atheist vs agnostics.

[Zone]

Science points to that conclusion.

I don't think it particularly does. Theists use what I'm saying as an argument for God and it's the strongest argument they have. I would find it better to give them this but then say it doesn't prove Jesus or anything else supernatural. It can just be a part of the natural order.

If you are claiming there is a guide that intended us to exist, then that is an assertion that requires EVIDENCE.

I'm only basing my conclusion on the scientific evidence that we do have. Much of the evidence is new within the last 50 or 100 years. It's possibly that that the emergence of life was coincidental byproduct of physical laws that could have been anything. But it seems about as unlikely as a virgin birth.

Simply asserting, "It sure looks too complex to me to be due to purely natural processes, so it must be guided", is not evidence.

It is a purely natural process, but one that involves the formation of conscious life as a necessary condition. You wouldn't have had a universe where life didn't exist. We both have the exact same amount of evidence either way.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what you can provide demonstrable evidence for.

I could provide a ton of evidence to support my claim but it's evidence you already know about. It's essentially everything we know about the formation of the universe building up toward the evolution of intelligent life, which did happen of course. That's why we're here you see.

Consciousness is an emergent property that requires a physical brain to exist.

Hmmm...but that's just your opinion isn't it? All we actually know is that consciousness is associated with an physical brain. But I'm not even going into that. But consciousness is something that the universe "does" that's for certain, seeing as we are a part of the universe consciousness included. Now I'm saying it is a vital part of the universe in some way.

It is not a separate component of the universe that exists without a brain.

No it is actually a part of the universe like I said. It exists within it.

What evidence are you seeing that hasn't convinced the well over 90% of the elite biologists and physicists that are atheists?

It's the exact same evidence but I've come to a different conclusion. There's nothing I'm suggesting that would contradict anything we actually know about the universe as fact.

Maybe there's a Nobel in it for you?

Nothing like this would be considered valid by the scientific community, but that's only due to fashion and taste within the scientific establishment. In any case this isn't a concept that's original to me but just tends to be embroiled in supernatural mysticism. I think you can have this as a purely natural process without a religious context.

Are you serious? The universe is filled with random chaos.

Without that seemingly random chaos we may not be here at all. So that would also be a part of overall system of life generation with eventual aim toward civilisation.

Entire galaxies are colliding with each other destroying millions of stars.

This doesn't mean you don't have a viable life generating system overall, we're made from destroyed stars after all. If two stars collide they actually merge to form a super massive star btw. Our own galaxy has consummed dozens of micro galaxies these form into globular clusters.

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.

Those black holes are needed for there to be galaxies in the first place. Otherwise you would have nothing to hold the galaxies together or keep them in constant motion. It's unlikely that the stars toward the centre of the galaxy will be life sustaining.

The universe is not 'organized'.

Well I think it is, in the same way as Earths ecosystems have an arrangement of organisation so to will the universe as a whole. There is a natural order to it. It so happens that the evolution of intelligent life is a part of that order, seeing as we do in fact exist. But I would propose that life is the primary "purpose" of the that order we can see.

It exhibits all the earmarks of randomness created by the physical laws.

Perhaps we're looking at different universes. I'm not seeing really seeing this randomness I see structure and organisation, with an some element of necessary chance.

There is no sign of higher consciousness..

I would say that we have a higher consciousness therefore higher consciousness is a part of the universe, seeing as we exist.

Consciousness requires a physical mind.

Which the universe appears to have taken the trouble to form within itself. So I'm guessing consciousness must have an important part to play. Perhaps to exist objectively the universe must have a subjective component element. Otherwise it would be like a tree falling in a wood with no-one to hear it. If you mean consciousness requires a physical brain to exist in general I don't think we actually know, that's an opinion which you yourself have.

Demonstrate how consciousness can exist without a physical mind.

I don't personally know what the source of consciousness is. You think it's the brain, that's your opinion not something we know. But that's slightly beyond what I'm proposing which is universe "intentionally" structured for the formation of life.

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"?

If we don't know yet that just means I can present some shit like this and it could all be true. I do think I'm on the right track. I'm not claiming to "know" anything I don't know.

They are valid questions. But answering them with argument from ignorance (which is all you are doing) are not valid answers.

I made a hypothesis based on evidence we have. I don't know why you think I'm making arguments from ignorance, I'm presenting a possible explanation for something we don't currently know but that's how we came to know everything we do know.

"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!"

What if the water is laying a perfectly shaped and sculptured mold of a manand it wonders how it came to be the shape it is? I think that's a better comparison.

The universe is not ideally set up for the formation of life.

Says the lifeform.

The VAST majority of the universe would destroy life in fractions of a second.

And a shark can't breathe in air, everything in it's place.

The universe is ideally set up to instantly destroy life.

Apparently not if you're sitting where you're sitting now typing that.

Yes, we are all aware you are asserting this. But you are not basing this on evidence.

I have presented a case based on the evidence we have and what we currently know. You made a number of claims about things we don't know without evidence anyway.

You are basing it on argument from ignorance.

What would be an argument from knowledge of certain fact? The only things we can really argue about is the stuff we don't know. We both have access to the same evidence and we have drawn our conclusions from that same evidence. You think life and consciousness is a byproduct of a natural process while I think life lays right at the very core. Theologians have been saying this for thousands of years of course but they don't necessarily need to have exclusive dibs.

Again, read (and understand) the parable of the puddle of water above.

Puddle of water in a complex man sculpted mold. It would be right to think something was going on with that, even if it formed itself into the shape that was already there to fill.

Natural selection is guided by survival and reproductive success. Nothing more.

I'm not arguing against natural selection as a necessary physical process for biodiversity and advancement of organic form with supporting ecosystem. All of this would be built into the universe is imo, a factory for sentient life. The fruits are right here to see with your very eyes.

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".

If you are asserting that life is a byproduct of a process that did not intend to create it, then you must provide demonstrable evidence. Not just, "it sure looks like it is to me, so it must be.

But explain what kind of evidence you would like to have and I'll see what I can find. I do have some books few books on this subject.

We're all bored with your argument from ignorance, ad ininfitum.

It's an opinion I have about something that I don't have certain knowledge about but think is true for the reasons I've explained. You're doing the exact same thing, unless it's not an argument from igorance providing it happens to be you or someone who completely agrees with your own personal opinion that you have. You have presented reasons for that opinion and I have given you some counter arguments there.