Support NeoGAF

[93xfan]

Yes, of course. That's what evolution through the process of natural selection is. It explains the way in which organisms develop without the need for any guiding hand (or 'rules') whatsoever. It's a fundamentally brilliant and beautiful scientific principal, with endless amounts of evidence to prove its accuracy.

What put the scientific laws in place? Why does life exist? Why does it mutate, allowing for natural selection?

Noticing and documenting observations on how something works is not the same as figuring out why and the origins behind it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Tell me how many atheist threads have we opened? How many atheist community topics are there?
How many private DMs have we sent to spread the gospel of atheism?

Your belief is like your sexual fetish, just keep that sh*t private.

Exactly.

 

[Rentahamster]

That's bullshit though. Even putting aside the supernatural aspects of the belief, Christianity is filled with hard, unquestionable truths. Might be a clichè, but listen to more Jordan Peterson.

Do you consider the supernatural aspects of Christianity part of its truths? If you listen to Peterson, you have to consider his distinction of "literal" truths and "metaphorical" truths. For Peterson, the mythology of Christianity is a fiction and thus isn't literally true, as in Peterson doesn't literally believe that Christ is the son of God and literally sacrificed himself for our sins and that God literally did all those things as described in the Bible. However, he thinks it is "metaphorically true", in the sense that it provides the cultural framework for our modern society and through this metaphorical framework, we act as though it's true, even if it's really not true.

So basically, his position is that religion is a bunch of stories that makes all the stupid people behave better if they can't reason themselves into being better people, so it's useful and that makes it "true". Not literally true but metaphoricaly true.

Unfortunately, many believers miss out on this nuance and think that Peterson is advocating for an actual, literal, divine being that exists in our universe and listens to our prayers and wishes we would all stop masturbating so much.

 

[Rentahamster]

There is no proof of God that anyone can show you. There's plenty of evidence that points to it. Stuff that as a collective can be very hard to dismiss as coincidence.

The moment I post it here, people will strip away context and make it into the most dishonest version of itself for the sake of a joke and putting down people of faith.

So you are admitting that there is no proof of God? If there is no proof of God that no one can show me, then why should any reasonable person believe in something that has no proof to validate its existence?

If, as you say, there is plenty of evidence that points to God, but no concrete proof, then the evidence is by definition weak, and insufficient.

 

[funkygunther]

What put the scientific laws in place? Why does life exist? Why does it mutate, allowing for natural selection?

Noticing and documenting observations on how something works is not the same as figuring out why and the origins behind it.

unfortunately these questions are based on flawed and rocky ground, the theory of evolution does not try to explain the philosophical meaning of life

 

[Amiga]

doesn't leave it all to an unknown deity

Believing in a purpose and order to things encourages discovery. that an answer exists to the questions, it's a puzzle to be unraveled. otherwise it's nihilism so why bother.

 

[funkygunther]

Believing in a purpose and order to things encourages discovery. that an answer exists to the questions, it's a puzzle to be unraveled. otherwise it's nihilism so why bother.

it’s not nihilism by any definition, the quest for knowledge and understanding is its own reward

 

[poppabk]

Was this defining proof of an existence of a magical sky daddy the fecking Ear? Do these people not understand how evolution works or the timescales involved perfecting said organs? Sure we know for an absolute fact that whales have leftover parts from when they where land dwelling mammals for crying out loud, just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it was God.

He's just very poorly regurgitating intelligent design talking points.

 

[Chaplain]

So you are admitting that there is no proof of God? If there is no proof of God that no one can show me, then why should any reasonable person believe in something that has no proof to validate its existence?

If, as you say, there is plenty of evidence that points to God, but no concrete proof, then the evidence is by definition weak, and insufficient.

It’s interesting that you brought up the question of proof. The reality of life is that only two academic fields (logic and math) offer proof. The rest of life is based on evidence. Take the resurrection for example, we can’t go back into a laboratory and replicate the resurrection. Instead, we must trust the evidence written by eyewitness accounts, the historical records found in Scripture and in secular sources, and archeological evidence. MIT professor Ian H. Hutchinson highlights my point:

“In the case of Jesus’ resurrection, we must consider the historical evidence, and the historical evidence for the resurrection is as good as for almost any event of ancient history. The extraordinary character of the event, and its significance, provide a unique context, and ancient history is necessarily hard to establish. But a bare presumption that science has shown the resurrection to be impossible is an intellectual cop-out. Science shows no such thing." (Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?)

Unpacking Hutchinson's point further:

"…Richard Swinburne, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University, put it to work toward less mundane ends: he invoked it to defend the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Mr. Swinburne proceeded to weigh evidence for and against the Resurrection, assigning values to factors like the probability that there is a God, the nature of Jesus' behavior during his lifetime and the quality of witness testimony after his death. Then, while his audience followed along on printed lecture notes, he plugged his numbers into a dense thicket of letters and symbols -- using a probability formula known as Bayes's theorem -- and did the math. ''Given e and k, h is true if and only if c is true,'' he said. ''The probability of h given e and k is .97'' In plain English, this means that, by Mr. Swinburne's calculations, the probability of the Resurrection comes out to be a whopping 97 percent." (So God's Really in the Details?, New York Times)

The same can be said about the Big Bang. It is impossible to prove the Big Bang happened. What scientists have done is looked at the evidence and concluded that the Universe had a beginning. However, they can’t prove that either. One more example, when I married my wife I didn’t have any proof that she would love me or remain faithful to me for my entire life. When I said, “I Do,” I took a leap of faith based on the evidence I had up until that moment. So, in the context of marriage, faith (i.e., trust) and evidence go together. The same goes for every area of our lives.

 

[Rentahamster]

It’s interesting that you brought up the question of proof. The reality of life is that only two academic fields (logic and math) offer proof. The rest of life is based on evidence. Take the resurrection for example, we can’t go back into a laboratory and replicate the resurrection. Instead, we must trust the evidence written by eyewitness accounts, the historical records found in Scripture and in secular sources, and archeological evidence. MIT professor Ian H. Hutchinson highlights my point:

Hutchinson does not highlight your point, because he doesn't have one.

“In the case of Jesus’ resurrection, we must consider the historical evidence, and the historical evidence for the resurrection is as good as for almost any event of ancient history." - There is no concrete evidence that a dude named Jesus died and came back to life, much less that He's the son of God. We only have eyewitness accounts of people who we can't verify to be real talking about what they saw and believed. Are copies of translations of eyewitness accounts to be considered strong evidence?

"But a bare presumption that science has shown the resurrection to be impossible is an intellectual cop-out. Science shows no such thing." (Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?)" Wrong burden of proof. Our current understanding of biology is that once someone is dead, they are dead. We have no record of someone ever coming back to life. We have records of many people on the verge of death being resuscitated, but that's not the same thing. What is needed is proof of a resurrection. Asking for proof that resurrection is impossible is an intellectually dishonest cop-out.

Unpacking Hutchinson's point further:

Swinburne's "calculations" are preposterous. His premise is based on unprovable assumptions, and there is no way to verify the accuracy of the values he assigns to those variables.

The same can be said about the Big Bang. It is impossible to prove the Big Bang happened. What scientists have done is looked at the evidence and concluded that the Universe had a beginning. However, they can’t prove that either.

What's your point? There's lots of evidence that when you go back in time far enough, all of time and space condense into a singularity but there is a point at which we can't investigate further so any more back in time we currently don't know and can only speculate. This is evidence that exists now. This is evidence that we can see and observe and detect. These analyses are done using math and physics concepts that have been tested and proven reliable.

There is no evidence that exists now that points to a person named Jesus dying and being resurrected and is also the son of God. There is no evidence that we can currently see or observe or detect that would point to that conclusion with any degree of confidence. All we have are stories. Stories passed down from thousands of years in the past, probably through oral tradition too. Have you ever played a game of telephone? Try do that over the course of millenia and see how much signal integrity you maintain.

One more example, when I married my wife I didn’t have any proof that she would love me or remain faithful to me for my entire life. When I said, “I Do,” I took a leap of faith based on the evidence I had up until that moment. So, in the context of marriage, faith (i.e., trust) and evidence go together. The same goes for every area of our lives.

Your personal experience in your life has no bearing on the observable facts of the universe and how it came to be. Two very different things.

 

[FunkMiller]

What put the scientific laws in place? Why does life exist? Why does it mutate, allowing for natural selection?

Noticing and documenting observations on how something works is not the same as figuring out why and the origins behind it.

Scientific laws began with the Big Bang, when all laws, rules, elements and everything else (including time itself) came into being. And while we don‘t know everything about it as yet, there’s no evidence to suggest a creator was involved.

The best and most widely held view on how life began is abiogenesis. I would strongly encourage you to look it up and read all about it.

Mutations are a natural and normal part of biology.

Of course, we haven’t figured everything out yet. Far from it. But the important thing is that in all of the things we have yet to figure out, not a single one of them has any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a creator god.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

What put the scientific laws in place? Why does life exist? Why does it mutate, allowing for natural selection?

Noticing and documenting observations on how something works is not the same as figuring out why and the origins behind it.

Do laws of the universe require that something put them into place? You’re saying a magic sky man did it, I say if something “put them into place” we don’t know what that force was or even if it’s necessary. It’s an easy trap to fall into because we deal with things on a human scale, but the creation of the universe or universal laws aren’t put into place by a humanoid figure working at some cosmic workbench, it’s so much bigger, more profound, and difficult for us to comprehend because we exist on such a different scale, so we relate it to a person making something because that’s what we know.

Things mutate because of simple mistakes in translation of DNA. It’s not a guided process, most mutations are neutral or harmful. The few mutations that offer some kind of small advantage are more likely to be passed on, so it’s just a numbers over time game, which again takes place on a time scale we can scarcely comprehend. We see the end result on our timescale and say wow, how perfectly designed. We don’t see all of the uncountable organisms who didn’t develop properly in the process of birth because of harmful mutations. However we do see humans for instance with harmful generic mutations that are not lethal, but might make their face grotesquely ugly, and might make their bodily functions not quite right and shorten their lifespan, or totally change how their brain works to where they can’t function in society. All of that points to random and often harmful mutations, and not a loving creator.

 

[DragoonKain]

 

[Deleted member 1159]

It’s interesting that you brought up the question of proof. The reality of life is that only two academic fields (logic and math) offer proof. The rest of life is based on evidence. Take the resurrection for example, we can’t go back into a laboratory and replicate the resurrection. Instead, we must trust the evidence written by eyewitness accounts, the historical records found in Scripture and in secular sources, and archeological evidence.

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously bad evidence. Add a few thousand years and decades between the alleged events happening and them being written down, and you have seriously bad evidence. It’s constantly claimed by eyewitnesses in this day and age that Elvis is still alive.

Spoiler

He’s not.

 

[93xfan]

Scientific laws began with the Big Bang, when all laws, rules, elements and everything else (including time itself) came into being.

So nothing, not even the laws needed to start a "Big Bang" and then poof, everything just appeared? Why not a perpetual state of nothingness?

Scientific laws began with the Big Bang, when all laws, rules, elements and everything else (including time itself) came into being. And while we don‘t know everything about it as yet, there’s no evidence to suggest a creator was involved.

We don't even know everything about the human body. The presumption that we can and will know everything about the origins of The Universe is astoundingly bold.

The best and most widely held view on how life began is abiogenesis. I would strongly encourage you to look it up and read all about it.

Life comes from life.

Mutations are a natural and normal part of biology.

If the question was about whether or not mutations occur, then this would fit as part of an argument. But we are discussing why and where did that trait come from.

Of course, we haven’t figured everything out yet. Far from it. But the important thing is that in all of the things we have yet to figure out, not a single one of them has any evidence whatsoever for the existence of a creator god.

Appreciate the admission. Things look very designed to me. I've heard many atheists push that "we're part of a simulation" or "maybe a more advanced race seeded us." I think Dawkins pushed the latter. Anyway, it gives away that they think something is designed about it too.

 

[FunkMiller]

So nothing, not even the laws needed to start a "Big Bang" and then poof, everything just appeared? Why not a perpetual state of nothingness?

We don't even know everything about the human body. The presumption that we can and will know everything about the origins of The Universe is astoundingly bold.

Life comes from life.

If the question was about whether or not mutations occur, then this would fit as part of an argument. But we are discussing why and where did that trait come from.

Appreciate the admission. Things look very designed to me. I've heard many atheists push that "we're part of a simulation" or "maybe a more advanced race seeded us." I think Dawkins pushed the latter. Anyway, it gives away that they think something is designed about it too.

Well, I mean. Good for you?

Only they're not designed intelligently. At all. I don't ascribe to either a simulation or a seeded race theory - and Dawkins posits these things as talking points, not because he necessarily thinks they are true.

I'm not even getting into the big bang thing again, because it's already been covered... other than to remind you that even 'nothingness' as you perceive it as a human being, only came into existence with the big bang.

If you're asking why mutations occur - there is no why. They just do. You're constantly trying to push the idea that something is needed to kickstart biological processes, because you want to prove the existence of a creator. Nothing sentient or deliberate is needed to kickstart a biological process. Things just happen. Accepting that will help you move away from religion.

 

[DragoonKain]

The notion that things have to exist or occur for a purpose is entirely human.

 

[93xfan]

I won’t put you down or make jokes at your expense. If the things you bring up are flawed and deserving of ridicule, I’ll keep it to just those things.

I was brought up believing in Mormonism, I certainly try not to hold that against myself or anyone else. Same goes for any other religion. I get it, and I know and respect a lot of people I interact with daily who believe differently.

disclaimer: this is not the evidence I was alluding to, but something I thought of as you mentioned Mormonism and different faiths.

I find one of the ways in which Christianity is unique is that it started with people predicting the Messiah would come and they wouldn't recognize him, would mistreat and reject him. It's an interesting prediction, nonetheless.

As per religions that started by one witness seeing an "angel of light", such as Mormonism and Islam, the Bible warned about this years before the events where the originators claimed they saw an angel of light.
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14

Just some thoughts I've had as people often try to say all religion is the same.

 

[93xfan]

Well, I mean. Good for you?

Only they're not designed intelligently. At all. I don't ascribe to either a simulation or a seeded race theory - and Dawkins posits these things as talking points, not because he necessarily thinks they are true.

I'm not even getting into the big bang thing again, because it's already been covered... other than to remind you that even 'nothingness' as you perceive it as a human being, only came into existence with the big bang.

If you're asking why mutations occur - there is no why. They just do. You're constantly trying to push the idea that something is needed to kickstart biological processes, because you want to prove the existence of a creator. Nothing sentient or deliberate is needed to kickstart a biological process. Things just happen. Accepting that will help you move away from religion.

Life only comes from life. Do you have an example of that not happening?

 

[SF Kosmo]

Even amongst Democrats its as high as 72%. Thought it would be worse, probably seems worse because the 20% dominate the media. How dose it make financial sense for entertainment producers to constantly troll the majority of it's target audience?

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/17/be...paign=editorial&utm_content=politics-religion

Believing in God does not necessarily mean being a fundamentalist Christians who is personally threatened by queerness. You seem to not realize how many liberal churches exist.

People who sit around watch "Christian entertainment" are an extreme minority, and if you've ever watched any of that, those people are insane and have absolutely terrible values. Those aren't normal people.

 

[strange headache]

Do you consider the supernatural aspects of Christianity part of its truths? If you listen to Peterson, you have to consider his distinction of "literal" truths and "metaphorical" truths. For Peterson, the mythology of Christianity is a fiction and thus isn't literally true, as in Peterson doesn't literally believe that Christ is the son of God and literally sacrificed himself for our sins and that God literally did all those things as described in the Bible. However, he thinks it is "metaphorically true", in the sense that it provides the cultural framework for our modern society and through this metaphorical framework, we act as though it's true, even if it's really not true.

So basically, his position is that religion is a bunch of stories that makes all the stupid people behave better if they can't reason themselves into being better people, so it's useful and that makes it "true". Not literally true but metaphoricaly true.

Unfortunately, many believers miss out on this nuance and think that Peterson is advocating for an actual, literal, divine being that exists in our universe and listens to our prayers and wishes we would all stop masturbating so much.

Boom!
Vick telling you to read more Peterson, only to be put in place by somebody who actually understands Peterson correctly.

The whole Maps of Meaning stuff is about archetypes that represent universal anthropological problems. These archetypes are conceptualized through mythological narration in order to allow society to cop with them. Peterson borrows heavily from Plato, who criticized mythology for not being true, but still recognized its pedagogical function.

So nothing, not even the laws needed to start a "Big Bang" and then poof, everything just appeared? Why not a perpetual state of nothingness?

When time and space was created with the Big Bang, so was causality. What happened before does not necessarily rely on a causally deterministic reality.
Any speculation about it is moot anyway, since we cannot think outside of time and space.

In that regard you're certainly at liberty to assume anything, from god to pink space elephants. Unfortunately, none of that constitutes evidence or proof.

 

[Vick]

This is one of the main sources of misunderstanding. You think "that's what you guys are so easily proclaiming", but that is incorrect. The default position of most atheists is not proclaiming "God does not exist" (active claim). The default position of most atheists is "I was told that a God exists, but I don't believe it because I don't think that claim was proven to a sufficient degree" (not an active claim. Merely a response to an active claim).

Therefore, there is no burden of proof on the atheist side to prove that there is no God. The burden of proof is on those people who claim that there is a God. Until the theists provide enough strong evidence to prove that God is real, then there is no good reason for anyone else to believe in that God.

This is why there have been many requests for strong evidence of God, but so far none has been presented. Only rhetorical questions about the mystery of life. Definitely NOT evidence of God.

Did that make sense?

Absolutely.

When i said "you guys" however, i meant it literally:

ain't no magical sky daddy up in the clouds mate, he only resides in your head

No god. no devil. No one to look to for blame other than human beings.

As these, and others much less civil, were the kind of answers i was getting. Immensely appreciated the level headed and reasonable response though.

Do you consider the supernatural aspects of Christianity part of its truths? If you listen to Peterson, you have to consider his distinction of "literal" truths and "metaphorical" truths. For Peterson, the mythology of Christianity is a fiction and thus isn't literally true, as in Peterson doesn't literally believe that Christ is the son of God and literally sacrificed himself for our sins and that God literally did all those things as described in the Bible. However, he thinks it is "metaphorically true", in the sense that it provides the cultural framework for our modern society and through this metaphorical framework, we act as though it's true, even if it's really not true.

So basically, his position is that religion is a bunch of stories that makes all the stupid people behave better if they can't reason themselves into being better people, so it's useful and that makes it "true". Not literally true but metaphoricaly true.

Unfortunately, many believers miss out on this nuance and think that Peterson is advocating for an actual, literal, divine being that exists in our universe and listens to our prayers and wishes we would all stop masturbating so much.

Undeniable Union synchronicity being experienced multiple times during your own life is what changed Peterson, and what changed me. As i said in my first post it would be extremely hypocritical for me to deny it, and that's the reason i quoted Jung as well since no matter how crazy this sounds, to me it's not a matter of believing but closer to be a matter of knowing.
Something similar literally happened to me yesterday for fuck sake, me and my girlfriend (agnostic at best) just returned from three days in Milan, and as soon as i was over with this discussion here and went to bed she thanked me for waking her up because she was dreaming of a humanoid black billy goat covered in gold and jewels floating closer and closer to her in the middle of the streets of Milan, which made her feel awful for the entire night.
She had no fucking idea whatsoever i was hesitantly talking about my beliefs for the first time ever on the Internet here, and not being a religious person in the slightest she's not prone at all to these kinds of dreams, so this whole thing couldn't possibly have been more insanely timed than it was. And this is just a little, insignificant thing compared to life changing experiences i've had.

The only reason i'm not fully religious at this point is probably that i'm too much of a coward to accept the absolutely terrifying concept of it, and that i'm too attached to my frivolous and vain way of living.
I still try to behave as if God exists however, as i feel an extremely better person by doing so.

 

[funkygunther]

Life only comes from life. Do you have an example of that not happening?

wont provide any evidence despite making claims to having it, expects others to provide theirs

 

[SF Kosmo]

Happy that it is so.

Religion is more than a belief. It is an instillation of core values that make the society greater for what it is. The family unit is one of the core tenets of religion and I strongly believe it makes people happier.

Honestly, religious "values" are a crapshoot. It depends on the person and the community. A lot of Christians are genuinely awful people, and they use religion to make themselves feel better about it. And many are really nice people and religion helps center them. You can say the same for atheists I suppose.

 

[strange headache]

Something similar literally happened to me yesterday for fuck sake, me and my girlfriend (agnostic at best) just returned from three days in Milan, and as soon as i was over with this discussion here and went to bed she thanked me for waking her up because she was dreaming of a humanoid black billy goat covered in gold and jewels floating closer and closer to her in the middle of the streets of Milan, which made her feel awful for the entire night.
She had no fucking idea whatsoever i was hesitantly talking about my beliefs for the first time ever on the Internet here, and not being a religious person in the slightest she's not prone at all to these kinds of dreams, so this whole thing couldn't possibly have been more insanely timed than it was. And this is just a little, insignificant thing compared to life changing experiences i've had.

"My GF dreamt about a goat while I talked about religion on GAF."
CHECKMATE ATHEITSTS!

 

[93xfan]

wont provide any evidence despite making claims to having it, expects others to provide theirs

Sure I will. I gave the terms up front. It was an offer.

 

[funkygunther]

Sure I will. I gave the terms up front. It was an offer.

yes those terms mean you're not providing them, because you have no faith in them or yourself whatsoever

put them in this thread, let's judge your evidence

 

[strange headache]

Life only comes from life.

Evolution started way before life.

Origin of life: Did Darwinian evolution begin before life itself?

A study done by physicists demonstrates that fundamental characteristics of polymeric molecules, such as their subunit composition, are sufficient to trigger selection processes in a plausible prebiotic setting.

www.sciencedaily.com

A study done by physicists demonstrates that fundamental characteristics of polymeric molecules, such as their subunit composition, are sufficient to trigger selection processes in a plausible prebiotic setting.

Polymeric molecules > DNA > Viruses > single celled organisms > etc...

 

[Vick]

yes those terms mean you're not providing them, because you have no faith in them or yourself whatsoever

put them in this thread, let's judge your evidence

No offence, but i don't think you guys are in a position to judge anything really.
I mean:

"My GF dreamt about a goat while I talked about religion on GAF."
CHECKMATE ATHEITSTS!

Not even preschool.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

disclaimer: this is not the evidence I was alluding to, but something I thought of as you mentioned Mormonism and different faiths.

I find one of the ways in which Christianity is unique is that it started with people predicting the Messiah would come and they wouldn't recognize him, would mistreat and reject him. It's an interesting prediction, nonetheless.

But that's a pretty safe bet, isn't it? When has anyone ever come along with a radical new idea and had immediate consensus and acceptance of it? Honestly it's a pretty benign and safe prediction. People rejected Joseph Smith too, to the point that he was murdered. It helped that he was a bit of a narcissistic dick, but I mean...isn't it that really the same thing as rejecting Jesus?

As per religions that started by one witness seeing an "angel of light", such as Mormonism and Islam, the Bible warned about this years before the events where the originators claimed they saw an angel of light.
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14

Just some thoughts I've had as people often try to say all religion is the same.

Mormons claim to have multiple witnesses of the golden plates:

Book of Mormon witnesses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's no lack of "witnesses" for a multitude of religions that I'm sure you reject. Some of us just reject all of them instead of selecting the one we want to believe in.

 

[FunkMiller]

Well, I didn’t expect someone to use a dream about a billy goat as part of their argument for the existence of god, but here we are folks.

 

[funkygunther]

No offence, but i don't think you guys are in a position to judge anything really.

don‘t tar us all with the same brush, I didn’t do it to “you guys”

 

[Craig of War]

Who is God

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Who is God

 

[funkygunther]

Who is God

 

[FunkMiller]

Who is God

 

[Vick]

The notion that things have to exist or occur for a purpose is entirely human.

What? That's denying the principle behind evolution.

Well, I didn’t expect someone to use a dream about a billy goat as part of their argument for the existence of god, but here we are folks.

Dreams created and reinforced religious belief for thousands of years. I personally never had a meaningful one in that sense but not sure what would be surprising about it.

It's been made clear way before this reply however that there's no point in discussing with you, not much because your answers and attitude highlighted the mental depth of a puddle and tolerance of an estrogen filled male, but because you clearly have no intention whatsoever to challenge "your" set in stone point of view.

Which isn't your point of view at all in the end is it? Just the easiest possible mindset we all had growing up you apparently forever accepted as truth.

don‘t tar us all with the same brush, I didn’t do it to “you guys”

Well, you laughed at that.

Also don't you think an extreme and overwhelming amount of knowledge about basically everything would be needed to properly judge "evidence of the existence of God"?

"You guys" think so highly of yourself it's honestly amazing. And really does remind me of myself, but i was a teen back then so i was sort of excusable i guess.

 

[funkygunther]

Well, you laughed at that.

Also don't you think an extreme and overwhelming amount of knowledge about basically everything would be needed to properly judge "evidence of the existence of God"?

"You guys" think so highly of yourself it's honestly amazing. And really does remind me of myself, but i was a teen back then so i was sort of excusable i guess.

yes, I laughed at that, a response to you…not the poster that is promising the evidence…I am aware that you are different people, even if you aren’t

now you’re just annoyed and insulting me for apparently thinking so highly of myself for no reason other than to expect a poster be accountable for the words they use, which is all we can do on this forum

until the evidence that exists is provided neither or nor I know how much of an extreme and overwhelming amount of knowledge would be needed, the evidence comes first though and judgement after, you are doing this backwards

 

[Deleted member 1159]

What? That's denying the principle behind evolution.

100% wrong. Evolution doesn’t happen to serve a purpose at all. It’s a result of a fact that some traits promote propagation, i.e. “natural selection.” There’s no purpose behind it. If something promotes propagation, it tends to persist. That’s it.

 

[DragoonKain]

What? That's denying the principle behind evolution.


Dreams created and reinforced religious belief for thousands of years. I personally never had a meaningful one in that sense but not sure what would be surprising about it.

It's been made clear way before this reply however that there's no point in discussing with you, not much because your answers and attitude highlighted the mental depth of a puddle and tolerance of an estrogen filled male, but because you clearly have no intention whatsoever to challenge "your" set in stone point of view.

Which isn't your point of view at all in the end is it? Just the easiest possible mindset we all had growing up you apparently forever accepted as truth.


Well, you laughed at that.

Also don't you think an extreme and overwhelming amount of knowledge about basically everything would be needed to properly judge "evidence of the existence of God"?

"You guys" think so highly of yourself it's honestly amazing. And really does remind me of myself, but i was a teen back then so i was sort of excusable i guess.

I think you misunderstood what I said. The notion is entirely human. Meaning humans are the only living things on earth that are existential. Animals are not existential. They don't care the purpose of why things happen. Only humans do. In the grand scheme of the universe, there may not be any purpose at all. That question comes entirely from a human's desire to understand the world, but it doesn't mean the question has to have an answer. Things don't have to make sense to humans.

 

[Vick]

100% wrong. Evolution doesn’t happen to serve a purpose at all. It’s a result of a fact that some traits promote propagation, i.e. “natural selection.” There’s no purpose behind it. If something promotes propagation, it tends to persist. That’s it.

Which is achieved by the purpose of survival.

I think you misunderstood what I said. The notion is entirely human. Meaning humans are the only living things on earth that are existential. Animals are not existential. They don't care the purpose of why things happen. Only humans do. In the grand scheme of the universe, there may not be any purpose at all. That question comes entirely from a human's desire to understand the world, but it doesn't mean the question has to have an answer. Things don't have to make sense to humans.

Mmh.. not suspicious at all.

 

[BlackTron]

What put the scientific laws in place? Why does life exist? Why does it mutate, allowing for natural selection?

Noticing and documenting observations on how something works is not the same as figuring out why and the origins behind it.

Things mutate because different combinations of genes create different outcomes. If I smash apart two Lego models, 1 red and 1 blue, and make a new one using at least 50% of the pieces from each, then it's impossible for the outcome to be the same as either of the starting models. It will be a mix of red and blue. Now, I don't know what arrangement the red and blue pieces will be in, but they will be in a new arrangement, maybe good, maybe bad.

This is not an example of "allowing" the outcome to be different. It HAS to be different. So if you have sex with a woman from across the world, and the resulting child ends up with traits from you both, nothing "allowed" that child to be different from an original copy. By combining DNA from both parents it HAD to be different -no guiding hand was necessary to "allow it".

Say in the above example, there are 2 kids. 1 is is genetically lucky and grows up to be Arnold (the legos fell into the right places that day.) The other looks like a Mongoloid and ends up posting on NeoGAF. Natural selection has taken its course and done its job. Now stretch this over many many thousands of years -the better traits have a greater tendency to be passed down. You can play with the possibility that this system was set up by design, the thing is though, it really wasn't necessary at all for it to work.

The other aspect is that DNA takes damage, and there are also random hiccups as genes of different hosts are spliced together. This doesn't really need some big crazy explanation. Just see the random, chaotic way the world works. Every small bit of order is a valiant effort against the reality of total chaos. Spill a bottle of water on the ground and watch the randomness of the splatter landing in 200 places. The truth really is in something so deceptively simple as that. God's Hand was not necessary to guide the water to randomness and nor was it necessarily to create randomness in the gene pool either. Of course I can't disprove that every time anyone has spilled a bottle of water, God didn't control it just because he likes to do it. But it sure as hell was not needed! You could say that gravity was necessary, but even if you make the case that God set up all the rules like gravity, it wasn't necessarily done just to make sure all the water splatter ended up in juuuust the right places He wanted. The rules weren't necessarily made just to ensure mutation could happen either.

If you need an explanation for what allows mutation, you need an explanation for what allows wear and tear on my tires. Even if there is a God and he personally made all the matter than went into the aspalt and rubber, I don't think he was thinking about this or trying to make "wear and tear" possible. It doesn't require or demand an explanation in order to make sense.

Most mutations are not beneficial and will not make you a Ninja Turtle. They're bad. For that matter, doubtless many mutations have occurred throughout time that could have been beneficial to the human genome but were stamped out to extinction before doing so.

 

[funkygunther]

Which is achieved by the purpose of survival.


Mmh.. not suspicious at all.

what is suspicious here?

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Which is achieved by the purpose of survival.

A result is not a purpose.

 

[Vick]

what is suspicious here?

The fact humans are so radically different than any other species ever existed in billions of years on this planet?
That we act like alien organisms in our own ecosystem?

 

[poppabk]

Absolutely.

When i said "you guys" however, i meant it literally:




As these, and others much less civil, were the kind of answers i was getting. Immensely appreciated the level headed and reasonable response though.







Undeniable Union synchronicity being experienced multiple times during your own life is what changed Peterson, and what changed me. As i said in my first post it would be extremely hypocritical for me to deny it, and that's the reason i quoted Jung as well since no matter how crazy this sounds, to me it's not a matter of believing but closer to be a matter of knowing.
Something similar literally happened to me yesterday for fuck sake, me and my girlfriend (agnostic at best) just returned from three days in Milan, and as soon as i was over with this discussion here and went to bed she thanked me for waking her up because she was dreaming of a humanoid black billy goat covered in gold and jewels floating closer and closer to her in the middle of the streets of Milan, which made her feel awful for the entire night.
She had no fucking idea whatsoever i was hesitantly talking about my beliefs for the first time ever on the Internet here, and not being a religious person in the slightest she's not prone at all to these kinds of dreams, so this whole thing couldn't possibly have been more insanely timed than it was. And this is just a little, insignificant thing compared to life changing experiences i've had.

The only reason i'm not fully religious at this point is probably that i'm too much of a coward to accept the absolutely terrifying concept of it, and that i'm too attached to my frivolous and vain way of living.
I still try to behave as if God exists however, as i feel an extremely better person by doing so.

I understand that this makes sense to you, but I doubt you would find anyone religious or otherwise that would take the same meaning as you do from it. Why is God existing terrifying? I would be ecstatic to find out that there is a god and an afterlife.

 

[93xfan]

yes those terms mean you're not providing them, because you have no faith in them or yourself whatsoever

put them in this thread, let's judge your evidence

The moment I said something you didn’t like, you moved on to ad hominem. Me commenting “life comes from life” was fair game as it was part of an ongoing discussion.

offering my time for anyone who genuinely curious so that the person can look at it without being influenced by an overwhelmingly negative is a different thing. You are showing me why I’m making the right choice for now, at least.

 

[Craig of War]

Shouldn't God be Middle Eastern?

 

[funkygunther]

The fact humans are so radically different than any other species ever existed in billions of years on this planet?
That we act like alien organisms in our own ecosystem?

we don’t though, our physiology is very similar to other primates and our behaviour for most things (fucking, sleeping, socialising, digesting) is not that different from other mammals. We just have really intelligent brains and have perfected intraspecies communication, which has allowed us to continue to survive long enough to reproduce.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's been made clear way before this reply however that there's no point in discussing with you, not much because your answers and attitude highlighted the mental depth of a puddle and tolerance of an estrogen filled male, but because you clearly have no intention whatsoever to challenge "your" set in stone point of view.

Wow. Look at Captain Sense Of Humour Failure over here.

You cant expect to not to get dragged in a thread about theology when you bring up your chick‘s goat dreams.

But I promise to take you super seriously from now on.

I kid you not.