I missed the hyperaggressive atheists here that attack believers in God 😂

@Kwek00 I agree. We ought to be balanced for all.

[quote] Yes, they do. Since "right and wrong" aren't objective. [/quote]
Isn't this a contradiction? ._.
Objectively?

@Babylon It's not a contradiction. These people have a concept about "right" and "wrong", so they know what "right and wrong" is,... to them.

If you want to aks the question if these people know what is "objectively" "right or wrong"... well, then you have to tell me where I find this objective foundation for "right and wrong". And the only place where you are going to find this objective foundation is in some holy scripture. Because it's mainly religious people that believe that they have the truth about "right and wrong" because God told them so. And that is exactly why people become militant. Because once you have a bunch of religious people that claim that they objectively know what is "right" or "wrong" because of some ancient text or guru that proclaims that he's the objective arbiter for morality, this group will enforce their ethics upon everyone else. And when someone asks: "why do I need to adopt this system?" the only answer we will get is "God". And when someone asks why they should have faith in this Godly thing, the only answer the believer will give is "Dogma". And dogma means, that their truth can't be questioned it just needs to be adopted because God is real. And it's exactly that crap that needs to stay off my lawn and that I don't want in my governement and why it's unreasonable to not oppose these dogmatic claims when they are made.

@Kwek00 I appreciate you explaining the chain of logic/argument that you don't wanna hear and I never asked about that .-.

I asked if it is an objective contradiction to say [quote] Yes, they do. Since "right and wrong" aren't objective.
[/quote]
You added later specifically that you were talking about "to them" hopefully plinting towards a subjective, personal criteria but I guess we're headed down the same road :v

@Babylon I'm amazed that I have to explain this Babylon. Because your question suggests that there is something like an objective "right" or "wrong". And my entire point in the post that answers your question, is that this doesn't excists.

If my answer is a contradiction to you, that only means that you adopted some objective criteria for "right" and "wrong". And if that is so, then you have to proof to me where this objectivity can be found. Good luck.

@Kwek00 fair point. Just remember that not everyone says there is no such thing as an objective criteria. And my dear friend, if you say it can't exist, it's up to you to prove why it can't exist

@Babylon I say it doesn't excist. If you think it excists you should prove to me that it's real friend. It's not the person that makes the negative claim that has to proof the negative. Unicorns don't excist, because I can't proof that they excist. Just like objective morality doesn't excist, because I can't proof that it excists.

[quote]not everyone says there is no such thing as an objective criteria.[/quote]

I'm aware that people believe that they have such a thing as an objective morality. But believing and saying that they have it, just ain't enough. They have to proof that they have it. And since no one has succeeded in that endavour, "objective morality" is a hypothesis. Just like the excistence of ghosts is an hypothesis. But it only becomes real if we can proof that it's real. If you can't proof it's real, then it's nothing more then a believe system based on the dogmatic premise that objective morality is real and that this shouldn't be questioned. Dogmatic ideas however, are ussually not real, because if they were they wouldn't prohibit people from questioning them and pointing out that it's not healthy to adopt a believe system on the basis of nothing else but faith.

@Kwek00 is lack of evidence an evidence of nonexistence? .-.
Or is that argument from ignorance?

Also, if you say it doesn't exist, why are you allowed to claim it without justifying it?

And when did I say there is an objective morality? Because I certainky don't recall advocating for it 🤷🏾‍♂️
You can ask if I believe in it .-.

@Babylon
[quote]is lack of evidence an evidence of nonexistence?[/quote]

No, it's not. That would be a black swan fallacy. But taking something that lacks evidence for being real, that's just totally ridiculous.


[quote]Also, if you say it doesn't exist, why are you allowed to claim it without justifying it?[/quote]

I just did. I just gave you the reason why I say it doesn't excist: [i]" Unicorns don't excist, because I can't proof that they excist. Just like objective morality doesn't excist, because I can't proof that it excists."[/i].

At some point in your life, you'll have to ask yourself the question on how you know something is real or not. What are the ideas that you consider to be real that you use to build up your reasoning. For me, if we can't proof something it's better to keep it out of the reasoning process. It has no reason to be treated as a "real thing" if we can't proof it's real.

Why is that? Because the consequence of using ideas that can't be proven to be real, will just drown you in fantasy. And what is remarkable, is that people that do this, often are inconsistent in what they adopt and just cherrypick. For instance, in religion, people that can't proof Yehova is real and still adopt them are super critical towards deities of the hindu faith even though those deities are exactly as unprovable as yehova. But because of personal bias, one is allowed and the others are not. Not because of knowledge but because of dogmatic principles that were adopted. But in a conversation like this one, people like you push the idea forward that their reasoning is can be correct, that their believes can be real, and therefore they should be allowed at the table when a discussion is had. But when it comes to Vishnu, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so happy if someone at the table said that something is "good" when you believe it's "wrong" but backs it up with teachings from the Bahagvad Ghita. Even though that person perfectly is qualifiable for "reasonable" conversation according to you, because his/her ideas can't be disproven just like Yehova can't be disproven... but none of these concepts can be proven but apperently that doesn't matter. And that's why it's okay to ridiculise this idea, because it's ridiculous.


[quote] And when did I say there is an objective morality?[/quote]

You didn't say it, but that's a direct implication of your question. If you ask me if atheists are aware of "good and evil" , and I answer your question. And you have to ask me "objectively" that means you don't rule it out, and that you think that there is such a thing. Else I wouldn't have to clarify myself.

When you say ask someone why they didn't include green swans, that implies that green swans are in some way a real thing and should have been included in the responds the person that didn't include green swans made. You might not be advocating if "green swans" are real, but you are seriously begging the question. And begging the question, is a bit of sneaky way of hiding once true intent.

[quote][/quote]@Kwek00 [quote]But taking something that lacks evidence for being real, that's just totally ridiculous.
[/quote]
I agree entirely. We can't just be making stuff up :v
Even worse... BELIEVING in stuff that's made up. However, I guess I'd have to know what you think evidence exactly means and what constitutes correct and acceptable evidence ._.
Cuz from where I foresee this discussion going, that's going to be key unless you're not interested

[quote]I just did. I just gave you the reason why I say it doesn't excist: " Unicorns don't excist, because I can't proof that they excist. Just like objective morality doesn't excist, because I can't proof that it excists.".[/quote]
😬

[quote]What are the ideas that you consider to be real that you use to build up your reasoning. For me, if we can't proof something it's better to keep it out of the reasoning process. It has no reason to be treated as a "real thing" if we can't proof it's real.[/quote]
Well, what exactly IS proof? .-.
Cuz I agree. If something doesn't make sense, we shouldn't be following it and we use logic, evidences, and proofs to make sense of things that are true and false, yeah? So, we oughta smooth this out cuz it's important to have a common understanding of what exactly IS a correct criteria to govern what's true and what's not.

To also answer it, what I consider to be real is anything that logically or physically is the case to the best of my understanding. I also accept that I don't know everything that is real, just like how just a couple of hundred years ago that humans didn't even know about radiation.

[quote]Why is that? Because the consequence of using ideas that can't be proven to be real, will just drown you in fantasy.[/quote]
I agree entirely.

I like where this is going tbh :v
I also appreciate that you're not rude and ridiculing me. This is the positive conversation and progress to understanding one another I was addressing in my post. Some people lack this and I appreciate your good manners, sir :)

@Babylon
[quote]I'd have to know what you think evidence exactly means and what constitutes correct and acceptable evidence[/quote]

On everything that can be measured, or that impacts the physical world, I follow the scientific method to determine what knowledge is worth having at the table and what not.


[quote]To also answer it, what I consider to be real is anything that logically or physically is the case to the best of my understanding. I also accept that I don't know everything that is real, just like how just a couple of hundred years ago that humans didn't even know about radiation.[/quote]

Things that can't be measured I prefer reasonable discussion [i](so with a logical framework)[/i] and debate to determine a course. In these areas it's hard to get to objectivity, since it only excists within the boundries of premisses all people at the table have agreed upon. If everyone agrees on the same premise you can have a diaologue within these premisses if a structure of reasoning is logically constructed.

Yes I agree with the hunder years remark, thats why I answered your "lack of evidence" in combination of "non excistence" with the ida that this is a "black swan fallacy". Maybe I'm lacking the grammar to properly express myself. But the idea behind a black swan fallacy is exactactly what you express with more primitive people vs radiation.

The idea is that that people in Europe didn't believe "black swans" excisted because they never encountered it. So no one talked about black swans as a "real" thing untill they found black swans in the new-content. Suddenly, Europeans became aware of the excistence of Black Swans, and thus black swans got enough legitamacy [i](because they are proven to be real)[/i] to sit at a discussion about swans at the table. Before that, since we didn't know they are real, why would we introduce them in anny reasonable discussion?

That's also why I'm not an atheist that embraces the dogma that there is no such thing as a "God". Because we haven't proven it yet. BUT! for anny reasonable conversation to work, I can't let hypothesis of God at the table. Because if I do, I have to allow all of them because I can't proof they don't excist and I can't proof that they do excist. Which would drown the conversation in fantasies. So for anny reasonable conversation, I say "God doesn't excist" but I stay away from the idea that "God can't excist". And when I speak of "God" I speak of the Gods at the table, because for me... no religion talked about on earth has qualified itself to be a reasonable partner in anny discussion. None of them. Maybe some alien culture has actually proven that some God excists, I'm not going to rule that out, but I'm not going to fantasise about it either.

@Kwek00 [quote]On everything that can be measured, or that impacts the physical world, I follow the scientific method to determine what knowledge is worth having at the table and what not.[/quote]
Yeah, I think I mostly can agree but some things, in my humble opinion, can still be explored even if we don't scientifically understand it 100% yet. Like gravity. WHAT gravity is, what it's made of, how it works is unknown to us but at least we see the effects of gravity and can measure it and learn about some unspoken yet existent rules about it.

[quote]Things that can't be measured I prefer reasonable discussion (so with a logical framework) and debate to determine a course. In these areas it's hard to get to objectivity, since it only excists within the boundries of premisses all people at the table have agreed upon.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. After a certain point, only logic and reason can be the utilities we apply.

And with respect to God existing or not, my approach typically is that I believe in truth. To make it clear, two contradicting ideas cannot both be true 👀
We know what based on common sense we develop as children. So all concepts of God that contradict OBVIOUSLY can't all be true :v
Now, it's a matter of filtering out what makes sense and what doesn't and FRANKLY I believe that if God exists, reason can be deployed to at least rationalize some fundamental things that just have to be true. To say things of the nature of such a being without direct contact would be literally making stuff up, right? Does my reasoning seem fair? 😅
Cuz I'm trying to have an objective conversation using reason over "I believe vs you believe" :v

@Babylon
I think by now, we have a pretty good grasp on gravity, but we are exploring ever on worths. If someone says that Gravity should not be a consideration in a discussion where it clearly matters, I think I would just drop something to the floor, and ask if we should take the phenomena into account. The principle of gravitation pull of larger bodies on smaller one is pretty much used in mechanics and is kinda needed if you want to put someone on the moon.

[quote]And with respect to God existing or not, my approach typically is that I believe in truth. To make it clear, two contradicting ideas cannot both be true 👀
We know what based on common sense we develop as children. So all concepts of God that contradict OBVIOUSLY can't all be true :v[/quote]

Within that entire framework, you are begging the question again.
This idea is only right, if God is real. To make this work, I have to accept the premise that God is real and then I can interact with you and wee what statements are in contradictions so we can come to a conclussion on God. But I'm not willing to just adopt this, because I don't see anny reason for it to do so.

Also, the issues that can't be measured, are verry often littered with subjectivity and a nescessity to clarify ambiguous words that make up the argument. Philosophy btw, isn't science (just so we are clear on this one).

Unless you have a scientific gap. For instance, a while back the Higgs-Boson particle was only a hypothesis, and it was absolutely crucial for the scientific framework that makes up the "Standard Model of particle physics". But all scientists that used this model had found nothing that dissproved it, it worked in practise and it explained everything as long as the hypothesis of the Higgs-Bosson particle is real. So everyone that used this, had to mention that this framework only becomes 100% real if that elusive element could be found and measured and thus proven real. But because the framework was so good people used it annyway because it worked, it created no results that the framework couldn't predict. It explained everything even though there was a small gap in the theory, so the likelihood of this particle being real was incredibly high because the framework was tested over and over and over again and no one could disprove it's validity. But it only got it's 100 percent validity during 2011-2013 when it was measured in the Large Hedron Colidor. Higgs-Bosson had a lot more going for it... then God.

@Kwek00 ah, that makes sense. So, I guess we gotta explore, using reason, whether or not God existing makes sense or doesn't make sense.
I'm also on board with what you're saying. It's kinda like how scientists just came up with the axion recently. It really matches the story of the Higgs-Bosson particle, from what I understand, and its interactions and existence are still being explored. However, such an entity cracks the case for some theories that need it in terms of quantum physics.

Now, my only question for you is whether or not you accept logic and reason to come to some conclusions about the existence of God or not. If not the God explained in particular religions, rather whether or not the idea of God is logical or not. Cuz many people think believing in God is against reason. I just wanna know if you accept logic or not with regards to SOME things about God.

@Babylon
I just accept logic, and then we'll figure out if your God is logically consistent and worth adopting.

@Kwek00 no, not MY God but whether or not God is logical or not. And I'm trying to start from a fundamentally logical and objective/neutral standpoint and we can work towards the existence of a God if there is one or not. Or even speculate about the world in general. Let's start with the least complex idea ever. Existence.

You and I, we exist. The first simple and logical question is, can we exist because of something nonexistent? Essentially asking, can we come from absolutely nothing? I know the question is dumb as a rock and the answer is obvious but it's the first building block, I guess.

@Babylon
[quote]can we come from absolutely nothing?[/quote]

So far, there is no reason to believe that annything can come from nothing. So no, no we can't.

@Kwek00 okay, so next step. CLEARLY we exist. (Please let me know if you're a hyperskeptic or not because I'm not tryna discuss with someone who's not even sure they exist or not).

Now that we're aware that you and I are something and we can't come from nothing, the next question is, did we come to exist independently? Meaning, are we the cause of our own existence? Did we make ourselves exist the way we are or did something foreign to our existence cause us? Cuz this is the next step in the baby steps I guess :v
And from here, maybe we can build a reality

@Babylon How I loook at reality, we excist, that's true. I'm not lost in Des Cartes idea that everything around us is just some kind of holographic projection, or that I'm just living in some kind of reality in my brain. So for the sake of argument, yes, I agree we excist because that's what I'm aware off. I can interact with my reality, I think, I am... etc, sure.

At the moment, btw, the big bang theory [i](which has a lot going for it, just like the Higgs-Bosson)[/i] also doesn't say that we come from nothing. It talks about an incredibly dense body that exploded. Because this is one of those misconceptions that certain religious people talk about to mock the theory. That the idea is that nothing exploded, but this isn't what the theory says. However, science hasn't been able to proof all the consequences of this entire phenomena and all the questions that go with it, but it has a lot more going to it then abstract ideas like "God". Also, this theory hasn't explained annything before the point that this thing exploded. What comes before that is even more unknown to us and has absolutely no idea that is backed up by anny substanstial evidence.

The other questions, are well... just weird if you want to talk babysteps and all:

[quote]did we come to exist independently? Meaning, are we the cause of our own existence?
Did we make ourselves exist the way we are or did something foreign to our existence cause us?[/quote]

This first question is practically asking where the first living cell came from that we evolved from. And I'm not sneaking in evolution now, because evolution is another one of those theories that has a lot going for it. The issue with evolution that it doesn't realy explains how the process starts, but from walking back the theory holds up fine with the discoveries being made and the things that we can figure out through research.

If you at least accept the theory of evolution, then we didn't make ourselves the way we are, but we evolved. And this evolutionairy process has also created manny specimens that are now exstinct because they weren't strong enough. Because evolution is fairly chaotic, and not every evolutionairy step survives but those that survive can be the new foundation for another step.

If your question is: where does the first living cell come from... then I have to answer you that I don't know. And here lies the problem with a lot of people that invoke God. Because it has been a verry human thing to invoke God (since ancient times) at every point in time that a civilisation couldn't provide the answers. However, through time and research, we have driven the God idea out of narratives one step at a time. I suggest a diffrent approach then God. I suggest the approach that we consider God to be one of the billions of hypothesis that our fantasy allows us to generate, and to ditch all of them in anny reasonable conversation for the better and more accurate idea that we don't know.

@Kwek00 I agree entirely. I don't think the Big Bang necessarily means that there was nothing before. Actually, I think it's quite the contrary. The one thing that accepting the Big Bang theory does is just force us to accepting that our universe had a beginning. Not from absolutely nothingness. Something caused our universe to be this way and WHAT it is beyond the Big Bang is scientifically inexplicable because we're actually subject to and confined in our universe.

And I'm talking about existence rather than evolution tbh. Essentially, we came from our parents which came from our parents which etc. etc. eventually came from something in the universe which itself has its own cause, because for every cause, there is an effect. Therefore, we see clearly that we weren't our own cause.

I'm not tryna jump gaps to make conclusions, either. I'm literally trying to step by step only head to things that make logical sense so bear with me instead of sectioning off what's a fantasy and what's not. Evolution can't even exist or come into play until after living things appeared on Earth, yeah? So this comes first: Do you witness any fine tuning in the cosmos at all? Or do you think that there is nothing spectacular and that everything is blind matter.

(Do let me know if you wanna jump to evolution instead because I'm down for that. I'm just tryna go step by step here 😅)

@Babylon
[quote]The one thing that accepting the Big Bang theory does is just force us to accepting that our universe had a beginning. Not from absolutely nothingness. Something caused our universe to be this way and WHAT it is beyond the Big Bang is scientifically inexplicable because we're actually subject to and confined in our universe.[/quote]

yes and no.
yes, the theory explains our universe as we know it today that starts from a certain point in time and space. However, when you use language like this, you can obfuscate the possibility that want came before that point might also be our universe but in a diffrent form. How it got there and why it did what it did, well... we don't know. We have only been tinkering and exploring this from the beginning of the 20th century. And our knowledge and technology do not give us the possibility to even fully understand this concept OR look beyond it. That doesn't mean that in time, we might lift up the veil further then we already did, but at this point we don't know.


[quote]And I'm talking about existence rather than evolution[/quote]

I'm also talking about existence. But your question: [i]"Did we make ourselves exist the way we are[/i] [...][i]"[/i] seems too ditch the evolutionairy process. And that's why I expressed that it was kinda weird. If you want to talk about "us" from living cell to where we are today, and just incorperate all the biological process' and evolution that has taken place... then I'm okay with that question. But that would also automatically answer it in a certain way, because from "cell" to where we are now, well... we today clearly didn't make ourselves the way we are.

That's why the question where the first living cells came from, is exactly so intresting. And is ussually a big issue in the conversation about God or no God. But even if we can't answer the question where the first cell came from, we don't have to fall into the primal tendency of filling in all the gaps with a concept like "God". Because it solves the mysterie with an answer that no one can verify, we just need to accept it, ... as if the answer needs to be a dogmatic principle. I think dogmatic principles, create all kinds of problems in the long run, because maybe some day we might answer the question with science, but since people believe in the dogmatic question you get another time periode of struggles, book burnings, ... and all kinds of unpleasant stuff ussually by those that want to protect the dogma because they are so attached to it. While just using my idea, namely to accept that we don't know, would create a room for further exploration and an acceptance of our ignorance towards this subject.



Don't forget that we started off with the idea that somewhere in all these little steps you want to take, there has to be a clear case for "God". And even though I think you dilute yourself, if you want to go through this process, at some point, you'll have too define who and what God really is. If God is nothing more then the entity that creates the first living cell... then I wonder what God is, cause he can't be a living cell. And if God magicked the first living cell into excistence, don't we then break our first premise that we both agreed on that something can't come from nothing? And if God is able to create a living cell and it's not by a form of magic... then wouldn't nature not be able to have done it on one of the millions planets in our known universe?

@Kwek00 I'm not denying that. I agree. I'm just saying that something always had to have existed for us to exist. For our universe to be the way it is, we can reason some things out.

And I'm talking since the Big Bang all the way to now :v
Now from the first living cell tbh. My question includes [b]all[/b] explanations for the obvious organization we witness and see in ourselves and around us in this universe, so it fits to say evolution comes into play somewhere bro.

Also, you call it a primal tendency to claim that God did this. What do you mean by primal? 🤔
What is primal about that but not primal about you claiming evolution is what organized us to be this way? There can be many hypotheses. Why are you comfortable with just asserting one to be "primal?" I don't get that.

I also didn't say I'm making a clear case for God, bro. My goal is to reason what makes sense and what doesn't. IF God makes sense, God would fit into reason in some way, right? That was my point in a nutshell. Whether God exists or not isn't dependent on you. If God exists right now and has existed, nothing you say can make that false. If God doesn't exist, then nothing you say can also make that false. And since God can't exist AND not exist at the same time, only ONE makes sense. My goal is for us to reason which makes sense and which doesn't. I'm not asking or talking to you about dogmatic principles and scriptures and stuff. Just conceptually observing certain phenomena and making logical conclusions.

To address your points, I can't tell you what God is. If God exists, how can you demand of my limited existence to define what created everything before me when I wasn't even there? Furthermore, something arguably outside of the universe? In-detail knowledge OBVIOUSLY would require something outside of human logic, reason, and imagination. I'm trying to bring in scope what simply makes sense to you and me.
[quote]if God magicked the first living cell into excistence, don't we then break our first premise that we both agreed on that something can't come from nothing?[/quote]
Yeah, I agree. It appears to follow that something just can't exist from nothing so that's not where we're tryna poke holes in this idea.
[quote]And if God is able to create a living cell and it's not by a form of magic... then wouldn't nature not be able to have done it on one of the millions planets in our known universe?[/quote]
And no. This is non-sequitur. If God can create a living cell, why does that mean nature can create a living cell? .-.

I don't even wanna discuss God. I wanna stick with a completely naturalistic worldview and avoid God UNTIL God is the only option that makes sense. It's at this point where I would ask: in a Godless world, does the "nature" you observe and ascribe the organization to tend to organize itself into observable structures and functions like the first living cell from an unstructured world of inorganic compounds? Or is that something irrational to believe, directly invoking manipulation of the laws of the universe being required? If so, why? And I sure hope you're not biased .-.
I don't want you to sweep this under the rug and come up with your own dogmatic belief and say "At this point, we HAVE to conclude this and think a certain way."
If there is no answer for this, why should I trust atheism, then? Especially if atheism calls me to ignore this and our own evolutionary models require an answer for this? Since you like calling things fantasies, is it fair to say that atheism is a fantasy because it fails to answer such an important question? (A question of why nature broke its own rule?)

Next point:
This is where science actually filters out what hypothesis makes sense or not. This is entirely based on the human mind's amazing capacity to analyze artifacts and make conclusions on the necessities for that artifact to exist. It's what we've been doing and still do for all of science and reason that we know to make sense. This is what archeology and evolution and all of these things ARE based on.

I guess another way of articulating the point I'm trying to make is revolving around the watchmaker analogy. It is arguable that something that exhibits intelligent design requires an intelligent cause. A complex design forces a complex cause. We have rationality, therefore something with the capacity for rationality has to have been there before we have been there. (And if you deny rationality existing, then you're shooting your own ability to reason down). All the evolution with its mechanisms like natural selection in the world gears us towards survival; not truth. Where did such faculties for reason and speculation come from in a naturalistic model? No evolutionary psychologist is going to argue that evolution is the foundation of reason, imagination, and truth which are cognitive tools that help us analyze why something is the way it is or formulate and create something. Isn't it remarkable that we come up with stories and lies? That we can look at something and explain some things that just have to be true about it (with no explicit confessions)?

I hope that you entertain these questions

@Babylon
[quote]What do you mean by primal?[/quote]

Primal or if you rather hear primitive, because it's something human beings have been doing since ancient times. For some reason, if a primitive tribe comes across something they don't understand, there is a tendency to invoke a fantastical reason for it to excist. Either because they don't have the tool to research it or because they aren't aware that a more rational conclussion can be made if we take the time to think about it. There is also a tendency to explain everything even with ideas that don't explain it. For some reason, some people just seem to have issues living in a world with open questions.

There have been movements through the ages that try to get away from this kind of thought. The most recent big movement is the enlightenment that tries to reject dogma and favors more reasonable exploration.


[quote]I also didn't say I'm making a clear case for God, bro. My goal is to reason what makes sense and what doesn't. IF God makes sense, God would fit into reason in some way, right?[/quote]

This is what you set out to do:

[quote]Now, my only question for you is whether or not you accept logic and reason to come to some conclusions about the existence of God or not. If not the God explained in particular religions, rather whether or not the idea of God is logical or not. Cuz many people think believing in God is against reason. I just wanna know if you accept logic or not with regards to SOME things about God.[/quote]

So yeah... in a way, you did. You can't just say that God is an option, if you want to take me down the line where God suddenly is reasonable. I'm not looking for ambiguities here, else this is an entire excercise becomes futile. And I'm not going trough another pipeline where someone talks about some random thing and then suddenly goes: "so we need a creator". I've already done that out here, these conversations take a lot of time, take me to an hour stuff that I either mostly agree on or totally agree on. Just to make a magical leap of faith that says: "thus God". And well... ain't nobody got time for that, because that one step, is the only thing I care about. And no one needs to fluff it up, we just need to be concerned about that point where we go from physics and things we know too God. That's what is the goal.


[quote]To address your points, I can't tell you what God is. If God exists, how can you demand of my limited existence to define what created everything before me when I wasn't even there?[/quote]

If you don't know what you are looking for... How will you find it?
Like with the Higgs-Bosson particle, people knew what they were looking for.
In the search for more evidence for evolution, the so called missing links, people know what they are looking for.

These ideas and concepts are so tight, that researchers have an idea what they are looking out for. But you are looking for a total abstract. If you don't even know what the concept of God means, then how can you find it? Your search is for something specific, namely the concept of "God". That's what we are looking for. But you can't even reach to some fuzzy definition of it. People that search for new things, like explorers that visit "the new world" and saw their first Turkye and Potato, well... they were probably amazed because it was so new that they couldn't have set out to find those because they were unkown to them. In your case, we are searching for something called "God" so this thing should at least be known in some way or another. But I guess "God" is just ad devoided of substance as the unknown Turkye. Which is really weird, because if that is the case, then maybe, it's better to ditch the concept all together, just keep exploring and maybe one day we'll find something completely new that even our fantasy couldn't conjure up, and then we give it a name. Instead of looking for a concept that can't be defined. It feels like a form of insanity and confirmation bias.


[quote]And no. This is non-sequitur. If God can create a living cell, why does that mean nature can create a living cell? .-.[/quote]

Well, please explain then how God does it? If God is using a natural process, then shouldn't nature be able to do the exact same thing under the right circumstances?


[quote]I don't even wanna discuss God. I wanna stick with a completely naturalistic worldview and avoid God UNTIL God is the only option that makes sense.[/quote]

Well, I want to skip exactly to that point honestly. You can write a long message with all the steps you take. And then I would like to see where this point occurs. And how God will be the only thing that make sense, especially in the mind of a person that considers God as a total abstraction. I fear that we are going to end up at a point where God is nothing more then a maleable form that fits all, and will fill a gap where: "We don't know" is always the better answer.


[quote]in a Godless world, does the "nature" you observe and ascribe the organization to tend to organize itself into observable structures and functions like the first living cell from an unstructured world of inorganic compounds?[/quote]

Yes, this actually happens in nature.
If you accept the theory of the big bang... then you know that all these mollecules drifting in space create an attraction to one another through gravity. That heavier objects attract lighter objects and that when they reach eachother they clit together. In cases of Gass molecules, once things get to dense they can ignite because of pressure and friction. In cases of solid molecules like the planets, they eventually cooled off. It's also not really as nicely and neatly structured, but in our lifespan gives the illusions that is. Because we only live 70-80 years, while the universe around us has been forming for millenia. And there is still a lot of chaos out there. Pieces just wham into eachother, suns explode or implode, ... there is a lot going on out there that I wouldn't really call "organized".


[quote]Or is that something irrational to believe, directly invoking manipulation of the laws of the universe being required? If so, why?[/quote]

Why invoke "manipulation" when you have physics?

[quote]And I sure hope you're not biased .-.[/quote]

That's a strange question from someone that is looking for something undefinable that is going to fill in a gap somewhere.

[quote]If there is no answer for this, why should I trust atheism, then?[/quote]

Because people like me aren't giving you answers to questions we don't know the answer too, we don't have. So you don't have to trust people like me at all, because we aren't trying to provide answers that require trust. We are trying to figure out how it actually works not some narrative that furfills us with a sense of accomplishment. The opposite however is way more true, why would you trust anny religion? Or an abstract concept that can't be defined? You need a lot of trust for that. You need absolutely no trust to listen to a person that explains that there are certain things we don't know.

[quote]Since you like calling things fantasies, is it fair to say that atheism is a fantasy because it fails to answer such an important question?[/quote]

Not if you subscribe to my type of atheism. Because admitting that you not know something is way more inteligent then to come to a point where you not know and go: "thus God". That's the fantasy. Because as I said earlier, since we started to move away from that kind of thinking, a lot of "God" has been erased and replaced by theories that hold up according to evidence and practise. If you think that is all fantasy, well then fantasy put a human on the moon while religion has kept humanity down for centuries by burning books with scientific exploration that went against dogmatic principles that that society couldn't let go. I'll take my "fantasies" over dogma anny day.


[quote]I guess another way of articulating the point I'm trying to make is revolving around the watchmaker analogy. It is arguable that something that exhibits intelligent design requires an intelligent cause. A complex design forces a complex cause. [/quote]

But you sneak in the premise that something is designed. While if you agree with the Big Bang, then it's clearly not designed. It just went "boom" and all the rest was a consequence of forces that are described in Physics.

[quote]We have rationality, therefore something with the capacity for rationality has to have been there before we have been there.[/quote]

No... that's not how it works. That's not what "rationality" means. Someone can have a totally diffrent outlook then you and be totally rationally consistent. The reason why the person diverts from your answers, is because they adopted diffrent premises. Rationality isn't some kind of absolute that just excists in a vacuum. It's just a word we use to agree that someone is logically consistent within the premisses that he/she holds.

Someone can thus be totally rational, but for an outsider be irrational. For instance, people that only watch "Infowars", can be totally rational, because the premises that they use is information from the Infowars channel. Now, Infowars is a conspiratorial show full with insanity, but as long as people keep using their info as their premise, they can build up a rational framework of though inside those premisses. To an outsider, someone that is "aware" of other information, this reasoning of the infowar watcher is probably irrational, because he's aware that some of their premisses are just wrong. But if people are not aware of them, they can still be rational.

[quote]All the evolution with its mechanisms like natural selection in the world gears us towards survival; not truth. Where did such faculties for reason and speculation come from in a naturalistic model? [/quote]

From our human need to search for answers? We develop these things. Maybe you should read up on "ontology" and "epistemology". There are diffrent theories and arguments about how we gather knowledge and how we look at reality. It's an ongoing debate, it's not set in stone. And the goal is to better understand our reality that we are living in and to gather better and usable knowledge to advance the exploration of our reality.

[quote]No evolutionary psychologist is going to argue that evolution is the foundation of reason, imagination, and truth which are cognitive tools that help us analyze why something is the way it is or formulate and create something. Isn't it remarkable that we come up with stories and lies? That we can look at something and explain some things that just have to be true about it (with no explicit confessions)?[/quote]

I hope not.
It's remarkable that we are able to fantasize. I think it's a good thing. It's jut that if you want to explore and discover things, we don't need fantasy. We need to be able too make a distinction, that's where epistemology comes in. But I do think that you are really confused about certain things. Because you seem to be throwing a lot of concepts on a big pile, and then things become all confusing, and from that confusion you seem to try to make sense of it all by introducing watchmakers, order and a being that can't be defined... which, well, feels like a fantasy that has no place in a conversation where you are trying to find what's going on.

@Kwek00 these are getting kinda long so I'm gunna try to cut it down a bit

I'm well aware of the many fabrications to explain things and I'm against that idea myself. I can imagine it to be common and I appreciate you teaching me that bro.

[quote]Just to make a magical leap of faith that says: "thus God". And well... ain't nobody got time for that, because that one step, is the only thing I care about. And no one needs to fluff it up, we just need to be concerned about that point where we go from physics and things we know too God. That's what is the goal.[/quote]
Well, I sure hope we don't come across any leaps of faith. I'm trying to just remain on things we can observe and are well within reason.

[quote]If you don't know what you are looking for... How will you find it?[/quote]
Good question. We discovered gravity like that, right? (Sorry to bring it up again.) We notice things, look for clues of things, investigate, and reason certain things out. Kinda exactly like how we got no clue what gravity exactly [b]is[/b] but we can clearly see its effects and we can measure that. We're still in the works of learning how we can find out what exactly controls or causes this but I don't think you consider it abstract and not reason enough to believe in it. Likewise with your own mind and consciousness. Some things just leave patterned trails and impacts that are observable and can be associated with each other statistically. Science itself is based on this idea of observed regularity/association and replicability.

[quote]confirmation bias[/quote]
Tis a tricky word. Firstly, you're already dismissing the idea of God being possible because you don't fully understand what God is, what God is made of, etc. .-.
You established that you don't NEED to know that to believe in something. You just need to see EFFECTS of it that are rationally observable, right? If not, can you tell me what gravity is and what it's made of? If not, you're literally accepting the idea of believing in something based on evidence of its effects, right?

[quote]Well, please explain then how God does it? If God is using a natural process, then shouldn't nature be able to do the exact same thing under the right circumstances?[/quote]
I'm not able to tell you how I was made or how the universe and all existence was made (assuming it was) :v
If there is a natural process for things to be made, following such a process would replicate the results, if and only if all factors involved remain constant and are reliable and not random. But God is not a naturally occurring phenomenon ._.
It goes directly against naturalism.
Kinda like tryna use physics to solve metaphysical problems. They're in different domains and require different tools. Some things are not solvable in a lab .-.
Some things require high-level analysis, evaluation, and reason.

[quote]Well, I want to skip exactly to that point honestly.[/quote]
Okay, I guess we'll do that then :v
[quote]I fear that we are going to end up at a point where God is nothing more then a maleable form that fits all, and will fill a gap where: "We don't know" is always the better answer.[/quote]
Firstly, just because you don't know doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. There are many ways we can be sure of something

[quote]Yes, this actually happens in nature.[/quote]
[quote]While if you agree with the Big Bang, then it's clearly not designed. It just went "boom" and all the rest was a consequence of forces that are described in Physics.[/quote]
Actually, no it doesn't .-.
I'm afraid I can't back you up here and this is the anomaly in arguing against intelligent design. Such reasoning violates a fundamental law of the universe: the Second Law of Thermodynamics (known as the rule of entropy). We know nature can't assemble components of itself of low complexity into more complex, structured, and destroyable systems. What you described truly was following the laws of physics and thermodynamics but you're completely aware that it starts to look like a leap of faith to say that nature literally broke its own laws here and had the natural world just somehow "collide" itself (literally chaos) into a complete, observable system that is void of chaos, all from a chaotic cause. Would it really seem unreasonable to then say that it required manipulation? I mean, we do the same thing when we come across a stop sign on the side of the road. Just the shape of it and where it is is so obvious that it's not a part of the beautiful scenic landscape but rather it exhibits signs of manipulation. Right here is where I say that I just cannot pretend there is a logical and acceptable explanation from atheists to say that there is no designer for what clearly exhibits structure. Would you argue that your own eye functions the way it does without a designer?
Is there anything fundamentally AGAINST thinking this way? 🤔
Cuz it seems like it is the option that makes the most sense to me, from a completely logical standpoint.

I don't think it's fantasy to observe something exhibiting clearly intelligent design and then coming to the conclusion that there is a designer for it ._.
In fact, I argue that humans can detect patterns and that intelligent design leaves a distinct pattern that is detectable and it is a remarkable ability we have and use every day of our lives. And I'm not talking about "Oh, I don't know how to explain it, so it's made up"
I'm talking about actually coming across an artifact and based purely on analysis, we can make conclusions about events that must have taken place.

[quote]No... that's not how it works.[/quote]
Forgive me for not making it clear. If an entity doesn't have the potential for rationality, we agree that it cannot give rise to something with rationality. Unless our principles that something cannot just come into existence by itself is not true. If we have the potential of life, we came from something with the potential of life. If we exist, we came from something with the potential to exist. Same with rationality and reason.

[quote]Because you seem to be throwing a lot of concepts on a big pile, and then things become all confusing, and from that confusion you seem to try to make sense of it all by introducing watchmakers, order and a being that can't be defined... which, well, feels like a fantasy that has no place in a conversation where you are trying to find what's going on.[/quote]
I could also argue that it's a confusing fantasy to say that in some point in time in our atheistic model that the second law of thermodynamics was broken by nature left alone. I actually think that the answer to this really boils down to the watchmaker analogy. If you believe that coming across a structure that arguably displays significant design could have just been an anomaly of nature due to random chance, then ultimately, you can accept that the first living cell just happened to also be an extreme anomaly. I personally cannot accept that. (By doing so, you would be countering something I consider normal though :v)