Fair enough I suppose though I don't see why He would.
Since always? Through texts and whatnot we're told He is. Unless you're taking the approach of God being a being that can appear as whatever we would accept to see or something?
Fair enough I suppose though I don't see why He would.
Fair enough I suppose though I don't see why He would.
Since always? Through texts and whatnot we're told He is. Unless you're taking the approach of God being a being that can appear as whatever we would accept to see or something?
Purpose has nothing to do with the sun. It has effects, it has byproduct. It has no purpose, it only does through the eyes of a religious person because theirs is the belief that it was put there. It was there long before our planet
I don't agree with that. The sun's purpose is nothing. It just simply is there and happens to spur life on Earth. It isn't there to give life, life is a byproduct of it being there. Though, it seems we are mainly arguing semantics here.
You dodged my question about why cancer is necessary and implying people aren't, in the frame work of an objective higher authority. That statement doesn't make any sense and instead if explaining further you talked about a wholly unasked thing about morality of things with no concept of them.
Cancer isn't an entity or even an individual life form seeking to reproduce, it is cells being flawed or damaged and running rampant. Explain how that is necessary and people aren't.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. My belief is that God is a He and I don't really know where to go from there. You're free to feel the way you do though as it all ends up coming back to us not knowing everything about everything until we meet Him.Texts written by men....I would find it laughable that God would be gendered, it's not human so it seems extremely sexist to assign masculine gender
Evolution is lacking in purpose, things work, and things don't. Cancer is a malfunction. You seem to just be making definitions to fit your argument. But perhaps this boils down to your belief in objective purpose and the existence of a creator, therefore you have to believe that something like evolution has purposeCancer has effects. From an evolutionary perspective it should filter out the weak as diseases tend to do. That's its purpose (from an evolutionary perspective). Unless of course you're saying only religious people believe it has an evolutionary purpose because there is belief it was put there.
We do appear to be. I never said purpose has to be its raison d'etre. That's why I've stated throughout this thread that from my perspective we have to have an objective purpose (an actual raison d'etre) or this exercise we call life is futile.
Do you believe "he" looks a particular way?I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. My belief is that God is a He and I don't really know where to go from there. You're free to feel the way you do though as it all ends up coming back to us not knowing everything about everything until we meet Him.
Evolution is lacking in purpose, things work, and things don't. Cancer is a malfunction. You seem to just be making definitions to fit your argument. But perhaps this boils down to your belief in objective purpose and the existence of a creator, therefore you have to believe that something like evolution has purpose
I don't agree with that. The sun's purpose is nothing. It just simply is there and happens to spur life on Earth. It isn't there to give life, life is a byproduct of it being there. Though, it seems we are mainly arguing semantics here..
The originator of all your worldviews is man imo. Just like the originator of other religions. And you choose to live by an interpretation of that worldview that was once made up by man.I choose to submit to the originator of everything including man and you choose to submit to man itself.
Cancer isn't an organism. It has a genetic link in some cases (which can get passed down to your children long before it shows it's presence) and in many others is caused by external factors like exposure to carcinogens. You can't get stronger against cancer. It's your genetic machinery going haywire and should not be put in the same category as viruses and bacteria (other causes of disease that are themselves organisms seeking to reproduce).Cancer has effects. From an evolutionary perspective it should filter out the weak as diseases tend to do. That's its purpose (from an evolutionary perspective). Unless of course you're saying only religious people believe it has an evolutionary purpose because there is belief it was put there.
We do appear to be. I never said purpose has to be its raison d'etre. That's why I've stated throughout this thread that from my perspective we have to have an objective purpose (an actual raison d'etre) or this exercise we call life is futile.
To be honest, I've gone back and fourth on that at times in my life. I've had the thought of God being one who would appear to us as what we'd like to see or accept. Although I'd bet on how He's usually thought of in various drawings and paintings. Perhaps that'll be wrong, who knows.
I think organized religion is a sham and I am a fedora tipping atheist. However as I grow older I believe in "the gods" as a description of natural phenomena that I cannot answer or for stupid shit. For example I will thank the gods when windows update finally finishes
Well in terms of allowing people to hate then yes but I certainly think He doesn't like it.
Which sounds like God is all in on hate tbhHe doesn't like it, but boy does he like to hate anything that doesn't worship or obeys him.
We do appear to be. I never said purpose has to be its raison d'etre. That's why I've stated throughout this thread that from my perspective we have to have an objective purpose (an actual raison d'etre) or this exercise we call life is futile.
Evolution is lacking in purpose, things work, and things don't. Cancer is a malfunction. You seem to just be making definitions to fit your argument. But perhaps this boils down to your belief in objective purpose and the existence of a creator, therefore you have to believe that something like evolution has purpose
Cancer isn't an organism. It has a genetic link in some cases (which can get passed down to your children long before it shows it's presence) and in many others is caused by external factors like exposure to carcinogens. You can't get stronger against cancer. It's your genetic machinery going haywire and should not be put in the same category as viruses and bacteria (other causes of disease that are themselves organisms seeking to reproduce).
I don't think you fully understand what you are talking about using disease as such a blanket term. Aging is it's own mechanism that doesn't have to be linked to other diseases, cancer is not the sole cause of death.
Many religions stipulate to believe in their God. There's a lot of violence preached in most religions because they are designed to control through fear, pressure, and force.I understand that and I don't like it when people judge others in the name of God. We're not supposed to judge and harm others in any way. Seeing hatred be shouted while they say it's okay because God would want them to say it is saddening to see. God doesn't allow hate. Like many groups, there are people who make everything look bad. I can see how and why you feel the way you do but to think everyone who believes in God is okay with that or behaves the same isn't fair. Yes people use Religion in ways they shouldn't but that shouldn't take away the basic premise that others follow. Those people will meet and answer to God like the rest of us will. The best we can do is believe what is right and live by that. Love each other, fight for each other, help and save each other.
You still never answered my initial question and are jumping all over the place now.I didn't say evolution has a purpose. Am I not typing english here? Evolution technically does not even exist. It is simply a theory we've applied which appears to describe our observations to a certain extent and fails to do so in others. Like all theories it is subject to change based on new/further observation. That's why I specifically typed "from the perspective of evolution" i.e. if one were to take evolution as a frame of reference then... What is so difficult to understand. It appears as though the goalposts are shifting. I came here simply to discuss the existence of an all encompassing entity which I elaborated upon by explaining my view of the universe and the importance of objective purpose.
I somehow managed to get most willing to discuss to accept that those who exist from a non-theistic perspective do so to ultimate futility. Now I appear to be thrown back into the generic 'religious' persons basket and anything I type is waved away with "of course you believe so and so that's just what such and such does". A good faith discussion turned to bad faith very quickly. I've never described myself as religious and I've always accepted blind faith/belief as folly.
I am not the one using the blanket term disease to describe cancer. Scientists within the medical field do so. Do we need a wikipedia definition? You just admitted it has genetic links and therefore the risk can be passed on. I.e. those who are weak may potentially succumb to it and those who are stronger will survive it thus passing both it and their stronger genes on. Not survival of the fittest definitely not. To be frank I don't think you have any idea what you are discussing as you have directly highlighted your own contradictions for me. Another bad faith argument
I didn't say evolution has a purpose. Am I not typing english here? Evolution technically does not even exist. It is simply a theory we've applied which appears to describe our observations to a certain extent and fails to do so in others. Like all theories it is subject to change based on new/further observation. That's why I specifically typed "from the perspective of evolution" i.e. if one were to take evolution as a frame of reference then... What is so difficult to understand. It appears as though the goalposts are shifting. I came here simply to discuss the existence of an all encompassing entity which I elaborated upon by explaining my view of the universe and the importance of objective purpose.
I somehow managed to get most willing to discuss to accept that those who exist from a non-theistic perspective do so to ultimate futility. Now I appear to be thrown back into the generic 'religious' persons basket and anything I type is waved away with "of course you believe so and so that's just what such and such does". A good faith discussion turned to bad faith very quickly. I've never described myself as religious and I've always accepted blind faith/belief as folly.
I am not the one using the blanket term disease to describe cancer. Scientists within the medical field do so. Do we need a wikipedia definition? You just admitted it has genetic links and therefore the risk can be passed on. I.e. those who are weak may potentially succumb to it and those who are stronger will survive it thus passing both it and their stronger genes on. Not survival of the fittest definitely not. To be frank I don't think you have any idea what you are discussing as you have directly highlighted your own contradictions for me. Another bad faith argument
Sorry! I actually missed this because the thread was moving so fast.You chose to apply a framework of "objective higher authority" whereas I was referring to it from a purely non-theistic one originally. So i continued to elaborate from that perspective since i could not understand why you would conflate perspectives, mea culpa. If from an "objective higher authority" perspective you mean from an all encompassing entity/originator one then that is easy. Cancer is just another disease, another feature of the sandbox. Another trial in the simulation. A necessary feature in a meticulously balanced, highly resilient and adaptable simulation that is. And of course humans are necessary then as the subject of evaluation.
Now i'm consfued too.Look, you're clearly intelligent and we are just discussing things back and forth in good nature as you have with many other posters here. It's not neccessary to put on the airs of people arguing in bad faith with you, moving goal posts, and implying that others are just not getting you. So leave that behind.
You've been willing to engage which is why people are engaging with you.
It seemed as though you are arguing from a place of religious belief, at least that's what I got from you when speaking of objective purpose, which is why I mentioned that maybe we can never come to agreement as you were working on the principle of belief. This is in relation to you assigning purpose to the sun, or evolution. If you are arguing hypothetically then that's fine, and I suppose by you stating that "in reality the sun is just a gas ball" - etc, paraphrasing (I'm on mobile so it's quite difficult and time consuming to get in the meat of exact quotes) - that you don't belong to a particular faith and maybe I missed that context and assumed you do when you don't
From the perspective of someone who has been popping in and out of discussion and mainly provoked by what feels like contradictions I see you are now saying you are not religious? But believe in objective purpose? At this point I'm not actually sure what you do or don't believe without going back and re-reading this whole thread which frankly I have no intention of doing at this point. I also really have no interest in arguing purely hypothetically or for discussion's sake - it's a bit masturbatory in all honesty. So unless you decide you would like to restate your position, clearly, and without over complicating your point, I likely won't be engaging unless I my interest gets piqued by some other oddly assertive statement of something I either agree or disagree with. Really I'm not entirely sure how one can be of the opinion there is objective purpose without belonging to a particular faith (but I have generally avoided philosophical theological debate - as for me it is futile - so my understanding is admittedly limited)
I admit I'm not entirely sure if any of what I've just typed makes complete sense.
Yeah, I'd welcome anyone else to define Razgreez 's position as I feel a little lost at this point, which may be the failing of myself or my inattention+2 beers+desire to go to bed prior to work tomorrow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, I'd welcome anyone else to define Razgreez 's position as I feel a little lost at this point, which may be the failing of myself or my inattention+2 beers+desire to go to bed prior to work tomorrow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course it exists. It objectively, measurably, observably, factually exists. The way we explain it is a theory, which keeps getting refined.
I'm at this point. the evidence claimed is extremely spurious at best.I'm also lost and frankly just gave up trying to understand whatever they are saying, no beer needed.
If exactly one God exposes himself to me and answers my prayers, then with how many Gods do i concern myself with?
It's technically the same reason for which many people concern themselves with exactly zero Gods, because, according to them, zero Gods are exposing themselves to them or are answering their prayers.
You sound 100% religious to me.Im not sure why the confusion. Belief is not necessary to accept the existence of an all encompassing entity. The entity simply has to make itself known in a way in which we are able to perceive given our limited faculties. Based on the evidence I've been presented with, it has. And I'm not relying on nor referring to a "god of the gaps".
I first considered the concepts of order and entropy and then I simply asked myself "if an all encompassing entity does exist and is the originator of the observed order then how would it present itself". It was either that or accept the probability that the earth, our solar system and, by extension, our galaxy just happened that one in which virtually infinitely (that's exaggerating a bit) many simultaneous successful particle, chemical, biological interactions occurred such that perfect conditions for life were not only present but that life was also actually able to successfully randomly kickstart itself given the brief (from the perspective of our star) period life has within which to start I.e. before those conditions are no longer ideal. That's not even considering the fact that research has indicated the water on earth might be older than the sun. From a mathematical perspective it astounds me that people are so willing to easily accept chance as an adequate originator. From a theological perspective that is pure faith since we do not have any evidence of alternate universes nor that of any life at all in our observable universe.
Given that i went looking for it and found evidence of it. No belief required. Like I said though I am constantly reevaluating my perspective. The evidence veers between entirely conclusive and somewhat conclusive based on my subjective ability to process it though.
I accept the existence of an all encompassing entity not because of the gaps but entirely the opposite
I first considered the concepts of order and entropy and then I simply asked myself "if an all encompassing entity does exist and is the originator of the observed order then how would it present itself". It was either that or accept the probability that the earth, our solar system and, by extension, our galaxy just happened that one in which virtually infinitely (that's exaggerating a bit) many simultaneous successful particle, chemical, biological interactions occurred such that perfect conditions for life were not only present but that life was also actually able to successfully randomly kickstart itself given the brief (from the perspective of our star) period life has within which to start I.e. before those conditions are no longer ideal. That's not even considering the fact that research has indicated the water on earth might be older than the sun. From a mathematical perspective it astounds me that people are so willing to easily accept chance as an adequate originator. From a theological perspective that is pure faith since we do not have any evidence of alternate universes nor that of any life at all in our observable universe.
Yeah, sorry but I've just gone back and re-read stuff and it is amazing how you have arrived at the opposite conclusion I have with seemingly similar evidence.
You misconstrue. I comprehend entirely how the conclusion can be drawn I'm just surprised logical, rational and intelligent organisms would accept that. If there was no evidence to the contrary then I would more accept, given the size of the universe, the possibility of life thriving throughout it - in fact i do except the possibility however I accept it to be extremely unlikely versus the clear inevitability that many seem to view it as. The more we learn about the universe the more that likelihood diminishes such that the earth is not only currently the only evidence of intelligent life but rather the only evidence of any life.You cannot comprehend how someone can arrive at the conclusion we are living a product of random happenstance given what you have read of scientific theory whereas I am extremely content in our existence as a product of pure probability given the estimate size of our universe - which is really quite something given your apparent intelligence
I mean, I came to this after having read Stephen Hawkins "Brief History of Time", Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", and Martin Rees' "Just 6 Numbers" over a week whilst on holiday as a teenager. That probably makes me sound like a simpleton, but after consuming them it seemed relatively simple - there are obviously things we are yet to understand, but that it's entirely likely that we are here out of pure beautiful probability than any other intervention. If you feel the need to stick a controlling entity into that equation for peace of mind then fair play, have at you
Edit - also apologies but it is quarter to one in the morning here so I won't be back in until at least after some sleep so please don't assume I'm ghosting if I don't reply
Of course it exists. It objectively, measurably, observably, factually exists. The way we explain it is a theory, which keeps getting refined.
Like gravity. Gravity exists, the way we explain it is a theory.
You are making the same mistake as many people who don't understand science.
Evolution is not a theory, the way we explain it is.
The conditions don't have to be "perfect" for life just conducive to it. Earth, as far as we know, didn't have those conditions for a long time.
Mathematically, me typing this sentence with these words in the same word count in the same order is astronomical as well. That doesn't mean anything, really. It's not impossible.
I don't think it's amazing. Differences of opinion have always existed. It healthy and sparks debate.
You misconstrue. I comprehend entirely how the conclusion can be drawn I'm just surprised logical, rational and intelligent organisms would accept that. If there was no evidence to the contrary then I would more accept, given the size of the universe, the possibility of life thriving throughout it - in fact i do except the possibility however I accept it to be extremely unlikely versus the clear inevitability that many seem to view it as. The more we learn about the universe the more that likelihood diminishes such that the earth is not only currently the only evidence of intelligent life but rather the only evidence of any life.
Again it "would seem" simple however it is, based on existing evidence, clearly not. It would seem likely but ditto regarding evidence. Many scientists heavily simplify concepts in their published works in order to improve readability. "if physicists could find a "theory of everything" — that is, a cohesive explanation for how the universe works — they would glimpse "the mind of God." This is a religious statement is it not yet I'm sure you're aware of who wrote it. Many famous non-theistic scientists err on the side of making metaphysical statements or even outright accept and delve into "spirituality". The vivid contradictions both fascinate and irk me since I do not accept the spiritual/superstition at all.
No apologies necessary. We reside in similar timezones. I do have a question though. If i was to, for example, perfectly explain (in a step by step manner) a mechanism which we currently do not understand, the duplicitous wave and particle form of matter and light for example as observed via the double slit experiment, and then sometime in the future we develop an error free quantum computer capable of computing and thus modelling it which confirms my explanation. What would your observation be?
Processes exist which we can objectively observe. Whether one chooses to classify those processes as "evolution" or not is a choice. I was obviously referring to the theory of evolution. Everybody else could seemingly infer that since almost nobody brought it up. You've not addressed anything I've typed in this thread yet have picked on a semantic issue. I'm not going to assume anything though
Perfectly conducive? We're arguing semantics again. I will substitute perfect for conducive if you like. But that was not my point. You confirm that we understand that Earth has not had those/these conditions for long. So the opportunity for chance to spontaneously develop life is extremely unlikely given our modern understanding of microbiology. Were it not we would be able to initiate life simply by providing those conducive conditions and then adding the necessary elementary chemicals and compounds. It should be even easier for us since we should be able to provide, step by step, the perfect environment for each stage. But to the best of our ability we cannot. At least not yet
Well, i think Christopher Michael Langan agrees with you, haha. (on that there is a god).I don't think it's amazing. Differences of opinion have always existed. It healthy and sparks debate.
You misconstrue. I comprehend entirely how the conclusion can be drawn I'm just surprised logical, rational and intelligent organisms would accept that. If there was no evidence to the contrary then I would more accept, given the size of the universe, the possibility of life thriving throughout it - in fact i do except the possibility however I accept it to be extremely unlikely versus the clear inevitability that many seem to view it as. The more we learn about the universe the more that likelihood diminishes such that the earth is not only currently the only evidence of intelligent life but rather the only evidence of any life.
Again it "would seem" simple however it is, based on existing evidence, clearly not. It would seem likely but ditto regarding evidence. Many scientists heavily simplify concepts in their published works in order to improve readability. "if physicists could find a "theory of everything" — that is, a cohesive explanation for how the universe works — they would glimpse "the mind of God." This is a religious statement is it not yet I'm sure you're aware of who wrote it. Many famous non-theistic scientists err on the side of making metaphysical statements or even outright accept and delve into "spirituality". The vivid contradictions both fascinate and irk me since I do not accept the spiritual/superstition at all.
No apologies necessary. We reside in similar timezones. I do have a question though. If i was to, for example, perfectly explain (in a step by step manner) a mechanism which we currently do not understand, the duplicitous wave and particle form of matter and light for example as observed via the double slit experiment, and then sometime in the future we develop an error free quantum computer capable of computing and thus modelling it which confirms my explanation. What would your observation be?
Processes exist which we can objectively observe. Whether one chooses to classify those processes as "evolution" or not is a choice. I was obviously referring to the theory of evolution. Everybody else could seemingly infer that since almost nobody brought it up. You've not addressed anything I've typed in this thread yet have picked on a semantic issue. I'm not going to assume anything though
Perfectly conducive? We're arguing semantics again. I will substitute perfect for conducive if you like. But that was not my point. You confirm that we understand that Earth has not had those/these conditions for long. So the opportunity for chance to spontaneously develop life is extremely unlikely given our modern understanding of microbiology. Were it not we would be able to initiate life simply by providing those conducive conditions and then adding the necessary elementary chemicals and compounds. It should be even easier for us since we should be able to provide, step by step, the perfect environment for each stage. But to the best of our ability we cannot. At least not yet
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.
I've not dodged this at all. I've not once stated what this purpose might objectively ultimately be. It might be awful from my subjective perspective but at least it would exist and be known. And at least I would be able to process and react to it in some way or form.
Not just the "quality" but all the requirements related to it would need to matter objectively, yes. If accomplishing Z is subjectively not satisfying then I would attempt to react thereto and change what is within my ability to do so. Yet again, this takes us back to the concepts of order and entropy. According to our existing understanding order is something maintained whereas entropy occurs due to the inability to maintain said order. The difference between ourselves and all other organisms, even inanimate objects, is that we appear to have a choice (of course this requires a further philosophical elaboration). We can choose to embrace/maintain order (seemingly our purpose) or simply seek self-fulfillment at any cost and clearly contribute towards entropy relative to the system we find ourselves in. We perform the former, accomplish our purpose and are rewarded. We embrace the latter, potentially doom ourselves and those succeeding us and are likewise "rewarded" commensurately.
Your use of the word "preferable" here is subjective. Which is better? To know, to be doubtful or to be ignorant? Knowledge/certainty is the reason why objective truth is preferable over subjective assumption. Knowing objective truth allows us and unbreakable foundation upon which to base decisions. It opens up the possibility of not relying on any subjectivity. You may find that disingenuous. That is your subjective prerogative. I respect you for it.
I prefaced my initial statement by stating "according existing models". I'm well aware that what I state is not objective truth - not that science can lead to object truth neither. Other people cannot be our purpose as we cannot continue to exist through them. We can affect them and they can affect us but ultimately all will cease to exist and all those effects will once again be meaningless
I take issue with your utilization of the term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" purely because the latter of that trifecta (and to some extent the former) is not like the rest. I have studied (not just read) the Bible (old and new testament) as well as the Quran. This required studying Judaic, Christian and Islamic history. I can categorically state that the Judaic God according to the Torah is not "all-loving" and neither is the Islamic one. The Judaic God is quite ruthless and allows subjectively "evil" actions like incest to go by without punishment yet punishes men, women, children, livestock etc. all the same for the "sins" of the associated. The Islamic God on the other hand expressly states "do not state of God that which he does not state of himself" and he definitely does not call himself the "all-loving" omnibenevolent. If anything every passage which refers to reward is either preceded or succeeded by one which refers to punishment - it often leaves you wondering why there is seemingly so much repetition until you study the history and realize the order it is read in is not the order it was supposedly revealed in. He even states, and I find this a bit of a catch 22 but i'll paraphrase, "some of what has been revealed is ambiguous and some is clear yet only those who are arrogant choose to dwell on the ambiguous. And many are mislead thereby and many are guided thereby (literally both the clear and the ambiguous) yet only the defiantly disobedient are misled". I mean how is one supposed to counter that without delving into an endless philosophical and epistemological discussion around not only the ambiguous text but the clear and almost insidious intention behind it. It also constantly challenges the reader to disprove its claims - I've not got around to attempting any of those challenges yet particularly because simply reading/studying the Quran was an intellectually taxing exercise which I count among my very few accomplishments. Apparently many have tried yet to date none appear to have succeeded. At least none have done so certifiably from what I can tell. The Christian God well, that's a head scratcher. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God and the God of the new testament appears to be a completely different personality from that of the old. Not only that but the personality of God and Jesus, whether one accepts him to be part of God or God etc., constantly changes therein. It's only when one delves into the history of the existing Bible(s) that this makes sense. Not that the Bible makes sense but rather the reason why it does not do so (make sense) is understood. It's not a difficult read but I found it a potentially frustrating one. The old testament was easier to consume for me, at least. Also I read the Quran last and the old testament first so I'm not sure what bearing that has.
Likewise. I'm not here to preach nor teach, simply to enjoy the conversation and perhaps learn something. I'm not saying "this is my perspective now prove me wrong!" nor "this is my perspective and i'll beat you over the head with it till you accept it!". No I'm simply stating "this is my perspective, what is yours lets compare and discuss". I'm a scientist so I am not opposed to a paradigm shift due to new observations
If exactly one God exposes himself to me and answers my prayers, then with how many Gods do i concern myself with?
It's technically the same reason for which many people concern themselves with exactly zero Gods, because, according to them, zero Gods are exposing themselves to them or are answering their prayers.
So if i claim that it's physically impossible for me to ever assume anything but Gods existance, then what level of subjective certainty would that be in your vocabulary?
Cancer has effects. From an evolutionary perspective it should filter out the weak as diseases tend to do. That's its purpose (from an evolutionary perspective). Unless of course you're saying only religious people believe it has an evolutionary purpose because there is belief it was put there.
Im not sure why the confusion. Belief is not necessary to accept the existence of an all encompassing entity. The entity simply has to make itself known in a way in which we are able to perceive given our limited faculties. Based on the evidence I've been presented with, it has. And I'm not relying on nor referring to a "god of the gaps".
I first considered the concepts of order and entropy and then I simply asked myself "if an all encompassing entity does exist and is the originator of the observed order then how would it present itself". It was either that or accept the probability that the earth, our solar system and, by extension, our galaxy just happened that one in which virtually infinitely (that's exaggerating a bit) many simultaneous successful particle, chemical, biological interactions occurred such that perfect conditions for life were not only present but that life was also actually able to successfully randomly kickstart itself given the brief (from the perspective of our star) period life has within which to start I.e. before those conditions are no longer ideal. That's not even considering the fact that research has indicated the water on earth might be older than the sun. From a mathematical perspective it astounds me that people are so willing to easily accept chance as an adequate originator. From a theological perspective that is pure faith since we do not have any evidence of alternate universes nor that of any life at all in our observable universe.
Given that i went looking for it and found evidence of it. No belief required. Like I said though I am constantly reevaluating my perspective. The evidence veers between entirely conclusive and somewhat conclusive based on my subjective ability to process it though.
I accept the existence of an all encompassing entity not because of the gaps but entirely the opposite
I don't think it's amazing. Differences of opinion have always existed. It healthy and sparks debate.
You misconstrue. I comprehend entirely how the conclusion can be drawn I'm just surprised logical, rational and intelligent organisms would accept that. If there was no evidence to the contrary then I would more accept, given the size of the universe, the possibility of life thriving throughout it - in fact i do except the possibility however I accept it to be extremely unlikely versus the clear inevitability that many seem to view it as. The more we learn about the universe the more that likelihood diminishes such that the earth is not only currently the only evidence of intelligent life but rather the only evidence of any life.
Processes exist which we can objectively observe. Whether one chooses to classify those processes as "evolution" or not is a choice. I was obviously referring to the theory of evolution. Everybody else could seemingly infer that since almost nobody brought it up. You've not addressed anything I've typed in this thread yet have picked on a semantic issue. I'm not going to assume anything though
Perfectly conducive? We're arguing semantics again. I will substitute perfect for conducive if you like. But that was not my point. You confirm that we understand that Earth has not had those/these conditions for long. So the opportunity for chance to spontaneously develop life is extremely unlikely given our modern understanding of microbiology. Were it not we would be able to initiate life simply by providing those conducive conditions and then adding the necessary elementary chemicals and compounds. It should be even easier for us since we should be able to provide, step by step, the perfect environment for each stage. But to the best of our ability we cannot. At least not yet
But if life has that purpose (passing on generic material)... why does it have it?The only purpose life has is to pass on genetic material. It's what we're designed to do and it's why you exist. That's all life has ever been working towards - things exist now because they were successful at doing just that.
However, humans have a higher form of reasoning that allows us to find reason for existence but there's no "purpose" to life, it just is.
No not at all. I'm implying that the all encompassing entity makes known its existence through knowledge. By describing that which we could not have possibly known and allowing us to progress to, and beyond the point, where we are able to confirm it.My observation of your ability to accurately model something which is yet to be explained as a sign of your grasp of physics/science and commend you on your intelligence. Are you implying that it is somehow down to a higher power that you did that?
What evidence are you speaking of that shows that we are in fact not in a situation created by probability? That's where you are losing me. What is this evidence of design rather than chance? the universe(s) is/are so massive in scale, and has potentially gone through infinite cycles we are not aware of - we just happen to be here to observe the spectacle of life, there potentially has been these conditions before in another time and space. Is it just the fact we are here to observe that you can't accept it as a product of conditions and time verses design?
I ask because you seem so sure, yet two of my longtime best friends are theoretical and mechanical physicist doctorates who as far as I'm aware completely reject the idea of a creator and embrace the(what I thought was the more scientifically accepted) notion of the maths being right for life to flourish rather than designed for it to be so - they would obviously have an easier time explaining this than I do.
Question is: did you adopt any religion? What religion? Or is the only thing you are saying there was a creator?
And what way is that? Are you talking metareligion?All I'm saying is I follow a way which appears to lead to objective truth
None of this seemed to answer my questions, nor do you seem keen to answer them plainly without using verbosityNo not at all. I'm implying that the all encompassing entity makes known its existence through knowledge. By describing that which we could not have possibly known and allowing us to progress to, and beyond the point, where we are able to confirm it.
I'm not accepting the premise that we are the product of chance. You are so does the burden of proof not fall upon the claimant? I accept it to be possible yet 'virtually' a mathematical impossibility i.e. so unlikely it's virtually impossible - if that makes sense.
I'm sure in so far as my understanding remains consistent and avoids contradiction. I'm therefore forced to continually reevaluate my perspective based on new information. The issue is usually more an understanding of terms. The terms creator, designer etc. naturally have loaded meanings. I try to steer clear of them for that reason since humans naturally have preconceived notions which causes us to wave away entire concepts simply due to the existence of a word we do not like within it. For example, spirituality. It's a word that I have to force myself not to roll my eyes at yet I still partake in good faith discussions regarding it since my interpretation of the usage of the word without context may have been incorrect. I try as hard as possible not to nitpick on semantics and rather try to understand what the individual is trying to convey even if their usage of terms might not be entirely correct according to my understanding. One can quickly ascertain who is present to partake of discussion and who is not.
All I'm saying is I follow a way which appears to lead to objective truth