Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses 🌹 have thorns?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
If one asked what I actually think and especially nowadays , here it is:
I propose that life exists inside a vast, relational field — call it electromagnetic, quantum informational, or something we don’t yet fully understand — where all particles, organisms, and minds are entangled in a shared matrix of communication.
This field doesn't "choose" with emotions. But it filters based on what preserves structure, stability, and meaning. What we see as evolution is not a blind watchmaker — it’s a dynamic feedback system favoring intelligence and self-awareness over time.
Many call it God.
I propose that life exists inside a vast, relational field — call it electromagnetic, quantum informational, or something we don’t yet fully understand — where all particles, organisms, and minds are entangled in a shared matrix of communication.
This field doesn't "choose" with emotions. But it filters based on what preserves structure, stability, and meaning. What we see as evolution is not a blind watchmaker — it’s a dynamic feedback system favoring intelligence and self-awareness over time.
Many call it God.
basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M
@Heavenlywarrior this is too long.
We're all conscious energy and sht connected to other conscious energy and sht.
We're all conscious energy and sht connected to other conscious energy and sht.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Science is a process of making observations, and based on the observations, making testable hypotheses, and then testing the hypotheses.
Can you state your testable hypotheses? Otherwise you might as well have described the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Can you state your testable hypotheses? Otherwise you might as well have described the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues You're absolutely right that science is built on testable hypotheses. So let me state mine in that framework — but first, let me point out that your own claim rests not only on data, but on a philosophical assumption:
You're assuming that only material, mechanistic causes are legitimate scientific explanations — and that any suggestion of non-local organizing principles, informational fields, or non-random structure emerging from within nature must be “superstition.”
That’s not science. That’s materialist metaphysics. And it’s not testable either.
You're assuming that only material, mechanistic causes are legitimate scientific explanations — and that any suggestion of non-local organizing principles, informational fields, or non-random structure emerging from within nature must be “superstition.”
That’s not science. That’s materialist metaphysics. And it’s not testable either.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Biological systems exhibit signs of anticipatory, goal-directed behavior (teleonomy) that cannot be fully accounted for by random mutation and natural selection alone — and instead follow predictive patterns consistent with information-field dynamics, similar to self-organizing systems in physics.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Ironically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a critique of blind faith — but you’re applying blind faith to the idea that blind mutation explains all order. That's just mechanomorphism: projecting dead machine logic onto living systems that clearly behave more like dynamic, adaptive, informed systems.
The real question is:
If nature looks purposeful, behaves adaptively, and self-organizes across time, why cling to a theory that insists it’s just a fluke?
I’m offering a scientific way to ask that question. That’s not pseudoscience — that’s honest inquiry.
The real question is:
If nature looks purposeful, behaves adaptively, and self-organizes across time, why cling to a theory that insists it’s just a fluke?
I’m offering a scientific way to ask that question. That’s not pseudoscience — that’s honest inquiry.