But i do realise that it is comprised of blind natural processes regardless. And if everything is comprised of blind natural processes (metaphysical naturalism), then goal directed activity cannot exist.
You are not listening.
Why?..
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that you cannot use the term ‘natural processes’ without preceeding it with ‘blind’?Thinker_Doer:
Well if only natural events exist, then everything is fundamentally comprised of blind natural processes (processes that are not moved by an intellect, or acting for a goal, or a purpose, or with intention). This just follows necessarily. I do understand.
The fact that there are goal directed human activities is what contradicts metaphysical naturalism because a goal directed activity that is moving with intent is the antithesis of a blind natural process, but despite the obvious contradiction many atheists would prefer an explanation that would reduce goal directed activity to being nothing more than the end result of a blind natural process because they have no choice if they wish to maintain their metaphysical commitment. But you cannot begin with the fact of goal direction and take for granted that it is logically consistent with metaphysical naturalism.
Followers of materialism/metaphysical-naturalism simply assume that these things can somehow be made rationally consistent with their world-view even if they don’t yet know how. But it is clear that this point of view leads to contradictions and brute-facts.
Because you have to make the same apriori assumption that there was something to kick start it. Whether it is a primordial quantum fluctuation in some much “poorer” time-space, or it’s some version of the Prime Mover, you still end up with something “before” the beginning of the observable universe. Even multiverse theories just kick the question back another level, and they have been heavily overstated by their proponents that I view them as ontologically equivalent to Yahweh making it all happen.niceatheist:
Why?..
Do i? I tell you what, quote one of my arguments for the existence God and show me why the argument fails. Because right now it is you that is making all the assertions, no one else.
That they do doubt, I take them at their word. Is their doubt rational? No.
This non-believer tries hard not to believe in anything but only to conclude on the basis of observation that things exist. I see nothing to indicate the existence of god(s). There might be one, or thousands, or there might have been gods once but they all may have died - who knows? But the same is true of any being we could imagine that has no material form.
Agnostic?
No. Read the posts, “But the same [that there might be one] is true of any being we could imagine that has no material form.”
Nonsense, since are made in His image there are many good comparisons, the primary one is that we both exist. You miss the point entirely.
Still reads like an agnostic.
No I didn’t. I just happen to disagree.
Certainly it is often equivalent to practical atheism. So much so that agnostics who know they cannot say for certain that God doesn’t exist, but who proceed on the basis that God almost certainly doesn’t, commonly call themselves atheists or are willing to be so called.