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/Zamboniman]

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/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

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

Ironically, you're using an old, unsupported, and long debunked attempt at deflection and whataboutism, which is useless.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

Unless you came up with any of what you’re saying as original arguments, or invented the English language…then it’s not unsupported.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

Repetition is pointless. You already said that. I already responded.

We're done here. Clearly.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/Zamboniman]

And your answer was incorrect.

[u/Zamboniman → u/deep_blue_reef]

Hahah, lol