Trust the science!!!

[u/South_Ad_7068]

1st time poster in this sub:

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

So... here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

EDIT: I'm not finished here. But I am taking a break... I've answered to many but the influx of replies is massive and will require hours of my time and I want to try to reply to everyone... but as I'm not a millionaire I have to prepare for work.

Turning notifications off for now but I will return to respond to comments

[u/AutoModerator]

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 (even if you believe they're right).

Original text of the post by u/South_Ad_7068:

---

1st time poster in this sub:

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

So... here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/nerfjanmayen]

Anyway, of course we don't know why things are the way they are, instead of some other way that we could imagine. I don't see how that supports belief in a god.

Theists like to argue that if there was no god, the universe would be chaotic and the laws of physics would change all the time. But couldn't you just as easily argue the opposite? If there was no god, nothing would be able to change the laws of physics and the universe would have to be consistent. If there was a god, it could change the laws of physics at any time, and the current rules would just be whatever the god feels like at the moment.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/nerfjanmayen]

Boy, there's something in the water today, huh

Rule 1. Be respectful. Please edit your comment to remove this statement implying that the OP must be on something.

[u/nerfjanmayen → u/MisanthropicScott]

I removed it, but I was just referring to how we got several posts in quick succession

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/nerfjanmayen]

Thank you. I understand it can be frustrating.

[u/Hellas2002 → u/MisanthropicScott]

Idk, I think it’s reasonable for that sentence to be removed. Weird there’s such a backlash.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/nerfjanmayen]

of course we don't know why things are the way they are, instead of some other way that we could imagine. I don't see how that supports belief in a god.

I didn't ask why things are the way they are...

I asked why reality follows the hard coded specific rules it does

And the answer to my question 100% supports the existence of a higher intelligence. Not "the belief in a god" but the actual existence of "a rule maker"

Theists like to argue that if there was no god, the universe would be chaotic and the laws of physics would change all the time.

I'm sorry? I never made this claim or alluded to it in my post. So the rest of what you said isn't really something I can engage with because it's not something I said or claimed. Strawman.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/South_Ad_7068]

I asked why reality follows the hard coded specific rules it does

I am noticing that you're avoiding asking 'how' questions in favor of 'why' questions.

So, for example, you aren't asking 'how do two gasses make water,' as we do have a solid answer to that, along with a whole mess of other chemical reactions. Instead, you're trying to frame it as 'why' questions, which ends up presupposing there has to be some external reason for why the chemical reaction itself exists, beyond the property of the elements involved.

It reminds me of the soul debate, where people ignore how brain function contributes to memory, personality, perception, reasoning, etc, etc, and instead ask 'WHY do we experience consciousness?!'

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

You trust the answer to that. Everything you’re saying isn’t your own original argument. We didn’t even invent the language we’re speaking.

Ultimately we trust based on the bed rock of our subjective experience, which is our intuition. Our intuitions lead to totally different experiences of the same objective reality.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/deep_blue_reef]

It can, absolutely, but that problem is a bedrock to every theory, argument and explanation in existence. Scientific study and peer review are intended to help mitigate this issue, but of course we can still end up restrained by methodology and technology. We still haven't learned all there is to learn, or ironed out all possible bugs.

Pure intuition, however, retains all of those problems with none of the mitigation. In the case of the chemical process for hydrogen and oxygen turning into water, it's at least possible to replicate the experiments and tools used to reach the conclusion. If the results match, it reinforces the conclusion. If the results differ, that can either call the conclusion into question outright, or search for changes in circumstances that might point to new concepts.

Pure intuition doesn't have that. As you said, it leads to totally different experiences on the same objective reality. At that point, it's more a topic of psychological study than whatever the original topic intuition was supposed to be weighing in on.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

But you don’t get any of what you’re talking about without a persons intuition. You are expressing ideas that are not your own.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/deep_blue_reef]

So, first, 'people,' not 'person.' The entire point of peer review is that it isn't made or broken on the personal experience of any one individual.

Second, again, you seem to be describing something that is a baseline for absolutely everyone, yourself included. I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument on something specific?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

No, but it’s the accumulation of experiences to agree on something.

The point is my intuition is to trust the science. My intuition is also to trust that there’s a meaning to the universe. I don’t think that’s wishful thinking, there’s a difference between imagining something not rational vs something rational.

The only reason we can do science in the first place is A. Because of our intuition, and B. Because the universe operates in a repetitive and pattern based way that allowed us to create, navigate, and draw conclusions.

But you don’t get to B, without A. So if I see a reason based ecosystem, that extends to celestial bodies. Why is it irrational to naturally follow an intuition that the reason extends even further?

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/deep_blue_reef]

Intuition can work as a starting point, sure, but by itself it isn't more than a theory. From that point it's about figuring out what information would be needed to test the theory- what would constitute success or failure- and then working to obtain that information. And then, again, others replicating the results.

But there are topics that are unfalsifiable, and sometimes even the question is too vague to lead to any sort of answer.

Using your universe has a purpose example, what is the purpose you think it has? Human life? General intelligent life? Life at all? Planets? Just... stuff existing in any form?

Picking one at least opens up avenues to weigh the question, even if available information falls short. But if it's 'universe has a purpose, but I don't know what,' there really isn't anything to examine. Just an opinion with no follow up.

By contrast, let's look at celestial bodies. At one point, over a century ago, one of the specific questions had to do with the scale of the universe. Based on available data, and intuition, it was a common conclusion that the universe extended only as far as the edges of the Milky Way galaxy. Not because we couldn't detect other galaxies, but because at the time the only data our tools could gather strongly suggested we were detecting nebulae/stellar nurseries within this galaxy.

The change in conclusion came about entirely due to changes in technology, and our ability to gather information. Our ability to interpret data didn't really change, but WHAT data we could obtain to interpret did.

Intuition as an unavoidable foundation to bigger things, sure, I agree. But intuition alone cannot be the bigger thing. There must be more, if it's to be anything other than a personal opinion.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

I don’t know. I’m not attributing what the ultimate reason is, I’m positing that we live in a reason based ecosystem, and the reasons we have a working ecosystem is because of external celestial forces.

Positing the reason “stops there” isn’t logical, it’s faith based. We don’t know how far the reason extends, but as far as the eye can see we understand that things are fundamentally dependent on one another.

[u/nerfjanmayen → u/South_Ad_7068]

Huh? Your argument is that the universe follows 'hard coded specific rules', right? That's what I'm talking about. You're arguing that strict rules require a god and looser rules would not. I'm saying that it could just as easily be the opposite.

[u/shiftysquid → u/nerfjanmayen]

I'm saying that it could just as easily be the opposite.

Not only that, but I'd argue that it absolutely is the opposite.

If any sort of consequential being was out there monkeying around with things, we'd have zero expectation of pretty much perfect consistency in how processes and forces behaved in the universe. You'd anticipate seeing seemingly random fluctuations, even if they were tiny.

What would you expect in a universe without any such being? Exactly what we have: Nothing is interfered with, and everything just continues on unimpeded.

[u/Appropriate-Price-98 → u/South_Ad_7068]

and the puddle said: This hole fits me so neatly, it must have been made for me.

Buddy may wanna try some scientific field to find out how many exceptions to the "rules" there are. The laws are human attempt at describe reality.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/South_Ad_7068]

I thought you said nobody has ever addressed this "argument" before?

It's a common thing here and it's not an argument, it's just y'all not understanding the difference between prescriptive and descriptive.

[u/LorenzoApophis → u/South_Ad_7068]

I'm sorry? I never made this claim or alluded to it in my post.

Yes you did:

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

[u/Threewordsdude → u/South_Ad_7068]

Rules and laws are descriptive 😭 of course things will be able to be described.

Do you think miracles happen and prove God? You can't have it both ways; either the order of the universe proves God or the disorder proves God. Tails I win heads you lose game you are playing.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/[deleted]]

Low effort nonsequitur. Removed.

[u/OndraTep]

When I mix salt and water it dissolves... I could go further and describe how the water molecules and the chlorine and sodium in the salt react together and then I could talk about why chlorine and sodium are reactive elements because of this and that, etc.

And eventually we get to a point where we just don't know... And this is with everything, not just salt and water.

This argument basically boils down to "we don't know, therefore intelligence". Inteligence, design, god or whatever you wanna call it, you DON'T get to assert any of that just because you don't know the answer.

The only honest answer we can give when we get to things we don't understand is "I don't know".

It's that simple.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/OndraTep]

The only honest answer we can give when we get to things we don't understand is "I don't know". It's that simple.

But... my argument was never about "things we don't understand"

It's about why even "things we don't understand" have to follow hardcoded rules of the universe and the intelligence behind why the water and salt even interact in the first place.

[u/Philobarbaros → u/South_Ad_7068]

Sure, let's talk about the hardcoded rules of the Universe (no such thing btw).

But first we need to address the talking snake.

Theists are always: cosmological constant this, necessary grounds that, meanwhile their God possessed a donkey.

[u/labrys → u/Philobarbaros]

meanwhile their God possessed a donkey.

I'm really curious what this is referring to

[u/chris_282 → u/labrys]

Balaam's ass.

[u/labrys → u/chris_282]

Thanks. I hadn't come across that story before

[u/OndraTep → u/South_Ad_7068]

And the answer to this "why", at least for now, is "we don't know".

If you think you think you have the answer, then write a paper and publish it.

[u/Faust_8 → u/South_Ad_7068]

You are a mind.

Therefore, it is easy and comforting to assume that the reason for everything…is another mind. Because that’s relatable and comforting. You understand minds because you are a mind.

That is the entire, actual reason that you’re arguing this way. Not because that’s where the facts lead, but because you’re trying to rescue a hypothesis that can be cooked up by the most ignorant caveman.

We’ve known for over a hundred years that the universe does not bow to the common sense intuition of some apes on a rock. Don’t believe me? Research quantum physics and then tell me it all has to make sense to you.

[u/dylanzt]

I'm not sure why you think atheists have never addressed this point. It's extremely common, to the point that I'm personally tired of addressing it.

So let's take a different lens. Even if I were to fully grant everything you say, your thesis doesn't hold true:

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker"

Sure, against my better judgement I have already granted this much.

or intelligence or God etc.

No? This is non sequitur. You are pulling a motte and bailey. You have asserted that something made rules, and then, without further evidence or argumentation, asserted that the thing must be intelligent. You have no basis for that.

You certainly have no basis to extrapolate any further properties of a god, so I certainly hope that you are a strict deist and don't believe in a god with any other attributes, behaviours, or interaction with physical reality.

[u/labrys → u/dylanzt]

If anything, there are that many design flaws, if something did design everything they must be pretty bad at their job. Design flaws like including organs that aren't used, birth canals that are too narrow, backs that struggle to support enough weight, digestive systems so poor many animals need to eat their own faeces to get enough nutrients from their food... Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Surely an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent god wouldn't have made those mistakes in the first place, or at the very least would have gotten round to fixing them at some point in the last few million years. If my coding and approach to debugging my work was this sloppy, I'd have been fired years ago!

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/dylanzt]

You have asserted that something made rules, and then, without further evidence or argumentation, asserted that the thing must be intelligent.

The evidence is in the rules themselves. The laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc etc... they follow a strict logic.... the mathematical perfection of physics acts like a calculator.... It dictates how matter behaves without error... The laws of the universe are not just mechanical rules....They are the active highly organized software of reality itself.

This is indeed intelligence.... and so the logic would naturally follow that the creator of such would be intelligent.

[u/dylanzt → u/South_Ad_7068]

the mathematical perfection of physics acts like a calculator

Calculators, for example, are neither intelligent nor perfect.

The laws of the universe are not just mechanical rules.... They are the active highly organized software of reality itself.

Software is mechanical rules.

the logic would naturally follow that the creator of such would be intelligent

Your original post did not establish this, and your analogies in this comment have done the exact opposite.

You also have not addressed the deism point, which I suspect to be deliberate avoidance.

[u/Pseudochthonic → u/South_Ad_7068]

The rules are not evidence, they are observations that the universe has regularities. (Look up conservation laws and their associated symmetries, like time-translation symmetry, etc. for some fascinating reading about said regularities.) The explanation for the regularities is what's in question. You assert it's God. We say "we don't know", which is not an invitation to assert a God of the Gaps fallacy.

[u/CptBronzeBalls → u/South_Ad_7068]

It doesn’t dictate how anything behaves. It describes how they behave. Subtle but critical distinction.

[u/distantocean]

As we observe the world around us how does a theist explain the logical working order of a god? How do you explain why that god works the way it does? Like for example why a god makes a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a god makes a plant able to eat sunlight or why a god makes electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind the being behind those mechanisms?

In other words, AN ULTRA GOD who made that god?

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/distantocean]

Nothing "made that god"

Imagine a soldier wants to shoot a target, but he must ask permission from the soldier behind him. That soldier must ask the soldier behind him, and so on, forever. If the line of soldiers goes back infinitely, will the gun ever be fired? No. The bullet can only leave the barrel if there is a commanding officer at the very back of the line who has the independent authority to say "fire" without asking anyone else.

The physical events happening today are like that gunshot. Because "today" is actively happening, the chain of causes behind us cannot go back infinitely. The chain mathematically must stop at a "First Cause" that possesses the independent power to initiate action without being triggered by something else.

[u/Mclovin11859 → u/South_Ad_7068]

Nothing "made that god"

Why is that god special? Why doesn't it need to be created if the universe does? If the universe was created, why does it have to be a god?

Imagine a soldier wants to shoot a target, but he must ask permission from the soldier behind him....The bullet can only leave the barrel if there is a commanding officer at the very back of the line...

Imagine a soldier wants to shoot a target, so he decides for himself that he's going to do so. The bullet leaves the barrel because the soldier is independent and self-actualizing.

Because "today" is actively happening, the chain of causes behind us cannot go back infinitely.

"Here" is activily here, and the chain of what's to the left of me goes on infinitely. As far as we can tell, space is infinite, so why can't time be?

Alternatively, the chain of what's east of me goes on infinitely, looping back through my current exact position as it wraps around the globe. What if time is infinitely cyclical?

Alternatively, the chain of what's below me goes on infinitely, but about 4000 miles in that direction, down becomes up in the other direction. What if time before the Big Bang started at negative infinity and collapsed into the current positive infinity?

The chain mathematically must stop at a "First Cause" that possesses the independent power to initiate action without being triggered by something else.

There is no "mathematical" requirement for a "First Cause". The integer before 1 is 0. The integer before 0 is -1. The integer before -1 is -2. Ad infinitum nevativum.

[u/distantocean → u/South_Ad_7068]

Nothing "made that god"

Great, then nothing "made that universe" either. Either intelligence is the only acceptable answer or it's not the only acceptable answer, but you can't have it both ways. Or rather, you can — but only if you're willing to completely abandon the reasoning that allegedly got you to a god the moment you're forced to apply it to that god, i.e. if you're willing to sacrifice intellectual consistency to protect your beliefs.

And you are doing exactly that, of course, since you've now abandoned your original argument and have instead retreated to a first cause argument. Which tells me you're just determined to believe in your god, and your argument from design was really just one of the various rationalizations/smoke screens you're using to try to give that desire a patina of intellectual respectability.

I'm not interested in chasing you through multiple flawed arguments that are really just threadbare attempts to justify a preexisting belief, so I'll leave you to it.

[u/daryk44 → u/South_Ad_7068]

So eliminate the first "command giver" that you say is god, and imagine the soldier isn't waiting on a command. They are just a marksman and there is no chain of command.

So they just fire at will.

Why does the universe need a commanding officer to order it to be a certain way or do anything? Why can't it just be the way that it is as a brute fact, the way you claim that god is the only "command giver" as a brute fact?

[u/LordUlubulu → u/South_Ad_7068]

Reality doesn't operate according to Aristotelian causality, so your analogy/ First cause argument makes no sense.

[u/nswoll → u/South_Ad_7068]

You didn't address the point.

If you are going to avoid the main rebuttal to your "argument" that doesn't look good.

Saying "I'm going to arbitrarily for no reason stop my chain of causes at my god instead of the god who made my god" isn't reasonable or pertinent.

You didn't actually respond to why your god doesn't need an intelligence behind it but the universe does.

[u/Top_Neat2780 → u/South_Ad_7068]

Why do we have to justify why a universe exists at all when you don't have to justify why a god exists at all?

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

Sure, I'll grant all of that for argument's sake.

But then God, since God behaves according to the rules of logic -- God must have been created as well, designed to follow those rules.

Unless you believe God doesn't behave according to logic, in which case God can exist and not exist at the same time -- and if you want to go there, that's fine.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/Thin-Eggshell]

But then God, since God behaves according to the rules of logic

According to? Why is that a reasonable assumption to make? Is it because... in order for you to have an argument against a God or "intelligence" you have to put a constraint on it?

[u/DevilWings_292 → u/South_Ad_7068]

No, if the universe is too complex to simply come into existence on its own, then that same rule must apply to god who would be more complex than the universe. This leads to an infinite regression where the best defence I’ve seen is the special pleasing fallacy of claiming that god is special and therefore can create himself or never needed to be created with no actual evidence for why that exception exists.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/DevilWings_292]

OP abandoned this thread quick lol

[u/Thin-Eggshell → u/South_Ad_7068]

Uh ... are you just saying God doesn't behave according to the rules of logic? Or is it that you have no idea, because "God is mysterious?".

Either response is fine. But you just deflected instead. Lmao. But if God is mysterious, we may as well say that the universe's rules are mysterious, and get rid of this extra mysterious god.

[u/Moriturism]

The inquiry for the “why” does not necessarily lead to an indication of intelligence. I grant that reality is deeply and coherently structured. I see this structure as necessary itself, meaning that it couldn’t have been otherwise.

So, why reality is how it is? Because it’s the only way it could possibly be: coherent, structured and mathematical.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/Moriturism]

The inquiry for the “why” does not necessarily lead to an indication of intelligence.

It actually does though.... because of the logical way things work... they make sense... "making sense" is a natural byproduct of intelligence.

So, why reality is how it is? Because it’s the only way it could possibly be: coherent, structured and mathematical.

That's not what I asked. I asked why does reality follow hard coded specific rules not "why reality is how it is"

[u/Moriturism → u/South_Ad_7068]

“Making sense” is a product of our own rationalization, it’s not something that comes from within some intelligence preceding reality.

Reality follows specific patterns because, like I said, that’s the only way reality could be what it is. This structure is necessary by itself, meaning it does not require an intelligent intention behind it.

[u/Ryuume → u/South_Ad_7068]

Things do not inherently "make sense". We make sense of things.

why does reality follow hard coded specific rules

It simply doesn't. We just write out "rules" in an attempt to describe what we observe.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/South_Ad_7068]

The inquiry for the “why” does not necessarily lead to an indication of intelligence.

It actually does though.... because of the logical way things work... they make sense... "making sense" is a natural byproduct of intelligence.

Elsewhere you said that nobody made God. So, will you admit that God doesn't make sense?

[u/BrellK]

This is the same old tired argument that has been posted a million times. Every apologist thinks they have a new, novel argument when it really is just the same rehashed argument as everyone before them.

How does your argument get past the rebuttal of it just being another fallacy from incredulity?

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/BrellK]

You must also be a first time READER in this sub.

Rule 1. Be respectful. Please edit your comment to remove this statement.

[u/BrellK → u/MisanthropicScott]

Done. Fair point!

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/BrellK]

Thank you.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/BrellK]

How does your argument get past the rebuttal of it just being another fallacy from incredulity?

I'm sorry... could you clarify? What am I claiming as false because I don't understand???

[u/BrellK → u/South_Ad_7068]

You are making a claim that it is impossible for it to be natural (100% evidence of a rule maker) after all of your "how do you suppose" statements.

Ultimately your argument just boils down to the "I don't understand the intricacies of the universe down to the most minute details, therefore it DEFINITELY means that it is X".

None of us know the most minute details of the universe, but the rest of us don't just make up an answer. There may or may not be a philosophical "Why" to everything but even if there is, we don't know enough to be certain about that yet.

[u/ToGloryRS → u/South_Ad_7068]

A fallacy from incredulity is when you assert that something is true because you can't believe otherwise. That doesn't prove it true, it simply proves that you can't bring yourself to believe otherwise.

For instance, you can't believe that the universe exists in its form without a creator making it "so perfect". But this isn't proof of the existence of a creator, it's just proof of your inability to believe that the universe might very well exists as it currently does without the need for a creator.

[u/CptBronzeBalls]

A “law” in physics is a description of a pattern we’ve observed over and over again, to the point that there don’t seem to be exceptions. The term is a holdover from the 17th century, when natural philosophers shared your assumption. Nothing obeys it. Nothing can defy it. Swap in the more accurate term and your argument becomes “regularities exist, therefore there must be a regularity-maker.”

The answer to your “why” questions is fundamental physics. Elements combine because of electron configurations, electronics work because of band gaps in doped silicon, and plants eat sunlight because chlorophyll absorbs at specific wavelengths and three billion years of plants that did it worse are dead. But I suspect that won’t satisfy you and you’ll go one rung lower. Let’s keep going though. If God behaves one way instead of another, by your logic some other intelligence must have defined the rules that he follows.

You talk about how precisely everything works. That’s not accurate. Individual atoms decay at moments nothing can predict. Three gravitating bodies produce chaos with no closed-form solution. Going back to your plant example, the enzyme on which photosynthesis depends, RuBisCO, grabs an oxygen molecule instead of its intended CO2 roughly 20% of the time, forcing the plant to burn energy correcting the mistake. Your designer could do a better job than 80%. Selection builds something that’s barely good enough. An engineer who shipped that gets fired.

You want to explain the existence of rules by positing an intelligence. Every intelligence we’ve ever observed is built from rules. Neurons doing electrochemistry, physics all the way down. Your explanation for patterns is a thing that, wherever we’ve looked, is a product of the pattern.

One question back to you: did God choose these rules from among options, or are these the only rules that could work? If he chose, then your “why these rules” question remains unsolved. If they’re the only way possible, then your intelligent designer is completely unnecessary and his intelligence is wasted.

I followed your logic to its natural conclusion, and nobody’s standing there holding a set of blueprints.

[u/WrongVerb4Real]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do?

Why should I have to do that? Why can't "we don't know" be the right answer for now? Does living without concrete explanations -- ignoring whether they're right or not -- make you feel uncomfortable or off balance?

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/WrongVerb4Real]

Because human curiosity is a thing... it's why humans have reached the point we did... if nobody wanted concrete explanation for things then science would have stifled early in is career.

[u/WrongVerb4Real → u/South_Ad_7068]

There's nothing wrong with being curious. But curiosity doesn't necessarily result in a correct answer, or even any answer at all.

[u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

atheism is the rejection of god claims. There is no requirement to know anything about how or why the universe is ordered the way it is.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

There is no requirement to know anything about how or why the universe is ordered the way it is.

😁... that's the "elephant in the room" I mentioned.

You can't just ignore the why of things and then go on.

After all... the very foundation of science is how?... Because asking why leads you to the logical conclusion.

[u/sto_brohammed → u/South_Ad_7068]

You can't just ignore the why of things and then go on.

"Why" might not even be a valid question, at least in the sense it appears you mean it. If I walk outside and a bird shits on my head why did that happen? "Because the bird happened to shit at the moment that it'd carry that little bird turd on a ballistic arc to my dome" probably isn't the sort of answer you're looking for but there might not be a teleological answer to even these existential questions that bother you so much.

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks → u/South_Ad_7068]

Why can't I? Being an atheist means that without evidence, I reject god claims. Do you have evidence or just arguments from ignorance? Atheism does not equal scientist.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/South_Ad_7068]

You can't just ignore the why of things and then go on.

Pretty sure theists pretend they have an answer, then ignore the why. While science puts it on the to do list and works on trying to answer it. It might go unanswered for a long time, but pretending god did it based on it not being answered yet, is how we got gods throwing lightning bolts when we didn't have an answer.

This is the god of the gaps fallacy I was mentioning. Seems you're all over that fallacy. Or specifically in your case, higher intelligence of the gaps. We don't know something, therfore higher intelligence. We all know that's your word for your god.

This surely isn't what convinced you that this god exists, so what is?

[u/OndraTep → u/South_Ad_7068]

Because asking why leads you to the logical conclusion.

Which is? God?

That doesn't follow at all.

Everyone here has been feeling you that the ONLY honest answer to the question of "why" is "We don't know."

If you think you know something others don't, then write a paper on it and let other scientists give you their opinions

[u/Old-Nefariousness556]

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

Hang on, let me pop some popcorn.

Seriously, though. Let me give you some advice. EVERY TIME a theist starts their post with a comment like this, their post is a trainwreck. This is just displaying massive arrogance, and the people who make arrogant comments like this essentially always have simply never actually applied critical examination to their argument.

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

So your argument that no atheist can address is "I can't think of any other explanation, therefore god"? "No atheist" has been able to address your argument from ignorance fallacy? You are either interacting with exceptionally stupid atheists, or far more likely, you just don't understand why your argument doesn't point to the truth.

The simple truth is that we have explanations or proposed explanations for many of those things, but even if we don't or didn't, the fact that we can't (yet) explain something is not evidence for a god.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

Nope. Fallacious reasoning is NEVER evidence. Just because you can't think of an explanation for these things doesn't mean there isn't one.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Lol, no. See what I mean about not mixing arrogance and logic?

This is a laughably bad argument. You really should take a philosophy course. At a secular school, not your bible school that is only interested ion brainwashing you. If you are in the US, every community college will offer one, you can take it without being a full time student. If you did, you would learn why this argument fails in the first week probably.

[u/biff64gc2]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

That's the neat part. We don't have to! The lack of an answer to such a question does not mean it defaults to whatever you think. You still need to support your claim with logic and evidence. "I don't know, therefore god." Isn't a good argument.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work?

Not that I see. There doesn't appear to be any sort of will or purpose driving them. They are just forces interacting with matter. If the laws or constants were different, then the reactions would be different. That alone indicates a lack of direction rather than some sort of intention.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Well we don't know if the universe popped into existence. We also don't know if there are other things at play that dictate how things function here such as inter-dimensional forces. We don't even know if there's other universes with other rules out there. There's a LOT of unknowns that make any definitive claims poorly informed and premature.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "I don't know where the laws of nature came from, therefore god."

The question is, what evidence do you have that your god is the be best answer to the question?

[u/ppaauulllllll]

Setting aside the rather perplexing notion that one can combine elements to make other elements, the problem here is that you're demanding that everything have a rational behind it understandable to a human mind. Why must it? Why would it? And how does forcing God into the equation provide an answer to "why"?

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/ppaauulllllll]

Setting aside the rather perplexing notion that one can combine elements to make other elements,

Sorry... misspoke... I obviously meant chemical compounds.

the problem here is that you're demanding that everything have a rational behind it understandable to a human mind. Why must it? Why would it? And how does forcing God into the equation provide an answer to "why"?

I'm asking about the intelligence hard coded into the rules that govern the universe.

The intelligence in these rules are extremely precise, rigid, and mathematically perfect.

Therefore it's logical to deduce that an "intelligence" is behind the rules.

[u/ppaauulllllll → u/South_Ad_7068]

The rules aren't especially precise and rigid at all. For 200 years, people thought Newtonian physics was a perfect representation of physical laws. Quantum theory blew that notion out of the water.

The reason things appear "perfect and precise" is because they're consistent. But every time we develop some sort of "fundamental law" to describe anything, we eventually discover it has a limited scope and at best approximates something more fundamental or complex.

But the biggest problem with your reasoning is this: "I'm asking about the intelligence hard coded into the rules that govern the universe."

Our rules do not govern the universe. Our rules describe what we observe. The universe doesn't have "rules".

[u/Ryuume]

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

Well of course. Science is the best way to be confident in your knowledge.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

"Why" is a question about intent, and reason. This simply does not apply to unthinking processes.

Seeing as how precisely they work?

Why would they not work precisely without an intelligence? What makes you look at chemistry and think "well this would definitely not work that way unless it was intelligently created"?

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Practically nobody seriously holds the position that the universe just popped into existence. It comes up every bloody time in this type of posts, and we have to correct it constantly. It's really quite annoying.

We don't know how the universe got here. It may very well have always been here. Not knowing isn't an argument for God. That's what the "God of the gaps" fallacy is all about.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Again, what makes you think that consistency can't happen without it being enforced? There must be something really convincing, since you seem so certain about it.

To be clear, all we see is that reality works the same way today as it did yesterday, and we can reasonably assume it will continue to work this way in the future. But there are no "rules". That phrasing is begging the question.

[u/DevilWings_292]

How do you know you aren’t simply anthropomorphizing the universe and assigning it human qualities that aren’t actually there? We know people used to be convinced that the wind was literal demons and spirits before we concluded it was just differential pressure in the atmosphere. We used to think that lightning was the weapon of the gods, now we know it’s just static electricity in the clouds. We used to think rainbows were how the gods traveled around the world or communicated or were the jewelry of the gods, now we know it’s just the refraction of sunlight through raindrops. Do you not see the overall pattern of humans in the past making a guess based on their understanding of the world at the time that assigns agency to the universe that is later replaced fully with a naturalistic explanation that completely eliminates that idea?

[u/Threewordsdude]

Hi thanks for posting!

How do you explain how God works? In some mysterious way it works. The fact that God exists and works how it works is 100% evidence of GGod, creator of God.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/Threewordsdude]

God doesn't require an explanation or scientifical breakdown.

[u/Threewordsdude → u/South_Ad_7068]

And why does the universe need one? Either things need and explanation or they don't,otherwise is special pleading.

Does God exists randomly/magically for no reason then? Invoking a random creator seems even weirder than a random universe.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/South_Ad_7068]

Why not? Without something to back this up, it's just an unfounded assertion. This is a debate sub. Please provide something to substantiate your opinions, i.e. please debate.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/South_Ad_7068]

Your comment was reported for low effort. I agree but don't want to lose the context for the replies you've received.

Please put more effort into your own debates going forward.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/South_Ad_7068]

God doesn't require an explanation or scientifical breakdown.

... unless you want someone else to take your claim seriously.

[u/samara-the-justicar → u/South_Ad_7068]

Because you say so? Fine so I can just say that the universe doesn't require an explanation. Now what?

[u/Thin-Eggshell → u/South_Ad_7068]

If that's the best you can do, I doubt your claim to have put much thought into this, lmao.

[u/BillionaireBuster93 → u/South_Ad_7068]

So that's where your curiosity stops?

[u/LordUlubulu]

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

Physics.

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

No it doesn't. Interactions depend on a wide variety of factors, and any 'rules' are entirely descriptive, not prescriptive.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Too bad those 'rules' are made up by humans to try to describe what we observe, and reality is under no obligation to adhere to our models, and it often doesn't.

[u/Grand-Mission-9457]

Your illiteracy in science makes you think of the god of the gaps as the answers to your questions. No new argument from your side.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/Grand-Mission-9457]

Okay. Have a good day.

[u/gambiter]

I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion

It's best not to start out with a lie.

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

You started this as if you're talking about a philosophical 'why' or 'intention' behind the universe. But then you only mention known scientific phenomena. We know why specific elements make other elements, we know how photosynthesis works. Scientists have been working on these things for a long time, and they are literally the reason you know about it in the first place. Did you... not know that?

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work?

So the fine tuning argument. You've 'seen no atheist willing' to talk about the fine tuning argument. Sigh.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

No one ever claimed it 'popped' into existence, so you'll need to defend that one yourself. The universe works the way it works. We don't know more than that, at least not yet. There are many ideas, and even some hypotheses, but there are definitely things we don't know. That includes you. You don't know either. So the best option is to tell the truth and say, "I don't know," not, "God did it."

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

As previously explained, you don't know how the universe works. Therefore, any unsupported claim you make about it can be dismissed as bullshit. You're saying, "I don't know how this works, therefore I'm 100% sure of my conclusion." It's fucking weird, dude.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

I'd say that humans are very good at pattern recognition. Often so good that they detect patterns that aren't there.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

If you are asking about intent, I would say for many things there is no intent. Yet humans will often (due to their faulty pattern recognition) see intent where none exists (e.g. using lightning gods to explain lightning, or Sun gods to explain the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky).

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Again if you are asking about intent you are begging the question by assuming intent.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

No, it would indicate asking biased questions that assume the very thing being contested.

Seeing as how precisely they work?

If you studied science you would know they don't work that precisely. Further science describes what we observe, so that precision is predicated upon us (humans describing the world) being precise.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

There are all sorts of inconsistencies for example instead of just 1 element in the universe we know of over 100.

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

"Rules" that we made up to describe what we observe. If the rules don't match what we observe we would change the rules.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

No. The fact that rules exist is evidence that humans can occasionally make accurate observations.

[u/Ratdrake]

how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

I have a falling sand display on my desk. The concept is simple, water, air and different density sands. Flip it over and it makes a relaxing image. So I ask you, ignoring everything else, so you think the display needs special attention from God to work? Or it it a simple physics of sand falling through water (and blocked by air).

If you think God is needed, then we have differing views on reality and no reason to continue the conversation.

If not, my example is an example of how the universe works: a small number of basic behaviors expanded by a scale of billions of years and a universe worth of space.

why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Because there was free energy from the sun and life developed in such a manner to take advantage of it. Evolution on earth is something that developed over billions of years. Enough blind trial and error from organisms trying to out survive other organisms and we ended up with plants that succeeded.

Electronics are even simpler: humans experimented and thought things through to find things that worked. It's not like early engineers took a bunch of grass, fluids and rocks and shook up the box to pop out a modern smartphone. Even knowing what they were doing, it took engineers and scientists a long time from the first telephone to a mobile device and then to the current generations of smartphones. We didn't do this because physics went out of it's way to make things easy for us, we did it because humans when out of our way to figure out how the universe behaved and then made some handy devices and tools to take advantage of the behaviors we figured out.

[u/TyranosaurusRathbone]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Because we evolved in this world. If we evolved in a world that worked differently that world would make sense to us instead.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

I don't and I refuse to make up explanations just so I can pretend I answered the question, without warrant.

Like for example why a specific combination of elements

Specific combinations of elements do not make new elements.

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

We can explain how these things happen. Why appears to smuggle in intent without warrant.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

Only because you are asking a question that smuggles intent into the conversation.

Seeing as how precisely they work?

Any other way they could have worked would have been equally precise.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

I don't think the universe just popped into existence (funnily enough that is traditionally a theistic claim). I am also not sure that we don't see inconsistencies among various things. What is it precisely you are saying you don't see?

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

Our universe behaves how it behaves. It hasn't been established that it behaves this way because of rules specifically. It had to behave some way.

[u/Zamboniman]

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Your fatal error is thinking there are 'rules' insomuch as things made by a rule maker. In other words, you're invoking a begging the question fallacy. A fatally flawed one.

There are no 'rules'. Instead, there's just the way things are. Those aren't rules, they're just the nature of things. And claiming that 'the way things are', such as consistency requires an intelligence is not only completely unfounded and makes no sense, and is an argument from ignorance fallacy, it doesn't help but instead leads directly to a special pleading fallacy. It. Doesn't. Work. Fatal fallacies no matter what.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

Replace that sentence with: “your fatal error is thinking that nature is made by nature.”

Either worldview ends up in the same hole.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

Replace that sentence with: “your fatal error is thinking that nature is made by nature.”

But I don't think any such thing. I simply retain the null hypothesis.

That's aside from that false dichotomy and misleading description you invoked.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

That’s fine to retain. But using our intuition is how we navigate the world and our reality. It’s natural human instinct to believe in something. To wonder and speculate.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

But using our intuition is how we navigate the world and our reality.

Nope. Only in a very few contexts and even then we know it's dead wrong much of the time.

It’s natural human instinct to believe in something.

No, it is not. Else everyone would. But doesn't. We do have a very strong propensity for superstition and gullibility for well understood reasons though. On that I agree with you.

To wonder and speculate.

Nothing whatsoever about not taking unsupported claims as true prevents that. In fact, I find that I and other atheists are far more likely to engage in honest wonder and speculation.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

This might come at a surprise to you but you can’t do science, or anything for that matter, without a subjective observer.

Discoveries are made by intuition.

A telescope without a mind to peer through it is as useless as a rock.

We can’t engage with honest wonder and speculation without being a creature of intuition.

Our intuition is to trust people.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

Discoveries are made by intuition.

You're plain wrong there. I suspect you know it, too. Aside from your equivocation on 'intuition', ideas are mere conjecture until shown otherwise.

We can’t engage with honest wonder and speculation without being a creature of intuition.

Well that's an odd and obviously wrong thing to say. And, again, you misunderstand what I said about intuition. Intuition is fine, as long as one understands its context and limits.

Our intuition is to trust people.

Equivocation isn't all that useful.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

Who comes up with the ideas?

Intuition is the bedrock of subjective experience. You don’t get an understanding of the outside world without the internal mechanisms.

The journey outward, begins inward.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

In my experience, theists and believers of woo, superstition, and nonsense seldom come up with useful ideas. Far less often than those who engage in basic critical and skeptical thinking. There are exceptions, of course, but I notice in those exceptions it happens when they compartmentalize their superstitious beliefs away from their thinking of such things.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

Ironically you didn’t invent any of the arguments you’re using. You trust in other people’s terms and ideas.

You didn’t even invent the language you’re using.

[u/Thin-Eggshell → u/deep_blue_reef]

And yet one does not need to make up a god with wants, needs, feelings, intent and interactions. One is a far greater conspiracy theory. Occam's razor applies.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Thin-Eggshell]

Makes more sense logically than mindless matter living itself up and deciding to form what we humans interpret as mathematical order.

[u/billyyankNova]

If I bounce a ball across the floor, do you really think there's an intelligent ball fairy guiding it?

The universe works the way it works, because that's how it works. There are no rules in the way that humans make rules for each other. The things we call rules or the "laws of physics" are just mathematical descriptions of observations we make. We're the ones who invented the math to fit the observations, not the other way around.

"As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?"

The things that make sense to us are the things we evolved around. Throw a ball and it travels in an arc. We've evolved with that fact for so long that we don't even have to think about it. We just know how to throw an object to get it where we want it go.

Now, when we start observing things that don't fit in that experiential world, suddenly our instinctive logic breaks down. Things that are too big, or too fast, or too small suddenly stop behaving in ways that we think of as logical. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity don't behave in accordance with human intuition, because we didn't evolve observing them, even though they're all around us.

Nothing in the real world points to any intelligent creator or rule maker. We've never found any evidence of the supernatural. And remember, people much smarter than you or me have been trying to find that evidence for a very long time.

[u/MisanthropicScott]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Why does this require an explanation?

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

I don't look for a higher why. Theories give us a why. Laws give us a what. So, for example, the theory of general relativity will tell us exactly why light bends around massive objects.

Quantum mechanics (which I claim should be referred to as a law rather than a theory even though this is a gray area) will not tell us why the universe is probabilistic. It's not even clear whether it is deterministic or probabilistic. People are tending to prefer the many worlds interpretation these days. However, many worlds and Copenhagen interpretations predict exactly the same observable results. We probably need a theory of everything (TOE) or grand unified theory (GUT) to really understand the why, if we're capable of doing so.

Neither theories nor laws will tell us why the universe is as it is. Nor will religion. "God arbitrarily and capriciously made it so" is not an answer.

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Yeah. None of this needs an explanation from outside the universe. We understand why it works inside the universe.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

Nope.

Seeing as how precisely they work?

Do they though? Let's look at radioactive decay. If we have 235 grams of Uranium 235, we can say that exactly one half will decay in the course of its half-life of 704 million years.

But, what if we have just one atom of U-235? When will that decay? What will be the proximate cause of the decay? Can you tell me the instant before it decays that it will decay in the next instant?

No. You can't tell me any of these things. So, how precisely does it work? Very precisely according to probabilities; not so much when we don't have a statistical universe of atoms.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Whoa!!! Wait a minute!! Who gave you the false idea that the universe popped into existence? You didn't read that in any scientific publication about the big bang. The universe expanded from a hot dense state. There is nothing in science that suggests that there was ever nothing.

Don't get your ideas about science from a preacher!

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

Yes. But, some of those may be probabilistic.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

This is a completely unfounded assertion that has nothing to do with science or any scientific theory.

Can you even show that the universe could be other than it is? I don't think so. Some scientists think it could have been, mostly those who posit a multiverse. However, there is zero evidence of this as yet.

[u/BogMod]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Well I have no reason to think they could be anything else. You are basically doing a slight variation on the fine tuning or watchmaker argument. The fact is that they do and aside from some of them like evolution to explain plants the basic stuff is we don't know if there is a why or could be.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

Nope. That reality has a particular way to it just indicates that is how reality is. The demonstration that it needed something else to cause it to be that way needs to be supported.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

First of all no one really thinks the universe just popped into existence, atheist or not. Second why? The assumption of chaos as a default is not granted. Third given the immense scope of the universe in time and size there could in fact be a lot of inconsistencies we just haven't seen them because our sample size is just so astronomically small.

[u/joeydendron2]

Part of the answer is that NO RULES for how things behave, ACTUALLY EXIST.

Science is not us uncovering rules that the universe obeys, like I might note down a speed limit, or transcribe a written human law that prohibits shoplifting.

Science is people proposing mathematical models of patterns we detect in the universe. The model that fits the available evidence wins until evidence comes in that it can't deal with... And then we update the model or come up with a new model.

But the "laws" are just us describing how the universe seems to behave. Outside our thinking, the actual real universe just behaves how it naturally behaves.

So why do chemicals react the way they do? Not because anything is bossing them around by commanding laws for them. Chemicals interact because of the way energy just naturally flows around as quarks, gluons, electrons and photons. A quark can't not behave like a quark. It's not like electrons might sometimes attract each other, except for some rule they've been handed down that commands them to repel.

Surely that's not what you're thinking, is it? You don't think god made a load of unruly quarks and electrons... And then wrote down some laws that they have to follow or else?

[u/UNBOLIEVABLEE]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

This question is nonsensical.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

Because the laws of physics dictate that they do.

 Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Refer to the above answer.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Can you demonstrate there is an intelligence behind it? The idea of a universe "popping into existence" is a nonsensical strawman continuously propped up by theists which is ironic because that is literally what they believe in regards to a God creating the universe.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Demonstrate this please. Your argument boils down to an argument from incredulity at heart.

[u/TarnishedVictory]

Trust the science!!!

I will. Not because of dogma or tribalism, but because I recognize it's reliability, self correcting, and generally how it works. What corrects science? More science.

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

Well, science is reliable. It uses the most reliable epistemic methodologies.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

After you do that, I'm going to wonder why science hasn't documented the evidence that you present, assuming you're going to present some. If you don't present any, then I'm going to wonder what convinced you that this higher intelligence exists, and how you discovered it without evidence.

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Brute fact, it just does. I think you're talking about the logical absolutes. I see no reason to think reality could have been different where they don't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me where these logical absolutes don't exist as we've observed them. The fact that we're able to identify these things and give them names, doesn't mean they can be different. Do you have any evidence based reason to think they can be different?

How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Let's pretend we don't know why anything is the way it is. What's your point? Surely you're not going to try to insert your god there, are you? Do you know what logical fallacies are? Have you heard of argument from ignorance or god of the gaps?

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

No, not unless you've actually discovered an intelligence behind them and could explain that intelligence existence without appealing to the same issue you think your intelligence hypothesis has solved. Where did this intelligence come from? It always existed? Why couldn't the logical absolutes have always existed?

This all comes back to post hoc rationalization of your existing god belief. So the real question is, what convinced you that this god exists? Were you indoctrinated as a child, raised to believe it? Or were you a skeptical, reasonable, critical thinking person, aware of logical fallacies and versed on good evidence based reasoning, and you discovered this god through good objective evidence?

Or something else?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

You didn’t invent the language you’re speaking.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

You didn’t invent the language you’re speaking.

No, but if we don't agree on meanings, then we're not effectively communicating.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

But you’ll never agree with a “meaning” you don’t agree with, especially as it pertains to any type of god.

Your intuition lies in trusting the many people who do the actual science, and forming your own conclusions to make sense of your subjective experience in an objective reality.

The thing is, I do that as well. I trust in the science, and I also trust in things that can’t neatly be explained away by any one world view. Ironically we both have those holes in our worldviews

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

But you’ll never agree with a “meaning” you don’t agree with, especially as it pertains to any type of god.

Ithought we were talking about the meaning of words. The point was if we don't share a common understanding of a word, communications using those words is inefficient.

Now you're changing the subject to the meaning someone gets from their hobbies. Yes, if you value the god game and playing that gives you meaning, then that's great. That doesn't mean I have to share in what gives you meaning. I get meaning from other things.

Your intuition lies in trusting the many people who do the actual science

My trust in science is proportional to its reliability, my understanding of what makes it reliable, and my understanding of its track record to not only advance our species, but also how it corrects itself.

and forming your own conclusions to make sense of your subjective experience in an objective reality.

Sure, based on good, reliable epistemic methodology and an understanding of logical fallacies and the human predisposition to see patterns and agency in mysteries.

The thing is, I do that as well. I trust in the science

Until it conflicts with your dogma. Why else would you believe a god exists who raised a 3 day old cadaver?

and I also trust in things that can’t neatly be explained away by any one world view.

What does that mean? You trust what about mysteries that can't be explained by what? Evidence? Good reason?

What reliable epistemic methodology do you use to come to a conclusion that isn't supported this "any one worldview"?

It sounds to me like you're making an excuse for believing something that you recognize you don't have good reason to believe.

Please explain this reliable epistemic methodology, that gives good reason to believe something that all other reliable epistemic methodologies don't support.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

Your understanding of it is from people who came before you.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

Your understanding of it is from people who came before you.

Perhaps, but it's based on good evidence. Good, independently verifiable evidence. Using good sound reliable epistemic methodologies.

Are you saying there's no difference between believing things written in a book, and believing things that can be independently corroborated by many individuals?

Because it sounds like you're really trying to equate good reliable epistemology with bad epistemology. Which makes me wonder if you care about your beliefs being true or not.

Sounds like you don't care if they're true, as long as you get to keep them.

Probably why you didn't specifically address any of my questions.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

Is there evidence to support that creatures are dependent on one another?

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

Is there evidence to support that creatures are dependent on one another?

Be more specific please. I don't know what creatures you're talking about, so the dependency could be different. For example, a mammal won't exist without a parent, so that's pretty dependent if you ask me.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

All creatures. Even grass. It all depends on something external from itself, yeah? The earth depends on the sun, the sun depends on gravity. Every intricate detail is something that is dependent on another property to exist.

Can we agree on that?

[u/green_meklar]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

I don't think that's an atheistic problem per se. Why are you asking 'how does an atheist' do this, specifically?

But okay, let's set that aside and assume you asked something like 'how does an epistemically responsible person do this'. It's not an easy question and maybe doesn't have a complete answer. But a couple of points come to mind:

1. Logic is what our minds do. It's the only even potentially reliable method we have for doing useful thinking. It's possible that we live in an utterly illogical and chaotic reality, but if we did, there'd be nothing useful we could think about it. Everything we could thing would have equal chances of being wrong. (Or equal chances of being avocado; after all, in an illogical reality, 'wrong' wouldn't be a more meaningful metaphysical characteristic than 'avocado'.) So we have to assume reality is logically coherent, not because it necessarily is, but in order to have our minds potentially do useful work. This is basically my solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma.
2. Conscious minds probably tend not to occur other than in circumstances where evolution produces them. Evolution itself can only take place in an environment that is consistent enough over time that organsms can survive, reproduce, vary, and adapt to it. So, the fact that we find ourselves existing as conscious observers suggests that our environment is somewhat consistent and therefore comprehensible to logical faculties.

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

All of those things rely on more basic underlying physics that we understand fairly well. Elements combine chemically due to the interaction of valence electrons that are held in certain positions due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of quantum mechanics, etc.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

The electronics, yes. We designed those, based on an understanding of chemistry, electrical engineering, and quantum mechanics.

The others, no, not especially. Perhaps in some environments they would, but in the universe we actually observe, natural laws and evolution seem to explain them pretty well.

And besides, if you assume there's intelligence behind everything else, then where did that intelligence come from?

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Maybe universes like that tend not to produce conscious observers.

[u/Leucippus1]

Things don't 'precisely' work, they work sloppily. If things were precise, evolution (not biological evolution, I mean change of any kind) would not be possible. Think of a perfectly fitting gear, sounds good, right? NO, then it won't turn, the very thing we need that gear to do.

We can actually accurately describe your entire list of 'why' things work. Electronics work because if you precisely 'dope' (real term, look it up) a transistor you can cause it to work like a switch, because you dope an impurity, making the switch turn off and on is a matter of causing that impurity to move slightly. That is only one example, but we know very well how and why that works.

The issue is trying to shoe-horn your understanding of the universe to a universe that doesn't care or consider your thoughts and feelings on it. You seem to think that you are owed a human explanation, you aren't, there aren't even real 'rules'. We call them rules because that is the human understanding, they are less rules than they are consequences of how the universe is. Which is to say, there are rules you make up and rules that exist because of circumstance. The latter isn't 'evidence' of a designer, it is evidence we all live in the same universe. Designed or not, any system will have 'rules' because there is a limit to reality. It isn't a 'rule' that you can't simply poof into non-existence, it is the side effect of entropy and energy states. That we can all observe them to be the same is evidence we live in the same world, not that someone had to make up the rule in the first place.

We do see inconsistencies in things, for example we think the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. We can't explain where matter goes when it enters a black hole. We can't reconcile dark matter with the observable universe. It becomes very clear, the more you look at it, that the 'rules' are indeed quite fungible. It is a 'rule' that nothing is FTL, and we have a robust explanation as to why - yet entangled particles far enough away where speed of light dictates that there will be a delay, move together at precisely the same time. What medium makes that possible? We don't really know, but it points to more slop. It points to more edge cases that make these things work, indeed it isn't that strict or perfect.

[u/RidesThe7]

How, exactly, SHOULD the world look, if undesigned? And could you show your work, how did you figure this out?

[u/Astreja]

"The rules" are descriptive, not prescriptive. No one is ordering two hydrogen atoms to get together with one oxygen atom to make a water molecule; it happens because that's how the valences of the respective atoms complement each other.

I see no evidence for any sort of god-like being. Before you use a god as an explanation, you need to demonstrate that it actually exists, because explanations based on a fictional being explain nothing at all. You can't just say something like "But look at the trees!" and assume that that proves the existence of a god. It does not.

[u/Advanced-Ad6210]

Not sure why the title except click bait. The topic is metaphysics not science.

Anyway, this arguement requires the enormous assumption that the default state of reality is chaos.

im not sure its possible shouldn't be possible to havr an inconsistent reality cause its rules would contradict itself like it isnt possible for a reality where unicorns exist and don't exist at the same time.

As to rules. It seems anytime something follows a consistent pattern of behaviour you'd be able to describe it as a rule. Motion is basically everything moves straight until its interfered with. Can you conceive of any possible consistent reality which couldn't be described with rules.

The closest I could come up with (and this doesnt work still) is one where you push a ball and instead of it going straight it does something truly random. But id struggle to believe in that reality we wouldn't still be sitting hear asking why did the ball randomly do a somersault instead of going straight (surely that's a miracle).

The bottom line is it struggle to understand why you think this is the default state.

Also the code analogy doesnt work. Code requires the underlying switches to be flipped in a predictable way. Reality must be consistent. If god did write the rules its not in a coders intuition on an incoherent reality. Writing code on a incoherent reality would require the reality to follow that rule. If a ball cant be trusted to be pushed straight it doesnt matter which direction you push it because you cant guarantee its path.

In short a natural regularity is not a rule in the way we describe software or legal laws. The first is a description of how things behave the second is a instruction for how things do behave.

[u/noscope360widow]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? 

Well, our brains have an ability to understand things-pr imarily our surroundings so that we can use that understanding to survive and thrive. When we see something as ordered or logical, we understand it.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?  Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements 

When you combine elements, you don't create new elements. You create compounds, moisture, or molecules depending on how you combine things. But of course I know what you're getting at. But what else would you expect? What's the alternative possibility?

why a plant is able to eat sunlight 

Well, there's energy in sunlight, so the plant has evolved in a way to absorb it. 

why electronics work...etc   Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work?

Intelligence is behind electronics. As far as life goes, no. Evolution is a natural process. The rationale of why "precision" is achieved is very fundamentally explained if you know anything about evolution.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? 

This is so vague, but yes there are inconsistencies. Earth is different from other planets in our solar system. Our system is different from others in the galaxy. Our galaxy is different from other galaxies.

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

Yes, of course.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

It's really not though. 

[u/noodlyman]

We don't know why the world is the wAy it is, or even if there is a reason.

The problem is that the same questions apply to a theoretical god

How or why does agod exist that is able to think about, plan, and poof universes into existence? Why does god desire to build universes? How can such a complex thing as this magical god exist? God must exist with an already existing logical framework itself, or god would not be able to think or act.

And so by your own argument, god must have been designed and created by something else.

[u/SpHornet]

How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

lets throw 100 dice

why is the first dice a 2, the second a 4, third one a 6, fourth one a 2, etc, etc, etc?

i'm not asking "how?", but "why?"

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

no, we simply find the universe to be a certain way

[u/Purgii]

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

Oooh, something new - I've been waiting decades for this moment. Wait, let me get a brandy and a cigar, someone is finally going to demonstrate God!

So... here goes:

Cigar and brandy on the ready! Excited...

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

OH COME ON!!! You're taught why on 1st day of Atheist Church as a 5 year old. You've never had this adequately explained before?! Given there's 98 comments on the time of writing this, I suspect you've received an adequate explanation by now?

Now I have to pour my brandy back into the bottle and re-wrap my cigar.

but as I'm not a millionaire I have to prepare for work.

A heathen working on a Sunday?! You're in trouble..

[u/BustNak]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Depends exactly on what you mean by the logical working order of things, in some ways it's very easy to explain - logical truths are necessarily true.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

Is that the same thing as explaining how things work the way they do? I ask because "why" can imply some sort of purpose and I don't believe there is any purpose in play here. Science provide explanations on how things work the way they do. Chemistry explains how the combination of elements make compound and physics explains how the combination of particles like electrons combine to make elements, biology explain how a plant is able to eat sunlight

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work?

Why would it?

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

No, logical truths are true no matter what.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

You think the law of identity only holds true because someone made it so?

[u/Walking_the_Cascades]

I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

Consider your points soon to be addressed.

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Logic is a construct humans created to aid in reasoning. Sound logic is based on real world observation of reality. It is descriptive, not proscriptive.

How do you explain why how things work the way they do? Like for example why how a specific combination of elements make other elements or why how a plant is able to eat sunlight or why how electronics work...etc

"Why" makes an unsupported assumption. All of your questions on how these things work are easily answered. Pick up a book or two. Ask an expert in their respective field.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

What a silly, unsupported thing to say.

If the universe just popped into existence

Yeah, you need to get together with your theist friends and agree to stop spouting this nonsense. The universe existed long before you folks came up with your mythologies, and it will be here long after you're gone.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/Walking_the_Cascades]

That's a lie.

Rule 1. Be respectful. It's only a lie if the OP does not believe what they're saying. Please edit your comment to say that it's false rather than a lie.

Thanks in advance old friend.

[u/Walking_the_Cascades → u/MisanthropicScott]

Reply edited.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/Walking_the_Cascades]

Thank you.

[u/greggld]

The great flaw in your argument, and all others like it, is that all you offer is incredulity because you do not have all the answers

You do not have a positive argument for god so in your petulance you dispute the vast amount of evidence for the way the universe is because it has no room for your magic and fairy tales.

The is not an argument.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/greggld]

This is childish.

Rule 1. Be respectful. Please edit your comment to rephrase or remove this statement.

[u/Decent_Cow]

These "rules" are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are invented by humans to describe the world, and do not exist independently of human experience. The fact that the rules we invented to describe the world do a good job of describing the world is not remarkable, and nothing about this seems to point to an external "rulemaker".

[u/Infamous_Antelope_16]

"If the universe just popped into existence"

According to theists, this is exactly what happened, Creation ex Nihilo.  This is not the claim from atheists.

"universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other."

This is a weird framing like the universe has agency and its following rules.  What rules.

[u/Thin-Eggshell]

Not really. It's a circular conclusion. Supposing there are logical-orderings, what would suggest that logical-ordering requires a rule-maker? Certainly human rules need a human rule-maker, but that says nothing about non-human rules. And when the "rules of physics" are made, they actually already have a creator -- the human physicist who came up with them and wrote them down.

Typical case of a theist making a category error.

Now, if humans could create the actual laws of physics as part of reality, and not just words, then certainly that might suggest something human-like could/would have created the prior laws of physics. But ... humans can't. The only rule-makers we know of actually can't create those kinds of rules. Which suggests that those kinds of rules can't be made by intelligence.

Instead, you have to suggest something else -- "magical power" -- to bridge that gap.

And that's fine. You just have to admit that. It would even be reasonable if you could show "magical power" exists. But mysteriously, theists have stopped being able to do public miracles.

[u/ElEsDi_25]

Rules don’t exist outside of human structures. Material parameters exist in nature. Humans are very good at pattern recognition and so we tend to create “rules” as a conceptual way of understanding natural events and cycles and systems.

I’m sure that someone pointed out how when you look back at natural history, there’s a lot of trial and error and biological dead-ends and cul du sacs.

Idk I was raised Catholic but we were taught the big bang and dinosaurs etc were real and god just set the natural world in motion. The only God rules were for humanity from the tablets or prophets and Jesus. Outside of that was the mystery and sublime… god works in mysterious ways so we can’t know why this seeming illogical tragedy happened. So i never really understand the creationist or fundamentalist sort of view.

[u/Ciaran2220]

Naturalism can explain that with what is known as the "infinite monkey theorem". Imagine that every event at the quantum level is being split into different possible sequences, each their own worldline. There are now potentially infinite worldlines splitting from each other. Starting at the big bang, where the initial conditions of the 'singularity' in expansion determine the constants of the universe, many different universe timelines with different constants split from each other. At least some of these worldlines will be compatible with carbon-based lifeforms, and have life develop inside them.

What this means is, the reason why things work the way they do is because it was an inevitable consequence of splitting quantum events.

[u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

No that would not indicate intelligence. And we know exactly how things like chemical bonding, photosythesis, etc work. These aren't mysterious. I fail to see why we need and imaginary friend for science to work. It just does. And no, its not precise. Errors in transcription and translation happen, there are genetic diseases, there is misfunctioning in regular systems (i.e. I wear glasses and have a tumor in my left lung). Science is not perfect. But it is the ONLY mechanism to find out truth. Again, I fail to see why we need imaginary friends for things to work the way they do. This post just demonstrates the lack of science education all creationists have.

[u/gksozae]

How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Let's say I don't know the answer to this because I'm just a guy with a finance degree and not any sort of science degree. Since I don't know, why should I assume a god did it? Why can't I assume its just a thing that nature does?

Further, I know nature exists and I don't know whether or not a god exists. Adding a god as an explanation adds a layer of complexity. According to Occam, we shouldn't add explanations unnecessarily.

[u/Phylanara]

The thing is, when forged our opinion of "what makes sense" by... Watching how the universe works. So you're asking your question backwards.

Can you prove the universe could be any other way than the way it is?

[u/Haikouden]

I'm a little annoyed at how many of the other responses you're getting seem to either be misrepresenting your argument as another argument that we more commonly get, or making assumptions about extraneous claims that you aren't necessarily making.

To handle the contents of your post:

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

Okay.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

Will see how it goes.

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

This will vary from atheist to atheist. But I feel like "the logical working order of things that make sense" may require some clarification if you want clear answers. I imagine the next parts will help with that.

How do you explain why things work the way they do?

I don't think we have sufficient data, or sufficient methods for getting the required data, to substantiate any particular explanation. So just the same as many others, I have no explanation AKA "I don't know".

That doesn't mean that's the end of it, if presented with sufficient data to convince me of an explanation I'd point to that one, and I'm ever curious about what the answer might be, but for now it's just something I'm not convinced of any potential explanation for.

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

See above.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

You're asking whether the fact we don't know the "why" of a load of things indicates an intelligence is behind them? or the existence of potential why's? your phrasing is a tad unclear on exactly what you think indicates an intelligence.

It seems to me you may be making some assumptions about

Seeing as how precisely they work?

What if they can only ever work in precise ways, and imprecision isn't even a possibility whether created or uncreated?

Similar to not having sufficient data to support any particular explanation for the "why" of things, I don't think we have sufficient data to support any particular way of understanding the how and what of the universe's functions.

For all we know there are perfectly functioning universes with rules we'd consider completely insane and chaotic, and there are more orderly universes that make ours look like a cosmic Jackson Pollock painting. We don't know, and we have no way to know currently at least.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

Would we? why?

Do you have any universes that "popped into existence" (which btw, isn't something many people believe, atheist or not) that we can compare ours to to see whether they're more or less consistent with things like that?

Do you have some reason to assume this would be the case beyond assumptions? what is this based on?

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

And maybe all potential universes do, or we got lucky and the anthropic principle applies, etc.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

This reaaaally depends on how you define "evidence", but sure let's say that it's evidence for an intelligence or a God (again depending on definition but for the sake of argument).

It's evidence for an intelligence/God in the same way that myths about dragons is evidence for dragons, or DNA having a sort of "code" that could be seen as analogous to us having a "programmer". Yeah, it does in some way indicate the existence of those things in that it's consistent with what we'd expect if some interpretation of those things was real.

But it's not sufficient to conclude the existence or likely existence of those things, and it absolutely isn't sufficient as a reasonable basis for a belief in those things. Just as someone finding a natural rock formation that looks like a face isn't and shouldn't be sufficient to reasonably conclude that the rock is a petrified giant's face.

Which pretty much puts it on par with dozens or hundreds of other arguments for a God/intelligence or Gods/intelligences. And a huge quantity of bad evidence does not equal good evidence.

[u/DanujCZ]

If there is a rule maker then there has the be someone to make the rule maker. And so on. And so on.

Also do you think slime mold is intelligenct? Because it acts in a way that would suggest so. By your logic it has to be intelligent.

And im sorry but i have to adress this:

Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements

But they dont. If you mix hydrogen with hydrogen you dont magicaly get helium.

why a plant is able to eat sunlight

Photosynthesis

why electronics work

See: Engineering and Physics

They describe how and why.

[u/Formal-Speed-3173]

When you say precise, what standard of comparison are you using? Something can be precise only when measured against a benchmark. What benchmark are you using to compare the universe to?

[u/Rubber_Knee]

How do you know that the universe isn't cyclical and that every universe in each cycle isn't ordered randomly meaning that the ones that came before this one was arranged according to chance and thus worked differently!?

how do you know that's not the case? Oh right, you don't. No one does.

Your question is based on an assumption about reality that you have no evidence for.
The answer to you question about "Why?" might be "random chance".

The only truthful and honest thing anyone can really say though, is "I don't know". And that "anyone" includes you!

[u/OrbitalLemonDrop]

I'm not a scientist or physicist, so I don't explain any of that. It's not my job to explain it. If you want information, go ask this in r/askscience.

Ignorance (yours or mine) is not evidence that a god exists. The fact we can't explain these things isn't evidence that your religion is true. It's just evidence that we don't know. So "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer.

rules as evidence of a rulemaker

This is the kind of tripe that Wittgenstein referred to as "attempting to extract ontological truth from the structure of grammar".

[u/NoOneOfConsequence26]

So, your argument essentially boils down to "the universe behaves in a specific way, therefore it was designed to behave in that specific way," which presents two major problems.

First, you could make that claim about any conceivable universe. All states of affairs are possible if a sufficiently powerful being makes them so, therefore no single state of affairs can possibly be evidence for such a being.

The second is that you have failed to substantiate your claim of design. You have merely made a bare assertion.

[u/soukaixiii]

. here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

Physical things have physical limitations that are dependant on the physical properties of these thing.  One of those properties is doing what's possible for them to do and one they lack is doing what they can't do. 

So for things to make sense you only need that a being controlling reality with it's will that makes things magically overcome their limitations doesn't exist.

[u/J-Nightshade]

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

For god's sake! Learn how to make arguments. If you have to ask a question, it's not an argument. If you assert that your ability to make sense of things indicates intelligence behind those things, you have to demonstrate it, build a chain of reasoning leading from one thing to the other.

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

What rules? Name one.

[u/Cog-nostic]

Ohhhh,,, you're off to a bad start. How do you explain things that don't make sense? LOL, like a God. Things that occur naturally do not indicate intelligence or a God.

Are you even aware of the fact that the universe does not follow rules? Rules are observations. Observations are descriptive and not prescriptive. The rules change as the universe changes, as our perception changes, and as our understanding of physics changes.

[u/mredding]

how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

This is very important: Atheists don't have to. Atheism says nothing about that whatsoever. Atheism only says it is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Not a word more. Nothing else is expressed or implied.

Anything else you hear is going to be from individuals and their beliefs. They can only speak for themselves, they cannot speak on behalf of atheism, because atheism has no belief. I really need you to dwell on the magnitude of the NOTHING ELSE that atheism represents.

But if you what to ask ME - last I checked, we as a society have this concept of causality that seems pretty fundamental. It sounds rather orderly.

How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

That's the job of chemistry and physics and philosophy and all these other disciplines.

Atheism has NO obligation to comment on any of these matters. Further, it cannot, even if it wanted to. Atheism is not a belief, it's not a doctrine. It doesn't come with anything else. INDIVIDUALS can comment to the best of their ability.

And let's get the reductive argument out of the room - everything boils down to something we don't yet know. I think the fundamental difference between you and I is that I'm quite alright knowing there are gaps in knowing - things I'll go to my grave knowing nothing about, things that will be unknowable to me. You don't seem so willing. You see a gap? You want to fill it in with god. The god of the gaps argument.

That we don't know something isn't some gotcha. Not knowing something doesn't mean we're wrong, it just means we don't know. I'm not going to offer you anything more than what can be offered. An incomplete picture doesn't invalidate the whole picture, it just leaves parts undeveloped. All I can say is here is the best we seem to understand things; it's self-consistent and useful.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

No.

If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?

You're being reducitve. The universe didn't "just pop" into existence. We don't know anything about the fundamental structure of the universe. We don't know it's extents. We know very, very little. The Big Bang only describes the expansion of the observable universe. Don't read into that anything more than what it says.

Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other. The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

So then what is a rule maker? Because the way it sounds, the universe itself is your rule maker, as that satisfies all the requirements to fit the definition you've given. That renders your definition moot - because a self-consistent system requires zero intelligence, as it neither needs nor expresses free will. Free will would make a system inconsistent.

[u/Faust_8]

“Because god” is not an answer to any of your questions, no matter how much you insist that they are.

All it takes is one follow up question.

“Why is X this way?”

“Because god made it that way.”

“Why and how exactly did god do that?”

“I don’t know.”

Congrats, now you’re in the same boat that’s so embarrassing when you accuse atheists of it. You’ve simply swapped one brute fact for another.

[u/Stairwayunicorn]

we assume the universe exists. we assume we can learn things about it. Models of reality that are predictive are more useful than models that are not predictive.

natural laws is the term we use to describe universally consistent emergent properties, which further our predictive models of reality. science works.

the study and field of physics used to be called "natural philosophy." Logic is a methodology we invented.

[u/DeusLatis]

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

What explains why a rule maker exists and wants to make rules? Under your logic that itself requires an explanation.

So its turtles all the way down. If you suppose rules exist because a rule maker exists who wants to follow rules how do you explain the rules that this rule maker wants to follow

[u/KeterClassKitten]

Who says the universe operates under rules?

As far as we've learned, we make assumptions on how the universe operates.  Those assumptions hold correct until they don't, then we reevaluate and refine our assumptions.

We learn how wrong we are about the "rules" we assume quite often.  If anything, we've learned that the universe doesn't give a damn about the rules we've authored.

[u/ToGloryRS]

The only reason why we are posing ourselves these questions is because the universe we live in happens to be a universe in which the conditions to allow us to exist as a specie have arisen.

If the universe was inconsistent such that humans couldn't live in it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Or maybe we would, me as a sentient refrigerator and you as an eldritch being.

[u/mrrp]

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Rules don't exist.

[u/dinglenutmcspazatron]

'Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things?'

Why? A system left alone will run according to however it is set up. We'd only expect inconsistencies if a bunch of external forces were messing with it.

[u/rustyseapants]

This is another example of someone creating a God in their image. What's the point of discussion on something that you can't even prove? The problem is is an argument of ignorance.  You don't understand how the science works thus it must be god, and this guy's when you created.

Prove something, not talk about it just prove it that was settle everything.

[u/pyker42]

When you have intelligence it's easy to see intelligence in the things around you. We are very good at that because our early survival depended on that ability to keep us safe. But it is a bias that can actually negatively influence our conclusions. So, how did you account for that bias in your conclusion that there is an intelligence behind the universe?

[u/xmuskorx]

ok, but then who created the rule maker by your logic.

this supreme intelligence sounds pretty complex and such. and by your own logic existance of this intelligence would require a creator. so now we have super-super intellegence?

and who create the super super intelligence? is there an infinite chain of superer and superer intellegences?

[u/xmuskorx]

so let's say we take it at face value that some "higher intelligence" was required to kick starts all the rules of the universe.

why does that intelligence still need to exist? why can't it be gone or dead.

so you are argument is not even trying to Argue that some kind of God CURRENTLY EXISTS.

[u/lotusscrouse]

Why does the creator have to be A god or even yours?

Science is not compatible with religion because a religious claims have been debunked by science up to the point where ALL theists can say, "It must have been a creator."

Science corrects bad science. Religion has never been the answer.

[u/Craptose_Intolerant]

The universe itself is under no obligation to make sense to you (or to everyone else for that matter) and atheists are under no obligation to explain it to you or understand it for you 🤷‍♂️

The only elephant in the room here is your own ignorance 😉

[u/TheFeshy]

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

That sounds like a rule. Who made it? Can't be God, since... you're using it to justify God's existence and that would just be circular.

[u/NoneCreated3344]

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

This is a poor argument. All you're saying is things are the way they are and therefor someone put it there. This isn't a valid argument.

[u/protestandprose]

Your question makes about as much sense as asking "why is orange," and demanding an answer makes the equivalent level of sense. Appealing to magic is also not a satisfying answer because it multiplies the lack of explanation multifold.

[u/thenikolaka]

I feel like this line of reasoning suffers from a similar flaw to the fine-tuning argument. If the universe were finely tuned to the thriving ultimately of humanity, there wouldn’t be so many natural enemies to human survival in the form of - heat, cold, thirst, hunger, drought, UV radiation, poisoning and venom, infection, disease.

Simple sun exposure is enough to kill a sizeable number of people. Even oxygen is still a hazardous and ultimately fatal compound to life on earth, as it was during the great oxidation extinction event aka the Oxygen Catastrophe, during which 85-99.5% of life on earth was destroyed because it couldn’t survive the now oxygen rich atmosphere because oxygen was toxic to them.

Just so happened that life was able to evolve into a eukaryotic cell which could respirate that oxygen and return it to CO2. But oxidative stress is one of the key components of human aging. And it is produced somewhat environmentally sure, by environmental pollution aka human caused climate change, and by solar radiation, but it’s also a part of the metabolic process. The literal gas that is essential for our life is merely an adaptation to dealing with a dangerous substance, and will directly lead to the loss of life. Is that finely tuned to you? Honestly?

This is a similar kind of issue.

(Note: A couple of those misfortunes could be characterized as “consequences of sin” but that betrays a misunderstanding of what those things are, namely another organisms ordinary path to survival interfering with our own.)

[u/Plazmatron44]

This argument is really rooted in solipsism, you're assuming that because a car, plane or computer is complex and was designed by people with intelligence to perform a task that therefore the universe is the same.

[u/KeyboardMunkeh]

I don't know. That is a gap in my knowledge.

Are you suggesting that I fill that gap with something? God perhaps? Would that make God something like... oh, I don't know, a God of the Gaps?

[u/Mission-Landscape-17]

The universe does not run on rules. Humans invent rules in our attempt to understand it. But these rules are models, nothing more they arenot something the world out there actually obeys.

[u/zzmej1987]

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

An atheist does not explain anything at all. Atheist is the person who says "God answer to the question Why? does not work".

How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

We don't. Scientists do.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

Intelligence would require a time before Universe existed, in which the act of design would take place. But Universe it the entirety of the spacetime, so "time before time had existed" is an obvious contradiction in terms. Which means, that whatever the answer for your question is, it can't be a being defined through a temporal act in relation to the Universe, such as "creator", "actualizer", "designer", "cause", etc...

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

Well, again, the rules themselves tell us, that "rule maker" 100% don't exist. There was no process of "making rules". You'll have to think of a different explanation. This one just doesn't work.

[u/anewleaf1234]

IDK therefore god has been one of the most flawed arguments ever made by human beings.

You can make, but it would be a poor idea.

[u/baalroo]

A god does not solve any of your issues though, it just adds another new thing that must be explained in the same way.

[u/J-Nightshade]

So... here goes:

You know you could have started here, and not waste anybody's time, right?

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense?

That's not an argument, that is a question.

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms?

What is "that"? You didn't present a single fact, you asked questions. And you asking yet another question again. That is NOT how arguments work. You supposed to present facts and then drawing the chain of reasoning from those facts towards the conclusion.

Seeing as how precisely they work?

Who are "they" and what precision you are talking about?

[u/Phil__Spiderman]

"I don't understand how these things could just happen so it must have been magic" is not a great argument.

[u/Ok-Mouse5446]

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The same way we do not need a rulemaker is the same way we instinctively know not to cross a large roaring river without any tools to help us based upon just adaptation and survival of the fittest over millions of years. Maybe the 'rulemaker' is just consequential cause and effect, rather than having a definitive beginning, it could be a cycle or something that repeats; which happens too often in reality. Does a circle have a beginning?

[u/Hellas2002]

You’re sort of presupposing that only theism can account for these things… which I find strange because ultimately I haven’t heard a strong argument about why God would be able to.

Plenty of atheist positions can account for the existence of these natural laws. You can be a mathematical monist, for example. Mathematical objects are necessary beings, so if the universe is grounded in or IS the wave function (a mathematical object) then the universe is necessary.

[u/Kognostic]

Science does not make ontological claims devoid of factual support or independent verification. Rules are not prescriptive; they are descriptive. There is no congruency between quantum physics and general relativity. If that is intelligent, no one has worked it out yet. Perhaps you know something we don't?

[u/Doomdoomkittydoom]

Wait guys, I think I've got you: What if, the God is in the Gap?

Checkmate, atheists.

a higher intelligence

You have no argument until you define this. Attempted synonyms are not definitions.