To the Atheist: The Universe. By Chance or Design?

[Kuldeep]

[quote=asterix404]

Order and chaos... I don't know if christians believe in atomic structures but they believe in god which they can't see so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt

Thank you verymuch for giving benefit of doubt! Not only christians but all those who have read high school science believe in atomic structure. So do I as I have read that much science! But who would answer HOW AND WHY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CHARGE IS DEVELOPED IN PROTONS AND ELECTRONS RESPECTIVELY? Positive and negative ions are formed due transfer of electrons. But question is where form electrons developed negative charge? Even whole of eletrical and electronic science is based on these electrons. I sincerely want to educate myself about the source of negative charge in Electrons!!!!! I wonder if so called GOD has role to play??????

[quote]The first dozen or so fell randomly, without any form of order what so ever. The next 100 or so fell about the same, scattered all over the page. Around a 1000 you could start seeing dark places where no photon hit... at 10000-1 million the bars that are seen with a laser were clearly visable and the difraction patters were what they should be mathematicially. This is oder through chaos. It happens, I have seen it... I have never seen an act of god. [/QUOTE

The way, "Watch making" can not compared with "Universe making" same way "Laser beam formation" may not be necessarily may not be similar to "Universe formation!!" you may not see act of God in your young's double slit experiment; but I see act of God even in providing charge in the electron, developing feeling in you as you and me as I. :confused:

[Starboy]

Quote by: Kuldeep The way, "Watch making" can not compared with "Universe making" same way "Laser beam formation" may not be necessarily may not be similar to "Universe formation!!" you may not see act of God in your young's double slit experiment; but I see act of God even in providing charge in the electron, developing feeling in you as you and me as I. :confused:

Well then god must be a mindless mechanical thing since all explanations in science are accomplished with mindless mechanical concepts. We do not explain electrons as being charged because they are happy they have had a very nice last 13.5 billion years.

Starboy

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Starboy Well then god must be a mindless mechanical thing since all explanations in science are accomplished with mindless mechanical concepts. Starboy

This is very true that except animals including micro-organism (Plants to some extent as proved by Sir, J.C. Bose, an indian agronomist) everything else till now science has explained is mindless. But even many mindless toys, robots, watches, laser beams, automobiles, rockets anything for that matter which is out come of modern science, mainly human mind is the cause behind. Just think, when minute things on our Earth (mindless) are out come of human mind, how infinite universe can be outcome of mindless identity????? So my dear, God, if at all it exists can never be mindless as it has to create objects both with and without mind!!!!!



.

We do not explain electrons as being charged because they are happy they have had a very nice last 13.5 billion years.

Starboy[/quote]

Very sorry, Starboy I am unable to understand what exactly you want to tell! Coming to your this statement, I do not want to know why we do not explain, rather, I want to know how we explain charge in the electrons!!!! After writing my latest post as above, I gave a thought to my own question---- I felt, it may be due to the lone electron in sub-shell which develops intrinsic negative charge due to its own uncountered spin and those of paired electrons may produce null charge effect (correct or wrong I do not know) due to opposite spin in a particular sub-shell. The question still remains why Protrons are posively charged?????? Again question also remains why at all electrons spin and not protrons. Who provides them everlasting energy to go on moving for as you put it at 13.5 billion years???? Electrons termed as mindless are happy is the portion I could digest at all!!!!

[Kuldeep]

The question still remains why Protrons are posively charged?????? Again question also remains why at all electrons spin and not protrons. Who provides them everlasting energy to go on moving for as you put it at 13.5 billion years????

Sorry, I forgot to add in my above post, till scietific explanation is put forth, that "I SEE IN ALL ACT OF GOD INCLUDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MIND IN VARIOUS ANIMALS"

[Blanh]

petra - wasnt referring to theists preaching, believe it or not. I agree there is a lot of preaching on both sides.

Starboy - i cant believe you cant comprehend this. I am going to dumb this down as best i can. When i am speaking of ockhams razor, i am referring to the idea that it is much more reasonable to explain something naturally, if you can, rather than invoking a supernatural unknown. I really dont see how we can possibly be arguing about this.

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: Blanh Starboy - i cant believe you cant comprehend this. I am going to dumb this down as best i can. When i am speaking of ockhams razor, i am referring to the idea that it is much more reasonable to explain something naturally, if you can, rather than invoking a supernatural unknown. I really dont see how we can possibly be arguing about this.

But really, the concept is definitely not one that can be called 'evidence' or 'support' in a debate. It is more of a useful tool when trying to decide which hypothesis to test first.

As it applies to this particular debate, the idea is far too subjective to be worth anything at all. The least 'complex' idea tends to be the right one? Yeah but to most people, evolutionary biology is far more complex than simply saying 'God Did It'.

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: Kuldeep Sorry, I forgot to add in my above post, till scietific explanation is put forth, that "I SEE IN ALL [an] ACT OF GOD INCLUDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MIND IN VARIOUS ANIMALS"

We don't care if you see smurfs in your cocoa puffs. It's obvious you can't provide any kind of scientific evidence so how about just a logical proof...

Please reply with your full logical argument that goes from...

"Hey, there's a flower."

To

"Hey, there's God!"

Thanks,

LL

[Starboy]

Quote by: LogicaLunatic But really, the concept is definitely not one that can be called 'evidence' or 'support' in a debate. It is more of a useful tool when trying to decide which hypothesis to test first.

But in the end it still doesn't matter because you still must test all the hypotheses.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh Starboy - i cant believe you cant comprehend this. I am going to dumb this down as best i can. When i am speaking of ockhams razor, i am referring to the idea that it is much more reasonable to explain something naturally, if you can, rather than invoking a supernatural unknown. I really dont see how we can possibly be arguing about this.

So now Ockham's razor's primary use is for preferring natural explanations over supernatural explanations? I think we are getting to the heart of your reasons for thinking Ockham's is important. It is very funny. You use it as a magical incantation against magical thinkers. As I pointed out to you on numerous occasions the theists can also use it to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations. Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.

Starboy

[Blanh]

SB

Maybe. But if Theists think that explaining something with God (a being whose existence can neither be proved, nor falsified) is more simplistic than explaining something by scientific observation (which, as most reasonable scientists would attest to, is best explained by evolution via natural selection) then I would say there is no point in even having this argument as we (atheists vs theists) have completely different grounds on which to base our 'metaphysical' beliefs.

[Blanh]

sorry for the double.

but Theists can't use Ockhams to 'prefer' supernatural explanations over natural explanations. Unless they can justify supernatural explanations as being simpler than natural ones.

LogicaL : Evolutionary biology is very complicated. However I dont see how it is simpler to say "god did it". Any theist (or anyone for that matter) who claimed that invoking an invisible unfalsifiable being was simpler than claiming something that has been evinced upon numerous tests would not be worthy of an honest argument.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: LogicaLunatic We don't care if you see smurfs in your cocoa puffs. It's obvious you can't provide any kind of scientific evidence so how about just a logical proof... Please reply with your full logical argument that goes from... "Hey, there's a flower." To "Hey, there's God!" Thanks, LL

Thanks in return for asking me to reply only logical proof and not asked for a scientific evidence, since, all Atheists have over and time again made all Theists a laughing stock for not being able to stand a scientific evidence for existence of God!!!

Before, I put my logical proof for the existence of GOD, I ask all atheists: Can they give any scietific evidence which would prove by their presitigious mehtod (SCIETIFIC) that GOD does not exist?????

Logical proof require a bit of patience which, I hope you have so that I can proceed!

On a different thread probably "follow the leader" yesterday only, I tired to make a question "Why you & I exist?" debatable which according to REZ there, was foolish even to think that it is debatable.(Please read it!) Human being is considered to be most intelligent animal having 10 senses provided by nature when in tact. With the help of this intelligent mind behind senses, man could assess many many happenings which say 500 years before, nobody could have imagined. For example, Moon, which was considered as some diety, was proved to be similar to our Earth. Not only that even Man has landed on Moon. All this development assessed with those 10 senses along with intelligent mind to feel and understand what is what. Supposing, scietific development for some reason could not have taken place. We would have considered our Eath still flat and Moon a diety!!! You may be aware, few were killed for the telling truth which they could fore tell. But they were proved right later when Mr. Science gave a clean chit!!!!! Alas they were no more then!!

Now, consider a disable person or group of persons say blind people. You would take them to a garden and tell "Hey, there's a flower." They would listen to you clearly, but my dear, Would they get even the glimpse of your scietifically proved and established flower?????

NO NO NO NO and NO, Never on the earth!!! Unless otherwise, you have to get at least one of them treated for cure of blindness. Suppose he recovers sight!!! He would definitely see the flower. Still he will not be able to make others co-blind person see the flower!!!!!

What I want to bring home to you and other co-atheists is that we ordinary humans are not provided by nature that particular UN-EXPLAINABLE SENSE by which you can assess GOD!!!! That is why even any person who can develop that sense won't be able to tell you "Hey, there's God!" He would somewhat be similar to the person whom you treated for blindness, who could see your flower. Rest, all of us would remain as blind as were other co-blinds in that group.

LogicalLunatic, please do not get :confused: I have vivid logic in above explanation! But, I know common person, may be even you, would tell me what is new in this. Everybody knows that!!! I agree . what I did is, I tried to obey you and tried to frame a reply which would always remain in abstract form!!!!! SINCE NONE OF US HAS THAT WONDERFUL SENSE PROVIDED!!!!!!


That bloody GOD is very very intelligent!! If it had provided that sense to MAN, first thing MAN would have done! It would have finished GOD first and then anything else, since MAN is most cunning and put himself instead on HIS seat!!!!!

To conclude, I can give imagination of existence of GOD again in an abstract form. I as scientist won't be able to give any gaurentee of its authenticity or scietific proof. But, I refer you to Hindu's most athuntative philosphical compilation of words spoken by Lord Krishna to his desciple, Arjuna in Bhagvat Gita. He has explained GOD as:

"Our 10 SENSES ( as said above, namely 5 for actions like: Tongue for speach,Hands & Legs for doing work and movement etc, Mouth for eating food, Anus for discarding waste, Heart & Lungs for pumpimg & purification of blood; while 5 for feelings like: Taste, Touch, Smell, Hearing and Sight are governed by MIND. This mind is govenred by INTELLECT. Finally what is behind intellect to make it work is HE, THE GREAT GOD"

So that something behind intellect is existing in everything, living beings in particular. I tried to simplify this complicated imagination of his conception as Iness on different thread "Does life start at the conception". Many have laughed on reading this term of mine. If you are not getting a laugh, Logical Lunatic, believe me what you call yourself as YOU is surely GOD!


Many realised persons (after getting explained additional sense) found it that way, it is reported in history!!!! :) and enjoy in abstract form only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh sorry for the double. but Theists can't use Ockhams to 'prefer' supernatural explanations over natural explanations. Unless they can justify supernatural explanations as being simpler than natural ones.

There is hope for you yet. You have the very same problem. But the question is, "simpler" in what way? And do you show that natural explanations are simpler when you use it to prefer natural over supernatural explanations? And why should it be the way the universe is? Because it is simpler? Try taking an exam and giving the simplest answer on a multiple choice test for each question and tell me how well you do. And then explain to the grader that you have all the correct answers because of Ockham's razor.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh SB Maybe. But if Theists think that explaining something with God (a being whose existence can neither be proved, nor falsified) is more simplistic than explaining something by scientific observation (which, as most reasonable scientists would attest to, is best explained by evolution via natural selection) then I would say there is no point in even having this argument as we (atheists vs theists) have completely different grounds on which to base our 'metaphysical' beliefs.

Well duh! However you could use the actual method used by science to prefer one explanation over another. And that is by looking at which explanation does a better job at explaining and predicting reality. Instead of trying to use that lame concept called Ockham's razor as if it were an argument you could just see how well both explanations do on actual reality. This is after all how science prefers explanations in the first place. It is the only rational way to prefer one explanation over another. It is the method that just about everyone uses when it comes to explanations they do not prefer based on a double standard. And it is not as if just about everyone doesn’t use the results of those scientific explanations. And for most people natural explanations are a very, very, very important part of their existence. In some sense supernaturalists are living a lie. They pretend reality is completely explained by the supernatural but they rely on the natural explanations of science. They are a bunch of hypocrites. Especially if you see them posting on the internet. As if the internet is the result of supernatural explanations.

Starboy