They're both the result on sentient intervention. You're also setting up a false dichotomy between intent and accident, when most of the natural world is the product of cumulative process, something neither accidental nor intentional.
Then just change the scenario of the first from me stumbling on the bucket, to a strong gush of wind turning it over.
Cumulative process is a very interesting way of describing the natural world. Because, by definition, a process is something that is designed to achieve a certain end.
Yeah, I do get it and I don't think it's wrong-headed. It's human nature to attempt to make sense of things, even when they seem senseless - all of us do it in different ways and it's totally valid. Arguments like 'it's a fairy tale to control you' I think oversimplify the issue and come across as a touch condescending.From one metal fan to another. Curious is good, just don’t lock that door, keep it closed if you want but don’t lock it.Listen to Opeth In Cauda Venenum, it’s possibly the most depressive metal lyrics I’ve heard, in one song he’s wondering about how you talk to your kid about someone close dying in a family where nobody believe in anything, brutal, made me want to just hug the guy.
I lost my parents early, as said earlier no church goer but I still like the idea that there could possibly maybe be something else after death, a tiny bit of hope is all that is needed, it would be nice. And when the kids were young and asked I always said that grandma and grandpa is in heaven and so on, to me it’s a nice thought. Religion has done many bad things during history but they’ve at least managed to make death seem less… harsh. Assuming you don’t do any deadly sins of course! lol
But if it’s all just a fairly tale to keep people in groups and under control by men with too much power, then so be it. It don’t actually change my life either way.
Yeah to be honest most people want to retreat to the broadest and most meaningless definition of God and ask you disprove it because they know it's an impossible bar to clear.
Not even vaguely true: decay, oxidation, osmosis, conservation of angular momentum, electromagnetic induction, tidal shifts - these are all naturally occuring processes - or 'phenomena' if you prefer. It's merely a documented observation of stuff that happens.
But a 'phenomena' is an event whose cause or explanation is in question, it'd be the mathematical equivalent of saying the answer for an equation is X, its a placeholder and nothing more. We're trying to at least close up on an answer here, not merely be satisfied with an "i don't know".
Thats also a bold thing to say. Have you ever heard stories of scientists and physicist who started believing in a creator the more they studied their fields? There are reasons for that.
One could just as simply ask "Who created God I wonder?" God doesn't answer, explain, or simplify the question of "creation" in any way. What it does do is anthropomorphize it. It's easier for people to think in terms of "someone did it" than in terms of theoretical astrophysics.So we all agree the big bang was what started the universe before time, space and matter. And the big bang came to be due to a spark. Who created said spark I wonder
Yep, it's called burn out induced dementia.
Its intellectually honest. However its by being unsatisfied with it, by being uncomfortable with uncertainty, that we reach those very evidences to support statements about our reality. Otherwise we wouldn't progress, we would have continued sacrificing humans to bring good crops because nobody ever tried to reach an answer beyond that which was brought by fear.
The earth revolves around the sun and not the opposite? There are many of such.
But we can experience it, in theory. As i said with my two scenarios before, humans are perfectly capable of assessing if something was a result of chance and random events, or of something designed with a purpose in mind. Don't you think the same could be applied to our universe? Thats the basis for the defense of the existence of an intelligent creator.
This.
But i did both define what that thing is and what might constitute evidence of its existence.
But i did both define what that thing is and what might constitute evidence of its existence.
>"An intelligent creator" and "an intelligent creation"
Then i proceeded to show we could indeed perceive, with our senses, what a intelligent creation is. Whats left to know is if that can be observed in our universe.
Can it?
Then, lets just call it creator, as i named it 'intelligent creator' merely because i wanted to emphasize the idea of a creator that did so with intent, not a gush of wind or a person stumbling a cup of milk off the table creating the milky way.
Same for GTA, but mostly because I come from a place where gangster culture is very celebrated among young people so when I was a teenager, I saw many people bragging about edgy crimes in the game etc, and they looked so dumb in my eyes... so can't enjoy the thematic, I feel it's just dumb and beyond unappealing, they looked so dumb playing doing dumb shit that I don't feel like ever trying it, like I'd feel dumber if I stayed to get into it, IDK if that makes sense. I also hate gangster culture and whatever intend to make war, killing people, crimes, etc. Like "something cool and fun". No they're not, but there are people with those instincts so they rather ventilate them in those games, I'll go find something else and everything is fine.
So you’re still claiming to be an atheist just playing devil’s advocate for intelligent design? I’m gonna have to press X to doubt.Then, lets just call it creator, as i named it 'intelligent creator' merely because i wanted to emphasize the idea of a creator that did so with intent, not a gush of wind or a person stumbling a cup of milk off the table creating the milky way.
Yes, none of this is new. They're fairly basic questions to ask in fact, which is why it shocks me to no end how so little people actually gave them any thought. And with how much different people keep bringing up besides-the-point things that do nothing to adress the fundamental question posed, i can't help but think they haven't come up with ways of disproving such arguments.
As to what the argument for a likelihood of there being a creator is, its also fairly simple. Based on what was previously said about a "creation" - as you don't want to use the term "intelligent creation" - we should very well be able to sense when something was the result of design or not.
In the case of the universe, the most common brought up element is 'chance'. The chances of things happening in such a way, in such a order, that it would form an intelligent life capable of pondering all the things we are pondering now, are very very very impossibly very low - or so they say. Wouldn't that suggest an element of intent behind the universe? The intent to create such beings in the first place? Much like how chaotically throwing rocks in the wind won't build a stonehenge, that such would require someone consciously building one.
Of course, as an atheist myself, i have my own counterarguments to such positions... but i have no intentions of making your life any easier
It is the best way to understand a position... and counter argue it. If anything people should try doing that more.
People also can see shadows and ghosts where there weren't any, yet our eyes were still one of the first things we used to ascertain and understand the world around us.
Fun fact. "The universe exists" is a primordial assumption we make for the sake of practicality. You can't prove the universe exists.
Yet you can't answer any of them and would rather make baseless assumptions about me?
Dude, whatever. Have fun stroking your… chinIt is the best way to understand a position... and counter argue it. If anything people should try doing that more.
People also can see shadows and ghosts where there weren't any, yet our eyes were still one of the first things we used to ascertain and understand the world around us.
Our senses aren't perfect, but they're definitely reliable.
Fun fact. "The universe exists" is a primordial assumption we make for the sake of practicality. You can't prove the universe exists.
Yet you can't answer any of them and would rather make baseless assumptions about me?
(╭ರ_•́)Dude, whatever. Have fun stroking your… chin
5 and a half minutes into their Game Awards acceptence speech they shout out Marx, and Engels for their, "political education."
They also have(had) a portrait of Stalin in their office, which they praised on social media.
And last, but not least they got Chapo Trap House to do the original voice acting before having it recast for the final update.
Now call me crazy, but if a game dev....
Praised Fichte, Riehl, and Spengler for their, "Political Education," at the Game Awards.
Had a stylized portrait of Adolph Hitler in their office, and posted they couldn't do it without him.
Got Richard Spencer, and David Duke to do some pro-bono voice acting work.
...odds are you just assume they're a bunch of Neo-Nazis without giving them any benefit of the doubt.
Ahahaha, always that tiny caveat. Just a little wealth redistribution, to each according to his need, and of course they themselves have some expensive needs.But they sell their game for money...
A least a gust of wind or a person stumbling over a table actually make some concrete claims about the 'how' and the 'what'. The nebulous 'creator' does neither.
That's because, as I've already explained more than once, broad nebulous statements are nigh impossible to disprove because they make very few claims you can actually test. People don't bother trying to 'disprove' them, because firstly it's a fool's errand and secondly because the burden of proof lands on the person making the wild claim, not the sensible person asking 'what makes you think that?'
Should we? Is that just an innate ability we carry around?
At last! Here we are. The terrible, already well-addressed arguments you're hoping to dazzle us with. "What are the chances?! What I ask you are the chances of all this happening so perfectly?" The chances are dismally, unimaginably low - so low that almost no-one would think it would happen. However, being that we live in a universe of around 40 trillion stars, you can count on unlikely things happening all the time. Supernovae, for example, are incredibly rare occurrences, but because the universe is so large, if you look up into a single spot of sky, any night of the week (with a really good telescope), you'll probably catch a few.
Honestly, you couldn't have made it any easier than dropping the 'fine-tuning' argument on me. There are genuinely difficult questions to wrestle with in science that really are very, very hard to answer. Yours is a layman's argument that presumes the goings-on of an almost infinitely vast universe, filled with trillions of bodies, in existence for billions of years is comprehensible to the basic logic of stones being scattered by the wind or stacked by hand. Honestly, take a step back, it's laughable. Even more so in consideration of the fact that you've wondered aloud in this thread why nobody has thought up counterarguments to these points when in reality they already have - it's just that you never bothered to read them.Of course, as an atheist myself, i have my own counterarguments to such positions... but i have no intentions of making your life any easier
Heh like I said in the Test Drive thread she’s built like Cyberpunk modVivian Hug(h)es indeed
When talking about the existence of deities, agnosticism seems like the most reasonable stance due to the lack of concrete empirical evidence supporting either side of the argument. In the absence of verifiable data, the only claims that can be made will rely on theory and logic and that's not enough to reach any definitive conclusions.Interesting. Can you provide evidence god doesn't exist?
Fun fact, the Earth and the Sun (and every other stellar body in our solar system for that matter) revolve around something called the barycenter, i.e. the shared center of mass for our solar system. And it so happens this year, the barycenter is located outside of our Sun so neither stellar body is the center of our solar system right now.
Or rather, what I'm arguing makes sense because of size and time. In a universe billions of light years across, filled with radiation and matter, all heating and cooling, exploding and expanding for billions of years, you'd expect really rare things to happen from time to time. However, a sentient being creating 40 trillion stars just so it could seed life on a single lump of rock orbiting one of them doesn't make a lot of sense at all - like buying up the entire continent of Africa because you needed somewhere to hang your car keys. Some people call this 'intelligent design'.
Another reason to avoid this is that it came from the absolute dark ages of late 90s to early 2000s, when all "sexy" content was just obsessed with breast flashing, on girls with otherwise boyish bodies, no hips, no rear, nothing womanly other than a couple boobs stuck on top.
Apparently, some of the women featured in this game turned out to be underage.
How do you know the odds are low? How do "they" know? Who is "they"? How would you even begin to calculate the probability of that happening? We don't even have other universes to compare ours to.
No, I don't see how that's the case. There's no demonstration of intent at all just because something happened that seems unlikely.
Nope. Again, no way for "intent" to be demonstrated. Seeing intent in the origins of the universe is like seeing shapes in the clouds when there isn't anything there really. Two separate dots with nothing to connect them.
Bad analogy. These two things are wildly different, both in concept and pathway to existence. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
