atheist vs agnostics.

[Zone]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cyberman]

Well, things have moved on apace since I last visited I see. You'll forgive me if I cherrypick from the choicest morsels, I hope, considering that others have already dealt with most of these points at least as comprehensively as I would hope to do myself. Anyway...

I'm rejecting the atheists total rejection of theism to the extent that the universe becomes a random coincidence of some kind which result in various natural processes taking place with us as an unintentional byproduct.

Again with the random coincidence? Why does it come down between either such coincidence or a higher intelligent agency? Must those be the only two options on the table? 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.

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?

It isn't necessarily quite that black and white, both sides make good arguments and both sides believe something that seems slightly off the wall to me as well.

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?

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.

Natural, physical forces are anything but non-directional, in the sense you are employing the term. 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. 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. In this way advantageous traits become more dominant and lesser ones will tend towards extinction. Evolution is such a powerful mechanism for producing complex organisms that engineers have adopted it in their own industries to generate technologies that might otherwise take centuries for an unaided human to develop.

It seems reasonable to assume that the universe was building up toward all this from the start.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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? Especially as you go on to say:

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.

How is this not at least deism?

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.

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

Honestly, if I see those words just once more I am going to scream. And before I get trolled, it only counts if Zone uses them as he's done up to now.

[Angrboda]

[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.

[Simon Moon]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

[Cyberman]

I was just about to set out my responses, only to find that Simon has already said pretty much everything I was thinking. Well played, that man!

Oh, and for the record: in my capacity as an atheist and in no other, I do not hold the beliefs that Zone think I would. Hence the problems he identifies with those beliefs are also not mine. I don't see the Universe in binary terms, either it was A or it was B. In the absence of blind, random chaos, some unspecified higher entity does not become the answer by default. The laws of physics are many things but one things they are not is purely random.

[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.