RE: atheist vs agnostics.
February 8, 2013 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2013 at 5:30 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 8, 2013 at 10:51 am)Zone Wrote: Atheists seem to believe that we're a byproduct of a natural process that didn't intend to create us.
Nothing to do with atheism. Science points to that conclusion. If you are claiming there is a guide that intended us to exist, then that is an assertion that requires EVIDENCE.
Simply asserting, "It sure looks too complex to me to be due to purely natural processes, therefore it must be guided", is not evidence.
Quote: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 matter what you think, it matters what you can provide demonstrable evidence for.
Consciousness is an emergent property that requires a physical brain to exist. It is not a separate component of the universe that exists without a brain.
Quote:but I would suggest the physical evidence we now have supports this view.
What evidence are you seeing that hasn't convinced the well over 90% of the elite biologists and physicists that are atheists? Maybe there's a Nobel in it for you?
Quote:If we were byproducts I think the universe to ought to look a little more like a random chaos which it clearly isn't.
Are you serious? The universe is filled with random chaos. Entire galaxies are colliding with each other destroying millions of stars. Every galaxy seems to have a giant black hole at its center devouring stars and planets like popcorn. Stars explode all the time destroying solar systems in a flash.
Quote: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.
The universe is not 'organized'. It exhibits all the earmarks of randomness created by the physical laws. There is no sign of higher consciousness. Consciousness requires a physical mind. Demonstrate how consciousness can exist without a physical mind.
Quote: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.
What if the explanation is "we don't know YET". Isn't that better than, "we don't know yet, must be a guided force"?
They are valid questions. But answering them with argument from ignorance (which is all you are doing) are not valid answers.
You really need to read and absorb the following parable. This is exactly what you are doing.
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Quote: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.
The universe is not ideally set up for the formation of life. The VAST majority of the universe would destroy life in fractions of a second. The universe is ideally set up to instantly destroy life.
Quote: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.
Yes, we are all aware you are asserting this. But you are not basing this on evidence. You are basing it on argument from ignorance.
Again, read (and understand) the parable of the puddle of water above.
Quote: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.
Natural selection is guided by survival and reproductive success. Nothing more. If you are asserting that there is some conscious guide involved, then you must provide demonstrable evidence. Not just, "it sure looks like it is to me, so it must be".
Bla, bla, bla.....
We're all bored with your argument from ignorance, ad ininfitum.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
