The Paradox of Atheism and God

[ChristineM]

Old arguments are still good. For example, the cosmological argument is still sound.

The irreducible complexity argument is not good, not good in science, not good in court.

Oh and the cosmological argument has so many assumptions in it its not even worth going there

 

[Echogem222]

Old arguments are still good. For example, the cosmological argument is still sound.

I understand the appeal of the Cosmological Argument. It raises deep and fascinating questions about the origins of the universe. However, even if we agree that the universe has a cause, it’s a significant leap to conclude that this cause must be an intelligent, conscious being, or God. There are various possibilities and theories about the origin of the universe, and it’s an ongoing area of exploration and discussion in philosophy and science. My atheistic religion is an example of one such possibility that I already explained to you.

 

[Link]

About the mind or consciousness, it’s indeed one of the profound mysteries of existence, and while it’s a topic of much philosophical and scientific exploration, invoking design due to its complexity is not supported by current scientific understanding.

Whatever understanding might be reached, it's obvious non-mind is way different then a mind. And that it is binary (ghost is on or off).

 

[Link]

The evolution of life likely started with simpler replicating molecules, not the complex DNA-based cells we see today.

They were able to reproduce a cell in a lab with new dna produced in a lab. But the cell, there was some parts they understood and many parts they didn't, but all were required. So they brought it to a minimum. I'm saying for things to replicate it takes complexity that won't arise by just "add up" parts thing you imagine. But you need to know design of how replication happens for this to make sense. They were able to take away many of the complex functions and reduce to as simple as possible. But even if it was not reducing but rather producing, there needs to be a minimum threshold for something to replicate like that as life.

So by design, no matter what, even if it's just 15 parts, those 15 parts aren't coming together randomly and the sequence of dna is another thing. It's instructions. And you can't imagine anything replicating without it. Just think about it. If you know biology, you should know how life is in fact irreducibly complex.

 

[Echogem222]

Whatever understanding might be reached, it's obvious non-mind is way different then a mind. And that it is binary (ghost is on or off).

I think it’s important to clarify our definitions and understandings of concepts like the ‘soul’ and the ‘mind’ as they can be interpreted in many different ways. My understanding of the ‘soul’ is quite specific. I see it not as the center of consciousness, thought, or experience, but more as an individual essence or existence that is distinct from both the body and the mind. In my view, to have a soul means to exist as more than your mind and body as an individual—it’s what makes you ‘you’ and not someone else. However, this soul does not have awareness or experience on its own; it is not conscious in itself. It is through the linkage of our souls to our bodies and minds that we experience life as we do. What are your thoughts on this perspective, and how would you define or understand the concept of the ‘soul’?

 

[Link]

I think it’s important to clarify our definitions and understandings of concepts like the ‘soul’ and the ‘mind’ as they can be interpreted in many different ways. My understanding of the ‘soul’ is quite specific. I see it not as the center of consciousness, thought, or experience, but more as an individual essence or existence that is distinct from both the body and the mind. In my view, to have a soul means to exist as more than your mind and body as an individual—it’s what makes you ‘you’ and not someone else. However, this soul does not have awareness or experience on its own; it is not conscious in itself. It is through the linkage of our souls to our bodies and minds that we experience life as we do. What are your thoughts on this perspective, and how would you define or understand the concept of the ‘soul’?

I'm saying whatever it is, materialist right or wrong, Buddhist right or wrong about it, Hindus right or wrong about it, it does not matter. The "ghost" in machine design would be vastly different then non-ghost machine. Since mutations are blind in atheist understanding, there will never be enough at the same time to produce the mind. It just won't happen. And there's nothing transitory about it. It's ghost or no ghost. While it's not the case with the eye, which had something similar and then something simlar, etc, in terms of senses.

 

[Echogem222]

They were able to reproduce a cell in a lab with new dna produced in a lab. But the cell, there was some parts they understood and many parts they didn't, but all were required. So they brought it to a minimum. I'm saying for things to replicate it takes complexity that won't arise by just "add up" parts thing you imagine. But you need to know design of how replication happens for this to make sense. They were able to take away many of the complex functions and reduce to as simple as possible. But even if it was not reducing but rather producing, there needs to be a minimum threshold for something to replicate like that as life.

So by design, no matter what, even if it's just 15 parts, those 15 parts aren't coming together randomly and the sequence of dna is another thing. It's instructions. And you can't imagine anything replicating without it. Just think about it. If you know biology, you should know how life is in fact irreducibly complex.

I understand that the complexity of even the simplest life forms is astonishing, and the origin of life is indeed a profound mystery. However, the current lack of a complete scientific explanation for the origin of life doesn’t necessitate a designer. The field of abiogenesis studies how life could have arisen from non-living matter, exploring various hypotheses like the RNA world hypothesis, which posits that simpler, replicable molecules could have preceded the more complex DNA-based life forms we see today.

The concept of irreducible complexity has been addressed in the scientific literature, and many purported examples have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. It’s essential to differentiate between complexity and irreducible complexity, as complexity alone does not imply design.

Science continues to explore these questions, and it’s possible that we may find more answers in the future. Meanwhile, asserting design in the absence of a comprehensive explanation can limit our understanding and inquiry into the natural processes that may have given rise to life.

 

[Link]

I understand that the complexity of even the simplest life forms is astonishing, and the origin of life is indeed a profound mystery. However, the current lack of a complete scientific explanation for the origin of life doesn’t necessitate a designer. The field of abiogenesis studies how life could have arisen from non-living matter, exploring various hypotheses like the RNA world hypothesis, which posits that simpler, replicable molecules could have preceded the more complex DNA-based life forms we see today.

The concept of irreducible complexity has been addressed in the scientific literature, and many purported examples have been shown to have plausible evolutionary pathways. It’s essential to differentiate between complexity and irreducible complexity, as complexity alone does not imply design.

Science continues to explore these questions, and it’s possible that we may find more answers in the future. Meanwhile, asserting design in the absence of a comprehensive explanation can limit our understanding and inquiry into the natural processes that may have given rise to life.

I'm saying replication of sequences by design, is irreducibly complex.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm saying whatever it is, materialist right or wrong, Buddhist right or wrong about it, Hindus right or wrong about it, it does not matter. The "ghost" in machine design would be vastly different then non-ghost machine. Since mutations are blind in atheist understanding, there will never be enough at the same time to produce the mind. It just won't happen. And there's nothing transitory about it. It's ghost or no ghost. While it's not the case with the eye, which had something similar and then something simlar, etc, in terms of senses.

Ok, now I no longer understand what you're even talking about. Can you explain yourself more clearly?

 

[Link]

Ok, now I no longer understand what you're even talking about. Can you explain yourself more clearly?

I'm saying to a get ghost, the system is vastly too different then a non-ghost system. While an eye has many similar things in design or potential design, that can lead from one to the other (in theory), the same is not true of something binary such as this. You don't have something resembling ghost between non-ghost. It's either on or off.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm saying replication of sequences by design, is irreducibly complex.

I understand you hold that the process of replication and sequences are irreducibly complex by design. However, this concept has been extensively critiqued and is not widely accepted in the scientific community, as many instances of purported irreducible complexity have been demonstrated to have plausible evolutionary pathways.

Moreover, invoking design as an explanation for complexity introduces a new layer of complexity: the designer. If we assume that complexity necessitates a designer, then the designer—presumed to be more complex than the designed—would logically also require a designer. This leads to an infinite regress of designers, each one needing its own creator, which doesn’t solve the problem of complexity but rather exacerbates it.

It’s essential to be open to the extensive scientific exploration and understanding that elucidates the natural processes and mechanisms by which complexity can arise, without necessarily invoking design.

However, if you'd like to believe in my atheist religion which teaches that yes, we were made by design, but by something which is "greater than reality" and by extension "greater than infinity", preventing it being logically possible for that "greater than reality" to be created by something greater than that since that would be saying that infinity is greater than what is "greater than infinite" (a logical contradiction), you may do so, but that would be rejecting theist viewpoints. Still, belief is required for my religion, so your argument still does not work.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm saying to a get ghost, the system is vastly too different then a non-ghost system. While an eye has many similar things in design or potential design, that can lead from one to the other (in theory), the same is not true of something binary such as this. You don't have something resembling ghost between non-ghost. It's either on or off.

Please define what ghost is, I don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Link]

You are basically saying since some things assumed to be irreducibly complex have proven not to be, nothing can be proven to be irreducibly complex?

 

[Echogem222]

You are basically saying since some things assumed to be irreducibly complex have proven not to be, nothing can be proven to be irreducibly complex?

Using the reasoning you've been using, yes.

 

[Link]

Please define what ghost is, I don't understand what you're talking about.

I frankly believe you are trying to get into definitions and complicate and muddy the issue.

 

[Link]

Using the reasoning you've been using, yes.

Maybe majority scientist think like you in this respect. So then we can't trust their authority on this subject.

 

[Echogem222]

I frankly believe you are trying to get into definitions and complicate and muddy the issue.

No, I just have no clue what you're talking about, but surely if you know what you're talking about, explaining a simple definition should be easy enough, yes?

 

[Echogem222]

Maybe majority scientist think like you in this respect. So then we can't trust their authority on this subject.

I'm saying that your own reasoning leads to a fallacy. What about that do you not understand?

 

[Link]

No, I just have no clue what you're talking about, but surely if you know what you're talking about, explaining a simple definition should be easy enough, yes?

So you've chosen to go that route. Okay. I'm done. I've explained enough.

 

[Link]

I'm saying that your own reasoning leads to a fallacy. What about that do you not understand?

I understand scientists are not all the seekers of truth people make them out to be. They maybe like you.