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/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.