The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Fatihah]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance. Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

 

[Willamena]

But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul?

Even if we cannot see them in the microscope, why conclude that they "originate from" a human soul?

And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it?

How can you?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheist conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul.Many atheist say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. This has been studied and shown to be the case.

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance.Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

To claim that intelligence can only be caused by intelligence immediately begs the question: What intelligence caused god?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Emotions are the result of survival and evolutionary traits.
(Anthropology 101)

As for your "Argument from complexity", the argument can be expressed as thus,

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)
3. The Universe has a complexity, CU (From 1).
4. At some point the Universe 'came from' something. (Axiom)
5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which the Universe came. (From 2, 3 and 4)
6. This system G can be identified with God.

This is simply a rehashing of the old Argument from Design.
Axiom 1 assumes complexity. What exactly is the complexity you are trying to push?
Is it the amount of information a system has? [/FONT]The number of possible microstates or macrostates of a system? The energy of the system? The intelligence of the system? Is it measured by the intelligence or space needed to comprehend or describe a system? What is complexity? If God is more "complex" than what is created, who created God?
If one argues that God is eternal, then the whole argument falsifies itself. Otherwise, God, being complex, by the same argument, came from something more complex.

1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)
3. God has a complexity, CU (From 1).
4. At some point God came from' something. (Axiom)
5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which God came. (From 2, 3 and 4)
6. This system G can be identified with God2.

Then

1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)
3. God2 has a complexity, CU (From 1).
4. At some point God2 came from' something. (Axiom)
5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which God2 came. (From 2, 3 and 4)
6. This system G can be identified with God3.

And we could continue forever to God Infinitude, and still come to no logical conclusion.

 

[Fatihah]

Even if we cannot see them in the microscope, why conclude that they "originate from" a human soul?


How can you?

Response: I conclude it originating from a human soul due to my religion of islam. By I do not want the thread to be primarily about my religion, but rather the reasoning why atheist draw the conclusions they draw. Why do they accept emotions existing in a human without seeing emotions inside the body.

 

[Fatihah]

Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. This has been studied and shown to be the case.



To claim that intelligence can only be caused by intelligence immediately begs the question: What intelligence caused god?

Response: How do you know if one posses emotion without seeing emotion inside the body? A scientist can tell us what cells look like in the body. So what does sadness look like in the body?

 

[johnhanks]

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design.

Is the recurrent laryngeal nerve an example of beautiful design and perfect detail? The doubly-curved and oh-so-fallible human spine? The useless but potentially lethal appendix?

Beautiful design and perfect detail might result from either design or evolution; ugly compromises and less-than-perfect details attest to evolution alone.

 

[Wandered Off]

Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

I believe emotions are an emergent property of consciousness. So is God, for that matter.

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design.

What about things that are not beautiful, like the idea that one animal suffers for another to eat? Or harmful parasites and diseases? What about "poor designs" like having food and oxygen intake in the same path or useless vestigial organs? To me, those clearly indicate the handiwork of evolution rather than conscious design, as johnhanks mentioned.

 

[Fatihah]

Emotions are the result of survival and evolutionary traits.
(Anthropology 101)

As for your "Argument from complexity", the argument can be expressed as thus,

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]3. The Universe has a complexity, CU (From 1).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]4. At some point the Universe 'came from' something. (Axiom)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which the Universe came. (From 2, 3 and 4)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]6. This system G can be identified with God.[/FONT]

This is simply a rehashing of the old Argument from Design.
Axiom 1 assumes complexity. What exactly is the complexity you are trying to push?
Is it the amount of information a system has? [/FONT]The number of possible microstates or macrostates of a system? The energy of the system? The intelligence of the system? Is it measured by the intelligence or space needed to comprehend or describe a system? What is complexity? If God is more "complex" than what is created, who created God?
If one argues that God is eternal, then the whole argument falsifies itself. Otherwise, God, being complex, by the same argument, came from something more complex.

1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)
3. God has a complexity, CU (From 1).
4. At some pointGod came from' something. (Axiom)
5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which God came. (From 2, 3 and 4)
6. This system G can be identified with God2.

Then

1. Every system has a certain amount of complexity. (Axiom)
2. If a system A has a complexity CA and a system B has a complexity CB, then system B can only 'come from' system A if CA is greater than CB. (Axiom)
3. God2 has a complexity, CU (From 1).
4. At some point God2 came from' something. (Axiom)
5. Hence, there must be a system G with a complexity CG that is greater than CU, from which God2 came. (From 2, 3 and 4)
6. This system G can be identified with God3.

And we could continue forever to God Infinitude, and still come to no logical conclusion.

Response: But how do you conclude that emotions come from survival and evolutionary traits? Did you see an emotion come out of a trait? What does it look like?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: How do you know if one posses emotion without seeing emotion inside the body? A scientist can tell us what cells look like in the body. So what does sadness look like in the body?

To ask what sadness looks like is nonsensical. Kind of like asking "What is the smell of hope?"

We know what emotions are and where they come from by studying the brain while a person experiences these emotions. Certain areas in either the reptilian or mammalian parts of brain 'light up' depending on the emotion. Once we know what part of the brain governs a particular emotion we can recreate it by stimulating that part of the brain with current. Doing so, we can make a person feel happy, sad, terrified, euphoric, and even have them experience 'near-death' type phenomena, all without any kind of external stimuli (other than the current).

 

[Fatihah]

Is the recurrent laryngeal nerve an example of beautiful design and perfect detail? The doubly-curved and oh-so-fallible human spine? The useless but potentially lethal appendix?

Beautiful design and perfect detail might result from either design or evolution; ugly compromises and less-than-perfect details attest to evolution alone.

Response: But can this beautiful design result from unintelligence? If so, kindly give an example of how a room can be beautifully decorated without intelligence.

 

[MSizer]

Response: How do you know if one posses emotion without seeing emotion inside the body? A scientist can tell us what cells look like in the body. So what does sadness look like in the body?

That's like asking "what does a punch look like in the body". It's an action. You can analyze the physical makeup of a punch (muscles, bones and other parts involved) just like you can analyze the physical makeup of an emotion (neurochemicals, dendrites, axons, synaptic potentials and so on). It's not nearly as mysterious as your lack of knowledge makes it appear to you.

 

[Willamena]

We know what emotions are and where they come from by studying the brain while a person experiences these emotions. Certain areas in either the reptilian or mammalian parts of brain 'light up' depending on the emotion. Once we know what part of the brain governs a particular emotion we can recreate it by stimulating that part of the brain with current. Doing so, we can make a person feel happy, sad, terrified, euphoric, and even have them experience 'near-death' type phenomena, all without any kind of external stimuli (other than the current).

But that's, as you admit, not studying the emotion. It's studying the brain.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

But that's, as you admit, not studying the emotion. It's studying the brain.

The emotion is the result. Stimulation in the brain is the cause.

 

[Fatihah]

That's like asking "what does a punch look like in the body". It's an action. You can analyze the physical makeup of a punch (muscles, bones and other parts involved) just like you can analyze the physical makeup of an emotion (neurochemicals, dendrites, axons, synaptic potentials and so on). It's not nearly as mysterious as your lack of knowledge makes it appear to you.

Response: In other words, you can see an emotion in the body? So according to your logic, an emotion is made of neurochemicals, dendrites, axons, synaptic potentials and so on. So you can tell whether a person is happy or sad after seeing this makeup through a microscope?

 

[johnhanks]

Response: But can this beautiful design result from unintelligence? If so, kindly give an example of how a room can be beautifully decorated without intelligence.

You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. So much of the 'design' of organisms is anything but beautiful, anything but intelligent. How could an intelligent designer have given us such a flimsy backbone? Why would an intelligent designer loop the laryngeal nerve around the ligamentum arteriosum? Where is the intelligence in designing a gut with a potentially lethal appendix?

 

[Fatihah]

To ask what sadness looks like is nonsensical. Kind of like asking "What is the smell of hope?"

We know what emotions are and where they come from by studying the brain while a person experiences these emotions. Certain areas in either the reptilian or mammalian parts of brain 'light up' depending on the emotion. Once we know what part of the brain governs a particular emotion we can recreate it by stimulating that part of the brain with current. Doing so, we can make a person feel happy, sad, terrified, euphoric, and even have them experience 'near-death' type phenomena, all without any kind of external stimuli (other than the current).

Response: That's the whole point. If you know where emotions come from, then tell us. Where exactly do they come from.

 

[MSizer]

Response: In other words, you can see an emotion in the body?

Yes.

So according to your logic, an emotion is made of neurochemicals, dendrites, axons, synaptic potentials and so on. So you can tell whether a person is happy or sad after seeing this makeup through a microscope?

No, an MRI.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: That's the whole point. If you know where emotions come from, then tell us. Where exactly do they come from.

I already did, the brain.

 

[Willamena]

The emotion is the result. Stimulation in the brain is the cause.

If I wanted to understand how World of Warcraft works, would I open my computer and poke at the circuit boards? Sure, I might get a response from the monitor, but am I closer to understanding World of Warcraft?

Emotion is not just the chemical reaction, it is symbolized in interpretation of that event; and it is the symbols we "look at" to understand things, not the "hardware".