Best argument for god? ... From an atheist

originally posted by: chr0naut

They were designed. Without a doubt.

So we are talking intelligent design vs random chemical actions... OK... I don't debate faith as it is a losing argument, so I'll fall back to my original point...why do you need a God to have what we have in the universe today? It reminds me of this as an argument for intelligent design... If life was intelligent design then God did a real crappy job, if life is random then it makes sense that much of it sucks, but is good enough.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Until science can undoubtedly explain to us what "conciousness" is and where it truly comes from, there honestly is no point in questioning weather God is real or where we came from.
Infact the human concept that we are the only species on earth with conciousness is beyond our most ignorant assumption.

originally posted by: kiliker30


Until science can undoubtedly explain to us what "conciousness" is and where it truly comes from, there honestly is no point in questioning weather God is real or where we came from.

That is an easy question to answer... Terms like consciousness, God and even life are human created abstract thoughts as none of these things live outside of our own minds. There is nothing tangible in the universe to suggest otherwise. We call somethings life, but a lighted match or a sun would also fit that description too. We see complex chemical reactions and call it life, so calling it life doesn't really change what it actually is.

Infact the human concept that we are the only species on earth with conciousness is beyond our most ignorant assumption.

Are you sure? Ever see a dolphin? Isn't this like saying because the cheetah is the fastest land animal it must be Gods work because it is the fastest?

originally posted by: Finspiracy
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I don't dismiss your statement, but what created the original creator then?

Or has "it" or "God" always been? and me, being only a human, just can't comprehend. Maybe time is totally a man-made concept and as such, prone to fallacies or being an outright illusion.

I dont believe there is a foward and backward in time. But a cause and effect of distance and speed creating the illusion of a moving timeline.
There is the here and now, a constant. All over the entire universe. But that's another topic of discussion for another time.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You're reaching dangerously close to the realm of matrix reality with that statement.
And there is no way for us as a self aware thing to comprehend and explain how we are aware. So how can we claim to know that other species on earth are not aware? Its either we all are consciousness and aware in the universe or we are created as the sole proprietors of this self aware club. Crocodiles have been here way longer then us. It would be silly to say that they arnt conscious and self aware but us who sprung up on a sliver of its timeline have surpassed its evolution by natural means. I cant see the logic in this.

originally posted by: kiliker30

You're reaching dangerously close to the realm of matrix reality with that statement.
And there is no way for us as a self aware thing to comprehend and explain how we are aware. So how can we claim to know that other species on earth are not aware? Its either we all are consciousness and aware in the universe or we are created as the sole proprietors of this self aware club. Crocodiles have been here way longer then us. It would be silly to say that they arnt conscious and self aware but us who sprung up on a sliver of its timeline have surpassed its evolution by natural means. I cant see the logic in this.

We are actually not very aware. Our brains fake us out all the time. Read the book "The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us" and find out just how unaware we really are.

Here is the deal...We live in the abstract world, everything around you was abstractly created first, so we make real things out of thought like magic all the time. Because we spend much of our time in the abstract and we can move things from that abstract to the real world it is also easy for us to take other abstract thoughts like consciousness, religion, life, soul etc. that we basically made up out of thin air too and suggest they are real too, and see them as real as the monitor you are using now that is made up of 100s if not 1000s of an abstract thoughts to actually exist.

We might as well say that the movie Star Wars is real... So what does this mean...not much since what we are talking about is just a by product to what we do naturally. There is an older post that asked if religion was a mental illness, and my reply was it is not, and to remove it from us would be to remove the actual thing that makes us human.

a reply to: kiliker30

Consciousness is spirit.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

If I were an atheist my argument for the reality of Gods existence would
put me in check mate. Because being an atheist I would likely rely on
redundant patch work arguments that obviously only superficially preserve
the way I want to live MY life. Instead of living the life God
gave me by his laws and morals that with his guidance. We wouldn't
have the results of sin in this world,

i would at least understand that according to scripture all the suffering all the
wicked evil people, tyrants, death, disease, famine. Are absolutely the fault of
no one but people like myself. Who chose to to live life and have a world without
his guidance. I'd at least be man enough to admit that.

Furthermore I could never support how lame most arguments are against the Bible.

If it were only written as means to control and/or pacify " The masses" ? How
does it make sense that the writers couldn't come up something a little more
believable? Why would anyone write such a preposterous fiction far and away beyond
anything of it's time ( spread over a period of at least 1500 years). How could that
be expected to achieve anything in a world that understood only brutality? The Bible is
the most amazing book this world will ever know. Believe it or not no one can argue that.

Atheists think they can ask questions that can't be answered and support their
hate. Nothing in creation supports hate.

SnF

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I could be wrong, but I myself have the idea we are considered to be complete beings and reality is limited to our body. We are born ready for society to function as a tool to keep society functioning, to be a part of the puzzle. Our body is considered as an independent individual, all raised to function on our own while we are very dependent of each other. Our minds are splintered because they haven't been nurtured well and nobody knows how to.

This might simply be my subjective idea about myself though and you guys are all fine.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

They were designed. Without a doubt.

So we are talking intelligent design vs random chemical actions... OK... I don't debate faith as it is a losing argument, so I'll fall back to my original point...why do you need a God to have what we have in the universe today? It reminds me of this as an argument for intelligent design... If life was intelligent design then God did a real crappy job, if life is random then it makes sense that much of it sucks, but is good enough.

I'm not pushing the argument towards intelligent design because we don't have any certainty there.

But in the case of automobiles, we do.

I don't think we will get a resolution by probing at the points where we already disagree. It will be more productive if we don't use the fuzzy and the questionable, but instead we stay within certainty.

And defining the sequence of development as evolutionary is a fuzzy misuse of language. There is a better word to describe the process and because we do know it is a design process, suggesting that it is evolutionary is unhelpful. There is significant fashion and very little practical mechanical change in car design, even in comparison with new technologies.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


To argue the existence of God you have to set yourselves into the difference between The Infinite time and space and Finite time and space.

Where did finite time and space come from.. since Finite time and space is not infinite...?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Touche.
Not even our senses can define who and what we are, or anything in existence all together for that matter...what is truth? How do you define it? For that matter, can it even be defined?
It's rare to see another human with such a complex way of thinking. Most people go about their lives without stopping for a breathe of fresh air and question why they do it.
Our purpose isnt in the outside of life. But within. People question if god made us but never even questioned themselves for what they are before seeking a higher power for such creation. And if we are the inevitable construct of such a creation, why thou must question its purpose? Why were we not built to just perform our function?
It makes you wonder why we have the freedoms we do with our thoughts and actions.

I think though there are far more important things than questioning whether God exists or not. I do think there's a creator though.

Some others do too, some others don't, but let's just get along and don't kick each other's brain out.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Shouldn't we first agree on what a 'god' is because 'creator being outside of spacetime' is a bad definition. What kind of being? How do they create? Where is outside spacetime and how is that possible? If you can't answer these questions in detail then what are you even talking about because all you have provided is some amorphous creature with mysteriously convenient abilities.

You assume that we have the capability of a complete definition or that a complete definition is necessary for us to know that something must exist.

When we use words like infinite, all powerful, timeless and so forth, those words do have meaning, despite them all being beyond our direct experience. They describe concepts that most people really have no difficulty with.

There are many things beyond our capability to fully describe, but that doesn't mean that we doubt that a gravitational singularity could exist, or that the universe could be open and expand forever. We can conceive of these things and even explain how such concepts come about.

With all due respect, I call BS. Without proper definition there cannot be proper research and verification. What you describe is hypothesis, conjecture that depends on assumed properties and behaviors that we can never actually explore firsthand. The words you use can't be weighed for actual measurable parameters, only investigated in the most epistemological sense because of how intangible the whole concept is. And intangible concepts are really f@$#ing hard to "trust but verify" you know what I mean? We need to test these ideas and witness the results of such factors in action to take any of it seriously.

That's like suggesting we can't do calculus because the limits approach infinity.

The closer you get to infinity, the more fuzzy the results of your math wizardry. If you could approach infinity without losing track of even a single number, then you have a computer capable of simulating the universe and proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how life happened. Maybe you can use that computer to email the cosmos and find out why God is so quiet lately.

In Calculus, the numbers become more definite as you approach the limit of infinity.

It can be thought of as getting the slope of a tangent point on a curve by starting with two separate points on that curve and bringing them closer and closer towards the actual tangent point. Where the points which may have been separate actually overlap (and are essentially the same point) the limit of the denominator goes towards infinity (I'm awfully sorry but putting it in words is imprecise and I don't feel I have really captured the truth in an obvious way).

Best to refer you to: L'Hôpital's rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's easier to explain calculus than it is to prove god, apparently.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

They were designed. Without a doubt.

So we are talking intelligent design vs random chemical actions... OK... I don't debate faith as it is a losing argument, so I'll fall back to my original point...why do you need a God to have what we have in the universe today? It reminds me of this as an argument for intelligent design... If life was intelligent design then God did a real crappy job, if life is random then it makes sense that much of it sucks, but is good enough.

I'm not pushing the argument towards intelligent design because we don't have any certainty there.

But in the case of automobiles, we do.

I don't think we will get a resolution by probing at the points where we already disagree. It will be more productive if we don't use the fuzzy and the questionable, but instead we stay within certainty.

And defining the sequence of development as evolutionary is a fuzzy misuse of language. There is a better word to describe the process and because we do know it is a design process, suggesting that it is evolutionary is unhelpful. There is significant fashion and very little practical mechanical change in car design, even in comparison with new technologies.

If you wouldn't mind speaking plainly and to the point?

When I was an atheist, the biggest proof I saw for a godless world was mainstream science theories, and a lack of logic in the things I was being taught in catholic school.

Once I got about half way through my neuroscience degree at a university, I realized the impossibility of evolutionary mechanisms. Random chance cannot hardwire 100,000,000,000 neurons together with over 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells. It is a masterpiece of a hyper-intelligent Creator. What further reaffirmed this is the total lack of empirical evidence for the evolutionary narrative... a science degree, although it isn't necessary, definitely helps to be able to discern for yourself beyond the mainstream narratives, so long as you don't blindly follow the herd.

I don't just believe in God, I know God exists. Not due to blind religious fervor, but due to an uncompromising search for empirical truth that showed the necessity of a transcendent Creator.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's easier to explain calculus than it is to prove god, apparently.

Hey Chaz how are you?

Just wondering if I may I'd like to ask you just out of random curiosity.
What would you say is the actual purpose of the scriptures? Please try to
be unbiased and tell me in your on words what is the mission? Your
opinions aside purely From a theological perspective what is the purpose of
The Holy Bible?

originally posted by: chr0naut

And defining the sequence of development as evolutionary is a fuzzy misuse of language. There is a better word to describe the process and because we do know it is a design process, suggesting that it is evolutionary is unhelpful. There is significant fashion and very little practical mechanical change in car design, even in comparison with new technologies.

There are very true and set process, rules, laws etc that will be followed, but there is also a large amount of randomness in the direction that the end product goes, or how a product changes over a period of time. Darwin Theory is like 1% of what we know today, so yes it was a great first page to understand all that goes into this process we call life.

Evolution underlining base is as simple as saying who gets to propagate and who doesn't....

originally posted by: kiliker30

It makes you wonder why we have the freedoms we do with our thoughts and actions.

Makes one also wonder of just how much freedom do we really have? When chemicals can drive us in many different directions I wonder who is really driving the bus sometimes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
It reminds me of this as an argument for intelligent design... If life was intelligent design then God did a real crappy job

Said the bi-pedal biological supercomputer that has had a seamless stream of consciousness for the entirety of their life involving a vast symphony of emotions, rationality, sensations, physical activity, and so on. This organic supercomputer we call our body can heal itself, replicate in the most fun way imaginable, and persist for over 100 years. It's also beautiful if maintained properly.

if life is random then it makes sense that much of it sucks, but is good enough.

We defied source code long ago. It's not the car manufacturer's fault when someone crashes their car driving drunk.

originally posted by: cooperton

Said the bi-pedal biological supercomputer that has had a seamless stream of consciousness for the entirety of their life involving a vast symphony of emotions, rationality, sensations, physical activity, and so on. This organic supercomputer we call our body can heal itself, replicate in the most fun way imaginable, and persist for over 100 years. It's also beautiful if maintained properly.

Really? You really think we are some form of perfection? Why don't we have the much more capable eyes of a octopus that can focus a image by moving the lense (like a camera or telescope), not by changing the lense's curvature which has serious draw backs, but works.