3 simple points to end the discussion with any atheist

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

1-Ask about the design of the universe: this question is very embarrassing to atheists, because the universe is full of signs. From the human body to mathematics, to the value of PI, the universe seems like a pattern designed by the same entity.

2-Open up the topic of time: human life is timed. Literally there is a cosmic clock, and the sun gives the time for earth. Why do the odds stack up in this life?

3-Why do we have consciousness?

IMO, this thread has demonstrated that it is inaccurate to form generalizations about people who identify with a particular label.  Is it not  interesting and stimulating to encounter other individuals who challenge you to rethink how you make sense of reality? In any discussion, why not aim to have a mindset that is more open and inquisitive than one's mindset prior to the discussion?

[Bob Kelso]

Damn, Atlas, way to shit and ditch.

[pablo628]

1-Ask about the design of the universe: this question is very embarrassing to atheists, because the universe is full of signs. From the human body to mathematics, to the value of PI, the universe seems like a pattern designed by the same entity.

2-Open up the topic of time: human life is timed. Literally there is a cosmic clock, and the sun gives the time for earth. Why do the odds stack up in this life?

3-Why do we have consciousness?

Yep, you nailed it.

[SYZ]

1-Ask about the design of the universe: this question is very embarrassing to atheists, because the universe is full of signs. From the human body to mathematics, to the value of PI, the universe seems like a pattern designed by the same entity.

2-Open up the topic of time: human life is timed. Literally there is a cosmic clock, and the sun gives the time for earth. Why do the odds stack up in this life?

3-Why do we have consciousness?

1.  There is no discernible "design" of the universe.  In fact its very randomness displays the exact opposite. 
And the nature of our universe has never caused any "embarrassment" to theists, or, more importantly scientists.
The only individuals who might be embarrassed are the theists, who can only explain the nature of the universe by
reference to a 2,500-year-old story book comprised largely of hearsay, superstition, fear, fiction, and outright lies.

2.  As others have said before me, time as we define it is purely a human construct developed because of society's
need to coordinate its day-to-day, or year-to-year activities.  It was simply decided to use the regularity of an
astronomical event(s) to enable this globally.  We could for example use a metric day comprised of 20 hours—in
which case of course the term "hour" would have different, but man-made definition.  A metric hour would be made
up of 100 minutes, and a minute would equal 100 seconds.  But, obviously, the earth's rotation is a unitary constant,
regardless of our perception of time.  And the inherent forces of nature have set that—not any imaginary gods!


3.  The questions of human consciousness is one that hasn't yet been answered by science, so your question from
the perspective of a theist is disingenuous.  We rather should be asking you what your opinions of consciousness
are, as you apparently disavow scientific methodology—which leaves only the metaphysical religious method.

[Minimalist]

“This is rather as if you 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!'


Douglas Adams

Forget the universe...most of this planet will kill you in short order if you find yourself outside of the few areas which can sustain human life.  What's even more absurd is to hear it spouted by a devotee of an absurd religion which arose in a fucking desert.

Fucking yhwh was one shitty real estate investor!

[Cod]

“This is rather as if you 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!'


Douglas Adams

Forget the universe...most of this planet will kill you in short order if you find yourself outside of the few areas which can sustain human life.  What's even more absurd is to hear it spouted by a devotee of an absurd religion which arose in a fucking desert.

Fucking yhwh was one shitty real estate investor!

Pretty shit at everything really, a control freak that has absolutely no control. Can't even get his kids to behave themselves.

[fromdownunder]

It seems that the only person who wanted to end the discussion or was incapable of responding was the OP. Is he always a seagull poster?

Norm

[Mystic]

1. This is true but you have to show it's irreducible complex and that blind processes could not lead to design.  I do believe consciousness and universe and many biological things are irreducible complex, but your argument is more on the lines appears very designed because of how complex it is but that proves nothing.  The thing is it takes science to the level that all possible types of a system must be accounted for to show irreducible complexity design, you have to account for all types and all possible proto-types.   That is to say it's not sufficient to use for example on type of consciousness to show it's binary or irreducibly complex, you have to have knowledge enough of all types including those that do not exist or produce an argument that shows there is great distinction between non-consciousness and concsciousness. The same is true of any irreducible complex. Because somethings appear to be designed like the eye, but you can explain it with continuous changes from simple to that, starting with a very simple sensing thing in the ocean, and all these small steps still exist in nature.


2. Again you have to show irreducible complexity with time and universe and sun and moon and humans biological which you have not.

3. It's a very good question, and only leads to God, but you have not shown how.

[The Grand Nudger]

Forget the universe...most of this planet will kill you in short order if you find yourself outside of the few areas which can sustain human life. 

Hell, even inside of areas that can sustain human life...-especially inside those areas-.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people here in this country couldn't light a fire if their life depended on it....and it does.  

A significant portion that pass that hurdle would starve.

A significant portion that pass both of those hurdles would succumb to a break or illness...or just general pain.

-and a significant portion of the remainder would succumb to others who'd passed each hurdle as they had.


This place is a meatgrinder, full of meatgrinders. If a person was designing a machine meant to kill life..it would look like this rock, even the nicest parts of it..-especially the nicest parts of it-. We're not here because this place was designed for us by a beneficent creator. We're here because we're stone cold fucking ballers who are even better at killing than we are at dying. Because we've learned to (largely) export that talent beyond the confines of our own population. Hell, if a god did design us, what does that say about him? His favorite creation is a goddamned biological WMD.

[Angrboda]

1. This is true but you have to show it's irreducible complex and that blind processes could not lead to design.  I do believe consciousness and universe and many biological things are irreducible complex, but your argument is more on the lines appears very designed because of how complex it is but that proves nothing.  The thing is it takes science to the level that all possible types of a system must be accounted for to show irreducible complexity design, you have to account for all types and all possible proto-types.   That is to say it's not sufficient to use for example on type of consciousness to show it's binary or irreducibly complex, you have to have knowledge enough of all types including those that do not exist or produce an argument that shows there is great distinction between non-consciousness and concsciousness. The same is true of any irreducible complex. Because somethings appear to be designed like the eye, but you can explain it with continuous changes from simple to that, starting with a very simple sensing thing in the ocean, and all these small steps still exist in nature.

Well, if it involves knowledge, that pretty much puts you out of it right at the start, doesn't it?