Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[Bradskii]

Why would there be such a thing as survival in the context of blind physical activity alone?

I’m afraid that it’s you that doesn’t understand the concept of evolution.

Evolution is simply a process. That continues only if you live long enough to pass on your genetic information. Evolution doesn’t care if you do or not. It doesn’t care if you survive or not. It doesn’t care if you and the rest of your species becomes extinct. It doesn’t try to keep you alive. It doesn’t attempt to keep you safe. It has no interest in your genes. It is no more goal directed than a roulette wheel.

We use everyday language to talk about the process but you seem confused in that the language appears to indicate preferences and goals and aims and needs. It doesn’t. Evolution doesn’t prefer it if you don’t die. It isn’t a goal to keep you alive. It hasn’t a preference over who passes on what genes. It doesn’t aim to continue a species. It doesn’t need you to survive.

What you imply is akin to saying that a river making its way to the ocean is goal oriented.

And you are right in saying that it’s not the answer to everything. But it does explain a huge amount. Like why we prefer to live rather than die. Like why we work better in groups rather than individually. Like why we are afraid of the unknown.

I’ll leave it to you to join the dots when that comes to religion.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m afraid that it’s you that doesn’t understand the concept of evolution.

Evolution is simply a process. That continues only if you live long enough to pass on your genetic information. Evolution doesn’t care if you do or not. It doesn’t care if you survive or not. It doesn’t care if you and the rest of your species becomes extinct. It doesn’t try to keep you alive. It doesn’t attempt to keep you safe. It has no interest in your genes. It is no more goal directed than a roulette wheel.

Straw-man. I didn’t argue that evolution is goal directed.

 

[IWantGod]

What you imply is akin to saying that a river making its way to the ocean is goal oriented.

And what you are saying is akin to making a straw-man of somebodies argument. Go back and re-read. Or if you are not interested in the pursuit of reason we can end the discussion here.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yeah, that was the point I as trying to make. There is nothing to be unstable, so your argument about nothingness being unstable is irrational.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I’m afraid that it’s you that doesn’t understand the concept of evolution.

Evolution is simply a process. That continues only if you live long enough to pass on your genetic information. Evolution doesn’t care if you do or not. It doesn’t care if you survive or not. It doesn’t care if you and the rest of your species becomes extinct. It doesn’t try to keep you alive. It doesn’t attempt to keep you safe. It has no interest in your genes. It is no more goal directed than a roulette wheel.

Straw-man. I didn’t argue that evolution is goal directed.

So you are proposing that evolution itself is not goal directed. But finding food or trying to survive by running from danger is part of that same evolutionary process itself.

We are back to suggesting that a river is goal directed to the ocean. Or an amoeba moving from a heat source is goal directed. Or that blinking is goal orientated. Or eating. Or avoiding danger. Or having sex.

Just because we have reached a point where we can actually contemplate our decisions does not mean that all of a sudden we can excuse ourselves from the evolutionary process. If you want to imply some deeper meaning to all this then by all means go for it.

Some of us have realised for some time that in the grand scheme of things we are just passing through and nothing will remain that will show we ever passed this way. Hence our general desire to make use of this brief sliver of time.

 

[IWantGod]

So you are proposing that evolution itself is not goal directed. But finding food or trying to survive by running from danger is part of that same evolutionary process itself.

Again, natural selection explains why traits persist, nothing more. And to suggest otherwise is to go beyond the bounds of what evolution actually teaches. Evolution as a theory is not an explanation of why particular traits are a possible effect of a given process. That is a metaphysical question, not a biological one.

 

[STT]

Yeah, that was the point I as trying to make. There is nothing to be unstable, so your argument about nothingness being unstable is irrational.

There is nothing then everything. How could you reject such a statement?

 

[STT]

No state either.

What do you mean?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

STT, you’re not making sense… again.

You claimed that perhaps “nothing” was unstable, and therefore would be capable of creating something. That is an irrational statement.

I don’t reject the statement. There was nothing, and then there was something. What I reject is your assertion about how the nothing arrive at something.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So you are proposing that evolution itself is not goal directed. But finding food or trying to survive by running from danger is part of that same evolutionary process itself.

Again, natural selection explains why traits persist, nothing more.

We have an evolutionary trait to live as long as possible and avoid death. We have an evolutionary trait that makes us congregate in groups. We have an evolutionary trait that makes us defer to leaders. We have an evolutionary trait that gives comfort in common behaviour. We have an evolutionary trait to find common cause. We have an evolutionary trait to distrust outsiders.

As I said, you can join the dots yourself.

 

[STT]

You claimed that perhaps “nothing” was unstable, and therefore would be capable of creating something. That is an irrational statement.

I didn’t say that. I know that the act of creation by definition requires an agent.

I don’t reject the statement. There was nothing, and then there was something. What I reject is your assertion about how the nothing arrive at something .

How? I already mentioned. Nothingness is unstable.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

You claimed that perhaps “nothing” was unstable, and therefore would be capable of creating something. That is an irrational statement.

I didn’t say that. I know that the act of creation by definition requires an agent.

Yes, STT, you literally did:

You think it’s feasible for something to come out of absolutely nothing by itself ( nothing meaning the absolute absence of any existence )?

How? I already mentioned. Nothingness is unstable.

Nothingness is NOT unstable. It CANNOT BE unstable. It has no states like stable or unstable, there is nothing in it to make it stable or unstable. This statement is irrational. Repeating it over and over again isn’t going to change that.

All this is doing is reminding me why I stopped responding to you.

 

[IWantGod]

We have an evolutionary trait to live as long as possible and avoid death.

Putting “evolutionary” before the word trait in the context of this discussion is to treat evolution as a metaphysical explanation for why traits exist as an existential possibility. You are taking the existence of traits for granted and abusing the theory of evolution to justify it.

Again Evolution as a theory is not an explanation of why particular traits are a possible effect of a given process.

You can continue to ignore that fact, but then you would be dishonest.

Traits develop over time due to evolutionary pressures, but it’s irrelevant. The question is why those traits would exist as a possibility in the first place and whether or not it makes rational sense for them to exist if metaphysical naturalism is true.

This question you have all but ignored for the sake of your “Mind-Set”.

 

[Techno2000]

IWantGod:

steve-b:

It’s a choice of the will.

What is meant by that? Do you mean atheists do have a natural desire or interest in knowing God but choose not to? Or do you mean something else?

They choose not to.

If we had no choice in the matter, between life and death blessings and curses, God or no God, … we would be guilty of nothing.

And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 3:19

 

[STT]

You of course know what contingency means. It is about a state of affair where something which exists cannot exist too. Like universe. I call the state of affair that universe doesn’t exist as nothingness. What I don’t see is that how could you prove that a God is needed to fill the gap between nothingness and the existence of the universe.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Because nothingness is incapable of producing anything. Therefore, you need something that exists outside of the nothingness in order to bring about any act of creation.

We’re talking about physical reality, prior to which there was no physical reality and no physical mechanism by which to bring about physical reality. Something must exist beyond physical reality in order to bring about physical existence.

 

[Techno2000]

Because nothingness is incapable of producing anything. Therefore, you need something that exists outside of the nothingness in order to bring about any act of creation.

We’re talking about physical reality, prior to which there was no physical reality and no physical mechanism by which to bring about physical reality. Something must exist beyond physical reality in order to bring about physical existence.

By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made.
Hebrews 11:3

 

[STT]

Because nothingness is incapable of producing anything.

I didn’t say that nothingness is capable of producing anything. I said that nothingness is unstable. Things can pop up to existence if nothingness is unstable.

 

[IWantGod]

I didn’t say that nothingness is capable of producing anything. I said that nothingness is unstable. Things can pop up to existence if nothingness is unstable.

What is nothingness?

 

[STT]

What is nothingness?

I am sure that you know the argument from contingency. Contingency is about a state of affair which something which exists, like universe, cannot exist too. I call the state of affair where there is no universe as nothingness.