"? I haven't said anything that is counter to what we understand of the universe. There was the big bang, a period of cooling, a process of steller and galactic formation, the formation of the heavier elements and denser stars, planets, organic life and there was evolution through natural selection. More complex forms of life and ecosystems to support this life emerged over time. Explain what is "unscientific" about any of this. This is just what we know.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Which arguments do you think theist make that are good? Post the best one. They are all fallacious.
The universe being structure purpose formed for the creation of living entities particularly sentient self aware forms. I would generally agree with that part at least. I don't particularly understand the details beyond that.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There are no arguments necessary for atheism. Atheism does not make any claims that require supporting arguments.
Do you believe life is an unintentional byproduct of a coincidental process without the purpose or intent of forming life? That's just where we would disagree. Our knowledge of the universe and science will be equivalent that's not the issue here.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You are misidentifying that as 'coincidence'. There are strict laws of physics that only allow atoms and molecules to interact in certain, limited ways. It is not a random process.
The laws of physics would be part of the life forming structure of the universe. So it will be in isolated pockets but we're talking billions or trillions of these pockets from where life will emerge. These physical properties of the universe exist in order to generate the complex sustainable structures required for life and civilisation. Eventually it will all cease to function in this capacity but likely goes around on some kind of cycle, the big crunch perhaps or successive big bangs.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What do you know of the universe? What university did you study cosmology and physics at?
I stuided Biology at university but I read a good number of cosmology and physics books it's something I'm interested in.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: All I can see is that you look at the vastness and complexity of the universe and say, "Well...I can't see how this could have happened by natural processes, so it couldn't have". Argument from ignorance.
Of course it happened by natural processes, I'm not saying there's anything supernatural about the universe. But it does appear to have some kind of structure and you have immensely complicated structures, particularly the human brain, being formed within it. The process appears to be elaborate and systematic with zero margin for any kind error at any stage. If it could have happened any old way then the chances of something like ourselves being here would be trillions to one. Instead I think it's more like 100% certainity because this is what the universe was intended for, this is it's purpose of existence. In my opinion I don't know this for fact but it seems more likely than what you would have in mind, where this was a roll of some cosmic dice.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: No you are not. You have been guilty of argument from ignorance. That is the opposite of reasoned argument. There is no evidence or valid logic to support anything other than natural processes for the existence of the universe or life. .
I'm making an argument from what Iactually know about the universe and how it was formed not from what I don't know. It's pointing out that you don't know more than I do therefore your opinion won't carry more weight than mine. Neither of us need to provide evidence we just have differing opinions based on the same evidence we have.
(February 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You claim your position is valid because you can't imagine that it could be different. That is pretty much the definition of argument from personal incredulity.
I can easily imagine it being different but in only one form could the universe "function" in it's role of producing life and civilisation. I don't any more any outlandish claim than saying that the universe was able to produce this effect by blind chance and luck. Goodness knows what the odds would have been for that.
