Nature's Laws

[comet]

this is atheist theology  (AA:3:20:5 - 7) and thus makes it seem we are a religion.  It's basically based on blind faith. And tossing in the word magic to mean no-nothing is misleading.  The universe doesn't use magic.  Weather there is or is not a god.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not, but if you are, you're rather overstating your case.

 

"NO purpose". we don't  know enough to say "no purpose".  the passing on of information is a reasonable bottom line purpose.  "no purpose" isn't as reasonable.

I think it's pretty clear, contextually, what I mean: no apparent divinely instantiated purpose. Even the passing on of information isn't a purpose in the way theists want to use the word, it's just what organisms do, a consequence of the fact that the ones that didn't died and didn't leave any offspring behind.
 

yea animals do know how to copy themselves. Its called reproduction.  I don't see any bird schools teaching birdie lessons.  The only thing that doesn't need schooling is "stupid".

Animals know how to reproduce. DNA doesn't know how to replicate, it's just the chemical reaction that happens.
 

"designed".  Life forms are most certainly designed by the surrounding system.  You may not like it, but it's a fact.

Yeah, because I'm so apt to respond to people who just demand that things are facts, absent any evidence.

Life forms are shaped by their surrounding systems, in that their survival hinges on being able to exist within that environment, but to call that design is misleading, as there's no prior intent or conscious planning going into the thing, anything that we might reasonably say is a hallmark of design. It's just a series of mutations, and the question of whether they are good enough to survive the ecosystem.

  And we don't know if there is something behind it, but the data suggest there may very well be something.  No Omni thing. but a thing.

Probably gonna have to go into more detail than a vague "the data." Theist apologists demonstrate quite neatly that data can be skewed any which-a-way, if the interlocutor is desperate enough to reach a conclusion.

Not even wasting my time.   To you apologists is a bad thing.  I see them as at least trying to change based on new information.  Weather is or is not a god is irrelevant me.  I am only anti-over-organized religion.  So we are at a impasse already.


you have a belief of no god.  you really are not interested in things like space being "something" (as shown by nasa), the laws of thermodynamics, or information being stored in states of matter and being expressed while the states change.  so in the end you, like most, won't care what the facts are and will just say "nope I don't believe that.".  Just like theist do with evolution.   


lmao, nature doesn't "know" but human sure do. That's just funny.