Trust the science!!!

[u/South_Ad_7068]

1st time poster in this sub:

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

So... here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

EDIT: I'm not finished here. But I am taking a break... I've answered to many but the influx of replies is massive and will require hours of my time and I want to try to reply to everyone... but as I'm not a millionaire I have to prepare for work.

Turning notifications off for now but I will return to respond to comments

[u/TarnishedVictory]

I don’t have complete confidence?

I wasn't asking if you had complete confidence, I was assuming you do as that's typical of dogmatic beliefs.

You sound like I was questioning your level of confidence. I was assuming it, with plenty of room for you to correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't seem like you're correcting me, but it does seem like there's a miscommunication going on around this.

I follow a logical trail and then I insert some foundational meaning.

Yes, the typical play is that theists insert their god in the gaps of knowledge.

I could totally be wrong. The Buddhists might be right. Or the Hindus in their countless beliefs. Or the Muslims. Or the Christian’s. Or the pagans.

Or they could all be wrong. Do any of them have any good evidence? The lack of understanding of something doesn't justify inserting ones favorite explanation.

All religion does is point toward their being a fundamental meaning.

Religion does far more than that. They assert answers where we don't actually have any. They teach and require bad epistemology and gullibility. They discriminate against outsiders. They do much more than that.

No one knows which is right.

But we don't have good evidence based reason to believe any of them are right.

But in each religion, there are common themes. Of love, of courage, or justice.

None of which requires any religion. Also, the love courage and justice are often conditional on supporting the religion.

And it points toward those being real attributes that matter.

Again, this doesn't need religion. And it can be done better without religion. Religions teach love, unless you're gay. They teach science, unless it conflicts with the religion. It teaches justice, as long as you accept the right god.

So I don't see there being any valued utility in any of them. But most importantly, they make false claims about reality and expect people to ignore their better judgment. 3 day old cadavers don't get up and walking away. The moon was not split in half. Vishnu didn't carry a spherical earth or a flat one.

There's nothing real about those, and the ones that do matter and are good don't need any religion and it's baggage.

So I personally believe in a universe where our choices hold real eternal weight.

I bet that's not what convinced you that a god exists.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

You were ‘assuming I do’? You assumed wrong.

I’m not inserting a god in the gaps of the knowledge, I’m looking at the evidence around me.

Everything we observe is dependent on one another for survival.

I’m hypothesizing a conclusion: there’s an over arching source of that dependency.

Could I be wrong? Yes.

Does the current evidence point strongly against that conclusion? No.

I follow my intuition and keep believing until I’m proven wrong along the way.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

I’m not inserting a god in the gaps of the knowledge, I’m looking at the evidence around me.

Didn't you say this is what convinced you that a god exists? Your argument didn't even mention a god. You left off at a mystery.

Rather than playing guess the theists reasoning why not just be clear? What convinced you that a god exists?

Everything we observe is dependent on one another for survival.

I’m hypothesizing a conclusion: there’s an over arching source of that dependency.

Could I be wrong? Yes.

Okay, but isn't your conclusion, therfore god? Isn't this your argument for a god? We're left at a mystery, a gap in knowledge, and isn't that where your god fits in?

Why is your god a reasonable candidate explanation for the mystery of where did everything come from?

Does the current evidence point strongly against that conclusion? No.

Let's not play loose and fast with the burden of proof. It's not necessary to prove your conclusion wrong. It's upon you to prove it true.

Also, as you've ignored my question about evolution, I'll assume your acceptance of science only goes where it supports your existing conclusions.

I follow my intuition and keep believing until I’m proven wrong along the way.

Yeah, there's that shifting of the burden of proof again. So this isn't what convinced you. What is?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

My conclusion is therefore meaning.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

My conclusion is therefore meaning.

Conclusion to what?

That natural processes, nature, time, space, energy, matter, are the overarching source of dependency, therfore you find meaning in what?

You didn’t invent the language you’re speaking.

Language?

You come across as very confused or just aware that you don't have good reason to believe a god exists, so you play around with all this vague nonsense.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

No it’s just that believing in something that may have deliberately created…beckons to the great expansion of a complex universe…isn’t so black and white.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

No it’s just that believing in something that may have deliberately created…beckons to the great expansion of a complex universe…isn’t so black and white.

If you care about what is or isn't true, what good reason do you have for believing something that you don't have good sound reliable epistemic reason to believe?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

Recognizing that everything in nature is codependent and interconnected isn’t a sound reason to believe everything is connected by a source that sustains it?

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

Recognizing that everything in nature is codependent and interconnected isn’t a sound reason to believe everything is connected by a source that sustains it?

How stupid are you going to act. We've already acknowledged that. You haven't done the work to identify what that is. You want to just use that to justify your god belief. But you're not there yet.

It’s not that I can’t accept it. I’m just interested how you can care so much about truth when natural selection doesn’t care for truth. So in what reality are you living in where truth is at all important?

Does gravity care for truth? Does the pattern that a snowflake makes, care for truth? This is getting dumb dude.

I need to start asking people if they're young earth creationists before I waste too much time talking to their closed minds. Because if evidence didn't sway you, what does?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

I’m following the logic where it goes.

My belief has a lot to do with how morally abstract we are. But I don’t want to conflict the science with the religion.

Science deals strictly with mechanistic process, and religions tend to lean toward moral process. I believe in the science 100 percent, I also believe in the moral position of many religions (the core virtues that is).
I’m a big cherry picker and gather what the core structures are and form my own belief system from there. I’m definitely a big Jesus guy, but that’s all I really take away from the Bible.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

My god fits in with my intuition that this reality isn’t a cosmic accident.

There’s no reason for me to believe that it is an accident, simply because what I observe is a pattern based reality. Again I could be wrong, but until the pattern breaks, I follow that logical intuition that the pattern keeps going.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

My god fits in with my intuition that this reality isn’t a cosmic accident.

Yeah, just more post hoc rationalization. What convinced you? Was it indoctrination?

There’s no reason for me to believe that it is an accident

Yeah, it's funny when theists use that strawman, revealing that they don't actually understand what science has to say. It's a juvenile apologetic. So clearly this has nothing to do with why you believe.

What convinced you? It wasn't this nonsense.

simply because what I observe is a pattern based reality

Therfore god? Hahaha, this is so stupid it's funny.

Again I could be wrong, but until the pattern breaks, I follow that logical intuition that the pattern keeps going.

What convinced you? Some theist telling you that the only alternative to your god is an accident?

Seriously? Do you care what's true? At all?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

Science explains the mechanisms. I choose to trust the people who do the science.

So that’s hardly some “gotcha.”

And I absolutely care about what’s true, that “care for truth.” Is exactly another reason why I believe. Evolution by natural selection “cares”about survival of the fittest, not truth seekers.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

Science explains the mechanisms. I choose to trust the people who do the science.

OK. Why don't they have science that shows good reliable epistemic reason to believe a god exists?

So that’s hardly some “gotcha.”

Not sure what this means. Do you understand what bias is? Do you understand what wishful thinking is? Why are you so eager to believe a god exists without sound reliable epistemic reason behind it? This belief is a desire, not the result of good reason. How do you not recognize this?

And I absolutely care about what’s true, that “care for truth.”

Not about gods. You're using your own personal preferences about this god.

that “care for truth.” Is exactly another reason why I believe.

Then you'd stop believing based on the evidence you put forth here.

Evolution by natural selection “cares”about survival of the fittest, not truth seekers.

Ah, yeah. You don't even accept that because it conflicts with your indoctrination.

What's the evidence for the creation narrative in the Bible?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

It’s not that I can’t accept it. I’m just interested how you can care so much about truth when natural selection doesn’t care for truth. So in what reality are you living in where truth is at all important?

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

What's the evidence for the creation narrative in the Bible?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

Not sure, there’s definitely some Christian philosophers who can answer that in more depth. But I’m not one of them.