The way I see it atheists, just choose not too believe in any of the religions there are.
Not sure I would call it a choice more than I would call it an acceptance. Also there are religious groups that don't apply a god, as a result these people are religious but atheist. Keep in mind that atheist refers to a lack of belief in a god, not religion. Though it would stand to reason when a religion is built on the foundation of there being a god this would end up being rejected by an atheist as the foundation for it is seen as nonexistent.
Forgot about recombination? Natural selection just means there have to be heritable differences between organisms that are subject to selective pressure. Be mutation the cause or not; most often it's not.
Of course, however the example that was stated (moths), was a case of mutation. Recombination could have occurred between the difference colors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that most of the people here would like to give the "fixed" rules of "nature" (matter can't travel faster than light... blah blah blah..) due to the idea that "nature simply works this way". I don't mind this at all, accepting or perhaps considering to accept a new form of thinking about life itself is like intellectual suicide, and no sane person would easily do it.
You could perhaps just ponder this thought. If "nature" works the way it does? Why does it work this specific way on the most fundamental levels?
No. I am saying that your "evidence" cannot be taken as such when it is based on the fact that you only have 5 ways to perceive things. We use a large selection of processes in science to attempt to determine things that we can't using only our 5 senses. But none of these can ever be truly reliable. As for all you know you are being manipulated by a supreme being in every conclusion you ever reach with science, or are just observing the very systematic work of a supreme being.
What your describing here isn't a fault of the evidence but the lack there of. A god of this sort is unprovable as it creates one where evidence can not be presented for since any evidence would simply result in the moving of the goal post. In a similar way It's like saying there is money under a rock and when we look and find no money the person making the claim can simply say "no not that rock the other rock" and can continue to ad nauseam. We can however disprove certain gods based on the claims of what they have done.
In my opinion, all we can rely on are our own senses to make daily decisions (Is the ball there or not?) But we cannot rely on these to discuss things like what we are discussing.
We can have independent views of "the ball" to also help confirm or deny what we have sensed.
It's all uncertain.
There are degrees of certainty, of course we can never say we are 100% certain for the reasons your touching on that doesn't mean we can't be 99.999% certain of something.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist. I would much rather believe there's nothing there.
I'd much rather know the truth, even if I don't happen to like what the truth has to offer.
As I said before, if I were god and didn't want to be found. I would hide myself behind a neverending layer of plausible scientific explanation for things some might claim to be my doing.
This would mean there was a deceitful god which I have to wonder how many theists would accept.
Religious people would say that god WANTS it all to be about faith.
Of course if non of the claims are based on what has been observed Then where are the claims coming from? Since this god you are presenting is hiding behind layers of plausible evidence we can only figure that any claim made of such a god as to what this god wants, thinks and so on would have to be the imaginings of a person.
Of course, however the example that was stated (moths), was a case of mutation. Recombination could have occurred between the difference colors.
Actually I was using beetles, though the peppered moth is a real world example. Again the mutation of dark moths is not what selected for that coloration to be dominant in the population, just like in my beetle example. It was the environment around them that allowed for this selection process. The mutation itself was a random process. The selection for that mutation was not.
Anyway I've gone on long enough on the matter and it has been off topic, if you would like to continue how about we take this to the evolution thread? (I think one page back)
You could perhaps just ponder this thought. If "nature" works the way it does? Why does it work this specific way on the most fundamental levels?
I did provide at least two possible naturalistic explanations for this.
I did provide at least two possible naturalistic explanations for this.
The Beetle example and the Magnetic example right? From this didn't we derive to more deeper question? Such as...
Why is an electron have a charge?
Why does that charge have the same strength, however an opposite form than that of a Protons charge.
Why is antimatter less table than matter....
From what I have previously acquired in this thread, most people would simply answer this kind of question in the following way: ------------------------------------------------------ Q: why does an electron have a fixed charge? A: Its just a kind of property that electrons have
Q: Why do elements have fixed energy levels in which electrons have exists, whereas all of these energy levels are not energetically stable. A: That's just the way nature works. --------------------------------------------------------
These are very general and unfulfilled answers that skeptics of "atheism"<-- (in a sense that atheists don't believe in no "higher power" Would never accept.
From this didn't we derive to more deeper question?
Which was completely unnecessary and ignored the point that was being made in the first place with those examples. All of this came from an attempt to answer your question "Can nature truly guide?" and I figured a simple yes or no answer wouldn't suffice for you. Instead it went into this off topic tangent.
From what I have previously acquired in this thread, most people would simply answer this kind of question in the following way:
A person more knowledgeable about the workings on these matters might be able to provide you with a better answer, or it might be we have to currently leave it as an unknown until we find a better answer if your not satisfied with the one's you got.
We can however disprove certain gods based on the claims of what they have done.
Yes.
But if you are pondering the existence of an omnipotent being. What do you think the chances are that it conforms to any of the ones proposed by our religions?
Of course if non of the claims are based on what has been observed Then where are the claims coming from? Since this god you are presenting is hiding behind layers of plausible evidence we can only figure that any claim made of such a god as to what this god wants, thinks and so on would have to be the imaginings of a person.
As I've said. A god doesn't need to be one of the ones we've heard so much about. Another reason I find the debate useless. Not to be that guy...but there could be a flying spaghetti monster out there somewhere for all we know.
A god of this sort is unprovable as it creates one where evidence can not be presented for since any evidence would simply result in the moving of the goal post.
There is an infinite amount of possible gods.
It all comes down to the fact that I don't get the point of the argument do to the reasons I've said.
Lets not think of "god" as in a specific form or religion, he/she/it doesn't even have to have a consciousness. As we have established in this thread so far, "nature" as we know it does have its own set of rules. (Thresholds that simply can't be broken, quantities that are of a specific magnitude).
If something... perhaps nature itself is responsible for all of this shouldn't we be able to regard nature itself as a "higher power"? Whereas the study of science would be the mere endeavor of humans to understanding this creature whose age is that of time?
But if you are pondering the existence of an omnipotent being. What do you think the chances are that it conforms to any of the ones proposed by our religions?
Probably pretty low. I'm reminded of the line from Pirate of the Caribbean where Jack is in prison and is being told of the tail of the black sailed ship. In the story they say no one survives who sees it. To which Jack asks then where do these stories come from?
As I've said. A god doesn't need to be one of the ones we've heard so much about. Another reason I find the debate useless. Not to be that guy...but there could be a flying spaghetti monster out there somewhere for all we know.
That's true, this is where relying on objectively verifiable evidence and being willing to refine our views based on new evidence that comes instead of just believing what ever or taking things on faith.
There is an infinite amount of possible gods.
I agree, but accepting that something is possible is not the same as saying that it's probable.
It all comes down to the fact that I don't get the point of the argument do to the reasons I've said.
The argument for me comes from believing on faith, on bad evidence. We can ask how is god being defined by that person believing it. If there is no evidence I can ask the same question Jack Sparrow did "Where do the stories come from?" Furthermore it can be important since there are many who aren't content with leaving such poor views of reality to their personal life. The arguments might not convince the person being argued with but there are those on the side line that might start thinking.
Lets not think of "god" as in a specific form or religion, he/she/it doesn't even have to have a consciousness.
Then why should we call it god?
If something... perhaps nature itself is responsible for all of this shouldn't we be able to regard nature itself as a "higher power"? Whereas the study of science would be the mere endeavor of humans to understanding this creature whose age is that of time?
All this is doing is playing semantics. By this reasoning I could just as easily say my screwdriver is god.
If something... perhaps nature itself is responsible for all of this shouldn't we be able to regard nature itself as a "higher power"? Whereas the study of science would be the mere endeavor of humans to understanding this creature whose age is that of time?
Why should we lump everything under the umbrella of ''nature'' and then artificially call it a being by itself? Why treat it as a single entity? There's no reason to support that it was the work of one thing alone.
I wasn't aware that a god had to be in a specific form or from a specific religion. <-- of course, My native language isn't English so please correct my if I'm wrong.
All this is doing is playing semantics. By this reasoning I could just as easily say my screwdriver is god
Not the most appropriate example you have made yet. I wouldn't say that. You screwdriver isn't "setting" natures boundaries as these were set long before the existence of your screwdriver. <--- I sound like I just smoked something very big and illegal.
Why should we lump everything under the umbrella of ''nature'' and then artificially call it a being by itself? Why treat it as a single entity? There's no reason to support that it was the work of one thing alone.
I have never called nature a "being". Also, in earlier post wan't it you that agreed that these fundamentals "naturally" posses these fixed properties? I also never stated that "it" was a singular thing, merely a "higher power".
I have never called nature a "being". Also, in earlier post wan't it you that agreed that these fundamentals "naturally" posses these fixed properties? I also never stated that "it" was a singular thing, merely a "higher power".
Didn't you call it a being, or an entity-like thing yourself?
to understanding this creature whose age is that of time
Furthermore, the main point still stands. Why should we classify everything of the natural world under such a ''higher power''? Why is it the work of just this ''ower''?
Also, in earlier post wan't it you that agreed that these fundamentals "naturally" posses these fixed properties?
Er.....I don't think I actually said anything like that.
Furthermore, the main point still stands. Why should we classify everything of the natural world under such a ''higher power''? Why is it the work of just this ''ower''?
To be honestly I don't know why. I was trying to set something in stone, I was just trying to get tot he bottom of this. Maybe its because of my personality :P I something just really don't understand why things are the way they are.
Er.....I don't think I actually said anything like that.
I wasn't aware that a god had to be in a specific form or from a specific religion. <-- of course, My native language isn't English so please correct my if I'm wrong.
Far as I can tell the most basic definition for what can be regarded as a god is a being with supreme control over at least some aspect of reality.
So if it's an unthinking natural force, why should we call it god?
have never called nature a "being". Also, in earlier post wan't it you that agreed that these fundamentals "naturally" posses these fixed properties? I also never stated that "it" was a singular thing, merely a "higher power".
In the term of "high power" what's it being higher than? If it's a natural force then clearly it's not being higher than nature but simply an aspect of nature.
