| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 12,173 Given: 7,962 |
You didn’t understand what I said: life fights entropy, but in the end entropy always wins.Originally Posted by Karol Klačansky
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,539 Given: 1,370 |
Atheism is a belief that there is no God and that there is no spiritual aspect to life, of course there are other reasons why people are atheists but Im specifically discuss a lack of belief in God and in the spiritual world. There are many reasons why people are religious and lumping all religions together is ridiculous as well (not saying you are doing this), but much of what your saying has absolutely no relevance to any of my comments and Im not in some kind of loop you just choose to ignore my posts or you dont read them well. All Im pointing out is that there is reason logically to question being a staunch atheist and to consider that there may be more to life than just the physical. The human brain is limited for sure, but you have as a human with a limited brain, no idea in which areas those are. Obviously we still have some capacity to think about these things so thats no excuse to not think about deeper things.
I agree in many ways that we have to be careful in how we interpret certain patterns we see in data (thats why so many scientific studes are BS because they are filled with all sorts of bias) but my main point is that science is essentially telling us we come from matter which isnt sentient, but we evolved to such a state where this insentient matter can contemplate its own existence and can literally change the course of nature through its actions. Im not saying this is a smoking gun for the belief in God, but to say this is all an accident and to say that though we are beings and no other supreme being who is much more intelligent couldve existed before us, is a big leap of faith, and not the most logical one. Agnosticism makes much more sense imo than atheism. However, due to its very nature of believing in nothing atheism defacto offers us nothing, no salvation, no life after death, no hope for a cure to suffering etc, because of this I think its definitely worth it to explore spirituality and faith and see if there is something to it. You have absolutely nothing to lose.
wow what a genius we have here, calls questions and the questioner retarded but then goes on to try and answer them. That makes you retarded bra. I agree with everything you are saying about the primordial soup and how life comes from water (when did I dispute this?). The point is life came from inanimate matter but evolved to such a state that it can now contemplate its own existance. Chill with the insulting no one is attacking you. Also, lightning striking this primordial soup..scientists have been trying to recreate this but havent been successful, and even if that was the case I dont view that as opposing a belief in spirituality. I view the physical and the spiritual as complementing each other not opposing. Many Atheists have an extremely shallow view of what they think theists believe God to be. We dont believe in an old man with a beard who sits on a cloud and waves a magic wand around. If there is a God then science is his tool to creating the universe and the things in it, I would expect it to have a scientific explanation if God used science as a means to create, that makes science the language of God so obviously he speaks fluently in it.
“Cool Story bro”63.1% Belorussian + 36.9% French @ 3.85
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,539 Given: 1,370 |
no one is disputing that
“Cool Story bro”63.1% Belorussian + 36.9% French @ 3.85
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,539 Given: 1,370 |
The creation story of the bible claims that the sun was created on the 4th day to dictate the days, times, and the years. Obviously this means that the first 3 days were not 24 hour days. The author was fully aware of this. You are comparing apples and oranges because the creation story in Genesis was never meant to be a scientific explanation of how the universe came about. The author clearly wants to convey a deeper meaning with the story. The same with Adam and Eve eating the apple. Obviously the story has a much deeper meaning than just two people eating a fruit that was forbidden to them. Actually its only modern Christian fundamentalists that argue things like this, St. Agustin in the 4th century was already saying the bible is not meant to be taken as literal always and that its not a scientific explanation for things. He was saying this to uneducated Christians who were arguing with astronomers about things and he told them not to make themselves look stupid as they dont understand astronomy or the bible correctly.
“Cool Story bro”63.1% Belorussian + 36.9% French @ 3.85
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,539 Given: 1,370 |
utter nonsense. All of modern science is built on the shoulders of believers. Newton, Pascal, Descartes, Galileo etc were all devout believers and cited God as their reason for pursuing their interest in the natural world. The same drive that lead many men to seek God is the same drive that led men to try and understand the world around them better, these two things are so deeply intertwined its almost absurd to try and seperate them. In fact if there is no point to life and everything is just one pure accident who cares at all about trying to understand these things as our time here is so limited. In fact, Einstein (who was himself basically an atheist) couldnt believe in the big bang theory as he thought it was too Judeo-Christian yet a french Jesuit priest came up with the big bang theory. Good example of atheism being backwards.Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It’s not - it’s a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven’t a clue, so they’re attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you’ll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.
—“Ben”, from an entry on his “Religion is Bullshit” blog, p. 134
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - Werner Heisenberg
“Cool Story bro”63.1% Belorussian + 36.9% French @ 3.85
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,286 Given: 1,535 |
It seems like there was a beginning (this goes back to Penrose and Hawking, Penrose changed his mind on this tho). Was it the only start? Are we part of the multiverse? If so was there a start? Or maybe we are going through cycles? If so was there a beginning for these cycles? It seems like yes, which makes these models weird. How to create scientifically stable models without singularity? If there was a start what caused it? If it was some random anomaly, how it produced a working mechanism like our fine tuned cosmos with working laws of physics capable of sustaining even life. Now here some might argue that our universe holds pocket universes with different sets of laws which makes life more probable but let's not go there, it's just as incomplete answer as multiverse models are for our universe. Other universes do not affect our universe and there is still something extremely workable in the sense of laws of physics, let it produce other variants or not.
Our fine tuned cosmos has to be explained. All good possible explanations are very abstract and the most scientific explanations are borderline science and just push all questions further. Let's try to explain our fine tuned cosmos. There are few options: 1. Cosmic mind 2. Multiverse 3. Something else, like simulation theory or some yet unknown law 4. Just random stuff happening.
First option fits "quite well" with "pure modern facts" if you are a Theist. Our universe is the only universe we can study. All other universes inflationary models predict are not detectable really. They might or might not exist. So for theists modern science is really a gift to be honest, if we are talking about universe and not problem of evil for instance (which is much harder problem for Theists in my opinion). There is a reason many unbelievers are jumping on the Multiverse train, it explains our fine tuned universe better than one random and chaotic happening (you have more options and one option is our universe). Theists don't have to worry about this, because God can deliver one "perfect" cosmos out of any "chaos". Modern science can study and detect only this universe and Judeo- Christian view fits this quite well. In Soviet Union politicians were going crazy because of the Big Bang theory. What the heck was that Big Bang? Static universe was gone. If you was an atheist in the Western world, you had issues with the Big Bang as well. Even Einstein, who was not a Theist (neither an Atheist) had issues with the Big Bang cosmology. He had issues with his own equations. These days many unbelievers believe in a Cosmos out of nothing, popularized by Hawking himself. It's not that satisfying, so many jump on the multiverse train, since inflation is widely accepted mechanism and seems to produce other universes as well. You still have a Cosmos out nothing but there are seemingly more options.
Second option does not explain God away, but fits Kabbalistic views and Hindu schools better. Countless variations based on some Quantum interpretations and inflationary models. These things explain our universe better than some old school secular views, but never explain fine tuning away really, which is important to explain if we want to get closer to the absolute truth. You might explain our universe with a multiverse (because out of countless or a large number of options you will have one working option) but now you have a multiverse and inflation to explain, both having fine tuned mechanism behind them, because duh, you need workable things here. Again nobody knows "more" about the multiverse, it's really borderline science, if science at all.
Third and fourth options are not very informative either, they are worst options to me.
Static universe was long gone since Einstein and Friedman, Hubble, Lemaitre and Arno Penzias and you don't have anything eternal really, at least science is not capable of providing you that if ever was. But if you don't believe in God you want something eternal, it's preferable, because if you don't have something eternal you have to ask yourself what is creating these fine tuned mechanisms. Something out of nothing means nothing really. It's just one aspect of our fine tuned universe to be honest which needs to be explained, this is the whole problem. Pure naturalism never solves these problems. Not like theists can now claim victory since we are in the same boat here honestly. But it's funny how unbelievers tend to laugh at theists. Did Maxwell add biblical magic in his equations? Newton almost did actually, but since he is the greatest scientist of all time we can forgive him. But let's look at Heisenberg, Planck, Born etc. Are they dumber than Feynman and Bohr just because they believed in some sort of Cosmic mind? Did Feynman have better explanation for everything because he was "more scientific and naturalistic" for some. Obviously not. Science is actually getting more and more abstract all the time. People put their trust on multiverses, eternal chaotic inflations and cyclic models because you need something what delivers our Cosmos if you really think about this. The issue is that you can guess anything now and create a model out of it. Multiverse models are not very informative since they predict too much. Basically the only way to be "very rational" is to wait until science answers something but duh, what's what everyone is doing, regardless of one's world view. People like to have stronger opinions and that's the reason many of us tend to choose something. But your multiverse is not really anyt better explanation than someone's cosmic mind (not like all believers reject the idea of the multiverse) and if you don't buy multiverse i would say you are even more lost here (unless you bring in God). But if you believe in God you have to try to define God as well. You can't just say God is the answer and that's it. You have to get a bit closer. It's very interesting, the way we try to explain life and universe these days. The debate is still on, the very same debate Laplace could have had with Newton. We haven't answered the deepest questions yet. There is no life without our epic universe. How do you explain the universe so epic you can find The Apricity Forum in it? It's beyond science.Naturalism is not gonna help you here. It literally is beyond science, jokes aside. "Well, what's the reason i won't guess too much" some might say. But you are already guessing there is no God of any kind if you hold to purely naturalistic view. And that's a naive guess to me. Not like i personally believe in a God with a white beard or some flying blue elephant god. But Cosmic mind makes sense to me.
We need savant minds to solve these mysteries. One thing we can be sure is that there seems to be something extremely working and epic behind everything. Is it purely mechanical machine which has no beginning? Wouldn't put my money on that. If it does have a beginning, what kind of beginning does it have? If it's just some machine, then why it works so well and produces such amazing things? You need some crazy quantum magic to explain all this properly. But why quantum physics does all this if so?
Miller's and Urey's work has been often popularized in a very naive and strange way. They didn't prove anything really revolutionary about the origin of life, abiogenesis. Very often it's presented as some key answer (these days people are more careful with words), but i haven't heard of any Nobel Prizes related to this topic. People should be a bit more humble when talking about what we know and don't know. We have no clue of how life happened yet. People take stuff for granted. Like "oh look how these things combining with other things create new things and duh, that's how life probably happened". Well, no shit Sherlock. But that doesn't really explain life, yet.
This is what we need really. Something more fundamental.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new...life-20140122/
But we are still very far away from explaining this.
Some good watching related to the topic.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 2,346 Given: 1,328 |
Science is trying its best to explain how world came to be and the phenomenons that surround us. Its just some people want to see what it pleases them. And I agree, its mainstream today. But also the way I see, both the theism and some theories (can I call it like that? is it theory if its unconfirmed?) are some sort of belief system, just of a different kind, but in essence: Physicists hope their initial hypotheses are correct, while theists assume their mix of gut feeling and basic logic - with varying degree - is correct. I guess physicist have more reason to be positive if their hypothesis are correct, because they assume less. The last part where you mention of some sort of an offering or a reward for believing in something makes no sense to me, because I think you can lose a lot. Everything, to be more concrete.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 11,269 Given: 13,631 |
I just said that asking who created the creator is a dumb question and told you why is that whether God is or not an explanation for anything.Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It’s not - it’s a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven’t a clue, so they’re attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you’ll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.
—“Ben”, from an entry on his “Religion is Bullshit” blog, p. 134
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,246 Given: 1,444 |
I did not call you retarded I called your questions retarded learn the difference. I did not personally attack you but after interacting with you it does seem the average atheist has a higher IQ than you and it has already been proven by psychometrics/psychology that atheists are smarter. This is not meant as a personal attack but just praxeological observation and it also has to do with me being frustrated with your seemingly lack of intelligence.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,246 Given: 1,444 |
It is not a dumb question as the answer to it is usually : "odds are you’ll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Atheism
Atheism
Atheism
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks