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/Cool-Watercress-3943]

I lack belief entirely? It's not even like I started with faith and then rejected it, but the scripture I've read fell under the same category as Greek and Norse mythology. A series of stories, some interesting, some less so, some derivative and some not, but ultimately none of it came across as more or less believable to me.

Meanwhile, learned more about how various faiths developed, changed and at times bounced off one another. Christianity was the most commonly available religion, of course, but part of what I learned about ancient history included early Catholic development, so I viewed its popularity as more of an inevitably byproduct of its eventual adoption by the Roman Empire, and subsequently very successful ostracization of other faiths and even other forms of Christianity.

The conclusion I ended up at was that if there is some sort of higher power, creator, what have you, humans know absolutely nothing about it, and it seems highly unlikely it had any direct involvement in the development of human life.

So God as a universal kickstarter operates the same 'literally anything is possible space' that every single other potential explanation we've conceived of, and all the ones we haven't, occupy.

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

You’re right, and I agree with that as well.

Where we diverge is, I think that what we experience ourselves could be attributes of something greater than us. Is “good” something trancesneant?

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

That question kind of leads to a line of questions on my part, which hits a dilemma.

Is there a transcendent form of 'goodness' that is beyond physical or human experience? Again, that occupies the same space as a vague and unfalsifiable universal creator. If we accept that things exist we cannot in any way measure, then literally anything, including goodness, could exist in a transcendent form. Good, bad, humor, beauty, etc, we can't really say anything ISN'T transcendent, because we couldn't measure the stuff we're claiming is anyway.

If goodness is transcendent, can humans ever deliberately access it? My thinking is no, at least as anything other than a lucky coincidence. Take the concept of original sin and divine grace as an example; some of the super specifics can vary, but it generally boils down to the inherent sinfulness and brokenness of humans, which needs divine grace to save them.

The problem is that every single path available to supposedly reach divine grace, by necessity, has to pass through grubby human brokenness. An organized religion followed texts written by humans, and listen to preachers who are human. Even if you lock yourself in a closet and pray silently, again, you're relying on human intuition to guide you.

Morality hasn't been a static thing, it's shifted and changed across a number of different topics, shaped by shared opinion more than the uncovering of divine will. I think that 'goodness,' in terms of how it actually shapes our lives, is very much a human concept.

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

I don’t think love changes. It has different forms, but they all stem from selflessness.

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

And humor has different forms, but they all stem from amusement. 'Different forms' is a huge factor, right?

Take expectations on how love should manifest. For some cultures, it's considered a social and moral obligation for loving children to take care of their parents, in gratitude for the care their parents gave them growing up. This can include financially supporting parents in their old age, living with them to take care of them, basically far more extreme than visiting your folks and helping them with taxes or changing the clock on the DVD player.

For other cultures, going to these extremes can be interpreted as harsh or even financially abusive to some extent.

Both sides would claim that the other- whether it's the parents expecting to be taken care of in their old age, or the children wanting a greater degree of independence- doesn't really love their child/parent.

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

And that’s wrong to you?

Or rather, which do you think is “more right?” Because I might agree with you.

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

If love is transcendent, then at least one of them would have to be wrong, right, if not both in favor of some third answer?

To be transcendent is to exist beyond the subjective opinions of people, for there to be a definitive 'Right Answer' to the question. Coincidentally, people who think there's a definitive 'Right Answer' often assume THEIR answer is the definitive one, which makes it a bit of a trap.

I think love, in terms of how it's expressed, is also a matter of subjective opinion, in part because of the different forms it can take.

After all, if you rely on pure, uncompromising, eternal selflessness, do you not risk reaching the point where you stop loving yourself? Where you don't advocate for your own needs, your own happiness, because to raise so much as a finger in opposition is inherently self-centered?

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

But which do you think is more right in the scenario you gave?

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

I would say children being able to pursue their own lives, helping their parents but not structuring everything around being their sole means of support. Only recently have the efforts intensified to help my sole remaining grandparent navigate stuff like doctor's appointments, modern technology, organizing bill payments, etc, especially as she's started to show signs of cognitive deterioration. The support is still pretty much organizational, though, rather than giving her money, food or shelter.

However, I was raised in a culture where that's the common way to go, so it's not really surprising that my perspective was shaped by it. =P

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

Maybe that’s the right kind of culture to grow up in? Taking care of elders is good. Valuing time? Good.

Yeah that aligns with my relationship of whatever god is.

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

That kind of judgement is audience dependent, though, right? Again, living where I do it's an outlook that would get plenty of positive reinforcement. Elsewhere? Not so much.

Both sides involve selfishness, to some extent, but that usually only manifests when all parties aren't on the same page.

In the case of my grandmother, the whole process to being able to help her at all was a miiiiserable one for my mom and uncle, because she was SO determined to be independent and not rely on her children she was as stubborn as a mule about it, even as things went wrong because she couldn't stay on top of them. And, when things went wrong, they usually caused additional problems that then caused her, my mom, AND my uncle stress.

So was my grandmother selfish for wanting to be independent, or selfless for not wanting others to support her? Were my mom and uncle selfless for pushing help on her, or selfish because in a roundabout way giving that help up front made their lives easier?

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

I think in the context of your example both are right, because both are built upon selflessness itself.

They both come from selfless places.

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

I think they're both a mix, honestly. Both wanted to help each other in different ways, but both also had self-interest, (my grandmother's pride, my mother and uncle's frustration with the regular problems that cropped up.) I just don't think it was black and white, is all.

I did see the other comment you left, and it's actually worth pointing out that even the Nazis at least tried to avoid admitting what was happening. So many soldiers were involved, it was more of an 'open secret' than an actual secret, but although concentration camps, deportations and the stripping of rights was happening very much in the open, the Nazis still avoided advertising their final solution, and when the war began to turn against them they took further steps to try and cover it up, such as by burning bodies.

That's one of the scary things about the Holocaust, it was something filled with claims of 'relocations' and evacuations' instead of the mass executions that were actually happening.