If theres no God why the earth, the brain the universe? (Atheist and Agnostics)

by cyberjesus 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  Or why is that there is only one planet on the Galaxy that has life?

  There is no way of knowing this. We have only begun discovering planets. We only know a tiny fraction of the stars in the galaxy whether they have planets or not. And until recently, earth-sized planets were almost impossible to detect.

  And how could we possibly know whether any of these planets have life? The claim that this is the only planet with life in the galaxy is not based on anything. The Drake equation is pure speculation, but it suggests that there ought to be thousands or millions of planets that contain life in the Milky Way.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I think each person has to go on their own "spiritual" journey that would include trying to understand how it all came about without a creator. I might be able to come to some conclusion in my mind after reading/listening to explanations from Science, but I cannot automatically convey that to another person.

  I personally think that we are still too close to our own infancy of understanding how the universe and life came about. I do appreciate all the evidences and theories that help me to see that the scientific methodology is admitting it's shortcomings and looking for more answers. But I don't expect "proof" in my lifetime that it all came about "this way" and not "that way." After investigating for some time, I have come to realize that the scientists who try to describe the mechanics of a creator-free universe do not really have the answers yet. It still lies in the philosophy department to address a creator-free existence of life, the universe, and everything.

  Still, just because I cannot get in my "way back" (time) machine and answer the questions to the absolute satisfaction of all, personal spiritual journeys lead us to eliminating many possibilities and to questioning the standard answers to life's questions. If we cannot believe that all there is came about without a creator, then we cannot believe the creator came about without a creator. It just pushes the problem back a level. To complicate that, the creator seems to have to be far more complex than the things he/she/it/they created. So that further complicates things.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Oh, but to say "God did it, and that is good enough for me" is not to address the thoughs and questions at all.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It just pushes the problem back a level. To complicate that, the creator seems to have to be far more complex than the things he/she/it/they created.

  How can that be so?

  In the Universe itself, we see a continuum throughout it's history. We see a movement from simplicity to complexity.

  Here we sit, at the leading edge of Time, ourselves the most complex things known to have yet come into existence.

  And among ourselves, a greater and greater emerging complexity in unity in the new hominized layer, such that a new sphere, a noosphere, is coming to exist.

  We write these posts in a part of an emerging global mind that did not even exist a few decades ago. Each and every one of us is only cognizant of ourselves, and a small part of the whole.

  If this movement towards greater complexity is followed backwards instead of forwards through Time, an opposite movement towards simplicity is seen.

  The Origin, therefore, was perfectly simple.

  BTS
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  BTS, I probably agree with what you are saying. (I say probably because we come from opposite directions to the same place.)
  I just suggest that the God of people's understanding is far more complex than the creation.
  
  If there is a way to suggest some kind of force behind a "simpler" creation than that which "it" created, and if people want to call that "God," then that is not out of harmony with what we know. I just know that we don't know too much about it.

  But I won't "worship" that which started it all.
• 

  zannahdoll

  Hello everyone! I'm new here and I am a theist. I'm here in peace... please be patient with me. [Hi Cyber! Sorry, in advance, for the stain, although I believe the "bttt" reviving this thread after 7 months was for my benefit]

  So, I am a theist, however an atheist friend of mine has almost had me convinced a few times that there isn't a reason to believe in God; I am genuinely questioning my faith. On the flip side, believing in God most of my life, I'm not ready to give up on the idea of Him/Her on a mere whim. So, I am questioning some of the conclusions that are presented here. In the spirit of asking "why" (and in no means to disrespect anyone here) I would really like to participate in this thread because it strikes a personal chord in me.
• 

  zannahdoll

  VoidEater

  I love to think of the possibility of aliens; of senses we do not have, of cultures and societies we cannot comprehend... (I enjoy watching Star Trek, so go figure :) I've found on this fictional T.V. show that belief in a god is considered primitive and in the future humans, with greater logic and understanding then we have currently, no longer believe in a god or afterlife. However I still wonder and I'll pose a very old argument/story to you...

  For me, design or purpose is a figment of man's imagination.

  Is it all our imagination? The old argument is the Watchmaker Analogy... I'm sure many atheists are familiar with this story: basically if you happened to walk in the wilderness and came across a pocket watch then you would know that this watch is not of nature... you would recognize that this is a man-made object, that it was designed and that it has purpose. Therefore, we can recognize life, the universe, etc... is also designed and has purpose.

  The atheist counter argument to this is that we have all seen many, many watches, so yes: we already know the purpose of a watch, we've seen millions of watches, however none of them have occurred naturally... it is a self reinforcing argument, inventing a claim... people, animals and rocks occur naturally, buildings and watches don't...

  However, I still see the watchmaker analogy has a good point... because I don't see the common factor being whether or not watches and people occur naturally. I see the common factor being how intricate watches are and, even more so, how incredibly intricate nature (people, animals, rocks, etc) are. There are patterns. There is harmony. Patterns are not at random.
• 

  zannahdoll

  frankiespeakin

  Thank you for the videos! Our world has a fascinating and wondrous history.

  Lets face it belief in a god that can not be proven to answer the questions about where did the brain or universe come from is not a very satisfying answer because it stops further inquiry and basically says it's MAGIC.

  Truth be told the evidence you present, at least to me personally, seems to be very magical

  I understand is that the big bang was caused by a quantum fluctuation which happen all the time and that's why many Scientist believe that their are an infinite number of universes some like ours and others infinitely different parallel universe

  I got this from an apologetic book (Beginning Apologetics, ISBN 1930084056) making a case for God, and I'm curious what you and everyone else here thinks:

  Astrophysicists have shown that the universe began with an explosion so powerful that it staggers the imagination (often called the "Big Bang"). This awesome blast had to be regulated within an extremely narrow range in order for the iniverse to be formed. If the speed of the elements in the explosion had moved just a hiar faster or slower, there would have been only chaos instead of the amazingly complex, perfectly organized universe we know. Scientsists tell us that events appeared to have been "guided" to bring about a planet like earth, capable of sustaining intelligent life

  Amazingly, the bodies and movements of the universe appear to have been "deliberately" made to correspond to the operations of the human mind and to be intelligible to it. Like the human eye, the process of the material universe seem to scream "intelligent design!" Given the awesome size and complexity of the universe, it is very easy to see that this Intelligent Designer must be God.

  At any rate: God or not: I find it difficult to accept that life is a random case of events.
• 

  zannahdoll

  AllTimeJeff -

  I very much enjoyed reading your search to this question.

  So to be at peace with the possibility that there is no one right universal truth (as is evidenced by the 7 billion people all over the planet, with disparate belief systems and ideas about god) leaves 2 other options. (maybe more, just my opinion.)

  1. There is no truth's at all, and we can be upset about that, or
  2. There only needs to be your truth, and it needs the approval of no one but yourself.

  This is interesting to me. You start with there is not one right universal truth because of how divided people are and all the religions are...

  HOWEVER: aren't there some things agreed upon in most social societies, most legal systems and even agreed upon in the all the major world religions? I would say the majority of human kind have the quite a few of the same values; the same moral truths: We all tend to agree on things such as rape, child molestation and murder as being bad. We tend to agree that the pursuit of happiness, a sense of family and love are good. If someone thinks otherwise it is generally agreed by the general population that the person who thinks differently is in the wrong. Yes: we are divided on the specifics... but, at least in my humble opinion, there are some things that ARE universal truths. Not to mention universal truths of an other nature: natural law: physics, math... etc...

  My problem with your option #1 is that I don't think either of us agree with that.

  My problem with your option #2 is: while most of us are moral, upstanding people (at least I'd like to believe in people) there are still the bad apples... Would you say that a person with a mental illness, or even more specifically, a person who is a sociopath/psychopath, only needs his truth and only needs his approval for that truth? Serial Killers tend to have high IQs and tend to be contributing members of society. If we base people deciding truths for themselves based on intellect then are we considering serial murders socially tolerable? Don't we have the moral obligation, regardless of creed or lack thereof, to say: "NO! His truth is not correct."????
• 

  zannahdoll

  OnTheWayOut

  I enjoyed reading your posts and your humility in your search for truth... in the end there are no absolute ways to know anything... however we continue to live and trust the limited knowledge we have, we trust and depend on our instincts, our emotions and our senses in order to continue living. While all these things (limited knowledge, instincts, emotions, senses) do fail us occasionally, they are accurate for the most part or we would cease to depend on them.