Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[KCfromNC]

The point is you asked me for some support about Wheelers claims about consciousness for which I thought I had done with the first paper. But rather than acknowledge Wheelers statements on consciousness you decided to try and discredit the paper (source). The point is it didn’t really matter about the source because the aim was to show Wheelers quotes on consciousness. I then posted a second paper from a scientific journal which I really should not have had to do to further support Wheelers claims about consciousness which you also did not acknowledge.

So basically you're just saying someone believes something? OK, I guess I can go along with that.

This is a logical fallacy that ranking can be assumed as credit worthy.

No, I was simply showing this journal doesn't have much impact to actual scientists.

I can tell you that even the highly ranked journals have been found to produce shaky and false work and cannot be trusted.

Yeah, I see you telling me lots of things.

I can see you're trying hard to find some way to discredit Wheeler

No, simply stating the facts. I asked for peer-reviewed scientific papers backing up your claims, you produced something from a humanities journal.

You forgot to mention that the journal is also a social sciences journal

You say this as if it makes it a more reliable source for knowledge about physics or neurology.

and both do include scientific reasoning and logical arguments.

Pretty sure I asked you to point out some examples of those and you never answered.

The authors will be finding ways to argue their hypothesis/thesis on scientific grounds.

Citation needed

There is more than one way to determine what we see besides physics and this is especially relevant considering that many see the quantum world effects stepping outside physics.

What specific effects are you talking about?

So can you show me peer reviewed direct scientific support for multiverses or paradelle worlds

No. But I'm also not claiming those are real so I don't see why you'd ask.

we ever directly verified dark matter or energy directly.

Dark matter, yes.

Science may have some mathematical equation on paper for multiverses but that’s not the same as being scientifically tested and directly verified. It is the same for all these other ideas which are basically interpretations of quantum physics which is the same for consciousness.

Which mathematical equations are you proposing for consciousness? Please be specific.

This is one of the problems some scientist is saying where the criteria for scientific verification should be lowered so they can use ideas like multiverse because they can never be directly verified according to the scientific methods.

What is the name of this scientist?

Then why are you trying so hard to discredit the source of those quotes.

I'm just pointing out facts. If you find that discredits the sources don't blame the messenger.

 

[stevevw]

Before we can discuss that, let's establish that they are based on the same logic.

One example is the parallel or many world interpretation of quantum physics. It also uses the observer effect but has the observer as part of the system. It has the system continually dividing at the point of decoherence. Everette described the macro as also being part of the quantum world. There is a continuous evolution of a wave function and the Schrödinger equation always applies and applies to everything—objects and observers alike? This produces many worlds where there may be another you and me in them with slightly different physical conditions.
The many worlds of Hugh Everett
The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett

If this idea is going to be a contender as a possibility then surely consciousness can also be an alternative idea. I would think the many worlds interpretation is harder to believe than consciousness.

The fact you don't know there's direct evidence for at least a few of these makes it hard to take your other assertions seriously.

We can only go by what we know not what we may spectulate about. At this point in time these ideas have no direct support according to direct scientific verification and testing. What we may assume is the result of a certain event may well be something else. We have found this on many occassionsin science especially astrophysics.

If a new multi-million-dollar dark matter detector has just begun its search as of 2017 then it hasn’t found direct evidence of dark matter yet.
The World's Most Sensitive Dark Matter Detector Is Now Up and Running

Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real?
Astronomers are arguing about whether they can trust this untested—and potentially untestable—idea
Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real? | Science | Smithsonian

As for the Big Bang it relies on a lot of non-directly verified ideas one being dark matter another being inflation. This does not constitute scientific testable verification as done in science.
Cosmology Statement org

According to quantum physics there can be other alternative explanations for the way the universe began that use the same observations. This shows how the interpretations of physics can give different views which can also be considered a probable alternative just like consciousness can be.
What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

Ironically one of the predictions of inflation theory is multiverse and as with Everette’s many worlds interpretation this makes predicting what sort of universe will eventuate hard to do. This takes the predictability out of inflation as to what sort of universe it would create and to say that it ended up with one like our finely tuned one out of millions of possibilities by chance is highly speculative. As prediction is an important part of scientific verification it leaves inflation with a big question mark over it. Not to mention the other problems it has.
Why Cosmic Inflation Is Here To Stay

The problem is with these ideas is not only are they not directly verified there is emerging evidence that they may not even be correct.

That plus the objective evidence for them.

What objective evidence. How can any evidence be objective if it cannot be observed directly? What is observed and the effects it produces can only be speculated and this is prone to subjectivity. There can be a fine line between an idea that helps solve a problem of an existing idea and that idea being independently verified. An observation that may be interpreted as something can be later found to be wrong becuase we have no way of directly knowing and interpretations rely on spectualtion.

Even the ones which require no conscious observer?

Yes, all I am saying is it should be a level playing field. Ideas like paralelle worlds and multiverses may also be possible and so may consciousness. They all need to be included as possibilities.

In my view, it is more like you've picked one scientist and posted a paper written by someone talking about how that scientist's view are similar to certain epistemological views. That's pretty far from scientists doing science.

I am glad you said your view as it is not mine. The problem with that assertion is there are many more like Wheeler and there are other areas apart from quantum physics being researched and tested that also relate to consciousness that can be used as support. I used Wheeler because he is a good representation of the field especially the observer effect.

People say lots of stuff. What's more interesting is backing that talk up. For example, in this case it would be much more convincing if the paper introduced an non-materialistic approach which produced demonstrably better results than science.

If you are willing to give consciousness the same level of opportunity as the other ideas like paralelle worlds then there is as musch if not more evidence. You have to remeber like paralelle worlds the eviudence is indirect and you will never get direct evidence. I have already provided that indirect evidnec for consciousness.

In what ways?

I just mentioned them above, Paralelle worlds, multiverses, inflation, dark matter etc. Scientists are even saying they can never verify something like a multiverse but they want to lower the criteria to allow it to be verified becuase it fits so well into their models.
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

And then they look to find objective evidence to confirm or disprove those far-fetched ideas. So?

They can't as it is impossible. Unless you can visit a paralelle world or multiverse for example you can never test or directly verify it. As it says above these are spectualtive ideas not objective ones.

Citation needed.

This is like asking for a citation to verify paralelle worlds. Why is it that ideas like paralelle worlds, multiverses and holographic worlds can be accepted by scientists without citations yet they demand a higher level of support for something like consciousness. Once again the Journal of Counsciousness Studies should have what your looking for.

First one of the pioneers of quatum physics says it best when it comes to whether there is something non material behind what we see.
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Niels Bohr
Six Protocols, Neuroscience, and Near Death: An Emerging Paradigm Incorporating Nonlocal Consciousness
http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(15)00076-2/abstract
The paper is linked in this article
A new theory of consciousness: the mind exists as a field connected to the brain
https://www.theepochtimes.com/uplif...s-a-field-connected-to-the-brain_2325840.html

That the standards of this journal don't seem to be particularly high.

Do you have any evidence of this or is that an assumption and your subjective opinion. Besides it doesnt matter as I said I linked another paper from a scientific journal which had Wheelers quotes in it.

 

[KCfromNC]

If this idea is going to be a contender as a possibility then surely consciousness can also be an alternative idea. I would think the many worlds interpretation is harder to believe than consciousness.

I asked for examples of how the ideas used the same logic. Instead I get an assertion about what you believe might be true. That's not really a promising start.

We can only go by what we know not what we may spectulate about. At this point in time these ideas have no direct support according to direct scientific verification and testing.

Can you at least demonstrate you know what the observational evidence is for dark matter and for the big bang? I want to see what level I need to be working at here.

As for the Big Bang it relies on a lot of non-directly verified ideas one being dark matter another being inflation.

As well as several lines of independent evidence. Can you list them?

According to quantum physics there can be other alternative explanations for the way the universe began

Show us the math.

The problem is with these ideas is not only are they not directly verified there is emerging evidence that they may not even be correct.

Again, I ask for specifics and I get vague assertions.

Do you have any evidence of this

Yes. You read them and complained I was trying to discredit the journal by pointing out the facts. Now you're pretending you never read them? Come on, stop wasting my time.

 

[stevevw]

So basically you're just saying someone believes something? OK, I guess I can go along with that.

No the point is I have now shown that Wheeler supports the observer effect and consciousness.

No, I was simply showing this journal doesn't have much impact to actual scientists.

Thats irrelevant now as I have posted another paper showing Wheelers support for consciousness.

No, simply stating the facts. I asked for peer-reviewed scientific papers backing up your claims, you produced something from a humanities journal.

It was a Humanities and Social science Journal which you seem to keep forgetting. Social science is science. The support for consciousness is not not restricted to just physics. It is also found in anthropology, religion, psychology and sociology.

Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a social science. The social sciences include, but are not limited to: anthropology, archaeology, demography, economics, history, human geography, jurisprudence, linguistics, management, political science, art, religion, culture, literature, psychology, and sociology.
Social science - Wikipedia

But nevertheless you also keep forgetting that I posted another paper from a scientific journal to back what I said. So either way I have provided sufficent evidence that Wheeler supports consciousness.

You say this as if it makes it a more reliable source for knowledge about physics or neurology.

The paper was not posted to support neurology and physics. It was posted to show some references to Wheeler. The paper does not take away from what Wheelers work. I think you have gotten off track.

Citation needed

Theres a whole Journal full of papers about consciousness in the Journal of consciousness studies. Some of these papers are arguing that consciousness is real and all papers use scientific references to support what they say otherwise they would not be accepted as academic papers. I have posted quite a few now so I shouldnt have to keep posting more and more to satisfy your high level of evidence you aree imposing.

What specific effects are you talking about?

The papers I posted in my last post cover some of the related areas that can be used to support consciousness. Areas such as NDE, telekenesis, telepathy, basically any area that looks at how the mind can affect the material world. Before you start to dismiss everything I would suggest you read some of the papers.

No. But I'm also not claiming those are real so I don't see why you'd ask.

But my argument is with how mainstream science can accept and include these ideas as possibilities when they are not scientifically verified and yet reject consciousness.

Dark matter, yes.

No they have not directly verified dark matter. They have only just set up a multi million dollar dark matter detector in 2017 and state they have not found it yet. Why would they spend millions on a machine to detect dark maatter if they have already detected it. What you may think is support for dark matter is indirect support which could also be the result of something else. Its a bit like how scientists thought they had found gravitational waves when it turned out to be dust. Not only that there is some evidence that dark matter is no even real to detect.
The World's Most Sensitive Dark Matter Detector Is Now Up and Running

Which mathematical equations are you proposing for consciousness? Please be specific.

The most popular theory on consciousness and mathematics are ones that associate consciousness with information and mathematics. They say that everything including the universe and consciousness are made up of information and/or mathematics. Therefore everything can be connected.
The mental Universe
The mental Universe

These ideas are along the panpsychic view of consciousness.
Is Consciousness Universal?
Is Consciousness Universal?

But there are other ideas that are based along the lines of how quantum physics works such as with holographic worlds for which I posted a paper in my last post on this.

What is the name of this scientist?

There are quite a few who think that becuase ideas like string theory and multiverses fit their models so well they should be accepted on that basis rather than scientific verification becuase there is no way to verify them.
Does Science Need Falsifiability?
Does Science Need Falsifiability? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

 

[stevevw]

I asked for examples of how the ideas used the same logic. Instead I get an assertion about what you believe might be true. That's not really a promising start.

I think you have either missed or are just ignoring the main part of my reply which dealt directly with your question.

here is the other part of my reply below in reply to your question "Before we can discuss that, let's establish that they are based on the same logic".

One example is the parallel or many world interpretation of quantum physics. It also uses the observer effect but has the observer as part of the system. It has the system continually dividing at the point of decoherence. Everette described the macro as also being part of the quantum world. There is a continuous evolution of a wave function and the Schrödinger equation always applies and applies to everything—objects and observers alike? This produces many worlds where there may be another you and me in them with slightly different physical conditions.
The many worlds of Hugh Everett
The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett

So the many worlds interpretation also uses the observer effect but instead uses it over and over again to create new worlds with new observers. The reason I say it is harder to believe the many worlds than consciousness is because the many worlds idea brings in even more observers and worlds with all sorts of crazy things happening in them.

For some reason you focused on an after thought I had instead of the main part of my reply. So I think I have answered your question but you just choose not to acknowledge it.

Can you at least demonstrate you know what the observational evidence is for dark matter and for the big bang? I want to see what level I need to be working at here.

I think you should deal with what I have already posted above.

 

[Ken-1122]

Atheism seems to lack evidence more than Christianity does. Christians have the historical gospel to point towards their truths. What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

Neither evidence nor blind faith is needed to dismiss a claim.

 

[FredVB]

I would think the many worlds interpretation is harder to believe than consciousness there are many more like Wheeler and there are other areas apart from quantum physics being researched and tested that also relate to consciousness that can be used as support. Wheeler is a good representation of the field especially the observer effect.

There is intelligent consciousness behind our world and cosmos, there isn't better explanation of it with other theories.

There is not explanation of natural processes that I see is being insisted on. And it is not a better guess than that there is real purpose behind it, when explanation is offered for that as well. And without such others not from this universe, which would be guessed at with no real basis from what is known, other such universes from this one depend on this one to start with that inexplicably has the parameters just right for it. If there is no variation of the physical constants, as that might be the case if there are the other universes which are still never observed to be with any evidence, why do the constants that are not related to any known thing all happen to be just right for the universe(s) working for habitation anywhere in it/them possible, when slight variation would make it not possible?

It would be the case that any in another universe, if there were any other which is unknown, would not have a way to interact with anything within this universe. But it isn't the case for such necessary being that is transcendent, and anywhere in the universe, being unlimited with being necessary existence. Without faith you won't see it, but believers can see there is interaction with meaning. We will just see it because we are open to it, so it is not excluded.

If a human intelligence was meant, then that would have a creator needed for it. But with talking of necessary existence, intelligence is not excluded, when intelligence seems to be behind purposeful constants of the parameters having our universe with habitation somewhere in it possible. Intelligence then is necessary of necessary being, and explains our real intelligence being made, as anything else wouldn't and would leave it doubtful for us that others of us are with any real intelligence. Such necessary intelligence isn't limited, and not like our human intelligence, which limited as would be the case can't conceive such intelligence, though its existence can be understood.

The water flows down with increasing entropy, this doesn't have it be a parallel for an example of comparison for intelligence from natural processes. And qualification for knowing real truth, and presumption for truth to be known, for what forms from natural processes, is yet not credible for trusting.

There is random complexity, there isn't such intelligence just from that. But intelligence would not credibly be from something even complex formed with complexity from natural processes, as random complexity. There wouldn't be anything formed trustworthy for that showing or even knowing what real truth of reality is, from such.

Logic can be seen for understanding there is necessary existence. If there was no existence necessary, regardless if we don't know why, nothing would exist, because there can't be anything coming to be from nothing existing. Something can't explain its own existence unless it is necessary existence. And what is necessary existence is what there is to explain anything else existing. I can call this the Creator.

There are assumptions, either of a contracting universe which rebounded, which requires an elasticity that can't be shown and isn't realistic, or of what I too have heard Hawking espouse, that time curved around from the universe already being to start the universe we are in, which in reality is pushing the question away but it still is to be addressed, why there is anything at all, with time somehow "before" or whatever being in place for it, or not. If it were the necessary existence then it would explain itself, but not curving around, and being eternal, and not changing, being invariable, as such is with what is necessary, and I show the argument that the universe isn't this.

It is shown there is necessary being, with logic, and that it's not the universe, or hypothetical universes. So logically from that, necessary being is something other, and with causing what we have with the universe, I can call this the Creator. There are not hypothetical traits stated here to the necessary being, and calling this the Creator is legitimate. And my faith, which I can say is with basis separately, is with what I understand this being God.

 

[FredVB]

Speaking of necessary existence is absolutely valid, if there were not that, nothing would ever exist, period. This being dismissed is without any logic. How this with being understood as the Creator would make all things that the universe consists of is from unique capacity that does not need us to understand it, or have any way to explain it, yet necessarily that ability would be one of the things without limit that characterize that necessary being.

We may not have the capacity to reason out why the existence is necessary, but we KNOW that absolute nonexistence cannot bring about existence, that is impossible. There are impossible things, such as circles that are squares, existence shows there is necessary existence to explain it. It is impossible for the necessary existence to not exist, and that existence is eternal and unlimited, as being necessary existence would mean that. So nowhere is there absolute nonexistence.

Necessary being exists without dependence on anything external to that existence. This existence is eternal and infinite, being unlimited, necessarily, or this wouldn't be necessary existence. And this being has capacity to create more existence further, without limit of that capacity of course, otherwise there is still no explanation for anything in the universe, as this universe does not fill the role of this necessary existence, not being eternal and infinite, and with the infinite capacities to create and organize intelligently.

What is just in this universe might be subject, from some such as there could be among us, to observation or testing, but there isn't this possibility for what is transcendent to this universe, and there would be such transcendence.

If discussion of such is not dismissed, there should not be rejection of bases observed by any for creationist beginnings, for that sake alone. Where else did everything come from if it were otherwise?

 

[Rivga]

There is intelligent consciousness behind our world and cosmos, there isn't better explanation of it with other theories.

Before Christianity, before Darwin, before the scientific method there have always been sceptics (Atheists).

"Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you."
Ancient Roman tombstone

The reason is that you argument is intellectually wanting, let me see if I can break it down (other people do this better than me so forgive me).

You basically state that the world is complex and must have a creator - lets just call him a universe creating factory.
You state this because of the golden rule "no complex thing could have come about naturally". Therefore their must be a Universe creating factory.

But here is the think that bothered pre-Christian Atheists (and more modern atheists), A Universe creating factory is much more complex than a Universe and going back to the golden rule. Something must therefore have created the factory and so on and so on.

We exist so something must have started it - and with no other knowledge at all it is simple to state that "The universe has always existed" as a universe is infinitely less complex than a universe creating factory (in your case a Christian God).


I would go as far as saying that almost any explanation you can come up with is much more likely than a all powerful, all knowing, al seeing being. As how is it possible that you state the most complicated thing imaginable could pop into existence (or always has been in existence) and yet all those reasons imagined are not possible?

 

[FredVB]

The reason is that you argument is intellectually wanting, let me see if I can break it down (other people do this better than me so forgive me).

My points in what I posted were then not really all looked at and understood, as they are not intellectually wanting as you concluded. I will deal with your points below. I still should say that I try hard to communicate the reasoning that yet is being entirely missed by atheists that it is for, that I almost can't help thinking it is maybe being blocked. I still hope the logic will be seen.

You basically state that the world is complex and must have a creator - lets just call him a universe creating factory.
You state this because of the golden rule "no complex thing could have come about naturally". Therefore their must be a Universe creating factory.

Here is one thing showing the reasoning in what I post is really being missed. I put effort in showing the reasoning that not complexity, but random complexity doesn't explain intelligence among us for knowing what is really true. Random complexity would show higher entropy. If intelligence is really from complexity it must be highly ordered, and it is not adequately explained from natural processes that there is intelligence among us for knowing what is really true.

But here is the think that bothered pre-Christian Atheists (and more modern atheists), A Universe creating factory is much more complex than a Universe and going back to the golden rule. Something must therefore have created the factory and so on and so on.

We exist so something must have started it - and with no other knowledge at all it is simple to state that "The universe has always existed" as a universe is infinitely less complex than a universe creating factory (in your case a Christian God).

I would go as far as saying that almost any explanation you can come up with is much more likely than a all powerful, all knowing, al seeing being. As how is it possible that you state the most complicated thing imaginable could pop into existence (or always has been in existence) and yet all those reasons imagined are not possible?

I communicate through what is posted about necessary existence, and what that means is apparently missed, whether intentionally or not I don't know at all.

If what necessary existence means is really understood and calling this a universe creating factory seems desirable, I won't argue against that. But when it is said the universe creating factory was necessarily created, it shows the meaning of necessary existence is missed or is being neglected. Maybe it would be better to go back to speaking of necessary existence with using that term. What do you say explains why there isn't just total nonexistence, and there is everything there is instead? It is not just that it would be said, we don't know enough to answer that now. Without necessary existence, you and anybody else won't ever have the knowledge to answer that, forever. There wouldn't be anything at all, except that there is necessary existence, and there can't be no necessary existence, and there always was necessary existence. Existence did not pop into existence, and existence was not created. This universe though did start, with a beginning, and it was not always around. It is not about likelihood of there being necessary existence, it is the only possibility. This is without speaking about that being all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, though I can speak for those qualities, it is speaking to what should be seen right away, if this isn't being blocked.

The universe is not this necessary existence, it wasn't always here, for one thing.

 

[AirPo]

There is intelligent consciousness behind our world and cosmos, there isn't better explanation of it with other theories.

Unsupported aserrtions are not a good way to start.

There is not explanation of natural processes that I see is being insisted on.

I see it often. "God did it."

And it is not a better guess than that there is real purpose behind it, when explanation is offered for that as well. And without such others not from this universe, which would be guessed at with no real basis from what is known, other such universes from this one depend on this one to start with that inexplicably has the parameters just right for it. If there is no variation of the physical constants, as that might be the case if there are the other universes which are still never observed to be with any evidence, why do the constants that are not related to any known thing all happen to be just right for the universe(s) working for habitation anywhere in it/them possible, when slight variation would make it not possible?

It would be the case that any in another universe, if there were any other which is unknown, would not have a way to interact with anything within this universe. But it isn't the case for such necessary being that is transcendent, and anywhere in the universe, being unlimited with being necessary existence. Without faith you won't see it, but believers can see there is interaction with meaning. We will just see it because we are open to it, so it is not excluded.

If a human intelligence was meant, then that would have a creator needed for it. But with talking of necessary existence, intelligence is not excluded, when intelligence seems to be behind purposeful constants of the parameters having our universe with habitation somewhere in it possible. Intelligence then is necessary of necessary being, and explains our real intelligence being made, as anything else wouldn't and would leave it doubtful for us that others of us are with any real intelligence. Such necessary intelligence isn't limited, and not like our human intelligence, which limited as would be the case can't conceive such intelligence, though its existence can be understood.

The water flows down with increasing entropy, this doesn't have it be a parallel for an example of comparison for intelligence from natural processes. And qualification for knowing real truth, and presumption for truth to be known, for what forms from natural processes, is yet not credible for trusting.

There is random complexity, there isn't such intelligence just from that. But intelligence would not credibly be from something even complex formed with complexity from natural processes, as random complexity. There wouldn't be anything formed trustworthy for that showing or even knowing what real truth of reality is, from such.

Logic can be seen for understanding there is necessary existence. If there was no existence necessary, regardless if we don't know why, nothing would exist, because there can't be anything coming to be from nothing existing. Something can't explain its own existence unless it is necessary existence. And what is necessary existence is what there is to explain anything else existing. I can call this the Creator.

There are assumptions, either of a contracting universe which rebounded, which requires an elasticity that can't be shown and isn't realistic, or of what I too have heard Hawking espouse, that time curved around from the universe already being to start the universe we are in, which in reality is pushing the question away but it still is to be addressed, why there is anything at all, with time somehow "before" or whatever being in place for it, or not. If it were the necessary existence then it would explain itself, but not curving around, and being eternal, and not changing, being invariable, as such is with what is necessary, and I show the argument that the universe isn't this.

It is shown there is necessary being, with logic, and that it's not the universe, or hypothetical universes. So logically from that, necessary being is something other, and with causing what we have with the universe, I can call this the Creator. There are not hypothetical traits stated here to the necessary being, and calling this the Creator is legitimate. And my faith, which I can say is with basis separately, is with what I understand this being God.

 

[Rivga]

My points in what I posted were then not really all looked at and understood, as they are not intellectually wanting as you concluded.

Really? because in this very post you have just confirmed exactly what I though you were stating.
You are stating that you find yourself in your current position in the universe questioning the odds of it happening due to the complexity (or "random complexity") and concluding there must be a God.

Let us put this in different terms I sit in front of 8 six sided dice and marvel at the fact that in front of is a roll that the odds of getting in this particular order is 1/1.6million. 1,5,6,1,2,5,5 and 4 -> No joke the odds of getting that roll is over 1 in 1.6million and yet I have it!

I put effort in showing the reasoning that not complexity, but random complexity doesn't explain intelligence among us for knowing what is really true.

You have asserted that it is all "Random complexity" but as we have found with Evolution by natural selection what first appeared as random is anything but. Who knows with a little more knowledge of how the universe was created it may not be random at all.

But even if it turns out you are correct and it is completely random this is still much more likely to occur than a God figure - as stated before such a being would be infinitely less likely to occur.

 

[Rivga]

If what necessary existence means is really understood and calling this a universe creating factory seems desirable, I won't argue against that. But when it is said the universe creating factory was necessarily created, it shows the meaning of necessary existence is missed or is being neglected. Maybe it would be better to go back to speaking of necessary existence with using that term. What do you say explains why there isn't just total nonexistence, and there is everything there is instead? It is not just that it would be said, we don't know enough to answer that now. Without necessary existence, you and anybody else won't ever have the knowledge to answer that, forever. There wouldn't be anything at all, except that there is necessary existence, and there can't be no necessary existence, and there always was necessary existence. Existence did not pop into existence, and existence was not created. This universe though did start, with a beginning, and it was not always around. It is not about likelihood of there being necessary existence, it is the only possibility. This is without speaking about that being all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, though I can speak for those qualities, it is speaking to what should be seen right away, if this isn't being blocked.

Again you have simply gone into a long drawn out explanation of "I find myself here, and the odds of that all happening in the exact order it has is unspeakably unlikely, therefore God"

You are committing a fallacy begging the questions - Obviously if you start out with the assumption only God could have produced this, then you will come to the conclusion God exists.
Issue is that you must you need to prove that assumption.

As an Atheist I don't dismiss the idea that it is possible a God could have done it all, but currently it seems like the least likely of all explanations - infact I find it harder to even make up an explanation that is less likely than an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful being existing (and anything less than this is not God).

 

[Kylie]

Speaking of necessary existence is absolutely valid, if there were not that, nothing would ever exist, period. This being dismissed is without any logic. How this with being understood as the Creator would make all things that the universe consists of is from unique capacity that does not need us to understand it, or have any way to explain it, yet necessarily that ability would be one of the things without limit that characterize that necessary being.

We may not have the capacity to reason out why the existence is necessary, but we KNOW that absolute nonexistence cannot bring about existence, that is impossible. There are impossible things, such as circles that are squares, existence shows there is necessary existence to explain it. It is impossible for the necessary existence to not exist, and that existence is eternal and unlimited, as being necessary existence would mean that. So nowhere is there absolute nonexistence.

Necessary being exists without dependence on anything external to that existence. This existence is eternal and infinite, being unlimited, necessarily, or this wouldn't be necessary existence. And this being has capacity to create more existence further, without limit of that capacity of course, otherwise there is still no explanation for anything in the universe, as this universe does not fill the role of this necessary existence, not being eternal and infinite, and with the infinite capacities to create and organize intelligently.

What is just in this universe might be subject, from some such as there could be among us, to observation or testing, but there isn't this possibility for what is transcendent to this universe, and there would be such transcendence.

If discussion of such is not dismissed, there should not be rejection of bases observed by any for creationist beginnings, for that sake alone. Where else did everything come from if it were otherwise?

Of course, the problem here is that you can just declare that ANYTHING is a necessary being and you don't need to provide any evidence.

So before you continue, please show me that God fits the criteria of being a necessary being.

 

[Ken-1122]

Atheism seems to lack evidence more than Christianity does. Christians have the historical gospel to point towards their truths. What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

Atheists like anyone else should have evidence to support whatever it is they believe. But I think it is important to understand that each atheist is likely going to have a completely different set of beliefs.

 

[Tayla]

What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

I think Atheism has a lot of evidence.

That said, I'm a born-again, radically-saved, on-fire-for-the-Lord Christian.

 

[Kylie]

I think Atheism has a lot of evidence.

That said, I'm a born-again, radically-saved, on-fire-for-the-Lord Christian.

Out of curiosity then, what evidence do you think Atheism has, and why do you dismiss that evidence?

 

[FormerAtheist]

First off, this probably belongs in Philosophy, rather than Ethics and Morality.

Secondly, 'historical gospel' is not evidence any more than 'Little Red Riding Hood' is evidence for the existence of speaking, anthropomorphic wolves capable of imitating old women. Without ample physical evidence to back it up, the legitimacy of an old book as a source of truth is laughable. Even if a few parts of a story have a basis in truth, that does not mean the rest of the story does as well. For example, we know that the city of Troy existed, because we have found said city, but it would be foolish to assume that Scylla, Circe, Amazons, Cyclops, Achilles, Ares, and Athena all also existed because they are referenced in the same very, very old story.

Thirdly, it requires no faith to be an atheist. Religious people often seem to have trouble understanding this, and will go so far as to call any kind of assumption 'faith' in order to justify their own beliefs. I assume the sun will come up tomorrow. I assume that unicorns don't exist. I assume that ice cream will be cold, boiling water will be hot, and tides will follow a predictable pattern based on the revolution of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun. I also assume there is no god, because I haven't seen any evidence of one. I assume we have all of these things in common except one, and to single any one of them out and call it a 'faith' is to stretch the meaning of that word until it encompasses any thought or concept and is rendered meaningless.

For more clarification in a ear-caressing english accent, please enjoy the following videos:

YouTube - Lack of belief in gods

As a former Atheist I can say that it does require faith. The science as it turns out is not on the side of atheism. Without science what but faith are left with?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Not really. There is plenty of evidence that is contrary to the existence of God. Sure, we can't prove it outright for the most part, but there is a lack of evidence necessary to reject the null hypothesis.



Which may certainly be evidence, but it's like conjecture and hearsay. Those are types of evidence. But not good types.



We don't have faith at all. We have the facts. Facts that may not disprove the general idea of a god of some kind, but almost certainly disprove the specific idea of the Christian God.



No, it is morally equivalent (some might say superior) with more evidence to support it. Also, keep in mind that evidential support (or lack thereof) need not reflect morality.

 

[FormerAtheist]

This is actually not true I would recomend you more seeply into the science. Science is not in the side of atheism. I have debated hundreds of people including scientists . Science is on the side of a creator. If you would like to debate me on the science I am happy to help.