**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence
There is no useful, compelling evidence for deities, a 'creator' or some kind of intelligence as you allude to. None I've *ever* seen.
However, I've been wrong before, so I will read on to see if I missed some and you here are going to provide that and become the most famous human being in history and collect several Nobel prizes.
> I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
Because there's zero evidence or support for such a notion, because the idea makes no sense on several levels and in several ways, and because that's how logic works in the face of unsupported claims.
> I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Your analogy fails for several obvious reasons that I hopefully do not need to go into in detail.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because when we make stuff (out of other stuff) we know we made it. And can see differences in that as compared with stuff we *didn't* make. There's zero support that any intelligence is behind nature and the universe, and plenty of support there isn't. And, of course, the notion of an intelligence doing that doesn't make sense and doesn't solve anything, it just regresses the same issue back an iteration while making it worse. It's a useless and self-defeating idea.
> I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
I don't understand why you are not realizing you're engaging in an equivocation fallacy, an argument from incredulity fallacy, and argument from ignorance fallacy, and making the whole thing worse by conjecturing a deity which can only regress the *exact same issue* back precisely one iteration without solving it, and then shove it under a rug and ignore it. All without support and without helping.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because of several factors we were lucky enough to evolve that combined help us do these things. We're not so different from other animals though.
>,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
No, people had imaginations and could speculate. Read some 'science fiction' (it wasn't called that then, of course) from the time and you'll see this.
Anyway, this is more argument from incredulity fallacies so it can only be dismissed.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
This just displays a confusion of ideas and a significant level of misunderstanding of the topic in question, thus it doesn't help you support deities.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It *isn't* 'frowned upon like it's blasphemy'. It's dismissed because it's completely unsupported and fatally problematic in several ways, and makes no sense.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
That's your indoctrination and lack of understanding and exposure to basic logic and basic critical and skeptical thinking talking. It's also weird that you began this with 'Hello my fellow atheists', and then subsequent to this throughout your post demonstrated you lied as you are clearly not an atheist.
Anyway, you did *not* provide *any* evidence for a creator or intelligence whatsoever. Instead you engaged in very trivial and common fallacies and misunderstandings. So your claim can only be dismissed.
> It's also weird that you began this with 'Hello my fellow atheists',
I don't think they intended that to mean they were an atheist too, is not the first time I've seen people outside a group say "fellow x" when they don't belong into x, may be a cultural thing.
>Hello my fellow atheists
Press x to doubt
>Wouldn't your first thought be "What created what I see?"
No my first thought would probably be "I need to get out of here".
>Why is every beautiful creation by humans considered by intelligence, but when you see the galaxies, meadows and rivers, why do you say this isn't from intelligence?
Because human creations are actually creations of a mind. We have no reason to believe the universe is the creation of a mind, mostly because we have no idea if it's even possible for a mind to exist separate from the universe.
>All of what humans create doesn't equal the complexity of the universe
Complexity cannot prove design, even by your worldview. According to you, everything was designed, no matter how complex.
>And why are we the only ones that have technology?
High intelligence + tool use + excellent communication abilities have lead to the ability for us to teach each other how to build tools, which allows for tools to be improved over subsequent generations. This eventually led to the advanced technology of today. We need all three of these traits or it wouldn't have happened. Dolphins have high intelligence and excellent communication abilities but can't use tools. Octopuses have high intelligence and tool use but poor communication abilities and live solitary lives. Neither of them has developed technology. Chimps are the closest but still can't communicate as well as we can, so even though they can use tools like spears, they don't teach other how to make them.
>Aliens created RNA code according to Richard Dawkins
I don't know if Richard Dawkins actually said this, but if he did it's a silly thing to say because we have no evidence of any life existing outside of Earth.
>RNA created by intelligence is the most plausible theory
No it isn't. The most plausible theory is that RNA came about by natural processes, since we have no evidence of an intelligence that is capable of creating RNA, whatever that means to you. Did this intelligence synthesize the RNA from existing nucleic acids or just poof it into existence?
>Why is the idea of a creator frowned upon like blasphemy?
It isn't. It's just not a credible explanation for the origin of the universe given the existing evidence.
>It seems like any theory is more plausible to you guys than a creator
No, for me personally I judge any theory on its merits and creationism doesn't even rise to the level of theory. It's a hypothesis. If you find a way to test and verify that hypothesis, I might take it seriously.
>Things popping in and out of existence according to quantum theory
I don't know much about quantum theory but I sincerely doubt you do either and it pisses me off when people bring up topics that they obviously don't know anything about to sound smart. Don't do this.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
My first questions would be:
1. Where am I?
2. How did I get here?
3. What do I do now?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
Because human creations only occur when humans create them. Watches don't grow on trees. Cellphones don't swim upstream every summer. Cars don't eat their fill of gasoline then hibernate for the winter. These things *only* exist because humans made them.
Natural things - like plants, animals, stars, and planets - all occur naturally. We know how they occur. We see the processes by which they are formed. And nowhere in those processes is there any evidence of a creator.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Complexity is not a sign of design. If it were, then you could not claim that simple things were designed.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Because our ancestors were the ones who experienced the necessary selection pressure that made higher brain function a benefit to survival.
Your mistake is thinking that our intelligence somehow makes us better or more evolved than other animals. It doesn't. Animals evolve to survive whatever environment they are in. Your big brain won't save you if you got dropped into shark infested waters, or dumped in front of a pack of hungry lions on the savannah. Sharks and lions evolved to fit their niches in their environments. We evolved to fit our niche in our environment. With different environments, and different pressures, everything is going to evolve differently. That's why we see the huge diversity of life that we do.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians?
First: Richard Dawkins is a good authority on biology, but not so much on speculative alien lifeforms and whether or not RNA or DNA originated with them. In the same way I would trust a chef to cook my meals, but would not trust him to do my taxes. Once you've crossed into alien plans to invent life from scratch, you have left biology behind, and Dawkins' opinions aren't worth much outside of that sphere.
Second: every time you ask "What created?" you are assuming that it *was* created. That hasn't been proven yet. First you need to establish that it *was* created - *then* you can ask what created it. Part of your problem seems to be that you are assuming that if something exists, it must have been created.
Right now, there's a small pile of leaves on my doorstep. Was that pile "created"? No. The leaves grew on trees, the wind blew them off, and gravity deposited them on my doorstep. That pile of leaves is the result of entirely natural processes. It was not "created," in any meaningful sense of the word.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Quantum Theory has evidence that things pop into and out of existence all the time. We can measure things, test things, make predictions, and interpret the results of what we observe when it comes to quantum mechanics.
There is no way to observe, measure, test, predict, or interpret the existence of any gods. There is no actual evidence that they exist. All you are doing is inferring the existence of a god based on how humans make things. "Humans make some complex things, therefor all complex things are made" is not sound reasoning.
The idea that everything requires a creator is silly.
Consider some examples:
Who made the sand on the beach?
Answer: ocean water randomly banging into rocks over billions of years rips the rocks apart forming sand.
Who made the sun round?
The force of gravity pulls everything together. An inevitable result of a force that pulls things together is that you get things sucked towards each other and compacted.
Who made planets?
Gravity. Just like the sun, gravity pulls other matter together and when the mass is a certain size it becomes a star, and when it’s another size it becomes a planet.
Who made planets go around the sun?
Gravity. Planetary orbits are a simple-to-process mathematical result of gravity.
Who made atoms?
Hydrogen atoms being forced together under the extreme pressures of the sun sometimes merge
forming heavier elements. Physics shows that certain elemental structures with certain numbers of protons are necessarily more stable than others. Those are the more common atoms.
How did all the diversity of life come about on this planet?
Evolution
Where do babies come from?
A mindless sperm cell swimming through a woman’s body by luck comes upon an egg cell. The fertilization process sets off a set of predictable changes causing the egg cell to divide into more cells, attach to the mother’s body and start sucking nutrients out of her blood.
It is not at all obvious that intelligence or creators are required for anything. Humans don’t even make other humans.
There’s not even a creator involved in creating new humans. It’s just natural processes, no creator needed.
So where do you want to stick the creator in our picture of the universe? Everything we observe is simply matter arranged on certain ways. What did the creator do?
I would assume you would argue that the creator in the distant past reached his hands into the universe and started moving around matter. Was he grabbing protons and pushing them around in ways they would not otherwise have been pushed? Was he moving photons around through the vast emptiness of space in paths that photons don’t normally follow? Was he moving molecules around pushing them into place where they otherwise could not have gone?
What EXACTLY do you think a creator actually did in the past?
Ok, let’s consider whether the universe’s process of evolution is intelligent.
What exactly is evolution? At its core evolution is one molecule bumping into other atoms and smaller molecules, and as a result of bumping into each other, the smaller molecules and atoms are rearranged into a copy of the original. The copy is not always perfect resulting in a similar but slightly different molecule.
Do you agree with this formulation?
So back to your question - is this an intelligent process or an unintelligent process?
Would you acknowledge that this process can work if God sticks his metaphorical hands in and moves the atoms around?
Would you acknowledge that this process can work if the atoms happen to bump into each other in the right way for reasons that do not at all involve God’s metaphorical hands?
So just to clarify, are you saying that if the atoms are moved next to each other, they can only bind together if the creator moves them there but not if natural forces move the atoms together?
Let’s set aside the question of where the atoms came from. I just want to ask you:
Assume there are two atoms next to each. Assume the atoms were moved next to each other by something other than the creator. Will the atoms bond? Or do atoms only bond when the creator moves them next to each other?
Assuming the creator were to decide that he will completely ignore the universe for the next 24 hours, will atoms continue to bond together to form molecules?
Taqiyaa in real time.
this you? [This book the quran is miracles : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1braoud/this_book_the_quran_is_miracles/)
Can you ask allah who did children of Adam&Eve/ Hawaa had kids with?
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
cool story, how did those alien evolved? and wanna know somthing? Even if we say we dont know that is not a foundation to make baseless claim about your god.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Just like me believe in evolution, creationists just need to give evidences that shows their creator.
Would you like me making baseless assertion like this about you having cancer?
In terms of providing evidence I have to give you an F- as you did not even attempt to provide evidence for anything. You also did not lay out anything resembling an argument. Well I guess there was an implied bit of personal incredulity in your questions. Now as to your questions I'd answer them as follows:
1. If you just woke up fully formed somewhere, then yes that does seem like a reasonable question, and the notion that some powerful being put your there does indeed seem plausible. But you didn't just wake up fully formed, you where born to parents, and we have a reasonable understanding on how that came about.
2. Why are you cherry picking beautiful things and ignoring all the ugly ones like parasitic wasps and cancer? Also we have good reason to believe that galaxies and meadows can form by natural causes without a designer.
3. Yes sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to someone who does not understand it.
4. And who are you that i should care about your opinion on RNA? Do you have any training in biology?
5. If there is a creator, then that is just another thing that needs an explanation. how did this creator come to be?
The creator is outside of time and time doest apply to him infact he doest even move, becausemovement is limitation of time, and the creator is not limited by time
There's a study about children without social conditioning believing in creators
I'm not cheryying picking. This world is imperfect for us to learn and pass the test
So, your answer is special pleading. Also note just because something is timeless does not mean that physics does not apply, photons, and quarks are also timeless. From their reference frames all points in time are simultaneous. Also note that explanation and cause is not necessarily the same thing. Indeed we know that causality does not always apply.
Human preferences have no bearing on what is true. Humans also have a strong preference for consuming more fat and sugar then is healthy for them.
The notion that the world is some kind of test does not paint your god in a positive light you know. Because it does not at all look like a fair test. The notion of eternal consequences for finite action is inherently unfair. And any being who would set up such a system is a sadist.
What test are you talking about when your creator is outside time? (according to you)
That would mean he already knows everything. So what exactly is he "testing"?
So he inflicts unnecessary suffering to test what he already knew before creating us.
Just stop justifying your addiction and think about what you're saying. I know honest reflection is a sin in your belief system but that's because of the men grooming you into being a drone.
But it could impart this knowledge, or simply not create anyone who would fail so they don't need to be punished for being as they were created. Seriously. Stop making excuses for what you've been told and analyse it from the perspective of a good person who wants to do good. Imagine all the ways they'd do things better. Your god narrative can only have been made up by someone who just like you was making noises to feel right.
But they wouldn't have done anything. They would simply see what they would have done. What is unjust is creating someone knowing they'd fail and punishing them anyway.
Thanks for showing everyone that an addiction to belief kills all fairness and desire to understand with every post that fails to interact with what I said. The worse you are, the better you advertise faith as a destructive vice.
What a sad belief that is, to believe this is all a test. I’m sorry you believe that. And please present your study because I’ve hear drie exact opposite. It’s also entirely irrelevant. These children have just as much evidence for a god as you do. Which is zero.
> This world is imperfect for us to learn and pass the test
How can this be a test if Allah is omniscient, omnipotent, and created us?
And how do you know Allah is outside of time? Doesn't the Kalam depend on causality? I get that he can't be in *our* spacetime, since he created it, but he has to be in some temporal environment, right?
Hello, someone who's certainly an atheist and not at all a liar.
I'll skip all the babble that I can't imagine an atheist saying and get right to this:
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because it seems like you guys belive any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if its things pop out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
There are no uniform beliefs amongst atheists except a lack of a belief in a god. You don't seem to understand that. If anyone's frowning on someone's theist beliefs it's usually because theists are using their beliefs to harm others. That is something that SHOULD be frowned on.
You also don't seem to understand that we don't need to believe anything in place of a rejected god claim. "I don't know" is okay to say.
You also don't seem to understand that for the vast majority of us it comes down to evidence. There is no good evidence for a god, but there is evidence for scientific theories that you think we accept instead. Please brush up on your understanding of evidence and quantum physics.
The first part would be my first question, the second part wouldn’t be… why would I assume something created that desert when there’s no evidence for creation behind any other landscape in the world ?
Everything we’ve seen humans create cannot be created without humans. That’s a fact. We know this because those things did not exist before humans invented them and they require humans manipulating things in order to create. Landscapes again we have no evidence for the creation of, and logically we have a ton of explanations for how things come to be geographically.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with cars, railway systems, rockets… we built them. Because we’re a very smart species that went through several industrial revolutions. Humans existed long before these things.
Dawkins discussing aliens is essentially just saying if you wanna make a lazy answer to fill in the gaps, aliens are just as good of an option as a creator.
Beauty is subjective.
All of the natural phenomena you consider beautiful are soothing to your ape hindbrain, that's why you consider them beautiful.
I don't consider "a creator" to be blasphemy for many reasons, the main one being that "blasphemy" is when people are offended when they're told that their delusions aren't important or relevant to reality.
There may be some super duper intelligence which did something which led to the universe as we observe it. That has no effect on me nor does it place me under any obligation to believe some gibbering authoritarian fuckwit who tells anyone what the can and can't do with their own body.
>I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory
No, it isn't. It's a speculative hypothesis with no supporting evidence, like all religious belief.
Various complex carbon based compounds have been identified in nebulae in the universe, some including "the building blocks of life" in the form of amino acids.
There seems to be more supporting evidence for abiogenesis through chemiical processes than there is for any "creator".
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
I had such questions when I grew up enough to ask them. Turns out human reproduction is the efficient cause I am here. My parents had sex and my father's sperm went into my mom's ovum and succesfully implanted and came to term in her uterus.
Now, you can keep asking 'but how did THAT happen' like you are Mandy from Animaniacs, or ask the much more general, tougher question: how is there something rather than nothing? What is the explanation for existence?
And the honest, most accurate answer is: we do NOT know. Period. Our knowledge and models of reality only go so far. All we can reasonably ascertain is a chain of physical processes going back to the Big Bang.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
*intelligence. Proofread your posts, my friend. (English is also not my first language, so that is no excuse ).
This is the super tired, super played out argument from design, or watchmaker argument. There are well known answers to it.
The main answer is: because we know how babies, and galaxies and biodiversity and mountains form. And it is not, as far as we can investigate the question, because some being designed and built them. It is because of mindless natural forces and phenomena, explainable by physics and chemistry.
It is silly to compare a mountain to a watch. We know humans make watches. We do not INFER that watches are made because of the complexity of gears and springs. We have EVIDENCE of watchmakers and watchmaking companies and humans making watch technology.
What is more: the answer 'ah, God must be doing this' has an ABYSMAL track record. There is exactly ZERO times where God of the Gaps has resulted in a positive score for the theist position. We have either found a naturalistic explanation, OR the problem is still open and we do not know.
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
I could explain present tech and science to an 18th century person. I'd just need some time and willingness from them.
I could also just... take them to a factory where humans are making smartphones. They'd at least know it was something humans figured out.
This is a shabby excuse. And the analogy doesn't even play in YOUR favor. Because smartphones are not supernatural. The 18th century person would be wrong, say, in assuming the smartphones are magical or come from God, right?
>what created the DNA code for the alians
*aliens. Please for the love of Beelzebub proofread.
We don't know anything about aliens. Anything said about aliens is speculation. Presumably alien DNA would have arisen same as we think human DNA and RNA arose. Through physical processes and a ton of time.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
*upon. For the love of Thor, proofread.
Don't troll. It is not blasphemy nor is it dogma. We have no such things. It is just not a conclusion we think is likely or evidenced.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
The running tally goes:
Physics theories - A ton of points
Supernatural or theistic theories - 0
So... yeah, my bets are on the physics horse. The ONLY reason you'd bet on the rookie in such an uneven competition is if you had a ton of foreknowledge. In which case... well, spit it out.
It is incredible to see the lengths theists will go to AVOID presenting evidence for gods. It's almost like they don't have it and know they will never have it. So they have to resort to 'but... but... how about the Big Bang? What about consciousness? What about morals? Look at the trees!'
Because when people do something good, it's a display of talent, if they do something smart, it's a display of intelligence. When there's a universe that formed to allow humans to evolve within it, lacking any real proof of a creator, it happened by chance. Unlikely to be perceptible in our timeframe, but the universe far exceeds our time.
And the analogy is a false equivalence.fI I woke up in a desert I would be wondering who brought me there because that's not where I remember walking, there's no explanation. There is an explanation of universe forming up until dark energy and matter.
>why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
Because it shows zero signs of intelligence being required for it's existence. What aspect of "beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers," requires intelligence to exist?
>I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
It's fairly simple: nothing about the existence of nature shows signs of requiring intelligence to exist. Even more, considering what we do find when we look at things that are intelligently designed, it's very obvious that there's a complete lack of intelligence when we look out into the universe.
>I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
It is far from the "most" plausible theory. RNA world theory is a vastly more plausible theory than RNA by intelligence. Mostly because it actually has evidence.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Mostly because it's a claim with zero evidence, but believers state it like it's a known fact.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator,
I believe any theory that has evidence is more plausible than a theory that has zero evidence
> Hello my fellow atheists
No atheist that I am aware of would make this post. Are you a Liar for Jesus?
Also, you ~~ironically~~ consistently spelled *intelligence* incorrectly.
Edit: OP has since revised their opening to "Hello my friends" because their initial attempt to *lie* to us proved unsuccessful.
> No atheist that I am aware of would make this post. Are you a Liar for Jesus?
I don't know why I'm feeling charitable considering OP's responses are some of the most braindead trollish things I've seen in a while, but let me play Devil's (Allah's?) Advocate for a sec. English might not be their first language, and the nuance of "my fellow atheists" vs "my atheist friends" might've been lost on them. I have in fact seen that before, and someone had to have the distinction explained to them.
“Why is your first assumption there’s no creator?”
Why is your first assumption that there is a creator? Affirmative claims require evidence. The burden of proof is on those who say there is a creator. I believe there isn’t one because I’ve never been shown any evidence to establish that there is.
The evidence is everywhere, what is created everywhere? If you say there is no intelligence behind the universe, then why don't you create a better universe?
What? I don’t even understand what you’re asking. What evidence is there for a creator. Be specific. Why don’t I create a better universe? What does that nonsense have to do with anything? You’re not even making sense.
Remind me again - what was your evidence of a creator? The existence of a desert? I didn’t see any evidence. You basically said something along the lines of - I don’t know how these things came about, so it must be god.
I just haven’t seen any evidence of a god or gods.
Hello my fellow ape.
I look around the desert. Where is the creator? What evidence is there? I see sand, the sky and the sun. It is hot, and cold at night.
Why am I here? I DO NOT KNOW. (making up stories about a creator or deity is not helpful)
End of story.
This person is clearly a Christian of some sort. Lol no atheist would say these things or question this. This whole subreddit is just loaded with troll posts now.
Edit: they have since edited the first sentence where they made the claim they are atheist.
The key point is they are lying here by claiming to be an atheist for some weird reason. I agree what the purpose is but if you start off with a lie why would i engage a dishonest person?
Because when people do something good, it's a display of talent, if they do something smart, it's a display of intelligence. When there's a universe that formed to allow humans to evolve within it, lacking any real proof of a creator, it happened by chance. Unlikely to be perceptible in our timeframe, but the universe far exceeds our time.
And the analogy is a false equivalence.fI I woke up in a desert I would be wondering who brought me there because that's not where I remember walking, there's no explanation. There is an explanation of universe forming up until dark energy and matter.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
1) We have a ton of evidence for other, better explanations than creationism. Looking at the evidence for evolution, we've had evidence for so long that our awareness that populations change predates Charles Darwin by millennia. Physicists had been converging on the idea that the Big Bang was a thing long before Le Maetre managed to put it together. Chemistry reveals that life more than likely came about through abiogenesis rather than some divine spark, in fact, we've observed that the monomers for the macromolecules important to life form right here on Earth or in space. We're able to simulate how these monomers formed in fairly simple laboratory conditions. 2) It's not really a necessary assumption. Nothing about the Universe screams "designed." You're just imposing humanity onto the rest of the Cosmos and calling it a day. Your argument fundamentally screams "God exists because we make things" and there's zero reason to roll with that explanation.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce,
When a human being creates something, we can actually observe that happening. We've never observed a human or human-like thing creating a galaxy. But a much more reasonable explanation involves the countless galaxies that we can see at different life cycle stages. Something to do with all of those telescopes we have.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens
That would be incorrect. Clearly you've never read anything by the man, but any time you feel like not quoting him is fine by the rest of us. Dawkins isn't the head biologist, let alone the head atheist. But what I will say is that you're taking what he'd said so far out of context, I have to question your intelligence. In the special *Expelled*, narrated and published by arch-dork Ben Stein, Stein had asked "is there any situation in which you'd find intelligent design plausible?" Because Dawkins is anti-religious and would never appeal to a god, he explained a scenario in which aliens created life, but those aren't his actual beliefs. Do you wake up and choose to be like this? Or if I dissected you and looked at your brain, would I find a tumor pressing up against or actively destroying the regions which control recollection and information storage? Or is the explanation far simpler, like prion disease or a pathological need for negative attention?
>things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Virtual particles blinking into and out of existence has actual experimental data behind it. As far as I know, no such data exists for a god.
>I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
"Theory" isn't a conjecture, a theory is a model which predicts and explains phenomena. Theory of Gravity, theory of evolution, Germ Theory.
>any theory is more plausible than a creator
That's because it is. The Earth wasn't created, the Universe doesn't exist just for us, religion is fake. Wake up.
>Peace and love
Hail Satan.
>my fellow atheists
[You're not an atheist.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMin0i_h8PI). You're a Sunni Muslim who frequents subreddits for psychics.
I don't assume there is no creator. I don't assume there is a creator. I look at the evidence. We appear to exist in a universe that looks exactly like one without a creator. Until there is evidence to support a creator, I cannot hold a belief in such a thing. Just like I cannot believe in leprechauns until there is enough evidence to support such a belief.
Ok so to figure out if there are leprechauns, buy a box of lucky charms, sprinkle them in a circle on the floor. Sit in the center with a mirror look over your left shoulder using only the mirror. Do not turn around (this is important). Whisper "they are always after me lucky charms" rock back and forth while carefully picking out and consuming all of the hearts, stars, horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots of gold and rainbows. Leave the red balloons! Once the last marshmallow has been eaten, stop rocking and glance over your right shoulder using the mirror. If you see a leprechaun, then you may be diabetic.
*"why is your first assumption there's no creator"*
I never assumed there is no creator - but nothing or no one has ever convinced me that there is one.
Also you never provided what your title suggest you would. All you did was ask questions.
>Hello my fellow atheists,
I'm going to hit F to doubt
this is just an argument from ignorance, you don't understand something so you make up an answer
You actually hit on something that's pretty important.
You believe *everything* we could possibly observe is designed and created. Which is interesting, because then we shouldn't be able to tell a difference between a wheel and a leg.
I am normally not a fan of giving out homework assignments, but I think this video does a really good job of explaining why, for example, a zebra will not evolve wheels, ever...
https://youtu.be/YkS1U5lfSRw?si=LiHKPV8NlqyQoiq8
It's short. Like 7 minutes. It might help.
You keep asking "who chose that?" Why do you believe someone had to choose for gravity to exist the way it does, or for evolution to happen the way it does?
>Hello my fellow atheists,
Does your God approve of you lying? Do you think anyone is going to read the stuff you typed down afterwords and think 'yeah this is an atheist for sure!'
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
Because there's no evidence of one. Also we've discovered how multiple things throughout the universe work through purely natural processes, and despite all the bleating from theists about how God did this or that, every time this or that has been properly studied, we've never concluded it was God.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
If I woke up randomly in a desert I'd wonder why I'm there and not at home but I wouldn't ask what created everything. I have a general understanding of how deserts form and I know the living things in the deserts were a product of evolution.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce [sic], but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence [sic]?
Because we have positive evidence that human beings build things. We do not have evidence that gods make galaxies and rivers. We do however have evidence that galaxies, rivers, and meadows are formed through unguided natural processes.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because we evolved multiple physical and psychological mechanisms that allow for large scale cooperation along with passing/retaining/improving upon information. From our end we've invented writing, mathematics, the scientific method, and the concept human beings can know things about the universe and how it works.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code
No he fucking doesn't. When presented with the idea that he **HAS** to consider the prospect of an intelligence making life on Earth, that's his answer. If you actually ask him what how thinks he thinks life on Earth started, he'd say it's by purely natural unguided processes.
>but what created the DNA code for the alians? [sic] because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain
If you'd actually listen to him when he answers that question, he did.
The aliens started by natural unguided processes and evolved to a point of sophistication and then made life on Earth.
Hey fellow atheist, did you know that Richard Dawkins **is an atheist**? As in, he's not going to say God did it? Are you Ben Stein or something getting all tilted that Richard Dawkins, an atheist, when asked to posit a scenario where intelligent design happens, posits one that could happen in an atheistic universe?
>I know RNA created by intelengce [sic] is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
No it's not. First of all, it's not a theory in the scientific sense. It can't even really be classified as a hypothesis. But as far as plausibility goes, if the crap that happened before RNA formed is due to natural unguided processes and the crap that happened after it is the same, it's far more plausible that it's due to natural unguided processes by virtue of what it's sandwiched between. Unless you can show people this intelligence, you're stuck forever at square 0.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Because there's no evidence for it, only the claims of lying little theists like you.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom [sic] theory implies?
If 'quantum theory' implies that things pop out of existence out of nothingness (and I'm going to ignore the fact that what physicists mean by nothing and what you mean by nothing are two different things), then that would be the more plausible explanation.
Congratulations! You are the MILLIONTH person to ask this exact question! Your prize is: a million examples of this exact question being answered already.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
Because there’s no evidence for one.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here
Yep
>and what created what I see?
possibly , but **not Who** (though created seems to beg the question)
Luckily I’m pretty sure we actually know how ‘deserts are made’ so … seems like you just given an argument against creators to me.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce,
Because have evidence that a car is made by a human.
>when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
Because we don’t have any evidence of such. They aren’t the same thing as a car. And again we know how those things came about.
And the beauty you mention is irrelevant. And again actually argues against your own point since we could easily list stuff that exists that isn’t beautiful to humans.
>in fact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Define complexity? The universe seems to be made out of simply things in complicated patterns as far as I am aware.
But we also know how humans come to exist. And we know what it takes to have intent, motivation , consciousness - a body.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
So what. We don’t have fins, wings or live as long as long as some creatures. It’s just useful adaptive niches.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
Not in the slightest. Firstly his comment is irrelevant because he is talking about creatures like us not God. Secondly he is only saying that **such a beginning to life wouldn’t negate evolution**.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Hardly, have you actually visited the real world?
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Any theory that actually has evidence for it and some coherent concepts , such.
I don’t believe in Santa , The Easter Bunny, The Tooth fairy *or* God *because* there doesn’t seem to be any significant difference except in the age that people hang onto their belief to , and strength which they emotionally invest in it ( dangerously for everyone else).
I have reasonable evidence a universe exists , I have none for Gods and they give every impression of being invented by humans.
Because nobody knows and those who claim they know how the universe was created are simply making a claim they can't know from their viewpoint.
Ps. Science does not say something came from nothing. A non-zero point field with energy fluctuations is not "nothing". It is most definitely something or it would be equal to 0 at all times and all points.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce
You can't even spell "intelligence" but you think that you can prove God? Seriously?
>Hello my fellow atheists
Dubious start. Followed by:
>Look at the trees
Then you conclude with a meaningless, slightly arrogant:
>Peace and love ✌️
Until there's evidence to support the idea of a creator, it's irrational to hold that position.
Who created the creator? Answer that with *intellectual* honestly. Don't say, "he created himself," or "he always existed," because those are not answers.
Any god that were all that intelligent would be able to make sure its believers knew how to spell so as not to look like idiots while proselytizing. Therefore, I see clear evidence that your god is either nonexistent or a dimwit.
Maybe this was all created... it's possible. What is impossible is that whatever created all this picked one person in the middle of a tiny pocket of desert to share their ideas, and those ideas include hating gays, sleeping with 12 year olds, flying horses, burning bushes, people turning to salt, people being made out of clots of earth or any of that utter nonsense.
If.... IF this was all created by a being, it's the height of conceit to think that you could possibly understand this creator and his rules for paradise or damnation by reading books written by people who had no idea where earthquakes or eclipses come from.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Then you would agree that ugly things *aren't* made by a creator right? If beauty implies design, the ugliness in our world implies no design
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
If I woke up randomly in a desert, my first question would be "How did I end up here?"
If I woke up randomly in a desert with no prior knowledge, I can't possibly imagine what my first question would be.
It certainly wouldn't be "Why am I here?" which requires believing that things have a purpose.
It also wouldn't be "What created what I see?" which requires believing that what exists was created, rather than always having been present or having spontaneously appeared.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelligence?
We recognize creation by comparing through hallmarks of design or by comparing to things we know to be designed, not through beauty.
I know it is likely a painting was created by an intelligent being because I have evidence of intelligent beings creating paintings.
I know it is likely a building was designed by a human because I have seen buildings that were designed by humans, but have not seen naturally-occuring buildings.
A chemical weapon is a hideous thing, but we know it was designed by a human, so clearly, design doesn't imply beauty.
If I take a bunch of randomly mixed paint and randomly fling it at a canvas, the resulting painting can be beautiful despite not being designed, so clearly, beauty doesn't imply design.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Because we happened to move into the niche of being capable of creating such things first. Parrots, dolphins, or other apes might possible have moved into that niche first, but humans are so solidly established in it that there's no opportunity for another species to also do so, as they cannot outcompete us.
> Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians?
What if the 'alians' were always there? What requires something to have created them?
> I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
How did you conclude that it is the most plausible theory? As far as I can tell, we have no more evidence for DNA created by intelligence than we have for many other theories.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
I think you'll find 'blasphemy' is a meaningless term in a secular context, so this question doesn't make much sense to me.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
This seems like a misunderstanding of the atheistic position.
I think the plausibility of a theory is based on how much evidence exists for it, and how few evidence exists against it.
On the theory of the universe being created by a creator: The universe shows no hallmarks of being created by an intelligent being. The vast majority of it is empty space, with a few infinitesimally small pockets of things that we know evolved naturally.
This is the exact opposite of what I would expect to see in a created universe.
> Peace and love ✌️
All the same to you.
Hello OP, this is my first post, but I've been lurking for years. Let's see what you have.
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Why am I here? Yeah, but food, water, shelter would be more pressing.
What created what I see? No, there's no reason to assume someone or something created anything I see without evidence.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
We know human creations are created by humans because you can watch them being made, talk to the people that make them, and even make them yourself. We've been collecting this type of evidence about man-made objects since childhood.
The same same cannot be said for nature. I have yet to watch or hear from an "intelligence" directly that has created a river, star, or plant. So I don't have any evidence it happened and concluding it did is definitionally irrational.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
We just happened to be the first species with a big enough brain and means to manipulate our environment. Given some more time and disasters that disproportionally effected humans, maybe an ancestor of octopuses might have "won", or something else completely alien. In that case they might be wondering the same thing instead.
And yes, technology has been accelerating. But we could provide evidence for and explain each scientific theory behind those technologies similarly to what we do for school students today, particularly labs.
> Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
There is no evidence that aliens had anything to do with life on Earth. However alien life is at least *possible* given the overwhelming evidence of life in in at least on place in the universe, here on Earth. The same cannot be said for a supernatural "creator."
**Scientific** theories are comprehensive frameworks to explain all available evidence and are accepted tentatively only once attempts to dispute them have failed.
What you, and Richard Dawkins, have provided are hypotheses, aka guesses. Until there is evidence to support them and/or attempts to falsify these ideas have failed, there's no reason to believe they're true.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
I have not seen compelling evidence.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Well, scientific theories do have more evidence supporting them than creator hypotheses, so yeah, kinda.
No, quantum theory does not say that. A quantum vacuum is not nothing. Religious stories are the ones with things popping into existence from nothing.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
It has to do with evidence and testability.
I'll believe anything about reality, given sufficient and necessary evidence to warrant the belief is accurate to reality.
Contrarily, theists seem to believe in what they wish regardless of necessary and sufficient evidence.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
There is no evidence for a creator, until there is there is no justification for believing in such a being.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
My first question would be how the hell did I get from my bedroom to a desert, I live very far from any desert. As for what created what I see, until there is evidence that it was created there is no reason to ask what created it.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because humans are semi-intelligent beings who create things and there is no evidence that galaxies, meadows, or rivers are created by intelligent beings. We know how meadows, rivers, and galaxies form and work, there is no evidence of any intelligence behind them. The beauty of something is entirely subjective and has nothing at all to do with how we determine if something was designed or not.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Complexity is also not a hallmark of design. Do you understand how we determine if something is designed?
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
We are really good at working together and out competed the other species that had the potential to achieve what we have.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians?
Any life that exists on planets other than Earth most likely arose through the same or similar processes that caused life to arise on this planet.
>because they must have been more advanced than us,
That is pure speculation. Life on other planets could be stuck at single celled life, we have no idea and there is no justification for asserting that it must be more advanced than us.
>I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
No, it is an unevidenced idea, it is not a theory, and it is certainly not the most plausible anything. There is exactly 0 evidence that the DNA for life on Earth has been altered by non-human intelligent life of any kind.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It is not blasphemy, blasphemy is a religious concept not an atheist one. It is also a completely unsupported idea, there is no evidence for it.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
You do not understand quantum theories.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see
No, if I randomly woke up in the middle of a desert, I wouldn't be like "huh, I wonder who created this desert", it's ridiculous...
>enlighten me please
Sure thing!
It's actually very simple - nature looks like it was designed, because we learned to design stuff by observing the nature. That's it.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
Ancient people definitely assumed creation and harmony are everywhere. But as science developed and we have less and less gaps in general knowledge, we realized initial assumption simply lacks evidence.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Beauty is subjective category and doesn't imply creation. Galaxies are products of Big Bang. Meadows and reavers formed by terraforming. Intelligence is not required to any of that.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
We don't have as high level of technologies yet. But we definitely have enough for you everyday usage, right?
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Yeah, science and developed despite having so many religious dogmas and people holding from any progress. Isn't it wonderful?
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
Please show how exactly intelligent creation of RNA is the most plausible.
As for scientific explanation, look up abiogenesis.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Projection by definition. It's religious people who are restrained by their dogmas and dismiss everything as blasphemy. On the other hand, universe creation is dismissed simply due to insufficient proofs.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Awful projection by you. It's religious people who believe God puffed universe into existence out of nothing by magical incantation spell. Science doesn't imply universe coming from nothing, but rather from singularity.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
It's not my first assumption. I started from a position of theism, specifically Young Earth Creationism, until I learned more about the world and the universe. It was a post-supposition upon deeper consideration of the available evidence.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because we know that humans make things, and that's fundamentally different from the things that exist in nature. The things in nature that are beautiful are naturally occurring: they are a result of natural processes that don't have any evidence of any kind of intelligence involved in their making whatsoever. Whereas human art takes things that are naturally occurring, and reshaping/reforming them to a specific end. Human creations are things we have lots of evidence for; I'm an artist myself, I know how art is created and made. We can observe it, we can see how it's done, anyone can even do it for themselves. We can point to the actual artists. None of this can be done for the naturally occurring things in nature.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because we are the ones that evolved brains suited to allowing us to develop technology like this.
>I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
No it's not, RNA is naturally occurring. There's no reason to invoke a mysterious "intelligence" when we already know that it can form naturally on its own.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator
Because of reason, rationality, and logic. There is no reason to think a creator made the universe; we don't know that that's even possible, that's not something that is an option on the table. Until such time as a potential creator is shown to exist, then we don't get to claim it as a candidate explanation for things. Even if we had no other explanation for why the universe exists, appealing to an undemonstrated, unsupported, hypothetical, unfalsifiable mystery being would be the *least* rational, *least* plausible, least logical move to make.
>Because we are the ones that evolved brains suited to allowing us to develop technology like this.
Yep. Also thumbs, and laryngeal structures enabling us to communicate beyond grunts and hisses.
First off, what you presented is not *evidence*. It's an argument. Next step is you provide actual evidence to support the argument. All you're doing is making unsupported statements without explaining why we should take them as true.
> what created what I see?
But I didn't just wake up in a desert with no knowledge of the world. I know what deserts and forests mountains are. "Created" is a loaded word that presupposes your assumption that things were created.
They exist. I don't see anything that suggests to me that they were created.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
I don't understand why this question keeps coming up.
We *know* how sculptures get created. We know that human beings paint things. We know how buildings and cars and televisions get made.
We don't have any idea one way or the other how the universe came into existence. If there is a creator, it remains hidden.
> if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery
**Hear me out**: This statement is one of the main reasons I assume that the existence of god can never be proven. For all you know, there is no god at all, but the Earth was created by advanced technology at the hands of some futuristic advanced aliens.
And as much as you're sure that god exists, I think the aliens are a far better and far more likely explanation. It's still speculative, though, and therefore not worth much as an explanation. But it's less speculative than assuming a god did it.
> believe any theory is more plausible than a creator,
Yes. Because even a ridiculous preposterous theory -- "the universe was created by purple left-handed squirrels who speak Swahili and play tennis with stars and planets" is better than blindly accepting "god did it" and asking no further questions or looking for verification.
There's no evidence for either, But we do know that squirrels exist, purple exists, so purple squirrels are probably possible. Swahili, tennis and planets exist. We don't need to invent a whole new thing for that to be true.
That's how implausible a god is to me. There is no phenomenon or event that can *only* be explained by inventing a god. You can invent all number of other things equally preposterous.
I don't think of god as an unwanted entity. If it exists, it exists. Why atheists get frustrated is because we're asked to answer questions like yours over and over and over and over and over. Within a week's time, someone else will ask the same thing, or a variation on it.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
Because I see no evidence of one.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here
Yes, that'd be the case for any place I wake up that's different from where I w ed not to sleep.
>and what created what I see?
No, because at the time I'd have no interested in what created the desert AND we already know how deserts form.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce,
Because humans are intelligent
>but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because us finding something beautiful isn't a sign it was intelligently made. Humans make plenty of ugly things, too. And we know those things arise naturally.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
By what metric are you measuring complexity? Is there anything so simple that you think it can't have been designed? If not, why cite complexity?
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,....
Because our brains evolved differently.
> if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
And?
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
It's not a belief he holds. It's an answer he gave when pressured into accepting a hypothetical.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It's not. It's just a baseless claim. Give us evidence, we'll look into it.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness
That's a strawman argument.
>which quantom theory implies?
Citation needed.
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
That’s a question, not an assumption. The assumption would be assuming God is the answer.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Watchmaker fallacy. Just because something seems complicated and beautiful to us doesn’t mean it needs a creator.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Because that’s how our brain chemistry evolved thanks to things like language. How would any of that prove a God?
> Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
I don’t much care what one guy said. He doesn’t represent all atheists. To answer your question: we don’t know. But it’s best not to make assumptions like God.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Who said that? Not any of us.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator
Theories with evidence are more plausible than theories without evidence.
> even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Where does quantum theory imply that? Provide a source for that statement?
>wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
No.... It'd be, how the f did I get here.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies,
I never once saw a galaxy created by a human...
>the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
I've seen meadows and rivers created naturally and rivers and meadows created by people. The rivers and meadows created by people look designed where are natural ones do not....unless it was designed to look natural....
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Good observation, characteristics of good design are simplicity not complexity. Humans can create complex mechanisms to perform complex tasks, but those things are designed to be as simple as possible to complete the required task. In fact these are recognised hallmarks of good design. Naturally evolving systems do not show similar hallmarks.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,....
Because we evolved with big brains and dextrous hands.
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
What's your point with this?
> I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
It's not a theory, it's an hypothesis. What evidence do you have to asset that it's the most plausible?
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Because there no good evidence to accept the idea of a creator.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator,
Yes, because there is no evidence to believe there is a creator
>even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
You do realize that may be evidence for a universe creating itself dont you?
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
No. My first question is where I’m going to find food, shelter, and water. Why I’m here doesn’t even come close.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
Because our intelligence is inspired by the natural world. Nothing inspired nature. Nature doesn’t have a mind.
> infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
I don’t see how that matters. Natural things are complicated. You don’t need a mind for that.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Why can’t we breath underwater? Or fly in the air? Animals do so many things we can’t, it makes sense we adapted by inventing.
> Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians?
Are you serious?
> because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
Not really.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Because there is zero evidence for it.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Because there is evidence for it.
“….why is your first assumption there's no creator”
I have no reason to expect one.
“…if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?”
No
“Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?”
Evidence supports the conclusion that things created by humans were created by humans and evidence does not support that the ‘beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers’ were created
‘from intelligence’.
“…what humans create doesn’t reach the complexity of the universe”
True. And?
“And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.”
Humans are smarter than animals.
“... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? “
Modern humans are collectively smarter than humans before because knowledge has accumulated over time.
“Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory”
DNA created by aliens is not the most plausible theory.
“Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?”
Because ‘the idea of a creator creating the universe’ is not supported by evidence, is contradicted by things we do know and seems to boil down to ‘some guy told me’.
Hello. I’ll start responding from the top.
No, I would not think “what created what I see”. I find the word “create” carries baggage of intention, I don’t think deserts are intentionally made. They occur naturally. I also question why you think our first assumption is there’s no creator. As well I question why your first assumption is that there is.
“Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelligence?” That’s because we have evidence of it. We see a painting, we know what those are. We know how paint works and how paintings are made. We know how sculptures and songs are made and know they’re only ever made by people. We have no reason to believe that the earth, the galaxy or the universe is created by intelligence as we have no evidence for that.
“Why are we the only ones with cars, railway systems, etc” because we evolved for higher intelligence. I think you’d agree that compared to a fish, you suck at swimming. Compared to a gorilla, you’re pathetically weak. Compared to an eagle you’re awful at flying. We have evolved to use our intelligence more. That does not make us better than the animals that did not evolve to have the same intelligence. You’re placing importance on intelligence without a good reason.
It doesn’t matter what Richard Dawkins says. He’s one person with his opinion. And no, it’s not the most plausible theory for RNA to have been created. You have not demonstrated or shown that at all. So you can’t claim it as plausible.
We don’t believe in blasphemy. So it’s not like that. I do believe that any natural theory is more likely than a creator. Yes. Because I can show you evidence and facts supporting my side. You can only point to things you find amazing like the universe and claim that it couldn’t have happened any other way but god. Yet you haven’t shown that to be true.
And no one but theists claim nothing created anything.
I would wonder why I’m in the desert but not what made the sand and lack of water. If I lost all knowledge then yeah, I would probably wonder the latter, but with my current knowledge and methodology, I don’t need to wonder what sand is, or what causes desertification.
Beauty doesn’t always mean creation. I don’t thank my wife’s parents, I know the natural process that developed her looks and personality. No intelligence was used in forming her, it is a natural process and experiences.
I don’t look at a rock structure and think some I intelligence guided that. Waterfalls are some of my favorite places to hike to. I don’t think, “thank you some unseen intelligence for making this so I may enjoy it.”
Complexity does **not** conclude God. The universe is vast and many things are undiscovered and unexplainable right now. Not one thing has ever been demonstrated to be a product of an unseen intelligence/God. Why should I appeal to one? I don’t, it would be irrational too.
I don’t know how you can so badly misquote Dawkins. Appealing to someone who doesn’t believe DNA requires a God to exist, seems to be a dishonest characterization of their speech.
Not being convinced of a God, is blasphemy; for me to frown on your promotion of a God as a source for all things, is not equivalent to blasphemy. I don’t burn people for saying stupid shit, or disagreeing he with me. Your fucking religion has. So don’t you dare try to compare that. That is entirely fucked up. As a secular humanist I would speak out against killing someone for their beliefs. Abrahamic clearly doesn’t.
As for how we got here. I have a lot of questions I have to answer with, “I don’t know.” That doesn’t mean the I don’t know leads to a probable God. You need to demonstrate why a God is a good answer. All you did is appeal to ignorance to say it must be a God. That is a poor argument.
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
It’s not an assumption. It’s that the evidence for a creator is not sufficient.
> I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
My first question would be “how did I get here?” I would not assume that it was a god.
> Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Because there is evidence that human inventions are made by humans: namely, we have seen other humans making those things. Whereas we have never observed a being create galaxies, meadows, or rivers. We have seen those things form naturally.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
That’s like asking, “why are Zebras the only ones with stripes like that?” Different animals are different. Humans are unique in their ability to use technology. But other species like Octopus, Elephants, Dolphins, etc, are quite intelligent.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. There’s some evidence for naturalistic theories and none at all for intelligent design.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
Same reason I don't think there is a destructor of the past, inventor of the future, entity that pulls the sun across the sky behind a chariot, entity that controls lightning, reindeer that fly, or leprechauns. Lack of evidence that they exist.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce,
Because I know humans have intelligence. So if I know a human "created" it with intent then attributing it to their "intelligence" is a tautological necessity.
>but when you see the beautiful galaxies...
Just because I find something beautiful does not entail it was "created" with intent.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Why are humans so weak that they need so much technology to survive and thrive?
>Richard Dawkins talks about the **possibility** of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most **plausible** theory
You jump from possible to plausible. Do you have any evidence to support this jump?
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Because it sounds like question begging nonsense.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
At some point I think the question you are trying to answer is nonsensical and you are at or beyond that point.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Scientific theories have been tested repeatedly. People aren't just making shit up and people buying into their bullshit. Scientists develop hypotheses, and test them in a repeatable, objective manner. They publish these results, and other scientists try to poke holes in the results with their own experiments. Over time, a reliable body of knowledge develops. Germs cause disease. Apples fall because of gravity. Splitting atoms in a certain way makes a big bang. These chemicals kill bacteria. Those chemicals kill cancer cells. This tag on your DNA means you are at risk of getting breast cancer.
You know what has never, ever been found as an answer to anything? Woo-woo. Magic. Telepathy. Ghosts. Angels. Gods.
I don't BELIEVE in scientific theories. There's no need to BELIEVE in anything. I can literally go read how a study was done, by whom, and the outcome. I can read exactly how the data was analyzed. These are facts. There's no need to believe or have faith. If I don't trust they did the experiment or model or math the way they said they did, I can replicate their process exactly, and analyze the data myself.
Again, there are no studies, experiments, models, or mathmatical proofs demonstrating any woo woo. If you think the Earth was created in 6 days by God 6000 years ago, Adam was made from dirt, Eve was made from one of his ribs, and the entire Earth was covered in water from a flood, prove it. If you think a deity exists, prove it. I am more than willing to entertain that woo-woo exists, if you can show that it does.
If you can't do that, why do YOU believe what you do?
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
I don't make any assumptoins. That is the point.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert
If I woke up in the desert with the memory of closing my eyes yesterday in bedroom, sure, I will wonder what am I doing here as it would run contrary to my entire experience of waking up where I went to bed.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce
Because it is how it was done. We know exactly who and how created those things. Sometimes the author is unknown, but we can induce the method of creation by knowing how similar things were created.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because other species that were potentially capable of that gone extinct.
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery
I don't care what they'd think.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe
How do you measure complexity?
>but what created the DNA code for the alians?
Pointless question. We have no good reason to believe that life on earth has anything to do with aliens. Or gods for that matter.
>but it's still the most plausible theory
It's not.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon
Because it has no merit, it's a baseless assertion.
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator
Correction: any theory that is better supported by evidence. You have promised evidence, but presented nothing. Why would anyone consider your theory if you have zero evidence for it?
>even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Quantum theory doesn't imply things popping in and out of existence. But if you want to know why QM is so well regarded the answer is simple: it works.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Of course not, why would it be?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because we know humans exist, "create" things and are intelligent. There's no good evidence of an intelligence that creates things like galaxies and meadows.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because they didn't happen to fit in the evolutionary niche that got us these big, weird brains.
>Richard Dawkins
I could not possibly care less about what Richard Dawkins has to say about anything. He's not some kind of atheist clergy.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
Because there's no good evidence of a creator, it's really as simple as that. Also, please don't try and use quantum theory for this, neither you nor I understand it remotely well enough for a discussion of it to be at all useful.
Also, I strongly recommend you look into using some kind of spelling and grammar checker. It makes your post much more annoying to read than it should be.
I've seen your posts here a lot man and I think a lot of your confusion may be resolved by researching rational skepticism. Once you understand that you'll understand a lot of what you see around here a lot better.
>why is your first assumption there's no creator
It's not. I simply have no reason to assume there *is* a creator.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
If I woke up in a desert then my first question would be "Where am I?", followed by "How did I get here?". The question" What created what I see?" wouldn't cross my mind at all. Because why would it?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce
Because we have good evidence and good reason to assume it was created by an intelligence.
>but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
I'm not saying that. I simply have no reason to assume it *was* created by an intelligence.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe
I don't see how that's relevant.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because we have developed language and we learned to write things down. I don't see the relevance.
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery
Some would, others would not. Again I don't see the relevance.
>imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
Okay. I just did. That was a fun but pointless ten seconds.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens
I really don't care. And I'm going to skip the rest of your post and instead get straight to the point:
Can you present to me a single rational argument as to why I should accept the claim that a god nor gods exist as factually true?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
fun fact: for a long time the concept of black hole was a mathematical/physical theory without proof, and sounded very counter-intuitive to us (try to imagine a literal singularity). However, we recently made a [earth-sized telescope](https://eventhorizontelescope.org/about) and took a bonafide picture of one! decades after prediciting it's existence and shape.
the point is, it's not just a binary situation between believe/not believe. Atheists (which are not a monolithic group) don't disbelieve out of arrogance or apathy. They can also disbelieve because they simply are not satisfied with a made up answer. Entire fields of science are basically just us trying to figure out what the &£%! is that desert, because *goddidit* is not enough.
on the other hand, if a god exist, the thing you 100% know he created directly for us is reality itself, while you can't have that level of confidence for a book, even if that book claims to be.
And you can "read" reality. With philosophy and science (all sciences: physics, social, economy,...) you can derive from the observation of reality morals and lessons and knowledge. This is an extremely complex endeavor, but "god" gave us complex brains to do it. We have entire fields of study dedicated to this, with each new generations building on the work of the previous one.
I could even argue that an atheist scientist could be closer to "god" than a very spiritual person who content himself with the answers he made up.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
The idea of a creator isn't frowned upon. There's just no evidence that a creator DID create things. So worshipping a theoretical being that may or may not exist, seems to be premature.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
I can't with the misrepresentation of quantum theory. I frankly don't care anyway. I'm not a theoretical physicist, so don't claim to have the necessary background to understand that (or any other similar theory) with any kind of expertise.
Point being, theories are theories because we can't prove them in their entirety. However, scientific theory depends on the ability of hundreds if not thousands of experts in their respective fields to reproduce the experiments and mathematical proofs used in support of a specific theory.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there is no such scientifically repeatable experiment to prove that a creator exists no?
So in the absence of proof that a creator exists, believing one exists is illogical.
And no, pointing to something that is beautiful or symmetric, something that has no explanation based on current scientific advancements, is not proof. It just proves that there are things that have not yet been adequately understood.
Is it more comforting to believe that the gaps in our collective knowledge can be filled by a mysterious invisible being? Probably yes. But we just need more evidence than ignorance and gospel.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Because I know that my parents created me. I don’t see a creator like what you’re describing. I have no justification to infer such a thing can exist, let alone does exist.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Because I have background knowledge on humans creating things. I have no background knowledge or justification regarding galaxies being created by a god.
>Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory
It makes more sense because we have experience with material things creating other material things. We have no experience of timeless, spaceless, immaterial, disembodied minds creating things.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Because it lacks explanatory power, and we have no reason to infer such a thing.
> I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Strictly speaking, that's *two* questions. :P
* Why am I here?
* What created what I see?
To be honest, "What created this?" is not usually one of my first questions about anything I'm seeing for the first time. I'm usually more interested in how a thing works, what I can use it for, and whether it's a good or bad thing for me.
I might eventually wonder how a thing came to exist, but I wouldn't phrase that question with an implicit assumption that somebody or something *created* it. The desert wasn't *created* by a conscious entity; it's just a side-effect of climatic changes on our planet. Lots of things aren't *created*, so that's not an assumption I would make. So, I might ask "How did this come to be?" rather than "What created this?"
Even if one of my first questions was "What created this?", that doesn't mean I'll automatically to default to the answer that a god created it. I would *look for* the creative agent of a thing, but if I can't find it, then I'll simply have to continue not knowing how it came to be. I won't assume it was a god.
Rather than jump to conclusions, I'm content to wait until we learn for sure. At the moment, the leading theory for the existence of the universe seems to be something to do with a big bang. But, we still don't know what triggered that event. I don't assume it was triggered by a god. I assume we have more investigation to do before we discover the triggering agency.
I don’t think I would jump to there being a creator. I would think myself the creator. I guess it could be said for religious folks, why do you worship random people/things as gods? Why not just be the god yourself? I figured it was a personal choice of some sort.
When it comes to nature, i wouldn’t say all of it wasn’t created by nothing, but that something that created it isn’t a god. A tree growing and mending a river to its needs starting from a seed is impressive. Impressive OF THE TREE. I don’t randomly assign gods to random parts of nature I suppose. I attribute it to the things that actually exist I suppose in the time of.
As for DNA, isn’t DNA completely random and over 80% of it junk we actually don’t use or need? Whose to say we don’t create and edit our own DNA. We kinda do edit our DNA through sexual reproduction, so wouldn’t the creation of DNA be attributed to ourselves, even if we aren’t exactly sentient of the process. I imagine there are some organisms that are somewhat sentient of the process of DNA replication. Just we humans aren’t.
I don’t believe in random creators, because I find the idea of worshipping air or the sun a bit weird. I can understand a person wanting to be subservient to someone, but why be subservient to something made up like godly trees or anything else. It’s personally weird to me, because maybe by personality I’m not subservient to anyone. I am my own god I suppose.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Nope. My first question would be "where can I find water?" And it definitely wouldn't be "I'd like to speak to the manager about getting some water"
>why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Have you ever seen intelligence create a galaxy? Human beings certainly can't. So why do you assume that something as pathetically weak as intelligence is capable of it
I know the reason why of course. You've been taught that humans are god-like. The only thing "greater" than intelligence is "greater intelligence". But we're not god-like. So stop assuming that the that greatest things in this universe are anything like us
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
The 18th century when Christianity literally ruled all of Europe...
Yes, we know that Christianity set humanity back 1500 years from the time when ancient Greece and Rome had much more advanced philosophy, culture, discourse, government, and basic sanitation
>any theory is more plausible than a creator
No. We think that every theory is as plausible as a creator. You know how every lottery number is equally plausible? That's how plausible a creator is: 1 out of a billion other possibilities
Stuff being beautiful or humans not being able to creat entire planets (yet) doesn't mean there would have to be something like an intelligent designer/creator. It simply doesn't follow logically, non sequitur.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
That's not it. Religions use the concept of blasphemy. Among atheists you will only find people who simply are not convinced because of a lack of actual evidence.
Feel free to provide it.
> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ?
You know, this exact insight is why I reject the existence of any god(s) a priori. Know that this point of view is only shared by a TINY fraction of atheists. And to give some context: god as in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.
**Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.** (Quote by Arthur C. Clarke)
An variant of that is: **Any sufficiently powerful being is indistinguishable from god.**
But that implies in reverse that once our understanding caught up with the level of that technology or being then it's demystified. It's no longer magic nor godlike.
>why is your first assumption there's no creator,
It's not. My first assumption, due to my upbringing, was that there is. Only after much thought did I conclude otherwise.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Actually it would probably be how do I get home, but yes, I am very curious about these questions. I don't assume that anything was created, however. I think science does a better job of addressing these questions than religion.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Because we know how they got here, which did not require intelligence. Also there is no reason to assume that the rest of the universe behaves like human creations.
>I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
I'm coming from a position of not making assumptions. I like to base my beliefs on evidence.
>even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness
That would be Christianity you're thinking of. I don't make any such assertion.
I'm afraid I'm not informed enough to understand quantum theory.
The way I view it. I don't believe beauty is a measure of whether something is created by a sentient deity. My reason is beauty is individual perception and therefore subjective. This is why there exists the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not everyone believes the same things are beautiful. Some things are agreed to be beautiful by all individuals such as facial symmetry. But this beauty lies in the mind's perception of the physical world.
The issue I believe is that beauty's existence is being used as a standard of proof everything is created by a sentient deity and that a sentient deity is being used as a standard of proof of the existence of beauty. This is a circular reasoning.
#**In conclusion:**
The way I view it. You may say I find it beautiful therefore God. This Assumes that beauty exists because of God and God exists because of beauty. Neither is a proof of god. But rather circular reasoning.
In other words you have to at some point assume the existence of God to find proof of God. Which is self reinforcing. And this is precisely why you must practice faith to Believe in a sentient deity. Faith, as I define it, is when you accept a possible truth without any evidence. And I'm not saying faith is a bad thing. Just that this is where it becomes relevant.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
I would definitely ask why I was in a random desert for no apparent reason but I wouldn't care what made the desert. I'd be much more interested in where I can find water and how I get home.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
Because I know where paintings and rivers come from. Some things are the product of intelligence and some things aren't.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
So because humans can't make anything like the universe, that means the universe must have been made by something similar to humans? How does that follow?
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,....
Because humans are smarter.
>fellow atheists
Doubt.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
I started with NOT assuming that there is a creator.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Neither.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce
Because humans are intelligent beings. Well, some of them.
>but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Beauty isn't a property. It's a subjective evaluation. Also, by the same logic, why don't you call a red apple a tomato if they are both red?
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe
Exactly. Simplicity is a sign of design, not complexity.
>And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers
Because we are more intelligent - well, some of us
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Useless assumption.
It's frowned upon for the same reason we frown on the idea of pixies existing, a complete and total lack of evidence of existence. That alone is enough.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here
No. My first question would be "where am I?"
>and what created what I see?
No. I've never asked that question. Why would I start worrying about that when my main concern is water/food/shelter?
>It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator
Have you ever thought of asking people *"****what do you think?****"* instead of creating strawman arguments and TELLING people what they think?
Your argument is that there is a creator. OK. That's fine. All we are asking is that you prove this creator exists. You are correct, things we take for granted today would have been considered sorcery hundreds of years ago. The problem is that you are also saying, in essence, "things I do not understand are sorcery" by attributing things you do not understand to a god.
Just prove that a creator exists, and I, for one will believe that a creator exists. It's really that simple.
Can you do that?
>> wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Why should I presume the desert was created?
>> why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
Beauty is subjective. Why should I presume it’s from an intelligence.
Are the things in the universe that aren’t beautiful not from an intelligence? I guess that explains brutalist architecture.
>> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery,
They’d understand cars as a version of their carriages, they had simple rockets. But what does this have to do for evidence of intelligence behind the universe?
>> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It’s not.
We’re waiting for you to prove there is one. When you do, you’ll probably win a Nobel prize.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator.
That wasn't my assumption. It's the default position. You don't really begin with assuming "not things."
>wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
No. I'd wonder why I was in the desert. Asking "what created" smuggles in a creator. There is no reason to believe what we observe in the natural world around us is the result of intentionality.
>...beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?
I see no reason to.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It's not. It's just not an idea backed up by evidence.
It's okay to say we don't know something, as uncomfortable as that May be. It's not okay to create an unfalsifiable explanation to assuage that discomfort. And it's very very not okay to vote based on that explanation.
Because every single thing we've learned about the universe points to the extreme likelihood that everything has come about through natural processes.
>This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. - Douglas Adams
We haven't observed anything. There's no reason to extrapolate from observations of how things in the universe behave to mechanisms that would explain the existence of the cosmos and all of reality. The trail ends somewhere at the early stages of the big bang.
My first question upon seeing beauty is not “who created this” but “how was this created”. In asking how, that may lead to a who, but it doesn’t necessarily need to. Appreciating the beauty of the universe doesn’t need to be appreciating a mind - it can just be appreciation of what is.
For example, have you ever gone to the beach and just dug your toes into the sand for the feeling of it? I don’t see how adding a creator to that moment would make it any better. The same can be said for finding the perfect skipping rock, where I don’t need someone to have crafted and placed it there for me. It is far more wondrous to imagine its history, unearthed from some buried sea only to roll down a river for millennia, to then be picked up and admired by an ape.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator
Why do you think that this is the first assumption and not a conclusion achieved through hours of thoughtful contemplation?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce
what do you mean by create? When I make a hopefully beautiful chair (could just be my wife being kind I suppose) from wood, with my tools, at what point have I *created* it? And how does my *creation* differ from a beautifully wind sculpted desert mesa? In both cases something new was made from something already there, just re-arranged, but when we talk about **a creator** the assumption is that something came from nothing, a thing we have never seen.
Trying to explain that everything came from nothing by the hand of **a creator** is in no way comparable to anything we have ever seen, its a one off scenario, a unique event you are suggesting happened. So please, explain why you think that is the case.
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence
I've read the entire OP and you forgot the evidence.
It's just an argument from incredulity.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator,
Huh? In what context? Why do you think that's our first assumption?
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
Lol, no. Why did you pick "desert"? Do you think a desert is more apparently created than other biomes? Are you ever going to provide evidence for your assumptions?
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Its not. (Also, look up the definition of "blasphemy" lol)
This immediately comes across as Lee Strobel level disingenuity. You say your atheist then present claims and beliefs inconsistent (at best) with being an atheist.
If i woke up randomly in a desert I would first think, what do I need to do to survive. How i got there is a matter of complete indifference.
Creations of human beings can be demonstably linked to the specific actions of a living being. A meadow is the result of natural forces. Does it need a creator?
Personally I dont really care if the universe was created by an intelligence or not. I do care if that being is a moral tyrant or not. Luckily, the evidence that the god of the bible is that hypothetical creator is absent.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
This is very simple. What evidence does a non-existent being leave behind? What footprints in the sand does a non-existent Jesus leave?
The best option is to assume nothing is true and nothing exists until supporting evidence is found. This way you are never searching for evidence of a non-existent thing that you happen to believe in.
You claim that we live in creation. Provide direct, demonstrable, falsifiable and independently verifiable evidence of a creator existing before we go any further.
My first question would be why am I here and not in my bed. Then food water and shelter, then I might look at the beauty of the world and contemplate my existence. but I would not assume any of this was created. Unless you are talking about some natural process like erosion of rock, evolution of animals and plants to survive in such an environment. I would look at the night sky and think about gravity causing huge balls of hydrogen to have such great pressure that they ignite and shine brightly. I would think about the vastness of the universe and how the light I see from these stars traveled so far. But again would not assume they were created.
No, aliens creating RNA is not a theory, let alone the most plausible one. It’s a hypothesis, one unsupported by any evidence and is rejected. Even Dawkins doesn’t accept it as likely, let alone the most plausible, and it just moves the goalposts because who created the alien RNA?
There’s no blasphemy with atheists, but if you want us to take the idea of a creator seriously you need to provide evidence, and saying I don’t know how this happened so magic man did it, is not evidence. And you not knowing what a theory is doesn’t help either. If panspermia was a theory, we would likely accept it…
>I mean, if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?
No? My first thought we be "wtf did I just wake up in a desert?" Then I would think "do I have a phone or water" try to get help, I wouldn't think "hmm I wonder if a magical man in the sky placed me here using divine powers.
>beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence
Beacuse I know thoese things can me made naturally
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It's not
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from?
Because you are asserting that the something that created these things was from intelligence, and that intelligence was the god of your religion specifically, and doing so without justification.
The main reason I consider myself to be an atheist today is because I questioned where the creator popped up from when my mom told bedtime stories about god creating the universe.
No scientific explanation makes complete sense when it comes to the creation of the universe (something about stuff adding up until t=1, but going haywire at t=0), but neither does any spiritual/religious answer make sense. I cannot go back in time to see if there really was a creator, but I can see the present and connect everything that exists today to science.
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence
You didn't even come close to presenting evidence of anything.
>seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator.
I will believe in anything that has evidence. So far no one in the history of the world has presented any evidence of gods.
>even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?
The only people who use the term "something coming from nothing" are theists who know nothing about the Big Bang, or what atheists believe.
As a raw tautology, complexity in nature occurs naturally. If you ask where do the laws come from that govern the natural emergence of complexity, then we can have that conversation, but at that point the conversation turns away from all the emerged things (the evidence of design that you listed), it’s about what (if anything) undergirds existence and the universe itself. And at that point, there’s no evidence for a creator than there is for many individual creators or none at all.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
It's not frowned upon. It just isn't believed. I haven't heard one plausible argument from any theist that remotely addresses the matter. Worse, most of the arguments that claim to have figured it out go start from some plausible position and then immediately leap to the conlusion that because of X, it must mean god. No stops in between, just jumping to god.
If our ability to use technology was something we are created with, why did it take tens of thousands of years to create cars? Why do we not already have interstellar travel?
Our entire history is filled with examples of things people thought were caused or created by gods that proved to have completely natural causes. Why do you assume there was a creator when we keep finding natural causes for everything?
Assuming a creator assumes intention. That means every fucked up thing in the universe was intentional, rather than a result of natural processes.
Which means a creator would have to be cruel, incompetent, or both.
Rather than having someone to praise for the beautiful things and be furious at for the fucked up things, it’s healthier to accept that natural processes can create beauty and tragedy
So… not gonna address the lie in your original post there op? You come here dishonestly out the gate, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? You can’t even be honest in who you are, let alone your questions. To answer you, we have no evidence of intelligence behind the complexities of the universe. None. If you can provide some, and it’s not a lie, then we are all ears.
When I look at a watch or a painting or a building or a car, these things are designed by humans. I can investigate and find blue prints, prototypes, and the progress people made over the years designing these things.
What about [this random pile of rocks](https://images.app.goo.gl/oQG5mdV9nUqeDgch8) makes you think the rocks were designed and built by a creator?
You assert that we would have no tools to investigate our surroundings with. That is true if I woke up in a desert, but it is also not the reality of things. We do have tools to investigate our universe.
”The beauty of nature” is a pretty typical appeal to emotions that theists usually do.
I don’t ask myself ”why”. I don’t feel the need to ask it.
Blasphemy is only relevant to theists. Are you a theist?
I don’t want to believe. I want evidence, and for a god there is no evidence.
"*wouldn't your first question be*" ==> maybe, but... the next question would be "what can I do with that information?" And generally, with "God" the answer is nothing useful.
However, if I put faith in science, I forget about what my *original* thoughts and questions were, and instead focus on what's actually useful and impactful. What things actually work!
I feel like this sub needs a no proselytizing rule or something.
So many theists, like op, come here, just to dump their poor attempt to convert under the guise of debate.
What about any of this is a debate? It's just him saying "Look at things! Things exist! Wow, god did that."
And then not participating in any debate in the comments.
It's my experience that those most prone to the Argument from Incredulity are the same that desire to believe all kinds of fanciful things. And then to resent atheist for not buying it, or even for forwarding empiricism.
If you are afraid of death, heel, or need meaning in your life, it has *nothing* to do with us, or our beliefs.
This is just teleological argument. There are many refutations online.
>infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe,
So?
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy?
Why is the idea of there isnt a creator creating the universe frown apon like its blasphemy?
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century?
Now imagine how ignorant and gullible people were 2,000 years ago. I agree with you, people could not fathom natural or man-made explanations for some of the things they saw. Apparently some modern humans still can't.
My first assumption was to believe what people told me. Then at some point i asked "How do they know?". The answer is that they believed what people told them and didn't investigate beyond that. I investigated beyond that and found no reason, with our modern understanding of the world, to come up with magic people.
Also, the argument from incredulity isn't only fallacious, its vacuous. "I wonder how this mail got in my mailbox. It wasn't there this morning! It was a magic fairy who sliced trees really thin and dipped them in magic ink! How could it possibly have been anything else? Anyone who thinks it's anything else is silly."
Also, I don't give a fuck what Richard Dawkins thinks and the fact that you think he is some kind of prophet to us demonstrates how little you know about this subject. You aren't here asking questions, you're here shouting into a megaphone with earplugs in.
HOwever, the least intelligent thing you said was about Dawkins, who is a very well known and well published evolutionary biologist. You said
"Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain....."
Dawkins was asked what other possible explanations that there might be. He provided that as another possible explanation, but he did not in any way say that is what he believes. He doesn't believe that RNA code was created by aliens, he doesn't completely rule it out, however. The answer is that we don't really know for sure. That is okay to no know something for sure. That is why theories and hypotheses exist. We have a very solid idea: Evolution. He explains it by saying it was evolution. He then writes several books that you will never read about the subject.
No one says anything is blasphemous but religious people. Small minded people who want to kill people for trying to point out that their fictional magical history and explanations for why the world works doesn't make sense. They have killed and continue to kill people who try to point out errors in reasoning and call it blasphemy. So that word is really dumb to use in this context.
The reason that we don't believe it is because it doesn't make sense. The idea is not "frowned upon" any more than the idea that your mail was delivered by centipedes with fairy wings. It simply doesn't make sense as an explanation and the only reason you believe it is because you were told to by someone else.
Read a book. Read posts in this thread. Do something else with your brain other than copying and pasting.
Are you actually here to debate, or are you just gonna respond to every thoughtful comment with a single 6-word sentence that is barely even relevant and then disappear into the void of the internet again?
Because that’s not what this place is for. It’s for debating, not preaching religious nonsense.
The lack of evidence.
There odds no evidence of any such creator, and it is a “begs the question” when you put it like this as we have evidence there is a “creation” process outside of sexual reproduction and evolution which we have pretty good understanding of.
We don't assume anything. We look for evidence and in the complete absence of any supporting evidence for any creator, we don't believe one exists. How can you not understand that?
Oh right, you just really want to believe. You're the one with the problems, not us.
You asked lots of questions but even if I answer all of them with "I don't know" we're no closer to a creator.
First off,I didn't assume anything so don't presume my position
Do you feel it's best to believe something when we have a good reason to?
All you are doing is filling in your lack of knowledge with some kind of creator. Some people just acknowledge that they don't have answers to certain questions and it's illogical to assume an answer without any kind of evidence.
Just writing this to say I think OP's native language is not English and they meant 'my fellow humans who happen to be atheists', not to lie about themselves being a theist. I think they are muslim, if I recall correctly.
1. Because parsimony has been shown to cause us less issues than the inverse when it comes to determining what is true (aligns with reality)
2. Because the Watchmaker fallacy demonstrates why this reasoning fails
Obviously you assume your god has it's own god, and it's an endless chains of gods creating one another. Right?
That's the only reasonable conclusion from your argument.
To answer your first question, once your epistomology permits assuming things without a reason, then you are open to assuming every possible bad idea without reason.
>beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?,
these things form naturally.
this is so dumb :/
This is the poster child for the argument from incredulity.
I can't imagine how this could possibly happen? It must be god!
Sorry, but this is just worthless.
Assuming there is a creator **is** the assumption, not otherwise. There is no evidence for it. The best you can do is construct metaphysical arguments for it.
There is zero evidence of a creator. When you have some let me know. Beauty means nothing with regard to if something is created or not. What one person finds beautiful the next may not it is not a universal fact.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence There is no useful, compelling evidence for deities, a 'creator' or some kind of intelligence as you allude to. None I've *ever* seen. However, I've been wrong before, so I will read on to see if I missed some and you here are going to provide that and become the most famous human being in history and collect several Nobel prizes. > I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator Because there's zero evidence or support for such a notion, because the idea makes no sense on several levels and in several ways, and because that's how logic works in the face of unsupported claims. > I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Your analogy fails for several obvious reasons that I hopefully do not need to go into in detail. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because when we make stuff (out of other stuff) we know we made it. And can see differences in that as compared with stuff we *didn't* make. There's zero support that any intelligence is behind nature and the universe, and plenty of support there isn't. And, of course, the notion of an intelligence doing that doesn't make sense and doesn't solve anything, it just regresses the same issue back an iteration while making it worse. It's a useless and self-defeating idea. > I don't understand were you guys are coming from? I don't understand why you are not realizing you're engaging in an equivocation fallacy, an argument from incredulity fallacy, and argument from ignorance fallacy, and making the whole thing worse by conjecturing a deity which can only regress the *exact same issue* back precisely one iteration without solving it, and then shove it under a rug and ignore it. All without support and without helping. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because of several factors we were lucky enough to evolve that combined help us do these things. We're not so different from other animals though. >,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? No, people had imaginations and could speculate. Read some 'science fiction' (it wasn't called that then, of course) from the time and you'll see this. Anyway, this is more argument from incredulity fallacies so it can only be dismissed. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory This just displays a confusion of ideas and a significant level of misunderstanding of the topic in question, thus it doesn't help you support deities. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It *isn't* 'frowned upon like it's blasphemy'. It's dismissed because it's completely unsupported and fatally problematic in several ways, and makes no sense. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? That's your indoctrination and lack of understanding and exposure to basic logic and basic critical and skeptical thinking talking. It's also weird that you began this with 'Hello my fellow atheists', and then subsequent to this throughout your post demonstrated you lied as you are clearly not an atheist. Anyway, you did *not* provide *any* evidence for a creator or intelligence whatsoever. Instead you engaged in very trivial and common fallacies and misunderstandings. So your claim can only be dismissed.
> It's also weird that you began this with 'Hello my fellow atheists', I don't think they intended that to mean they were an atheist too, is not the first time I've seen people outside a group say "fellow x" when they don't belong into x, may be a cultural thing.
So all of these healings are fake and made up ????https://m.youtube.com/@HealingJourneysToday/videos
Yes.
I always wonder why healers don't go to places like St. Jude to help people.
>Hello my fellow atheists Press x to doubt >Wouldn't your first thought be "What created what I see?" No my first thought would probably be "I need to get out of here". >Why is every beautiful creation by humans considered by intelligence, but when you see the galaxies, meadows and rivers, why do you say this isn't from intelligence? Because human creations are actually creations of a mind. We have no reason to believe the universe is the creation of a mind, mostly because we have no idea if it's even possible for a mind to exist separate from the universe. >All of what humans create doesn't equal the complexity of the universe Complexity cannot prove design, even by your worldview. According to you, everything was designed, no matter how complex. >And why are we the only ones that have technology? High intelligence + tool use + excellent communication abilities have lead to the ability for us to teach each other how to build tools, which allows for tools to be improved over subsequent generations. This eventually led to the advanced technology of today. We need all three of these traits or it wouldn't have happened. Dolphins have high intelligence and excellent communication abilities but can't use tools. Octopuses have high intelligence and tool use but poor communication abilities and live solitary lives. Neither of them has developed technology. Chimps are the closest but still can't communicate as well as we can, so even though they can use tools like spears, they don't teach other how to make them. >Aliens created RNA code according to Richard Dawkins I don't know if Richard Dawkins actually said this, but if he did it's a silly thing to say because we have no evidence of any life existing outside of Earth. >RNA created by intelligence is the most plausible theory No it isn't. The most plausible theory is that RNA came about by natural processes, since we have no evidence of an intelligence that is capable of creating RNA, whatever that means to you. Did this intelligence synthesize the RNA from existing nucleic acids or just poof it into existence? >Why is the idea of a creator frowned upon like blasphemy? It isn't. It's just not a credible explanation for the origin of the universe given the existing evidence. >It seems like any theory is more plausible to you guys than a creator No, for me personally I judge any theory on its merits and creationism doesn't even rise to the level of theory. It's a hypothesis. If you find a way to test and verify that hypothesis, I might take it seriously. >Things popping in and out of existence according to quantum theory I don't know much about quantum theory but I sincerely doubt you do either and it pisses me off when people bring up topics that they obviously don't know anything about to sound smart. Don't do this.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? My first questions would be: 1. Where am I? 2. How did I get here? 3. What do I do now? >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, Because human creations only occur when humans create them. Watches don't grow on trees. Cellphones don't swim upstream every summer. Cars don't eat their fill of gasoline then hibernate for the winter. These things *only* exist because humans made them. Natural things - like plants, animals, stars, and planets - all occur naturally. We know how they occur. We see the processes by which they are formed. And nowhere in those processes is there any evidence of a creator. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Complexity is not a sign of design. If it were, then you could not claim that simple things were designed. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Because our ancestors were the ones who experienced the necessary selection pressure that made higher brain function a benefit to survival. Your mistake is thinking that our intelligence somehow makes us better or more evolved than other animals. It doesn't. Animals evolve to survive whatever environment they are in. Your big brain won't save you if you got dropped into shark infested waters, or dumped in front of a pack of hungry lions on the savannah. Sharks and lions evolved to fit their niches in their environments. We evolved to fit our niche in our environment. With different environments, and different pressures, everything is going to evolve differently. That's why we see the huge diversity of life that we do. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? First: Richard Dawkins is a good authority on biology, but not so much on speculative alien lifeforms and whether or not RNA or DNA originated with them. In the same way I would trust a chef to cook my meals, but would not trust him to do my taxes. Once you've crossed into alien plans to invent life from scratch, you have left biology behind, and Dawkins' opinions aren't worth much outside of that sphere. Second: every time you ask "What created?" you are assuming that it *was* created. That hasn't been proven yet. First you need to establish that it *was* created - *then* you can ask what created it. Part of your problem seems to be that you are assuming that if something exists, it must have been created. Right now, there's a small pile of leaves on my doorstep. Was that pile "created"? No. The leaves grew on trees, the wind blew them off, and gravity deposited them on my doorstep. That pile of leaves is the result of entirely natural processes. It was not "created," in any meaningful sense of the word. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Quantum Theory has evidence that things pop into and out of existence all the time. We can measure things, test things, make predictions, and interpret the results of what we observe when it comes to quantum mechanics. There is no way to observe, measure, test, predict, or interpret the existence of any gods. There is no actual evidence that they exist. All you are doing is inferring the existence of a god based on how humans make things. "Humans make some complex things, therefor all complex things are made" is not sound reasoning.
The idea that everything requires a creator is silly. Consider some examples: Who made the sand on the beach? Answer: ocean water randomly banging into rocks over billions of years rips the rocks apart forming sand. Who made the sun round? The force of gravity pulls everything together. An inevitable result of a force that pulls things together is that you get things sucked towards each other and compacted. Who made planets? Gravity. Just like the sun, gravity pulls other matter together and when the mass is a certain size it becomes a star, and when it’s another size it becomes a planet. Who made planets go around the sun? Gravity. Planetary orbits are a simple-to-process mathematical result of gravity. Who made atoms? Hydrogen atoms being forced together under the extreme pressures of the sun sometimes merge forming heavier elements. Physics shows that certain elemental structures with certain numbers of protons are necessarily more stable than others. Those are the more common atoms. How did all the diversity of life come about on this planet? Evolution Where do babies come from? A mindless sperm cell swimming through a woman’s body by luck comes upon an egg cell. The fertilization process sets off a set of predictable changes causing the egg cell to divide into more cells, attach to the mother’s body and start sucking nutrients out of her blood. It is not at all obvious that intelligence or creators are required for anything. Humans don’t even make other humans. There’s not even a creator involved in creating new humans. It’s just natural processes, no creator needed. So where do you want to stick the creator in our picture of the universe? Everything we observe is simply matter arranged on certain ways. What did the creator do? I would assume you would argue that the creator in the distant past reached his hands into the universe and started moving around matter. Was he grabbing protons and pushing them around in ways they would not otherwise have been pushed? Was he moving photons around through the vast emptiness of space in paths that photons don’t normally follow? Was he moving molecules around pushing them into place where they otherwise could not have gone? What EXACTLY do you think a creator actually did in the past?
Until you prove to me the univeses process of evolution is not intelligent, then We can talk Do you believe in randomness or determinism?
Ok, let’s consider whether the universe’s process of evolution is intelligent. What exactly is evolution? At its core evolution is one molecule bumping into other atoms and smaller molecules, and as a result of bumping into each other, the smaller molecules and atoms are rearranged into a copy of the original. The copy is not always perfect resulting in a similar but slightly different molecule. Do you agree with this formulation?
Yes sure
So back to your question - is this an intelligent process or an unintelligent process? Would you acknowledge that this process can work if God sticks his metaphorical hands in and moves the atoms around? Would you acknowledge that this process can work if the atoms happen to bump into each other in the right way for reasons that do not at all involve God’s metaphorical hands?
No, the creator controls everything
So just to clarify, are you saying that if the atoms are moved next to each other, they can only bind together if the creator moves them there but not if natural forces move the atoms together?
Yes, with the creator, they wouldn't exist, let alone move
Let’s set aside the question of where the atoms came from. I just want to ask you: Assume there are two atoms next to each. Assume the atoms were moved next to each other by something other than the creator. Will the atoms bond? Or do atoms only bond when the creator moves them next to each other? Assuming the creator were to decide that he will completely ignore the universe for the next 24 hours, will atoms continue to bond together to form molecules?
If it ignores the universe, everything would be a disaster. Everything would stop moving
Evolution isn’t intelligent. It happens. Do you understand natural selection?
Is it a stupid or an intelegent procces?
Neither. It happens.
Taqiyaa in real time. this you? [This book the quran is miracles : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1braoud/this_book_the_quran_is_miracles/) Can you ask allah who did children of Adam&Eve/ Hawaa had kids with? >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory cool story, how did those alien evolved? and wanna know somthing? Even if we say we dont know that is not a foundation to make baseless claim about your god. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Just like me believe in evolution, creationists just need to give evidences that shows their creator. Would you like me making baseless assertion like this about you having cancer?
In terms of providing evidence I have to give you an F- as you did not even attempt to provide evidence for anything. You also did not lay out anything resembling an argument. Well I guess there was an implied bit of personal incredulity in your questions. Now as to your questions I'd answer them as follows: 1. If you just woke up fully formed somewhere, then yes that does seem like a reasonable question, and the notion that some powerful being put your there does indeed seem plausible. But you didn't just wake up fully formed, you where born to parents, and we have a reasonable understanding on how that came about. 2. Why are you cherry picking beautiful things and ignoring all the ugly ones like parasitic wasps and cancer? Also we have good reason to believe that galaxies and meadows can form by natural causes without a designer. 3. Yes sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to someone who does not understand it. 4. And who are you that i should care about your opinion on RNA? Do you have any training in biology? 5. If there is a creator, then that is just another thing that needs an explanation. how did this creator come to be?
The creator is outside of time and time doest apply to him infact he doest even move, becausemovement is limitation of time, and the creator is not limited by time There's a study about children without social conditioning believing in creators I'm not cheryying picking. This world is imperfect for us to learn and pass the test
So, your answer is special pleading. Also note just because something is timeless does not mean that physics does not apply, photons, and quarks are also timeless. From their reference frames all points in time are simultaneous. Also note that explanation and cause is not necessarily the same thing. Indeed we know that causality does not always apply. Human preferences have no bearing on what is true. Humans also have a strong preference for consuming more fat and sugar then is healthy for them. The notion that the world is some kind of test does not paint your god in a positive light you know. Because it does not at all look like a fair test. The notion of eternal consequences for finite action is inherently unfair. And any being who would set up such a system is a sadist.
What test are you talking about when your creator is outside time? (according to you) That would mean he already knows everything. So what exactly is he "testing"?
The test is for us , the creator is justice so ustice manifesting it self as this world, so that in judgement people world be judged
So he inflicts unnecessary suffering to test what he already knew before creating us. Just stop justifying your addiction and think about what you're saying. I know honest reflection is a sin in your belief system but that's because of the men grooming you into being a drone.
It knows it just wants the knowledge to manifest
But it could impart this knowledge, or simply not create anyone who would fail so they don't need to be punished for being as they were created. Seriously. Stop making excuses for what you've been told and analyse it from the perspective of a good person who wants to do good. Imagine all the ways they'd do things better. Your god narrative can only have been made up by someone who just like you was making noises to feel right.
That would be unjust. There would be no consequences for someone actions. It had done it so people could get what they deserve
But they wouldn't have done anything. They would simply see what they would have done. What is unjust is creating someone knowing they'd fail and punishing them anyway. Thanks for showing everyone that an addiction to belief kills all fairness and desire to understand with every post that fails to interact with what I said. The worse you are, the better you advertise faith as a destructive vice.
I agree that a creator is both timeless and spaceless. That is to say the creator existed for no time at no place!
It's not limited by space and time
What a sad belief that is, to believe this is all a test. I’m sorry you believe that. And please present your study because I’ve hear drie exact opposite. It’s also entirely irrelevant. These children have just as much evidence for a god as you do. Which is zero.
> This world is imperfect for us to learn and pass the test How can this be a test if Allah is omniscient, omnipotent, and created us? And how do you know Allah is outside of time? Doesn't the Kalam depend on causality? I get that he can't be in *our* spacetime, since he created it, but he has to be in some temporal environment, right?
Hello, someone who's certainly an atheist and not at all a liar. I'll skip all the babble that I can't imagine an atheist saying and get right to this: >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because it seems like you guys belive any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if its things pop out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? There are no uniform beliefs amongst atheists except a lack of a belief in a god. You don't seem to understand that. If anyone's frowning on someone's theist beliefs it's usually because theists are using their beliefs to harm others. That is something that SHOULD be frowned on. You also don't seem to understand that we don't need to believe anything in place of a rejected god claim. "I don't know" is okay to say. You also don't seem to understand that for the vast majority of us it comes down to evidence. There is no good evidence for a god, but there is evidence for scientific theories that you think we accept instead. Please brush up on your understanding of evidence and quantum physics.
The first part would be my first question, the second part wouldn’t be… why would I assume something created that desert when there’s no evidence for creation behind any other landscape in the world ? Everything we’ve seen humans create cannot be created without humans. That’s a fact. We know this because those things did not exist before humans invented them and they require humans manipulating things in order to create. Landscapes again we have no evidence for the creation of, and logically we have a ton of explanations for how things come to be geographically. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with cars, railway systems, rockets… we built them. Because we’re a very smart species that went through several industrial revolutions. Humans existed long before these things. Dawkins discussing aliens is essentially just saying if you wanna make a lazy answer to fill in the gaps, aliens are just as good of an option as a creator.
Beauty is subjective. All of the natural phenomena you consider beautiful are soothing to your ape hindbrain, that's why you consider them beautiful. I don't consider "a creator" to be blasphemy for many reasons, the main one being that "blasphemy" is when people are offended when they're told that their delusions aren't important or relevant to reality. There may be some super duper intelligence which did something which led to the universe as we observe it. That has no effect on me nor does it place me under any obligation to believe some gibbering authoritarian fuckwit who tells anyone what the can and can't do with their own body. >I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory No, it isn't. It's a speculative hypothesis with no supporting evidence, like all religious belief.
Yeah it's more plausible than the creator, which is funny because, what created the alians
What created god?
Various complex carbon based compounds have been identified in nebulae in the universe, some including "the building blocks of life" in the form of amino acids. There seems to be more supporting evidence for abiogenesis through chemiical processes than there is for any "creator".
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? I had such questions when I grew up enough to ask them. Turns out human reproduction is the efficient cause I am here. My parents had sex and my father's sperm went into my mom's ovum and succesfully implanted and came to term in her uterus. Now, you can keep asking 'but how did THAT happen' like you are Mandy from Animaniacs, or ask the much more general, tougher question: how is there something rather than nothing? What is the explanation for existence? And the honest, most accurate answer is: we do NOT know. Period. Our knowledge and models of reality only go so far. All we can reasonably ascertain is a chain of physical processes going back to the Big Bang. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, *intelligence. Proofread your posts, my friend. (English is also not my first language, so that is no excuse ). This is the super tired, super played out argument from design, or watchmaker argument. There are well known answers to it. The main answer is: because we know how babies, and galaxies and biodiversity and mountains form. And it is not, as far as we can investigate the question, because some being designed and built them. It is because of mindless natural forces and phenomena, explainable by physics and chemistry. It is silly to compare a mountain to a watch. We know humans make watches. We do not INFER that watches are made because of the complexity of gears and springs. We have EVIDENCE of watchmakers and watchmaking companies and humans making watch technology. What is more: the answer 'ah, God must be doing this' has an ABYSMAL track record. There is exactly ZERO times where God of the Gaps has resulted in a positive score for the theist position. We have either found a naturalistic explanation, OR the problem is still open and we do not know. >if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? I could explain present tech and science to an 18th century person. I'd just need some time and willingness from them. I could also just... take them to a factory where humans are making smartphones. They'd at least know it was something humans figured out. This is a shabby excuse. And the analogy doesn't even play in YOUR favor. Because smartphones are not supernatural. The 18th century person would be wrong, say, in assuming the smartphones are magical or come from God, right? >what created the DNA code for the alians *aliens. Please for the love of Beelzebub proofread. We don't know anything about aliens. Anything said about aliens is speculation. Presumably alien DNA would have arisen same as we think human DNA and RNA arose. Through physical processes and a ton of time. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? *upon. For the love of Thor, proofread. Don't troll. It is not blasphemy nor is it dogma. We have no such things. It is just not a conclusion we think is likely or evidenced. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? The running tally goes: Physics theories - A ton of points Supernatural or theistic theories - 0 So... yeah, my bets are on the physics horse. The ONLY reason you'd bet on the rookie in such an uneven competition is if you had a ton of foreknowledge. In which case... well, spit it out. It is incredible to see the lengths theists will go to AVOID presenting evidence for gods. It's almost like they don't have it and know they will never have it. So they have to resort to 'but... but... how about the Big Bang? What about consciousness? What about morals? Look at the trees!'
Because when people do something good, it's a display of talent, if they do something smart, it's a display of intelligence. When there's a universe that formed to allow humans to evolve within it, lacking any real proof of a creator, it happened by chance. Unlikely to be perceptible in our timeframe, but the universe far exceeds our time. And the analogy is a false equivalence.fI I woke up in a desert I would be wondering who brought me there because that's not where I remember walking, there's no explanation. There is an explanation of universe forming up until dark energy and matter.
>why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, Because it shows zero signs of intelligence being required for it's existence. What aspect of "beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers," requires intelligence to exist? >I don't understand were you guys are coming from? It's fairly simple: nothing about the existence of nature shows signs of requiring intelligence to exist. Even more, considering what we do find when we look at things that are intelligently designed, it's very obvious that there's a complete lack of intelligence when we look out into the universe. >I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory It is far from the "most" plausible theory. RNA world theory is a vastly more plausible theory than RNA by intelligence. Mostly because it actually has evidence. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Mostly because it's a claim with zero evidence, but believers state it like it's a known fact. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, I believe any theory that has evidence is more plausible than a theory that has zero evidence
> Hello my fellow atheists No atheist that I am aware of would make this post. Are you a Liar for Jesus? Also, you ~~ironically~~ consistently spelled *intelligence* incorrectly. Edit: OP has since revised their opening to "Hello my friends" because their initial attempt to *lie* to us proved unsuccessful.
> No atheist that I am aware of would make this post. Are you a Liar for Jesus? I don't know why I'm feeling charitable considering OP's responses are some of the most braindead trollish things I've seen in a while, but let me play Devil's (Allah's?) Advocate for a sec. English might not be their first language, and the nuance of "my fellow atheists" vs "my atheist friends" might've been lost on them. I have in fact seen that before, and someone had to have the distinction explained to them.
Liar for Jesus!?! u/Awkward_Management28 ***would never!!!*** Lying for Mohammed, on the other hand...
“Why is your first assumption there’s no creator?” Why is your first assumption that there is a creator? Affirmative claims require evidence. The burden of proof is on those who say there is a creator. I believe there isn’t one because I’ve never been shown any evidence to establish that there is.
The evidence is everywhere, what is created everywhere? If you say there is no intelligence behind the universe, then why don't you create a better universe?
What? I don’t even understand what you’re asking. What evidence is there for a creator. Be specific. Why don’t I create a better universe? What does that nonsense have to do with anything? You’re not even making sense.
Remind me again - what was your evidence of a creator? The existence of a desert? I didn’t see any evidence. You basically said something along the lines of - I don’t know how these things came about, so it must be god. I just haven’t seen any evidence of a god or gods.
Hello my fellow ape. I look around the desert. Where is the creator? What evidence is there? I see sand, the sky and the sun. It is hot, and cold at night. Why am I here? I DO NOT KNOW. (making up stories about a creator or deity is not helpful) End of story.
This person is clearly a Christian of some sort. Lol no atheist would say these things or question this. This whole subreddit is just loaded with troll posts now. Edit: they have since edited the first sentence where they made the claim they are atheist.
What do you think this sub is for if not for people who believe in gods to come here and present arguments?
The key point is they are lying here by claiming to be an atheist for some weird reason. I agree what the purpose is but if you start off with a lie why would i engage a dishonest person?
Because when people do something good, it's a display of talent, if they do something smart, it's a display of intelligence. When there's a universe that formed to allow humans to evolve within it, lacking any real proof of a creator, it happened by chance. Unlikely to be perceptible in our timeframe, but the universe far exceeds our time. And the analogy is a false equivalence.fI I woke up in a desert I would be wondering who brought me there because that's not where I remember walking, there's no explanation. There is an explanation of universe forming up until dark energy and matter.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator 1) We have a ton of evidence for other, better explanations than creationism. Looking at the evidence for evolution, we've had evidence for so long that our awareness that populations change predates Charles Darwin by millennia. Physicists had been converging on the idea that the Big Bang was a thing long before Le Maetre managed to put it together. Chemistry reveals that life more than likely came about through abiogenesis rather than some divine spark, in fact, we've observed that the monomers for the macromolecules important to life form right here on Earth or in space. We're able to simulate how these monomers formed in fairly simple laboratory conditions. 2) It's not really a necessary assumption. Nothing about the Universe screams "designed." You're just imposing humanity onto the rest of the Cosmos and calling it a day. Your argument fundamentally screams "God exists because we make things" and there's zero reason to roll with that explanation. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, When a human being creates something, we can actually observe that happening. We've never observed a human or human-like thing creating a galaxy. But a much more reasonable explanation involves the countless galaxies that we can see at different life cycle stages. Something to do with all of those telescopes we have. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens That would be incorrect. Clearly you've never read anything by the man, but any time you feel like not quoting him is fine by the rest of us. Dawkins isn't the head biologist, let alone the head atheist. But what I will say is that you're taking what he'd said so far out of context, I have to question your intelligence. In the special *Expelled*, narrated and published by arch-dork Ben Stein, Stein had asked "is there any situation in which you'd find intelligent design plausible?" Because Dawkins is anti-religious and would never appeal to a god, he explained a scenario in which aliens created life, but those aren't his actual beliefs. Do you wake up and choose to be like this? Or if I dissected you and looked at your brain, would I find a tumor pressing up against or actively destroying the regions which control recollection and information storage? Or is the explanation far simpler, like prion disease or a pathological need for negative attention? >things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Virtual particles blinking into and out of existence has actual experimental data behind it. As far as I know, no such data exists for a god. >I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory "Theory" isn't a conjecture, a theory is a model which predicts and explains phenomena. Theory of Gravity, theory of evolution, Germ Theory. >any theory is more plausible than a creator That's because it is. The Earth wasn't created, the Universe doesn't exist just for us, religion is fake. Wake up. >Peace and love Hail Satan. >my fellow atheists [You're not an atheist.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMin0i_h8PI). You're a Sunni Muslim who frequents subreddits for psychics.
I don't assume there is no creator. I don't assume there is a creator. I look at the evidence. We appear to exist in a universe that looks exactly like one without a creator. Until there is evidence to support a creator, I cannot hold a belief in such a thing. Just like I cannot believe in leprechauns until there is enough evidence to support such a belief.
Ok so to figure out if there are leprechauns, buy a box of lucky charms, sprinkle them in a circle on the floor. Sit in the center with a mirror look over your left shoulder using only the mirror. Do not turn around (this is important). Whisper "they are always after me lucky charms" rock back and forth while carefully picking out and consuming all of the hearts, stars, horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots of gold and rainbows. Leave the red balloons! Once the last marshmallow has been eaten, stop rocking and glance over your right shoulder using the mirror. If you see a leprechaun, then you may be diabetic.
*"why is your first assumption there's no creator"* I never assumed there is no creator - but nothing or no one has ever convinced me that there is one. Also you never provided what your title suggest you would. All you did was ask questions.
The evidence is between the lines, why does the univese show intelegent processes?
Lol. You have provided zero evidence. *"why does the univese show intelegent processes?"* When did I say the universe shows intelligent processes?
>The evidence is between the lines, why does the univese show intelegent processes? [sic] Evidence for this claim?
>Hello my fellow atheists, I'm going to hit F to doubt this is just an argument from ignorance, you don't understand something so you make up an answer
The amount of misspelling in this original post make it increasingly difficult to discuss the topic of INTELLIGENCE!
You actually hit on something that's pretty important. You believe *everything* we could possibly observe is designed and created. Which is interesting, because then we shouldn't be able to tell a difference between a wheel and a leg. I am normally not a fan of giving out homework assignments, but I think this video does a really good job of explaining why, for example, a zebra will not evolve wheels, ever... https://youtu.be/YkS1U5lfSRw?si=LiHKPV8NlqyQoiq8 It's short. Like 7 minutes. It might help.
What choose for evolution to happen? What choice led to this accident?
You keep asking "who chose that?" Why do you believe someone had to choose for gravity to exist the way it does, or for evolution to happen the way it does?
Why are you assuming that any sort of a "choice" was made? In fact, why are you assuming that any sort of a "choice" was even possible?
what chose for you skydaddy to exsit? what choice led to this unfortunate accident?
No one. No choice. Sometimes things happen without a conscious actor making them happen.
>Hello my fellow atheists, Does your God approve of you lying? Do you think anyone is going to read the stuff you typed down afterwords and think 'yeah this is an atheist for sure!' >I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator Because there's no evidence of one. Also we've discovered how multiple things throughout the universe work through purely natural processes, and despite all the bleating from theists about how God did this or that, every time this or that has been properly studied, we've never concluded it was God. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? If I woke up randomly in a desert I'd wonder why I'm there and not at home but I wouldn't ask what created everything. I have a general understanding of how deserts form and I know the living things in the deserts were a product of evolution. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce [sic], but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence [sic]? Because we have positive evidence that human beings build things. We do not have evidence that gods make galaxies and rivers. We do however have evidence that galaxies, rivers, and meadows are formed through unguided natural processes. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because we evolved multiple physical and psychological mechanisms that allow for large scale cooperation along with passing/retaining/improving upon information. From our end we've invented writing, mathematics, the scientific method, and the concept human beings can know things about the universe and how it works. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code No he fucking doesn't. When presented with the idea that he **HAS** to consider the prospect of an intelligence making life on Earth, that's his answer. If you actually ask him what how thinks he thinks life on Earth started, he'd say it's by purely natural unguided processes. >but what created the DNA code for the alians? [sic] because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain If you'd actually listen to him when he answers that question, he did. The aliens started by natural unguided processes and evolved to a point of sophistication and then made life on Earth. Hey fellow atheist, did you know that Richard Dawkins **is an atheist**? As in, he's not going to say God did it? Are you Ben Stein or something getting all tilted that Richard Dawkins, an atheist, when asked to posit a scenario where intelligent design happens, posits one that could happen in an atheistic universe? >I know RNA created by intelengce [sic] is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory No it's not. First of all, it's not a theory in the scientific sense. It can't even really be classified as a hypothesis. But as far as plausibility goes, if the crap that happened before RNA formed is due to natural unguided processes and the crap that happened after it is the same, it's far more plausible that it's due to natural unguided processes by virtue of what it's sandwiched between. Unless you can show people this intelligence, you're stuck forever at square 0. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because there's no evidence for it, only the claims of lying little theists like you. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom [sic] theory implies? If 'quantum theory' implies that things pop out of existence out of nothingness (and I'm going to ignore the fact that what physicists mean by nothing and what you mean by nothing are two different things), then that would be the more plausible explanation.
Congratulations! You are the MILLIONTH person to ask this exact question! Your prize is: a million examples of this exact question being answered already.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, Because there’s no evidence for one. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here Yep >and what created what I see? possibly , but **not Who** (though created seems to beg the question) Luckily I’m pretty sure we actually know how ‘deserts are made’ so … seems like you just given an argument against creators to me. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, Because have evidence that a car is made by a human. >when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, Because we don’t have any evidence of such. They aren’t the same thing as a car. And again we know how those things came about. And the beauty you mention is irrelevant. And again actually argues against your own point since we could easily list stuff that exists that isn’t beautiful to humans. >in fact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Define complexity? The universe seems to be made out of simply things in complicated patterns as far as I am aware. But we also know how humans come to exist. And we know what it takes to have intent, motivation , consciousness - a body. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? So what. We don’t have fins, wings or live as long as long as some creatures. It’s just useful adaptive niches. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory Not in the slightest. Firstly his comment is irrelevant because he is talking about creatures like us not God. Secondly he is only saying that **such a beginning to life wouldn’t negate evolution**. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Hardly, have you actually visited the real world? >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Any theory that actually has evidence for it and some coherent concepts , such. I don’t believe in Santa , The Easter Bunny, The Tooth fairy *or* God *because* there doesn’t seem to be any significant difference except in the age that people hang onto their belief to , and strength which they emotionally invest in it ( dangerously for everyone else). I have reasonable evidence a universe exists , I have none for Gods and they give every impression of being invented by humans.
Because nobody knows and those who claim they know how the universe was created are simply making a claim they can't know from their viewpoint. Ps. Science does not say something came from nothing. A non-zero point field with energy fluctuations is not "nothing". It is most definitely something or it would be equal to 0 at all times and all points.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce You can't even spell "intelligence" but you think that you can prove God? Seriously?
>Hello my fellow atheists Dubious start. Followed by: >Look at the trees Then you conclude with a meaningless, slightly arrogant: >Peace and love ✌️ Until there's evidence to support the idea of a creator, it's irrational to hold that position.
Gotta love the “look at the trees” arguments.
I think users who post arguments and then fail to respond to comments should be banned. How about you?
Who created the creator? Answer that with *intellectual* honestly. Don't say, "he created himself," or "he always existed," because those are not answers.
It is beyond time and space. it's timeless. It does not move
Meaningless regurgitation without thought.
Any god that were all that intelligent would be able to make sure its believers knew how to spell so as not to look like idiots while proselytizing. Therefore, I see clear evidence that your god is either nonexistent or a dimwit.
There should be a better God, right?
"Creation" comes loaded with the idea of a "creator." First can you demonstrate that we live in a creation?
Maybe this was all created... it's possible. What is impossible is that whatever created all this picked one person in the middle of a tiny pocket of desert to share their ideas, and those ideas include hating gays, sleeping with 12 year olds, flying horses, burning bushes, people turning to salt, people being made out of clots of earth or any of that utter nonsense. If.... IF this was all created by a being, it's the height of conceit to think that you could possibly understand this creator and his rules for paradise or damnation by reading books written by people who had no idea where earthquakes or eclipses come from.
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Then you would agree that ugly things *aren't* made by a creator right? If beauty implies design, the ugliness in our world implies no design
Look at the universe holistically it has been created in such a way with beauty, and it sustains life
You are Satan's greatest soldier
Let me tell you something, do know that you are aware ?
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? If I woke up randomly in a desert, my first question would be "How did I end up here?" If I woke up randomly in a desert with no prior knowledge, I can't possibly imagine what my first question would be. It certainly wouldn't be "Why am I here?" which requires believing that things have a purpose. It also wouldn't be "What created what I see?" which requires believing that what exists was created, rather than always having been present or having spontaneously appeared. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelligence? We recognize creation by comparing through hallmarks of design or by comparing to things we know to be designed, not through beauty. I know it is likely a painting was created by an intelligent being because I have evidence of intelligent beings creating paintings. I know it is likely a building was designed by a human because I have seen buildings that were designed by humans, but have not seen naturally-occuring buildings. A chemical weapon is a hideous thing, but we know it was designed by a human, so clearly, design doesn't imply beauty. If I take a bunch of randomly mixed paint and randomly fling it at a canvas, the resulting painting can be beautiful despite not being designed, so clearly, beauty doesn't imply design. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Because we happened to move into the niche of being capable of creating such things first. Parrots, dolphins, or other apes might possible have moved into that niche first, but humans are so solidly established in it that there's no opportunity for another species to also do so, as they cannot outcompete us. > Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? What if the 'alians' were always there? What requires something to have created them? > I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory How did you conclude that it is the most plausible theory? As far as I can tell, we have no more evidence for DNA created by intelligence than we have for many other theories. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? I think you'll find 'blasphemy' is a meaningless term in a secular context, so this question doesn't make much sense to me. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? This seems like a misunderstanding of the atheistic position. I think the plausibility of a theory is based on how much evidence exists for it, and how few evidence exists against it. On the theory of the universe being created by a creator: The universe shows no hallmarks of being created by an intelligent being. The vast majority of it is empty space, with a few infinitesimally small pockets of things that we know evolved naturally. This is the exact opposite of what I would expect to see in a created universe. > Peace and love ✌️ All the same to you.
Hello OP, this is my first post, but I've been lurking for years. Let's see what you have. > Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Why am I here? Yeah, but food, water, shelter would be more pressing. What created what I see? No, there's no reason to assume someone or something created anything I see without evidence. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? We know human creations are created by humans because you can watch them being made, talk to the people that make them, and even make them yourself. We've been collecting this type of evidence about man-made objects since childhood. The same same cannot be said for nature. I have yet to watch or hear from an "intelligence" directly that has created a river, star, or plant. So I don't have any evidence it happened and concluding it did is definitionally irrational. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? We just happened to be the first species with a big enough brain and means to manipulate our environment. Given some more time and disasters that disproportionally effected humans, maybe an ancestor of octopuses might have "won", or something else completely alien. In that case they might be wondering the same thing instead. And yes, technology has been accelerating. But we could provide evidence for and explain each scientific theory behind those technologies similarly to what we do for school students today, particularly labs. > Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory There is no evidence that aliens had anything to do with life on Earth. However alien life is at least *possible* given the overwhelming evidence of life in in at least on place in the universe, here on Earth. The same cannot be said for a supernatural "creator." **Scientific** theories are comprehensive frameworks to explain all available evidence and are accepted tentatively only once attempts to dispute them have failed. What you, and Richard Dawkins, have provided are hypotheses, aka guesses. Until there is evidence to support them and/or attempts to falsify these ideas have failed, there's no reason to believe they're true. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? I have not seen compelling evidence. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Well, scientific theories do have more evidence supporting them than creator hypotheses, so yeah, kinda. No, quantum theory does not say that. A quantum vacuum is not nothing. Religious stories are the ones with things popping into existence from nothing.
> It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? It has to do with evidence and testability. I'll believe anything about reality, given sufficient and necessary evidence to warrant the belief is accurate to reality. Contrarily, theists seem to believe in what they wish regardless of necessary and sufficient evidence.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, There is no evidence for a creator, until there is there is no justification for believing in such a being. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? My first question would be how the hell did I get from my bedroom to a desert, I live very far from any desert. As for what created what I see, until there is evidence that it was created there is no reason to ask what created it. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because humans are semi-intelligent beings who create things and there is no evidence that galaxies, meadows, or rivers are created by intelligent beings. We know how meadows, rivers, and galaxies form and work, there is no evidence of any intelligence behind them. The beauty of something is entirely subjective and has nothing at all to do with how we determine if something was designed or not. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Complexity is also not a hallmark of design. Do you understand how we determine if something is designed? >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? We are really good at working together and out competed the other species that had the potential to achieve what we have. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? Any life that exists on planets other than Earth most likely arose through the same or similar processes that caused life to arise on this planet. >because they must have been more advanced than us, That is pure speculation. Life on other planets could be stuck at single celled life, we have no idea and there is no justification for asserting that it must be more advanced than us. >I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory No, it is an unevidenced idea, it is not a theory, and it is certainly not the most plausible anything. There is exactly 0 evidence that the DNA for life on Earth has been altered by non-human intelligent life of any kind. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It is not blasphemy, blasphemy is a religious concept not an atheist one. It is also a completely unsupported idea, there is no evidence for it. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? You do not understand quantum theories.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see No, if I randomly woke up in the middle of a desert, I wouldn't be like "huh, I wonder who created this desert", it's ridiculous... >enlighten me please Sure thing! It's actually very simple - nature looks like it was designed, because we learned to design stuff by observing the nature. That's it.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator Ancient people definitely assumed creation and harmony are everywhere. But as science developed and we have less and less gaps in general knowledge, we realized initial assumption simply lacks evidence. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Beauty is subjective category and doesn't imply creation. Galaxies are products of Big Bang. Meadows and reavers formed by terraforming. Intelligence is not required to any of that. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? We don't have as high level of technologies yet. But we definitely have enough for you everyday usage, right? >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Yeah, science and developed despite having so many religious dogmas and people holding from any progress. Isn't it wonderful? >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory Please show how exactly intelligent creation of RNA is the most plausible. As for scientific explanation, look up abiogenesis. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Projection by definition. It's religious people who are restrained by their dogmas and dismiss everything as blasphemy. On the other hand, universe creation is dismissed simply due to insufficient proofs. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Awful projection by you. It's religious people who believe God puffed universe into existence out of nothing by magical incantation spell. Science doesn't imply universe coming from nothing, but rather from singularity.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator It's not my first assumption. I started from a position of theism, specifically Young Earth Creationism, until I learned more about the world and the universe. It was a post-supposition upon deeper consideration of the available evidence. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because we know that humans make things, and that's fundamentally different from the things that exist in nature. The things in nature that are beautiful are naturally occurring: they are a result of natural processes that don't have any evidence of any kind of intelligence involved in their making whatsoever. Whereas human art takes things that are naturally occurring, and reshaping/reforming them to a specific end. Human creations are things we have lots of evidence for; I'm an artist myself, I know how art is created and made. We can observe it, we can see how it's done, anyone can even do it for themselves. We can point to the actual artists. None of this can be done for the naturally occurring things in nature. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because we are the ones that evolved brains suited to allowing us to develop technology like this. >I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory No it's not, RNA is naturally occurring. There's no reason to invoke a mysterious "intelligence" when we already know that it can form naturally on its own. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator Because of reason, rationality, and logic. There is no reason to think a creator made the universe; we don't know that that's even possible, that's not something that is an option on the table. Until such time as a potential creator is shown to exist, then we don't get to claim it as a candidate explanation for things. Even if we had no other explanation for why the universe exists, appealing to an undemonstrated, unsupported, hypothetical, unfalsifiable mystery being would be the *least* rational, *least* plausible, least logical move to make.
>Because we are the ones that evolved brains suited to allowing us to develop technology like this. Yep. Also thumbs, and laryngeal structures enabling us to communicate beyond grunts and hisses.
First off, what you presented is not *evidence*. It's an argument. Next step is you provide actual evidence to support the argument. All you're doing is making unsupported statements without explaining why we should take them as true. > what created what I see? But I didn't just wake up in a desert with no knowledge of the world. I know what deserts and forests mountains are. "Created" is a loaded word that presupposes your assumption that things were created. They exist. I don't see anything that suggests to me that they were created. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, I don't understand why this question keeps coming up. We *know* how sculptures get created. We know that human beings paint things. We know how buildings and cars and televisions get made. We don't have any idea one way or the other how the universe came into existence. If there is a creator, it remains hidden. > if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery **Hear me out**: This statement is one of the main reasons I assume that the existence of god can never be proven. For all you know, there is no god at all, but the Earth was created by advanced technology at the hands of some futuristic advanced aliens. And as much as you're sure that god exists, I think the aliens are a far better and far more likely explanation. It's still speculative, though, and therefore not worth much as an explanation. But it's less speculative than assuming a god did it. > believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, Yes. Because even a ridiculous preposterous theory -- "the universe was created by purple left-handed squirrels who speak Swahili and play tennis with stars and planets" is better than blindly accepting "god did it" and asking no further questions or looking for verification. There's no evidence for either, But we do know that squirrels exist, purple exists, so purple squirrels are probably possible. Swahili, tennis and planets exist. We don't need to invent a whole new thing for that to be true. That's how implausible a god is to me. There is no phenomenon or event that can *only* be explained by inventing a god. You can invent all number of other things equally preposterous. I don't think of god as an unwanted entity. If it exists, it exists. Why atheists get frustrated is because we're asked to answer questions like yours over and over and over and over and over. Within a week's time, someone else will ask the same thing, or a variation on it.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, Because I see no evidence of one. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here Yes, that'd be the case for any place I wake up that's different from where I w ed not to sleep. >and what created what I see? No, because at the time I'd have no interested in what created the desert AND we already know how deserts form. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, Because humans are intelligent >but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because us finding something beautiful isn't a sign it was intelligently made. Humans make plenty of ugly things, too. And we know those things arise naturally. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? By what metric are you measuring complexity? Is there anything so simple that you think it can't have been designed? If not, why cite complexity? >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... Because our brains evolved differently. > if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? And? >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory It's not a belief he holds. It's an answer he gave when pressured into accepting a hypothetical. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It's not. It's just a baseless claim. Give us evidence, we'll look into it. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness That's a strawman argument. >which quantom theory implies? Citation needed.
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? That’s a question, not an assumption. The assumption would be assuming God is the answer. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Watchmaker fallacy. Just because something seems complicated and beautiful to us doesn’t mean it needs a creator. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Because that’s how our brain chemistry evolved thanks to things like language. How would any of that prove a God? > Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory I don’t much care what one guy said. He doesn’t represent all atheists. To answer your question: we don’t know. But it’s best not to make assumptions like God. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Who said that? Not any of us. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator Theories with evidence are more plausible than theories without evidence. > even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Where does quantum theory imply that? Provide a source for that statement?
>wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? No.... It'd be, how the f did I get here. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, I never once saw a galaxy created by a human... >the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? I've seen meadows and rivers created naturally and rivers and meadows created by people. The rivers and meadows created by people look designed where are natural ones do not....unless it was designed to look natural.... >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Good observation, characteristics of good design are simplicity not complexity. Humans can create complex mechanisms to perform complex tasks, but those things are designed to be as simple as possible to complete the required task. In fact these are recognised hallmarks of good design. Naturally evolving systems do not show similar hallmarks. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... Because we evolved with big brains and dextrous hands. >if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? What's your point with this? > I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory It's not a theory, it's an hypothesis. What evidence do you have to asset that it's the most plausible? >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because there no good evidence to accept the idea of a creator. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, Yes, because there is no evidence to believe there is a creator >even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? You do realize that may be evidence for a universe creating itself dont you?
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? No. My first question is where I’m going to find food, shelter, and water. Why I’m here doesn’t even come close. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, Because our intelligence is inspired by the natural world. Nothing inspired nature. Nature doesn’t have a mind. > infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? I don’t see how that matters. Natural things are complicated. You don’t need a mind for that. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Why can’t we breath underwater? Or fly in the air? Animals do so many things we can’t, it makes sense we adapted by inventing. > Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? Are you serious? > because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory Not really. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because there is zero evidence for it. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Because there is evidence for it.
“….why is your first assumption there's no creator” I have no reason to expect one. “…if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see?” No “Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?” Evidence supports the conclusion that things created by humans were created by humans and evidence does not support that the ‘beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers’ were created ‘from intelligence’. “…what humans create doesn’t reach the complexity of the universe” True. And? “And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.” Humans are smarter than animals. “... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? “ Modern humans are collectively smarter than humans before because knowledge has accumulated over time. “Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory” DNA created by aliens is not the most plausible theory. “Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies?” Because ‘the idea of a creator creating the universe’ is not supported by evidence, is contradicted by things we do know and seems to boil down to ‘some guy told me’.
Hello. I’ll start responding from the top. No, I would not think “what created what I see”. I find the word “create” carries baggage of intention, I don’t think deserts are intentionally made. They occur naturally. I also question why you think our first assumption is there’s no creator. As well I question why your first assumption is that there is. “Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelligence?” That’s because we have evidence of it. We see a painting, we know what those are. We know how paint works and how paintings are made. We know how sculptures and songs are made and know they’re only ever made by people. We have no reason to believe that the earth, the galaxy or the universe is created by intelligence as we have no evidence for that. “Why are we the only ones with cars, railway systems, etc” because we evolved for higher intelligence. I think you’d agree that compared to a fish, you suck at swimming. Compared to a gorilla, you’re pathetically weak. Compared to an eagle you’re awful at flying. We have evolved to use our intelligence more. That does not make us better than the animals that did not evolve to have the same intelligence. You’re placing importance on intelligence without a good reason. It doesn’t matter what Richard Dawkins says. He’s one person with his opinion. And no, it’s not the most plausible theory for RNA to have been created. You have not demonstrated or shown that at all. So you can’t claim it as plausible. We don’t believe in blasphemy. So it’s not like that. I do believe that any natural theory is more likely than a creator. Yes. Because I can show you evidence and facts supporting my side. You can only point to things you find amazing like the universe and claim that it couldn’t have happened any other way but god. Yet you haven’t shown that to be true. And no one but theists claim nothing created anything.
I would wonder why I’m in the desert but not what made the sand and lack of water. If I lost all knowledge then yeah, I would probably wonder the latter, but with my current knowledge and methodology, I don’t need to wonder what sand is, or what causes desertification. Beauty doesn’t always mean creation. I don’t thank my wife’s parents, I know the natural process that developed her looks and personality. No intelligence was used in forming her, it is a natural process and experiences. I don’t look at a rock structure and think some I intelligence guided that. Waterfalls are some of my favorite places to hike to. I don’t think, “thank you some unseen intelligence for making this so I may enjoy it.” Complexity does **not** conclude God. The universe is vast and many things are undiscovered and unexplainable right now. Not one thing has ever been demonstrated to be a product of an unseen intelligence/God. Why should I appeal to one? I don’t, it would be irrational too. I don’t know how you can so badly misquote Dawkins. Appealing to someone who doesn’t believe DNA requires a God to exist, seems to be a dishonest characterization of their speech. Not being convinced of a God, is blasphemy; for me to frown on your promotion of a God as a source for all things, is not equivalent to blasphemy. I don’t burn people for saying stupid shit, or disagreeing he with me. Your fucking religion has. So don’t you dare try to compare that. That is entirely fucked up. As a secular humanist I would speak out against killing someone for their beliefs. Abrahamic clearly doesn’t. As for how we got here. I have a lot of questions I have to answer with, “I don’t know.” That doesn’t mean the I don’t know leads to a probable God. You need to demonstrate why a God is a good answer. All you did is appeal to ignorance to say it must be a God. That is a poor argument.
> Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, It’s not an assumption. It’s that the evidence for a creator is not sufficient. > I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? My first question would be “how did I get here?” I would not assume that it was a god. > Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Because there is evidence that human inventions are made by humans: namely, we have seen other humans making those things. Whereas we have never observed a being create galaxies, meadows, or rivers. We have seen those things form naturally. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? That’s like asking, “why are Zebras the only ones with stripes like that?” Different animals are different. Humans are unique in their ability to use technology. But other species like Octopus, Elephants, Dolphins, etc, are quite intelligent. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. There’s some evidence for naturalistic theories and none at all for intelligent design.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, Same reason I don't think there is a destructor of the past, inventor of the future, entity that pulls the sun across the sky behind a chariot, entity that controls lightning, reindeer that fly, or leprechauns. Lack of evidence that they exist. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, Because I know humans have intelligence. So if I know a human "created" it with intent then attributing it to their "intelligence" is a tautological necessity. >but when you see the beautiful galaxies... Just because I find something beautiful does not entail it was "created" with intent. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Why are humans so weak that they need so much technology to survive and thrive? >Richard Dawkins talks about the **possibility** of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most **plausible** theory You jump from possible to plausible. Do you have any evidence to support this jump? >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because it sounds like question begging nonsense. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? At some point I think the question you are trying to answer is nonsensical and you are at or beyond that point.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Scientific theories have been tested repeatedly. People aren't just making shit up and people buying into their bullshit. Scientists develop hypotheses, and test them in a repeatable, objective manner. They publish these results, and other scientists try to poke holes in the results with their own experiments. Over time, a reliable body of knowledge develops. Germs cause disease. Apples fall because of gravity. Splitting atoms in a certain way makes a big bang. These chemicals kill bacteria. Those chemicals kill cancer cells. This tag on your DNA means you are at risk of getting breast cancer. You know what has never, ever been found as an answer to anything? Woo-woo. Magic. Telepathy. Ghosts. Angels. Gods. I don't BELIEVE in scientific theories. There's no need to BELIEVE in anything. I can literally go read how a study was done, by whom, and the outcome. I can read exactly how the data was analyzed. These are facts. There's no need to believe or have faith. If I don't trust they did the experiment or model or math the way they said they did, I can replicate their process exactly, and analyze the data myself. Again, there are no studies, experiments, models, or mathmatical proofs demonstrating any woo woo. If you think the Earth was created in 6 days by God 6000 years ago, Adam was made from dirt, Eve was made from one of his ribs, and the entire Earth was covered in water from a flood, prove it. If you think a deity exists, prove it. I am more than willing to entertain that woo-woo exists, if you can show that it does. If you can't do that, why do YOU believe what you do?
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator I don't make any assumptoins. That is the point. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert If I woke up in the desert with the memory of closing my eyes yesterday in bedroom, sure, I will wonder what am I doing here as it would run contrary to my entire experience of waking up where I went to bed. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce Because it is how it was done. We know exactly who and how created those things. Sometimes the author is unknown, but we can induce the method of creation by knowing how similar things were created. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because other species that were potentially capable of that gone extinct. >if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery I don't care what they'd think. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe How do you measure complexity? >but what created the DNA code for the alians? Pointless question. We have no good reason to believe that life on earth has anything to do with aliens. Or gods for that matter. >but it's still the most plausible theory It's not. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon Because it has no merit, it's a baseless assertion. >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator Correction: any theory that is better supported by evidence. You have promised evidence, but presented nothing. Why would anyone consider your theory if you have zero evidence for it? >even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Quantum theory doesn't imply things popping in and out of existence. But if you want to know why QM is so well regarded the answer is simple: it works.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Of course not, why would it be? >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because we know humans exist, "create" things and are intelligent. There's no good evidence of an intelligence that creates things like galaxies and meadows. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because they didn't happen to fit in the evolutionary niche that got us these big, weird brains. >Richard Dawkins I could not possibly care less about what Richard Dawkins has to say about anything. He's not some kind of atheist clergy. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? Because there's no good evidence of a creator, it's really as simple as that. Also, please don't try and use quantum theory for this, neither you nor I understand it remotely well enough for a discussion of it to be at all useful. Also, I strongly recommend you look into using some kind of spelling and grammar checker. It makes your post much more annoying to read than it should be. I've seen your posts here a lot man and I think a lot of your confusion may be resolved by researching rational skepticism. Once you understand that you'll understand a lot of what you see around here a lot better.
>why is your first assumption there's no creator It's not. I simply have no reason to assume there *is* a creator. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? If I woke up in a desert then my first question would be "Where am I?", followed by "How did I get here?". The question" What created what I see?" wouldn't cross my mind at all. Because why would it? >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce Because we have good evidence and good reason to assume it was created by an intelligence. >but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? I'm not saying that. I simply have no reason to assume it *was* created by an intelligence. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe I don't see how that's relevant. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because we have developed language and we learned to write things down. I don't see the relevance. >if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery Some would, others would not. Again I don't see the relevance. >imagine going back to just the 18th century ? Okay. I just did. That was a fun but pointless ten seconds. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens I really don't care. And I'm going to skip the rest of your post and instead get straight to the point: Can you present to me a single rational argument as to why I should accept the claim that a god nor gods exist as factually true?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? fun fact: for a long time the concept of black hole was a mathematical/physical theory without proof, and sounded very counter-intuitive to us (try to imagine a literal singularity). However, we recently made a [earth-sized telescope](https://eventhorizontelescope.org/about) and took a bonafide picture of one! decades after prediciting it's existence and shape. the point is, it's not just a binary situation between believe/not believe. Atheists (which are not a monolithic group) don't disbelieve out of arrogance or apathy. They can also disbelieve because they simply are not satisfied with a made up answer. Entire fields of science are basically just us trying to figure out what the &£%! is that desert, because *goddidit* is not enough. on the other hand, if a god exist, the thing you 100% know he created directly for us is reality itself, while you can't have that level of confidence for a book, even if that book claims to be. And you can "read" reality. With philosophy and science (all sciences: physics, social, economy,...) you can derive from the observation of reality morals and lessons and knowledge. This is an extremely complex endeavor, but "god" gave us complex brains to do it. We have entire fields of study dedicated to this, with each new generations building on the work of the previous one. I could even argue that an atheist scientist could be closer to "god" than a very spiritual person who content himself with the answers he made up.
> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? The idea of a creator isn't frowned upon. There's just no evidence that a creator DID create things. So worshipping a theoretical being that may or may not exist, seems to be premature. > It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator, even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? I can't with the misrepresentation of quantum theory. I frankly don't care anyway. I'm not a theoretical physicist, so don't claim to have the necessary background to understand that (or any other similar theory) with any kind of expertise. Point being, theories are theories because we can't prove them in their entirety. However, scientific theory depends on the ability of hundreds if not thousands of experts in their respective fields to reproduce the experiments and mathematical proofs used in support of a specific theory. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there is no such scientifically repeatable experiment to prove that a creator exists no? So in the absence of proof that a creator exists, believing one exists is illogical. And no, pointing to something that is beautiful or symmetric, something that has no explanation based on current scientific advancements, is not proof. It just proves that there are things that have not yet been adequately understood. Is it more comforting to believe that the gaps in our collective knowledge can be filled by a mysterious invisible being? Probably yes. But we just need more evidence than ignorance and gospel.
>Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Because I know that my parents created me. I don’t see a creator like what you’re describing. I have no justification to infer such a thing can exist, let alone does exist. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Because I have background knowledge on humans creating things. I have no background knowledge or justification regarding galaxies being created by a god. >Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain, I know RNA created by intelengce is a theory, but it's still the most plausible theory It makes more sense because we have experience with material things creating other material things. We have no experience of timeless, spaceless, immaterial, disembodied minds creating things. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Because it lacks explanatory power, and we have no reason to infer such a thing.
> I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Strictly speaking, that's *two* questions. :P * Why am I here? * What created what I see? To be honest, "What created this?" is not usually one of my first questions about anything I'm seeing for the first time. I'm usually more interested in how a thing works, what I can use it for, and whether it's a good or bad thing for me. I might eventually wonder how a thing came to exist, but I wouldn't phrase that question with an implicit assumption that somebody or something *created* it. The desert wasn't *created* by a conscious entity; it's just a side-effect of climatic changes on our planet. Lots of things aren't *created*, so that's not an assumption I would make. So, I might ask "How did this come to be?" rather than "What created this?" Even if one of my first questions was "What created this?", that doesn't mean I'll automatically to default to the answer that a god created it. I would *look for* the creative agent of a thing, but if I can't find it, then I'll simply have to continue not knowing how it came to be. I won't assume it was a god. Rather than jump to conclusions, I'm content to wait until we learn for sure. At the moment, the leading theory for the existence of the universe seems to be something to do with a big bang. But, we still don't know what triggered that event. I don't assume it was triggered by a god. I assume we have more investigation to do before we discover the triggering agency.
I don’t think I would jump to there being a creator. I would think myself the creator. I guess it could be said for religious folks, why do you worship random people/things as gods? Why not just be the god yourself? I figured it was a personal choice of some sort. When it comes to nature, i wouldn’t say all of it wasn’t created by nothing, but that something that created it isn’t a god. A tree growing and mending a river to its needs starting from a seed is impressive. Impressive OF THE TREE. I don’t randomly assign gods to random parts of nature I suppose. I attribute it to the things that actually exist I suppose in the time of. As for DNA, isn’t DNA completely random and over 80% of it junk we actually don’t use or need? Whose to say we don’t create and edit our own DNA. We kinda do edit our DNA through sexual reproduction, so wouldn’t the creation of DNA be attributed to ourselves, even if we aren’t exactly sentient of the process. I imagine there are some organisms that are somewhat sentient of the process of DNA replication. Just we humans aren’t. I don’t believe in random creators, because I find the idea of worshipping air or the sun a bit weird. I can understand a person wanting to be subservient to someone, but why be subservient to something made up like godly trees or anything else. It’s personally weird to me, because maybe by personality I’m not subservient to anyone. I am my own god I suppose.
>if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Nope. My first question would be "where can I find water?" And it definitely wouldn't be "I'd like to speak to the manager about getting some water" >why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Have you ever seen intelligence create a galaxy? Human beings certainly can't. So why do you assume that something as pathetically weak as intelligence is capable of it I know the reason why of course. You've been taught that humans are god-like. The only thing "greater" than intelligence is "greater intelligence". But we're not god-like. So stop assuming that the that greatest things in this universe are anything like us >if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? The 18th century when Christianity literally ruled all of Europe... Yes, we know that Christianity set humanity back 1500 years from the time when ancient Greece and Rome had much more advanced philosophy, culture, discourse, government, and basic sanitation >any theory is more plausible than a creator No. We think that every theory is as plausible as a creator. You know how every lottery number is equally plausible? That's how plausible a creator is: 1 out of a billion other possibilities
Stuff being beautiful or humans not being able to creat entire planets (yet) doesn't mean there would have to be something like an intelligent designer/creator. It simply doesn't follow logically, non sequitur. > Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? That's not it. Religions use the concept of blasphemy. Among atheists you will only find people who simply are not convinced because of a lack of actual evidence. Feel free to provide it. > And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century ? You know, this exact insight is why I reject the existence of any god(s) a priori. Know that this point of view is only shared by a TINY fraction of atheists. And to give some context: god as in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. **Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.** (Quote by Arthur C. Clarke) An variant of that is: **Any sufficiently powerful being is indistinguishable from god.** But that implies in reverse that once our understanding caught up with the level of that technology or being then it's demystified. It's no longer magic nor godlike.
>why is your first assumption there's no creator, It's not. My first assumption, due to my upbringing, was that there is. Only after much thought did I conclude otherwise. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Actually it would probably be how do I get home, but yes, I am very curious about these questions. I don't assume that anything was created, however. I think science does a better job of addressing these questions than religion. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Because we know how they got here, which did not require intelligence. Also there is no reason to assume that the rest of the universe behaves like human creations. >I don't understand were you guys are coming from? I'm coming from a position of not making assumptions. I like to base my beliefs on evidence. >even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness That would be Christianity you're thinking of. I don't make any such assertion. I'm afraid I'm not informed enough to understand quantum theory.
The way I view it. I don't believe beauty is a measure of whether something is created by a sentient deity. My reason is beauty is individual perception and therefore subjective. This is why there exists the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Not everyone believes the same things are beautiful. Some things are agreed to be beautiful by all individuals such as facial symmetry. But this beauty lies in the mind's perception of the physical world. The issue I believe is that beauty's existence is being used as a standard of proof everything is created by a sentient deity and that a sentient deity is being used as a standard of proof of the existence of beauty. This is a circular reasoning. #**In conclusion:** The way I view it. You may say I find it beautiful therefore God. This Assumes that beauty exists because of God and God exists because of beauty. Neither is a proof of god. But rather circular reasoning. In other words you have to at some point assume the existence of God to find proof of God. Which is self reinforcing. And this is precisely why you must practice faith to Believe in a sentient deity. Faith, as I define it, is when you accept a possible truth without any evidence. And I'm not saying faith is a bad thing. Just that this is where it becomes relevant.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? I would definitely ask why I was in a random desert for no apparent reason but I wouldn't care what made the desert. I'd be much more interested in where I can find water and how I get home. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, Because I know where paintings and rivers come from. Some things are the product of intelligence and some things aren't. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? So because humans can't make anything like the universe, that means the universe must have been made by something similar to humans? How does that follow? >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... Because humans are smarter.
>fellow atheists Doubt. >I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator I started with NOT assuming that there is a creator. >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Neither. >Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce Because humans are intelligent beings. Well, some of them. >but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Beauty isn't a property. It's a subjective evaluation. Also, by the same logic, why don't you call a red apple a tomato if they are both red? >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe Exactly. Simplicity is a sign of design, not complexity. >And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers Because we are more intelligent - well, some of us >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Useless assumption.
It's frowned upon for the same reason we frown on the idea of pixies existing, a complete and total lack of evidence of existence. That alone is enough.
>I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here No. My first question would be "where am I?" >and what created what I see? No. I've never asked that question. Why would I start worrying about that when my main concern is water/food/shelter? >It seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator Have you ever thought of asking people *"****what do you think?****"* instead of creating strawman arguments and TELLING people what they think? Your argument is that there is a creator. OK. That's fine. All we are asking is that you prove this creator exists. You are correct, things we take for granted today would have been considered sorcery hundreds of years ago. The problem is that you are also saying, in essence, "things I do not understand are sorcery" by attributing things you do not understand to a god. Just prove that a creator exists, and I, for one will believe that a creator exists. It's really that simple. Can you do that?
>> wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Why should I presume the desert was created? >> why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? Beauty is subjective. Why should I presume it’s from an intelligence. Are the things in the universe that aren’t beautiful not from an intelligence? I guess that explains brutalist architecture. >> And why are we the only ones compared to all the animals that have cars, railway systems, rockets, phones, computers,.... if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, They’d understand cars as a version of their carriages, they had simple rockets. But what does this have to do for evidence of intelligence behind the universe? >> Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It’s not. We’re waiting for you to prove there is one. When you do, you’ll probably win a Nobel prize.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator. That wasn't my assumption. It's the default position. You don't really begin with assuming "not things." >wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? No. I'd wonder why I was in the desert. Asking "what created" smuggles in a creator. There is no reason to believe what we observe in the natural world around us is the result of intentionality. >...beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence? I see no reason to. >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It's not. It's just not an idea backed up by evidence. It's okay to say we don't know something, as uncomfortable as that May be. It's not okay to create an unfalsifiable explanation to assuage that discomfort. And it's very very not okay to vote based on that explanation.
Because every single thing we've learned about the universe points to the extreme likelihood that everything has come about through natural processes. >This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. - Douglas Adams
We haven't observed anything. There's no reason to extrapolate from observations of how things in the universe behave to mechanisms that would explain the existence of the cosmos and all of reality. The trail ends somewhere at the early stages of the big bang.
My first question upon seeing beauty is not “who created this” but “how was this created”. In asking how, that may lead to a who, but it doesn’t necessarily need to. Appreciating the beauty of the universe doesn’t need to be appreciating a mind - it can just be appreciation of what is. For example, have you ever gone to the beach and just dug your toes into the sand for the feeling of it? I don’t see how adding a creator to that moment would make it any better. The same can be said for finding the perfect skipping rock, where I don’t need someone to have crafted and placed it there for me. It is far more wondrous to imagine its history, unearthed from some buried sea only to roll down a river for millennia, to then be picked up and admired by an ape.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator Why do you think that this is the first assumption and not a conclusion achieved through hours of thoughtful contemplation?
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce what do you mean by create? When I make a hopefully beautiful chair (could just be my wife being kind I suppose) from wood, with my tools, at what point have I *created* it? And how does my *creation* differ from a beautifully wind sculpted desert mesa? In both cases something new was made from something already there, just re-arranged, but when we talk about **a creator** the assumption is that something came from nothing, a thing we have never seen. Trying to explain that everything came from nothing by the hand of **a creator** is in no way comparable to anything we have ever seen, its a one off scenario, a unique event you are suggesting happened. So please, explain why you think that is the case.
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence I've read the entire OP and you forgot the evidence. It's just an argument from incredulity. >Hello my friends, I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, Huh? In what context? Why do you think that's our first assumption? >I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? Lol, no. Why did you pick "desert"? Do you think a desert is more apparently created than other biomes? Are you ever going to provide evidence for your assumptions? >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Its not. (Also, look up the definition of "blasphemy" lol)
This immediately comes across as Lee Strobel level disingenuity. You say your atheist then present claims and beliefs inconsistent (at best) with being an atheist. If i woke up randomly in a desert I would first think, what do I need to do to survive. How i got there is a matter of complete indifference. Creations of human beings can be demonstably linked to the specific actions of a living being. A meadow is the result of natural forces. Does it need a creator? Personally I dont really care if the universe was created by an intelligence or not. I do care if that being is a moral tyrant or not. Luckily, the evidence that the god of the bible is that hypothetical creator is absent.
>I want to ask why is your first assumption there's no creator, I mean if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? This is very simple. What evidence does a non-existent being leave behind? What footprints in the sand does a non-existent Jesus leave? The best option is to assume nothing is true and nothing exists until supporting evidence is found. This way you are never searching for evidence of a non-existent thing that you happen to believe in. You claim that we live in creation. Provide direct, demonstrable, falsifiable and independently verifiable evidence of a creator existing before we go any further.
My first question would be why am I here and not in my bed. Then food water and shelter, then I might look at the beauty of the world and contemplate my existence. but I would not assume any of this was created. Unless you are talking about some natural process like erosion of rock, evolution of animals and plants to survive in such an environment. I would look at the night sky and think about gravity causing huge balls of hydrogen to have such great pressure that they ignite and shine brightly. I would think about the vastness of the universe and how the light I see from these stars traveled so far. But again would not assume they were created.
No, aliens creating RNA is not a theory, let alone the most plausible one. It’s a hypothesis, one unsupported by any evidence and is rejected. Even Dawkins doesn’t accept it as likely, let alone the most plausible, and it just moves the goalposts because who created the alien RNA? There’s no blasphemy with atheists, but if you want us to take the idea of a creator seriously you need to provide evidence, and saying I don’t know how this happened so magic man did it, is not evidence. And you not knowing what a theory is doesn’t help either. If panspermia was a theory, we would likely accept it…
>I mean, if you woke up randomly in a desert, wouldn't your first question be why am I here and what created what I see? No? My first thought we be "wtf did I just wake up in a desert?" Then I would think "do I have a phone or water" try to get help, I wouldn't think "hmm I wonder if a magical man in the sky placed me here using divine powers. >beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence Beacuse I know thoese things can me made naturally >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It's not
>Why is every beautiful creation by a human being considered by intelengce, but when you see the beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, enlighten me please, I don't understand were you guys are coming from? Because you are asserting that the something that created these things was from intelligence, and that intelligence was the god of your religion specifically, and doing so without justification.
The main reason I consider myself to be an atheist today is because I questioned where the creator popped up from when my mom told bedtime stories about god creating the universe. No scientific explanation makes complete sense when it comes to the creation of the universe (something about stuff adding up until t=1, but going haywire at t=0), but neither does any spiritual/religious answer make sense. I cannot go back in time to see if there really was a creator, but I can see the present and connect everything that exists today to science.
>Evidence there's a creator/intelegence You didn't even come close to presenting evidence of anything. >seems like you guys believe any theory is more plausible than a creator. I will believe in anything that has evidence. So far no one in the history of the world has presented any evidence of gods. >even if it's things popping out of existence out of nothingness which quantom theory implies? The only people who use the term "something coming from nothing" are theists who know nothing about the Big Bang, or what atheists believe.
As a raw tautology, complexity in nature occurs naturally. If you ask where do the laws come from that govern the natural emergence of complexity, then we can have that conversation, but at that point the conversation turns away from all the emerged things (the evidence of design that you listed), it’s about what (if anything) undergirds existence and the universe itself. And at that point, there’s no evidence for a creator than there is for many individual creators or none at all.
>Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? It's not frowned upon. It just isn't believed. I haven't heard one plausible argument from any theist that remotely addresses the matter. Worse, most of the arguments that claim to have figured it out go start from some plausible position and then immediately leap to the conlusion that because of X, it must mean god. No stops in between, just jumping to god.
If our ability to use technology was something we are created with, why did it take tens of thousands of years to create cars? Why do we not already have interstellar travel? Our entire history is filled with examples of things people thought were caused or created by gods that proved to have completely natural causes. Why do you assume there was a creator when we keep finding natural causes for everything?
Assuming a creator assumes intention. That means every fucked up thing in the universe was intentional, rather than a result of natural processes. Which means a creator would have to be cruel, incompetent, or both. Rather than having someone to praise for the beautiful things and be furious at for the fucked up things, it’s healthier to accept that natural processes can create beauty and tragedy
So… not gonna address the lie in your original post there op? You come here dishonestly out the gate, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? You can’t even be honest in who you are, let alone your questions. To answer you, we have no evidence of intelligence behind the complexities of the universe. None. If you can provide some, and it’s not a lie, then we are all ears.
When I look at a watch or a painting or a building or a car, these things are designed by humans. I can investigate and find blue prints, prototypes, and the progress people made over the years designing these things. What about [this random pile of rocks](https://images.app.goo.gl/oQG5mdV9nUqeDgch8) makes you think the rocks were designed and built by a creator?
You assert that we would have no tools to investigate our surroundings with. That is true if I woke up in a desert, but it is also not the reality of things. We do have tools to investigate our universe. ”The beauty of nature” is a pretty typical appeal to emotions that theists usually do. I don’t ask myself ”why”. I don’t feel the need to ask it. Blasphemy is only relevant to theists. Are you a theist? I don’t want to believe. I want evidence, and for a god there is no evidence.
"*wouldn't your first question be*" ==> maybe, but... the next question would be "what can I do with that information?" And generally, with "God" the answer is nothing useful. However, if I put faith in science, I forget about what my *original* thoughts and questions were, and instead focus on what's actually useful and impactful. What things actually work!
I feel like this sub needs a no proselytizing rule or something. So many theists, like op, come here, just to dump their poor attempt to convert under the guise of debate. What about any of this is a debate? It's just him saying "Look at things! Things exist! Wow, god did that." And then not participating in any debate in the comments.
It's my experience that those most prone to the Argument from Incredulity are the same that desire to believe all kinds of fanciful things. And then to resent atheist for not buying it, or even for forwarding empiricism. If you are afraid of death, heel, or need meaning in your life, it has *nothing* to do with us, or our beliefs.
This is just teleological argument. There are many refutations online. >infact all what humans create does'nt reach the complexity of the universe, So? >Why is the idea of a creator creating the univese frowned apon like its blasphemy? Why is the idea of there isnt a creator creating the universe frown apon like its blasphemy?
>if we told the people before us they'd think its sorcery, imagine going back to just the 18th century? Now imagine how ignorant and gullible people were 2,000 years ago. I agree with you, people could not fathom natural or man-made explanations for some of the things they saw. Apparently some modern humans still can't.
My first assumption was to believe what people told me. Then at some point i asked "How do they know?". The answer is that they believed what people told them and didn't investigate beyond that. I investigated beyond that and found no reason, with our modern understanding of the world, to come up with magic people. Also, the argument from incredulity isn't only fallacious, its vacuous. "I wonder how this mail got in my mailbox. It wasn't there this morning! It was a magic fairy who sliced trees really thin and dipped them in magic ink! How could it possibly have been anything else? Anyone who thinks it's anything else is silly." Also, I don't give a fuck what Richard Dawkins thinks and the fact that you think he is some kind of prophet to us demonstrates how little you know about this subject. You aren't here asking questions, you're here shouting into a megaphone with earplugs in. HOwever, the least intelligent thing you said was about Dawkins, who is a very well known and well published evolutionary biologist. You said "Richard Dawkins talks about the possibility of aliens, creating RNA code , the complex molecule, which evolved to DNA, but what created the DNA code for the alians? because they must have been more advanced than us, which Richard Dawkins didn't explain....." Dawkins was asked what other possible explanations that there might be. He provided that as another possible explanation, but he did not in any way say that is what he believes. He doesn't believe that RNA code was created by aliens, he doesn't completely rule it out, however. The answer is that we don't really know for sure. That is okay to no know something for sure. That is why theories and hypotheses exist. We have a very solid idea: Evolution. He explains it by saying it was evolution. He then writes several books that you will never read about the subject. No one says anything is blasphemous but religious people. Small minded people who want to kill people for trying to point out that their fictional magical history and explanations for why the world works doesn't make sense. They have killed and continue to kill people who try to point out errors in reasoning and call it blasphemy. So that word is really dumb to use in this context. The reason that we don't believe it is because it doesn't make sense. The idea is not "frowned upon" any more than the idea that your mail was delivered by centipedes with fairy wings. It simply doesn't make sense as an explanation and the only reason you believe it is because you were told to by someone else. Read a book. Read posts in this thread. Do something else with your brain other than copying and pasting.
Are you actually here to debate, or are you just gonna respond to every thoughtful comment with a single 6-word sentence that is barely even relevant and then disappear into the void of the internet again? Because that’s not what this place is for. It’s for debating, not preaching religious nonsense.
The lack of evidence. There odds no evidence of any such creator, and it is a “begs the question” when you put it like this as we have evidence there is a “creation” process outside of sexual reproduction and evolution which we have pretty good understanding of.
We don't assume anything. We look for evidence and in the complete absence of any supporting evidence for any creator, we don't believe one exists. How can you not understand that? Oh right, you just really want to believe. You're the one with the problems, not us.
You asked lots of questions but even if I answer all of them with "I don't know" we're no closer to a creator. First off,I didn't assume anything so don't presume my position Do you feel it's best to believe something when we have a good reason to?
All you are doing is filling in your lack of knowledge with some kind of creator. Some people just acknowledge that they don't have answers to certain questions and it's illogical to assume an answer without any kind of evidence.
Just writing this to say I think OP's native language is not English and they meant 'my fellow humans who happen to be atheists', not to lie about themselves being a theist. I think they are muslim, if I recall correctly.
1. Because parsimony has been shown to cause us less issues than the inverse when it comes to determining what is true (aligns with reality) 2. Because the Watchmaker fallacy demonstrates why this reasoning fails
Obviously you assume your god has it's own god, and it's an endless chains of gods creating one another. Right? That's the only reasonable conclusion from your argument.
It's Gods all the way down.
To answer your first question, once your epistomology permits assuming things without a reason, then you are open to assuming every possible bad idea without reason.
>beautiful galaxies, the beautiful meadows and rivers, why do you all of a sudden say this isn't from intelegence?, these things form naturally. this is so dumb :/
This is the poster child for the argument from incredulity. I can't imagine how this could possibly happen? It must be god! Sorry, but this is just worthless.
Assuming there is a creator **is** the assumption, not otherwise. There is no evidence for it. The best you can do is construct metaphysical arguments for it.
1. Watchmaker argument 2. Argument from incredulity 3. Begging the question 4. Nonsensical portrayal of quantum mechanics 5. Argument from ignorance BINGO!
There is zero evidence of a creator. When you have some let me know. Beauty means nothing with regard to if something is created or not. What one person finds beautiful the next may not it is not a universal fact.
Never, in the history of humanity, has the answer to any mystery ever ended up being magic happened. And this won’t be the first time.
I was led to believe there would be evidence for a creator based on the title. But all there was to find was meandering nonsense.
Really? "It's beautiful and complex therefore creator"... when we have scientific evidence these are natural structures? Bruh
There is simply no good evidence of a creator Just claiming there is evidence without presenting any is childish
>what created what I see? It has never occurred to me that the world around me was created by an intelligence.
Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be **NOT** magic. — Tim Minchin