atheist vs agnostics.

[Zone]

Again with the random coincidence?

Atheists seem to believe that we're a byproduct of a natural process that didn't intend to create us. But the process in which life was formed I think is really much to elaborate for that imo. Also consciousness appears to be some kind of compenent of the universe, it may not be an unintentional byproduct but may well be vital to the overall system in some way. It doesn't mean there's some kind of a human like person who was sitting around for eternity and decided to create a universe, it's likely to be one complete all in one system with nothing "outside" of it. Pure speculation but I would suggest the physical evidence we now have supports this view. If we were byproducts I think the universe to ought to look a little more like a random chaos which it clearly isn't.

Why does it come down between either such coincidence or a higher intelligent agency?

I don't think it's either of those but the universe is somehow organised for the development of higher conciousness which I assume is it's "purpose" of existence. It may not have existed at all had it not been for this, perhaps it couldn't exist at all without consciousness awareness.

Must those be the only two options on the table?

Clearly not if I don't believe in either. The problem is atheists seem to think if it's not option A then it will have to be option B.

Even if they were, one of the two is actually known to occur; particle accelerators depend on the phenomenon, as do atomic reactors. Not to mention stars. The other option, not so much and is a far less satisfying 'answer' to the problem anyway by dint of being infinitely less probable than that which it's intended to explain and hence in desperate need of an explanation itself.

I think you need an explanation for why the universe exists, why the universe is structured in such a way as to promote the evolution of intelligent life and an explanation for what consciousness is. Religion makes an attempt at answering these questions at least. Atheists don't think they're even valid questions.

But for the moment, let's just entertain the notion that the Universe and our place in it is indeed merely an unintentional byproduct of physical laws etc. Does that take away from our taking advantage of our incredible good fortune and exploiting our niche to the best abilities of the species?

I don't think anyone should base their own life, moral values , what parts of their body should be cut off on the ultimate purpose of the universe. Human civilisation has it's own agenda and ideals.

Well, I am an atheist and I confess to having beliefs in all sorts of things, most of which are probably in accordance with yours. I also have beliefs in things that would seem not simply off the wall but straight through it and ricocheting off the wall next door. However, dealing strictly and solely with my capacity as an atheist, what off the wall beliefs do you consider I hold?

You will believe that the universe is ideally set up for the formation of life by accident and chance. Trillions to one odds of that unless you want to propose a multiverse where by chance some will be ideal. But a number of problems with that, for one you don't have any evidence for that, you will also have an infinite regress. I would suggest one infinite contiuum centred on this one universe which we know does exist.

Natural, physical forces are anything but non-directional, in the sense you are employing the term.

I'm suggesting that natural forces are set up the way they are in order to produce conscious awareness within the universe and this is somehow vital to the overall system. This based on the evidence we have so far.

Evolution, which is what it seems you are referring to here, is most definitely a guided process and one without an ultimate goal in mind.

Natural selection is a guided process but I'm saying that there is an ultimate goal in mind which is the creation of self aware forms of life and civilisation with an ecosystem/biosphere global resources to support these civilisations. What occurred here on Earth will occur in much the same way on other planets, also inhabitant of other planets will look very similar to us. The planet as a whole would develop over time towards this eventuality, if we take an eariler epoch such the carboniferious period.



You can see that the biosphere of the Earth was in a primitive condition and not suitable for sustaining a civilisation. A tribe of hunter gathers would find very little to eat beyond fish, and you can forget about crops and farmland. Now what you have here is a process of succession on a global scale over evolutionary time.


Once you develop a sufficiently advanced biosphere then a niche for intelligent life will become open for an appropriate animal species to fill. In the case of Earth the end product was humanity but each living planet will develop it's equivalent with sufficient time. We may not know all the details of exactly how this happens but this is what the universe intends to do according to this hypothesis.

Living organisms which are better suited to survive in a given environment stand a much better chance of reproducing and propagating their advantage via DNA into successive generations, which in turn may have the same or better advantage and so on. .

I'm well aware of this and I'm saying nothing to contradict evolutionary theory. What I'm doing is adding more to it within a context of a greater cosmic scale, instead of just seeing the isolated parts you can see the whole.

That is the viewpoint of Douglas Adams' famous sentient puddle. It may seem that way, but if history has taught us anything at all, it's that the real world is more often than not counter-intuitive. It seems reasonable to deduce from observation and measurement that the Earth is stationary and the sky revolves around it once a day.

Intuitively it seems obvious to most people that there has been a real form of "advancement" over time. Humans being a more advanced form of life than slugs, the more primitive forms come first then the advanced forms emerge when the environment is ready to sustain them.

For the umpteenth time, random chaos has nothing to do with this stuff. Take a glance back through the last couple of pages; the only person speaking in terms of random chance, blind coincidence and accidental side-effects is you.

Then you agree with my hypothesis of a universe purpose made for self aware conscious forms of life and civilisation? Because if you don't believe that then you believe it was coincidence and pure blind chance without an underlying reason. I don't personally know what the underlying reason actually is mind you, I don't think it's Jesus.

Therein lies the beauty of the burden of proof. It's not up to the opponents of such claims to prove that they're wrong; the proponents of the claims must prove that they're right.

I'm using the exact same observable of evidence you're using to come to the conclusion you came to, though my conclusion is a little bit different. The burden of proof won't particularly apply here.

How do you draw that conclusion, or find it convincing, when the only planet we know beyond doubt harbours life is Earth? If you discovered a supercontinent on which there was exactly one particle of gold, can you then conclude that the continent was structured for the purpose of hoarding gold?

The laws of physics that applied here will apply to other parts of the universe in much the same way where conditions allow for it. Assuming there is nothing mystical or supernatural involved.

You'll have to help me out as I'm getting a little confused trying to keep up here. You reject atheism, you reject theism, you reject deism, yet you consider that life was formed with intent and purpose? Where exactly are you nailing your colours, because I honestly cannot see them?

What I'm suggesting may be some form of pantheism but I think it's a scientific hypothesis rather than a religious belief. I would just call myself agnostic I don't know if any of this would amount to what we would call a God or not. It won't be the God of conventional religion whatever it is.

How is this not at least deism??

Deism proposes that there is a God that exists outside the universe, created the universe, then left it. I just think the universe exists as the universe, there may well be more to it than we currently know, it goes without saying that there will be. But the evidence we have so far points away from traditional atheism imo, also I don't think you get much of a satisfactory explanation that way it's like saying "just cos" when it comes to the more ultimate question like why does the universe exist.

Then it's a good job that blind chance and luck had nothing to do with it, isn't it?

Well yes...indeed. Just all natural physical process doing what they're intended to do from the big bang onwards towards the present day, into the future and into eternity beyond that.