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?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you believe in a higher power? (God, etc.)
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
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?
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
Some people can't seem to fathom that we are just byproducts and not sculpted by some "divine being". What work got passed on and what didn't died off, it's not romantic but we are byproducts of this process.
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 not pick any of the views that people try to force on me but only the aspects that seem humane now. That make sense in a society. And those views are humane, give everybody the chance to their own pursuit of happiness (women, men, gay people, religious people etc). Those rules are very much catered to religions. Since they were also made by man. We all understand those rules, unless a person has a severe brain defect (as in mentally handicapped). But then there are still people who want to force other views upon us. That's pretty evil.
There is no reason at all for religion imo. None i can think of that would make my life better or more satisfying or more good. I can understand why religions exist and why people aren't comfortable with uncertainties. Especially in the old days when people couldn't read or write. But i'm fine when people practice religion in their own home. I think it has no place in court or politics. When people want to live with only people of the same religion, so be it. but never try to force it on others.
I can also understand you having warm feeling towards your upbringing and your home and feel that religion was an essential part of that. But i think it was mostly the humans you interacted with.
When the alternative is just believing something that has no base in reality then i'll pass and keep to the simple rules that we can all live by and that let's all of us free to think what we want. I'm fine with thing being unknown for now. We'll try and figure them out and if we never do, so be it. It won't change how i stand in life.
Cancer has no purpose, by the way. It can be the result of something, but that doesn't mean it has a purpose.
We're here because of a series of events. That doesn't mean there is a purpose. I think a lot of people make that mistake. Not everything happens FOR a reason but because of a reason. Causality.
Last edited:
I don't have any evidence one way or another. But I find religion overall as just too human. Because what god is depends on who you listen to. And who are you supposed to believe?
There is never a time where you just ask god what they are, and they casually pop up and offer a detailed explanation. And if somebody tells you that happened to them, they expect you to believe them in lieu of it happening to you, too. Which is total horseshit.
There is never a time where you just ask god what they are, and they casually pop up and offer a detailed explanation. And if somebody tells you that happened to them, they expect you to believe them in lieu of it happening to you, too. Which is total horseshit.
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.
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
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.
He doesn't like it, but boy does he like to hate anything that doesn't worship or obeys him.
Again, purpose and raison d'etre are synonymous. And as I've pointed out in my edit with dictionary entries, purpose requires intention.
I understand that it's your perspective. I just don't agree. I don't agree that without an objective purpose life is futile. Life is simply life. It doesn't need a purpose. It simply is.
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. This shouldn't be a depressing thought, it just means that you can make the most of the life you have because you do only get one and making living life to the full, in whatever form that takes, your "purpose".
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. This shouldn't be a depressing thought, it just means that you can make the most of the life you have because you do only get one and making living life to the full, in whatever form that takes, your "purpose".
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
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.
To say, "that's not religion" is to be ignorant of reality. Have your faith, but you must also acknowledge the harm, suffering, and ruins it has caused people and society for thousands of years.
You still never answered my initial question and are jumping all over the place now.
Why is cancer necessary but humans aren't?
You didn't understand what I said. Cancer can show up long after you reproduce and bear children. It can be caused by external factors completely unrelated to your genetics. You are fixating on the evolutionary aspects of this that no one brought up but you.
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.
Sorry! I actually missed this because the thread was moving so fast.
Okay, well your statement was just poorly worded. You've been consistently talking about subjective and objective and largely implying that you need to believe in some higher objective authority to feel purpose, which irks me greatly because everything else you've said implies that if a higher being or reason for existence isn't there then we might as well just give up since continuing existing means a continuation of suffering.
I absolutely detest simulation theory because it's just asking the same questions as whether or not there is a god.
What always troubled me is where did all the gravity strings and energy come from. The universe/material that forms it just always existing (in whatever original form) is hard to accept - everything else can be traced back.
Anyway, you live once.
Do this or you burn forever (aka religion)... helpful in ways for some but detrimental to clear thinking for others.
Basically stories for controlling masses of somewhat smarter animals, and their kids.
Anyway, you live once.
Do this or you burn forever (aka religion)... helpful in ways for some but detrimental to clear thinking for others.
Basically stories for controlling masses of somewhat smarter animals, and their kids.
Last edited:
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)_/¯
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.
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'm also lost and frankly just gave up trying to understand whatever they are saying, no beer needed.
They also just said Evolution doesn't exist and that it's just a "theory", they should read what a Scientific Theory is, there is literally nothing higher than that for science.
Last edited:
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.
I'm at this point. the evidence claimed is extremely spurious at best.
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
That didn't answer my question of "Which God is the correct one." Again: those that have their own beliefs will make the same claim that they converse with their god, and their god answers their prayers. The exact same claim that you make.
My question was, how do you know that you're praising the correct god when theirs does the exact same thing?
You sound 100% religious to me.
It's confusing that you seem to want to use science to justify that (i aprove of that) but i'm not entirely sure why and in what way. In my mind you try to justify the religion you grew up with but make it seem like you came to a certain conclusion as an uninfluenced freethinker after a long period of scientific study.
"Evolution technically doesn't exist". What? Yes it does.
I'm not sure what to think but i'm a simple guy so maybe what you try to say is too smart for me.
Anyway, i have got to sleep now. Will look at all this tomorrow with a fresh mind. May the force be with you.
Razgreez 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 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
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
Last edited:
I don't know. Probably not.
I do know that it's crazy that we are alive now of all times and of all species. We really won the lottery on that one. But then again what is now....sometimes I think spacetime's linear progression of time is an illusion and that it's all there simultaneously and we feel time because of how our brains work. We are both nonexistent and existent always, but when we realize we are alive we think so therefore we are. Reality and life is a mindfuck.
I do know that it's crazy that we are alive now of all times and of all species. We really won the lottery on that one. But then again what is now....sometimes I think spacetime's linear progression of time is an illusion and that it's all there simultaneously and we feel time because of how our brains work. We are both nonexistent and existent always, but when we realize we are alive we think so therefore we are. Reality and life is a mindfuck.
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.
Religion has long been a means of establishing power structures and societal norms, various religions have been mutually exclusive, and our species has long showed itself to be greatly susceptible to random superstition to explain how the world works or enforce doctrine. Because of this it is nearly impossible for me to believe that any religion is correct. Add on to this that any god that would punish someone for eternity just for not worshiping them is a petty as fuck asshole not worth worshiping.
As for why I don't believe in a higher power watching over us? A higher power isn't required for the universe to function, and a higher power would likely have no interest in a single planet in the entire universe. We're too small scale for such a being. I figure that the likely-hood such a being exists is about the same as me walking outside and getting hit in the face by a meteor. I mean, I can't say for 110% certain it won't happen, but spending time contemplating the possibility is pedantic.
As for why I don't believe in a higher power watching over us? A higher power isn't required for the universe to function, and a higher power would likely have no interest in a single planet in the entire universe. We're too small scale for such a being. I figure that the likely-hood such a being exists is about the same as me walking outside and getting hit in the face by a meteor. I mean, I can't say for 110% certain it won't happen, but spending time contemplating the possibility is pedantic.
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
Last edited:
It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to defend bad logic.
Of course there is no "higher power." Hell, just look at the language: higher power. Come on. You pretty much have to be either dumb or duplicitous to champion this.
The burden of proof is on those who state that an invisible sky god created us.
Of course there is no "higher power." Hell, just look at the language: higher power. Come on. You pretty much have to be either dumb or duplicitous to champion this.
The burden of proof is on those who state that an invisible sky god created us.
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.
Well, i think Christopher Michael Langan agrees with you, haha. (on that there is a god).
But there is no way for us to tell for certain right now. Let's keep at that for us mortals, right now.
I don't see any evidence in your words though. It reall seems you are trying to use science as a way to convince yourself to what you've always been told. So there are questions that haven't been answered (i think):
Questions: did you adopt any religion? What religion? Is this a different religion from your parents? Or is the only thing you are saying there was a creator and you aren't religious otherwise?
Last edited:
Oh, man, Mega-Post.
Why attempt to change what is your purpose? It was given to you by the originator of truth.
Okay, so this is a mess of terminology and dives into a tangent. Entropy and order are not diametrically opposed. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what entropy actually is. Entropy is not a synonym for disorder. It is, essentially, a measurement of the dispersal of energy. None of this has anything to do with why Z needs an objective truth giver to assign it value.
After reading more of your posts, it's come to my attention that you don't actually use "objective" in a consistent manner.
What do you mean by "objective" and "subjective?"
I don't think you understood the statement. You are the one arguing for the normative preference for objective purpose. I'm re-stating your implicit preference.
Let me rephrase my question:
Do you prefer an external, objective purpose, no matter what it is, over a purpose you define for yourself?
Your claim is that subjective preferences and states do not matter, but yet you would attempt to change what you could about an objective, assigned purpose. You literally state that you would attempt to do so in the first block. If you were consistent, you would not try to change anything about your purpose, even if it were awful. That you would attempt to change it, as much as you could, both lends value to subjective states, and undermines your argument that an objective purpose is all that has meaning.
Your preface doesn't matter because your value judgment is a separate issue.
When I say you don't have the evidence to make the claim that human actions and meaning "ultimately, objectively accomplishes nothing" you are making a philosophical argument that you have not supported with anything. Saying that the universe ends in heat death has nothing to do with your evaluation of the meaning of human effort because you haven't argued that they are necessarily related, at all.
I'm not sure why you think studying the Bible and Quran gives you any sort of authority to state anything. I was on track to go to seminary at one point in my life. I studied the Bible my entire life, took upper division university courses on religion, Biblical exegesis, and Old and New Testament history and studies. Who cares? None of that has anything to do with the problem of evil trilemma.
That you think the Judeo-Christian and yes, Islamic, God is not omnibenevolent doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I think he is awful. The problem of evil trilemma is addressing what believers claim are necessary characteristics of their God.
What kind of scientist are you?
In order for a given person to believe a thing, the level of evidence provided must meet the level of the claim. Belief is simply the acceptance of a thing as "true."
Evolution doesn't have a perspective. The perspective you are looking for is one of philosophical naturalism.
Belief is literally accepting a thing as true, by the most basic definition. So, yes, if you accept the existence of an all encopassing entity - God - you believe in God. Your messy usage of terminology makes your arguments far more convoluted than they need to be.
What is this evidence that you have been presented with? Because...
... this is literally an argument from personal incredulity and fallacious reasoning.
What is this evidence? You are using "belief" when you want to use "faith" btw.
We don't know what the likelihood is. We have a sample size of 1.
Observation is not necessarily objective. It's why observational study designs are extremely limited in terms of the conclusions they can draw.
"Evolution" is a term we use to describe a natural phenomena. It could have been called "Pastrami Fight". What we call it doesn't matter as much as it is something that happens. The theory of evolution is our explanation as to how it works.
Something being unlikely doesn't matter given time and amount of chances for a thing to happen. Lightning hitting a person is extremely unlikely. Yet, it happens.
Why attempt to change what is your purpose? It was given to you by the originator of truth.
Okay, so this is a mess of terminology and dives into a tangent. Entropy and order are not diametrically opposed. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what entropy actually is. Entropy is not a synonym for disorder. It is, essentially, a measurement of the dispersal of energy. None of this has anything to do with why Z needs an objective truth giver to assign it value.
After reading more of your posts, it's come to my attention that you don't actually use "objective" in a consistent manner.
What do you mean by "objective" and "subjective?"
I don't think you understood the statement. You are the one arguing for the normative preference for objective purpose. I'm re-stating your implicit preference.
Let me rephrase my question:
Do you prefer an external, objective purpose, no matter what it is, over a purpose you define for yourself?
Your claim is that subjective preferences and states do not matter, but yet you would attempt to change what you could about an objective, assigned purpose. You literally state that you would attempt to do so in the first block. If you were consistent, you would not try to change anything about your purpose, even if it were awful. That you would attempt to change it, as much as you could, both lends value to subjective states, and undermines your argument that an objective purpose is all that has meaning.
Your preface doesn't matter because your value judgment is a separate issue.
When I say you don't have the evidence to make the claim that human actions and meaning "ultimately, objectively accomplishes nothing" you are making a philosophical argument that you have not supported with anything. Saying that the universe ends in heat death has nothing to do with your evaluation of the meaning of human effort because you haven't argued that they are necessarily related, at all.
I'm not sure why you think studying the Bible and Quran gives you any sort of authority to state anything. I was on track to go to seminary at one point in my life. I studied the Bible my entire life, took upper division university courses on religion, Biblical exegesis, and Old and New Testament history and studies. Who cares? None of that has anything to do with the problem of evil trilemma.
That you think the Judeo-Christian and yes, Islamic, God is not omnibenevolent doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I think he is awful. The problem of evil trilemma is addressing what believers claim are necessary characteristics of their God.
What kind of scientist are you?
In order for a given person to believe a thing, the level of evidence provided must meet the level of the claim. Belief is simply the acceptance of a thing as "true."
Evolution doesn't have a perspective. The perspective you are looking for is one of philosophical naturalism.
Belief is literally accepting a thing as true, by the most basic definition. So, yes, if you accept the existence of an all encopassing entity - God - you believe in God. Your messy usage of terminology makes your arguments far more convoluted than they need to be.
What is this evidence that you have been presented with? Because...
... this is literally an argument from personal incredulity and fallacious reasoning.
What is this evidence? You are using "belief" when you want to use "faith" btw.
We don't know what the likelihood is. We have a sample size of 1.
Observation is not necessarily objective. It's why observational study designs are extremely limited in terms of the conclusions they can draw.
"Evolution" is a term we use to describe a natural phenomena. It could have been called "Pastrami Fight". What we call it doesn't matter as much as it is something that happens. The theory of evolution is our explanation as to how it works.
Something being unlikely doesn't matter given time and amount of chances for a thing to happen. Lightning hitting a person is extremely unlikely. Yet, it happens.
But if life has that purpose (passing on generic material)... why does it have it?
What is life carrying on that information for? Why are living beings so desperately committed to leave a legacy, to pass on their genetic code? What is "life", anyway, from this perspective?
I'm not saying that this effort isn't s result of a chain of causality originated from completely random events. It's just that the will to survive and procreate is so strong, it's perfectly reasonable for living beings, especially sentient ones, to attribute a higher meaning to it. The whole concept of "morals" stems from the significance we attribute to life, after all.
I don't know how cancer entered the debate here, but I am of the persuasion that we are too quick to dismiss it as a random, useless event. Why would a predisposition to some cancers be transmitted genetically? Why pass on a program that is presumably only meant to kill you? I am perfectly aware that many genetical diseases are like that. Still, we gave some sort of "meaning" to the thalassemia trait, speculating that it may offer some protection against malaria in malaria-endemic areas. What if more generically transmitted diseases have a similar "purpose", even if we cannot comprehend it?
This is from a purely biological standpoint, of course. I'm not talking about some transcendental "meaning" of such diseases.
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.
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
And what way is that? Are you talking metareligion?
It seems you don't want to answer certain questions.
Last edited:
None of this seemed to answer my questions, nor do you seem keen to answer them plainly without using verbosity
Also you can't cite evidence you have seen that led you to a conclusion and then when asked to show it ask me to instead ask me to be burdened with proving my position. My evidence would be that it's a statistical likelihood that we were created by probability because we are here and prove that it's possible, there are likely infinite cases were it didn't in fact work - this is why I mentioned the Just 6 Numbers book - it's as if infinite numbers of experiments with variables have been ran, and will run, and we are just one experiment that was a "success" - just because we haven't observed another doesn't mean it hasn't happened