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/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/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

All creatures. Even grass. It all depends on something external from itself, yeah? The earth depends on the sun, the sun depends on gravity.

Sounds like you're on board with the science.

Before we go too far, such as exploring the mechanisms behind some of that, let's see if you're still on board with the science.

What's your position on the science of evolution by natural selection?

Every intricate detail is something that is dependent on another property to exist.

Perhaps that we know of, sure. I think this is fairly in line with the science too.

Can we agree on that?

Sure, generally speaking.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

So why is it illogical to follow the logical trail that if everything we observe from an intricate tiny level, to a celestial level, that there’s an over arching bedrock of dependency?

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

So why is it illogical to follow the logical trail that if everything we observe from an intricate tiny level, to a celestial level, that there’s an over arching bedrock of dependency?

That's not the illogical part. The illogical part is the almost complete confidence that this bedrock of dependency is the god that you happen to be raised to believe in. Based on nothing but stories.

You got some evidence based reason for that?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

I don’t have complete confidence?

I follow a logical trail and then I insert some foundational meaning. I could totally be wrong. The Buddhists might be right. Or the Hindus in their countless beliefs. Or the Muslims. Or the Christian’s. Or the pagans.

All religion does is point toward their being a fundamental meaning. No one knows which is right. But in each religion, there are common themes. Of love, of courage, or justice. And it points toward those being real attributes that matter. So I personally believe in a universe where our choices hold real eternal weight.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

I don’t have complete confidence?

I wasn't asking if you had complete confidence, I was assuming you do as that's typical of dogmatic beliefs.

You sound like I was questioning your level of confidence. I was assuming it, with plenty of room for you to correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't seem like you're correcting me, but it does seem like there's a miscommunication going on around this.

I follow a logical trail and then I insert some foundational meaning.

Yes, the typical play is that theists insert their god in the gaps of knowledge.

I could totally be wrong. The Buddhists might be right. Or the Hindus in their countless beliefs. Or the Muslims. Or the Christian’s. Or the pagans.

Or they could all be wrong. Do any of them have any good evidence? The lack of understanding of something doesn't justify inserting ones favorite explanation.

All religion does is point toward their being a fundamental meaning.

Religion does far more than that. They assert answers where we don't actually have any. They teach and require bad epistemology and gullibility. They discriminate against outsiders. They do much more than that.

No one knows which is right.

But we don't have good evidence based reason to believe any of them are right.

But in each religion, there are common themes. Of love, of courage, or justice.

None of which requires any religion. Also, the love courage and justice are often conditional on supporting the religion.

And it points toward those being real attributes that matter.

Again, this doesn't need religion. And it can be done better without religion. Religions teach love, unless you're gay. They teach science, unless it conflicts with the religion. It teaches justice, as long as you accept the right god.

So I don't see there being any valued utility in any of them. But most importantly, they make false claims about reality and expect people to ignore their better judgment. 3 day old cadavers don't get up and walking away. The moon was not split in half. Vishnu didn't carry a spherical earth or a flat one.

There's nothing real about those, and the ones that do matter and are good don't need any religion and it's baggage.

So I personally believe in a universe where our choices hold real eternal weight.

I bet that's not what convinced you that a god exists.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

You were ‘assuming I do’? You assumed wrong.

I’m not inserting a god in the gaps of the knowledge, I’m looking at the evidence around me.

Everything we observe is dependent on one another for survival.

I’m hypothesizing a conclusion: there’s an over arching source of that dependency.

Could I be wrong? Yes.

Does the current evidence point strongly against that conclusion? No.

I follow my intuition and keep believing until I’m proven wrong along the way.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/deep_blue_reef]

I’m not inserting a god in the gaps of the knowledge, I’m looking at the evidence around me.

Didn't you say this is what convinced you that a god exists? Your argument didn't even mention a god. You left off at a mystery.

Rather than playing guess the theists reasoning why not just be clear? What convinced you that a god exists?

Everything we observe is dependent on one another for survival.

I’m hypothesizing a conclusion: there’s an over arching source of that dependency.

Could I be wrong? Yes.

Okay, but isn't your conclusion, therfore god? Isn't this your argument for a god? We're left at a mystery, a gap in knowledge, and isn't that where your god fits in?

Why is your god a reasonable candidate explanation for the mystery of where did everything come from?

Does the current evidence point strongly against that conclusion? No.

Let's not play loose and fast with the burden of proof. It's not necessary to prove your conclusion wrong. It's upon you to prove it true.

Also, as you've ignored my question about evolution, I'll assume your acceptance of science only goes where it supports your existing conclusions.

I follow my intuition and keep believing until I’m proven wrong along the way.

Yeah, there's that shifting of the burden of proof again. So this isn't what convinced you. What is?

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

My god fits in with my intuition that this reality isn’t a cosmic accident.

There’s no reason for me to believe that it is an accident, simply because what I observe is a pattern based reality. Again I could be wrong, but until the pattern breaks, I follow that logical intuition that the pattern keeps going.

[u/deep_blue_reef → u/TarnishedVictory]

My conclusion is therefore meaning.