Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Deesse23]

#1 Your ignorance and incredulity is not a (good) argument
#2 Put down the pipe
#3 Chapters and verses please

Suppose I related to you a conclusion that I hold, but you enumerated reasons for considering it unreasonable/implausible. I could then reply to you:

#1 Your ignorance and incredulity is not a (good) argument
#2 Put down the pipe
#3 Chapters and verses please

Would you be satisifed by my reply? Is that kind of reply appropriate? 

My reply was appropriate. You are way too impressed by yourself and  the very basic logical fallacies you commit.

Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist: 
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable. 
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable. 
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them?  Inconceivable. 
- How did natural selection occur?  Inconceivable (see below).

I repeat: Your inability to imagine or understand something is not a valid argument. It just shows your ignorance.

Before you start philosophizing, you should pick up some science books for example.

Why go with in an implausible one? 

The one where a celestial being created himself and then killed himself as a loophole for rules he made up by himself.....? That one?

The reductionistic hides behind the barrier of, "We don't know the answer yet but we hope to find out eventually, until then you have no right to settle on a plausible view."

This is called intellectual honesty. Try it out!
or
Do you know....then bring your evidence to the table
oops
Your evidence is "Atheism/reductionism/materialism (whatever-ism) cant be true, therefore Yahweh".

[Deesse23]

I think you're in denial.

The arrogance, always paired with ignorance of the same caliber.

[Jal]

…honestly…seems like a bigger problem for people who believe in a theistic god…..whole lot of hungry believers out there.  He busy or something?

Ok, the Problem of Evil.  As I mentioned it's conceptually simple to resolve this in panpsychism - but  not easy to write a full explanation in one short post.

For the moment (and I plan to elaborate later), suffice it to say that I have defined a finite God beset with needs and limitations. Not that He is physically unable to end hunger, but His hands are tied for reasons I hope to explain later, reasons associated to His finitude and limitations.

[The Grand Nudger]

That the universe doesn’t care or notice that I’m hungry doesn’t seem to have any effect on whether or not I do… nor does it seem to have anything to do with gods.  I’m not seeing why this is a problem for atheism or for natural selection?

I think you're in denial. I was pretty clear why it's a problem. Again, if some of the rightward-falling dominos have a desire/hunger to go left they will still fall right. Desires are useless/ irrelevant in a domino effect.  Reductionistic atheism is therefore an insufficient/unsatisfactory explanation of reality. 

Let us all begin with the plausible/satisfactory theories, and debate amongst those, instead of getting bogged down with impossible theories. Just sayin'

I don’t think people -are- left or right falling dominos….but I can’t prove we aren’t. Still, though, not seeing how this explains why it’s a problem or how a god solves it. Many people with a desire to eat still do not get to eat. It seems like even if this were a god breathed world the universe continues to be indifferent to that desire?

[Jal]

[quote pid='2256453' dateline='1788119082']
Your evidence is "Atheism/reductionism/materialism (whatever-ism) cant be true, therefore Yahweh".
[/quote]

I actually I gave two plausible views.
1. Panpsychism with a creator.  (Not necessarily Yahweh, I said).
2.  Panpsychism without a creator.  (Less plausible, I said, but not out of the realm of possibility).

What I argued was NOT plausible was.
3. Reductionistic atheism.

If you really had good answers, you wouldn't be so quick to misrepresent me. You'd address my actual reasoning.

[Jal]

I think you're in denial. I was pretty clear why it's a problem. Again, if some of the rightward-falling dominos have a desire/hunger to go left they will still fall right. Desires are useless/ irrelevant in a domino effect.  Reductionistic atheism is therefore an insufficient/unsatisfactory explanation of reality. 

Let us all begin with the plausible/satisfactory theories, and debate amongst those, instead of getting bogged down with impossible theories. Just sayin'

I don’t think people -are- left or right falling dominos….but I can’t prove we aren’t.  Still, though, not seeing how this explains why it’s a problem or how a god solves it.  Many people with a desire to eat still do not get to eat.  It seems like even if this were a god breathed world the universe continues to be indifferent to that desire?

We are not dominos? Thank you. You've formally rejected reductionistic atheism. I guess my OP was not so unreasonable after all.

[The Grand Nudger]

…or you might not know what atheism means? People can believe in human agency without believing in gods. Your own example of the dominos doesn’t seem to present any difference between a world with or without them.

[Jal]

I think you're in denial.

The arrogance, always paired with ignorance of the same caliber.

Ad hominem is always a tell-tale sign.

[Jal]

Before you start philosophizing, you should pick up some science books for example.

It's a bit humorous that you would presume the discipline of science to epistemologically precede, and even take precedence over, the discipline of philosophy.
You do realize that itself to be a philosopohical assumption, right? You might want to take philosophy 101 before assuming that reality is most plausibly defined by dead particles alone.
You might then avoid implausible conclusions, such as the ridiculous notion that space itself (and even matter) essentially came into existence ex nihilo and that, afterwards, space itself expanded in size. Otherwise known as the Big Bang.

[Deesse23]

The arrogance, always paired with ignorance of the same caliber.

Ad hominem is always a tell-tale sign.

I was stating facts, not arguing that you are stupid and therefore wrong. Like i said: You dont know the basics.